Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann says that it did not do the Howard government any good and I agree with that. The fact is that we have two pieces of legislation here. I agree with Senator Faulkner’s argument on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009: it should be dealt with. In my view, for the cogent reasons that he gave, it should have been passed last week. It failed because of Senator Fielding’s vote joining that of the opposition and, very curiously, allowing the big donors to the political parties to have cover-up. That is what it comes down to. I think we should be dealing with that legislation. We have dealt with it once before, so there is hardly any argument that we need more time to consider it. If it is going to be reconsidered, let it be brought on for reconsideration.

When it comes to the Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009, the so-called Ruddbank legislation, it gets a whole lot more complicated. On the face of it, this is a $2 billion bill from the government, but it has contingent liabilities that could possibly extend closer to $30 billion if things went wrong. It is very worrying and troubling to the Greens. We have had a briefing from Treasury, which means being able to ask pertinent questions of Treasury. We remain concerned about it and look forward to the debate on the legislation. It has been very largely canvassed in the public arena.

The government, again, as with the stimulus bill, has put the argument that we are in very rocky financial times and there is some urgency to pass this legislation. It is impossible to know how well that argument applies to this piece of legislation. But if we are to prevent defaults on major developments—and that is the aim of the bill—putting the bill off runs the risk of failing to catch defaults that may be coming close at the moment. The Treasurer says that 50,000 jobs may be at stake. We know that that can only be a guesstimate. I have seen direct evidence that that is so, but how can you know before a corporation collapses? We see in an Australian newspaper today that a major building site in Brisbane is threatened if this legislation does not pass. Let us debate it.

The Greens will flag two major amendments which are to do with CEO salaries. We believe that if there are development corporations that are going to be advantaged by this legislation—that is, because the CEOs are unable to find finance and are going to rely on this public financing—then they ought to trim their own income to $1 million or less. If they are going to be leaving the corporation, their shareholders should be able to vet their so-called golden parachute to make sure that they are not taking large amounts of money out of a company that is obviously going to be in trouble and has become dependent upon taxpayers’ dollars.

We are very frustrated that Prime Minister Rudd has not acted on this matter. He should have and he should have done it long ago. The Prime Minister himself says that there are obscene payments going to some CEOs at the big end of town—most CEOs are fine about this—including CEOs who are sacking Australians. Equal Australians have no job at all and are out the back door while multimillion-dollar payouts are being taken by the people in the velvet chairs upstairs. That process should be regulated for when companies fall into hard times due to either mismanagement or financial circumstances they cannot control. Either way, they should be pulling their belts in like everybody else. If they will not do it, we should regulate to ensure that they do do it.

The Greens are very serious about the amendments to this legislation. If the vote is for delay—and we will vote for this legislation to be brought on because we are prepared for it—then we will be submitting these amendments for scrutiny by a committee if there is an inquiry established. That said, we support the government in this measure.

I have asked the opposition if they would produce guidelines for the exemption to the cut-off—in other words, guidelines to determine which bills ought to be not exempted when the government calls for their exemption. Where are the guidelines that will help the Senate understand when the opposition is going to refuse quick passage of a bill through the Senate? This is a very important matter. It cannot be selective. I suspect the opposition’s move today—and they will forgive me if I am wrong, I am sure—is highly politically motivated. That is not what we should be basing our judgment of whether a bill gets quick passage or not upon. It should be based upon the wellbeing of the Australian people. The outcome has to be the most important factor. Let us have a set of guidelines from the opposition that will make consistent their move to block the government exempting bills from the cut-off like this. I am happy to work with all parties in here in coming up with those guidelines.

As Senator Xenophon said, it was Senator Chamarette who introduced this rule. It is a good rule. It means that governments cannot simply expect the Senate to deal with legislation that has not been properly scrutinised. Let us move to the next stage of at least having some guiding rules which establish what it is that makes a piece of legislation so urgent that we should forgo the ability to have a committee, to have proper consideration or to have time to properly consult the sectors of the Australian community that might be affected.