Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Supply Bill (No. 1) 2016-17, Supply Bill (No. 2) 2016-17 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2016-17. At the outset I make clear that the opposition will be supporting these bills; Labor will not block supply. But let us remember that the only reason these bills are necessary is the chaos and dysfunction of the Turnbull government—a government without a plan and without a clue, a government that had the Governor-General prorogue this parliament between elections for the first time in 40 years in order to bring us back here two weeks ago to fulfil its desire to create a trigger for a simultaneous dissolution. Yet instead of using that time to make progress on a range of legislation the government had us sit here for just two days, and now we find ourselves back here having to deal with a large number of bills that the government could easily have brought on two weeks ago. The truth is that when it comes to handling parliamentary business this government is at sea and adrift, and this has been their position in the Senate for the past two years.

But, of all the bills coming into the Senate this week, these supply bills are the greatest sign of a government in panic and a government that has hit the emergency button—not because it is running out of money but because the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, is running out of credibility with the Australian people. An election cannot come soon enough for Mr Turnbull. But to have an election before August this year he has to call a double dissolution. Well, we know he has the trigger he needs—and thanks to the support of the Australian Greens for his Senate voting changes he has the keys in the ignition. However, the timing set down in the Constitution stipulates that the writs cannot be issued less than six months before the expiry of the House, and, as such, as we all know, there is a deadline for Mr Turnbull of Wednesday 11 May.

There was, of course, one big problem: the budget was scheduled to be presented on Tuesday 10 May. Now, of course it is the government that sets the date of the budget. They propose the timing for the parliamentary sittings, and the chambers concur. That is what happened this year. But the unfortunate collision of dates, which has been known for 2½ years, is something that was apparently overlooked when the government proposed a sitting pattern in October of last year. Anyone who thinks this is part of a grand strategy: think again. This parliament would not have passed the appropriation bills in under a day, so here we are, faced with temporary supply bills to ensure the essential functions of government can continue. This package of bills is required to ensure the ordinary functions of government continue in the context of a double dissolution election, and funding is being provided to see the ordinary functions of government through to November, by which time, I hope, we will see a federal Labor government.

At the same time as the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, announced that he would be asking the Governor-General to prorogue parliament, he also announced he would be bringing the date of the budget forward one week from Tuesday, 10 May to Tuesday, 3 May. He made this announcement on Monday, 21 March 2016. We know this because the answer to my question on notice No. 3319 said this was the same day that the Secretary to the Treasury was informed that the budget would be delivered on 3 May; the same day he was told that the budget would be delivered a week earlier. I have been through a budget process a number of times and I know that the Secretary to the Treasury is a pretty integral person to the budget process, so I was most surprised to learn that the Secretary to the Treasury found out on the same day that the Prime Minister announced publicly that the budget would be brought forward a week from 10 May to 3 May 2016.

However, I was even more surprised when I read the second part of the response of the Minister representing the Treasurer to my question on notice. I asked:

(1) On what date, and at what time, was the Secretary to the Treasury first informed that the Budget would be delivered on 3 May 2016 and not 10 May 2016 as originally planned?

(2) Who advised the Secretary to the Treasury?

In response to the second question—that is, who advised the Secretary?—the answer was:

(3) The Secretary was advised through the Prime Minister's public statement on 21 March 2016.

The secretary was advised through the Prime Minister's public statement on 21 March 2016. It is one thing to be out of the loop, as the Treasurer himself was when he went on radio the morning of the announcement and confirmed, contrary to what the Prime Minister said later in the day, that the budget would be delivered on 10 May. He confirmed that just a few minutes before Mr Turnbull walked into the Prime Minister's courtyard and announced it would in fact be a week earlier. What the answer to my question on notice also suggests is that the Secretary to the Treasurer, Mr Fraser, was not even in the loop; there was not a loop to be in. We were told—the media was backgrounded—that this elaborate strategy had been in train for months; that the decision to prorogue parliament and bring the budget forward was a master stroke of Mr Turnbull's genius. But this answer tells us all we need to know: the budget timing was cooked up in the Prime Minister's office when Mr Turnbull, desperate to change the narrative away from his flailing government, made the desperate move to set up a double dissolution trigger that included shifting the budget, without even telling the Treasurer or the Secretary to the Treasury.

I will now return to the contents of the bill. As I mentioned, the continuation of supply in these bills is being provided to see the ordinary functions of government through to November. They provide five-twelfths of the year's appropriation, approximately, for government entities, a standard equation based on the 12 months of the fiscal year. The exceptions to this are the Australian Electoral Commission and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They have to conduct, obviously, the federal election and the census respectively.

It is important to note that the appropriations in these bills do not contain any 2016-17 budget measures, and I thank the Minister for Finance for that fact and for communicating this to us. As these bills presume the rolling forward of the budget bottom line from this financial year to the next, they also assume the budget bottom line as it currently stands at the 2015-16 MYEFO. The MYEFO includes the impacts of measures which have not passed the parliament but still remain on the books. These include cutting $30 billion from schools, a plan to increase the cost of medicine for everybody by increasing the co-payments as part of the PBS, a plan to have the world's oldest pension age by increasing the pension age to 70, calling parents rorters and double-dippers through changes to the PPL scheme, cutting bulk-billing incentives for diagnostic imaging and pathology services, making young jobseekers wait four weeks before receiving income support, cutting the pension to 190,000 pensioners through the plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners—something that will hit migrant pensioners the hardest—and to not mention the fact that, under this government and under this government alone, the deficit doubled between the 2014 and 2015 budgets and increased again in the 2015-16 Midyear Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

Next financial year, net debt is estimated to be $100 billion higher than it was at the 2013 federal election. Net debt increased from $217.3 billion in the 2013 pre-election fiscal outlook, prepared by Finance and Treasury, to $316.5 billion in the Midyear Economic and Fiscal Outlook presented in 2015-16 for the 2016-17 financial year. Spending today is at the levels it was during the GFC and, under the Minister for Finance, who we must remember has held the portfolio since day 1 of the Abbott government, spending has hit 25.9 per cent of GDP and spending as a percentage of GDP is, on average, higher under the Abbott-Turnbull government than it was under Labor. I will say that again: spending as a percentage of GDP, on average, is higher under this government, the Abbott-Turnbull government, than it was under the Labor government. So, when the government seeks to lecture the Senate about fiscal responsibility, bear in mind that they have presided over a doubling of the deficit, higher spending on average than Labor in government and higher levels of net debt.

The scrutiny of the nation will not be on these bills today. That is because today is budget day, with the appropriation bills to be presented to the parliament later tonight. We already know that this budget will look after high-income earners and big business while costing Australian families more with cuts to schools and hospitals. Mr Turnbull and Mr Morrison have choice in this budget, and we know they will always choose the top end of town over Australian families. Rather than consider Labor's sensible policies, Mr Turnbull is giving a double tax cut to people who earn the most whilst cutting services to every family who relies on schools and hospitals. The Prime Minister would rather provide tax support for property speculators buying their 10th investment property than backing reforms to make housing more affordable. The difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party could not be starker. We will put people first. The Liberals will look after high-income earners and the big end of town.

We are dealing with the supply bills to enable essential government services to continue whilst Australians go to the polls. Make no mistake: this election will be a contest between the Labor Party, which puts people first, and the Liberal Party, which will always look to vested interests. The Liberal government has and will increase the cost of everything with its cuts to family payments, cuts to Medicare and cuts to penalty rates. Labor will be supporting the bills because we will not block supply, but the Australian people know that, when it comes to the election, it is only Labor which will stand up for middle- and working-class families and it is only Labor which will put people first.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to indicate today that the Greens will also be supporting these bills because we will not block supply, but it is extraordinary that we are in this Senate chamber debating supply bills before we have even seen the budget. That may be tabled later this evening, but it will no doubt immediately follow the Treasurer's budget speech, which we will also have no time to consider. Let us talk about what an extraordinary time in Australian politics this is. It is extraordinary because we are about to go into a double dissolution in the week that a budget has been delivered. We are doing that because of the political ambitions of Mr Malcolm Turnbull, our Prime Minister. He is forcing this country to go to an early election, taking the extraordinary measure of dissolving both houses of the parliament, to save his own political skin. He is not doing this for the Australian people; he is doing this for the Liberal Party and his leadership. The Australian people are not stupid—they are going to see through this. They know this has been a pantomime for weeks, including the very expensive proroguing and recalling of the parliament so we can come back here while this pantomime plays out. They will judge the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party on election day. I certainly hope that they vote for a change of government.

In recent days we have heard that today's budget will be about 'substantial reform'. Those two words are very important. What we have heard about in the media so far is not substantial reform. Raising the thresholds of tax brackets to provide a very small amount of money in the hip pockets of some Australians is not substantial tax reform. I must say, Mr President, while you are in the chair, that very few Tasmanians will benefit from that; nearly 82 per cent of Tasmanians earn less than $80,000 and only 12 per cent of Tasmanian women who work earn $80,000 or more. That is quite a remarkable statistic. Multinational tax avoidance measures, while welcome in principle, are baby steps towards what we need to do to eradicate tax dodging by big companies. While welcomed, I would not classify that as substantial tax reform. Spending $50 million for a study into infrastructure and how we can generate more revenue for bankers when we could have an infrastructure revolution around this country is not substantial reform.

Let me tell you what substantial reform is. Substantial reform is reducing inequality in Australia and making this country fairer. Budgets are not just about raising revenue or reining in spending to meet some arbitrary figures—it is about making our country fairer for all Australians. We have the chance to pull levers in budgets to make Australia a better place to live—a more prosperous place for all Australians. Substantial tax reform is removing perverse incentives like negative gearing and some capital gains tax provisions. It is the wealthiest in this country who benefit from those incentives, and they have been in place for too long. We need to look at making housing more affordable for Australians. We need superannuation tax concessions so that wealthy Australians can no longer use superannuation as a rort to reduce their tax. We are looking for leadership in this budget, and so far no detail has been provided on that. Substantial tax reform is putting in place hard policies to stop the wealthy dodging tax; putting in a Buffett rule, a floor on wealthy income earners, so that they pay 30 per cent guaranteed in tax over $300,000 income. That is substantial tax reform. That not only helps makes our tax system more progressive and fairer; it would also raise $7 billion in revenue. Removing subsidies for dirty polluters—the diesel fuel rebate for the big miners—would raise another $4 billion. Taking action on climate change—putting a price on carbon that actually will have an impact on emissions—is substantial tax reform.

The Greens have led on all these issues for years and we are confident that we have the courage and the vision as a political party that the Australian people want to see this election. That is what they want for their leaders—they want courage and they want vision. Because we are having a budget the same week as we are having a double dissolution, I challenge the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, when they release their budget documents today, to show us what their courage and their vision is for this country's future. Do not just play a small target, a low-risk strategy. You are about to force the Australian people to an early election and you are dissolving both houses of parliament—an extraordinary step on the back of an ideological piece of legislation, the ABCC. We have actually passed some good legislation in the Senate in the last three years but we are being forced to go to an early election because of the leadership ambitions of our Prime Minister, because he rules over a divided party. That is why we are going to an early election. Tonight is your chance to show your vision and leadership for the Australian people. If substantial tax reform is what you have said it is going to be then we look forward to seeing the details of how you are actually going to reduce inequality and make Australia a fairer place.

There are little memories for me in this place. During the reply speech to the Governor-General when Prime Minister Tony Abbott first started, I was sitting next to Kevin Rudd, because everybody had to come into the chamber and there were not many seats. He sat there throughout the reply speech and he kept muttering to me: 'This man has no vision. He has no ideas.' We know what ex-Prime Minister Tony Abbott's ideas were: they were to rip up the carbon price and the mining tax and to stop the boats. That clean energy package showed courage and vision in tackling a problem that is now on everyone's radar screen. Everyone in my home state of Tasmania has seen this summer. They have seen the dams dry up. They have seen fires in places we have never seen them before. They have seen the fish dying because water temperatures are 4½ degrees above the average, nearly 30 per cent above the long-term average—salmon farms with fish dying, the oyster industry devastated by viruses because of warming waters and yesterday the abalone industry ringing the bell on the damage that they have received from dangerous runaway climate change and global warming. These things are happening every day around us now. In Greenland there is a massive spike in the ice melting and of course we have heard in recent days from my colleagues the deep and profound sadness of going to the Great Barrier Reef last week and seeing that nearly 70 per cent of the reef now suffers from massive coral bleaching. If the penny has not dropped for Australians and for parliamentarians I really do not know when it will. The budget that is to be delivered tonight must address global warming and take every possible avenue we can to impact on this problem. This is about intergenerational equity. We have to take the strongest possible actions and measure and manage these risks.

The cuts to the CSIRO, which the committee I have been chairing has spent so much time scrutinising, are totally unacceptable. We should be investing more funds and research into climate change and into how we are going to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Never has there been a more important time to invest in the science that helps us better understand global warming and how we are going to deal with it. Never has there been a more important time. I hope that in tonight's budget we see some real action from this government on what I think will be the most important issue at this federal election in the next couple of months: action on climate change. I have no doubt after listening to the Tasmanians I have spoken to—and my colleagues are providing similar feedback from farmers and people all around the country—that they have never seen a summer like this. The science and the data tell us exactly the same thing: we have never seen a warmer year. We have never seen bigger storms in the northern or southern hemispheres than those we have seen in the last 12 months. We have never seen a bleaching episode like this on the Great Barrier Reef. We have just signed COP21, the Paris agreement to reduce emissions, yet we continue to play the politics of whether we have met our 2020 targets or how we are going to achieve them. It is not enough. It is not making a difference. Tonight is a chance for the government to show leadership and courage.

So, while we are standing here today debating supply bills before we have even seen the budget, at this extraordinary time in Australian politics I say to the Prime Minister on behalf of the Australian Greens: tonight is your chance to show some courage and leadership on the issues that actually matter to the Australian people—on reducing inequality in this country and tackling the biggest threat that we currently face, which is global warming.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contributions to this debate on the supply bills. In particular I thank Senator Wong, in her position, and Senator Whish-Wilson and the Greens for their support for the bills. These bills seek appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for proposed expenditure for the first part of 2016-17, broadly until about the end of November. The provisions in these bills are generally based on five months of the estimated 2016-17 annual appropriations, with special provision where necessary for entities with a disproportionately high level of expenditure early in the financial year—for example, the Australian Electoral Commission.

These bills seek provision only for appropriate money to fund government expenditure on an interim basis until the appropriation bills have passed. They do not include budget measures from the 2016-17 budget. These arrangements allow for the budget appropriation bills to be passed in 2016-17 by the next parliament. The total of the appropriations being sought through these three supply bills is just over $41 billion. These supply bills must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available to all entities from 1 July 2016, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery and of the operations of the parliament. I commend these bills to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.