Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The recent Abbott government budget has sent Australians into a white-hot rage, and deservedly so. Not only is the budget an attack on Medicare, the pension, our higher education system, our schools, our hospitals, our public transport system, the ABC, the SBS and the family car; it is also a sneak attack, systematically breaking countless promises made by the Prime Minister during the last federal election. Many Australians are saying, 'I didn't vote for this and I don't want it.' Many Australians are justifiably asking how this could happen. Tony Abbott certainly has no mandate for the extreme measures he has sprung on Australians in this budget. How could a bait and switch of this magnitude occur in our democratic system of government?

A measure of the anger and the fear in the community that this government is going irrevocably change something fundamental about the kind of country that we live in is the number of letters and emails that Labor are currently receiving, calling on the ALP to 'block supply and force an election'. I understand the community's anger about this budget and I share Australians' fears about how the Abbott budget could change the kind of society that we live in, but I do not share the view that Labor should seek to block supply in response. Given that an Essential Research poll released today found that 47 per cent of respondents supported Labor 'blocking the budget and forcing a new election', I thought it was appropriate tonight to say why.

It is first necessary to make it clear that it is perfectly possible to oppose specific measures in the budget without blocking the passage of the appropriation bills, commonly referred to as the supply bills. Most of the policies announced in the federal budget are implemented through legislation introduced separately to the appropriation bills. This is true for the GP tax, the government's higher education changes, pension changes and petrol taxes. Bill Shorten has made it absolutely clear that Labor will fight on these measures and oppose their passage through the Senate. The opposition are able to do this without resorting to blocking supply. In contrast, the appropriation bills, or supply bills, are the bills that provide parliamentary approval for the expenditures proposed in the budget.

When introducing the federal budget, the Treasurer introduced three supply bills: (1) a bill to fund the 'ordinary annual services of government'—that is, the funds necessary to administer the government, including public servants' salaries for the next 12 months; (2) another bill to authorise funds for other purposes, including public works, grants to the states et cetera; and (3) a final bill to fund the running of the parliament itself. Section 53 of the Constitution provides that the Senate may not amend bills for the 'ordinary annual services of the government'. So the first of these bills are an all-or-nothing shot. The measures in the Abbott budget that deal with funding that forms part of the 'ordinary annual services of government', including cuts to the ABC, the SBS and the CSIRO are therefore not able to be opposed without refusing to fund all 'ordinary annual services'—that is, blocking supply. Unless they are passed by 1 July, the government will not have access to the funds necessary to operate government departments. While it is true that, unlike the United States, the majority of Australian public expenditures, including social security payments and Medicare payments are separately appropriated and would be unaffected by such action, this would still be an extreme and extraordinary step. It would be taking Australia down the path of Tea Party style politics.

The reason that the Labor Party will not consider blocking supply is because we have been on the wrong end of this antidemocratic act at many times in the past. State and federal Labor governments have frequently confronted conservative controlled upper houses that have either blocked or obstructed supply—for example, in Tasmania in 1925 and 1947, Victoria in 1947 and federally in 1974-75. We do not forget these antidemocratic acts and, as a matter of principle, we will not perpetuate them ourselves. These were dark days for our democracy. On this side of the House, we do not seek to emulate them.

However, in addition to principle, there are good pragmatic reasons for Labor to not block supply. Any opposition that use the Senate to block supply would be creating a noose for its own neck, should it ever form government and not control the upper house itself. Given the history of the composition of upper houses in this nation, this would be a foolhardy precedent for the Labor Party, indeed, to set. At times like this, it is worth reflecting on the importance of our democratic institutions.

Our democratic institutions are some of Australia's most valuable assets. I know Madam Speaker agrees with me on this point. They are worth more than all of the mineral wealth in Australia. As a democracy founded on the Westminster system, many of our democratic institutions are founded on unwritten conventions of behaviour. This means that these institutions are fragile. It also means that we, in this place, are their keepers. It is a serious responsibility. I welcome and share this community's anger at this federal budget. There is plenty to be angry about. But I do not support calls to block supply in response. Our democratic institutions are too important to trash for short-term political gain. Unfortunate though it may be, unseating the Abbott government should be a marathon not a sprint.