Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:32): Before I move to address the substance of the motion, I want to take this opportunity to respond to some of the points raised by Senator Grogan. At the outset I should say I think it's a good thing that Senator Grogan is not supporting a super company profits tax; I think that's a responsible thing for a member of one of the two governing parties in this country to adopt. I commend her in relation to that. But there were two points I think I should rebut in my contribution to this place. The first is the statement that there is nothing to show in terms of the government debt that was incurred during the last term of parliament. The reality is—and the Australian public knows this all too well—that Australia faced the biggest pandemic crisis this nation has ever faced for decades and decades and decades. I'm sure Senator Grogan has met, as I have met, as all senators in this place have met, small businesses, large businesses and, most importantly, employees of those businesses who were kept employed because of the previous government's JobKeeper program. It was absolutely essential in terms of keeping the connection between those employees and their businesses. I'm proud that I served in a government that adopted that as a policy. So it is not correct to say that there was nothing to show for the debt. There were great things to show for the debt, including the fact this country achieved record levels of employment not seen for decades in the aftermath of the major impacts of the pandemic. The second point I wish to raise—this is a point I will be returning to constantly over this term of parliament—is this concept that there's all this low-hanging fruit waiting to be plucked in terms of addressing tax avoidance measures to be mobilised against international multinationals. This shows a lack of knowledge of the measures which have been taken by the Australian Taxation Office over a number of years. The ATO has brought a number of cases addressing this exact issue. All of the low-hanging fruit has been plucked. There is no more low-hanging fruit in this space. I suggest to Senator Grogan that she attends estimates, when, no doubt, Commissioner Jordan and his team from the ATO will be present, and they will advise you of the magnitude of tax which has been identified—in particular, potential future deductions for loan interest repayments that have been identified as not being legitimate. It runs into the billions of dollars. The ATO has already gone through, with a fine-toothed comb, the largest multinationals and largest companies in this country with respect to those exact issues which you legitimately refer to. But the concept that there's this magic money tree which you're going to be able to go to and pluck the dollars off in this regard is totally misconceived. People listening to this broadcast don't have to believe me; they can look at the results in the next three years. The low-hanging fruit in terms of international transfer pricing has all been picked from the trees. There is no more. I've got a great deal of confidence in the ATO and the work they've done in that regard. Senator Grogan also mentioned the OECD's project with respect to the minimum corporate tax rate of 15 per cent. She's right to refer to that. That's an appropriate segue for me to then move to the Greens supposedly fully funded and fully costed corporate super profits tax. I interjected, in a disorderly way, during Senator Waters's speech in relation to whether or not she would refer to the Parliamentary Budget Office costings. I note Senator Waters did not refer to the detail. I've got the detail here. In fact, I've got 500 pages of detail with respect to the costings of the Greens policies. I've got 500 pages of it, Senator Waters. I believe in truth in political advertising. It's something which I have advocated for over many, many years. In that respect, I believe that if, as the Greens policy says, something is fully costed and fully funded, you should be able to take that on face value and believe it. You should be able to take that on face value and believe that it is fully costed and fully funded. But the reality is that, when you look at the PBO's costings, that is not the case. This isn't my analysis, this isn't Senator Scarr's analysis—this is the PBO's analysis. Let's read what they say. This is in the PBO's summary on page 1 of the 2022 Elections commitment report of July 2022: The Greens' platform, if fully implemented, would be expected to result in larger deficits … So how do larger deficits equate to 'fully costed and fully funded'? Fully funded by debt? I don't think people reading the Greens policy statement would assume that, when they said 'fully funded', they actually meant 'fully funded by debt', but this is the result. The report states: … larger deficits in total over the same period, relative to the PEFO— the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook— reflecting higher levels of both receipts and payments as a share of GDP. The impact of the Greens' commitments on both receipts and payments are significantly higher than the other major parties. This is what the PBO says in their own costings. That does not equate to fully costed and fully funded. You shouldn't have higher deficits if it's fully funded. That's a simple proposition. You don't need a PhD in economics to work that out. Then you move to page 3 of the PBO's 2022 Election commitments report with respect to the Greens 'fully funded, fully costed' policies, and you see the result of the 'fully funded, fully costed' policies. What's it going to lead to? Table 1 on page 3 is headed 'Financial implications of election commitments by party, 2022-23 forward estimates underlying cash, headline cash and fiscal balance basis ($billion)'. Under the Greens, they all go backwards. Each one of them goes backwards. Senator Steele-John: Fully costed and fully funded! Senator SCARR: Greater deficits does not equal 'fully costed and fully funded'. No, Senator Steele-John, this is what the PBO is saying, not me. This is the PBO. In terms of the headline cash balance, this is what they say about the Australian Greens policies. The net impact of coalition election commitments is a positive $1.1 billion. The net impact of the Australian Labor Party's election commitments—headline cash balance—in that period, through the 2022-23 forward estimates, is negative $40.5 billion. The net impact of Greens election commitments is negative 112.1 billion Australian dollars—$112.1 billion! No wonder you didn't mention it, Senator Waters, in your contribution on this debate. That's out of the PBO's work, not mine. Let's see what the PBO says about the super profits proposition. I am pleased that those opposite in government are not supporting this resolution. These aren't my words; this is the PBO. I've read their work carefully; I have a lot of respect for the PBO and pay tribute to everyone working in the PBO. This is what they say: There is a very high degree of uncertainty associated with this costing. I used to be company secretary and general counsel of an ASX listed company. If I put something out into the market and said it was totally costed and fully funded—when you've got $112 billion of community deficits, you've got the PBO talking about a high degree of uncertainty, and there's no safety warning in terms of the Greens' policy document—ASIC would be all over me like a rash. That's why we need truth in political advertising. The PBO says there is a very high degree of uncertainty associated with this costing. Here's the other thing they say. This is a point which leads on to other observations: Super-profits tax paid would be reduced by 20% to account for an estimated behavioural response by companies … Because do you know what happens when you increase taxes? The people who are investing in capital in this country, which provides jobs to Australians and provides markets to small businesses all over this country, consider their options. They consider their options. Can I tell you that in my previous role in the mining industry, one of my roles was to look at different jurisdictions and whether or not our company should invest in them. One of the things we looked at was the corporate tax rate. Companies have options. They don't have to invest here. They can invest in other countries. Those in the Greens should consider—and I'm happy to lend it to them—what I'm going to quote from a book I've got, called Basic Economics. It's economics 101. I'll buy you all a copy. This is what it says: When tax rates are raised 10 percent, it may be assumed by some— namely the Greens— that tax revenues will also rise by 10 percent. But in fact more people may move out of a heavily taxed jurisdiction, or buy less of a heavily taxed commodity, so that the revenues received can be disappointingly far below what was estimated. Funny, that! People actually respond to higher tax rates. They'll invest in jurisdictions with lower tax rates. This has been the economic experience all over the world, from the United States to India to Iceland. I'll quote again from the text: In Iceland, as the corporate tax rate was gradually reduced from 45 percent to 18 percent between 1991 and 2001— I note the 18 per cent is higher than the OECD minimal amount which has been negotiated— tax revenues tripled. What happened to tax revenues? Did they fall? Did they fall proportionately when the tax rate went down from 45 per cent to 18 per cent? Is that what happened? No, they tripled. The tax revenues—which are paying for schools, for hospitals, for roads, for the mental health care which you talk about and which I care passionately about, and for dental care—tripled. The tax rates came down and the revenues tripled. That's the experience. That's basic economics—economics 101. There is a deeper issue here, and it is an issue for a centre-right party such as mine and, indeed, for the Australian Labor Party. The deeper issue is this. When we go to elections and the Greens falsely and fraudulently claim that their policies were fully funded and fully costed—when that isn't the case because, if it were the case, you wouldn't have increasing deficits—they are saying to voters at the polling booths: 'You will get free dental care. You will get free mental health care. You will get free child care.' And, on the face of it, this sounds good. It's very tempting, but there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The only question is: who pays? The introduction of a corporate super tax would drive investment offshore and drive jobs offshore, and people who were considering whether or not they should invest in Australia would take their money somewhere else, invest it there, and provide jobs and prosperity overseas. I believe that both my party and the Australian Labor Party need to shine a brighter light on the ridiculous, fanciful Greens policies and the potentially disastrous economic consequences for this country. The Greens policies are summarised as 'totally funded, totally costed'. Yet, when you look at the PBO, when you go to the source documents, there is $112 billion of additional debt— Senator Hughes: The flying unicorn! Senator SCARR: The flying unicorn! The fairies at the bottom of the garden! And the devastating impact that would have on the Australian economy needs to be considered by every single Australian who voted Greens at the last federal election.