Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take the opportunity to ask for support for the legislative package before the chamber. This is a most important package. It is a package that has been designed to deal with very urgent needs: to stimulate the economy, to protect jobs and to protect Australia from the worst impacts of the looming economic recession driven by the global financial crisis. This is urgent. It is necessary. Similar measures have been taken in countries around the world with the support of their parliaments. This will be the first parliament in the world, as I understand it, to defeat a government’s plans to stimulate their economy—not just to amend but to defeat, and to leave the government in a position where it is unable to implement the measures that will stimulate our economy and save Australians’ jobs. This leaves the government with a package that it cannot implement. If this package is defeated, the government has been denied its right to act on behalf of the Australian people, its right to govern in the interests of the Australian people.

We do not deny the right of the Senate to seek to amend, to examine and to argue about the package. But, at the end of the day, the Senate has to make a balanced judgment. It has to be a balanced judgment between the interests of the minor and opposition parties and Independent senators and the arguments they want to pursue and the interests of the government and the government’s decision making in trying to meet its responsibilities to the Australian people.

We have had a long process to try to reach a broader consensus in the Senate chamber. The opposition have refused to participate in that. They took themselves out of the equation weeks ago and have refused to support the economic stimulus package. That is their decision. They made themselves impotent. But they also, of course, have put at risk the government’s capacity to stimulate the economy. They will be held responsible for the defeat of this package, if it is defeated, because they have refused to allow the government to implement its responsibilities. I am sure they expected that this package might pass. They were constantly making quite long speeches which effectively said they were pursuing a political tactic rather than an economically responsible position. They sought to position themselves for a political debate a year down the track. They said, ‘We can politically position ourselves to our advantage where we can argue the debt question.’ What they did not do is take on their responsibilities as parliamentarians and as an alternative government.

So we are left in the situation where the fate of these bills lies in the hands of Senator Xenophon because the opposition have painted themselves into a corner, into irrelevancy, but into a position where they seek to wreck the government’s capacity to govern. They have the opportunity to make their critiques, to argue their points, but to support the package. Instead, they seek to undermine the capacity of this government to respond to the crisis, to do the job of government. For an alternative government, I think that is quite reprehensible behaviour.

The government are committed to getting this economic stimulus package through. We will not desist from our efforts to do that. It is vital for our economy. It is vital for Australian jobs. We urge the Senate to support the third reading. I know Senator Xenophon has applied himself to these issues, but we urge him to think deeply about whether solving some of the environmental issues involved in the Murray-Darling can all be achieved in this package and whether or not putting at risk the whole economic stimulus package in order to pursue his very worthy agenda in relation to the Murray-Darling is worth it. We urge him to think about whether or not he has got the balance of considerations right.

The government have bent over backwards to try to find an accommodation that meets the concerns of the Greens and the Independents but allows us to get on with the fundamental job of governing and providing the necessary economic leadership for this country. So I again urge the Senate to support the package. I foreshadow that if the third reading is defeated the government will immediately reintroduce the package into the House of Representatives and seek to get the House to support the amended package. And we will look to sit the Senate as soon as possible, probably in the week starting 23 February, in order to again seek Senate support for the package. We are absolutely determined to act in the national interest to ensure that this stimulus package is carried and that Australian families and workers get the protections that this package provides.

In the meantime, there will be huge confusion in the community. There will be a complete lack of confidence. I think senators need to think about that and what that does to confidence in business and confidence in the community more generally about what the economic future holds for them. Every senator who votes against this will have to explain their role in that. They will have to stand up. I know the opposition did not think they would have to. They thought this would quietly go through, that Senators Xenophon and Fielding would join us, and they would be all care and no responsibility. Someone said to us, ‘Senator Xenophon’s called your bluff!’ It is not the government’s bluff that has been called. We will continue to pressure for this.

I advise the Senate that, if the third reading of this bill is defeated, Senator Ludwig, on behalf of the government, will seek to move a motion that allows the Senate to sit in its normal parliamentary form in the week commencing 23 February. Because we think this is urgent, we will seek to reintroduce the legislation. We hope to carry that in the House of Representatives tonight, if required, and we will look to make the Senate reconsider its position, look to insist that the Senate allow the government to do what is needed in the national interest, not tie our hands behind our backs, not allow us to lose vital time in providing the support the economy needs.

All the evidence from economists, commentators, business and state governments has supported the need for this stimulus package. While people may still argue about the detail, fundamentally, defeat of the package is a huge decision. It is a decision that calls into question confidence in the Australian economy. It puts at risk more jobs and more businesses. I urge the Senate to consider that carefully. We have been through a process that sought to get the best result. People have looked to negotiate. They have looked to accommodate. I appreciate the efforts that the Greens and the minor senators have put into that, but this is not the time to hold out. This is not the time to insist on having an individual senator’s agenda rated higher or given preference over the national interest. This is a time to get the balance right.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Every senator is equal.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Every senator is equal, but there are 30-odd senators who ducked and got out of this very early on, who have no relevance in this debate at all. The Australian people know you are not relevant. It is important that senators consider their position. I would welcome the opposition reconsidering their position. I would welcome it because they ought to think about what they are doing here if this is defeated. Sure, if Senator Xenophon does not support us, he will come under intense scrutiny, but so will the opposition. I want to stress that the government are absolutely committed to getting this package through. We are absolutely committed to providing the economic stimulus that is needed in the Australian economy. I urge all senators to support the package. As I said, I foreshadow that, if we do not get the support, we will come back and try again until we get the Senate to understand the huge importance and the urgency that is associated with these measures.

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

We on this side of the chamber have no difficulty whatsoever in looking into the eyes of young Australians and telling them that we voted to save them from a debt that will cripple the nation in years to come. In 10 years time, when young Australians ask, ‘Why don’t we have the money for hospitals or for education or other matters?’ there will be parliamentarians who will have to tell them: ‘Unfortunately, we have a recurring interest bill of $7-plus billion per annum to service a debt incurred by a previous generation.’ We on this side are willing to take the debate into the community and say that we were on the side of looking after future generations. We believe in economic intergenerational responsibility. That is what we are on about and that is the position that we have put very, very strongly.

With great respect to the contributions of Senator Fielding and others, we have in fact put an alternative before the people. Mr Turnbull has made it quite clear. It is a package of smaller dimensions. It is a package that would include tax cuts, a package that would support the superannuation payments of small businesses to their employees as a way of supporting jobs. In relation to infrastructure, we are very supportive of that aspect of the package that supports schools. Indeed, it was those on the other side who opposed it.

I say to the Leader of the Government in the Senate that the difficulty that he faces has been brought about by the arrogant, high-handed approach of both him and the Prime Minister. Can I suggest to the Prime Minister that, if his one-seater bulldozer that he has been driving for the last week stalls as a result of the vote of the Senate, his vehicle of choice should not be, as Senator Evans is suggesting, another one-seater bulldozer but a passenger bus that can in fact include other people in getting a package together.

I remind senators—and correct Senator Evans—that, when there was opposition in the United States to a package of this nature, President Obama, with a huge election victory under his belt, considered it appropriate to sit down with the Republicans and get a deal that was satisfactory. Mr Rudd has not been able to bring himself to do that. From day one he said, ‘Get out of our way! It’s my way or the highway.’ That shows the arrogance of this government. Might I add that the tactic of the leader of the government in this place, Senator Evans, has been to, time and time again, tell us and the Australian people that this package had to be passed by Friday of last week, without any Senate inquiry.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Within 48 hours.

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

Senator Barnett, you are right. It had to be passed within 48 hours or all calamity would come upon us. Now, all of a sudden, the government is willing to amend its own package. All of a sudden, that is not a problem. Senator Ferguson has just reminded me that the most galling thing of all is that Senator Evans complained about opposition senators giving long speeches. Excuse me! Who was filibustering in this debate today and yesterday and trying to drag the issues on? I think everybody listening in knows exactly who gave the long speeches, who gave the irrelevant speeches. Might I just say to Senator Evans that he really does have to get his lines right on this. He says on the one hand that we are irrelevant, yet he blames us for the result. If these measures are defeated in this place, it will not be because of the coalition. We do not have the numbers. If the package is defeated it will be because 50 per cent or more of senators have voted against it.

That does not, of itself, mean that there will never be another package. What it means is that Mr Rudd would do himself and the Australian people a great service by sitting down with the alternative Prime Minister of this country, Mr Turnbull, and discussing a package. Mr Turnbull has been open to that from day one—that has been made perfectly clear—but in Mr Rudd’s arrogant style, on his one-seater bulldozer, he has refused to deal. Of course, the deals were done today—very, very late in the piece.

I simply say this to my fellow Australians: whilst on the face of it the Labor Party have a sugar coating to offer the Australian people, with cash payments—money here, money there, money everywhere—that lolly has a very bitter centre and the sugar coating will not last as long as the bitter centre, which will leave a terrible economic aftertaste in the mouths of all Australians. For the $900 cheque they might get in the mail on 11 March, they will have a $9,500 debt, together with interest. That is not a very good deal on any mathematics.

We are willing to engage in discussions with the government and we are willing to look at a package, but we are not willing to have a situation where we were told by the leader of the government that, on advice—and I would still like to know who the advice was provided by; I have asked a number of times; we were never told—the package had to be passed by last Friday or the payments could not be made. All the officials said that was wrong. I still want to know where that advice came from. We know that the package went to the printer at 6 am; we know the Treasurer signed off on it the night before; and so it goes on. It was a rushed package; it was an ill-considered package. Indeed, in a matter of a few hours today, the government were able to concede $500 million worth of changes to the package with the Greens. I suggest to them that, if this package falls over, they ought to take a deep breath, learn from their arrogance and include everybody in a discussion so that we can all act within the nation’s interests.

We as an opposition have thought long and hard about these matters. Very simply, we are concerned about the following. We had the task of paying off Labor’s last debt. Labor’s legacy was a $96 billion debt. It took us 10 years of hard work, opposed every step of the way by Labor, to pay off that debt. In fact, it was finally paid off on 21 April 2006. What took the Hawke-Keating Labor government 13 years to rack up, $96 billion, Mr Rudd has been able to rack up in not 13 years but 13 months. Double that first amount and add a bit more, and there is a $200 billion debt legacy to this nation. Having been involved from day one to the very end of the Howard government in working off that debt, I do not look forward to a future Liberal government—and of course it is not the government that pays for it; it is a future generation of this nation—being confronted with paying off the $200 billion debt legacy, the $9,500 per man, woman and child legacy, that Labor wants to leave with them. We believe that is irresponsible. We believe that it is not social justice to say that we are delivering social justice today by mortgaging future generations’ capacity to deliver social justice when it is their turn to govern the country. We believe in intergenerational responsibility. That is why we oppose this measure and will be voting against the third reading.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are such a hypocrite.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, withdraw that comment.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate Senator Abetz’s offer to be engaged in future negotiations on this matter, because that is where we are inevitably headed if we do not get a resolution in the positive in the next little while. Firstly, I seek leave of the Senate to table a letter from the Treasurer to me today.

Leave granted.

I thank the Senate for that leave. I do not want to anticipate a vote of the Senate, but it may be that this package does not get the majority. I hear that the leader has flagged that the Senate may come back in a couple of weeks time to deal with the matter. I believe we should have another go if the matter is not resolved. Therefore, I want to flag to the Senate that somebody should move for an adjournment after the third reading vote—and I will do it if nobody else does it—anticipating that the Senate should come back at 10 o’clock in the morning. In the meantime, if it were not passed, the matter would go to the House. They could deal with it as they may, but I anticipate it would come back here. This would give the government and the people opposed to the amendment—and that may include Senator Xenophon—some time to look further at where the sticking point is.

Opposition Senator:

Opposition senator interjecting—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, we can take two weeks, we can take two months, we can take two years, but the Senate is here and the cheapest option in real money terms is for us to look at this again tomorrow. By far the best outcome for the nation is to get a resolution in the positive to allow the government to be the government of the day, and to not lead to the upheaval, the indecision and the inability of people to know what is going to happen with the stimulus package. The Greens have fought to get thousands more jobs through the amendments in this package and we do not want those delayed. I have given the argument from the Greens’ point of view and I am not going to hold the Senate up about that. But I am saying let us chart a way to get, if needs be, a resolution of this matter by tomorrow rather than in two weeks time, if that is possible.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some constructiveness from the opposition would not hurt, Mr President. I note the interjections. This is not just a school debate in here; we are discussing a nationally important matter that requires some constructive strategy, and that is what I am putting to the Senate right now. We will see how this vote may go. Mr President, I would seek your advice on whether the opportunity for me to move an adjournment will come after the third reading. Otherwise I would like to move it now.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bob Brown, are you advocating that, subject to the outcome of the third reading, if the third reading sees the bill defeated, you would seek to have the Senate adjourn until some time tomorrow? Are you foreshadowing that that is what you would do? You are not seeking to adjourn the debate on this bill now?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Correct.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement on a procedural matter in relation to Senator Brown’s foreshadowed motion.

Leave not granted.

Question put:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I move that the debate be adjourned.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate has finished. What are you seeking to do, Senator Brown?

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

Mr President, to assist Senator Brown, he would need to move a motion that the Senate suspend until 9 am, Friday, 13 February 2009 and he would need to seek leave to move that motion.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ludwig for that advice. It is an unusual position I am in. I seek leave to move a motion.

Leave not granted.

Mr President, if I may return some advice to the government, it is now in a position to so move.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you seeking leave to make a statement?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have made my statement, Mr President.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the sitting of the Senate be suspended till 9 am, Friday, 13 February 2009.

In doing so, I am happy to take up Senator Bob Brown’s suggestion that the Senate meet tomorrow. We have offered to come back and resubmit the bills at the first available opportunity of the next sitting of the parliament, but if there is a mood in the Senate to consider them tomorrow the government would be very anxious to have that occur because there is urgency, as I have argued before. We are happy to get these bills dealt with again as soon as possible. The bills will be re-presented as amended by the House of Representatives and they will come back here tomorrow if the Senate is prepared to sit, so I would urge the Senate to support this motion. If this motion is unsuccessful we will return to the proposition that we sit on 23 February.

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

Very briefly, the opposition opposes that motion. I invited the government during my speech at the third reading stage to get off its one-seater bulldozer and actually engage in discussion. I say to the government: in all honesty, what do you think will be discussed and resolved between now and nine o’clock tomorrow morning? All that will happen is that pressure will be brought to bear on certain senators and the heat in relation to this issue will only be exacerbated rather than alleviated to allow good and proper discussion to take place.

It is quite clear that the Labor government, having been voted down by this Senate, are not willing to take that vote as the will of the Senate and are now trying to ram through exactly the same measure within a matter of 16 hours. Within about 16 hours of rejecting a whole raft of measures we would be asked to consider that raft of measures again. What would have changed? What negotiations would have taken place? What consultations does the Prime Minister have in mind for Senator Xenophon, for Senator Fielding or for Mr Turnbull? None of that has been planned, none of that is appropriate, and I suggest to Senator Evans that taking a bit of time out, taking a deep breath and allowing for proper discussion to take place would mean—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said you were going to vote no.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You had no amendments.

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

The arrogant Leader of the Government in the Senate continues to interject. We said we would vote against this package, as we have done. That does not mean that we are opposed to every single possible package that might be put to us. We have already indicated the sorts of parameters of a package that would be within the nation’s interests without putting a huge burden of debt on future generations—and that has been our concern. That is what we have dealt into the discussion and we have been ignored by the government, arrogantly so. Tonight they are left with egg on their faces. They should have engaged in discussion and relied on our good nature, but the reality is that, having been so dogmatic about it, they have been unable to get a majority of senators. The coalition does not have a majority of senators in this place.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don’t have any votes. You’ve got no votes? Is that what you are saying? No votes?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

You can always rely on Senator Carr—can’t you, Mr President?—to lower the tone.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Just address your comments to the chair, Senator Abetz.

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

Thank you, Mr President. We believe very firmly that if the government is genuine about getting a majority for a package—a package—it needs to sit down and discuss it. Clearly, the 15-plus hours that there will be between now and nine o’clock tomorrow morning are not sufficient time for that to occur.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

In fact, I want these interjections to be taken and I will respond to them so Hansard can record them, because what they show absolutely clearly is the arrogance of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who was in this place seven days ago demanding that this legislation be passed—at that stage, within 24 hours—because if it was not the whole package would collapse and things, as in moneys, would not be able to be passed out. That has now been exposed as being wrong. Whether it was wilfully wrong we will never know, because we have asked on what advice that assertion was based and we still have not been provided with that information.

But having had this difficulty all week I suggest that Senator Evans, unable to respond to that direct question, takes a deep breath and allows the government to regroup with the opposition and others to see if some sensible conclusion can be obtained. With all the best will in the world, I think every Australian would agree that, the Senate having defeated this package tonight, there will not be a resolution to the matter within the next 15 hours. The discussions that need to take place ought to take place, might I add, behind closed doors’ as in fact happened with Senator Bob Brown and his discussions with the government. They were not undertaken in this chamber; they had good working discussions, as I understood Senator Sherry and Senator Brown told us. We are inviting them to have those sorts of discussions with us but in a proper manner.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope this motion does get passed. Clearly, it would be a good outcome—if there is to be a change—if that could be negotiated in the next 12 to 24 hours rather than in the next two weeks. Even the opposition agrees that a package is required to help save this economy from going into recession. But let me say this, Mr President: this is not putting pressure simply on Senator Xenophon, who is already under great pressure; this is putting very definite pressure on the Rudd government. There has to be some constructive meeting of grounds with Senator Xenophon if there is to be a resolution here. We Greens want to see that happen for two reasons: firstly, so that the package can be implemented and, secondly, for the sake of the Murray-Darling Basin, particularly the lower Murray. As the minister is here, I say, through you, Mr President, this is not just a case of sitting back and waiting for a proposal to come from Senator Xenophon in this case. I urge the government itself to make constructive headway towards an agreement or an ability to come to some resolution now with further discussions put in train. I hope this will lead to a resolution. If it does not, then, seeing the Senate is here and can meet tomorrow, we will have done the best we can.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate I support the government’s motion. I am prepared to be part of a process of further discussions and negotiations and to do so in good faith and with goodwill. I think it is important, and if there is any opportunity for this impasse to be resolved then I would like to be part of that process. I know the time constraint leaves us some 15 hours, but I would like to think we could at least crystallise our positions further. If that leads to a breakthrough, then so be it. If it does not, at least we have given it a go.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would also like to support the motion. We do need to resolve this as quickly as possible. Australia does need a stimulus package.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Fielding, ignore the interjections and refer your comments to the chair.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I would just say that we support the motion as well.

Question agreed to.

13/02/2009Friday, 13 February 2009

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers.