Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, Senator Fifield. When asked on ABC's 7.30 program last night about the Turnbull government's ability to persuade the Australian public that cutting company tax is a good idea, former Treasurer Peter Costello said, 'Somebody has to speak for the individual wage and salary earner as well. These are people paying 47c on $200,000. I think those forgotten people also ought to be in the calculation of the government at the moment.' Does the minister agree with former Treasurer Costello that Australians earning over $200,000 a year are Australia's 'forgotten' people?

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Abetz and Senator Wong, I like to be able to hear the question as well as the answer.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McAllister, for your question. It has long been my practice to allow Mr Costello to speak for himself, which he is well able to do. The Treasurer has already indicated that this government's focus, when it is in a position to do so, is to give tax relief for low- and middle-income earners. That is what is the focus of the government is. Yes, we also have made very clear that we want to legislate the second tranche of our company tax cuts. Something that I find very curious is, when those opposite talk about the company tax cut package that they oppose, they always use a figure of $60-something billion and now they talk about $80 billion. What is implicit in that is that those opposite want to repeal company tax cuts for small business, because company tax cuts for small business are embedded in that figure. If that's not the case—

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is on relevance. My question went to whether or not people earning over $200,000 are forgotten people, not to corporate tax cuts.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, I will remind the minister of the bulk of the question. There was a reference to corporate tax cuts in the question; the bulk of the question was as outlined.

Senator Wong interjecting—

I thought there was a reference in the first sentence—I'm happy to be corrected. As I've said, Senator Wong, I'll remind the minister of the bulk of the question.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In referencing company tax cuts I'm endeavouring to do full justice to Senator McAllister's question, but, Mr President, I take your admonishment and come back to personal income tax relief. The role of government is to strike a balance, and what we're seeking to do is to grow the economy, to increase employment and to put ourselves in a position where we can get back to a budget in balance and where we can start to repay the debt that was commenced by those opposite and which was embedded in the forward estimates. Our focus unapologetically when we're in a position to do so will be on income tax relief for low- and middle- income earners.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McAllister, a supplementary question.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Former Treasurer Costello has said in relation to the behaviour of Australia's banks: 'We have seen at senior executive and board levels failures of governments. There will be a reckoning with senior executives and probably with the boards of the banks, who will be held accountable, and so there should be.' Is the former Treasurer correct?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that a supplementary question?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard Senator Macdonald behind me ask if that's a supplementary question, because I don't think it directly relates to the primary question. Nevertheless, we share with all colleagues in this place concern about the activities that have been identified in the banking and finance industry. That's why the government have for quite some time taken strong action, even pre-dating the royal commission, to give stronger powers to ASIC, to give more money to ASIC and to introduce the BEAR regime for banking executives. So absolutely we share the concern of Mr Costello and people in this place and around the community that banking standards need to lift. We along with colleagues here and in the other place intend to ensure that that happens. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that even former Liberal Treasurer Peter Costello recognises Australian banks ought to be held accountable, why is the Turnbull government burdening future generations with a $17 billion handout?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australian banks pay company tax, like all other eligible enterprises. We don't have a separate banking company tax regime, and that's not the intention of this government. We do, as you know, have in place a levy on those institutions, which we think is appropriate. But, as has been made very clear by the Treasurer and by the finance minister, we are looking to have a consistent company tax regime. What we want to have is an internationally competitive company tax regime. We were once about second or third best when it came to a competitive company tax regime. That is no longer the case. We need to amend our tax law so that we can continue to attract investment and to be competitive.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Fifield. Minister, our profession of politics is at an all-time low because many Australians feel our political and economic system is failing them. They say it's rigged in favour of big, powerful corporations that donate to political parties and call the shots in this place. Many of these big corporations continue to rort our tax system. Minister, I note that Australia is now set to become the world's largest exporter of LNG, yet Australia collects one of the lowest levels of tax from the gas it owns. Qatar, Malaysia and Indonesia, for example, take in two to three times the gas tax that we do. Is the minister aware that many gas projects owned by multinational corporations in Australia have not paid a cent in resource rent tax to the Australian people, who own the resources, and, given they have clocked up $240 billion in tax credits, are unlikely to for decades to come, if ever?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As tempting as it is on occasion to take at face value the assertions that Senator Whish-Wilson makes, I won't because I don't present myself as a resource industry taxation expert. Senator Whish-Wilson did commence his question in relation to tax avoidance by implying that the government had not taken action in this area. Can I remind Senator Whish-Wilson and colleagues that we have taken action by implementing a multinational anti-avoidance law to stop multinationals artificially avoiding a taxable presence in Australia. We have introduced a new diverted profits tax to prevent multinationals shifting profits overseas. We signed the OECD multilateral instrument on 7 June 2017. We've doubled the penalties for multinationals avoiding tax. We've increased the penalties for breaches of tax reporting obligations by multinationals. We've implemented the OECD recommendations for country-by-country reporting to give the ATO greater access to multinational transfer pricing information—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Fifield! Senator Whish-Wilson, on a point of order.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge that there was a little bit of preamble in my question, but the question did directly ask: was the minister aware that these companies had paid no resource rent tax and had clocked up $240 billion in tax credits?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have previously ruled, as have predecessors in this role, that I cannot instruct a minister on how to answer a question. Senator Whish-Wilson, your question did have a preamble. It was slightly more than brief, but entirely within order. The minister is being directly relevant to the question you asked.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to complete what I was saying before about the anti-tax avoidance measures the government has taken: we've also aligned Australia's transfer pricing rules with the latest OECD guidelines since July 2016. ATO action has already collected over $1.5 billion from additional liabilities raised against large multinationals. Australia is also continuing its strong international leadership on the G20/OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. This government has been extremely active when it comes to ensuring that corporate taxpayers pay what they should.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, today the Greens released a costed policy to introduce a Commonwealth royalty of 10 per cent to put a floor under the PRRT so that gas giants no longer get to indefinitely defer their tax obligations and essentially get their tax for free. Minister, you adopted the Greens policy of a bank levy at the last budget, and you acknowledged that in your response to Labor's last question. Will you now adopt this sensible position and fix the rort that is the PRRT and if not, why not? (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson, for your supplementary question. I will leave matters of tax architecture to the Treasurer.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, the PBO costing showed a 10 per cent royalty would raise $15 billion over the coming decade. That would go a long way towards funding a handy raise in the Newstart allowance. Minister, I doubt that you or I could live on a meagre $40 a day. So why does your government lay out the red carpet for multinational oil and gas companies—some of the biggest, wealthiest and most powerful companies on this planet—and allow them to take out resources for nothing, but refuse to lift the Newstart allowance?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll treat the first part of Senator Whish-Wilson's question as a monologue rather than a question. Senator Whish-Wilson did touch on the issue of Newstart. Let me make clear that I think, for anyone who finds themselves out of work, it is an extremely difficult situation which none of us would want to be in. We do have Newstart as a transitional measure to assist people back into work. The good news is that around two-thirds of those who are granted Newstart find themselves exiting that and in work within 12 months.

One of the reasons why we have one of the most generous social safety nets in Australia is that we do run a strong economy and we are able to fund it from the budget. (Time expired)