Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I can see that the minister is committed to keeping his promise arrogantly not to participate in this debate. He did interject during Senator Fisher’s comments, and very insightful and eloquent comments they were as well, representing very strongly the interests of people right across Australia who were affected by natural disasters. The minister interjected by saying, ‘How long do you want to keep this going?’ Minister, this can be resolved very quickly. It is very clear that the coalition—the Liberal Party and National Party senators—are opposed to this tax and we will vote against it. But, on behalf of people across Australia, we are asking some legitimate questions. What Senator Fisher has just done is read out to you a list of all the areas impacted by natural disasters that are attracting support from the Commonwealth. What you have decided to do as a government is to exempt people who were subject to flood events. According to the Prime Minister’s spokesman, you have decided to exempt people who were subject to bushfires in Western Australia, although you have not been prepared to confirm that on the record during the committee stage debate.

What about all these other people who have been impacted by natural disasters? Do we have to get a newspaper in each region in each state to ring the Prime Minister’s office so that that newspaper can get a change in policy on the run? Do we really have to get the Hobart Mercury to ring the Prime Minister’s office and ask what is going to happen to people in your home state of Tasmania who have been impacted by natural disasters and who are getting support from the Commonwealth but are being asked to pay the flood levy? Do we really have to get the Adelaide Advertiser to ring about people who were impacted in South Australia to the extent that the government is providing assistance through natural disaster relief funding and to ask about whether they are going to get an exemption so that we can get the Prime Minister to make a decision on the run? What is this process? Is the only way that we can get an appropriate decision in relation to exemptions from the flood tax for people who are hurting because they have been impacted by a natural disaster to get a journalist to ring the Prime Minister’s office? Why can a journalist get an answer from the Prime Minister when senators in this chamber cannot even get the courtesy of so much as a comment from the minister representing the government in this chamber when some very legitimate questions are raised?

Minister, there are serious questions here. We understand that you have expanded the exemption from the flood levy beyond those Australians who were subject to a flood event. On the basis of comments reported in the West Australian, it seems that it has been expanded to people who were the victims of bushfires in Western Australia in recent times, although you have not confirmed that on the record. I would like you to confirm it on the record during the committee stage debate. Secondly, why should all these other Australians who have been subject to natural disasters to the extent that they have received natural disaster relief funding from the Commonwealth not also be exempt? What is the difference between somebody who been subject to a natural disaster in Queensland or Western Australia and somebody who has been subject to a natural disaster elsewhere? What is the policy rationale for you to pick one and not the other?

Is the only rationale that there was the risk of a bad headline on the front page of the West Australian for the Prime Minister and, as such, she made a decision on the run to exempt the very good people in Kelmscott—who deserve the exemption—from the flood levy? So do we need to make sure that there is a risk of a bad headline in all these other parts of Australia before you do us the courtesy of entertaining their plight?

I do not think it is appropriate, Minister, for you to just sit back and ignore the people of Tasmania, the people of South Australia, the people of Western Australia, the people of Queensland and the people in other parts of Australia who have been impacted by natural disasters that do not fall within the narrow definition of an exemption that is currently on the Treasury website. Quite frankly, Minister, the least you should do is clarify the complete inconsistency between what the Prime Minister’s spokesman said to the West Australian and what is on the flood levy fact sheet that is currently on the Treasury website.

I say ‘currently’. It might well have been changed while we have been having this debate. It might well be that some good people in Treasury have been following what has been going on in here and they might have realised that there is an inconsistency and they might well have changed it. But as late as 11 o’clock this morning this was the advice on the Treasury website—that the only people who were going to be exempt were persons who had received an Australian government disaster recovery payment in relation to a flood event in 2010-11. The website said they would be exempt from the levy, whereas the Prime Minister’s spokesman said that the Prime Minister made the decision ‘last night’—that is, on 22 February—that Kelmscott bushfire victims would also not have to pay the national flood levy. Of course, she said that after the head of the Department of Finance and Deregulation said that they would have to pay the flood levy, that they were not going to be exempt. The spokesman for Ms Gillard said victims of this year’s WA bushfires would be exempted, and that was reported in the West Australian on 23 February 2011.

Minister, give us one objective reason as to why this is. I am very happy for the people of Kelmscott that they are appropriately being exempted, if that is what is going to happen. But I would like you to clarify the inconsistency between what is on the Treasury website and what the Prime Minister’s spokesman is quoted as saying. I want you to explain to the Senate why it is appropriate for those two categories of victims of natural disasters, both receiving natural disaster funding from the Commonwealth, to be exempted and for all the other Australians who have been subject to natural disasters and who are receiving Australian government disaster recovery payments not to be exempted. What makes all those other Australians less deserving of his exemption? That is a very simple question.

Minister, going back to your question about how long we want to keep this going, we will keep this going until you have provided a proper answer to this question, because people across Australia impacted by natural disasters deserve answers to this question. If you want to know how long we will keep it going, we will keep it going until you have given the courtesy to the Senate and the courtesy to the Australian people of providing an answer to a very legitimate public policy question that the Senate should get an answer to before we are asked to make a final decision on this legislation.