James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm delighted to have an opportunity to contribute to this very important debate. Before I get to the substance of the government's program and the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, I want to take the time to respond to two things that Senator Bartlett said in his contribution to this debate. The first I'll deal with very briefly, because I'm sure, and I hope, it was just a throwaway political line designed to appeal to the conspiracy theorists among the Greens membership.

Senator Bartlett, while acknowledging there was some goodwill and some good reasons why people would support a policy like this, also said that he suspected that there was another reason why the government was proposing a policy like this—that it was because of the online comments on News Limited websites. It's a fairly extraordinary thing for a senator in this chamber to suggest that the federal government has a major policy for addressing disadvantage, substance abuse, domestic violence and other problems that is motivated or inspired by online comments on news websites. That is, seriously, just gutter politics. This serious issue requires a much greater and more serious engagement than that.

But, moving to the more substantive, philosophical issues that Senator Bartlett raised, I noted with interest that, while Senator Bartlett was speaking, Senator Leyonhjelm was in the chair. I assume that Senator Leyonhjelm has just gone to his office to get a membership form to deliver to Senator Bartlett, because many of the sentiments expressed by Senator Bartlett in his speech were very libertarian in nature. He used phrases like 'Big Brother' and 'authoritarian'. He said that it is better for people, rather than government, to have control over their own lives and that people know how to spend their own money better than the government does. These are the kinds of things you expect to hear at a Liberal Democratic Party preselection or branch meeting, not usually from a Greens senator.

Of course, the challenge would be to see whether Senator Bartlett holds these views consistently and whether he'd apply them to other areas of policy. If Senator Bartlett really does believe that people know how to spend their money better than the government does, why does he, and his party, advocate higher taxes—taking more money from people so that the government can spend it on their behalf? Why wouldn't he instead argue that the government should cut taxes and return money to people and allow them to spend it in their own best interests, as he says they're better able to do?

If he really believed that people are better at controlling their own lives than government is and that they should be allowed to run their own lives then why would he and his party support so many nanny-state, interventionist initiatives in the public health space? Whether it comes to smoking, drinking or eating fatty or sugary foods, the Greens party is a consistent source of more ideas to control people's lives more minutely. It seems the only area—