Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Abetz. I refer to Senator Johnston's statement last week reaffirming his call to the Western Australian Liberal Party conference, which said:

If you are unhappy with Western Australia receiving 38c in the dollar as a return on your GST, what you need to do is make a detailed submission to the white paper inquiry on federalism and the white paper inquiry on tax reform.

I also refer to the Prime Minister's edict in the party room this week that there should be no submissions by federal Western Australian Liberals. Will the government allow coalition members and senators to make submissions to these white paper inquiries?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can answer that!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Sterle.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, what may or may not have been said in the Liberal Party room—or the coalition party room—is undoubtedly of tantalising interest to the honourable senator. But I am not going to either confirm or deny what those matters may or may not be.

The simple fact is that we as a government are prepared to have a look at the taxation challenges that the nation faces. That is why we are having this taxation white paper. We have also said, in that context, that in relation to the GST specifically, it is an agreement between the states and the Commonwealth that requires each and every signatory to agree to a change.

Therefore it stands to reason that any change in that arrangement will only occur, and can only occur, if each and every state signs onto it. Therefore, it stands to reason that the home state of Senator Bilyk—that happens to be my own home state and, indeed, yours, Mr President—would only sign onto such an arrangement if it believed that it was in the interests of the people of Tasmania. What is more, since the election of the Hodgman Liberal government in Tasmania, Tasmanians can be absolutely—

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

I rise on a point of order. While, naturally, the minister has been relevant to the general question, the final question was specifically: would the government allow coalition members and senators to make submissions to the white paper inquiry? That was, in fact, the only real question.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note, though, that the question went to matters that did not pertain to the minister's portfolio—namely the coalition party room. I allowed the question to stand. Ordinarily that would have been out of order. The minister has been answering the question. He has 32 seconds left to answer the question.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the people of Tasmania can be assured that with the election of a Hodgman Liberal government, their interests will be so much more protected than they used to be under the previous Labor-Green government that wrecked the Tasmanian economy and saw Tasmania top the charts in all the wrong ways—high unemployment, recession, the highest rate of debt, the lowest rate of education. On all those factors, it was a failure. Tasmania will be looked after.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a supplementary question. I refer to comments by Senator Dean Smith, who said that it made sense of the Western Australian Liberals to endorse a state government submission, as the GST issue is 'the most important issue to Western Australia—full stop; no ifs no buts.' Is he right?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It stands to reason that the GST issue is the most important issue for the people of Western Australia. So Senator Smith was right. Can I say, from a Tasmanian perspective, that the GST issue is the most important issue from a Tasmanian perspective as well, as it is for New South Wales, for Victoria and Queensland. So, of course, Senator Smith is right, as it would be right for any other senator to assert and to advocate in this place, that the GST distribution is the most important issue facing that particular state. So, there is no inconsistency in Senator Smith's defending his state and my defending my state.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a further supplementary question. I refer to comments by the Treasurer that he understands where Western Australia is coming from in relation to the GST, and that this is something that is going to be very actively considered as part of the Federation and tax white papers. Is the Treasurer laying the groundwork to break yet another pre-election promise?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer, of course, is an absolute no. The Treasurer fully understands where Western Australians come from on this issue, and he appreciates their situation. He also fully appreciates the position from which Tasmanians come on this issue. He appreciates their position. In that context, might I say that, with a great presence in the coalition party room of the federal members for Bass, Braddon and Lyons, Messrs Nikolic, Whiteley and Hutchinson, the Tasmanian cause has been enhanced, courtesy of the Tasmanian people at the last federal election.

So the four Tasmanian voices have become seven Tasmanian voices. So, where Senator Bilyk failed, in her government, in looking after Tasmania, the coalition party room—enhanced as it has been—will look after the Tasmanian interests. (Time expired)

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.