Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I oppose this motion. We are dealing with very serious legislation that has the potential to cost the budget $158 billion over a decade. We are dealing with legislation that has several stages to it, some of which are opposed by some people, some of which are supported.

It is unprecedented to bring in such serious legislation on the first day of the parliament and demand that people vote on it now. We've asked to see a copy of the legislation so that we can consider it and consider whether to move amendments. We've been told by the Treasurer's office that they're not inclined to share it with us. Now, that's their prerogative; but what we should not then do is require people to vote on it within a period of an hour or so. It's something that could, potentially, cost the budget $158 billion. What is the impact of that on schools, on hospitals or on inequality in Australia?

There is no need to rush this. The government can bring it in, claim that they've got a mandate and so on. We can then go through the process of debating it, work out whether some stages are going to be supported or if some stages are going to be opposed, move amendments and do all of that in the ordinary course. We would have the chance to understand—in light of news from the Reserve Bank of Australia today, as we've heard, that does not send a great signal about the state of the Australian economy—what the effect would be of such a massive change to the tax system in this country, which has the potential to end progressive taxation.

If we're going to do that, at least give us the chance to debate it. There are members sitting here on the crossbench who have not even given their first speech, and now every one of us is being asked about this. It may come as a shock for the government to understand this, but this parliament is more than just the government and the opposition. In some places around this country, between one in four and one in five people don't want to vote for either of those two options. They should be given the chance to scrutinise such a significant piece of legislation.

So I oppose this. I'm not going to call a division, because it's clear that the Labor-Liberal stitch up is on to try to rush this through. But I oppose this. This is not how we should proceed on such a significant change to our tax system at a time when we know the government has said that the way they're going to fund some of this is by cutting the public sector. That's what this government is about; this government is about cutting taxes, which will mean cutting revenue and which will mean less money for services for the Australian people. And so that kind of legislation should not be rushed. In fact those elements of it that are going to see the top one per cent and the top 10 per cent get a windfall from this legislation should be fought tooth and nail, not given a quick rush through this place.

Question agreed to.

See this speech in context