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

Although those bills will be dealt with together, we can vote on them separately. Clearly there is a difference about these matters and it is best that we have the debate as one debate. Then by leave, if leave is necessary, we can put each bill separately so that there is a true reflection of the intent of the Senate.

Leave granted.

by leave—I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:

Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009

Australian Business Investment Partnership (Consequential Amendment) Bill 2009

Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009.

In respect of the bills for which we seek exemption from the cut-off, the Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009 and related bill introduce measures to establish the Australian Business Investment Partnership Ltd, ABIP, and to create appropriations for the government’s investment in ABIP and the government guarantee on any additional debt-ABIP issues. The procedures that have been followed are that on 24 January 2009 the Prime Minister and the Treasurer announced the establishment of the Australian Business Investment Partnership. Building Australia’s Future announced the $4 billion Australian Business Investment Partnership to support Australian jobs. The media release also announced that ABIP would be operational by March 2009. Because of a range of circumstances, the government announced the matter and sought agreement that it be progressed by March 2009. To that end the drafting was undertaken and the bill was introduced into the House last week. We sought to have it introduced into the Senate this week, to be concluded this week also.

We see it as a necessary vehicle to provide certainty for the commercial property sector, which employs around 150,000 people. The vehicle will refinance otherwise financially viable commercial property assets for which refinancing from other commercial lenders cannot be obtained. The bills are critical and we require their passage this week. To that end, the government not only announced on 24 January 2009 that they would be dealt with in March 2009 but also, in programming of the Senate, advised the Senate as early as last week that these bills would be introduced in the second week—week 5. We then indicated to the opposition, to the minor parties and to the Independents the necessity that the bills be dealt with within the fortnight.

We now face an extraordinarily disappointing position. We signalled quite clearly our intention and sought agreement last week through a leaders and whips meeting that these bills be dealt with in this sitting fortnight. The bills are not only on the list but also on the short sheet. The government indicated back in January that it wanted the bills to be passed by March. Drafting instructions were then dealt with and the bills were introduced. We also signalled that the bills would be dealt with in this second week. We did that in two ways. First, we provided the opposition, the minor party and the two Independents an outline of what the bills would do. I can go to that in particular. On page 5 we indicated the bills would be introduced into the House of Representatives in week 4, which they were. The outline read that the bills ‘would establish the Australian Business Investment Partnership, a special purpose vehicle to provide liquidity support for viable commercial property projects where traditional financers withdrew from debt financing arrangements due to abnormal conditions in global capital markets’. We indicated that the bills could be debated for at least two or three hours. We also put them on the second sheet, indicating that we would seek to deal with the bills to finality in week 5.

Unfortunately, the opposition have, to all intents and purposes, reneged on what they had agreed to in dealing with the bills to finality. They are now seeking to use a device to not exempt the bills from the cut-off. It is a technical device. The usual rule is that bills are introduced in a sitting period and deferred to the next sitting period—unless an exemption from the cut-off is sought. The government flagged its intention right from the very start—without response from the opposition, the minor party or the two Independents—that the bills would be proceeded with during the fourth week to finality. The opposition provided no indication that they would object to the exemption of the bills from the cut-off and are now using the device of the exemption from the cut-off to not allow the bills to come forward for debate. We do not ask that you signal whether you intend to vote for or against the bills. We expect the bills to be dealt with to finality in this chamber and that you not prevent that by a procedural device because you do not want to deal with them at all. You are effectively hiding behind a procedural device to deal with the bills.

On the exemption from the cut-off, more broadly it is not unusual for the government to seek an exemption from the cut-off in respect of bills of this nature. There is a global financial crisis. There is a global recession. The government believes these bills are not only necessary but critical to support a range of jobs in the commercial property market. We have sought the agreeance of the opposition, the minor party and the two Independents to ensure that we can proceed with this legislation.

This debate is not about whether or not the opposition, the minor party or two Independents will support or oppose the legislation; that is a matter for them. This debate is to deal with the Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009 and the related bill. What the opposition are now effectively saying is that they want to hide behind a procedural debate so that the matter cannot be debated in this chamber—for no other reason, it appears, than they simply do not want to deal with it. They do not want to put themselves in a position of either supporting or not supporting the bills. They cannot hide behind that procedural device. Effectively, they are not agreeing to the bills being exempt from the cut-off but they are putting themselves in a position of saying, ‘We don’t agree with these bills.’ That is the position they are now adopting. We have certainly signalled our intention for these bills to come forward and be dealt with this week. Now, through a procedural device, they are denying the ability of the government to deal with its legislative program in the manner that it has signalled clearly to the opposition, the minor party and the two Independents. The opposition are now putting a position which they could have raised any time over the last week and a half. They could have indicated that they did not want to proceed with the bills, that they were going to oppose their exemption from the cut-off and that they were not going to deal with the bills to finality. They are now sitting on the fence in relation to these bills.

They are, as the government has indicated, bills that have passed the House of Representatives. It is a matter that we do want debated in this chamber during this period. It is not unusual for an exemption from the cut-off to be granted to critical bills of this nature. This chamber works through the general cooperation of the opposition, the minor party and the two Independents to ensure that the legislative program is dealt with. The program for this period is not heavy, if you look at the number of bills that we sought to address during it. We are now, unfortunately, burning time while the opposition utilise a procedural device to hide behind their inability to deal with the bills.

The bills will initially finance the government’s $2 billion and $0.5 billion from each of Australia’s four banks. This could be extended. They will provide support for over 150,000 jobs in the commercial property sector. The opposition are now completely in denial about the need for this legislation. The government are seeking to set up ABIP to support the commercial property sector and the jobs and the businesses that it supports should lenders withdraw their funding because of unrelated and uncontrollable fluctuations in global credit markets. The global credit conditions are likely to remain tight in 2009. Foreign banks play an important role in the Australian financial system, but the global economic conditions mean that some foreign banks may consider withdrawing funding from viable Australian businesses, creating a funding gap. These bills seek to ensure support for the commercial property market. The commercial property market plays an important role in the Australian economy in terms of businesses and employment opportunities during the development phase of projects and after they are completed.

It is extraordinarily disappointing from the government’s perspective that the opposition is using this procedural device not to allow these bills to come on for debate. Rather than hide behind a procedural device as the Liberals on the other side are doing, I urge the Independent senators and the Greens to support the bills’ exemption from the cut-off so that matters concerning them can be debated and argued in this chamber.