Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you to colleagues who have contributed to this debate on the amendment. I would like to single out the member for Wentworth. I, too, am a new member, and often people will stop us and say: 'Why do you fight all the time? Why do you disagree? Why do you just yell at each other?' You say, 'Whether it's in a committee or in motions like this, there are opportunities for us to show otherwise,' and this is an opportunity for the government to show otherwise.

We hear often, as a rhetorical device, that we don't want the Americanisation of Australian politics, or people will say, 'That's a Trumpian tactic that you're taking,' or use that as a pejorative. We see it again and again, and it's more often directed at this side of politics. If we're going to reflect on some of the things that are superior in our democracy compared to the United States' democracy, one is avoiding lumping things in omnibus bills. For anyone who's a student of the US Congress, quite often they will have acts that will have had more time spent on studying and writing the headline than they will for the content, many of which will go to thousands of pages. I urge anyone to look at the Inflation Reduction Act. It's a great title; we all think inflation should be reduced—in fact, some think it should be reduced more urgently than others. But, within that, there's an extraordinarily long list of other items that have nothing to do with the title. That's what the government has done here. They have lumped in some items that have broad support, that any reasonable person would agree need to be done, and then built in a legislative straw man.

We know that a strawman argument is a weak argument. It's an argument that seeks to misrepresent. It builds something up and says, 'Here are the things that reasonable people can agree on that are a part of this bill, and, therefore, in opposing this omnibus bill'—so you can single out the reasonable parts—'I'm going to tear you down for that.' I'm going to tear down the strawman argument.

Strawman arguments are tricks. They're dishonest. They seek to misrepresent what the actual debate is about. And it's not just a debating tool. I know the minister has a very distinguished record as a debater, and I admire his performances here, but, when we come to this place and we seek to practice our democracy, straw men should have no place in this building, in this room, because we should be as legislators able to focus on the specifics of the problem that we're trying to solve and actually address those, agree where we can and disagree where we don't. Again, this was well put by the member for Wentworth.

Credit to the Senate, as the Senate has sought to tear down your straw man. They've sought to pull it apart and say, 'Here are the reasonable bits that we can agree on.' You, the government, have said this is urgent, and the member for Casey quoted you. And again, with a great rhetorical flourish, the government came in here and pointed the finger at us and said, 'Are you really going to stand up and say that you disagree with these reasonable things?' No, we're not. We agree with you. We agree on the four parts which have been pulled apart from the straw man.

The one that has come up first is the small business redundancy exemption. This is really important, and it clearly is a loophole that needs to be addressed; we agree with the government. They said it was urgent and that it needs to be brought on. So the question is then put back on them: will you vote against this reasonable proposal? Will you vote against the very thing you said needs to be fixed and should be brought forward now?

We shouldn't have straw man arguments brought before this House. It is a feature of democracy in the United States, and I always think that Australian democracy is far better than any other on earth. So let's maintain the practice we have of having the description of the bill match the content of it and the problem we're trying to solve. This is certainly one of those opportunity.

See this speech in context