Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I have just a brief contribution here, just to follow on from Senator Cormann's comments about the issue of grandstanding and wanting a headline. I just stumbled across an article from Michael West. Michael West says of Sam Dastyari:

… before he had a laugh and conceded the outcome was not too bad.

So here we have Senator Dastyari, who has wasted the Senate's time for three hours with grandstanding and with the rhetoric around Labor standing up for battlers, and Michael West says Senator Dastyari says the outcome was not too bad. What it reflects is that the debate we have had for the past three hours has been nothing more than hollow, empty gestures. The result was not too bad. So what has all this been about, Senator Dastyari? Why have we wasted the Senate's time with these outrageous accusations when in your heart of hearts you know the outcome is not a bad one? It is not a bad outcome. So here we have an article from Michael West, who says the outcome is not too bad. We actually think it is better than that. We think it is a terrific outcome, because Australians for the first time will see some tax transparency from 281 companies like Transfield, like Grocon and like the Labor Party's donors Inghams chicken, Pratt Holdings and Meriton.

It is disappointing that we come to the eleventh hour and Michael West bells the cat. All the huff and the bluster, and this is an outcome that is 'not too bad'. We think it is better than that, but what has all this been about? What has it all been about if the outcome, in your words, Senator Dastyari, is 'not too bad'? Again, what we have is 90 per cent of something versus 100 per cent of nothing. We prefer to roll our sleeves up and get outcomes for the community, and you prefer to shout from the sidelines.