Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Crossin today relating to the budget surplus.

Today we have seen in the Senate, both this morning and now at question time, the government seeking to dissemble in relation to the issue of referring matters to Senate committees. Whilst this coalition had a very proud record of sending over 100 bills to Senate committees whilst we had the numbers in the Senate and in government, those opposite said that we were abusing the Senate, that we were not referring enough bills to Senate committees. That figure of 100 in our last year of government was the highest ever referral in the Senate’s history. Today, when Labor are in government, we have witnessed the fact that the crocodile tears that they shed in opposition were just that—crocodile tears. They were not genuine, they were not sincere because, as soon as they get the opportunity, they want no Senate scrutiny whatsoever in relation to the important matters that confront this parliament.

What matters do we in the coalition want to refer to Senate committees? The unfortunate history of the short term of this Rudd government is this: a government in disarray, making policy on the run. For example, increasing the tax on alcopops was announced as a health measure, and that had not even passed through the health department. Then there is condensate tax. Do they get advice from the resources department on that? Is there any modelling? No. There is an increase in luxury car tax. Is there anything by way of modelling from the industry department or indeed from Treasury? The answer is no. The one area where they did seek advice from their departments was of course Fuelwatch, and do you know what they did, Mr Deputy President? They rigorously ignored that advice. So here we have a government that either make decisions based on no advice whatsoever or deliberately reject the advice that they receive. This is the government that came into power asserting, through its now Prime Minister, that all their policy decisions would be evidence based. Alcopops? Wrong; every credible medical organisation repudiates the Labor government’s assertions. In relation to the luxury car tax there is complete and utter repudiation by the automotive industry and sector; in relation to condensate, in relation to Fuelwatch—the list goes on and on.

And so, Mr Deputy President, guess what! We as a coalition have said that, in those areas where this government has not sought advice from departments and in those areas where the government has deliberately ignored the advice, on the rare occasion it has sought it, it would be a good idea to protect our fellow Australians by allowing these matters to be looked at by a Senate committee in its inquiry. Of course we have hubris by the tonne being spouted forth by the Leader of the Government in this place—it is spooky to think, as a side reflection, that he was actually Acting Prime Minister of this country. That is a spooky thought; but, thank goodness, it was only for a short period of time. This man comes into this chamber with all the hubris that two shoulders could bear, all the arrogance that could be personified in one person, and says, ‘We are the government. We demand that everything be put through as we demand.’ Can I remind the honourable senator what he said in this place on 14 June 2005:

... the Senate has both a right and a responsibility to debate and review legislation—this legislation and all other legislation that comes before the parliament. That is what Australians expect from this chamber.

We happen to agree with that assertion, and that is why we are submitting certain measures to Senate committees. We invite Senator Evans and the Labor Party to step down and aside from the hubris and allow the Senate to do its work.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, well, well. It is not really a surprise that this opposition is so gutless in its approach to Labor’s budget. We have a budget that has already been through two weeks of intense Senate estimates scrutiny. We have a process, a commitment and a mandate to take this budget through the Senate in the next fortnight, and now we have the Liberal Party deliberately vandalising the budget—it cannot be described as anything less than economic vandalism—by denying the government the capacity to maintain the revenue we need for our budget surplus but at the same time passing the aspects of the budget that will support communities. It is an exercise in the most blatant political gutlessness and economic vandalism that this place has ever seen. It is quite phenomenal to hear Senator Abetz—and no doubt there will be others—talk about arrogance and hubris, when we spent 11 years arguing with the opposition, the former government, about the rights of the Senate to scrutinise bills. I do not think there was ever an attempt at economic vandalism such as this by the former Labor opposition to undermine the then coalition government’s budget.

The Labor budget is all about putting downward pressure on inflation by making the sorts of provisions we need to make the Australian community a strong community—but most of all we need to maintain that surplus. It is an extraordinary feat, when you think about the balance that this budget has struck in a very tough economic climate. It is a climate that we inherited from the former government, knowing that inflation rose and rose and rose under the coalition government. We find ourselves today trying to manage the difficulty on behalf of those millions of Australians who are struggling with a mortgage. This is the legacy of the coalition government to the people of Australia. Today we have seen the opposition move motion after motion to defer aspects of revenue-raising bills that relate to our finely attuned budget by referring them to Senate committees, which will have the effect of denying Labor the opportunity to complete our budget in its holistic form.

The coalition, which once proudly claimed its economic credentials, is completely forgoing its purported legacy—which I certainly do not agree with anyway, given the state of the economy—in an absolutely cheapest of the cheap political stunt. Effectively what the coalition parties have told the people of Australia today is that the cheap politics they are prepared to deploy in this place are more important than Australian families and their ability to manage their mortgages. That is the core of the issue that we are debating here today. I am surprised at the coalition senators, but I suppose they have no choice but to come in here and try to take some assertive line with this, because they have no political cover. The whole world now can see the shallowness of any claim this lot have to any economic credentials at all. It is not about economic credentials, economic stability or forward thinking for this lot; it is about cheap political stunts.

As I mentioned, the Liberal Party is undermining our capacity to deliver the $22 billion surplus. The delay of these bills does have an immediate and direct effect on this surplus, and that will have the direct and immediate effect of putting upward pressure on inflation and interest rates. I think the actions by the coalition today will stand in history as having taken another great big swipe off the surface of any cover that they may have had in terms of their economic credentials. I suppose it is a taste of what is to become the character of the now opposition on the other side of this chamber.

It is also interesting to note that, since we know that the numbers in the Senate will be changing, it is not like this lot have got the courage of their convictions to actually vote against these measures in the forthcoming two weeks of debate. They do not want to do that; they just want to defer them. That is why we describe it as economic vandalism. It is not even about the courage of their convictions, because clearly they have none.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a truly awful speech, but I still think it was bad luck that Senator Lundy was not made a frontbencher in the government. I am sure that her speech-making form will improve in coming months to prove me right. I have heard a lot of wild claims, but few more wild than the claims that I heard today in Senator Lundy’s effort. Let us go back and put a few facts on the table. There is a budget surplus of $22 billion. How did that surplus arrive? It arrived through the very hard work of people like Senator Minchin and Peter Costello. The Labor Party had very little to do with this massive surplus. In fact, given their spending and their capacity to spend, one thing we can say is absolutely certain is that that surplus will continue to erode over the years.

The proposition that somehow this surplus was an outcome of Labor government policy is a complete farce. This surplus is the outcome of policies which were put in place by the Howard and Costello government, during which, I might say, so many tax bills were opposed by the Labor Party.

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

You were squandering the surplus.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I could present to this chamber a list of the taxation bills that were voted against by Senator Ludwig and Senator Lundy and indeed all the people on that side. For Senator Lundy to get up here in this chamber and complain about the performance of the senators on this side is a farce.

What have we done? We have referred eight or so bills to Senate committees for further examination and scrutiny. The Labor Party has said, ‘Isn’t this absolutely frightful?’ because this means by the farcical figures that the Labor Party puts out—no-one else’s figures—some $300 million will be lost out of a budget surplus of $22 billion. If the Labor Party wishes it some of the bills can be backdated, so I believe this figure is complete nonsense. To be lectured by Senator Lundy on responsible management of the economy is simply extraordinary. Senator Lundy was a great referrer of bills to Senate committees. I used to note as I came into this chamber, day after day, there would be Senator Lundy making sure that bill after bill was referred to Senate committees.

Senator Ludwig, think about the bills for A New Tax system, which we promised in the election and which the Labor Party opposed with enormous vigour. Not only did you send the legislation for A New Tax system to one committee, you sent it to four committees. Those committees sat on each of the bills for three months or so. We had 12 months of committee hearings into A New Tax system. In the end, they were budget bills based on a clear election promise. What happened? The Labor Party fought it to the very end and voted against it, because, as Senator Ludwig said: ‘This is going to lead to a recession. This is going to lead to cuts in the income of working families.’ Do you remember saying all those things, Senator Ludwig? And what has happened? The Labor Party have become great fans of the GST.

I regret to say that we are seeing some of the greatest examples of hypocrisy that I have ever seen in this chamber. This was the party that specialised in voting against budget bills; this was the party that constantly referred budget bills to Senate committees. So for them to come in and lecture us that we in some way are not acting responsibly has no merit whatsoever, especially after the scrutiny that was given to the GST bills. Just think of the dire consequences that the Labor Party predicted if those bills were ever passed. (Time expired)

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One is tempted to ask the almost rhetorical question as to when the last time was that an opposition that controlled this Senate attempted to thwart the deliberate economic intent of the government of the day by not opposing, by not objecting to, by not rejecting a series of budget bills which seek to implement the electoral commitments of the government of the day. The answer is not in years and years but in decades and decades. The real question is what is the government attempting to achieve in this series of budget bills? The answer is this: we are seeking to pass a series of bills that respect and give effect to a range of commitments to a level of 100 per cent that were given to the Australian people, and approved and endorsed by the Australian people in late November of last year. We went to the Australian people on a policy of economic reform and we put a policy based around fiscal conservatism, which the relevant Treasury spokesman at the time repeatedly explained as large budget surpluses.

Why did we give a commitment to maintain large budget surpluses over the period of our government? It was because we knew that we had inherited a somewhat dire economic situation. Interest rates were on the rise and it was projected that they would continue to rise. We were fearful on the basis of advice from economic experts that inflation was going to take off. And as everyone in this Senate knows, if inflation becomes embedded in an economic system, it has the potential to harm and to destroy the economic welfare of millions and millions of people. We took the hard decision and explained it to the Australian people, and the Australian people endorsed large budget surpluses so that there would be a reduction on pressure to raise interest rates and there would be sufficient funds in the economy to meet necessary demand. At the same time, we had a raft of responsibly costed measures that went to a range of issues. Those matters were the subject of detailed scrutiny and examination for the best part of two whole weeks at Senate estimates, where the opposition had the opportunity to examine line by line a range of current and future government programs that went to the issues relating to spending and outlays. So they did that and they had the opportunity to receive information.

Now, in the last two weeks of the current sitting period, when the opposition still control the Senate, they use their numbers to not reject government measures—because they do not have the guts to come out and say, ‘We are going to reject those measures’—but, instead, to go down the easy path and postpone those measures. And they say that is something that has occurred in the past, that it gives the opportunity to examine legislation and that it gives the opportunity to have proper scrutiny. But what they do not explain and what they do not attempt to excuse is the wanton damage—as explained by others—that they seek to impose upon the Australian economy and on Australian taxpayers by delaying the necessary receipt of taxes for at least a period of three months to a value of almost $300 million. Not for the good reason that the particular policies are not worthwhile; not for the reason that the programs have not been endorsed; not for the reason that the particular issues have not received the support of the Australian people. No, they are not going to reject them outright when the opportunity comes. They intend to delay those measures, simply to go on a series of roadshows around Australia to re-examine—not examine—a range of measures which have been the subject of detailed and lengthy scrutiny. It is nothing other than an abuse of the Senate process to wantonly harm the current government’s budget, which was only some seven months ago endorsed by the Australian people. (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have heard something today that I have never heard before: a brand new economic thesis. The thesis from Senator Evans is this: Senate committees put upward pressure on interest rates, parliamentary scrutiny puts upward pressure on interest rates and the desire of a democratically elected parliamentary chamber to provide proper scrutiny puts upward pressure on interest rates. It is an economic thesis I have never heard before and I wonder if this thesis has been put to the Secretary to the Treasury or the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Has this thesis been run past them? If it were, they would laugh at the absurdity of the proposition and they would laugh at its hypocrisy.

When the coalition was first elected to office in 1996, the Australian Labor Party bequeathed it a $10 billion budget deficit. They bequeathed $96 billion in government debt. The hypocrisy is in the fact that Labor opposed each and every measure the former government introduced to bring the budget back into balance. Some budget measures actually took us three years to get through the parliament because Labor said the savings were unnecessary. Labor said that we were taking a baseball bat to the economy. Labor said that we would king-hit the economy with our budget measures. And that was in a situation where there was a genuine inflation crisis; where there was a real fiscal crisis, not a manufactured crisis. We did balance the budget but with no help from Labor. We balanced the budget and we left Labor a budget surplus.

What is Labor’s charge against the coalition? That we left a budget deficit? No. That we left government debt? No. That we left an inflation crisis? No. Even the RBA governor says there is no inflation crisis. Yes, there is a problem and, yes, there is a plan to address it, but there is no inflation crisis. Labor’s charge is that the referral of bills to Senate committees is an abuse of the opposition’s numbers. What rot! Many of these measures were never flagged by Labor during the election campaign. Labor cannot cite mandate theory here. Labor made no mention in its election campaign of a luxury car tax, no mention of a means test for the baby bonus, no mention of a means test on family tax benefit part B, no mention of an increased tax on premixed drinks, no mention of an increase in the passenger movement charge, no mention of an increased tax on condensate and no mention at all of raising the threshold for the Medicare levy surcharge.

What the opposition are doing is what should occur in the Senate. But let us not take our word for it; let us hear what Senator Evans himself has to say. Senator Evans told this chamber in June 2005:

… the Senate has both a right and a responsibility to debate and review legislation—this legislation and all other legislation that comes before the parliament. That is what Australians expect from this chamber.

He went on:

It is our responsibility to provide an alternative view of legislation, to speak out when we think things are wrong and to fight for those people whose interests we represent.

That is what we are doing: we are speaking out; we are fighting for the interests of the people we represent. Our track record in government on referring bills to committees was laudable. In 2006, the first full year of the coalition’s Senate majority, the coalition in government supported the referral of more than a hundred bills to Senate committees for inquiry. This was the highest number of bills ever referred to committees in a calendar year and double the average number of bills referred to committees when the ALP was last in government. When the ALP was in government it was constantly demanding that bills be referred to committees. It was constantly demanding that there be more scrutiny. We are applying scrutiny. The government does not like it. It is our job as an opposition and it is the job of this chamber to review legislation to see where we can improve that legislation. Many of these measures were never flagged during the election campaign and they require greater scrutiny than those measures that were. We will provide that scrutiny. (Time expired)

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sitting on the crossbench, as the Australian Democrats have done for over 30 years, you get a different perspective. The Democrats are unique as a political party in that we have always been in a position of permanent opposition or, if you like, separate from the continuing gladiatorial contest between the two major parties. When you sit on the crossbench and look across at the government and opposition of the day making their accusations, it is sometimes pretty hard to remember which side is on which bench. The script tends to be the same; it is just that the people swap from one side to the other and then make the accusations in reverse across the chamber.

Much of what we have heard from the Liberal opposition today matches what the Labor opposition used to say, and much of the defence and counterattack from the Labor government matches what the previous Liberal government used to say. I think that is why we get continual assertions from both sides about dishonesty and hypocrisy. Broadly speaking, people are right: there is a lot of hypocrisy. But what the role of cross-benchers has always been, and needs to continue to be even once the Democrats are gone, is to cut through that hypocrisy and cut to the basic matters.

I should make clear to the Senate, and anyone else who has been following this debate, that the Democrats did not oppose the coalition’s referrals of most of the bills that have been deemed to be budget related when we voted on that earlier today. Whilst we probably felt that some could have been dealt with next week, I think the general principle that, if a matter is complex, if it is fairly recent, and you have to make a decision about whether or not it becomes law, it is best to examine it properly, look at all the consequences and, most importantly, give the community and those with expertise in the community the opportunity to have input so that the Senate can make an informed decision. I accept that. Even though it is clearly inconvenient to the government of the day, whoever they are, to have to delay these things, it is valid to properly examine them for a reasonable length of time. The Democrats’ concern about some of the committee referrals that occurred this morning was that, in some cases, that was not for a reasonable length of time, that the attempt was being made to refer other bills that were not budget related for excessive amounts of time, clearly to try to prevent them from being addressed at all in this chamber. It is a real travesty that that was voted through by the coalition using their numbers—in most cases, I note, with the support of Senator Fielding.

The point needs to be made, nonetheless, that it is grossly absurd for the coalition to now argue that they showed some commitment to transparency in the committee process when they were in government. The public pick up on this. You can throw your misleading statistics around about having a record number of bills referred to committees in your first year of having control of this place but, as has been rightly pointed out, the coalition did misuse and abuse their majority in this place. We are seeing the final throes of that in this fortnight. Quite clearly, one of the key reasons why you lost government was that you abused your majority and pushed things through without proper scrutiny, thus allowing unpopular and extreme legislation to get through because it was not modified and examined properly, and also that people recognise and can see grotesque arrogance and perversion of due process when it happens.

It is not whether you send off 10 or 100 bills; it is whether or not the referrals are appropriate and whether people get the chance to examine them. We had Senator Kemp giving the example of the taxation legislation. Yes, it was examined by four committees over a prolonged period of time—not for a year, but for about six months—and the coalition kicked and screamed and whinged about it all the way along. They did not say, ‘Yeah, sure, great idea’; they complained every inch of the way. And if they had had the numbers, as they did later on, the tax package would have got the same treatment that Work Choices got, that Telstra got, that the Murray-Darling water package got and that the Northern Territory emergency intervention legislation got: it would have been pushed through in the space of a week. That is what would have happened. And you would have kicked and screamed if anyone had suggested otherwise and said we were holding up budget measures and preventing the government from implementing their mandate. We all know the arguments but we all can sniff hypocrisy when it is being put forward. And that is what is being done on this occasion. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.