Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Having listened to the debate this morning these are the critical issues. The parliament had notice of the ABIP bills. Clearly the parliament can deal with the political donations matter in the fortnight. It is a matter that needs to be resolved for transparency across government and for political parties. But I will reiterate the argument for the special purpose vehicle.

In essence, it is this: we are acting decisively in the face of the worst economic times we have seen in my lifetime. The global financial crisis is not the figment of the imagination the opposition think it is. There is a financial recession right across the world. The position we are now taking is that this government will do everything it possibly can to support jobs and businesses in the community. This vehicle will ensure that the commercial property sector, which employs 150,000 people, including plumbers, electricians and carpenters, is supported. The second part of it is that, without this action, a combination of weak demand and tight credit could see up to 50,000 people in this sector lose their jobs, according to Treasury figures, with flow-on effects on jobs and other parts of the economy. This government is taking decisive action to ensure that it supports jobs in the community.

The opposition, Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon are saying that they want more time. But this was a matter that was announced as early as 24 January and introduced into the House on 12 March. We are taking this action to ensure that the commercial property market continues to have the support of this government. What the opposition, Independent Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding are doing is ensuring that this bill will not be debated. We do not know the outcome of the debate. Senator Bob Brown has taken a responsible course of action in relation to this debate. He has indicated that he is prepared to have a debate, to move amendments and to see how this matter unfolds—which is what parliament is here for. The opposition do not have a position in respect of this matter and they are using a procedural device to continue to not have a position, because they do not know what their position is. Even if they did know what their position was, I am not sure they would have the support of all their people. If this matter is not debated this week, when they go back to their electorates they will have to explain to the commercial property market, to people in the community, to plumbers and electricians why they did not allow this bill to be debated to support jobs in the community.

As for the arguments about not being ready for the debate, it was put on the record that we would be debating this and we described what the bill was. It was not unknown. The workload during this sitting period is not unusual or out of kilter with other similar periods.

When in opposition it is usual, if a matter is stated by the government to be urgent, for an exemption from the cut-off to be given. It would be unusual for the opposition not to support it, unless they were playing politics or unless there were a clear reason they could articulate as to why it could not be proceeded with. This is not the case, because we have demonstrated that there is urgency about dealing with this legislation this sitting period. I have outlined the difficulties that we face across the community, particularly in the commercial property market. By effectively withdrawing your support for the exemption from the cut-off, you are ensuring that uncertainty in the commercial property market will continue.