HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-11-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Budget Measures Bill 2017

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of message No. 295 from the House of Assembly.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

That the council do not insist on its suggested amendments.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party's position is and has been quite clear. We have not changed our position in relation to the Budget Measures Bill. This is not just the bank tax, this is the Budget Measures Bill. The Liberal Party's position in relation to the bank tax element of this is that it is a bad tax, it is a tax on jobs and investment, it is a tax on economic growth in South Australia and, in our view, the only people in the state who believe the story that banks would pay it and nobody else would—that is, families and businesses would not pay the $100 million bank tax—are the Premier and the Treasurer.

Unsurprisingly, given the position that we have expressed on a number of occasions, we continue our very strong opposition to the bank tax. However, this bill is the Budget Measures Bill: it is not just the bank tax bill. It includes a number of other elements, the three significant elements being the payroll tax concessions, the stamp duty and other concessions in terms of off-the-plan apartments, and it also imposes a foreign investor tax, which has been imposed in most other jurisdictions or is in the process of being imposed in most other jurisdictions in the nation.

I think it is important to remember and note that this is not just a bank tax bill as it does include a number of other elements. The government has been out there criticising those who have opposed the bank tax element of the bill by saying that in so doing we are voting against payroll tax concessions for thousands of small businesses, voting against stamp duty concessions and other financial incentives for purchases of off-the-plan apartments in particular. As we have indicated publicly, that is not our position. We are prepared to support a Budget Measures Bill. We are prepared to support a Budget Measures Bill minus the bank tax element of it.

Our position on this particular vote will be that the Legislative Council insists on its position and we will then move that there be, in the normal course of events, a motion to establish a conference of managers between the houses so that ultimately the decision that has to be taken by the government in the House of Assembly will be whether or not they are prepared to go to a conference of managers to see whether or not the payroll tax provisions, the stamp duty and other financial incentives for off-the-plan apartments and, indeed, also the foreign investor tax elements of the Budget Measures Bill will continue or not in the absence of a bank tax, or the government can make the decision in the House of Assembly, if they so choose, to lay the bill aside.

Given that this has been a fast moving series of events this morning, I want to make it clear that in the event that the Legislative Council votes to insist on its position, or its amendments, there will then be a subsequent motion moved by me in the absence of a motion moved by anybody else, to establish a conference of managers in the normal course of events.

My suggestion to those who have supported the government's position in relation to the Budget Measures Bill—that is, for example, the Greens and the Hon. Kelly Vincent of the Dignity Party—who have essentially, for a variety of reasons, indicated that they supported the whole of the Budget Measures Bill and the government's entitlement to that being passed, is that, in that event, it would be entirely consistent with that position to adopt a normal course of action that would ensure that the final decision on this rest with the House of Assembly as the originating house for the Budget Measures Bill, to decide whether or not they wish to proceed with the remainder of the Budget Measures Bill through a process of going to the conference of managers and reaching some agreement in the conference of managers.

It would have a similar potential outcome to the car park tax debate of about three years ago, except the proposed course of action to resolve the difference of opinion between the houses would be in a conference of managers rather than the government in the House of Assembly agreeing to suggested amendments of the Legislative Council.

Our position remains steadfast and clear: we will vote to insist on our amendments in the first instance. As I said, for the reasons which I will further expand on when I move the second motion in the event that the Legislative Council insists on its amendments, we will be moving for a conference of managers and for ultimately the decision to be taken by the originating house in relation to the Budget Measures Bill, which is the House of Assembly. Ultimately, that means the government can make a decision as to whether or not it wants to lay the bill aside or whether it is prepared to follow the usual process of trying to resolve a difference of opinion between the houses.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I indicate that, once we have this vote—and I think we all know how the vote will look; it will look like it looked last time (I think everyone is on the record restating their positions from last time)—it is likely to be an 11-10 vote for the council insisting on its suggested amendments. That occurring, the Premier has stated that that is the end of the bank tax. It will not be pursued. It will not be taken to an election. That budget measure is finished.

Given that, there is absolutely no point whatsoever in a deadlock conference. A deadlock conference is designed for when there is a possibility of something changing for legislation to pass. There is no possibility of something changing. I do not think there is any possibility of any single member here changing their view or their vote. Given that, I will be moving, after the vote on the suggested amendment, that the bill be laid aside. The Premier has stated that the government will now go back and reconsider budget measures.

It would be a complete and utter break with every convention, every single way a budget has ever been framed, to go to a deadlock conference and for a budget to be negotiated by a committee of the parliament. It is the case that the government of the day crafts a budget. To suggest that a committee of the parliament take that out of the government's hands and craft a budget would not just be a break from tradition about passing a budget, it would be a complete and utter change from a century of how budgets are crafted. This would be something completely new, completely different probably from any time a budget has ever been formulated in this state.

We will have this vote and then the government will be moving to lay the bill aside. I have given assurances to other members, and I will repeat for Hansard, that if the vote goes down, as it is expected to do in a moment, the budget levy is then dead. The government will not keep pursuing it and the government will not be taking it to an election.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If that is the will of this chamber, the government will then go back and have a look at budget measures, have a look at how the budget is reframed and recrafted, but it is abundantly clear, if that is the will of this house, that there is no prospect of anyone changing their mind.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens' position on the bank tax has not changed. We believe the banks can afford to pay a sensible contribution, a reasonable contribution. We want them to pay, we ask them to pay, and we support the provision which makes them pay. The banks have implicit guarantees from the Australian community: they are too big to fail, we prop them up, we cannot live our lives without them, and that is a two-way street. They need to contribute back to society. We want them to pay.

Australian banks are the most profitable banks on the planet. The National Australia Bank announced—in the same week that the upper house of this parliament was rejecting the bank tax—$5.3 billion profit and 6,000 jobs to go, and these people are complaining about a very modest impost that would raise much-needed revenue for the state and would hardly dent the bottom line of the banks at all. So, our position has not changed.

In relation to what now appears to be a game of chicken between the government and the opposition about how to proceed with this, the opposition's position is that they think this should be a lower house problem, which is why they suggest a conference—a deadlock conference—of managers. The minister quite rightly says, 'What's a deadlock conference going to achieve, because nobody has changed their mind?'

My view on this is that the Legislative Council needs to own the consequences of its decision to effectively block a major revenue item. We think the government should have the right to go back to the drawing board and recraft their budget measures. They can look at revenue items and at spending items, but to have this bogged down in a conference of managers that will achieve nothing is the wrong outcome.

Whilst I am supportive of the tax and other measures that are in the budget bill, I do not think the Liberal approach makes sense. There is no prospect of a deadlock conference achieving anything. I think that laying the bill aside and giving the government time to come back with something in the final sitting week is the best we can hope for, so we will be supporting the government's position.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: On the bank tax, Australian Conservatives have not changed. We led the call for the bank tax to be dropped because it is bad for South Australia. It is making us a laughing stock interstate and, I might say, internationally. That is from commentators and business people that I have scoped widely. There has been no guarantee at all that this money, this growth tax, will not hurt every mum and dad, every pensioner, every farmer, every family and every business in this state. The government has not been able to guarantee that, and therefore we will not be changing our position of opposing the one element that is a bad tax for South Australia and a broken promise by the government, which said that there would be no new taxes. So, I make that clear.

The Leader of Government Business and the honourable minister for business and a range of other portfolios has clearly said to this chamber today that the government now want to lay the budget aside. That is their call; they are the government. They want to lay the budget aside and have a look at other measures that they may be able to consider or implement, or tweak their budget or do whatever they want to with their budget. From Australian Conservatives' point of view, that is the prerogative of the government of the day. We never have and we never will attempt to block a budget bill, and I make it clear that we are not blocking the budget bill—it is simply one element.

The government has now accepted that that element is untenable, and so they are saying that they want to lay their budget aside at this point and rework it, effectively, so that they can see how they can come up with measures differently. We think that is fair and reasonable; that is the call of the government of the day. Therefore, whilst we absolutely and fundamentally will not waver from the bank tax itself, as one element, we accept the government's call that the government put this aside. That is their call, not ours.

We have never asked them to put it aside; we have never, ever said anything about the rest of the budget. We have actually supported all of the rest of the budget, and I have made that very clear, as has my colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood. If the government want to lay their budget aside and rework it, that is the prerogative of the government of the day. That is our position, right now, for this house.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I have not changed my view. I have said from day one that the bank tax was a bad idea and that I do not support it, and I will be insisting on the amendments suggested by the Legislative Council.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise to add some observations. Obviously, the Greens continue to support a bank tax; we believe the banks can afford it. It is quite a miniscule tax when you compare it—in fact, SACOSS observed that the CEOs' salaries of the five top banks actually amount to half of what this would raise in a year. So, five salaries, double that, this is the tax we are requiring them to pay—put that in context.

We have seen an unprecedented campaign, akin to that which was mounted about the mining tax at a federal level. We have seen the Australian Bankers Association go to war over this tax. We have been told by the Australian Bankers Association that it is an unpopular tax. We have seen poll after poll—the poll that decided that Nick Xenophon, former senator, would be the most popular premier. What we have not seen from the Australian Bankers Association is the questions asked to get those answers. If you look at their website, the questions are not provided.

Mark Henley from Uniting Communities has asked several times for the original questions to be provided. If the banking association is ringing up people and saying, 'A bank tax is bad for jobs—do you support a bank tax?', you will get a certain answer. But is a bank tax really bad for jobs? Is a bank tax actually bad for this state? The Greens say, 'No, a bank tax is good for this state.' It is a miniscule amount being required from people who are in a very privileged position. We do support the banks in this country in a way they do not enjoy around the world. It is why we avoided some of the global financial crisis impacts, and it is time for them to pay their fair share.

I am not scared of the Australian Bankers Association campaign, and I will tell you why: because I have just reviewed my emails. We have seen an unprecedented advertising campaign. There have been TV ads, there have been full page ads in our newspaper day after day, there have been press releases, there have been surveys, there have been, probably, push polls, one assumes, to get out these stories.

I have received a total of 33 emails. I go through these emails, and it is quite interesting. They start back in September and they conclude just in this last week. The ones in the last week I have to share with you—they are the most interesting of all. If we take some of those emails, the 33 I have received, one is from Stephanie Arena from bankers.asn.au. She is the director of media for this campaign that the Australian Bankers Association is running.

Another is from Paolo, who works at banksa.com.au; another is from Lynn, who works at nab.com.au; another is from Rob, who works at banksa.com.au; another is from Tania, who works at banksa.com.au; another is from Matthew, who works at banksa.com.au; another is from Olivia, who works at banksa.com.au (according to their email addresses); and another is from Debbie, who works at the NAB.

Most of these emails came through in lots of three, four and five, so it does look a lot bigger than it is, but if you take them apart, 33 emails, and we have just seen that those ones are from bank employees. I have one here from Terry Melburnian. I cannot find a Terry Melburnian in existence, but he sent me a few. At first he has called his email address terry@exanple.com, but then he has corrected it and changed it to terry@example.com: Terry clearly giving some directions to the staff of the banks.

Then, I think some banking staff have got a little bit bolshie. They have been directed to send us emails, but they have not been terribly supportive of what the banks are asking them to do. This is where, unfortunately, it gets a little bit graphic and I might have to leave out some words. We have one from [expletive] Morris, whose email address is [expletive]@[expletive].com.au. We have another from My cats [expletive] is now prime minister, [expletive]@cat.com.au. We have another from Never [expletive] in a toaster, [expletive]@toaster.com.au.

We have one titled, 'My cat's breath smells like cat food'—this person is clearly a Simpsons fan—at banksare[expletive]bags@unfunnycampaign.com.au. We have one from thebanksare[expletive]wits@allbanks@[expletive]wits.com.au, and we have one from eat[expletive]banks@[expletive]banks.com.au. This week, the one I found the most amusing, which made it very clear that they were not on their side, was from bankywankywillyweepoobumbugger@autogeneratedbybanks@[expletive]knuckle.com.au.

When you add that up I think I have about four or five emails. Nice campaign, banks. How many thousands or tens of thousands of dollars have you put into this to get what appears to be less than what I can count on one hand of real emails, real passion from people who believe the banking campaign? The Greens do not believe this campaign. The Greens will not fall for this campaign. The Greens will fight for a fair taxation system.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not want to prolong the debate but I have two quick points to make in response to the point the Leader of the Government made. First, just to be clear in terms of the motion relating to the conference of managers, the mere fact that the Legislative Council might pass a motion requesting a conference of managers does not mean that a conference of managers will be established. If the government in the House of Assembly maintains its position they will reject the proposal for a conference of managers and will lay the bill aside in that place.

So, I think it is important to recognise that if a motion for a conference of managers is passed in this council, the final decision on a conference of managers or on laying the bill aside in the House of Assembly would occur in the House of Assembly. Given the government's current position, if that motion is passed that may well be a decision the House of Assembly takes some time later today.

The second point I want to make is in response to what the leader said, that nobody's position has changed. The reality is that the government's position has changed; the government just announced, at 11 o'clock today, that their position has changed, that is, they are not going to pursue the bank tax at this particular stage. I have to say that I do not believe the Premier, the Treasurer or the Leader of the Government that this is the end of the bank tax. If the Labor government is re-elected they would dust off the bank tax and seek to reintroduce it, if they can get support in both houses.

That will be a decision that a future Labor government, if re-elected, will take, make no mistake about that. The mere fact that the Premier and the Treasurer say it is dead and dead for all time is just a statement of their current position. I, and many other South Australians, do not believe them in relation to that.

My point is that the government is saying that nothing has changed, but it has changed, the government now says that the bank tax will not be part of the budget measures. They still say they support the payroll tax element, they still say they support the off-the-plan apartment concessions, and they still say they support the foreign investor tax. If the government's position has changed, and changed significantly, that they are not going to pursue the bank tax but they support the other elements, then the logical course of action is for a conference of managers to adopt the government's position that the bank tax is not being pursued but the government wants to pursue the payroll tax, the off-the-plan apartment concessions and the foreign investor tax. The process for doing that is to do what the Legislative Council has suggested—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Leader of the Government will please desist.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The CHAIR: The Leader of the Opposition will desist. The Hon. Mr Lucas has the floor.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Contrary to what they are saying, that nothing has changed, clearly something has changed, the government has changed its position. The logical position, given that the government is now saying it does not want the bank tax—it is not going to support the bank tax any more, it recognises the reality of the situation, and it also says that it wants all the other elements of the Budget Measures Bill—is that it can do exactly as occurred in relation to the car park tax budget measures bill of three years ago: it can pass everything else and adopt its new position in relation to recognising the reality that the bank tax is not capable of being supported in the Legislative Council. For those reasons, I reaffirm our position that we will be insisting on the Legislative Council amendments.

The PRESIDENT: I will put the motion in the positive, that the committee insists on its suggested amendments.

The committee divided on the motion:

Ayes 11

Noes 10

Majority 1

AYES
Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. (teller) McLachlan, A.L. Ridgway, D.W.
Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
NOES
Franks, T.A. Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Malinauskas, P. Ngo, T.T. Parnell, M.C.
Vincent, K.L.

Motion thus carried.

The PRESIDENT: As the council has insisted on its suggested amendments, it is for the council to determine whether it should request a conference or lay the bill aside.

Conference

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (12:09): I move:

That a message be sent to the House of Assembly requesting that a conference be granted to the council respecting the suggested amendments in the bill and that the House of Assembly be informed that, in the event of a conference being agreed to, the council will be represented at such conference by five managers and that the Hon. Andrew McLachlan, the Hon. Kyam Maher, the Hon. Tung Ngo, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and the mover be the managers of the conference on the part of the Legislative Council.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 9

Noes 12

Majority 3

AYES
Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. (teller) McLachlan, A.L.
Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
NOES
Brokenshire, R.L. Franks, T.A. Gago, G.E.
Gazzola, J.M. Hanson, J.E. Hood, D.G.E.
Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller) Malinauskas, P.
Ngo, T.T. Parnell, M.C. Vincent, K.L.

Motion thus negatived; bill laid aside.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT