Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Hansard source

has not been validated and why the government have put themselves into the untenable position of having to return those funds to the liquor industry. It seems as if that is what the government is intending to do. Does the government want that $300 million to go back to the liquor industry? What is the reason that the government is not supporting the Senate’s very sensible request to validate at least the revenue collected since this measure was first implemented?

I want to flag this, because I assume that this is all about the government’s tactic. This is all about putting maximum pressure on Senator Fielding: ‘Let’s try and run it as close as possible to the deadline. Let’s tell him there is $1.6 billion at play and put on the additional pressure that, if he doesn’t support this legislation, we’ll have to return $300 million to the liquor industry.’ Nobody wants that—Senator Fielding and Family First do not want that, the Greens do not want that and Senator Xenophon does not want that. I would like to think that that is not what the government wants, but by moving the motion that the government has moved today that is what could quite possibly happen, depending on what the decision of the Senate is today.

I want to flag that, as we are very constructive on this side of the chamber, we offer the government another solution should this legislation not be successful on the floor of the Senate today. We also put it to Senator Fielding and Family First, to Senator Xenophon and to the Greens that, if this legislation is not successful today, we still should make sure as a parliament and as a Senate that the $300 million of revenue raised so far does not have to be returned to the liquor industry.

I call on the government to, if this legislation is defeated, introduce legislation forthwith to validate the revenue collected from 27 April until the day of royal assent. If the government were to introduce legislation to validate the revenues collected so far, we would support it. There is no doubt that it would get up with the support of every senator in this chamber. But the government is running this very close to the wind. I am in no doubt that this is part of a strategy: ‘Let’s make sure that we have as little time as possible so that the stuff-ups we make can’t be fixed up.’ There is a very simple way that this could be addressed, and that is by the government changing its mind and agreeing to our request for an amendment on the revenue collected during the initial 12 months.

Can somebody from the government side please explain to me why they would not do that? Can somebody explain to me why the government would not want to validate the revenue collected so far? Can somebody tell me whether there is a reason other than to put maximum pressure on the Senate and maximum pressure on Senator Fielding? Senator Fielding has stuck to his guns all the way through. He has stood up for his principles. AMA President Rosanna Capolingua described his stance as ‘courageous’ on ABC radio this morning. It is a stance that does not suit the government, so, ‘Let’s just try and run the strategy on this legislation such that Senator Fielding feels under maximum pressure.’ It is absolutely reckless for the government not to support a request for an amendment which essentially validates the $300 million worth of revenue collected so far.

Senator McLucas, across the chamber—no doubt sending a message to the crossbenchers—was saying, ‘If this legislation doesn’t get up, the $50 million we put on the table yesterday is off the table.’ You know what? This Senate actually called on the government to spend all of the revenue collected so far—$300 million—on some genuine measures to address binge drinking. The Senate called on the government to invest the $300 million that has been collected so far in some genuine and effective measures against alcohol abuse and binge drinking. If the government were serious about binge drinking, if this were not just a tax grab, if the government actually wanted to do something effective about this, they would follow the lead of the Senate and they would invest all the money collected so far in some effective measures against binge drinking.

But what have we got? We have deals in the back rooms somewhere, we have bullying and we have had, essentially, the Senate being stuffed around for a week—putting it on, taking it off, putting it on and taking it off; ‘We might; we might not.’ This is not the way to run the government’s business. I make the substantive point again: the government is absolutely reckless in not agreeing to the request for amendments put forward by the Senate to validate the revenue collected so far. It is absolutely reckless. If the government is of a mind to take the Senate for granted—to take the view that, because of the pressure you are putting on the Senate, it is all going to sail through—then you are essentially putting yourself into a position where you take the risk that the $300 million that has been collected so far has not been validly collected by the government. It is an irresponsible course of action. I urge all senators in this chamber to vote against the motion put by the government.