Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

The opposition supports this backflip from the minister. This schedule has been removed because the Labor Party referred this matter to a Senate committee. As outlined in my second reading speech, the Labor Party had real concerns that this measure would make it harder for Australian firms to raise finance for major projects overseas. Our concerns have been borne out by the Senate committee. In their submission the Australian Bankers Association said:

The ABA has grave concerns about the content of Schedule 2 of the Bill

…            …            …

For the future, the Bill will unreasonably impede access by borrowers to international debt markets ...

This supports concerns raised by me on behalf of the opposition when this bill was introduced by the minister. An inquiry was resisted by the minister. He came into the chamber and said: ‘The government cannot now agree to the referral of the bill at this late stage. The government does not want to deny business from accessing the benefits and it would not be in the best interests of the ALP to pursue their political agenda.’ But of course what the ALP had to do was step in and protect business from this minister’s incompetence. The ALP had to step in and protect business from this minister’s failure to consult.

We heard the minister again say today that there had been consultation. He again repeated that in the House. This minister has more front than Anthony Horderns. He has the gall to come in here and praise the government’s consultation process. He said in his second reading speech:

The government in fact consulted widely with a number of industry parties and stakeholders before the measure was introduced. The government also appointed an independent consultant.

He went on to say:

... this government is operating its consultative process as well as we ever have.

And he repeated that today. He has more front than Anthony Horderns. He has the gall to come in here and defend his consultation. Let us have a look at some of the submissions to the inquiry. Again, the Australian Bankers Association said:

The ABA notes that a breakdown occurred in the consultation process in relation to the proposed IWT amendments. The ABA lodged submissions with Treasury in June and December 2006, but was not engaged in formal consultation until after the introduction of the Bill on 7 December 2006.

The Asia Pacific Loan Market Association said in its submission:

Unfortunately the manner in which the Bill has been introduced has caused significant uncertainty and concern in finance markets.

Thanks to this minister’s incompetence. The Australian Financial Markets Association said in its submission:

We are unaware of a problem with the current definition of debenture for the purpose of s.128F, but if there is a concern in this area it should have been properly explored through consultation.

Clearly, the minister has misled this House. When he came in here to introduce the bill he arrogantly dismissed Labor’s concerns and said, ‘You don’t understand business; we’ve consulted.’ Who did they consult with? They certainly did not consult with the banks. They certainly did not consult with the finance markets. I would like to know who they actually spoke to, because all four submissions to the Senate inquiry say, ‘We weren’t consulted.’ So the minister has been wandering around consulting with somebody. Maybe he could enlighten the House as to who it was. It certainly was not with the people affected. It certainly was not with the people going out there raising finance for major Australian projects. It certainly was not with the people trying to attract foreign investment into Australia.

They come in here and they arrogantly say, ‘We’re the party that understands business’ when it is the Labor Party that has to step in and protect business from this minister’s incompetence, from this minister’s failure to consult with industry, from this minister’s complete ignorance of the banking industry, from this minister’s complete failure to talk to the financial markets industry about these concerns. He walks in here and says, ‘We’re not going to allow this to go to the Senate; you’re being irresponsible.’ But then the pressure is applied and he backflips once and sends it to the Senate. Then today he backflips and agrees to Labor’s amendments that schedule 2, which I said at the beginning, in the speech on the second reading, should be withdrawn, and he withdraws it. He should have done that on the day instead of grandstanding and now being forced into a backflip.

This raises a very important point. On Monday we saw the Assistant Treasurer backflip on non-forestry managed investment schemes. He said, ‘There’s been wide consultation.’ Again, the problem is that the consultation occurred after the decision. Can I give the Assistant Treasurer a little tip: consultation works best if it happens before the decision. That is how it works best: if it actually happens before the government makes a decision.

Twice in one week we have seen the Assistant Treasurer having to cover up his incompetence by doing a backflip. We welcome the backflip. We welcome the fact that he has at last come in here and accepted Labor’s position. He has finally accepted that the Labor Party were right all along. We stand ready to support a properly well thought out measure which has been consulted upon. We stand ready, as I said in the original speech on the second reading, to support the government if they come up with a proposal that protects government revenue in a sensible way which the industry has been consulted on and which can work. We will have a look at the detail when the Assistant Treasurer eventually brings this back into the House—whenever that may be—and we will support any sensible measures. (Time expired)

See this speech in context