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

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 228 standing in my name for today, which calls on the government to review its imposition of the efficiency dividend on cultural institutions like the National Gallery, be taken as formal. Before proceeding, I seek leave for Senator Milne to co-host this motion.

Leave granted.

I, and also on behalf of Senator Milne, move:

That the Senate opposes the Government's move to impose an efficiency dividend on Australia's cultural institutions such as the National Gallery of Australia, the National Library of Australia, the National Portrait Gallery and the National Museum of Australia.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition senators will not support this motion, not so much because of what it says as because of the stench of hypocrisy which surrounds it. At the last federal election, the efficiency dividend was a very big issue in the ACT. The coalition proposed, as members will know, a two per cent efficiency dividend across the Public Service. The Labor Party and the Greens strongly opposed this. In fact, the ALP said that, if elected, it would tolerate no increase in the efficiency dividend applying to the Public Service.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I cannot hear you, Senator Humphries.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will speak more loudly. A few days ago, of course, the government announced, courtesy of Senator Wong, that it was breaking that election promise and increasing the efficiency dividend from 1¼ per cent to 1½ per cent. I put that on the record because broken promises from this government are now so frequent that they are not even newsworthy anymore. We know that both major parties at the last election proposed to reduce the cost of the Public Service, but of course only the coalition was prepared to be honest about its intentions. Labor also said in the last few days that it would save cultural institutions by providing that the dividend did not necessarily apply to small institutions like the cultural institutions, but in the budget tabled last night the budgets of those institutions were all reduced on account of the increased dividend.

Senator Brown and his Greens closely supported the Labor Party's campaign in the ACT against the coalition's proposals, and now Senator Brown's Greens support the government and their budget by guaranteeing supply. The hypocrisy inherent in this motion is breathtaking, and for that reason the coalition senators will not support it.

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

I seek leave to make a statement.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

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

Thank you. I will not respond in kind but will try to be a bit more informative to the chamber than the submission we have just heard from Senator Humphries. But let me say at the outset that, had we supported the coalition into govern­ment, the cuts to these institutions now through a bigger dividend would be even more destructive to the cultural institutions here in the national capital and elsewhere in the country.

The other thing that escapes Senator Humphries here is that, yes, the Greens have guaranteed to ensure supply—and we will, because that is a responsible contribution to the welfare of this country and that is what voters would expect of us—but it does not mean that all the detail of a budget into which we had no effective input has to be accepted. If we can find a means through good argument and a strong approach to the government to take the burden of cuts from the great art and cultural institutions then we will do that, and if we cannot then we will look at other means.

I am aware that, for example, the cuts to the National Gallery may mean that five or six hugely publicly wanted exhibitions will not occur in the next 12 months and that there will be a couple of dozen, if not more, people losing their jobs at that institution, to the great detriment of the cultural wellbeing of this whole nation. It is just an example of why we should not be doing this. I hope Senator Humphries will join me in seeking to influence the government to alter this component of the budget for the wellbeing of the institutions and the people of Australia as a whole.

Question put:

  That the motion (Senator Brown’s) be agreed to.

  The Senate divided. [16:22]

(The President: Senator Hogg)

Question negatived.