As inflation rages on, the Government is making money out of it through “Bracket Creep” – collecting more taxes.
I moved an amendment to a bill so that tax thresholds are indexed to inflation, meaning you won’t pay more tax because of inflation. Predictably, the major parties voted it down. They rely on squeezing more and more tax out of you and making money out of inflation.
This clip from the Centre for Independent Studies is a great explainer on how “Bracket Creep” works so that the Government benefits from inflation at your expense.
Why? That’s one question that I want to ask repeatedly in this speech. I see the government’s changes as a welcome step, but it’s a tiny, tiny step and we need many, many more. It could be one of my footprints, Senator Ayres! We see the government’s previous tax changes. They weren’t cuts; they were changes. As a result of those changes, we will see the government increase revenue by about $38 billion over the next four years—so much for tax cuts. They’re tax changes that will lead to an increase in tax for mums and dads.
Why are politicians scared of tax reform, and why do they place the burden on families and individuals to pay tax and let multinationals off the hook? Why are politicians scared of tax reform, but they continue tinkering with the system to affect mums and dads, who end up by paying, by far, the lion’s share of tax in this country? Why did Senator Sharma, in a very good speech, say that he wants to end bracket creep and the Liberals want end to bracket creep, yet, three weeks earlier, they voted against ending bracket creep with my amendment? They want enduring bracket creep. Why do the Labor Party say they want to end bracket creep—I remember Senator Gallagher said at the time, ‘We want to end bracket creep’—but vote against it? My amendment to abolish bracket creep once and for all was defeated.
Why is taxation not transparent? I’ll tell you why. It’s so that governments can continue to steal money from families to pay for their uncosted bribes. The Senate and the House of Representatives have turned into auction blocks using taxpayers’ money to buy votes. That’s what they’ve turned into. That’s how the governments of this country work, the uniparty of Labor and the Liberals. Why is the uniparty looking for new ways to tax people? Cars and utes—the foundations for tradies—are now going to be taxed. Clothing is going to be taxed under the Labor Party. Food will be taxed with a new biosecurity levy. Inflation was caused by the Labor and Liberal uniparty during the COVID response—the COVID mismanagement. State premiers were largely Labor, and the federal Prime Minister was Liberal-National. Inflation is a tax, especially on the poor and those with low incomes. Inflation is a huge tax burden. Greenwashing requires corporations to buy carbon dioxide credits. How do they pass the costs on? They pass them on in the form of higher prices.
Why do they require diversity, equity and inclusion and ESG reporting, which are ridiculous and unfounded? No-one has provided the evidence for that policy. It’s a compliance tax. Where will the cost of that compliance tax go? Onto the things that mums and dads and families pay for. Whole departments have been created in corporations, and that adds to the prices families have to pay. Why more tinkering? Why more complexity and less productivity? Think about the behaviours this drives with regard to allocation of resources and the behaviour of executives and decision-makers. Why is it that every problem in this country comes out of this building, like housing and excessive immigration, which is putting inhuman catastrophic pressures on people now? People are living in tents, cars, caravans, out in the street and under bridges in Brisbane in one of the richest states in the world. This is happening in our regional cities right up and down the east coast of Queensland. It’s a long coast. The Murray-Darling Basin is a disaster. It’s climate fraud, a lie and a scam. It’s a hoax. Stealing farmers’ property rights—the Liberal-National government did that from 1997 to 2007.
We’re still living with COVID mismanagement. I had a gentleman in my office today who is vaccine injured. It’s been stated by doctors We had to turn the lights off because of the glare. He couldn’t look straight at the windows. He had to look down. This was a vibrant healthy person now with COVID vaccine damage. He’s almost incapacitated. This was a lively human being now pulled up.
We’re still living with the COVID mismanagement. There’s inflation from the money supply, as I mentioned. There’s inflation from crippling the supply chains during the COVID restrictions. Crippling our supply chains led to higher prices.
Senator Bilyk: President, I raise a point of order on relevance. We’re here to speak about the Treasury Law Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. Not once has the senator mentioned anything to do with that bill, and it’s been five minutes. I’m just wondering if you could draw to the attention—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Polley): Thank you, Senator Bilyk. I will remind Senator Roberts of the topic, but as you and other senators know, it’s a broad-ranging debate.
Senator ROBERTS: For those senators with poor hearing, let me say again: we support this bill. That’s what I opened with. We support this bill—I’ll repeat it. I said that.
I’ve just laid down a litany of problems that are coming from this building in betrayal of the people in this country, my fellow Australians. I’m now getting to the point of that betrayal. The most destructive system in government under the uniparty for the last 70 years has been the taxation system. It focuses our brightest and best people, some of our lawyers and accountants, not on serving our country in competition with foreign companies overseas—the Koreans, the Japanese, the Taiwanese, the Chinese, the Europeans and the Americans—but on screwing the government and getting away from complex, ridiculous taxation systems. They’re focused not on competing with foreign owned corporations but on competing with our government. Think of the behaviours that are driven at the corporate level, the allocation of resources, the inefficiency of resources and the behaviour of executives.
Taxation is highly complex. How many pages are there in our taxation act? It’s highly inefficient directly in terms of allocation of resources and indirectly in terms of the behaviours that are driven. It’s directly inefficient in terms of the way taxation is levied in this country. James Killaly was a former deputy commissioner of taxation in charge of large companies and foreign matters. He said in 1996 and 2010, ‘Ninety per cent of Australia’s large companies are foreign owned and, since 1953, have paid little or no tax.’ This bill does go a little way towards addressing that, but we need to address it full on.
Why does that happen? Why are foreign companies getting let off the hook? I’ll tell you why. It’s because many of even our large Australian companies are part-owned and controlled by foreign corporations. The major predators are Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street and First State. They own 10 per cent of the four banks combined and they own the controlling interest. They tell the banks what to do—BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, First State and others in that little cohort of multinational predatory organisations. We don’t have four main banks. We have one main bank that is hiding behind four logos. That’s what we have. They have the same policies, principles, strategies, products and services.
Coles and Woolies, again, are part-owned by BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard. If you go right through our corporations in this country, the corporations we thought were Australian owned, they’re foreign owned and controlled, and where does the money go? The profit goes overseas. What did the Morrison government do, along with the state premiers? They loaded it up so that foreign multinationals that own the large companies in this country made a killing out of COVID at the expense of small companies and small businesses.
On the other hand, look at Qatar and Norway. They have bountiful natural resources, just like us—not as much as we have, in fact, and yet they make so much more. Qatar made $78 billion out of its gas exports. We export more and we made a tiny fraction of that, around one per cent of that.
So why are we doing this? What I’m saying and have been saying for many years, ever since I got into the Senate, is that we need comprehensive, proper and honest tax reform. Let’s have a look at the person who introduced GST into this country. Paul Keating was the Treasurer and, I think, Deputy Prime Minister under Bob Hawke. He came so close to introducing the GST, and, at the last minute, the Prime Minister at the time, Bob Hawke, fell over and lacked the courage to do so. Paul Keating was very upset with that. A few years later, John Hewson introduced the GST as part of Liberal Party policy, and who smashed him over it? Paul Keating, the man who introduced the concept of GST to this country.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Polley): Senator Roberts, I will remind you to use people’s correct titles when referring to former prime ministers.
Senator ROBERTS: He was the Treasurer at the time. What I’m saying is that the taxation system was mooted for change, and the person who introduced the GST actually smashed the GST, for purely political reasons.
On another aspect of comprehensive tax reform, Treasurer Peter Costello—who has been admired as a Treasurer—found out that Senator Pauline Hanson, who at the time was a member of the lower house, was keen on the transaction tax. As a way of trying to destroy her, he destroyed the transaction tax, even though he had previously said publicly that it had a lot of merit.
The point I’m getting to is: taxation has become a political football. It’s not an honest debate anymore; it’s about smashing a system. So what I propose is that, instead of proposing a system, we should look at basic principles. We should first of all agree that the taxation system is one of the most destructive systems in this country, if not the most destructive, which is my opinion of it. Once we get agreement on that, we should then put forward a set of principles that we can agree on.
I’ve been putting some thought to principles. First of all, a fair, efficient and honest taxation system would enable us to receive far more income because the multinationals would be paying their fair share of tax. It should be fair and equitable to all people and to all economic entities, including Australian businesses, and with no exemptions for foreign companies, which are now largely exempt. Making foreign companies and speculators pay their fair share of tax would quickly end the budget deficit and overseas debt and fund future infrastructure without borrowing. The second principle: it should be in the national interest.
The third principle—and this is very, very important for a country, and the reason why I went through the problems that are coming from this building: it should be incorruptible and impossible for politicians to fiddle with. A major source of political power is the ability of politicians to make legislation that punishes or advantages particular groups. This ability gives politicians from the uniparty enormous power over others because they can enact, for example, taxation provisions that assist their supporters or hurt their supporters’ competitors. An honest tax system removes this blatant abuse of power.
The fourth principle: it should comply with and support our Constitution’s intent and written provisions—not contradict our Constitution but comply with it. The fifth principle: there should be simplicity in understanding, administration and accountability. It should be completely transparent, unlike the current taxation system, which is deliberately opaque. There should be an objective basis for levying tax. Instead of assessing tax on profit and loss that can be fiddled, use objective measures. These do exist and include, for example, market sale price or straight-out unit cost.
The taxation system needs to be constructive, not punitive. It needs to be efficient to administer, with low administration costs, not the unwieldy behemoth that is administering, or mismanaging, tax at the moment. It should increase people’s purchasing power. A good taxation system, an efficient taxation system, will increase people’s purchasing power so people are economically far better off, because the burden will be shifted more towards multinationals.
The next principle is: there should be minimal disruption to the economy, with no ability for politicians to manipulate the tax system across industry sectors or industry groups. The taxation system could be a wonderful way of getting aggregate economic data and detailed data.
The next principle is arguably one of the most important: accountability. When properly designed, a tax system develops accountability in the government and in the people, through being a restraint on the cost of government. Taxes are necessary to pay for the cost of government, but what happens at the moment, because politicians from the uniparty can ratchet taxation up freely, is that they tend to abuse it and neglect their accountability to the people for managing costs. Politicians will have to manage within the country’s means. The next principle is: it should help people to become independent of government.
What I want to do in wrapping up is say, again, to the senators who didn’t hear me in my opening comments: we support this bill. But it is far too little. Why is it too little? We have got plenty of money in this country for investment. We have got super funds holding enormous sacks of gold, from rivers of gold. I’m asking the government to change your ways. Put families before large, foreign multinationals—Blackrock, State Street, Vanguard, First State. Put national interest before large, foreign multinationals. Reclaim our national sovereignty, and put it before large, foreign multinationals. Put Australia and Australians first.
I asked this question at the start: why? I ask this question now: why not?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/CAnA_QdDlJU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-03-14 14:32:162024-03-14 14:32:20One for You, Two for the Tax Man
Both Labor and the Coalition voted to collect billions of extra income tax dollars because they need more money. Yet foreign multinational corporations in Australia are paying little or no company tax.
Bracket creep is a secret tax that means government makes money out of inflation. The government is not indexing the tax brackets to fix bracket creep meaning Australians will collectively pay $38 billion extra in tax over the next four years.
I moved an amendment that would eliminate bracket creep by indexing the tax thresholds. This means the inflation rates would be adjusted for inflation so Australian’s pay the same rate of tax instead of continuing to pay more which is the current situation the government is failing to address.
Instead of giving tens of billions of dollars back to Australians, both Liberal and Labor are happy to keep secretly collecting more and more tax, and by their own admission, they’ll only ever give it back when they can afford to. When can we expect that to occur, considering the current government’s focus is on funding UN climate goals and inflationary COVID debts?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you agree bracket creep is a problem for taxpayers in Australia?
Senator GALLAGHER: I think all governments recognise bracket creep is an issue. That’s why governments of both major parties return bracket creep when it’s affordable and sustainable to do so. You’ll notice that, in the reforms to the tax proposal that was outlined by the former government, this does that by lowering the two thresholds and dropping the two tax rates; sorry, I’m getting back into tax land! That’s how we’re dealing with bracket creep. It provides relief, and 84 per cent of taxpayers will be getting a bigger income tax cut than they would have under the former government and paying less tax. By 2034-35, someone earning an average income will pay $21,635 less tax than they otherwise would have without these tax cuts.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you said you return bracket creep when it suits you and when you can afford it. Doesn’t that mean that you’re taking money off taxpayers, and that it’s really a stealth tax because taxpayers don’t know they’re moving into a higher tax bracket? Bracket creep is when the brackets stay the same but people’s wages inflate and they move into a higher tax bracket—so they automatically pay a far higher rate of tax in the next bracket and they don’t even know it. Isn’t that tax by stealth?
Senator GALLAGHER: No, I don’t agree with that. I think Australians understand marginal tax rates and the interaction between their earnings and those tax rates. I would say again that’s why, regularly, tax cuts are provided to taxpayers—to deal with bracket creep and provide other assistance where that’s possible, where it’s affordable and sustainable to do so. I say that not to say ‘when we choose to’ or ‘when we feel like it’ but because we have to manage a budget responsibly as well. People expect that because taxes pay for all the services that people consume and expect to receive from their government.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I remind you, before asking my next question, that former deputy commissioner of taxation Jim Killaly, who was in charge of large companies and also international matters for the Australian Taxation Office, said back in 1996 and 2010 that 90 per cent of Australia’s large companies are foreign owned and have paid little or no tax since 1953, due to Liberal legislation that was passed in 1953 letting major foreign owned corporations off the hook. Bob Hawke made sure that the Labor Party was also giving gifts to major foreign corporations by letting the world’s largest avoider of tax, Chevron, off the hook for tax in the North West Shelf. Surely the fix to bracket creep is to index brackets. If we’d done that 10 years ago we would have saved the people $44 billion in tax. You say, ‘Where can we get the tax from?’ I get that tax is the cost of government, that tax is the price of government and that tax has to be paid, but foreign corporations in this country are paying little or no company tax. That means they’re using our services that every mum and dad and family and small business is paying for in this country, and they’re doing it for free. We used to be the world’s largest exporters of gas, we get very little for it, and these foreign companies are sending it overseas. Japan gets $3 billion a year off import duty for our gas going into their country, and we get very little for it. So what I say to you is that we can’t afford it because you’re not taxing foreign multinationals adequately. You’re letting them off the hook. Because you didn’t index brackets in this attempt, over the next four years Australians will pay $38 billion more tax than if you indexed brackets. Surely, you can look at the spending and cut some of that back. Surely, you can look at the taxation of foreign multinationals and make sure they start paying their fair share. Then let Australian families off the bracket-creep hook. Why can’t you do that proper budget for the Australians?
Senator GALLAGHER: There was a lot in that, Senator Roberts. I think your final question was around budget management, and the work we have done in the last or two budgets and MYEFO has been to repair the budget. The deficits are a lot less, going forward. We’ve had a surplus budget, we’ve lowered our debt, we’ve contained spending despite the pressures the budget is under, and where we’ve had revenue windfalls we have returned the vast majority of it— over 80 per cent, 88 per cent I think—to the budget to repair it. We do have to manage the budget responsibly and we’ve been able to do that and provide bigger tax cuts to more Australians. On your point about multinational tax reform, I don’t necessarily agree with all of it because I haven’t been able to verify some of the things you’ve said. We agree that we should be making multinationals pay their fair share of tax—we’ve got a bill before the parliament on that, we’ve got a bill on PRRT and we’ve got a bill on high-balance super, and that is about making sure we are putting the budget on a sustainable footing, that we’re able to pay for defence, aged care, hospitals, the interest on our debt and the NDIS, and that we are able to pay for those services that people expect. But this plan does deal with bracket creep, so I don’t accept the position that you put saying we don’t. That’s part of the reason why we’re doing it. The Treasury advice there is very clear. Our plan provides better protection against bracket creep for 70 per cent of all taxpayers over the decade, including the average taxpayer and those on low and middle incomes.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, how can you say it fixes bracket creep when over the next four years Australians—families and individuals—will be paying an extra $38 billion due to bracket creep? You are not indexing the brackets themselves; you’re just making a one-off adjustment. As soon as that happens, with inflation continuing, you will continue to increase revenues. Inflation hits families in two ways: first of all, goods and services cost more; second of all, they move into a higher tax bracket and they pay more tax. They actually end up with less take-home pay. So I don’t buy your argument. Why doesn’t Labor want to fix bracket creep?
Senator GALLAGHER: I think we’re just agreeing to disagree, Senator Roberts. This plan does deal with bracket creep by reducing two tax rates and increasing two tax thresholds. It does deal with bracket creep. In particular, as I said in my previous answer, for average taxpayers—those on the average wage, and low- and middle-income earners—this substantially improves the money they get back in their pockets, and returns that bracket creep. But you disagree with me—I will keep making that point and, presumably, you will keep making yours.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you cannot argue with the fact that someone who is just below the next tax threshold will soon be paying higher tax because of inflation. That is a fact. The only way to beat that is to index the tax thresholds. As to supporting my amendment, it shows you do not want to stop rampant increases in tax or you want to keep bracket creep to exploit taxpayers. Why don’t you want to fix bracket creep properly by indexing it so that brackets rise as inflation rises and wages rise, so people stay within the same bracket and there is no creep? Why don’t you want to fix bracket creep?
Senator GALLAGHER: The tax rates haven’t been indexed, that’s right. I understand your amendment seeks to do that. I don’t think you’ve moved your amendment, but I may as well cover off. We are not supporting your amendment. The approach in this bill is preferable to your amendment because it provides governments—I’m talking about not our government but all governments; this is the way it’s been done—with greater flexibility to respond to fluctuations in the economic cycle. This proposal does deal with bracket creep. It does return money to taxpayers. I don’t know where you get your $38 billion figure from over the forward estimates, but I think your point there is that there will be—that’s assuming, wherever that number comes from, that there will be no change to tax rates in that. History will show that governments have made decisions to implement tax cuts where it’s affordable and sustainable to do so on the budget, and I expect governments of both political persuasions will continue to take that approach.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, in my view, I don’t think you’re being honest with the people of Australia, because bracket creep is a stealth tax. Inflation helps your tax revenue. How many pages are in our tax act?
Senator GALLAGHER: We might have to take that on notice. I’m just seeing if we can provide you with an accurate answer, but it’s quite detailed and there are obviously pages that underpin the tax act as well. I’m not sure we’ll be able to do that accurately tonight, but we’ll see what we can do.
Senator Scarr: To the nearest ten thousand!
Senator GALLAGHER: I was going to say: it’s a lot!
Senator ROBERTS: To the nearest thousand would be fine, thanks, Minister. The point I’m trying to make is that we already have a very complex tax system, which is confusing for small businesses and confusing for people who don’t have access to lawyers and deep pockets. It’s confusing for individuals and families. We always support returning more money to taxpayers, and $15 a week is a lot of money to many people. In the overall scheme of things, it’s not very much. In a few years, you’ll be recovering far more. Is there any plan to actually reform taxation properly, to do a comprehensive reform so that the tax system becomes simple, clear, effective, efficient, fair and honest? Is there any stomach within the Labor Party to be honest with the people of Australia and really reform taxation comprehensively?
Senator GALLAGHER: I think the government’s been clear about what our tax changes are. They are the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, the bills I referred to before on high-balance super accounts, multinational tax reform, PRRT—they are the government’s tax plans. Am I missing one?
Senator Hume: Negative gearing!
Senator GALLAGHER: I don’t accept that interjection. That is the government’s tax agenda going forward.
Senator ROBERTS: I move Pauline Hanson’s One Nation amendment (1) on sheet 2342.
Senator HUME: For the benefit of the chamber, I just want to inform you that the opposition is going to oppose this amendment, Senator Roberts. We won’t be supporting it, because the stage 3 tax cuts were originally designed to address bracket creep but do it in a very structural, costed and fiscally responsible way. While this measure would address bracket creep, you’re absolutely right that the fiscal cost of this change isn’t known, and that’s why we couldn’t support it at this stage. The Prime Minister’s broken promise means that delivering the stage 3 tax reforms as they had been legislated originally is now impossible, but the coalition remains committed to fighting bracket creep and to enshrining aspiration, because strong leaders keep their promises, even when it’s hard to do so.
Senator GALLAGHER: I made some comments previously, but we will also be opposing this amendment. The bill before the chamber does deal with bracket creep. It delivers tax cuts for 13.6 million Australians. It’s carefully calibrated to provide more cost-of-living relief. I know that Senator Roberts said that it was $15. I think that figure he is using is the extra that people will get. Those people will get $15 extra on top of the tax cuts they otherwise would have got, and, for many people, that is a substantial amount of money. We recognise there are other things to do on the cost of living. That’s why our other measures are being put in place. But in terms of your amendment, we oppose it. We think the way we’re approaching it in this bill is preferable, and it’s the way it has been done in the past. It gives government the flexibility to make those decisions when it’s affordable to return bracket creep in a way that can maximise those returns.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I want to take you back briefly to a previous answer you gave when you implied the surplus—which is correct in the budget. The surplus has only been around for two years because of the strength of our agricultural production and our coal and iron ore exports. That’s the only reason. What we’re seeing is a country that is at the mercy of international prices for its major primary products. If something happens, then we have to rely upon bracket creep to pull us out of the mess, and that’s not fair to Australian families and individuals.
Senator GALLAGHER: I accept that our export industry and our resources certainly contribute to our tax revenue through company tax receipts and others, but the strength of the revenue upgrades has also been improved and strengthened by the strength of our labour market. We’ve had many more people in jobs earning money and therefore paying tax than we have previously. Unemployment is at a record low; participation is at a record high. It’s kicking up a bit now, but that has contributed significantly to the improved position of the budget. Yes, we acknowledge that. Part of that has allowed us to pay debt down so that we’re not paying as much into the future and generations of the future are not paying those interest costs—the fastest-growing cost on the budget is managing the interest costs on our debt— and it’s allowing us to deal with all of those areas of pressure that we talk about all the time in here: the NDIS, aged care, hospitals and defence. They are all big costs coming at the budget, and we do have to manage it in a responsible way.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not pretending to say it’s easy. It’s complex, but it’s excessively complex. You’re addressing the need for increasing tax revenues for the extra expenditure, including interest payments, but what you’re not saying is that a lot of that money is coming from individuals through immigration, which is putting enormous pressure on house prices and inflation. That’s a real impediment to people looking for houses right now. We’ve got people in Queensland sleeping in tents in showgrounds in Gladstone, in parks in Bundaberg, in parks and on the banks of the river in Brisbane and in Ipswich, Logan and Townsville. I think we’re making a rod for our own back. When are we going to see comprehensive tax reform to take the load off individuals and put it onto large corporations so they start paying their fair share?
Senator GALLAGHER: Well, I’ve outlined that we do have a bill around multinational tax reform to ensure that those big multinational companies are paying their fair share of tax. I think if you talk to many domestic companies they’ll say they’re paying their fair share of tax right now. People have a view about that, I guess. Individuals do contribute substantially to the Commonwealth budget through income tax. We need to generate revenue in order to pay for services. On your point around population and housing, obviously you can’t do everything through tax cuts, and that’s why all those initiatives we’ve got in housing are so important and why we want the chamber to support the latest part of our housing initiatives, which is Build to Rent. We’ve got a full suite of programs. We acknowledge that supply is the problem, and the Commonwealth is right in there with our sleeves rolled up, working with states and territories, to do whatever we can to generate more supply. Also, as you know, some of the changes we’ve made to the migration system have ensured that those net overseas migration numbers that we’ve seen rise post-COVID are coming back down to our more traditional rates.
This Labor Government is promising cost of living relief and tax cuts while it’s actually increasing taxes. Already, this government wants to tax farmers off the land to make way for “FrankenFoods” — fake lab meat and bug protein. Recently Labor announced plans to tax clothing in the name of saving the environment. Labor now wants to tax cars based on weight and engine efficiency. Cars needed by tradies will go up by $4000, family people movers by $6000 and 4WD cruisers that are owned by every second farmer, will go up $13,000.
Taxing tradies will further force up the costs of building and maintaining the family home. Meanwhile, plans are underway to build and populate dystopian Smart Cities — Sydney’s first has been announced already. These make no provision for cars, so you can expect the Labor car tax to increase until car ownership is only afforded by the very rich.
I’ve been warning about the predatory billionaires and the World Economic Forum agenda, summed up by their slogan “you’ll own nothing and be happy”. It’s started and it’s being implemented by the Albanese Labor Government.
One Nation opposes all those promoting the Orwellian future that this government is fast tracking with its ‘taxing and spending’ and the legislation Labor is ramming through parliament.
The choice for voters is clear. One Nation or tyranny.
Transcript
This Labor government is maintaining the tradition of Labor governments: taxing and spending, taxing and spending. In the last few weeks, the government has revealed plans to tax clothing in the name of saving the environment and to tax food in the name of funding Australia’s world-leading biosecurity. I would have thought protecting Australia’s biosecurity, which underpins $100 billion in export earnings, was the responsibility of the whole country, considering the wealth it bestows on all Australians. I would consider funding biosecurity to be important to protecting the supply of food we all eat, but, no, this government wants to tax farmers off the land to make way for its billionaire mates’ Frankenstein foods. It doesn’t matter that Australians don’t want to eat bugs or fake meat cultured and then grown in bioreactors. This attack on Australia’s health and nutrition is happening because this government’s owners demand for themselves the wealth currently in the hands of our farming communities. They want to transfer the land and the wealth from our farmers to their billionaire parasitic friends.
When the billionaires that try to run the world say, ‘You’ll own nothing and be happy,’ amongst the things the public will no longer own is a car. Chris Bowen MP and his ministry of misery have announced fuel emission standards are being applied to new cars from 2030. ‘Increased fuel emission standards’, ‘tougher fuel emission standards’—it sounds innocuous until you read the fine print, and I thank the opposition for crunching the numbers. Utes will go up between $2,000 and $6,000 each. At a time when the government need as many tradies as they can find to build as many homes as they can, the government think it’s a smart move to add a new tax on tradies, raising the cost of houses and decreasing the supply of houses. What a bloody stupid idea!
More troubling is the increasing cost of passenger cars to Australian families. The Outlander from Mitsubishi—that’s a family SUV—will go up $4,000. LandCruisers, owned by every second family in the bush, will go up $13,000 each. That’s yet another attack on the bush from a government happy to harm the bush in order to win votes back from the teals in the city. This will not be the only price increase in cars. The materials needed for our suicidal net zero measures have much in common with materials used in making cars. The increase in demand from net zero means that these materials are getting scarcer and scarcer and much more expensive. A family car is likely to rise in price by $10,000 within five years in today’s dollars because of this materials inflation. Then add Minister Bowen’s car tax, and you can see where this is all going.
For those who still haven’t worked it out, the New South Wales government has just announced Australia’s first 30-minute city, surrounding the new Badgerys Creek airport. It’s called Bradfield City. It will be ‘cybersmart and digitally led’. That means digital surveillance on everyone. It’s happening in London already, and in other countries, with commercial and community facilities including retail, cultural facilities and work all in the one suburb. So, you don’t have choice of where you work; you work nearby. Plans for Bradfield City include car-free streets. No matter the weather, you will walk everywhere.
On the way to net zero the cost of driving will be artificially increased to raise costs, thanks to this government. That would dramatically increase the cost of living for everyone in this country, increase food prices for everyone in this country and ultimately lead to, in 2030, the very act of driving being an act of civil disobedience. It’s all about wealth transfer to their parasitic billionaire friends and about control.
Soaring cost of living, massive mortgage, rent hikes and inflation meant Australian households suffering the fastest income collapse in the world last year. Labor’s tax changes will benefit some Australians, a measly $15 a week to make up for this.
Labor are out of touch.
This legislation will barely make a dent in cost of living and the government admits as much by claiming these tax cuts will make no measurable difference to the amount of money Australians have in their pocket to spend. Meanwhile, they are silent on their secret money maker – bracket creep. As wages increase, Australians move into higher tax brackets while only being able to buy the same things due to inflation, yet they’ll be paying more tax. This little trick means government has collected an extra $44 billion in taxes from Australians, thanks to inflation over the last decade. Because it hasn’t been fixed, Australians will be paying an extra $38 billion in the next four years alone.
I moved an Amendment that would change the tax rates to keep up with inflation and eliminate bracket creep. If Liberal and Labor are genuine about real tax cuts, they’ll vote for this Amendment and let Australians keep billions of dollars.
One Nation has been talking about the Liberal-Labor government’s secret tax loophole of bracket creep ever since this debate on the Stage 3 Tax Cuts started and we are doing something about it with our proposed amendment to this bill. We need proper tax reform urgently.
Transcript
I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. Like most of the words Australians hear out of Liberal and Labor mouths, the title of this bill is a false promise. It’s a lie. It’s almost a sick joke from the Labor government to even put the words ‘cost of living’ in this bill. Let’s talk about the cost of living. Compared to what was already legislated, these tax changes are $15 a week different for the average Australian. For many that’s significant because of Labor’s huge cost-of-living increases. In four years, Australians have been slapped with some of the worst declines in economic circumstances in decades internationally. Australian households suffered the fastest income collapse in the world last financial year, under Labor. Inflation has sent Australian wages—real wages—back to a point not seen since 2009. That means that Australian wages have gone nowhere in real terms for 15 years. The average mortgage has gone up $1,210 a month—a month! Australia’s average rent has hit a record $601 a week, up from the August 2022 median of $437 an astounding 37 per cent. Fifty dollars doesn’t get you far at the supermarket anymore. Petrol is now considered a bargain at $1.80. How far we’ve fallen!
As billions in government coupons and rebates expire, power bills will rise even further. Despite Labor’s promises to cut electricity bills by $275, Australians have never paid more to keep the lights on. We’ve never paid more. We have the highest electricity prices in the world. We used to have the lowest—until Labor and the Greens and teals came along.
What is the government’s solution to these skyrocketing costs of living? To fix your problems with groceries, your mortgage or rent, power bills and more, the Albanese government is going to give some Australians—some Australians—$15 a week and expect you to bow down and thank them for it.
Like the governments before it, this Labor government is all spin and no substance. In fact, it’s all theft. They will put a fluffy title on a bill, like they have here: ‘cost of living tax cuts’. Oh, really! In reality, this won’t make a dent in the cost of living most Australians are suffering through. The costs Labor is imposing are far, far higher than the minor changes they’ve made. This bill is a perfect example of how out of touch this Albanese Labor government really is. Their priorities are in the wrong place. They’re more interested in looking good than actually doing good.
In his speech about this bill, Treasurer Jim Chalmers just couldn’t help himself. He needed to invoke identity politics and explain that these tax cuts were so much better for women. I checked the Taxation Office website, just to make sure nothing had changed, and it hadn’t. Someone might want to let Treasurer Chalmers knows that Australia doesn’t charge different tax rates based on what’s between our legs. There’s no table that says, ‘If you earn $60,000, as a man you’ll pay, say, 32.5c per dollar, and, if you’re a woman, you’ll pay 35 cents.’ That’s probably lucky, because Labor can’t even answer the question: ‘What is a woman?’ If the Treasurer can’t make a speech about tax without invoking gender political correctness, you have to wonder what hope they’ve got. What hope have we got? Here’s a tip for Labor: regardless of what Australians have between our legs, life is tough right now; the economy sucks; and $15 a week will barely make a dent in the extra costs you have imposed in just 18 months.
Now, I’ll never oppose Australians getting a tax cut. Yet calling these tax changes ‘cost-of-living relief’ is like claiming you’ve fixed a raging bushfire after throwing cup of water on it.
These tax changes won’t do anything while government policies make Australia’s cost of living even worse—far, far worse. There’s energy. They’re killing agriculture. There’s immigration. They’re hiding per capita recessions. There are house prices and rents. The government response to COVID created the inflation problem that has wrecked Australian households. And Labor was all the way with Prime Minister Morrison.
The government’s net zero policies are increasing power prices, making it harder for households to keep the lights on and businesses to keep their doors open. That’s a fact. Only this week, the government is discussing putting an extra four per cent tax on clothes, to comply with United Nations/World Economic Forum policies—four per cent on clothes, in addition to the 10 per cent GST on clothes. The government will be putting an emissions tax on vehicles, forcing Australians’ favourite utes off the road and making any other cars far more expensive. That’s from a Labor government. All of the pressures facing Australian households are a result of government policies, and Labor’s response is a measly $15 a week.
The Liberals do not get a free pass on this. The only reason we’re in this situation is because of the Liberal Party’s gutlessness in parliament. Many will notice that the original tax changes were called ‘the third stage’. All three stages were announced by the Liberal coalition government in 2018. Why, then, was stage 3 left until 1 July 2024 to come into effect? I’ll tell you why: the truth is the Liberals wanted to leave stage 3 as a trap for Labor, who have always been opposed to them. If the Liberals were genuine about stage 3, why didn’t the changes come into effect five years ago? That didn’t happen because the Liberals wanted to play cynical political games and trap Labor. Neither Liberal nor Labor are interested in genuine tax reform; they’d rather play games with it to get a headline—play games with people’s livelihoods, lives and futures.
The crown of destroying Australia sits on the heads of both the Labor party and the Liberal party. They both have gutless policy on everything in our country, especially tax. They run away from the real issues facing Australians. The Treasurer and the government claim that these tax changes won’t add to inflation—that’s shooting themselves in the foot. If that’s true then the government is admitting these changes won’t do anything. They’re saying it won’t make enough of a difference to the amount of money Australians will have to spend to even be measured. Maybe the government is lying, and these changes will make inflation worse. That would be embarrassing to admit, given Treasurer Chalmers says our No. 1 priority should be ‘to finish the fight against inflation’. Labor appears to have put themselves between a rock and a hard place, a situation all of their own making. Australians have got used to this Labor government speaking out of both sides of their mouth—this tax bill is no different.
Now, I’ll never oppose tax cuts for Australians. These tax changes, however, are just fiddling around the edges. Instead, we need real tax reform. Real reform is in the amendment I have proposed on sheet 2342. This would index the income tax thresholds to inflation and eliminate bracket creep. This is genuine tax reform. Bracket creep is the government’s dirty little secret. Inflation means Labor will quietly pocket tens of billions of dollars in extra taxes by simply doing nothing. As wages increase with inflation, they go into higher tax brackets, you’re paying higher tax rates and no one says a thing. We are going to say something. We’ve been saying something about this ever since this debate started, and we will fix it by putting an amendment in there.
It’s a stealth tax. As wages increase, Australians move into higher tax brackets, while being able to buy only the same things due to inflation, yet they’ll be paying more tax, so they’ll have less money to spend on groceries effectively and less money to spend on disposable income. Bracket creep amounts to a secret tax that the government are keep collecting to pay for their pet projects of questionable benefit. If the Liberals and Labor want to increase taxes, they should put in a bill or take it to an election and be honest with Australians, rather than quietly rely on bracket creep to secretly plug their budget holes and ratchet up income tax receipts.
Bracket creep should’ve been fixed a decade ago. Analysis from the Parliamentary Budget Office shows that Australians have had to pay an extra $44 billion over the last decade because of bracket creep. Shh, don’t tell them! Because we didn’t take that action and fix this 10 years ago, over just the next four years bracket creep will mean Australians will pay more than $38 billion extra in taxes. You thought you were getting a tax cut. If the government gets inflation under control, fixing bracket creep won’t cost the budget anything. Australians don’t deserve to pay for inflation twice because of government mistakes, and the budget shouldn’t benefit from out-of-control inflation. Here’s how you’re paying twice: firstly, inflation because of an out-of-control government—higher prices; secondly, the higher wages that come with inflation put you into a higher tax bracket—bracket creep, higher taxes. You have less real money overall. Now, I note that the Liberals have made many comments about the scourge of bracket creep. This is your opportunity to fix it once and for all, and I urge all senators to stop the taxation increases-by-stealth and index the tax thresholds—the brackets.
If Labor need any suggestions on areas of spending to fix it so they don’t have to keep secretly stealing more money from Australians, they can consult One Nation’s extensive work at Senate estimates for a few tips. There are lots of tips in there. We exposed so much: the flawed $65 billion Hunter frigate program they fiddled with and didn’t cancel; the NDIS being on track to cost $100 billion every year; and up to $8 billion a year in Medicare fraud. They are all some good places to start.
We support this bill. It’s being dishonestly represented by Labor as a tax cut; it’s a tax fiddle. We can change that by passing my amendment to remove bracket creep. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I recommend that, instead of fiddling with the tax system, we fix the tax system. Reform the tax system for the benefit of all Australians, all families, our economy and our grandchildren’s economic future and security.
I will just make some comments about tax reform, in connection with this bill. The tax system is complex, wastes enormous resources and is destroying economic productivity. Tax is essentially necessary because it’s a cost of government. It has become the cost of unaccountable waste over government needlessly micromanaging and controlling people’s lives and destroying economic initiative, hope and security. That’s what our tax system has become. It’s necessary as a cost of government, but it has now gone overboard. The tax act is immense—thousands of pages, a feast for lawyers and accountants.
In a highly competitive international market, our resources are being wasted. Instead of our best and brightest accountants helping us to be more competitive in facing our international competitors, companies in Korea, Japan, China, America, Indonesia and Asia—instead of facing them and being more competitive by putting our best people to work, we’ve tied them up in the tax system trying to dodge tax because it’s so damn complex and so inefficient. Jim Killaly, the deputy commissioner who was responsible for international matters and large companies, who was second in charge at the Australian Taxation Office and in charge of large companies and international matters, said twice, in 1996 and 2010, that 90 per cent of Australia’s large companies are foreign owned and, since 1953, have paid little or no company tax due to the Liberals introducing legislation exempting foreign companies back in 1953.
The tax act enables companies to use tax tricks such as transfer pricing to eliminate book profits and tax being paid in Australia and take it all overseas. In 1987 the Hawke Labor government introduced a petroleum rent resource tax that effectively exempted the world’s largest tax evader, Chevron, from paying tax. They steal our gas and export it to other countries, and we don’t get much for it at all. The Liberal-Labor party, the uni-party, are working for their global corporate masters. Exempting corporations from paying their fair share of tax means the burden falls on us, the people. To the people in the gallery: you’re paying for these uni-party rorts.
Aussies are paying far too much tax already. Former Treasurer Joe Hockey said that typical Aussies work from January to June paying tax. Half of the year paying tax, effectively a 50 per cent tax rate—that’s what Joe Hockey said. And then we get to keep the rest from July to December. Industry figures calculate that almost 50 per cent of the price of a house is tax, meaning an effective tax rate of 100 per cent. Brisbane accountant Derek Smith said that 50 per cent of the price of a loaf of bread is tax, meaning the effective tax rate is 100 per cent. Seventy per cent of the price of fuel is tax—or it used to be; the price has gone up even higher now. Essentially, workers have to pay double and they’re getting ripped off. They pay income tax, and, with what’s left, they pay taxes on everything they buy. We need tax reform urgently.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/VTJv992yf0o/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-02-26 18:23:412024-02-26 18:23:46Labor’s Tax Changes Do Nothing for Cost of Living and Bracket Creep
The Federal opposition has been urged to follow through on calls for real tax reform to stop bracket creep and vote for a One Nation amendment to Labor’s Stage 3 tax changes.
Senator Malcolm Roberts’ amendment would index all tax thresholds to adjust for inflation, saving Australians billions of dollars in extra taxes over the coming years.
Senator Roberts said: ‘It’s time to stop fiddling around the edges and implement genuine tax reform.
‘Bracket creep is the government’s dirty little secret. Inflation means Labor will quietly pocket tens of billions of dollars in extra taxes by doing nothing.
‘As wages increase, Australians move into higher tax brackets while only being able to buy the same things due to inflation yet will be paying more tax.
‘Bracket creep amounts to a secret tax that government is happy to keep collecting to pay for their pet projects of questionable benefit.
‘If Liberal and Labor want to increase taxes, they should put it in a Bill or take it to an election and be honest with Australians rather than quietly relying on bracket creep to secretly plug their budget holes.
‘If the Government gets inflation under control, fixing bracket creep won’t cost the budget anything.
‘Australians don’t deserve to pay for inflation twice because of government mistakes and the budget shouldn’t actually benefit from out of control inflation.
‘If Labor needs any suggestions on areas of spending to fix so they don’t have to keep secretly stealing more money from Australians they can consult One Nation’s extensive work at Senate Estimates for some tips.
‘The flawed $65 billion Hunter Frigate program, the NDIS on track to cost $100 billion a year and up to $8 billion a year in Medicare fraud are all some good places to start.’
I spoke on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. One Nation supports an efficient, honest and fair tax system. This Bill does nothing to make that happen.
Trickery with franking credits (again), the start of mandating Blackrock and Vanguard style ESG into Australia’s financial system and a potential Robodebt 2.0 are all in this Bill.
Despite Labor’s promises, they continue to fiddle with the taxation system and it is rarely for the better.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. One Nation supports an efficient, honest and fair tax system. An important aspect of a fair system to is to make sure tax is not double-charged. That’s what franking credits do. They make sure a tax is not double-charged. They ensure that Australians don’t pay income tax on the parts of dividends on which the government has already collected company tax. That’s fair. There’s no reason to allow the government to double-dip on Australian profits and then again on Australians’ income.
In the 2019 election campaign, Labor proposed changes to the franking credits system. Australia completely rejected those thought bubbles. Labor learnt from that lesson and for the 2022 election, promised there would be no changes made to franked dividends if Australia voted them into government. Yet, now that Labor is in government, schedules 4 and 5 make a number of wholesale changes to how the dividend, share buyback, and franking system currently works. It is a broken promise, yet another to add to Labor’s list of broken promises. Just like when they promised to reduce your power bills by $275, Labor’s promise that they wouldn’t touch franking credits was a lie. As always, the government claims that these are simply modest changes. They’re anything but modest, with large implications for companies and for capital markets. The government hasn’t been able to articulate the need for these changes, nor quantify how big an impact they will have. They’re doing it, and they don’t even know what will happen. We cannot legislate on a hope, a vibe or a wish that it will be okay. While that is, according to some in government, Prime Minister Albanese’s modus operandi, it’s not a responsible way to steer a $1.7 trillion economy. It’s highly irresponsible. One Nation will be opposing these changes in schedules 4 and 5 and cannot pass the bill if they remain part of this package.
Schedule 2 lays the groundwork for standards that align money to climate goals. This would presumably be to create alignment with the greatest scam in finance: ESG standards—environment, social and governance. The powers that be call them ‘sustainability standards’, yet there’s nothing sustainable about them. In fact, UN sustainability policies survive only as parasites on subsidies from the real economy—subsidies: that makes them unsustainable. So-called sustainability standards talk about protecting the financial system from risks. Yet they cannot quantify what those risks are. The idea that the government or, worse, a single bureaucratic department can ever predict and quantify risk to the financial system is sheer lunacy. A brief analysis of history shows that. Did the government and regulatory agencies see the risk of the dot com bubble coming in the 2000s? No. They had no idea. Did the American regulators see the risk of subprime mortgages leading to the global financial crisis? No. They arguably participated in and make it far worse. Did any regulator around the world predict the risk of almost every government in the world going certifiably insane in response to COVID, a bad flu? No, they did not. Over the last three years, the Reserve Bank created $500 billion in electronic journal entries, money concocted out of thin air. Did any regulator predict the risks that would lead to the skyrocketing inflation that we’re still trying to get under control? No, they did not. Actually, some did, and we were ridiculed by the experts. The point here is very simple. The government and the regulators cannot quantify the risk of financial system shock. History shows governments are hilariously bad at it. They certainly won’t be able to do it for supposed climate risks that are nothing more than fabrications concocted from inherent, natural, cyclical variation. By the way, everything in nature—everything in existence—varies, yet understanding of variation is not taught in schools and rarely taught properly, if at all, at university. That’s why Green, Labor, Teal and, sadly, some Liberal-National members and senators spout nonsense in this parliament and in public, concocting and spreading imaginary fears of climate apocalypse, when reality shows simply inherent, natural, cyclical variation.
They cannot even come up with the only sound and essential basis for policy—that is, they’ve never quantified the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity. That means they have no basis for climate and energy policy, no specific quantified goals for climate and energy policy and no means of measuring progress towards those goals. We’re flying blind. Australia is flying blind. Energy costs and climate policies are out of control and needlessly imposing huge costs on families, small businesses, our country and our nation’s future. Anyway, the only thing we can do to protect against systemic risks is to make sure that financial intermediaries are well capitalised and diversified to survive any risk that comes to fruition. Doing anything else encourages a lack of diversification and actually increases risk.
I don’t believe in this climate apocalypse nonsense, this climate fraud, yet even for those who do fall for this illusion there’s no serious risk to anything. Let’s look at the supposed science around climate risk. When I ask the government why we need to cut human production of carbon dioxide, they point me to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN IPCC. They’re a dodgy bunch—proven over 40-plus years—yet I don’t think anyone in here has actually read the IPCC reports they claim as proof the climate is going to collapse. If you go to the IPCC’s assessment report 6, you’ll see chapter 12 is the summary of Working Group I, who looked at the actual science around natural disasters. Table 12.12 summarises all of the available evidence on the frequency of extreme weather events. Let me read out the types of natural disasters where even the United Nations has said there has been no detectable increase in the number of natural disasters. I repeat that: no detectable increase in frost, river flood, rain measured in terms of mean precipitation or heavy precipitation, landslide, drought, fire weather, wind speed, windstorm, tropical cyclone, dust storm, heavy snowfall, hail, relative sea level, coastal flood, marine heatwave—and on and on. Although I do not put any trust in the United Nations, government claims it does, and the United Nations says there has been no increase in severe weather events in those categories—none.
Even better, table 12.12 in the IPCC’s AR6 says the United Nations doesn’t expect to see any detectable increase in those categories in the next 80 years under its worst-case scenario. There’s no risk to the financial system from climate change because there’s no need to cut human production of carbon dioxide—end of story.
As an aside, I ask: on what basis does Minister Watt get his frequent fanciful, scary claims of increasing extreme weather events? Wild imagination, Senator Watt? From where do the Greens get their dishonest claims? From where does Senator Pocock get his pseudoscience to support his Kermit green fantasy policies? Is it the family money of Simon Holmes a Court, who now relies on the millions of green subsidy dollars that support otherwise unsustainable and failing wind and solarnet zero projects—parasitic subsidies from energy users and taxpayers who pay through needlessly higher prices.
Recently in this chamber I heard Senator David Pocock cite scientists who said they have fears for the climate. Significantly, he did not provide any science to back it up, apparently because he seems to just swallow their words because they claim to be scientists. That’s what’s happened repeatedly in this chamber. People don’t produce the science; they say what scientists conclude and don’t analyse it. Those scientists are on major grants to push the climate fraud. Real scientists don’t peddle unsubstantiated fears. Scientists present science, presenting the empirical scientific data as evidence within logical scientific points, proving cause and effect. Never has anyone done that. Senator David Pocock never presents any such science nor references the specific pages providing such logical scientific points—never. Extreme weather has always been with us. It remains with us and will always be with us. It’s natural and often cyclical.
So what’s the real reason for implementing so-called sustainability standards and ESG? The Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, said it in his second reading speech to this bill: the purpose is to ‘align capital flows towards climate and sustainability goals’. I’ll say it again: the purpose is to ‘align capital flows towards climate and sustainability goals’—political goals, not scientific. Those are the goals of predatory globalist billionaires and the rent seekers who are flogging wind, solar and battery products, billionaires peddling parasitic mis-investments in solar, wind and batteries and transferring wealth from families, small businesses and employers to billionaires, often overseas.
Despite claims that these solar and wind products are the cheapest, the free market has utterly failed to adopt them, because they simply cannot survive in the wild on their own, without subsidies. In other speeches in recent weeks, I’ve documented the huge number of failures in wind and solar projects overseas and here in Australia. They’re falling over like flies. Billionaires behind the climate push are panicking now that their parasitic investments won’t get the return they need. The teals’ sugar daddy, Simon Holmes a Court; Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest; Johnny-come-lately to climate fearmongering Mike Cannon-Brookes; and old stagers Alex Turnbull and Ross Garnaut—having failed with climate scams in the free market, these climate doomsayers now need the government to direct money their way through implementation of ‘climate standards’—they’re going to standardise the climate!—to, as the Assistant Treasurer said, ‘align capital flows’. This is more of the crony capitalism that has ruined Australia. If it weren’t so serious, it would be laughable. This is why I’ve circulated an amendment to strike out schedule 2 of the bill. There’s no reason to even start down this path of folly and pretend that, hidden away in the cupboard somewhere, the government have a crystal ball they can use to predict the future. If they do, they clearly haven’t used it before.
A final concern I’ll raise is with schedule 1, part 2, of the bill. This gives ASIC the power to use ‘assisted decision-making’ processes. That’s their label. This amendment is incredibly broad and vague, and we can assume this will involve some level of automation and, eventually, the implementation of AI, artificial intelligence. It’s incredibly concerning that the explanatory memorandum includes, at 1.24: ‘ASIC may change a decision made by an assisted decision-making process if it is satisfied the decision is wrong.’ Can you believe it? This very heavily implies that a human will not be involved in the decision-making process. An assisted decision-making process should only be in place to assist a human in making a decision. There should not be a robot using artificial intelligence to make the decision itself. The fact that Labor would introduce this blank cheque to the new robot overlords in the wake of a royal commission they called into robodebt is a stunning revelation. If the robots get it wrong, there’s no clear avenue of appeal for a person who is subject to the wrong decision. They’ll simply have to rely on ASIC deciding to look at it on their own motion and finding out it’s wrong. Good luck with that. This change is too broad, and One Nation is raising its concerns now so that these issues can be monitored in future.
To summarise, the government would be better off going back to the drawing board on this con hiding behind the label ‘Treasury laws’.
One Nation supports an efficient, honest and fair tax system.
A fair tax system is one where tax is not double-charged. That’s what franking credits do. They make sure a tax is not double-charged.
They ensure that Australians don’t pay income tax on the parts of dividends on which the government has already collected company tax. That’s fair. There’s no reason to allow the government to double-dip on Australian profits and then again on Australians’ income.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. One Nation supports an efficient, honest and fair tax system. An important aspect of a fair system to is to make sure tax is not double-charged. That’s what franking credits do. They make sure a tax is not double-charged. They ensure that Australians don’t pay income tax on the parts of dividends on which the government has already collected company tax. That’s fair. There’s no reason to allow the government to double-dip on Australian profits and then again on Australians’ income.
In the 2019 election campaign, Labor proposed changes to the franking credits system. Australia completely rejected those thought bubbles. Labor learnt from that lesson and for the 2022 election, promised there would be no changes made to franked dividends if Australia voted them into government. Yet, now that Labor is in government, schedules 4 and 5 make a number of wholesale changes to how the dividend, share buyback, and franking system currently works. It is a broken promise, yet another to add to Labor’s list of broken promises. Just like when they promised to reduce your power bills by $275, Labor’s promise that they wouldn’t touch franking credits was a lie. As always, the government claims that these are simply modest changes. They’re anything but modest, with large implications for companies and for capital markets. The government hasn’t been able to articulate the need for these changes, nor quantify how big an impact they will have. They’re doing it, and they don’t even know what will happen. We cannot legislate on a hope, a vibe or a wish that it will be okay. While that is, according to some in government, Prime Minister Albanese’s modus operandi, it’s not a responsible way to steer a $1.7 trillion economy. It’s highly irresponsible. One Nation will be opposing these changes in schedules 4 and 5 and cannot pass the bill if they remain part of this package.
Schedule 2 lays the groundwork for standards that align money to climate goals. This would presumably be to create alignment with the greatest scam in finance: ESG standards—environment, social and governance. The powers that be call them ‘sustainability standards’, yet there’s nothing sustainable about them. In fact, UN sustainability policies survive only as parasites on subsidies from the real economy—subsidies: that makes them unsustainable. So-called sustainability standards talk about protecting the financial system from risks. Yet they cannot quantify what those risks are. The idea that the government or, worse, a single bureaucratic department can ever predict and quantify risk to the financial system is sheer lunacy.
A brief analysis of history shows that. Did the government and regulatory agencies see the risk of the dot com bubble coming in the 2000s? No. They had no idea. Did the American regulators see the risk of subprime mortgages leading to the global financial crisis? No. They arguably participated in and make it far worse. Did any regulator around the world predict the risk of almost every government in the world going certifiably insane in response to COVID, a bad flu? No, they did not. Over the last three years, the Reserve Bank created $500 billion in electronic journal entries, money concocted out of thin air. Did any regulator predict the risks that would lead to the skyrocketing inflation that we’re still trying to get under control? No, they did not. Actually, some did, and we were ridiculed by the experts. The point here is very simple. The government and the regulators cannot quantify the risk of financial system shock. History shows governments are hilariously bad at it. They certainly won’t be able to do it for supposed climate risks that are nothing more than fabrications concocted from inherent, natural, cyclical variation. By the way, everything in nature—everything in existence—varies, yet understanding of variation is not taught in schools and rarely taught properly, if at all, at university. That’s why Green, Labor, Teal and, sadly, some Liberal-National members and senators spout nonsense in this parliament and in public, concocting and spreading imaginary fears of climate apocalypse, when reality shows simply inherent, natural, cyclical variation.
They cannot even come up with the only sound and essential basis for policy—that is, they’ve never quantified the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity. That means they have no basis for climate and energy policy, no specific quantified goals for climate and energy policy and no means of measuring progress towards those goals. We’re flying blind. Australia is flying blind. Energy costs and climate policies are out of control and needlessly imposing huge costs on families, small businesses, our country and our nation’s future. Anyway, the only thing we can do to protect against systemic risks is to make sure that financial intermediaries are well capitalised and diversified to survive any risk that comes to fruition. Doing anything else encourages a lack of diversification and actually increases risk.
I don’t believe in this climate apocalypse nonsense, this climate fraud, yet even for those who do fall for this illusion there’s no serious risk to anything. Let’s look at the supposed science around climate risk. When I ask the government why we need to cut human production of carbon dioxide, they point me to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN IPCC. They’re a dodgy bunch—proven over 40-plus years—yet I don’t think anyone in here has actually read the IPCC reports they claim as proof the climate is going to collapse. If you go to the IPCC’s assessment report 6, you’ll see chapter 12 is the summary of Working Group I, who looked at the actual science around natural disasters. Table 12.12 summarises all of the available evidence on the frequency of extreme weather events. Let me read out the types of natural disasters where even the United Nations has said there has been no detectable increase in the number of natural disasters. I repeat that: no detectable increase in frost, river flood, rain measured in terms of mean precipitation or heavy precipitation, landslide, drought, fire weather, wind speed, windstorm, tropical cyclone, dust storm, heavy snowfall, hail, relative sea level, coastal flood, marine heatwave—and on and on. Although I do not put any trust in the United Nations, government claims it does, and the United Nations says there has been no increase in severe weather events in those categories—none.
Even better, table 12.12 in the IPCC’s AR6 says the United Nations doesn’t expect to see any detectable increase in those categories in the next 80 years under its worst-case scenario. There’s no risk to the financial system from climate change because there’s no need to cut human production of carbon dioxide—end of story.
As an aside, I ask: on what basis does Minister Watt get his frequent fanciful, scary claims of increasing extreme weather events? Wild imagination, Senator Watt? From where do the Greens get their dishonest claims? From where does Senator Pocock get his pseudoscience to support his Kermit green fantasy policies? Is it the family money of Simon Holmes a Court, who now relies on the millions of green subsidy dollars that support otherwise unsustainable and failing wind and solarnet zero projects—parasitic subsidies from energy users and taxpayers who pay through needlessly higher prices.
Recently in this chamber I heard Senator David Pocock cite scientists who said they have fears for the climate. Significantly, he did not provide any science to back it up, apparently because he seems to just swallow their words because they claim to be scientists. That’s what’s happened repeatedly in this chamber. People don’t produce the science; they say what scientists conclude and don’t analyse it. Those scientists are on major grants to push the climate fraud. Real scientists don’t peddle unsubstantiated fears. Scientists present science, presenting the empirical scientific data as evidence within logical scientific points, proving cause and effect. Never has anyone done that. Senator David Pocock never presents any such science nor references the specific pages providing such logical scientific points—never. Extreme weather has always been with us. It remains with us and will always be with us. It’s natural and often cyclical.
So what’s the real reason for implementing so-called sustainability standards and ESG? The Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, said it in his second reading speech to this bill: the purpose is to ‘align capital flows towards climate and sustainability goals’. I’ll say it again: the purpose is to ‘align capital flows towards climate and sustainability goals’—political goals, not scientific. Those are the goals of predatory globalist billionaires and the rent seekers who are flogging wind, solar and battery products, billionaires peddling parasitic mis-investments in solar, wind and batteries and transferring wealth from families, small businesses and employers to billionaires, often overseas.
Despite claims that these solar and wind products are the cheapest, the free market has utterly failed to adopt them, because they simply cannot survive in the wild on their own, without subsidies. In other speeches in recent weeks, I’ve documented the huge number of failures in wind and solar projects overseas and here in Australia. They’re falling over like flies. Billionaires behind the climate push are panicking now that their parasitic investments won’t get the return they need. The teals’ sugar daddy, Simon Holmes a Court; Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest; Johnny-come-lately to climate fearmongering Mike Cannon-Brookes; and old stagers Alex Turnbull and Ross Garnaut—having failed with climate scams in the free market, these climate doomsayers now need the government to direct money their way through implementation of ‘climate standards’—they’re going to standardise the climate!—to, as the Assistant Treasurer said, ‘align capital flows’. This is more of the crony capitalism that has ruined Australia. If it weren’t so serious, it would be laughable. This is why I’ve circulated an amendment to strike out schedule 2 of the bill. There’s no reason to even start down this path of folly and pretend that, hidden away in the cupboard somewhere, the government have a crystal ball they can use to predict the future. If they do, they clearly haven’t used it before.
A final concern I’ll raise is with schedule 1, part 2, of the bill. This gives ASIC the power to use ‘assisted decision-making’ processes. That’s their label. This amendment is incredibly broad and vague, and we can assume this will involve some level of automation and, eventually, the implementation of AI, artificial intelligence. It’s incredibly concerning that the explanatory memorandum includes, at 1.24: ‘ASIC may change a decision made by an assisted decision-making process if it is satisfied the decision is wrong.’ Can you believe it? This very heavily implies that a human will not be involved in the decision-making process. An assisted decision-making process should only be in place to assist a human in making a decision. There should not be a robot using artificial intelligence to make the decision itself. The fact that Labor would introduce this blank cheque to the new robot overlords in the wake of a royal commission they called into robodebt is a stunning revelation. If the robots get it wrong, there’s no clear avenue of appeal for a person who is subject to the wrong decision. They’ll simply have to rely on ASIC deciding to look at it on their own motion and finding out it’s wrong. Good luck with that. This change is too broad, and One Nation is raising its concerns now so that these issues can be monitored in future.
To summarise, the government would be better off going back to the drawing board on this con hiding behind the label ‘Treasury laws’.
The ATO has been criticised for garnishing alleged tax debts especially from small businesses even while they are still contested.
When you’re a small business, every dollar of cashflow matters and suddenly finding thousands or tens of thousands of dollars missing from your business account can kill your operation. I questioned the ATO about this and also the enforcement of FATCA, a taxation data sharing agreement with the United States.
Transcript
Senator Roberts
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. On a number of occasions, the ATO has been asked if it can provide a breakup of small-business tax debt into principal, interest, and penalty. The ADA’s consistent reply is that this breakup cannot be supplied. Is that still the case?
I’m Melinda Smith, Chief Service Delivery Officer. We, in the near future, we will be able to provide more detail around the construct of the debts. We, last year, changed our core operating system across to a system called ASFP. And part of the benefit of that was it gives us these flexibilities to be able to report. For our collection activities, that’s not information that is as critical to us as other information. So it hasn’t been a priority to be able to produce this immediately, but we are working on that. And I have Vivek Chaudhary, who is our Head of Debt, who might be able to give us a little bit more detail, he’s just teleconferencing in from lockdown. We might need to just unmute the cameras.
Mr. Chaudhary, can you hear us?
I can hear you very well, can you hear me?
Yes, no. We can hear you now, go ahead.
Thank you, Senator. Vivek Chaudhary, Deputy Commissioner of Debt and Lodgement. I am able to share with you that for month ending April 2021 the primary tax for all small business tax debt was 81.7%. A further 15.6% makes up interest, general interest primarily, but also short fall interest, and a small proportion, nearly 2% plus some decimal points, off penalties.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. So that’ll be regularly available in future?
Our plan is yes to provide that information in future.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Commissioner, are you familiar with the ATO’s failed leave to appeal to the High Court on the gold refining case known as ACN 154 520 199 Proprietary Limited in Liquidation versus Commissioner of Taxation?
Yes, I am and I’ll ask my colleague, who is Acting Second Commissioner, Law Design and Practise.
[Malcolm Roberts] So my question specifically on that is, some have said that the ATO’s appeal was a request to enable the ATO to rely on, effectively, email gossip to justify the raising of a tax debt; would the Commissioner view this as a correct interpretation or if not, what is your view?
This is Kirsten Fish, Acting Second Commissioner for Law Design and Practise, Australian Taxation Office. No, we wouldn’t agree with that characterisation. The litigation has been ongoing for quite some time. There was an AAT hearing followed by an appeal to the full federal court. On appeal to the full federal court, the Court found that there was procedural unfairness in the way the AAT had taken into account the evidence presented before the AAT, informing its conclusions on the anti-avoidance rules. The Commissioner’s appeal to the High Court was, well, application for special leave to appeal to the High Court, was in relation to that aspect, and whether there was a procedural unfairness in the way the AAT had approached the case. And whether, if there was, whether that impacted the outcome. So, the Commissioner’s application for special leave related to the way that the AAT conducts, takes into account evidence before it, and approaches its consideration of the issues. It was a matter of legal principle that we applied for special leave. Now, of course, having special leave refused, the matter will be returned to the AAT to be reheard. Again, by a freshly constituted tribunal, to determine whether the anti-avoidance rules apply or not. And that reconstituted AAT will, of course, take into account the evidence put before it.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. In light of Minister Stuart Robert’s statement on Thursday the 13th of May, two days after the budget was delivered, what actions have you taken as the Commissioner, or within the ATO, to implement this government policy that small business will not be penalised until adjudicated on?
So, I can’t comment on announced but un-enacted measures. So, the announcement that you’re talking about was part of the budget measures to give the AAT powers to effectively grant a stay if the Commissioner is taking debt enforcement action while a matter is before the AAT. I can’t comment on the actual measure itself because it’s not yet law. But of course, in practise, we are very conscious And there are very few instances where we take stronger action in terms of garnishees, where a matter is in dispute. So, taxpayers have a lot of opportunities and we, it’s a part of our legal system, that if you disagree with the Commissioner, you have the opportunity to first object and then have your matter heard before the AAT. Where we have a genuine dispute we, in general, will pause debt collection activity, and we’ll only pursue debt collection activity where we see risk of dissipation of assets, or there’s fraud, or evasion, in the small market.
[Malcolm Roberts] It makes it difficult when the system allows the assessor to be the reviewer. And, as I understand it, that is the case within the ATO. And, also, there is enormous power within the ATO, and small businesses have been hurt by this, as I understand it.
Well, of course, in Australia we have multiple layers of review, and we’ve got a very strong independent review of our decisions in the form of the AAT. The AAT is constituted by some federal court judges, and other members of the profession. They are appointed by the Governor General, they are statutory appointments to the AAT. The AAT is completely independent of the tax office and provides a review of our decisions, and will determine, stand in the shoes of the Commissioner, and redetermine the matter. In addition to that completely independent review of our decisions, we have multiple layers of review available within the office. There’s a statutory right of review in terms of objection. And we also now have a small business independent review, conducted before assessment, which happens both independent review and pre-assessment, and objection post-assessment, happen in a completely separate part of the office to where the audits are undertaken. So in my area, in Law Design and Practise, we conduct that independent review, whereas under a Second Commissioner Jeremy Hirschhorn, that’s where we conduct the audit activity that creates assessments.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, Let’s move to something that’s out of your control, to some extent, and that, well, to the ATO, that’s FATCA; the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. And I understand it’s a difficult issue. And I can see the smile on your face. It’s, you must be tearing your hair out. FATCA, for those who don’t know, is a U.S. law requiring banks around the world to report accounts held by U.S. citizens, who are residents in other countries, including dual citizens. Despite FATCA’s significant and capricious impacts, and they’re truly horrendous on people in this country and around the world, why did Treasury or the ATO decide that individual deposit account holders were not significant stakeholders when preparing the post-implementation review of FATCA?
Senator, Jeremy Hirschhorn Second Commissioner, Client Engagement Group. Senator, in terms of the post implementation review, are you referring? Sorry, I’m afraid I’m not aware of the review.
[Malcolm Roberts] Apparently there is a review of FATCA and you have to make a report on deposit account holders and you have to send that report to significant stakeholders. But, apparently, deposit account holders were not considered significant stakeholders.
[Hirschhorn] I might pass my question…
[Mrakovic] Senator, I think that that issue probably falls with us, but I’ll have to take it on notice.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. And I appreciate the complexity, so. It’s a difficult, and you’re caught in the middle.
Senator, I know that you know, and you’ve just pointed out that FATCA is a unilateral measure. It is a decision by the U.S. to basically expect information. And to some extent, to some extent, we try to basically work with other countries in terms of, obviously, exchange of information. But we are very conscious of the fact that there are certain entities and certain, basically at the end of the day, the regulatory and tax framework in one country is different from another. And a lot of this sometimes involves trying to work with the two. But let me take the specific question on notice, so that we can give you the best answer we can provide.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. It boils down, ultimately, I can’t read your name, Ms Mackenzie, is it?
Mrakovic.
[Malcolm Roberts] Mrakovic, it boils down ultimately to the US blackmailing. So, I’m working within that, that confine. While account holders are notified by their banks that their data will be sent to the ATO, pursuant to the FATCA agreement, neither the bank nor the ATO is required to notify the account holder of the actual data sent to the Internal Revenue Service in America under the FATCA agreement. Would it be possible for the ATO to provide this information automatically through the ATO MyGov portal in the same way that interest and dividend income is reported to recipients?
So, Senator, the information that we provide to the U.S. is a standard set of information that’s around account information. Often there will be an overlap with the information which we already have in our, in people’s pre-fill. So, generally, it will be things like bank interest, which we already pre-fill for people. I would say we have not considered whether there is some sort of separate reporting to individuals of reported data. We’d have to, we’d have to think about that.
[Malcolm Roberts] Would you be willing to listen to some of the people being affected?
So I think we’re, we’re very happy to speak to affected people.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’d be good because they’re very concerned about inaccuracies. They’re not accusing the ATO of any malfeasance, but they’re very concerned, because it impacts them. And I know from context myself, that entails a hell of a lot of money in accounting fees, legal fees, because the IRS is just unaccountable. It’s just the law unto itself. And that puts our citizens in the middle of that firing line.
And Senator, what I would say is if there is an individual who is worried about the quality of the data that has been provided, in the absence of a system based solution, which we would have to really take on notice and think seriously about, individuals should not be afraid to contact the office and we will see what information we can provide them.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you, that’s very good. Because of the almost unique US, it’s almost unique, I think there’s one other country, with practising citizenship-based taxation, FATCA reporting includes reporting on the Australian income of Australian residents which is taxable in Australia, and for which the US must grant a foreign income tax offset, foreign tax credit in American terminology. This is not income that is being hidden from the US tax authorities. Has the ATO expressed to their US counterparts their support of a same country exception to FATCA as recommended by the US taxpayer advocate?
[Mrakovic] We’ll take that on notice.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. FATCA has some exemptions to reporting that are not included in the similar Common Reporting Standard, CRS. Under FATCA, accounts under $50,000, US dollars, and accounts held at local client-based banks, are exempt from being reported to the IRS. How is the ATO ensuring that these exemptions are being honoured and that data is not being over-reported to the IRS? Because, as I said, slightest mistakes cause Australian citizens, dual citizens, Americans resident in Australia, enormous grief with the IRS, and they’re innocent. The IRS is not innocent, the Australians are innocent.
So, Senator, I will take details of that on notice, but our reporting is, we are very aware of those rules, those exemptions from FATCA. I’ll take on notice, but I would hope to be able to provide comfort to you, Senator, that we do not report unnecessary accounts.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.
[Chair] Last couple of questions Senator Roberts.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, I’ve got two more. Thanks Chair. Will a Privacy Impact Assessment be conducted with regard to FATCA reporting?
[Mrakovic] Senator we will take that on notice?
[Reinhardt] No, I can.
[Mrakovic] Oh, you can?
Sam Reinhardt, First Assistant Secretary for Corporate and International Tax. So privacy, as part of the original RIS that was undertaken for the 2000, 2014 legislation, privacy issues were considered as part of that. And, in the regional legislation, the RIS Explains that and outline what was done in that, in that effect. And that was that the privacy concerns were addressed by creating a domestic regulatory environment. Now I understand, Senator, you’ve raised some issues that the ATO and Treasury have undertaken to get back to you on that, in relation to the current application.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, so, they’ve been sent? Because we received a whole flurry of questions, responses to questions on notice, at the end of last week.
So I think the responses to the question on notice, as you say, have been provided. The RIS a publicly available document and that outlines the privacy issues that were addressed as part of the original legislation.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you. What work has been done to verify that FATCA reporting is proportionate, and maybe the Minister can comment on this, is proportionate to the benefits of reporting to the respective governments of Australia and to the United States? I’m thinking of sovereignty issues. The fact that shareholders of banks will lose, because as I understand it, if we don’t bend to the US blackmail, then our banks can be taxed at 30%, was it? So that, that’s essentially blackmail. How much has FATCA increased tax revenues and or decreased tax evasion? And how much has the collection of FATCA data increased the risk of data breaches and or identity theft directed at account holders? These are significant issues affecting our citizens.
Senator, there’s some factual questions you asked towards the end of that, which of us officials have info?
[Mrakovic] So Senator, I’m going to take all of those questions on notice, because we’ll see where we can provide you with information. I just note that some of the questions that you are asking go to cost benefit analysis across two countries, kind of thing. And it will be very difficult for us to obviously provide substantive detail on that. But we’re happy to go away and see what information we can provide.
[Chair] Senator Roberts, we are gonna have to leave…
And more generally, Senator, I will take the more generalist question you asked on notice for any observations that the Treasurer may wish to make himself there.
[Malcolm Roberts] There are sovereignty issues. I’m going to have to finish up. There are sovereignty issues, there’s the cost to Australian taxpayers who are now paying pensions to people who’ve been overtaxed in United States. Questions of unfairness. And other countries are now starting to stand up to this and start fighting it.
