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

As I understand it, there are three bills which should be removed from the list of bills to be exempt from the cut-off: the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009, the Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009 and a related bill. I seek leave to amend government business notice of motion No. 2 to remove these three bills from the list, I understand I will succeed in that motion.

Leave granted.

In respect of the remaining bills, I understand we will seek to debate those now. I now move the motion as amended:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:

Social Security Amendment (Liquid Assets Waiting Period) Bill 2009

Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2009

Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to move that the Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009 and a related bill and the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009 be exempt from the cut-off.

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

It would be preferable if those bills were taken separately; otherwise, we are being asked to vote on bills which are entirely unrelated and for which there may be—I do not know—a different outcome. I recommend to the government that it put forward each bill separately.

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

Although those bills will be dealt with together, we can vote on them separately. Clearly there is a difference about these matters and it is best that we have the debate as one debate. Then by leave, if leave is necessary, we can put each bill separately so that there is a true reflection of the intent of the Senate.

Leave granted.

by leave—I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:

Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009

Australian Business Investment Partnership (Consequential Amendment) Bill 2009

Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009.

In respect of the bills for which we seek exemption from the cut-off, the Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009 and related bill introduce measures to establish the Australian Business Investment Partnership Ltd, ABIP, and to create appropriations for the government’s investment in ABIP and the government guarantee on any additional debt-ABIP issues. The procedures that have been followed are that on 24 January 2009 the Prime Minister and the Treasurer announced the establishment of the Australian Business Investment Partnership. Building Australia’s Future announced the $4 billion Australian Business Investment Partnership to support Australian jobs. The media release also announced that ABIP would be operational by March 2009. Because of a range of circumstances, the government announced the matter and sought agreement that it be progressed by March 2009. To that end the drafting was undertaken and the bill was introduced into the House last week. We sought to have it introduced into the Senate this week, to be concluded this week also.

We see it as a necessary vehicle to provide certainty for the commercial property sector, which employs around 150,000 people. The vehicle will refinance otherwise financially viable commercial property assets for which refinancing from other commercial lenders cannot be obtained. The bills are critical and we require their passage this week. To that end, the government not only announced on 24 January 2009 that they would be dealt with in March 2009 but also, in programming of the Senate, advised the Senate as early as last week that these bills would be introduced in the second week—week 5. We then indicated to the opposition, to the minor parties and to the Independents the necessity that the bills be dealt with within the fortnight.

We now face an extraordinarily disappointing position. We signalled quite clearly our intention and sought agreement last week through a leaders and whips meeting that these bills be dealt with in this sitting fortnight. The bills are not only on the list but also on the short sheet. The government indicated back in January that it wanted the bills to be passed by March. Drafting instructions were then dealt with and the bills were introduced. We also signalled that the bills would be dealt with in this second week. We did that in two ways. First, we provided the opposition, the minor party and the two Independents an outline of what the bills would do. I can go to that in particular. On page 5 we indicated the bills would be introduced into the House of Representatives in week 4, which they were. The outline read that the bills ‘would establish the Australian Business Investment Partnership, a special purpose vehicle to provide liquidity support for viable commercial property projects where traditional financers withdrew from debt financing arrangements due to abnormal conditions in global capital markets’. We indicated that the bills could be debated for at least two or three hours. We also put them on the second sheet, indicating that we would seek to deal with the bills to finality in week 5.

Unfortunately, the opposition have, to all intents and purposes, reneged on what they had agreed to in dealing with the bills to finality. They are now seeking to use a device to not exempt the bills from the cut-off. It is a technical device. The usual rule is that bills are introduced in a sitting period and deferred to the next sitting period—unless an exemption from the cut-off is sought. The government flagged its intention right from the very start—without response from the opposition, the minor party or the two Independents—that the bills would be proceeded with during the fourth week to finality. The opposition provided no indication that they would object to the exemption of the bills from the cut-off and are now using the device of the exemption from the cut-off to not allow the bills to come forward for debate. We do not ask that you signal whether you intend to vote for or against the bills. We expect the bills to be dealt with to finality in this chamber and that you not prevent that by a procedural device because you do not want to deal with them at all. You are effectively hiding behind a procedural device to deal with the bills.

On the exemption from the cut-off, more broadly it is not unusual for the government to seek an exemption from the cut-off in respect of bills of this nature. There is a global financial crisis. There is a global recession. The government believes these bills are not only necessary but critical to support a range of jobs in the commercial property market. We have sought the agreeance of the opposition, the minor party and the two Independents to ensure that we can proceed with this legislation.

This debate is not about whether or not the opposition, the minor party or two Independents will support or oppose the legislation; that is a matter for them. This debate is to deal with the Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009 and the related bill. What the opposition are now effectively saying is that they want to hide behind a procedural debate so that the matter cannot be debated in this chamber—for no other reason, it appears, than they simply do not want to deal with it. They do not want to put themselves in a position of either supporting or not supporting the bills. They cannot hide behind that procedural device. Effectively, they are not agreeing to the bills being exempt from the cut-off but they are putting themselves in a position of saying, ‘We don’t agree with these bills.’ That is the position they are now adopting. We have certainly signalled our intention for these bills to come forward and be dealt with this week. Now, through a procedural device, they are denying the ability of the government to deal with its legislative program in the manner that it has signalled clearly to the opposition, the minor party and the two Independents. The opposition are now putting a position which they could have raised any time over the last week and a half. They could have indicated that they did not want to proceed with the bills, that they were going to oppose their exemption from the cut-off and that they were not going to deal with the bills to finality. They are now sitting on the fence in relation to these bills.

They are, as the government has indicated, bills that have passed the House of Representatives. It is a matter that we do want debated in this chamber during this period. It is not unusual for an exemption from the cut-off to be granted to critical bills of this nature. This chamber works through the general cooperation of the opposition, the minor party and the two Independents to ensure that the legislative program is dealt with. The program for this period is not heavy, if you look at the number of bills that we sought to address during it. We are now, unfortunately, burning time while the opposition utilise a procedural device to hide behind their inability to deal with the bills.

The bills will initially finance the government’s $2 billion and $0.5 billion from each of Australia’s four banks. This could be extended. They will provide support for over 150,000 jobs in the commercial property sector. The opposition are now completely in denial about the need for this legislation. The government are seeking to set up ABIP to support the commercial property sector and the jobs and the businesses that it supports should lenders withdraw their funding because of unrelated and uncontrollable fluctuations in global credit markets. The global credit conditions are likely to remain tight in 2009. Foreign banks play an important role in the Australian financial system, but the global economic conditions mean that some foreign banks may consider withdrawing funding from viable Australian businesses, creating a funding gap. These bills seek to ensure support for the commercial property market. The commercial property market plays an important role in the Australian economy in terms of businesses and employment opportunities during the development phase of projects and after they are completed.

It is extraordinarily disappointing from the government’s perspective that the opposition is using this procedural device not to allow these bills to come on for debate. Rather than hide behind a procedural device as the Liberals on the other side are doing, I urge the Independent senators and the Greens to support the bills’ exemption from the cut-off so that matters concerning them can be debated and argued in this chamber.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate is all about time management. We have just had the Manager of Government Business in the Senate take over 10 minutes on a procedural matter. We certainly will not be speaking for that long. The whole idea of us objecting to the cut-off is that we want the bills debated properly and in the fullness of time. We want them debated in an appropriate manner. We do not want them rushed through in the last two days of sitting before the next session of parliament. There is no urgency demonstrated for these bills. It is a $28 billion package that needs proper consideration, and the Senate does not have any more time left this week to consider that legislation.

I will just give you some examples of where the government has mismanaged the entire chamber during this session of parliament. Last week 71 minutes were wasted: the Senate was suspended because the government did not have any legislation ready to go. These bills were first flagged on 24 January this year and now, on the second-last day of the sitting of this session, the government want to introduce major bills of this nature. That is our main opposition. Also, I think it is important to place on the public record again that we have given up general business items—which is a traditional time for the opposition to introduce important issues that it sees as necessary to raise with the public—in favour of government business, and government business was still wasted. We have also had filibustering like I have never seen before in this chamber, especially during debate on the stimulus package. The government are sometimes using these tactics to delay their program so that they can negotiate with the minors on the crossbenches. The part that we object to is that we have given up our time—we have matters of public importance that we wish to debate—purely to facilitate the government’s program, and the government are treating us like this. On the second last day of sittings they introduce bills of this magnitude which we will not have time to consider properly.

The manager has indicated that he thinks the bills would require three hours of debate. He has not even bothered to consult with this side to work out how many speakers we may wish to place on this bill. I can tell you that on our side there is a lot of interest in these bills. As far as we are concerned, there is no way that we are going to grant time to the government when it has mismanaged the entire program so far in this session. The bills can go on the list for the next session, when we will have plenty of time to consider them. We have the Fair Work Bill to get through today, and from the way that we are going with the Fair Work Bill—some of the minister’s responses to it have been very long and protracted—I think we are going to need the rest of this session just to deal with it and some of the other legislation on the program. We do not grant an exemption from the cut-off for these bills.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will address my remarks to the electoral legislation that is also subject to this particular cut-off motion and commend to the chamber the arguments that have been put forward by my colleague on other matters. In relation to the other matter before us, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2008 [2009], we have a critically urgent measure before the Senate, and unfortunately again we have the opposition trying to block measures which are critically urgent, which improve the integrity of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and our electoral system.

The history of this is as follows. Last year the opposition sent these measures to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for a period longer than 12 months. Then, late last year, after the committee had reported early, we heard the opposition argue that these measures should be delayed even further. Last week in this chamber we saw the opposition combine with Senator Fielding and, on equal voting in the chamber, defeat this legislation on the second reading. In the House of Representatives on Monday of this week again the opposition voted against these measures now contained in the 2009 bill.

But the critical issue, the urgent issue here for the Senate to consider, is: what is being blocked? This legislation will implement six key reforms to restore much needed accountability and transparency to our system of political finance regulation. These measures are long overdue. These measures are urgent. These measures have a start-up date of 1 July 2009. What are they? First of all, there is a reduction in the donation disclosure threshold from $10,900, indexed annually, to $1,000, non-indexed—an urgent reform. The bill will also prevent the practice of donation splitting to avoid the disclosure threshold by treating donations to all branches of a political party as donations to the same party. It is an urgent reform. We need it now. We need it by 1 July this year.

The bill will also ban foreign donations—another urgent electoral reform to improve the integrity of our electoral system. The bill will also ban anonymous donations unless they are $50 or less and are received through fundraising activities or events—another urgent reform that needs to be in place as soon as possible, that needs to be in place by 1 July this year. This bill will also increase the reporting obligation on political parties, candidates and others who are involved in the political process—again, urgent, critically important and required now. Finally, this bill will tie public funding to genuine campaign expenditure so we cannot have a situation where a candidate or a party can claim public funding for electoral expenditure that they have not incurred. This is urgent. It has been identified as a major loophole in the Commonwealth Electoral Act for many years. It needs to be fixed and we need to address it by 1 July this year.

At no stage have the opposition ever engaged in this debate with the actual substance of the reforms. They have never been able to bring themselves to say they do not support these important reforms. What they have done is hidden behind a few fabricated process and timing arguments. I happen to believe that this bill is important. It is critically important, and those who have shown a genuine interest in reform of our political system agree. They are urgent and important measures. They should commence as soon as possible so that we can have in our Electoral Act and our electoral system more transparency, more scrutiny and more disclosure applying to political donations. That is why when I first introduced this bill I wanted to see a start-up date of 1 July 2008, and now, when the bill has been returned from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, we have inserted a commencement date of 1 July 2009, to coincide, as you would of course appreciate, with the commencement of the next financial year.

When the opposition blocked this important legislation in the Senate of course we adopted the only possible course to give the opposition and Senator Fielding a second chance to put these important integrity measures in place. You have got to give the Australian Electoral Commission an opportunity to implement these changes. You have got to give the political players—the parties, the candidates and the associated entities—time to adjust to the measures. That is why at the end of last year I came into this chamber and flagged and tabled the government amendments to the bill in response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. There was maximum opportunity for consideration by all involved and maximum transparency. But we have still got a situation, even this morning, where the opposition are hiding behind fabricated arguments about process. What is it all about? It is all about trying to stall and block these important integrity measures.

I suspect that the ugly truth here is that the opposition do not support greater integrity in our electoral laws. If they did, they would get on with it. After all, you have just got to look at the voting record on these particular matters. They have actually supported a system which enables donors, parties and candidates to hide behind a $10,900 disclosure threshold. They do not accept, apparently, banning foreign donations, though they have been critical of parties who have accepted them—even though they have accepted them themselves. We should not allow the parties and candidates involved in the political process to continue to accept foreign donations unabated. It is not acceptable. It needs to be fixed. Here is an opportunity to do it. It is not going to take any time in the Senate. We all know the issues; we have had the debate—just get on and pass the bill. All these reforms to our political finance system need to occur now. The start-up date is urgent. Having the Senate address these issues is critical.

You expect this sort of intransigence from the Liberal and National parties. It is very disappointing when major political parties that should have the same interest as the government in fixing problems in the integrity of the Electoral Act take such a negative position on these issues. But I suppose you come to expect that the Liberal Party do not support more scrutiny, do not support more transparency, do not support more openness, do not support more decency and do not support more integrity in our electoral laws in this country.

I was very disappointed, however, that Senator Fielding joined with the opposition to block the earlier bill. Senator Fielding said publicly that he would vote against this measure because the government did not support his amendment limiting public funding to political parties to $10 million. He is right about that: the government does not support his amendment. Okay, the government does not support this amendment—first, as every senator knows, because we are looking at public funding and associated issues through the green paper process. I do not believe that the quantum of public funding should be changed or fiddled with through this legislation. This is not the appropriate time to do it. We have six critically important, stand-alone, urgent measures before us. Let’s deal with those.

But, of course, it is not just the fact that this is not the appropriate time or place to deal with that matter; the fact is that Senator Fielding’s amendment is very poorly drafted. What it proposes is a $10 million cap on public funding available to any political party. What does this actually mean? What would it do if this occurred? The final funding payment for the Labor Party for the last election was a little over $22 million; for the Liberal Party, a little over $18 million; for the National Party, a little over $3 million; and for the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party, about $170,000. It would mean that the Liberal Party and the Labor Party would be capped at $10 million. Under this proposal from Senator Fielding the National Party would keep their $3.2 million and the Country Liberal Party would keep their $169,000. We now have a new party registered in Queensland. It would get its money. So what you would actually have is what I never want to see: an advantage given to one side of politics in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Labor Party would get $10 million, but for the coalition it would be $10 million to the Liberals, over $3 million to the Nationals, another slice of money to the Country Liberal Party and another slice of money to the Liberal-National Party in Queensland. This may not be what Senator Fielding intended. It is a poorly drafted amendment that probably does not achieve what Senator Fielding wants it to achieve.

Political disclosure, political funding and campaign financing reform is critical. I agree with Senator Fielding, and any other senator who wants to raise these issues, that they are important. They are a very high priority for me; they have been throughout my life in this parliament. I intend to progress this seriously and in consultation with all parties: the opposition, the Greens and minor party and Independent senators in this chamber. I have given that commitment to senators previously, and I stand by it. I mean it, but I am not going to have a very important measure that goes to the very integrity of our electoral system dragged down by some poorly drafted amendment that in fact will give a partisan advantage to one side of politics. We should not be on about these things. We should not support some isolated amendment, however well motivated it is—and I am willing to say that I am sure Senator Fielding was well motivated in what he proposed, but the consequences of it are serious, as I have outlined. It would have a disproportionate, unfair, untenable and unacceptable impact on public funding and campaign financing law in this country, and I will not accept that. The government will not accept that.

So I ask Senator Fielding to drop that position and support the critically important and urgent reforms in this bill. Do it now so we can start to address this issue of integrity of our electoral laws in this country. Nothing should be more important to all the players who are involved in the political process in this country. Nothing should be more important, and I would urge Senator Fielding, as well as Senator Xenophon, who has already indicated his strong support, as has Senator Brown on behalf of the party he leads, the Australian Greens, to join with the government—and I would hope that the opposition would—in a bipartisan, cross-party effort on the part of all parliamentarians and those involved in the political process to do something about improving the integrity and standing of our electoral system in this country.

What I support of, and what all senators and all members of parliament in Australia ought to support, is greater integrity in our electoral laws. Here is a chance to do it; here is a chance to start. Here is a chance to give candidates, parties and associated entities, all of those involved in the electoral process, fair warning about these changes. Here is a chance to see these critically important and urgent amendments to the Electoral Act commence on 1 July this year. I urge all of my colleagues in this chamber to support the government in relation to exemption from the cut-off for this particular bill and then get behind the government and support this important legislation.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have just about heard it all today—three minutes from the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate and 30 minutes of filibustering from the Australian Labor Party. One can only imagine that they are out there at the moment trying to nail Senator Fielding to the mast in relation to this matter. That is the way they operate. They come in here and they talk about openness and transparency, and then they go around and bang on doors, forcing these people to agree with their position.

Let us just go back and have a close look at this. Senator Faulkner was talking about his desire for change, the drive for electoral reform. I take the Senate back to March last year when, in this very chamber, there was a notice of motion put up by the opposition in relation to a reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters which talked about disclosure, which talked about tax deductibility, which talked about third-party involvement and which talked about electoral reform in its most holistic sense. Who supported that motion? Let us go through it: the National and Liberal parties in coalition, the Greens, the Democrats—God bless their souls—and Senator Fielding supported that reference to the joint standing committee for wholesale electoral reform. Who was the party who refused to support it?

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Labor Party. Senator, you are absolutely right. The Australian Labor Party refused to support a reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in relation to holistic and wide-scale finance campaign reform. They opposed it, and we have just had a 20-minute speech from the minister in relation to the importance of this matter. They do not do as they say. I hope that Senator Xenophon is still here.

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

I’m here—you know I’m here.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to talk to Senator Xenophon in the context of a polite conversation. I am not going to try to take him out the back and beat him up the way the Labor Party does with the Independent senators, because that is not the way we operate.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The senator has made quite a serious allegation that I have been beaten up by the Labor Party. I ask him to withdraw that. I can assure the chamber that I have not been beaten up by anyone on either side of the chamber. It was a ridiculous and inaccurate statement and I ask the senator to withdraw it.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw it. Senator Xenophon thought that I said he had been beaten up. That is wrong: I said they tried to beat him up. I agree with him—

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Senator Ronaldson.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the remark.

The Acting Deputy President:

Thank you, Senator. You may proceed.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding and those who are listening to this to remember how many times this urgent matter has been on the Notice Paper. As honourable senators would note, this is the second incarnation, if you like, of a bill that was rejected by the Senate last week. How urgent was this matter for the government? How urgent was this matter for the minister, who is apparently staking his reputation on it? Not urgent at all. On three occasions this actually got to the Notice Paper. Was it debated? We are going back to February. It was on the Notice Paper at least twice in February and, from my recollection, it was on at least once last year, so there is absolutely nothing urgent about this at all.

The other fallacy of the minister’s argument is that he constantly neglects to talk about the fact that he has cherry-picked from electoral reform tax deductibility and disclosure. Why didn’t he come into this place and tell us why the union movement is not part of a cherry-picked campaign finance reform? Honourable senators on this side know there is a very good reason for that and there are $31 million worth of reasons why the trade union movement is not part of holistic reform: $31 million-plus was paid by the union movement to go into the Labor Party’s campaign finances. How have we seen that repaid? We have seen it with the so-called Fair Work Bill 2008. What has been given to the union movement in a non-mandated part of this legislation are those appalling rights of entry, an appalling breach of privacy which the Australian Labor Party has given to the trade union movement as a square-off for their $31 million-plus.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re wasting time.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O’Brien said, ‘You’re wasting time.’ You are the great filibusters of this place. You filibustered all last week and Senator Parry has put on the record how much you filibustered, so do not come into this place, Senator, and talk about time wasting as you are the great filibusters, because you cannot organise your program. You put speaker after speaker after speaker on last week because you could not get your program sorted out, so do not cry crocodile tears in front of me or those on this side about time wasting. What is the reality of the urgency of this bill?

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O’Brien interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You would be a lot better employed trying to do your job properly, Senator. You are an abysmal failure as the chief whip. You could not organise a chook raffle and that is why we had this issue last week where we had filibustering—and there you were on the phone saying, ‘You’ve got to speak—

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O’Brien interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senator O’Brien, if you wish to contribute to the debate I am sure you will have an opportunity a little later on.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we saw last year was the failure of the government to bring this matter on. They had the opportunity to bring that bill on last year. From recollection, I think they had two opportunities in February to bring it on. They did not choose to do so. The urgency does not lie in relation to this bill. It was rejected by the Senate, it was then rushed through the Reps and brought back here. If this were urgent, they would have had this matter dealt with last year. They had opportunity to do so. There was nothing on this side of the chamber standing in their way in relation to having this matter debated when it was on the Notice Paper at least three times.

The other matter which seems to have escaped the Special Minister of State is that this has a start-up date of 1 July. Please tell me why this matter cannot be debated in May for a July start-up. We had all this talk about a sense of urgency before an election. On a rough count, even if a trigger were given today I do not think they could have a double dissolution before about 26 July anyway—so do not run that line about urgency in relation to this bill. The minister, the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, knows that this is not urgent to the extent that this will not interfere with a 1 July start-up if that is indeed the will of the parliament. There is absolutely no reason why this cannot be dealt with in May. There is not a sense of urgency.

I want to talk about this so-called push for campaign finance reform. I have already indicated that the Labor Party stood in front of proper references to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters last year. Where has been the government’s drive for change? If you read through the green paper, which was indeed a collection of all those things that had been articulated by others anyway, is there anything in that green paper which is making recommendations in relation to campaign finance reform? No, there is not. Have the government in any way attempted to put on the table some options that must be discussed? No, they have not, and they have dragged this out themselves and then they have had the gall to come into this place today and say this is urgent. Well, they know this is not urgent and the Greens and the Independents know that this is not urgent, because if this were urgent the opportunity to debate the previous bill would have been taken up on those three occasions that I referred to when it was on the Notice Paper.

I want to make absolutely sure that there is no doubt in anyone’s mind about the commitment of the coalition to campaign finance reform. Let us go back and see where this started. When did the Australian Labor Party suddenly become interested in campaign finance reform? It started with the Wollongong sex and bribery scandal. That is when the Australian Labor Party became interested in campaign finance reform. That is when we saw the appalling behaviour of Labor Party apparatchiks in Wollongong in the sex and bribery scandal. That is when we saw the start of the government’s interest in this process. The first time they had the opportunity to respond to Wollongong was in this chamber and they squibbed it. They squibbed the opportunity to respond to the Wollongong sex and bribery scandal. They squibbed it by not being prepared to support the reference from this chamber to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and they have squibbed it ever since. They squibbed it then and they squibbed it when it was on the red and on the Notice Paper. They have had four occasions to actually show their bona fides.

Let no-one be in any doubt about where we stand in relation to campaign financial reform. We drove this process in March last year and we will help drive it through to a proper conclusion, which will give the Australian people some sense of confidence that the campaign finance system and the whole electoral system has a degree of openness and transparency which will reinforce their trust in this fantastic democracy of ours. That is what this has got to be about. It has got to be about giving some ownership back to the Australian people with a level of comfort that the democracy we cherish is not in any way being bastardised by campaign finance laws or anything else.

We are determined to see this through to a proper conclusion, but we are not prepared to sit back and let the Labor Party, which is apparently committed to campaign financial reform, leave hanging a funding group such as the trade union movement, which has become so brazen that a leaked document I referred to last week actually had in one of the annual reports from one of the New South Wales unions a subparagraph in it titled ‘Marginal Seat Campaign’. So let us be absolutely sure about who is the piper and who is being paid. Let us be absolutely sure about this. While the minister point-blank refuses to address the undue influence of third parties and associated groups in this country, he stands condemned for his insincerity. While he refuses to take on those bodies that have a level of influence unbelievably greater than those that we are talking about today, and while he still insists on refusing to bring them into campaign financial reform, he stands condemned for his own hypocrisy. That is what we want to see coming out of this debate.

I do not think there is anyone in this chamber on the non-government side who does not believe that we are genuine in our desire to have appropriate and proper campaign finance reform. We are absolutely on the record. We started the process and we will complete it to the satisfaction of the Australian community so they can have some restored confidence. This is a matter of confidence. The Wollongong sex and bribery scandal was such that people started to lose confidence in the system and they need to get that back. They need to be able to say that the openness and transparency means there is not one group within the community that can buy the sort of influence that we are seeing from the trade union movement.

The Fair Work Bill is a constant reminder that we need to do something, and we need to do it holistically. There is no greater example in the last two weeks than the Fair Work Bill where we have seen a non-mandated aspect of that bill giving to the union movement unfettered power to go in and breach the privacy of Australian workers. That is what it is. When you get down to it, it is about breaching the privacy of Australian workers. We do not think that is reasonable. We think it is even more unreasonable when it is driven by a payback for the $31 million. That is what this debate is about. This was not in the original proposal the Australian Labor Party took to the people. It is not in there because the donations at that stage were still rolling in. Post the election, the unions demanded their pound of flesh for their $31-plus million.

We are absolutely committed to campaign finance reform, but we are not going to let people be conned by a notion that there is some high priority for the government in this. I will finish on this note: the minister said, ‘This is a high priority for me.’ It has not been a high priority for this minister at all. He had at least three occasions on the red to make this a priority. He chose not to do so. This does not need to be debated this week. This can be debated in May for a July start-up, if that indeed is the will of the Senate.

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

I begin in this motion to exempt bills from the cut-off by having a look at what Odgers says about the cut-off. I think it is important that we just have a bit of a history lesson in relation to this because it is important to put this in context. The commentary in Odgers says:

Over many years the Senate was concerned with the end-of-sittings rush of legislation, the concentration of government bills which occurs in the last weeks of a period of sittings and which results in legislation being passed with greater haste than during the earlier part of the sittings, and with inadequate time for proper consideration.

It goes on to say:

The causes of this phenomenon are not clear; a view frequently expressed was that ministers or departments deliberately delayed the introduction of legislation until late in a period of sittings in the hope that it would be passed without proper scrutiny. This suspicion was reinforced by ministers regularly claiming that all government bills accumulated at the end of sittings were urgent. There were often grounds for scepticism about these claims, particularly the failure to proclaim legislation stated to be urgent at the time of its passage.

It is interesting to put that in context. Measures were introduced to ameliorate unintended consequences back in 1986 by having a deadline and then a double deadline, which is the rule that we have now, initiated by then Senator Christabel Chamarette from the Greens in WA. The commentary in Odgers is:

… that the Senate’s deadline may have alleviated the situation, having regard to the change from two to three sitting periods per year …

However, the figures given in Odgersand I think it has actually got worse since the time of publication—suggest that the problem has tended to creep back but is probably due to the readiness with which the Senate exempts bills from the operation of the standing orders at the request of the government.

Let us put this in perspective. This rule is about not being caught by surprise, not being caught by having to look at legislation on the hop; it is about having a proper level of scrutiny. That is the Senate’s job. So my position in relation to the reasons to exempt the political donations legislation and the Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009 and the consequential amendments bill from the cut-off are different, for those reasons. Firstly, in relation to the issue of political donations: the government introduced its amendments in December last year. There has been a joint committee looking at the whole issue of funding and disclosure reform and it has been the subject of considerable debate. It was dealt with in the Senate last week. There was a debate with respect to that. The government did not succeed; I supported the government in relation to the measures because I believe it is important that we deal with this first tranche of reforms—the level of donations before there is disclosure, foreign donations and related matters. I think it is important that we deal with these measures. I agree with the substance of what Senator Faulkner was saying. I do not think we should delay it.

The issue here is: should the bill now before the chamber be exempted from the cut-off? If you accept what the cut-off provisions are all about—about not being forced to deal with legislation you have not had time to consider, about not dealing with a matter with haste and without proper consideration—then I do not think the cut-off provisions were intended to deal with a bill such as this that has already been dealt with. The government is entitled to bring it back in. My view is that we ought to deal with it again. I believe it is an important and urgent piece of legislation. The opposition say that the cut-off should apply here; I do not believe that is what the cut-off is about. Therefore, when it comes to a vote with respect to the political donations bill I will be supporting the exemption to the cut-off. We ought to be able to deal with it; there is no surprise here.

The Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill is a different matter. Firstly, I have very grave concerns about the way this bill has been handled—or perhaps I should say ‘mishandled’—by the government. The Prime Minister first announced the proposed creation of the Australian Business Investment Partnership on 24 January this year, some seven weeks ago. In his speech about the bank, the Prime Minister made the issue sound particularly urgent. As he saw it, the government needed to act quickly so as to secure the future of jobs in the construction industry. However, the legislation relating to this bill was introduced to the House of Representatives on 12 March, just six days ago. We now find ourselves in the last sitting week of the session being told we have to vote on this immediately. The substance of the bill is quite different from what was first announced by the Prime Minister on 24 January.

I have two problems with what the government is trying to do with this bill. The first is pretty simple: bad planning on the government’s part should not consistently have to constitute an emergency on the Senate’s part. Time and time again we are being told that bills that have been kicking around for weeks or months suddenly need to be voted on immediately regardless of the level of scrutiny those bills have received and regardless of the lack of staffing resources that, particularly, crossbench senators must endure—and the resource levels are pitiful. Since my time in the Senate the government has requested 14 separate motions to exempt 38 bills, none of which were refused, and now we have another motion today to exempt another four bills. These bills have included the economic stimulus package and now this particular bill.

My team of two staffers here in Canberra are expected to be across every piece of legislation that goes through this place. If they are not, I am not doing my job. They do a good job, but do they deserve four or five hours sleep a night? I believe that we are being unfairly pressured and I hope this is not a tactic by the government to run us ragged in the hope that we will simply vote bills through without scrutiny. Let me make this really simple: if you try this tactic it will fail. I will insist on doing my job properly or I will refuse to vote. For the last two days my staff have attempted to work with Treasury to organise a full briefing on this matter and, simply, we have been flat out with the IR legislation and the alcopops legislation. I understand that, as I speak now, one of my staff is currently receiving a briefing from Treasury in relation to this bill. When you consider the scope of this bill and the $26 billion contingent liability that it may expose Australian taxpayers to, I do not want to do this on the fly. I think it is appropriate that there be a degree of scrutiny with respect to this bill.

To consider the context of the government’s guarantee to the banks—the guaranteed bank deposits—that was announced on 12 October, let us look at what some of the commentators said back then. Sam Wylie, a research fellow at the Melbourne Business School, said in the Financial Review of 14 November that the ‘big four’ need to give us something back because of the impact it could have on credit markets and the transparency of the banks. Fast forward to a commentary by Deborah Ralston, the Acting Director of the Melbourne Centre for Financial Studies and a director of the listed company Mortgage Choice in the Financial Review of 11 March. The headline says it all: ‘Guarantee has given big banks the whip hand’. She complains that there is a real issue about the tap being turned off for business lending for smaller businesses as a result of the bank guarantee. She writes:

The net effect of reduced business lending is costly and has an adverse accelerator effect on aggregate demand. In a normal situation, competitive forces would moderate this tendency, but with the banks being the only game in town, we appear to be back to the old credit rationing of pre-deregulation times. Would the banks be so risk-averse if they had more competition?

She goes on to say that there has been a loss of competition in the credit market as a result of the bank guarantee—which I supported, but there have been adverse consequences, unintended consequences. My fear with this piece of legislation is that we will get the same problems arising and to expect the Senate to deal with such a major piece of legislation in such little time, without appropriate scrutiny, I believe is simply not adequate. I have not been given the time and resources to deal with this bill.

I can indicate that if the government wants to come back—and this harks to the proposal put by Senator Brown on behalf of the Greens, which is to have an extra sitting week—I will be prepared to do that. But, right now, to expect to have this bill dealt with, to seek exemption from the cut-off, I believe is unreasonable. It is my belief that when you are talking about a $26 billion exposure for the taxpayers of Australia this bill ought to go off to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics for appropriate scrutiny. I feel that I am in an untenable situation with respect to this motion to exempt the bills from the cut-off. Therefore, I have no choice but to vote against it, denying exemption from the cut-off in relation to these bills.

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

I want to take up where Senator Xenophon left off, and that is to reiterate the Greens proposal that we sit an extra week before Easter. That would surely solve the dilemma that the Senate is in at the moment. It was a sensible proposal. Senator Xenophon supported it. Senator Fielding did not and nor did the government or the opposition, and that was a mistake.

The problem here—and we have just heard it very personally delivered by Senator Xenophon—is that there is not enough time to deal with the number and complexity of pieces of legislation we are being asked to deal with. Well, you give yourself more time. But the opposition cannot have it both ways. They cannot be saying, ‘There has to be more time for this, but we will vote down sittings of the Senate which would facilitate us being able to adequately scrutinise and debate such legislation.’

I have been approached about this motion by the opposition in the last few days. While I think it is ultimately not the clinching argument here, I do have to point out that repeatedly—and I am talking about dozens of times—the Greens moved in the Senate during the last parliament, when, you will remember, the now opposition had control of this place, for bills not to be exempted from the cut-off so that we would be able to deal with them and take more time with them. Every time, the government of the day, the coalition, refused the arrangement to have the bills held over until they could be properly scrutinised. That is what we are talking about: taking more time to scrutinise bills. But every time the Howard government rolled over the Senate, using its numbers.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Didn’t do us any good.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, please ignore the interjection.

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

Senator Cormann says that it did not do the Howard government any good and I agree with that. The fact is that we have two pieces of legislation here. I agree with Senator Faulkner’s argument on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009: it should be dealt with. In my view, for the cogent reasons that he gave, it should have been passed last week. It failed because of Senator Fielding’s vote joining that of the opposition and, very curiously, allowing the big donors to the political parties to have cover-up. That is what it comes down to. I think we should be dealing with that legislation. We have dealt with it once before, so there is hardly any argument that we need more time to consider it. If it is going to be reconsidered, let it be brought on for reconsideration.

When it comes to the Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009, the so-called Ruddbank legislation, it gets a whole lot more complicated. On the face of it, this is a $2 billion bill from the government, but it has contingent liabilities that could possibly extend closer to $30 billion if things went wrong. It is very worrying and troubling to the Greens. We have had a briefing from Treasury, which means being able to ask pertinent questions of Treasury. We remain concerned about it and look forward to the debate on the legislation. It has been very largely canvassed in the public arena.

The government, again, as with the stimulus bill, has put the argument that we are in very rocky financial times and there is some urgency to pass this legislation. It is impossible to know how well that argument applies to this piece of legislation. But if we are to prevent defaults on major developments—and that is the aim of the bill—putting the bill off runs the risk of failing to catch defaults that may be coming close at the moment. The Treasurer says that 50,000 jobs may be at stake. We know that that can only be a guesstimate. I have seen direct evidence that that is so, but how can you know before a corporation collapses? We see in an Australian newspaper today that a major building site in Brisbane is threatened if this legislation does not pass. Let us debate it.

The Greens will flag two major amendments which are to do with CEO salaries. We believe that if there are development corporations that are going to be advantaged by this legislation—that is, because the CEOs are unable to find finance and are going to rely on this public financing—then they ought to trim their own income to $1 million or less. If they are going to be leaving the corporation, their shareholders should be able to vet their so-called golden parachute to make sure that they are not taking large amounts of money out of a company that is obviously going to be in trouble and has become dependent upon taxpayers’ dollars.

We are very frustrated that Prime Minister Rudd has not acted on this matter. He should have and he should have done it long ago. The Prime Minister himself says that there are obscene payments going to some CEOs at the big end of town—most CEOs are fine about this—including CEOs who are sacking Australians. Equal Australians have no job at all and are out the back door while multimillion-dollar payouts are being taken by the people in the velvet chairs upstairs. That process should be regulated for when companies fall into hard times due to either mismanagement or financial circumstances they cannot control. Either way, they should be pulling their belts in like everybody else. If they will not do it, we should regulate to ensure that they do do it.

The Greens are very serious about the amendments to this legislation. If the vote is for delay—and we will vote for this legislation to be brought on because we are prepared for it—then we will be submitting these amendments for scrutiny by a committee if there is an inquiry established. That said, we support the government in this measure.

I have asked the opposition if they would produce guidelines for the exemption to the cut-off—in other words, guidelines to determine which bills ought to be not exempted when the government calls for their exemption. Where are the guidelines that will help the Senate understand when the opposition is going to refuse quick passage of a bill through the Senate? This is a very important matter. It cannot be selective. I suspect the opposition’s move today—and they will forgive me if I am wrong, I am sure—is highly politically motivated. That is not what we should be basing our judgment of whether a bill gets quick passage or not upon. It should be based upon the wellbeing of the Australian people. The outcome has to be the most important factor. Let us have a set of guidelines from the opposition that will make consistent their move to block the government exempting bills from the cut-off like this. I am happy to work with all parties in here in coming up with those guidelines.

As Senator Xenophon said, it was Senator Chamarette who introduced this rule. It is a good rule. It means that governments cannot simply expect the Senate to deal with legislation that has not been properly scrutinised. Let us move to the next stage of at least having some guiding rules which establish what it is that makes a piece of legislation so urgent that we should forgo the ability to have a committee, to have proper consideration or to have time to properly consult the sectors of the Australian community that might be affected.

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

Here we are again at the eleventh hour on a couple of other issues. Are there a couple of dollars involved with the Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009? No, it exposes taxpayers to the tune of $26 billion. The government expects to just ram this legislation through. We had this problem with the previous government. We had a brief yesterday from the Treasury and we are looking through it. This is $26 billion of exposure for taxpayers. It needs to go through a better process than just having it for a few days before the vote is brought on. It is just silly. It is a ridiculous discussion to be having really. I do not know how long we have wasted—maybe you could tell us how long we have wasted—this morning debating just this cut-off order.

We have some serious issues before the Senate. We have the industrial relations laws for this land that will be with us for a long time. We need to get those right. We have in front of this chamber as well the issue of binge drinking and creating a culture of responsible drinking. We should be dedicating time to those issues. But the Rudd government is diverting the attention of the Australian Senate. This is ridiculous. This needs to go through a proper inquiry. We need to have a look at it. There is some urgency to address the issue, but we need to get it right with the exposure of $26 billion of taxpayers’ money.

It has taken the Rudd government time to get serious about the amendment we have to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009. They can bag it all they like. I am happy for them to suggest amendments. We had discussions yesterday with Senator Faulkner. We still have time, but we are wasting the Senate’s time debating this issue now when we should be getting back to the important industrial relations laws that will affect all working families and the issue of the alcohol toll on families across Australia. These are the two things that should be taking up the time of the Senate at the moment.

The Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009 can be put through a Senate inquiry to give us some time and, more importantly, to make sure that we scrutinise the $26 billion exposure for Australians. Family First will not be supporting both of these measures in the cut-off motion for the reasons I have just outlined.

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

Having listened to the debate this morning these are the critical issues. The parliament had notice of the ABIP bills. Clearly the parliament can deal with the political donations matter in the fortnight. It is a matter that needs to be resolved for transparency across government and for political parties. But I will reiterate the argument for the special purpose vehicle.

In essence, it is this: we are acting decisively in the face of the worst economic times we have seen in my lifetime. The global financial crisis is not the figment of the imagination the opposition think it is. There is a financial recession right across the world. The position we are now taking is that this government will do everything it possibly can to support jobs and businesses in the community. This vehicle will ensure that the commercial property sector, which employs 150,000 people, including plumbers, electricians and carpenters, is supported. The second part of it is that, without this action, a combination of weak demand and tight credit could see up to 50,000 people in this sector lose their jobs, according to Treasury figures, with flow-on effects on jobs and other parts of the economy. This government is taking decisive action to ensure that it supports jobs in the community.

The opposition, Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon are saying that they want more time. But this was a matter that was announced as early as 24 January and introduced into the House on 12 March. We are taking this action to ensure that the commercial property market continues to have the support of this government. What the opposition, Independent Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding are doing is ensuring that this bill will not be debated. We do not know the outcome of the debate. Senator Bob Brown has taken a responsible course of action in relation to this debate. He has indicated that he is prepared to have a debate, to move amendments and to see how this matter unfolds—which is what parliament is here for. The opposition do not have a position in respect of this matter and they are using a procedural device to continue to not have a position, because they do not know what their position is. Even if they did know what their position was, I am not sure they would have the support of all their people. If this matter is not debated this week, when they go back to their electorates they will have to explain to the commercial property market, to people in the community, to plumbers and electricians why they did not allow this bill to be debated to support jobs in the community.

As for the arguments about not being ready for the debate, it was put on the record that we would be debating this and we described what the bill was. It was not unknown. The workload during this sitting period is not unusual or out of kilter with other similar periods.

When in opposition it is usual, if a matter is stated by the government to be urgent, for an exemption from the cut-off to be given. It would be unusual for the opposition not to support it, unless they were playing politics or unless there were a clear reason they could articulate as to why it could not be proceeded with. This is not the case, because we have demonstrated that there is urgency about dealing with this legislation this sitting period. I have outlined the difficulties that we face across the community, particularly in the commercial property market. By effectively withdrawing your support for the exemption from the cut-off, you are ensuring that uncertainty in the commercial property market will continue.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion regarding exemption from the cut-off be agreed to in respect of the Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009 and a related bill.

The Acting Deputy President:

The question now is that the motion be agreed to in respect of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Ludwig, I move:

That the government business orders of the day relating to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2008-2009 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2008-2009, and the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2008-2009 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2008-2009, may be taken together for their remaining stages.

Question agreed to.