This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2018/mar/27/politics-live-turnbull-shorten-coalition-labor-tax
The article has changed 19 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 9 | Version 10 |
|---|---|
| Greens pursue Peter Dutton over au pair case – politics live | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| We go round the company tax merry-go-round another time, and then we come to Peter Dutton letting us all know just how safe we are. Spoiler: We are very safe. VERY SAFE. | |
| (And we get another reference to Rudd-Gillard-Rudd) | |
| Chris Bowen comes back with a question on the leaked BCA survey, reported on by the Fin, which found that most BCA members plan on putting any tax savings back into the company or share buybacks (which was also the American experience). | |
| Both Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison have things to say about this: | |
| Turnbull: | |
| This is a question from a man who wrote a book calling for company tax to be 25% precisely in order to make Australian businesses more competitive with the rest of the world, and on the basis it would result in more investment, higher wages and more jobs, precisely the same arguments the member for Maribyrnong made when he was in government, standing right here, precisely the argument Paul Keating made when he was treasurer and now suddenly for political convenience all of that economic logic evaporates. | |
| Mr Speaker, the Labor party can’t extend the laws of economics. Their latest policy on company tax is no more wealth calibrated than their shocking cash grab on pensioners and I’ll ask the treasurer to add to the answer. | |
| Morrison: | |
| I’m glad the shadow treasurer is doing some research. He may be interested in this research by the Centre for Independent Studies, which surveyed 640 businesses in 2016 and it found ... this was in relation to tax cuts for business, 53% of businesses said more investment is their first, second and third most likely response to a company tax cut; 43% of businesses said they were likely to increase wages; and 45% said they were likely to hire new staff, again, as their first, second or third highest priority. | |
| Reducing the tax burden on businesses means they’re in a better position to pay workers more. The only people who are standing between a wage increase and workers is the Labor party. The Labor party think that if employers have to pay the government more, they’ll be in a better position to pay workers more. I mean, it doesn’t work like that. If we actually allow businesses more room to invest and grow their businesses, they’ll be able to pay workers more and the Labor party used to believe that, Mr Speaker, they used to believe that. | |
| The shadow treasurer, as the prime minister reminded us, used to write books about it and, Mr Speaker, this is a shadow treasurer who’s walked away from every economic [belief] he’s ever believed in just in the same way he’s walked away from a policy that was well calibrated, properly designed just two weeks ago. | |
| Mr Speaker, this shadow treasurer isn’t up to Shadow Treasurer 1.0 or 2.0 – he is 17.0. The number of changes in the positions he has had has rendered him an absolute [joke], Mr Speaker, and of absolute economic incompetent incapable of doing his job. | |
| We move into another #deathtodixer, which I only mention because it’s the second time we have heard reference to the “Rudd-Gillard-Rudd” government in an attack against Labor. Which is all well and good, but I am not sure I would use that as a tactic when we are a government approaching a deadline that will only serve to remind people of our own shift in leadership. | |
| Tanya Plibersek (in a serious voice): | |
| This morning, the finance minister twice refused to endorse the prime minister’s claims that a $65bn big business tax giveaway will increase wages. Why won’t the prime minister admit that his $65bn handouts are for the benefit of the business and not for the benefit of workers? | |
| Malcolm Turnbull (also in a serious voice): | |
| I want to be very clear about this. The analysis that shows that the result for wages will be an average of $750 more in the pocket of Australian workers as a result of these company tax cuts is exactly the same analysis that was done back in 2010, when the member for Swan boasted as treasurer about the increase that would come from ... Sorry, member for Lilley. Member for Lilley, that’s right, the member for Lilley boasted that the cut in company tax in the 2010 Labor budget would put an extra $450 a year into the pockets of workers on average earnings. | |
| This is the most conventional economic analysis that has been recognised again and again, not least by the honourable member’s leader, the member for Maribyrnong, who said, and I quote again, he said, ‘cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment’. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth, and leads to more growth and higher wages. His words, Treasury’s analysis. That is the conventional consequences, economic consequences, reducing business taxes, you know. | |
| You talk about surveys, you know, if you did a survey of past Labor treasurers, giving with the member for McMahon and continuing with the member for Lilley, you would find they would all be on a unity ticket, agreeing with exactly what the leader of the opposition said when he was in government in 2011. | |
| And it reminds us why you simply cannot trust the leader of the opposition. He says one thing one day, another thing the next. One thing in 2011 makes very plain what the consequences of cutting company tax are: more investment, more productivity, better wages, more jobs, and so forth. And now, of course, they are all in denial about that. It is about time the Labor party stopped trying to deceive and delude the Australian public into thinking that the laws of economics have been suspended. They haven’t. | |
| The fact is, we know, and that is why Paul Keating cut company taxes, it is why Peter Costello did, it is why the member for Lilley sought to do so in 2010, it is why the member for McMahon wrote a book about it so enthusiastic he was to do that. The reality is, our company tax cuts will deliver more jobs and paid jobs, and the cuts we have in place already are part of the reason we are seeing the highest jobs growth in Australian history. The Labor party wants to campaign on less investment, fewer jobs and lower wages. That would be a disaster. | |
| I am no expert and I still immediately think ‘1970s’ when someone says 30 years ago, but honestly – surely we can acknowledge that circumstances can change, parties can change their policies and that is just a part of a healthy democracy. Do we really expect our policies to stay the same for all time? | |
| From memory, this was the second dixer to include a poor constituent named Alan. WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE ALANS? | |
| We move on to a #deathtodixer, which can not be good for Scott Morrison’s vocal cords. | |
| Someone get that man some hot water and honey | |
| Adam Bandt has the crossbencher question – and it is on Peter Dutton’s intervention in the au pair case, as reported by AAP yesterday. | |
| Bandt: | |
| My question is to the minister for home affairs. I note your recent statements in relation to your personal intervention to prevent the deportation of two foreign intended au pairs. Can you categorically rule out any personal connection or other relationship between you and the intended employer of either of the au pairs? | |
| Dutton: | |
| I haven’t received any personal benefit, I don’t know these people, they don’t work for me. I repeated [what I said] yesterday. Mr Speaker, I point the honourable member to the facts in relation to ministerial intervention. | |
| The member for McMahon, we were just talking about his successful record when he was last in government, he was the minister for immigration at one point in 2012. There were 218 cases referred for consideration, in 2013, when the honourable member for McMahon was there, along with the member for Bourke, the member for Watson, there were 238 cases in the year 2013, in 2014 198 cases, and what really stands out here is that while the Greens have been out there criticising the use of ministerial intervention powers – and these go back many, many years – the minister of the day exercises powers under the Migration Act. | |
| As it turns out, the two people who have criticised me most in the last 24 hours, Senator McKim and the honourable member for Melbourne, they happen to be the two highest members for the Greens for referring cases for consideration. I don’t know whether the hypocrisy escapes the member for Melbourne but the Greens are the biggest hypocrites in Australian politics. They stand in this place saying one thing, they say something completely opposite when they go out. The reality, Mr Speaker, is if the honourable member has some allegation to put, go outside into the public domain, put the allegation, and I will deal with it in the usual way. | |
| #Deathtodixers | #Deathtodixers |
| Jenny Macklin went to ask a question about the pension age being increased to 70 but ran out of time to ask the question in the 30-second allotted time. | |
| After that brief show of bipartisanship, it is back to normal QT transmissions. | After that brief show of bipartisanship, it is back to normal QT transmissions. |
| Chris Bowen: | |
| Can the prime minister confirm that under the government policies wealthy retiree couples will get a cash bonus from dividend imputations despite the fact they have $2.5 million in super, $290,000 worth of Australian shares, draw $120,000 a year in super income and received $17,500 a year in dividend income and pay no tax. How is it fair they will get a cash bonus from the government of $7,500? | |
| Malcolm Turnbull: | |
| I thank the honourable member for his question, Mr Speaker, and of course the honourable member is the one who is now announcing a pensioners’ guarantee. It is designed, he says, to protect pensioners but how is he protecting them? ... He said it was carefully calibrated, well targeted, well-designed ... This is economic genius, they thought they could get away with it. Mr Speaker, they have gone out there and they have said today that no pensioner will be affected. They have said that no pensioner will be affected. Completely and utterly untrue, totally untrue, because anyone who becomes a pensioner, not years from now, not five years from now, tomorrow, tomorrow, after the 28 March, anyone who becomes a pensioner after the 28 March will be liable for their cash grab from their self-managed superannuation fund. Mr Speaker, really! So they’ve gone out there and they’ve said they’re protecting pensioners but only pensioners who don’t have self-managed super funds and becomes so after the 28 March. It’s another example of the shambolic policy on the run from an economic team that has one bungle after another. Of course, Mr Speaker, there’s no justice there. They say how unfair it is for people to get the benefit, the cash benefit, they franking credit. A big company or a wealthy investor can use that franking credit to reduce their tax liability on other income, that apparently is fair, that’s fair, but people on low incomes are not able to do so. Mr Speaker, this is a combination of avarice, malevolence and incompetence. Classic Labor! Going after people’s savings, people that should be supported and respected, not the least. | |
| Julie Bishop gives the House an update on the Russia situation. It is essentially what we heard in the press conference. | Julie Bishop gives the House an update on the Russia situation. It is essentially what we heard in the press conference. |
| Bill Shorten thanks her: | Bill Shorten thanks her: |
| I acknowledge the communication from both the prime minister and the security agencies this morning to the opposition to brief us on the decision to expel these two Russian diplomats from Australia. I think it is important all Australians know that, when matters such as this arise, it doesn’t matter which party is in government or opposition, leaders work together. Labor supports this position. We think it appropriate, proportionate and right for Australia to stand with our friends in the UK and the international community. Mr Speaker, in conclusion, we have not forgotten 2014, we haven’t forgotten the 38 Australians murdered on flight MH17. I acknowledge the prime minister at the time, Tony Abbott, standing up for Australia then with our support, and we must continue to stand up to thuggery and criminality on the international stage. President Putin and his government must understand there are real consequences for engaging in attacks on foreign soil and not telling the truth about them. The international community is united in this, and so is the parliament of Australia. | I acknowledge the communication from both the prime minister and the security agencies this morning to the opposition to brief us on the decision to expel these two Russian diplomats from Australia. I think it is important all Australians know that, when matters such as this arise, it doesn’t matter which party is in government or opposition, leaders work together. Labor supports this position. We think it appropriate, proportionate and right for Australia to stand with our friends in the UK and the international community. Mr Speaker, in conclusion, we have not forgotten 2014, we haven’t forgotten the 38 Australians murdered on flight MH17. I acknowledge the prime minister at the time, Tony Abbott, standing up for Australia then with our support, and we must continue to stand up to thuggery and criminality on the international stage. President Putin and his government must understand there are real consequences for engaging in attacks on foreign soil and not telling the truth about them. The international community is united in this, and so is the parliament of Australia. |
| Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull with a question on school funding: | Bill Shorten to Malcolm Turnbull with a question on school funding: |
| (I missed the beginning of the question, but it included the stat from the AEU survey, that 80% of voters wants better spending on public education funding.) | (I missed the beginning of the question, but it included the stat from the AEU survey, that 80% of voters wants better spending on public education funding.) |
| How is it fair that the prime minister is cutting billions from schools to pay for his $65bn handout to big business? | How is it fair that the prime minister is cutting billions from schools to pay for his $65bn handout to big business? |
| Turnbull: | Turnbull: |
| How is it fair to have a school funding policy that Labor had when they were in government, which had special deals for one part of Australia compared to another? Which had special deals between students in one system and another without any consistency. The Labor party have said that they hold up David Gonski’s report as the gold standard but they never implemented it, and what did David Gonski call for? National, consistent needs-based funding. That is exactly what the government has delivered. By 2023, every state school, every government school will be receiving from the commonwealth 20% of the schooling resource standard. Mr Speaker, everyone right across the country, they’ll all be getting that on a fair basis. Now, that’s fairness, that’s consistency, that’s transparency. The total school funding expenditure from the government, the commonwealth government, under our policy will increase spending by $23bn over that period over the decade. That’s a substantial increase in spending. And above all, it is needs based. And what did we see during the Batman byelection? Much to the horror ... | How is it fair to have a school funding policy that Labor had when they were in government, which had special deals for one part of Australia compared to another? Which had special deals between students in one system and another without any consistency. The Labor party have said that they hold up David Gonski’s report as the gold standard but they never implemented it, and what did David Gonski call for? National, consistent needs-based funding. That is exactly what the government has delivered. By 2023, every state school, every government school will be receiving from the commonwealth 20% of the schooling resource standard. Mr Speaker, everyone right across the country, they’ll all be getting that on a fair basis. Now, that’s fairness, that’s consistency, that’s transparency. The total school funding expenditure from the government, the commonwealth government, under our policy will increase spending by $23bn over that period over the decade. That’s a substantial increase in spending. And above all, it is needs based. And what did we see during the Batman byelection? Much to the horror ... |
| (The chamber goes a little crazy, because it is VERY rowdy in there today. Everyone is cramming four Canberra days into three, so no one is really sleeping, and let’s face it, the crazy is never far from the surface in this place) | (The chamber goes a little crazy, because it is VERY rowdy in there today. Everyone is cramming four Canberra days into three, so no one is really sleeping, and let’s face it, the crazy is never far from the surface in this place) |
| Turnbull: | Turnbull: |
| We saw the leader of the opposition rushing out with a special deal for the Catholic school system. Oh, yes, he did, he was there. The leader of the opposition was there, denounced by parents and teachers of government schools around the country. What he was doing was proving that he’s addicted to special deals he will not engage on a consistent fashion. Mr Speaker, the reality is this, as we know, we are increasing school funding right across the country and I will just remind honourable members that over the 10 years of our plan, funding for commonwealth government schools will increase by 5.1%, for Catholic schools, 3.7%, for independent, 4.3% per annum, total average of 4.2%. That’s consistent growth in funding and we are bringing be underfunded schools up to the right level of parity so there at that level of 20% of the SRS for government schools, 80% for non-government schools, that is being done over six years, that is a consistent message entirely in line with the Gonski recommendations.” | We saw the leader of the opposition rushing out with a special deal for the Catholic school system. Oh, yes, he did, he was there. The leader of the opposition was there, denounced by parents and teachers of government schools around the country. What he was doing was proving that he’s addicted to special deals he will not engage on a consistent fashion. Mr Speaker, the reality is this, as we know, we are increasing school funding right across the country and I will just remind honourable members that over the 10 years of our plan, funding for commonwealth government schools will increase by 5.1%, for Catholic schools, 3.7%, for independent, 4.3% per annum, total average of 4.2%. That’s consistent growth in funding and we are bringing be underfunded schools up to the right level of parity so there at that level of 20% of the SRS for government schools, 80% for non-government schools, that is being done over six years, that is a consistent message entirely in line with the Gonski recommendations.” |
| Ged Kearney looks like she is having a GREAT time though. | Ged Kearney looks like she is having a GREAT time though. |