Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know I am interrupting Senator Back, who was in full flight when this debate was adjourned yesterday. I apologise for that, but I think it is important, for those who have not understood the debate so far, to recapitulate what happened yesterday.

Yesterday, for three hours, we asked questions of the minister about the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood and Cyclone Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood and Cyclone Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011, which will impose yet another tax on some Australians. We were asking questions about why this tax was being levied just on individuals, rather than on multinational corporations. The Greens were very keen about making sure that those multinational companies paid their fair share of tax. The Greens have been railing in this chamber about how these multinational companies rip off huge profits from Australia and send those profits overseas. Yet here is a bill that the Greens and the Labor Party are promoting that taxes individual Australians but not corporate Australians. Whilst the plumber and the electrician will pay the flood tax, BHP, Xstrata and Rio Tinto will not. Whilst the local baker and butcher will pay the flood tax, Woolies and Coles will be exempted.

We asked the minister for three hours last night: what was the policy rationale behind this? We also asked the minister which class of individuals was going to be exempted from the tax. This legislation provides that the minister, on a whim, can decide which Australians are going to pay this tax and which Australians are not. Senator Back, when the adjournment interrupted him, was raising an issue about the north of Western Australia, and I am very keen to hear him complete his question on that. But, with the typical arrogance of this Labor government—a Labor government that, you might recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, had this new paradigm for parliament; they were going to be open and accountable, they were going to address issues and they were going to tell the public what was happening—the minister, when we raised these questions for three hours yesterday, simply refused to answer them.

I know Senator Back has questions. I have some more questions, and I suspect other senators have questions. We want these questions answered. We hope that the minister has had a good night’s sleep and has relinquished the belligerent approach that he adopted last night of just sitting there and simply refusing to answer legitimate questions.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How can you be belligerent if you are not saying anything?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did say something. You attacked the messenger, and then you sulked for the rest of the night and refused to answer quite legitimate questions. This bill might well have been able to be dealt with had we had some cooperation from this government that claims it is so accountable. I have other questions, but I know Senator Back is very keen to complete the question he started yesterday, and I look forward to the minister’s answers.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Macdonald for his introduction and for allowing me to continue my remarks and my questions to the minister. The question to the minister goes to the extent of who are in receipt of these flood levies. We have asked the questions about floods and other natural disasters. The question was asked last night about drought, and I am very hopeful that we may receive some advice from the minister as to whether natural disaster extends to drought. We do understand. We hope, however, that the minister is going to confirm advice that was received with regard to the bushfires surrounding Perth. That advice, which came via the West Australian, was apparently the result of a decision by the Prime Minister, but it would be excellent if the Senate could be apprised of the validity of that point.

Last evening, before the discussion was terminated, I was briefly asking questions about the eligibility under the levy for funding in the Gascoyne region, which was subject to WA’s worst floods in December last year. I made the point that, under the Australian government natural disaster recovery fund, eventually, by mid-February, I was able to organise a situation in which people did receive their $1,000 per head for adults and $400 for children—which, in fact, then exempted them from paying this levy. Others have already commented, as I will. I am very keen to know from the minister: will the Gascoyne region be entitled to funding under this levy, part of which is a $1.8 billion tax grab from some individuals in Australia—not companies, and not many, but some? Will the Gascoyne region be entitled to funding under the flood levy scheme so that they can put into place mitigation bunding and avoid that disaster—which Emergency Management Australia, taking it upon itself earlier this year, decided to overrule the Prime Minister on and, in their own wisdom, made a decision to not allow that level of disaster recovery funding for the citizens of that place? Fortunately, that  has changed. I need to know now whether or not, under this levy arrangement, people of the Gascoyne are entitled to that funding.

I also want to go to a quotation by the member for O’Connor, in the other place, Mr Crook, on 2 March this year. I seek clarification from the minister, as a result of this media release that Mr Crook put out apparently after further discussions with the government. In late February this year, on the tail end of another cyclone coming down the Western Australian coast, the Goldfields region was subject to intense flooding. I was in fact in Kalgoorlie on Saturday and Sunday. To watch the desert greening as a result of that flooding was wonderful. The flood did in fact wash away sections of the transcontinental railway, which was closed for some period of time. Some of the more remote communities in the shires of Laverton, Leonora and Menzies were particularly affected. Mr Crook, to quote from his release, has advised that those shires ‘will be able to access natural diaster support’—no problem there: those arrangements are long in place between the federal and state governments, the natural disaster has been declared and it has been accepted. The question I have of the minister is this. Mr Crook’s release goes on to tell us:

As part of his dialogue with the Government regarding the Flood Levy, Mr Crook has negotiated to ensure a fair deal for WA residents, including:

-Activation of the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment … for … the Gascoyne—

which he had absolutely nothing to do with. The fact is that the Prime Minister’s decision of 11 February, following my questions in this place, activated that—but, nevertheless, he chooses to take that glory upon himself. The media release goes on—and this may help to answer questions asked by Senator Cormann last night; this is Mr Crook advising us of his dialogue with the government—to say that he also negotiated:

-Exemption from paying the flood levy for flood, fire and storm affected residents in WA …

So we now have another element to this. And he particularly tells us:

This is a very positive outcome and I am pleased to see these communities in need will benefit from the Flood Levy.

I will not read out the rest of his media release, because most of it is spent bucketing me and calling to account what he believed to be ‘political games’ that I was playing—

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Read it out!

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I will—thank you very much:

Mr Crook also criticised Liberal Senator Chris Back … for playing political games while communities are in need of assistance.

This is after it was the much maligned Senator Chris Back who had arranged the payment under the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment scheme for all of the people in the Gascoyne! So the question I have of the minister extends from that. We had eligibility for flood victims in Queensland. That, as the result of Mr Katter’s intervention to win his vote, went from the Brisbane floods up to North Queensland after Cyclone Yasi, as I understand it. He secured $650 million for his vote. Poor old Mr Crook got nothing for his, largely because he came out and said he would support this stupid levy very early in the piece. But my question now is: is it the case, as Mr Crook has quoted, that he has used his relationship with government to negotiate a good outcome for Western Australians affected by disaster, for flood victims in the Goldfields, for fire affected residents—presumably the bushfires surrounding Perth; and I asked the question last night: does that involve the December fires around Cape Preston, south of Mandurah—and for storm affected residents? Those are the questions that I am anxious to receive answers to. I need to know: what is the extent of what the government is offering, to whom and why? Is it because Mr Crook gave up his vote in favour of the levy early that we now see some attempt by government to square the ledger, after Mr Katter was able to get $650 million in consideration of his vote? I ask the minister, through you, Mr Temporary Chairman: how long is the piece of string? Where does it stop? When does it stop? How much will the levy be? How much will people have to pay? And, coming back to a question asked last night: in a properly managed economy, why do we need a $1.8 billion tax grab from taxpayers when in fact we have a $350 billion budget? And why does this have to be dealt with only weeks before the budget for 2011-12 is brought down by the government?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will respond on a couple of points. Firstly, to Senator Back: he was not here last night for the entire debate.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Correct.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I am glad you acknowledge that. Some of the issues that you raised in what was a very, very, very long question were raised and answered last night before your presence in the chamber. Frankly, I am not in the habit and I am not going to get into the habit of repeating and repeating myself. As you know, it is against standing orders and it takes up the time of the Senate inordinately. The last questions you were asking—about how much a levy would be and why it is needed—have been well canvassed, Senator Back, in this debate, not just in the committee stage but during the earlier debate. I do not intend to repeat my contributions of last night and I do not intend to repeat my contributions either in the committee stage or in closing the debate—or indeed the contributions that have been widely canvassed on both sides of the chamber.

In regard to the positions of Mr Katter and Mr Crook, obviously I am not them. I cannot answer for them. If you wish to cross-examine or critique them, that is your prerogative, but your colleagues in the other place can do that. All I know of Mr Katter and Mr Crook is that on this issue they have represented their constituencies effectively. I accept that. They are supporting the government legislation. All that is agreed to is on the public record. The extent to which Mr Crook or Mr Katter put out their press releases is their prerogative. I am not here to comment about what is in their press releases. That is for them to do.

On the issue of the regulatory exemptions: they are on the Treasury website. They are contained in the regulation schedules, of which I have copies here, which are also on the Treasury website, so all of that detail is there for you, Senator.

To come back to Senator Macdonald: firstly, he accused me of sulking. In fact, for the first hour I did answer questions, I think reasonably and fairly and comprehensively. I think Senator Xenophon would acknowledge that with respect to his questions and others I did the same. We then had Senator Macdonald engage in what is known as a filibuster. He just repeated himself over and over and over again with questions and arguments that had been heard and answered—so it was a filibuster, Senator Macdonald. If you wish to engage in that, that is up to you. I chose then not to continue to repeat answers I had already given or answers that had already occurred in the debate, and again I do not intend to do that this afternoon. When I conclude my remarks, I will have concluded my remarks and I will sit down. I do not intend to get up again and go back over issues that have already been canvassed.

On the issue of the tax and the method on the base of the tax the government selected, I did answer the question last night. I pointed out that using the income tax system was a matter of fairness, equity and administrative ease. I pointed that out last night and I pointed it out at the very beginning of the evening, Senator, but you still chose to pursue that for some 2½ hours. That is the reason we have done it. In precedent terms, the previous Liberal-National government, of which you were a member, applied a similar type base to its levies with respect to guns and East Timor. I think they were the other two levies that had a similar type base, and I pointed that out last night.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about containers that you were talking about last night?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Also, I did not interject last night and I have not interjected this morning. You just continue to reflect your rudeness, Senator, in interjecting.

So I did point that out last night. I also pointed out last night that, when you were part of that government, Senator Macdonald, you had another four levies. You had six levies for specific purposes when you were a minister and a backbencher in the previous Liberal-National government. There was a levy on sugar, a levy on milk, a levy on tickets to pay for the Ansett collapse, a levy for East Timor, a levy for guns buyback—and even a levy on containers. I pointed that out last night. Senator Macdonald, as a member of that Liberal-National party government, conveniently forgets, when he criticises us for having one levy, that the government he was a member of had six levies, and that did not include the superannuation surcharge, which they claim was not a tax. All of these issues were well canvassed last night, Senator Macdonald.

In terms of the Greens and the position they postulated, they are not here. That is their prerogative. They are the ones who argued that the levy should apply and the base should be on multinational companies. That was not an argument that the government advanced. There was no speaker from the government who advanced that as an argument, so your contention and your issue are with the Greens. Again, it is up to you, Senator Macdonald. If you want to question them on their particular approach, it is up to you. I am here representing the government. We have chosen the base of the levy. I have answered your questions, and I do not intend to answer repeated questions again this afternoon.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those comments from the minister are just completely unsatisfactory. He has not answered the very specific question on which this government is creating a whole lot of confusion. But let me just remind people of what it is we are debating here today. We are debating here today another Labor Party tax which will increase income taxes for all Australians earning more than $50,000 a year, unless they are part of one of the exemption categories. This is a tax which of course is not necessary at this point in time. It is not supposed to come into effect until 1 July 2011, and any government that properly managed its finances, any government that properly managed our public finances, would be considering the revenue needs and spending commitments in the context of the budget. This would be quite easy for the government to do on this occasion. This is a tax which is supposed to raise $1.8 billion not to fund the reconstruction of houses or property of individual Queenslanders but to fund the reconstruction of infrastructure which the state Labor government in Queensland did not properly insure, which is an issue that has been widely canvassed in this chamber.

The only reason why the Labor government are going for this tax is that the Labor Party can see an opportunity to politically get away with it. The Labor Party are looking for an opportunity to get away with yet another tax grab because they work on the basis that, quite rightly, there is a lot of goodwill from people right across Australia towards the necessary reconstruction effort in Queensland, which the coalition supports. Let me make this point very clear: this legislation has got nothing to do with the question of whether or not this investment should be supported, Commonwealth funding into Queensland to assist the Queensland government with reconstruction of their infrastructure. Of course we support that. But we think that any government that manages its finances properly should be able to fund that sort of commitment by reprioritising its current spending commitments. There is a lot of waste and mismanagement across government at present. We have widely canvassed in the past the waste and mismanagement, with the $2.4 billion pink batts program to put pink batts into people’s roofs only to take them out again, and the waste and mismanagement with the school halls. It has been waste and mismanagement everywhere.

We have got this question of who is going to be exempt from paying this tax. I asked a question about this to the Secretary of the Department of Finance and Deregulation in the Senate estimates: would people like those in Kelmscott who were subject to bushfires be exempt from the flood tax? No, said Mr Tune, the secretary of the finance department, not necessarily. I asked: why is that? Mr Tune said:

Well, the government’s decision at the moment is that those who are subject to the floods are exempt from the levy. It would require another decision to alter that.

Following up, I asked:

Only if the natural disaster you were subject to was a flood will you be exempt from the flood tax? If it is any other natural disaster, you are not exempt at the moment?

Mr Tune, the secretary of the finance department, said:

That is the situation as it stands at the moment.

This created quite a bit of interest in my home state of Western Australia, to such an extent that a journalist from the West Australian, Mr Andrew Probyn, rang the Prime Minister’s office and asked what the story is. Only those who are subject to a flood event are going to be exempt. What about the people of Kelmscott and other bushfire affected areas in Western Australia? Why do they have to pay the levy? This is what he was told: ‘Julia Gillard has said the victims of the Kelmscott bushfire will not have to pay the national flood levy.’ This was about an hour after the secretary of the finance department said that they would have to pay the flood levy. An hour later Prime Minister Gillard said that victims of the Kelmscott bushfire will not have to pay the national flood levy. The Prime Minister made the decision last night after a senior bureaucrat said that, although the fire victims qualified for $1,000 disaster recovery payments, they were still expected to pay the levy. ‘A spokesman for Ms Gillard said victims of this year’s WA bushfires would be exempted.’

The minister has now arrogantly said that he is not going to answer any more questions in relation to this. But I asked him this question yesterday and he refused to get up and confirm in answer to my question whether or not the statement that was made by the spokesman for the Prime Minister to a journalist of the West Australian stands. The minister then says this morning, ‘Go to the Treasury website.’ My office went back to the Treasury website today, Minister, and you might want to listen to this. I can see you are trying furiously to get some further advice from your advisers but you could actually do us the courtesy, even if you are not prepared to answer questions, of taking some notice of what is being said in this chamber in relation to this very bad Labor Party tax. You could at least do us the courtesy of listening to the debate, even if you are not prepared to answer questions. That would be a very good start. The arrogance of this government is absolutely breathtaking. Maybe the minister can read the comment in Hansard if he is not prepared to actively participate in the debate.

We went to the Treasury website today, and on the Treasury website there is what is called a flood levy fact sheet. If you want to check it out, Minister, it is

www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1948/PDFflood_levy_fact_sheet.PDF. Today on your website what does it say? It says:

Exemption from the flood levy

Where the person has received an Australian government disaster recovery payment in relation to a flood event in 2010-11, they will be exempt from the levy.

That is on the Treasury’s website today—in direct contradiction to comments made by a spokesman for the Prime Minister in the West Australian on 23 February 2011, about a decision that the Prime Minister made on the run after questions being asked about this at Senate estimates. You can arrogantly say to us that you are not going to answer any more questions, Minister, but quite frankly the people of Western Australia deserve answers to these questions. I tell you something else, Minister: the people who have been impacted by droughts, the people who have been impacted by storms, the people who have been impacted by natural disasters in other parts of Australia deserve answers to these questions. Who is going to be exempt? Can you confirm that it is not just going to be those people who were subject to a flood event? Can you confirm that it is going to be the people that were subject to bushfire in Kelmscott? Can you confirm that it is going to be people who were subject to storm events in other parts of Australia? Can you confirm that it is going to be people who were subject to drought events? And what other natural disasters is the government currently considering for exemption from this ad hoc Labor Party tax grab?

We understand that the Labor Party is always looking for another opportunity to get away with yet another Labor Party tax, but this is a parliamentary democracy. This is a system of parliament where the government is accountable to the parliament and where the government is supposed to answer legitimate questions that are raised by members of parliament to explain the reasons, the rationale and all of the ins and outs of a particular proposal that is before it.

You have not addressed with one single comment this morning the questions that were raised in this chamber last night by a number of senators in relation to the categories of Australians that will be exempt from this tax. I hope that you will reconsider the arrogant statement you made, which was that you are not going to get up to answer any more questions in relation to this, because it has not all been canvassed. As I have outlined, statements were made by the Prime Minister in the West Australian on 23 February. I cannot contradict the flood levy fact sheet on the Treasury website today. You are telling us that we should not worry about asking you questions in this chamber. You are telling us: ‘Go to the website’. We have gone to the website, Minister, and the website does not give us the answers we need. So we will do what our job is—that is, ask you questions in this chamber so you can give us the answers we need.

You can shuffle your papers and not even try to engage in this debate in any way whatsoever, but maybe you could interject for a moment and tell us what the answers to these questions are. But if you do not, if you are not in a position to provide an answer to these very legitimate questions, the people of Australia will be able to make a judgment on this, because the people of Australia of course know that this Labor government will impose a tax on them whenever they think they can politically get away with it. On this occasion your government clearly has made a judgment that it can politically get away with it, and so you cannot be bothered to go through the proper parliamentary process to provide answers to some legitimate questions which raise serious concerns for people in many parts of Australia but specifically on this occasion in my home state of Western Australia.

So, Minister, I would urge you to reconsider the decision that you have made not to participate any further in this debate and I would urge you to confirm for the people of Kelmscott, for people in drought affected areas and for people in storm affected areas across Australia that they also, not only those Australians who have been subject to a flood event, will be exempt from this flood levy. The people across Australia who otherwise will be hit inappropriately by this Labor Party tax deserve that explanation from you—in particular given that your government has made a decision not to pursue this tax through the normal budgetary process, which would have been very easy for you to do. It would have been, to use your words, the administratively easier way to go. But of course the reason we are wasting all these hours of debate in this parliament is that you have chosen to pursue this tax through ad hoc legislation outside any proper, normal budgetary process. You made a decision to whack on this tax because you could see a political opportunity to get away with it.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I have been listening and I have noted your comment that you will not be on your feet again to answer questions that have already been asked during the committee stage of this debate. As far as I am concerned, the questions that I am about to ask have not been answered, so I would prevail upon your good sense to consider getting to your feet again to answer these questions.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sherry interjecting—

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please listen, Minister. I am asking these questions because there are many people in our communities across this country who have been affected by their own natural disasters and they are wondering what makes one person’s natural disaster any different from or more disastrous than another person’s natural disaster. I am asking the following questions on behalf of those people in states across our country.

My office has visited one of the government’s websites today. We have been to the Attorney-General’s website to look at the national disaster relief fund assistance program. I note that the website talks about a state or territory being able to claim funding under the natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements if a natural disaster occurs. I note that a natural disaster for the purposes of that funding is defined to include a flood, bushfire, earthquake, storm cyclone, storm surge, landslide, tsunami, meteorite strike, tornado. I also note that the Attorney-General’s website today, under the heading ‘Current disasters’, lists the financial assistance that has been granted under that program for flooding and severe weather events from November 2010 to February 2011, part of which period saw Queensland devastated by its floods. I note, Minister, that the website confirms that your government under this program:

... will provide financial assistance to Victorian, South Australian—

my own state—

Western Australian and Tasmanian communities affected by flooding/severe weather in November 2010–January 2011.

That of course is relevant, given that Senator Cormann drew to your attention before the fact that today’s Treasury website confirms that certain consideration will be given to victims of flooding. In what is listed on the Attorney-General’s website as having been provided during that period of time to the people of Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, I note assistance given to 36 local government areas in Victoria, in alphabetical order beginning with Alpine and ending with Yarriambiack. The assistance given under your government’s program—and I am reading from the website—is in the nature of:

Emergency Grants of up to $1,067 to provide assistance to meet immediate basic needs.

These people have clearly been affected by their own version of a natural disaster.

They will get assistance with temporary living expense grants to assist households with the cost of temporary accommodation and living expenses. They will get re-establishment grants for repairs to structural damage et cetera. In my home state of South Australia, assistance under the natural disaster relief and recovery program has been made available for areas affected by severe weather on 7 and 8 December 2010. Personal hardship and distress assistance is being made available in the four local government areas of Clare and Gilbert Valleys, Loxton Waikerie, Mid Murray and The Barossa. That is what your government website says.

For Western Australia—and I declare that my family is still wheat and sheep farming in between Beverley and Brookton in Western Australia—I note that under this program your government, Minister, is extending assistance to 20 local governments, beginning with Beverley and Brookton, where my family continues to farm. Then there are Cuballing, Cunderdin, Dalwallinu, Goomalling, Narrogin, Northam, Perenjori, Pingelly, Quairading Toodyay, Victoria Plains, Wagin, Wandering, West Arthur, Wickepin, Williams, Wongan Hills and York. That is taken from your website today. The assistance for those communities, Minister, includes: counter disaster operations, personal hardship and distress assistance, restoration of essential public assets, interest rate subsidies for small businesses and primary producers and professional advice grants and freight subsidies for primary producers.

For the purposes of my question today, I finish with Tasmania. Under your government’s program, the Tasmanian government has been provided with assistance for 11 local government areas, beginning with Break O’Day and ending, in alphabetical order, with West Tamar. The sorts of personal hardship and distress assistance extended under your government’s program—for which I presume your government considers that there is merit, for otherwise why would you be doing it?—include the same sorts of personal hardship and distress assistance given to the other communities to which I have already referred.

Like Senator Back, it may have taken me a long time to get to my question. But, Minister, that is because there is quite a long list of communities across Australia that your government has seen to fit to assist, and appropriately so, under the natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements. My question, Minister, is this: in respect of those communities in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania listed on the Attorney-General’s website today—communities that qualified for assistance under your program—will any be exempt from the flood levy? If so, which ones and on what basis? If not, why not?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can see that the minister is committed to keeping his promise arrogantly not to participate in this debate. He did interject during Senator Fisher’s comments, and very insightful and eloquent comments they were as well, representing very strongly the interests of people right across Australia who were affected by natural disasters. The minister interjected by saying, ‘How long do you want to keep this going?’ Minister, this can be resolved very quickly. It is very clear that the coalition—the Liberal Party and National Party senators—are opposed to this tax and we will vote against it. But, on behalf of people across Australia, we are asking some legitimate questions. What Senator Fisher has just done is read out to you a list of all the areas impacted by natural disasters that are attracting support from the Commonwealth. What you have decided to do as a government is to exempt people who were subject to flood events. According to the Prime Minister’s spokesman, you have decided to exempt people who were subject to bushfires in Western Australia, although you have not been prepared to confirm that on the record during the committee stage debate.

What about all these other people who have been impacted by natural disasters? Do we have to get a newspaper in each region in each state to ring the Prime Minister’s office so that that newspaper can get a change in policy on the run? Do we really have to get the Hobart Mercury to ring the Prime Minister’s office and ask what is going to happen to people in your home state of Tasmania who have been impacted by natural disasters and who are getting support from the Commonwealth but are being asked to pay the flood levy? Do we really have to get the Adelaide Advertiser to ring about people who were impacted in South Australia to the extent that the government is providing assistance through natural disaster relief funding and to ask about whether they are going to get an exemption so that we can get the Prime Minister to make a decision on the run? What is this process? Is the only way that we can get an appropriate decision in relation to exemptions from the flood tax for people who are hurting because they have been impacted by a natural disaster to get a journalist to ring the Prime Minister’s office? Why can a journalist get an answer from the Prime Minister when senators in this chamber cannot even get the courtesy of so much as a comment from the minister representing the government in this chamber when some very legitimate questions are raised?

Minister, there are serious questions here. We understand that you have expanded the exemption from the flood levy beyond those Australians who were subject to a flood event. On the basis of comments reported in the West Australian, it seems that it has been expanded to people who were the victims of bushfires in Western Australia in recent times, although you have not confirmed that on the record. I would like you to confirm it on the record during the committee stage debate. Secondly, why should all these other Australians who have been subject to natural disasters to the extent that they have received natural disaster relief funding from the Commonwealth not also be exempt? What is the difference between somebody who been subject to a natural disaster in Queensland or Western Australia and somebody who has been subject to a natural disaster elsewhere? What is the policy rationale for you to pick one and not the other?

Is the only rationale that there was the risk of a bad headline on the front page of the West Australian for the Prime Minister and, as such, she made a decision on the run to exempt the very good people in Kelmscott—who deserve the exemption—from the flood levy? So do we need to make sure that there is a risk of a bad headline in all these other parts of Australia before you do us the courtesy of entertaining their plight?

I do not think it is appropriate, Minister, for you to just sit back and ignore the people of Tasmania, the people of South Australia, the people of Western Australia, the people of Queensland and the people in other parts of Australia who have been impacted by natural disasters that do not fall within the narrow definition of an exemption that is currently on the Treasury website. Quite frankly, Minister, the least you should do is clarify the complete inconsistency between what the Prime Minister’s spokesman said to the West Australian and what is on the flood levy fact sheet that is currently on the Treasury website.

I say ‘currently’. It might well have been changed while we have been having this debate. It might well be that some good people in Treasury have been following what has been going on in here and they might have realised that there is an inconsistency and they might well have changed it. But as late as 11 o’clock this morning this was the advice on the Treasury website—that the only people who were going to be exempt were persons who had received an Australian government disaster recovery payment in relation to a flood event in 2010-11. The website said they would be exempt from the levy, whereas the Prime Minister’s spokesman said that the Prime Minister made the decision ‘last night’—that is, on 22 February—that Kelmscott bushfire victims would also not have to pay the national flood levy. Of course, she said that after the head of the Department of Finance and Deregulation said that they would have to pay the flood levy, that they were not going to be exempt. The spokesman for Ms Gillard said victims of this year’s WA bushfires would be exempted, and that was reported in the West Australian on 23 February 2011.

Minister, give us one objective reason as to why this is. I am very happy for the people of Kelmscott that they are appropriately being exempted, if that is what is going to happen. But I would like you to clarify the inconsistency between what is on the Treasury website and what the Prime Minister’s spokesman is quoted as saying. I want you to explain to the Senate why it is appropriate for those two categories of victims of natural disasters, both receiving natural disaster funding from the Commonwealth, to be exempted and for all the other Australians who have been subject to natural disasters and who are receiving Australian government disaster recovery payments not to be exempted. What makes all those other Australians less deserving of his exemption? That is a very simple question.

Minister, going back to your question about how long we want to keep this going, we will keep this going until you have provided a proper answer to this question, because people across Australia impacted by natural disasters deserve answers to this question. If you want to know how long we will keep it going, we will keep it going until you have given the courtesy to the Senate and the courtesy to the Australian people of providing an answer to a very legitimate public policy question that the Senate should get an answer to before we are asked to make a final decision on this legislation.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I am sorry to say that I am, for what it is worth, offended by your interjection during the earlier asking of my questions. I am offended that you saw fit to allegedly interject with words to the effect of, ‘How long is this going to take?’ I am offended, Minister, because I think Australians are entitled to see from your government fairness and equity. Australians are fair. They will dig in and they will contribute, provided that they see fairness, and they are not seeing fairness from your government and they are not seeing equity—at a time when many of them are facing arguably some of the greatest personal hardship and distress of their working lives. That must be why your government has a program called the natural disaster assistance and recovery program. That must be why your government saw fit to provide assistance for personal hardship and distress.

So, Minister, in addition to my earlier questions, on what basis does the government consider itself able to judge the distress obviously caused to the people of Queensland and New South Wales by flooding in the 2010-11 year? On what basis does your government see fit to attempt to evaluate, in the words of your program, the ‘personal hardship and distress’ suffered by people in Queensland and New South Wales, for example, versus that suffered by others—suffered by the people of Victoria, the people of South Australia, the people of Tasmania and the people of Western Australia, whom your government has seen fit to assist under the natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements? If your government saw fit to assist those communities in their personal hardship and distress, then on what basis—this is my second question for right now—does your government differentiate between those people when deciding whether or not they are to be exempt from the levy to be paid by the Australian people to assist victims of the Queensland flooding?

Minister, let’s get more particular, and I am afraid I can. Let’s look at the wording of your program on the Attorney-General’s website. The assistance being given under the natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements—I hope you are not leaving the chamber, Minister. I am glad you have got to your feet. Are you answering my questions? No, it would appear not.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fisher, would you like to continue?

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just giving the minister a minute, if I may. Thank you, Chair—I will continue. On the Attorney-General’s departmental website today, there is reference to assistance given under the natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements by your government for the ‘severe thunderstorm on 29 January 2011’ to 20 or so local government areas in Western Australia, beginning with Beverley and Brookton, where my family still farms. I note that list of 20 ends with the local government area of York.

Under the assumption that these communities are not proposed to be exempted from the Queensland flood levy, on what basis does your government to seek to attribute a different value to, let’s say, a farmer in Beverley or Brookton who had the roof ripped off their farmhouse by the severe thunderstorm of 29 January 2011? Because it happened, Minister. It happened down the hill from my parents’ house. It happened to the next-door neighbour. They lost the entire roof off their house through the severe thunderstorm of 29 January 2011. They also then suffered a deluge from the rain that followed. So, Minister, on what basis do you attribute presumably some lesser suffering and different personal hardship and distress to a family that lost their roof and got the entire contents of their home sodden to people who suffered similarly from the Queensland floods or, indeed, from Cyclone Yasi?

On what basis does your government see fit to evaluate the loss of human life? Not only were there tragedies suffered by our countrypeople in the Queensland floods; there were also tragedies suffered, allegedly—but certainly during the severe thunderstorm that struck—in those 20 local government areas of Western Australia on 29 January 2011. On what basis does your government differentiate between a life lost due to that severe thunderstorm—in the words of your assistants—by a person driving a car in the local government area of York and tragedies that have occurred across our country in other natural disasters, including the floods in Queensland? What is your basis? Please show us that you are able to demonstrate fairness and equity. I look forward to your answer.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the minister wants to answer, I will accede to him. But I do not notice him making any attempts to answer, so I will ask some other questions.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are looking at other legislation. The government are happy to waste time.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, they have a bit of a glitch with the legislative program, have they? That is why the minister is simply not answering this. I just want to say to anyone who might be listening to or watching this debate, we are in the committee stage of the debate. That is the stage of the debate where you go through the legislation line by line and you ask the minister to explain it. You ask for the facts to support it. You ask questions. In every other instance I have ever experienced in my long time in the Senate, ministers have got up and tried their best to answer questions.

The minister claimed that he had answered my questions. I have the Hansard from last night, Minister, and I would like you to identify for me, if you could, where in Hansard you answered my questions from last night. You make the bland statement, so typical of the Labor Party, that, ‘I have answered them.’ But when I look at the hard-copy Hansard of last night I cannot see anywhere where you even attempted to answer the questions I asked last night. You had some very serious and legitimate questions from Senator Back, Senator Fisher and Senator Cormann and you simply refused to answer them. Adding to your arrogance and ignorance, you turn your back and talk to others while we are addressing questions to you.

You waved some papers around and said, ‘These papers are on the website, but I have some here,’ so I got the attendant to get these papers for me. People who are listening to the debate who have a vital interest in the questions we are asking unfortunately cannot see the papers you waved around. But I have the papers that you waved around. I assume they list the people you say are exempted. They say the item for those who are exempted from the payment covers an individual if they are eligible for an Australian government disaster recovery payment under part 2.24 of the Social Security Act and the individual receives that payment by 30 June 2012. They then goes on to list individuals affected by a disaster declared under national disaster relief arrangements. The first item says the item covers an individual if a declaration is made under the national disaster recovery and relief arrangements.

Minister, you have a department of several thousands of people—a dozen of whom are sitting in the chamber assisting you. Why can’t you assist the Senate, those questioners and the people of Australia who have an interest in these questions by answering Senator Fisher? Are the communities she has mentioned subject to that declaration or are they not? It is a pretty simple question. You have a dozen advisers—highly paid public servants—sitting there advising you.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Three.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are three now. There were a dozen a little while ago.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann interjecting

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hopefully they are changing the website, Senator Cormann, now that you have pointed out that the answer the minister gave us last night and this morning is just patently wrong. You have quite clearly demonstrated that. Minister, why can’t you tell the people of Australia and this parliament the answers to the questions we raise?

I am very keen to know where the $1.8 billion that is being raised is going. You say that you cannot answer for the media releases of Mr Katter and Mr Crook that Senator Back rightly raised. But remember that it was your leader’s agreement with those Independents that allowed you to remain as a minister in this government. You are inextricably interwoven with those Independents. They said that they did a deal with your Prime Minister that allowed for $650 million to go to Mr Katter’s electorate. You say, ‘Ask Mr Katter.’ We are not asking Mr Katter; he is not even in this chamber. You should be able to tell us if your government has made that agreement with Mr Katter. It is a pretty simple thing to say, ‘Yes, we did,’ or, ‘No, we did not.’ We in this chamber want to know where you will be spending the $1.8 billion that you are collecting with this new tax that you are hoping to impose under the legislation we are debating today.

I ask another question to add to the list of questions that I am seeking an answer to. Has the department done any assessment on the number of people who will be exempted from the payment of this tax? You told us yesterday that 45 per cent of the revenue in Australia comes from individuals. Can you let me know how many individuals that actually relates to? With the 45 per cent of tax that is recovered from individuals, how many individual taxpayers does that encompass and what is the department’s estimate of the number of individuals who will be exempted? I am trying to work out which of the individuals who pay income tax will be paying the tax and which will be exempted under arrangements that we are still struggling to find out about from you.

Minister, you are in coalition with the Greens political party. I ask you again as you have still not answered this question: why is it that individuals should pay this flood tax levy and not the major multinationals, the companies that contribute some 55 per cent of Australia’s total income tax revenue, according to the information you gave us last night? I will quote from a statement by Senator Bob Brown:

The Greens believe that these rich mineral resources and the wealth they generate should be shared by all Australians.

He went on to say:

These multinational companies that reap these rich rewards should be paying their fair share of tax.

He also issued a press release on 16 January saying:

Coal barons should help pay for catastrophes.

Minister, this is your coalition partner, the Greens political party. Why are they not helping pay for the Queensland flood recovery? They are exempted—BHP, Xstrata, Rio Tinto. They are not going to pay a cent to this, but the local electrician and the local plumber will be paying a tax. Why is it, Minister, that individuals should be contributing to the recovery payment?

I ask a further question in the hope that you will answer them. Will the money collected by this tax go to individuals or will it simply go to state governments? There is a perception around that is being promoted by the Labor Party that this flood tax levy is going to go out and help people’s homes to be rebuilt and furniture to be replaced. My understanding is that that is not true. It is simply going to the Queensland state Labor government and other state governments for roads, bridges and that sort of thing. Can you clarify that for us, Minister? I think that is something the people of Australia would like today.

To recapitulate, I want to know how many taxpayers pay the 45 per cent figure that you mentioned last night; what is the department’s estimate of those who will be exempted; what is the rationale for charging individuals rather than corporate taxpayers; and have there been deals done on where the $1.8 billion is to be spent—for example, more directly, is the $650 million going to go to Mr Katter’s electorate? Please answer that. If the answer is ‘yes’, I would be delighted. It is an electorate I cover as well, so I would be pleased to hear it. But I also want you to tell me whether it is going to individuals or just to the state government to build roads. I hope that you may be able to answer those questions and at the same time help Senator Cash and Senator Fisher in the very legitimate questions that they have also asked about this particular tax.

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

I am an Independent and I am here to help, so I am wondering whether I can assist Senator Macdonald and Senator Cormann.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you going to answer some questions?

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

No, I am not here to answer questions that have been directed to the government. That would be improper. But I do want to refer Senators Macdonald and Cormann, I think quite properly, to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee’s report that was tabled just yesterday on this piece of legislation. I attended that inquiry from the beginning to the very end. It is important to take into account page 10 of that report, which looked at the issue of exemptions. Treasury officials advised the committee that a draft of the legislative instrument has been released for consultation. It identifies those individuals who will be exempted from the levy as being: firstly, recipients of Australian government disaster recovery payments; secondly, individuals affected by disaster declared under the natural disaster recovery and relief arrangements, the NDRRA; and, thirdly, New Zealand citizens holding special category visas who are not eligible for an Australian government disaster recovery payment, despite meeting the eligibility requirements.

In the course of the evidence given to that inquiry I asked questions in relation to the Stockport floods in South Australia. People have lost their homes in this flood event that affected this small but very precious and valuable community in the mid-north of South Australia. In response to the concerns raised, Treasury explained that in those areas of South Australia that have been the subject of a declaration made under NDRRA and where at least one of the following conditions was satisfied—the individual was seriously injured; the individual was the immediate family member of an Australian that was killed, the individual’s principal place of residence was destroyed or sustained major damage, the individual was unable to gain access to their principal place of residence for at least 24 hours, or the individual was stranded in their principal place of residence for at least 24 hours—the affected individuals would be covered by item 2 of the legislative instrument.

Mr Robinson from Treasury confirmed that individuals will be exempt from the levy in the sense that, according to the Disaster Assist website, for the severe weather situation in South Australia in early December 2010, NDRRA assistance was declared for the local government areas of the Clare Valley, the Gilbert Valley, Loxton, Waikerie, Mid Murray and the Barossa. So they were the areas covered and they were the criteria for that, and that is at page 11 of the report. That is my understanding and I think that the criteria are set out quite clearly there in the circumstances in which it applies. There are effectively two streams that would apply as to who would be exempt from it, and those declarations are usually made at a state level as part of the NDRRA.

I am quite comfortable about the administrative arrangements made. Obviously, there are issues about the administrative simplicity in terms of people being able to apply for an exemption and that is something that I think the government is acutely aware of. You do not want it to be onerous. With regard to Senator Cormann’s and Senator Back’s quite proper concerns for their constituents in Western Australia in relation to bushfires, I do not think it is contingent on the Prime Minister or a member of the government making a statement as such. If there is a declaration given for a particular area under the NDRRA arrangements then that would apply.

I think there have been other comments made, quite reasonably, about mitigation. If you look at the NDRRA document, and in particular the new NDRRA determination that was tabled yesterday—which took a number of weeks of very intense negotiations between my office and the government—you will see it sets out guidelines for those relief arrangements where the whole issue of mitigation is a principal concern. Reference is made to paragraph 2 of the guidelines: ‘A fundamental principle of the current arrangements is that they should not be seen as a disincentive to plan, mitigate or allocate resources for natural disasters nor discourage governments, individuals or businesses taking out insurance to protect their assets.’

I hope I have been able to assist the committee in relation to some of the concerns that have been raised. The report of Senate inquiry that was conducted recently by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee sorted out a number of these quite legitimate concerns that have been raised by my colleagues this morning, in particular Senators Cormann, McDonald and Fisher. I hope that is of some assistance to the committee consideration of this bill.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I really admire—constructive as ever—Senator Xenophon’s attempts to do the minister’s job when the minister, representing this Labor government which wants to whack another tax on the Australian people, is too arrogant to answer some legitimate questions. Senator Xenophon has, in his attempt to do the job for the government, added further complication to it.

I go back to the question. I am very well aware of the Senate committee report into this. It of course refers to a draft legislative instrument and talks about consultation. But we have got no idea what the final decision is. What we do know, though, is that the Prime Minister was well able to make an ad hoc decision when she was asked a question by journalists from the West Australian in relation to bushfire victims in Western Australia. It is a decision we support. We think this is a bad tax. We will oppose this tax. We do not think this tax should go ahead. We think that this should be properly managed through the normal budget process, which it easily could be. We think the government should re-prioritise its wasteful spending in other areas. However, if this tax is to become law then we think that people who have been impacted by natural disasters across Australia should be exempt from paying this tax. It does not make sense for the government, with one hand, to hand out taxpayer dollars to assist people who are in financial distress as a result of a natural disaster, and then to say, ‘We are going to take the money back from you because we are going to hit you with the flood tax—with an increase in your income tax.’

I am aware that the Senate Economics Legislation Committee has canvassed these issues during its deliberations and I am aware of the evidence that was given by Treasury. But the evidence given by Treasury, with all due respect, does not, until we are told otherwise by this government, represent government policy. At this stage all we have been told is, ‘We’ve got this draft list of people who may or may not end up in the final legislative instrument.’

I go back to what is currently on the Treasury website—unless, of course, Treasury has now removed this flood levy fact sheet—which says that those people who are going to be exempt are those who have ‘received an Australian government disaster recovery payment in relation to a flood event in 2010-11’. It says that those people will be exempt from the levy. That is very narrow. That is the advice on Treasury’s website as we speak.

We also have, as a second piece of commentary from the government, the statement from the Prime Minister’s spokesman to the West Australian newspaper to say that victims of the Kelmscott bushfire would also not have to pay the national flood levy. But as Senator Fisher previously outlined in the chamber—very eloquently, I might add—there is a whole series of people right across Australia who are impacted by natural disaster events and who are receiving from the Commonwealth government assistance in order to help them deal with the financial distress they have experienced. In Victoria there is natural disaster assistance available for 36 local government areas: Alpine, Ballarat, Benalla, Buloke, Campaspe, Central Goldfields, Gannawarra, Glenelg, Golden Plains, Greater Bendigo, Greater Geelong, Greater Shepparton, Hepburn, Hindmarsh, Horsham, Hume, Indigo, Loddon, Mansfield, Mildura, Mitchell, Moira, Mount Alexander, Moyne, Murrindindi, Northern Grampians, Pyrenees, Strathbogie, Swan Hill, Towong, Wangaratta, Warrnambool, Wodonga, Wyndham, Yarra Ranges and Yarriambiack. These are local government areas where people have been receiving natural disaster relief funding and the government has said nothing as to what the status is of Australians in those areas in terms of an exemption from the flood tax.

What about people in South Australia? Again, Senator Fisher made the point very eloquently about people in the areas of Clare, Gilbert Valleys, Loxton Waikerie, Mid Murray and The Barossa. What about people in Western Australia that were subject to a severe thunderstorm on 29 January 2011? They have received natural disaster relief funding, and there are 20 local government areas there: Beverley, Brookton, Cuballing, Cunderdin, Dalwallinu, Goomalling, Narrogin, Northam, Perenjori, Pingelly, Quairading Toodyay, Victoria Plains, Wagin, Wandering, West Arthur, Wickepin, Williams, Wongan Hills and York. In Tasmania, the minister’s own home state, 11 local government areas have been receiving natural disaster assistance from the federal government.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I live in one—my property actually flooded.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the minister’s benefit, I will say what those local government areas are. He might not be aware of people in his home state who have been the subject of this natural disaster relief assistance, but they are from 11 local government areas: Break O’Day, Burnie, Central Coast, Devonport, Dorset, Kentish, Latrobe, Meander, Northern Midlands, Waratah-Wynyard and West Tamar.

So, Minister, it is a very simple question. Senator Xenophon has very helpfully pointed you to the evidence of Treasury officials stating that some of these people may be exempt. But can you confirm in this chamber for us today that all these people who received natural disaster relief funding from the Commonwealth will be exempt from the flood tax? To be honest, the way these decisions have been made so far is highly unsatisfactory. Initially the decision was that it would be only those who had been subject to a flood event. Then the minister, at risk of a bad headline the next day in the West Australian, made a decision on the run, on the spot, to exclude and exempt the good people of Kelmscott who had been subject to a bushfire tragedy.

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

That’s not right, though.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly right. Senator Xenophon. I will read you through this sequence again for your benefit. On 22 February at Senate estimates, I had the following interchange with the Secretary of the Department of Finance and Deregulation:

Senator CORMANN—Would people like those in Kelmscott who were subject to bushfires be exempt from the flood tax?

Mr Tune—No, not necessarily. That is the government’s—

Senator CORMANN—Why is that?

Mr Tune—The government’s decision at the moment is that those who were subject to the floods are exempt from the levy. It would require another decision to alter that.

Senator CORMANN—Only if the natural disaster you were subject to was a flood will you be exempt from the flood tax? If it is any other natural disaster, you are not exempt at the moment?

Mr Tune—That is the situation as it stands at the moment.

That afternoon, on the back of those comments, a journalist from the West Australian went to the Prime Minister’s office and asked, ‘Why is that?’ I will read the first three sentences of a story that appeared the next day in the West Australian:

Julia Gillard has said the victims of the Kelmscott bushfire will not have to pay the national flood levy. The Prime Minister made the decision last night after a senior bureaucrat said that although the fire victims qualified for $1000 disaster recovery payments, they were still expected to pay the levy. A spokesman for Ms Gillard said victims of this years WA bushfires would be exempted.

That is what I call policy on the run, Senator Xenophon. I am very happy for the good people of Kelmscott, but I want to know about people in all these other parts of Australia that have been subjected to natural disaster events. If the government has made a decision that all of them are going to be exempt, why wouldn’t the minister very simply get up and say, ‘All of those Australians in all of those areas across Australia that are receiving natural disaster relief assistance from the Commonwealth will be exempt from having to pay the flood tax’? Why wouldn’t the minister just get up and say that?

I might be a naturally suspicious person when it comes to promises made by the government. But if the minister got up now and said, ‘We have made a decision that all of those people impacted by natural disasters across Australia will be exempted from the flood tax,’ then I would take his word and the word of the government for it. But he has not said that. He has not been prepared to say that. He has not even been prepared in the debate today or last night in the committee stage to confirm that the bushfire victims in Kelmscott would be exempted. To make things more complicated, the Treasury, on its own website, is saying that only those Australians subject to a flood event will be exempt. It would not take the minister much to clarify this. I can only assume that the government has not got much legislation that they have to deal with in this chamber, because clearly the minister is not interested in cutting through this, in providing a sensible answer to a legitimate question that has been asked to make sure that the Senate can get on with other business.

We know that the coalition is going to vote against this tax, but we want to know whether or not people in areas impacted by natural disaster across Australia will be exempt. It is a very simple question which has a very simple answer. I am conscious, Senator Xenophon, of what Treasury officials said during the committee inquiry as to what is in the draft legislative instrument. I want to know whether the government has made a decision in relation to all these other people. It has been able to make a decision in relation to the people in Kelmscott in Western Australia. Why can’t it make a decision in relation to people impacted by natural disaster in Victoria or in South Australia or indeed in the minister’s own home state of Tasmania?

I can only draw one conclusion from this: the government does not want to exempt all these people across Australia who have been impacted by natural disasters and the government is planning to hit all these people with this flood tax. I can only assume that the government is quite happy to provide financial assistance to people who have been subject to a natural disaster, because they are in financial distress, and then turn around and take back the money by imposing this flood tax.

If this is not the government’s plan, it is very simple for the minister to resolve this. All the minister needs to do is get up and provide an answer. It is very simple. It comes down to this, Senator Xenophon. The very simple question is: has the government made a decision and can the government give a guarantee that all Australians who have been subject to a natural disaster and who are receiving an Australian government disaster recovery payment in relation to any natural disaster, as defined on the Attorney-General’s website—that is, a bushfire, an earthquake, a flood, a storm, a cyclone, a storm surge, a landslide, a tsunami, a meteorite strike or a tornado—will not be required to pay the flood tax?

If the minister can find it in his heart to actually provide reassurance to Australians who are impacted by these sorts of events across Australia that, yes, they will be exempt and that, no, they will not be required to pay this tax, then we can progress this debate. But this minister is too arrogant to provide an answer to a very simple question, which is highly relevant for many, many people right across Australia. The government know how to whack on another tax, but they do not know how to be accountable in the parliament for the impact it has on people across Australia. There is a very specific question before this chamber which relates to those Australians who have been impacted by natural disasters that are not classified as flood events.

Senator Xenophon, I really do hope that you share the coalition’s view that this is an issue that should be clarified by the government before the Senate is asked to make a final decision on this legislation. The federal government have been able to make statements in relation to those Australians who were subject to flood events and they have been able to make a decision in relation to those Australians impacted by bushfires in Kelmscott in Western Australia. I am very pleased that they have decided to exempt victims of bushfires in Kelmscott. But why can’t the government make similar decisions in relation to all those other Australians who have been subject to natural disaster events in all those other parts of Australia, including in the minister’s own home state of Tasmania, as we have been able to identify during this debate?

Why would the government not take this opportunity to provide reassurance to those people across Australia who have been victims of a natural disaster who are in financial distress to the extent that the federal government provides assistance to them through the Australian government disaster recovery payment program? Why would the government not be able to tell the Senate, here and now, that all these people will be exempt?

It is a very simple question and it is a question that deserves an answer. People across Australia would form a very dim judgment of this government if it persists with its refusal to provide an answer. If the Prime Minister can make a decision on the run, because she is worried about a bad headline in the West Australian the next day, to exempt people in Kelmscott who have been victims of bushfires, why can’t she make a decision in relation to all these other victims of natural disasters in other parts of Australia? It is a very simple proposition which the minister should very carefully consider. I can see, Senator Xenophon, that you are very keen to jump up and do the minister’s job again and provide some explanation— (Time expired)

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will answer. I have answered on a number of occasions, as you well know, Senator Cormann and Senator Macdonald. The answer is yes. This debate, along with other, so-called questions, which has now gone on for about an hour and a half and which went on for three hours last night—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the third reading!

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

on the third reading. Senator Cormann, I sit and listen patiently to you; I do not interject. But you sit down after asking an alleged question which is more in the nature of a speech. I think for those Australians who are listening to this debate, this is a time for questions, not long speeches. I pointed out last night, in the first hour of the debate—I answered the questions—that many of the questions that were being asked had in fact been asked before and had been dealt with in the second reading debate.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don’t answer them!

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald interjects again. I listen courteously to him, but he interjects. The opposition have made long, rambling speeches about issues and have asked questions which have already been put before the Senate and have been answered. We are seeing a filibuster. The opposition are not willing to accept that the majority of the Senate chamber, on the second reading debate, supported the legislation. They are not willing to accept that. They are trying to prevent the legislation going to a third reading vote. If they want to do that, that is their prerogative. It is known as a filibuster. We have now been engaged in it for some 4½ hours. If that is the way the opposition want to behave—they know they do not have the majority in the Senate; they do not want to put it to the final vote. Let us see what the final vote is. All these issues have been canvassed, after some 4½ hours of debate. If you want to continue with this approach, that is your prerogative. This legislation will be debated and discussed in the way you are doing so for the rest of the week. No other business will be undertaken. It may in fact mean that the Senate has to come back for an extra week of sitting. If you want to persist with this approach—4½ hours of filibustering by Senator Macdonald and Senator Cormann—so be it. I am perfectly happy to sit here and answer questions. I have done so. I have answered the questions and if you want to continue to ask questions in this form for another four hours or another four days, so be it. I will sit here and, at the appropriate time, I will respond.

Progress reported.