Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I just thought I should contradict the assertions made by Senator Brown. The simple fact is the Dynamic Red indicates to anybody that is interested and is following this debate that the actual question before the chair is the amendments in relation to reducing the tax bonus for working Australians from $950 to $900, $650 to $600 and $300 to $250. That is the question that is currently before the Senate.

As I understand it, and from my reading of what other senators are thinking, these amendments will go through the Senate. I have not, in fact, heard anybody during the committee stage on this actually attack this proposal and say that it is a bad proposal. As a result it made sense for that to be dealt with so we could then move back into a proper, structured, general debate which would assist Senator Pratt when she gives her 15-minute speech and Senator Milne, who had relevant questions, to get back to the general discussion.

We as an opposition have never sought to gag this debate. We believe that there should be an orderly debate, but what is now occurring is, in fact, high farce. Everybody, I think, knows that the government, the Greens and others need to buy time to get their amendments together. Why they do not just acknowledge that and move on to some other business so that when the amendments are ready they can bring back this legislation rather than go through this farce of 15-minute speeches I do not know. The minister is deliberately talking about the long-term version of UEFO and all sorts of other things to try and filibuster as much as possible. I think it brings the Senate into disrepute and that is why, when the discussion on a particular matter had finished, I thought it appropriate that that specific question be put.

The fact that senators want to continue that discussion was accepted, but then, with great respect to Senator Brown’s contribution, not a single word of what he said related to the amendment that is before the chair other than, of course, that he was going to spend this money in another area. But that is really a topic for when the Greens amendments or government amendments—whoever’s amendments they might be—come before us. I just wanted to clarify that we were the ones that wanted a committee and we were the ones that asserted that the legislation should not be passed by last Friday, and to try to suggest that we were gagging debate is, on the face of it, clearly unsustainable.