Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher. On 26 July 2021, in a media release, the Prime Minister, along with the Treasurer, said:

An Albanese Labor Government will deliver the same legislated tax relief to more than 9 million Australians as the Morrison Government.

The Shadow Cabinet and Caucus have today confirmed that Labor in government will uphold the legislated changes to personal income taxes and maintain the existing regimes for negative gearing and capital gains tax.

Minister, given you have already broken your promise to uphold legislated changes to personal income taxes, will you now categorically rule out any changes to negative gearing?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was wondering where we were going with that. Senator Hume was outlining support for the policy that they now have changed their position on—

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The lie—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Hume, withdraw.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might start my answer by referring to the comment of the deputy opposition leader, Sussan Ley, from yesterday which was: 'You wouldn't expect me to pull out one ingredient or one part of tax reform, so I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to play the, 'Yes, this is good—

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

President, I raise a point of order on relevance. I didn't ask about Ms Ley. I asked about a commitment that Labor made.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister's just started her response, so I will wait and see where it goes.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

President, on the point of order, I again make the point that the fact that someone else spoke about a topic does not mean a reference to that person renders the answer not directly relevant. So I would submit to you on this occasion, on the topic that has been asked about, Ms Ley is very relevant.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I just indicated to Senator Hume, the minister has just started. I will continue to listen and, if the minister doesn't get to the substantive parts of the question, I will remind her.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to finish that, she said: 'I am not going to play, "Yes, this is good," or "No, this is bad," and rule in or rule out. I am not going to do that.' So it's alright for the opposition not to have to do it, but, for some reason, it's a game that they would like us to engage in.

We have been very clear about the tax reform that we are bringing forward. It's a tax reform that those opposite support. We accept it must have killed them to adopt Labor tax policy. It must have killed them to accept that Labor's policy was better than theirs, reached more people than stage 3 and was a fairer way to distribute that money.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

President, on relevance: you have given her another minute. She hasn't mentioned the words 'negative gearing'. That's what the question's about.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is being directly relevant to your question.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've been very clear on the tax reform the government is undertaking. We have changed our position on income tax. They have changed their position on income tax. We have brought forward some sensible measures around superannuation. We have brought forward some sensible measures around PRRT. We are bringing forward some measures around multinational tax reform. And you want to talk about all the things we are not doing, because you don't want to talk about the things we are doing, because you support the things we are doing.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume, a first supplementary?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, what is Labor's policy on negative gearing?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, the law is very clear on what the negative gearing arrangements are. They remain in place.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is. There are legislative arrangements around negative gearing. But I would say that I understand that those opposite want to constantly talk about anything other—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam President, on relevance, I didn't ask what the laws are. I asked what Labor's policy is.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do appreciate that, and the minister had just got to her feet to begin to answer your question. So, Minister, please continue.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I've answered the question. I understand the desire not to speak about what the changes we are bringing to the parliament are. I understand that. I've answered the question. We understand it. First you said you'd vote against it. Then you said you'd reverse it. Then you said you'd roll it back.

I know it's uncomfortable, Senator Birmingham; it's very uncomfortable.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of order, and it goes to relevance on two fronts. I would contend that the minister has not answered the question. Senator Hume's very narrowly worded question focused on what the government's policy is, not what the law is. But I also point out that, if the minister believes she's answered the question, that's then not an invitation to use the residual time to talk about whatever she wants. The answer still needs to be directly relevant to the question asked.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Wong, did you have a point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to ask you to ask the Clerk for advice about whether or not the question of itself was in fact in order.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. As the chamber would have seen, I did seek the advice of the Clerk, and the question is out of order, pursuant to standing order 73, because that says that you can't directly ask about specific government policies—for a statement of policy. So, the minister is quite within her rights to answer the question in whatever way she sees fit.

I said standing order 73, Senator Hume, and I did seek the advice of the Clerk. Minister, please continue.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. And the policy that we have bought before the parliament is the income tax policy—the income tax policy that you wanted to call an election on, but now your are in support of it. Before that you said you were against it, before you even saw it. Then you were going to reverse it. Then you were going to roll it back. Then we saw the crab walking away when you realised, 'Oh, wait on: we've looked in the tea-leaves, and this isn't going so well', and you adopted it. And now you want to talk about everything else.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume, a second supplementary?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, can you categorically rule out that Treasury has provided you with options to change Australia's negative gearing framework or capital gains framework after the call from your legislative partners, the Greens?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I can confirm for Senator Hume is that this government remains completely focused on looking at ways to alleviate cost-of-living pressures on Australians, which is why we have brought the income tax changes to this parliament. That is the work that we are doing. That is the work we did over summer. That is the work we did in our first budget. That's the work we did in our second budget, in our MYEFO.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on relevance: I mentioned negative gearing and capital gains. I did not mention cost of living and I did not mention personal income taxes.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did talk about advice from Treasury, so I think the minister is being relevant.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm answering the question you asked around the advice that the Treasury provides. I told you that the government has sought advice and support from our departments around cost-of-living relief. That's what you've seen flow through our budgets. And it's what you've voted against time after time, so no wonder your question didn't have 'cost of living' in it—because you have voted against the cost-of-living measures when they have come here. We will work with departments to ensure that we can provide cost-of-living relief where we can and where we can responsibly afford to do so.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. I note that the Prime Minister said that he wants Australians to 'earn more and keep more of what they earn' and that Labor's plan will deliver a tax cut to all Australians. Can you please explain why the Albanese Labor government has made the decision to tackle cost-of-living pressures and deliver a tax cut to all Australians?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to Senator Polley for that question. Cost-of-living relief is the highest priority of this government. It's our top priority. As of 1 July this year, every Australian taxpayer will get to keep more of what they earn—that's 13.6 million Australians—because the Albanese Labor government is working for every Australian. It's in Labor's DNA, unlike those opposite. These tax cuts offer relief and reform—more relief for workers and better reform for our economy. Labor is doing the right thing for the right reasons. Treasury is clear that the plan does not add to inflation. Labor's tax cut is backed by Treasury. It went through ERC, cabinet, ministry and caucus. We're unlike the last government, led by a prime minister with secret portfolios who governed for himself rather than all Australians. Colleagues, it's clear that things aren't any better under Mr Dutton.

After the government said it would deliver tax cuts, Senator Cash said they would 'oppose tax cuts' and Senator Birmingham said they were not going to be supporting Labor—because their reflex is always to oppose, even if it means they are not supporting Australians. Of course, if those opposite had considered the detail and the facts—that Labor's plan benefits every single Australian taxpayer and that it puts more money into the pockets of hardworking Australians—then maybe the Leader of the Opposition wouldn't have been so humiliated on national television last night.

The reason the opposition have had to support these tax cuts is that they know in their heart of hearts it's the right thing to do. They know Labor has done the right thing. They know Labor's tax cuts will deliver bigger tax cuts for more Australians, and more Australians will be better off as a result. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, first supplementary?

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister please inform the Senate about who, in my home state of Tasmania, will be better off because of Labor's tax plan?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Polley for her question. She, of course, is one of the great Tasmanian Senate team for Labor, and they all know that every single taxpayer in Tasmania and around the country will be better off as a result of these tax cuts. In fact, in Senator Polley's home state of Tasmania, nine in 10 taxpayers will receive a bigger cut than they would have under the Morrison government's policies. Nine in 10—280,000 people—will pay less tax than they are now. We know hardworking women are likely to earn less. In Tasmania, about 140,000 women will get a tax cut, and 94 per cent of them will get more than they would have under the Morrison-Dutton plan. So I'd say to Senator Duniam, Senator Chandler, Senator Colbeck and Senator Askew, why is it that our Senate team can do so much more for Tasmanians, and particularly Tasmanian women, than you ever could?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. Senator Polley, second supplementary?

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister please tell the Senate how the Albanese government listens and responds to Australians across a range of issues, including the cost of living?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator, who, like all members of the Albanese government, is engaged with her community. Meanwhile, I have to say the response from those opposite shows they clearly don't listen, although we already know this. They didn't listen at the last election to those many Australians who demanded action on climate change, and, certainly, Senator Caravan is still not listening. There are those who choose a bit of conspiracy and echo chambers over evidence and listening.

On Monday night, more of the Liberals' and Nationals' self-serving attitudes were exposed. Mr Turnbull said, 'The former government treated Australia as a plaything.' Senator Reynolds said, 'People were blackmailed and threatened into supporting Mr Dutton,' and Mr Morrison said, 'Mr Dutton was seen as a great intolerant threat to the moderates.' I don't think we have to say much more than what they say about themselves. We on this side do the right thing for the right reasons, and we always will.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, Penny, my question's not to you, but my question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, on 28 November 2022, in response to Senator McDonald, you said:

The government has no plans for a mining tax. The Prime Minister has been very clear on that. The Treasurer has been clear on that.

On 8 February 2023, in question time, the Prime Minister ruled out any changes to the fuel tax credits scheme. Considering both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have repeatedly reassured Australians that they had no plans to change the stage 3 tax cuts and then broke that promise, how long will it be before you betray the trust of the Australian people again and introduce a mining tax or undermine the fuel tax credits scheme?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Canavan for the question. Again, I think there is an obvious reason why they don't want to talk about the change that we have brought forward on tax—the change that the parliament will be considering, the one that the House has been considering and, indeed, the one that you have adopted. And, by adopting that policy, you have accepted that it was the right thing to do—to change our position; that it was a fairer way of applying those tax cuts; that it got to more people—bigger tax cuts to more people, and everybody gets a tax cut. You have accepted that as your policy and, in doing so, you now want to talk about everything that we are not doing.

The Prime Minister has fronted up and he has explained to the Australian people why he has changed his mind and why the government have changed our minds. It is to ensure that the tax cuts reach more people and that the average taxpayer gets a much bigger tax cut, that 90 per cent of women get a bigger tax cut when they're paying tax and that a hundred per cent of women taxpayers get a tax cut. And you want to talk about other things. We have a full book of tax reform. How about you work with us—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, on super. You find us. You work with us on super, on PRRT, on multinational—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. I'm waiting for the chamber to come to order. Senator McGrath.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the minister to table the full book on tax reform.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGrath, please resume your seat. Minister, please continue.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You opposite are an absolute rabble. If that's the best you can do—an absolute rabble—to channel one of our former colleagues. The tax reforms we have brought to this parliament that you refuse to deal with are the reforms that the government have on our agenda. That is what they are. You want to talk about all the things we are not doing—that are not proposals by this government.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Canavan, first supplementary?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, as part of the same answer in November 2022 that I referred to in the first question, you told the chamber, 'We are not a government that breaks promises.' Will you repeat your prior statements and your promise to not introduce a mining tax and rule out any change to the fuel tax credit scheme?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition deputy leader said yesterday, and I will again start my answer with that, 'I'm not going to play the "Yes, this is good; no, this is bad," the rule in, rule out. I'm just not going to do it. You wouldn't expect me to pull out one ingredient or one part of tax reform.' You are so clearly embarrassed by the position you have taken, by the backflip, by your adoption of our policy that you're scrapping around looking in that drawer for scare campaigns of 'what next?' because you've actually had to capitulate and accept that our policy on tax is the better policy.

When it comes to tax reform, I have been clear. We have income tax reform. We have multinational tax reform. We have high-balance-super-accounts reform. We have PRRT reform. Those reforms are before the parliament. That is the government's tax reform agenda. You might want to talk about all the things we're not doing, because you're so embarrassed about the fact that the decision we took was the right one. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I'm waiting for quiet. Senator Canavan, second supplementary?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I haven't heard a single commitment to not change the fuel tax credits scheme, in two answers. Minister, could you reassure the 1.1 million people who work directly or indirectly in the resources sector, or the millions more who work with and rely on our farmers, that you will not break yet another promise and introduce a mining tax or change the fuel tax credit scheme?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been clear, Senator Canavan. I don't think I can be clearer. You were all yelling at me, so maybe you didn't hear. I explained the government's tax reform agenda, some of which you have adopted and other parts of which you are blocking. The rule in, rule out game is fine for everybody else but not for you. We have been very clear what our tax reform is.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Hume, you are yelling across the chamber—so much so that I am having to substantially raise my voice to get order. You are being disorderly. I'm asking you to stop doing it. Minister, please continue.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Measures that have been raised here by Senator Hume and Senator Canavan are not and do not form part of the government's tax agenda. That is a very clear answer for all of you who quite can't seem to grapple with it and can't quite can't seem to understand. Our tax reforms in the parliament include income tax, PRRT, high-balance super accounts and multinational tax reform. It's all there for people to see. We've been upfront. We've explained the position.

Yes, we have, Senator McGrath. You might not understand it, or you might not want to understand it— (Time expired)