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

I move:

That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

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

I seek leave to speak for approximately 15 minutes.

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

The government will give leave to the leader of the opposition for five minutes on condition that no further steps are taken by the opposition to prevent a final determination of this very important matter by 11:40.

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

I ask that Senator Patrick explain why that condition has just been imposed when yesterday I was told by him and by Senator Cormann that leave would be granted to party leaders to enable them to speak. I've just been told I can only speak—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, is this a point of order or is it just Senator Wong thinking she has the right to get up and have a chat whenever she wants to?

The CHAIR: Senator Wong has sought leave. So the question is: is leave granted?

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

I seek leave to speak for 15 minutes, and without condition. It is unreasonable to require that a party that opposes tax cuts for high-income earners be allowed to speak only if we agree to support them, to support the bill. That is utterly unreasonable. I seek leave to speak for 15 minutes, and if leave is not granted I will move that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from speaking for 15 minutes in accordance with the deal that Centre Alliance did with the government.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Wong. The government has put its position on—

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

On the point of order: we are not forcing the Labor Party to support the bill. That is wrong. What we are seeking to achieve is for a majority of the Senate to be able to express its will and not to be frustrated any longer by a Labor Party and others who want to prevent the will of the Senate from being given expression. The government has granted leave to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for five minutes on condition that this can come to a final vote by 11:40, and we will grant leave to any other party leader or Independent on the same terms.

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

Well, I refuse to accept the condition. No leave is granted. The government is refusing leave to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to speak on this bill because I refuse to agree to the condition that I pass the legislation. It is unbelievable.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Are you going to sit me down?

The CHAIR: Senator Wong, you need to resume your seat. The government has offered leave and you are not accepting it on that offer.

I will speak, but I am not agreeing to a condition—

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

So five minutes—

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

Well, I will take the five minutes because I understand that the ruling is that I can't move to suspend to take 15 minutes.

The CHAIR: Just a moment, Senator Wong—

Can you please check—

The CHAIR: I now understand that the government is granting leave for Senator Wong to speak for five minutes. That's the proposition?

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

Yes, on the condition that there are no further steps—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

The CHAIR: Order! Senator Macdonald, I'm answering a point of order. Senator Wong, the Senate has already determined how this matter will be progressed, so there's no opportunity to suspend standing orders.

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

Well, the first point is that we were misled by Senator Patrick yesterday, because we were told that leave would be given to party leaders to speak. I've now been given five minutes—after a fight—on a bill for $144 billion. Can I just say this: today we are seeing the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Centre Alliance and others voting for an income tax cut that will benefit those earning over $200,000 a year. Do you know what? Senator Patrick, you're voting to give yourself a $7,000 tax cut; Senator Hinch, a $7,000 tax cut; Senator Anning, a $7,000 tax cut; Senator Burston, a $7,000 tax cut; Senator Bernardi, a $7,000 tax cut; and Senator Leyonhjelm, a $7,000 tax cut. And Senators Hanson and Georgiou, you're voting to give yourselves a $7,000 tax cut.

Government senators interjecting—

The CHAIR: Order! Senator Wong has the right to be heard in silence. I ask members of the chamber to be respectful.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Chair, there has been an identifiable deterioration in the language being directed at the crossbench yesterday and today with respect to this debate.

The CHAIR: Senator O'Sullivan, that's not a point of order. Please resume your seat.

I will rise to my feet every time it's done and make a point of order. I was trying to make a point that you might be able to advise the chamber in relation to their language.

The CHAIR: Senator O'Sullivan, I have asked you to resume your seat. I have ruled there is no point of order. Thank you. Resume your seat.

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

So all of those senators over there have voted to give themselves a $7,000 tax cut. What we wanted to do—and we had the support of the majority of the Senate yesterday morning—was to proceed with the tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners but to not proceed with the tax cuts for higher income earners which are to come into place in 2024. All of the debate that we have seen and all of the procedural straitjackets that Senator Cormann has been engaging in have been because he doesn't want to debate what is unsustainable, and that is an argument that low- and middle-income earners' tax cuts should be held hostage to tax cuts for high-income earners in 2024.

Let's be clear on what Senator Hanson and others have done today. What she ought to know is that the tax cuts that she is now voting for by agreeing with this motion, agreeing with what's before the chamber, will ensure that the people of Wentworth do very well and the people of Longman do very badly. What you need to know is that in Longman the number of people who are earning over $200,000 is 703. Guess how many in Wentworth: over 10,000. Well done, Senator Hanson: you've delivered to Point Piper! Well done, Senator Hanson: you've delivered to Malcolm Turnbull's electorate! But bad luck for the burghers of Longman, because you have ensured that tax cuts which overwhelmingly benefit high-income earners, people earning over $200,000 a year—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And Penny Wong.

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

I'll take the interjection. He says, 'And Penny Wong'. I'm voting against it, mate. Why don't you? That's a great interjection! What an outstanding interjection from Senator Macdonald!

I make this point: what we have seen over these last 24 hours is a government desperate on a political strategy, a government desperate to try and hold low- and middle-income earners' tax cuts, which they deserve, hostage to high-income tax cuts. Senator Patrick, more fool you that you've copped it. You have come in here on the morning and said, 'Yes, I want stage 3 out,' and then voted for every single stage of a procedural straitjacket to ensure that amendment could not be insisted on and furthermore, could not even be debated. What sort of senator does that? At least have the courage of your convictions. Stand up and debate it. What you've done is ensure they don't even have to debate an amendment that you supported 24 hours ago. What sort of senator does that, Senator Patrick?

What is extraordinary about this is that all that we would have needed to ensure that the tax cut for low-income earners proceeded and the tax cuts in stage 3 that overwhelmingly benefited those above $200,000 were removed would have been the same tied vote that we had yesterday. If Senator Patrick and Senator Griff had simply had the courage of their convictions, if Senator Hanson had decided to deliver to Longman rather than Wentworth, that's all we would have needed to ensure that Mr Turnbull's political strategy of holding tax cuts for low- and middle-income Australians hostage to high-income earners could not have been delivered. But instead, in this Senate, the Centre Alliance and Senator Hanson have fallen over themselves to deliver to high-income Australia and to Malcolm Turnbull's political strategy. That is all they have done. I urge the Senate not to support the motion from Senator Cormann, who is now rising to his feet. (Time expired)

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

Chair, I'm enjoying the speech by the Leader of the Opposition so much that, if she seeks leave to speak for 10 more minutes, the government will grant it.

(Extension of time granted)

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

You know what, we are all supposed to be grateful that they are doling out five minute here and ten minutes there! We are supposed to say, 'Thank you, Mathias, for allowing senators elected to this place, who sit at this table, to actually debate.' Tell me, did Senator Patrick have a crisis of confidence? Well, I'm happy to speak for ten minutes.

Government senators interjecting—

The CHAIR: Order! Senator Wong, resume your seat, please. Senator Wong has the right to be heard in silence.

I'm very happy to talk about stage 3 in a little more detail. I hope that Senator Storer—who yesterday made a very substantive contribution, although it was cut off—has the opportunity to as well. First, let's remind ourselves that the hyperbole from the other side that Labor is standing in the way of low- and middle-income tax cuts is a Liberal lie. It is simply untrue. We have made clear from budget night that we support all of the tax cuts commencing next month. Let's stop pretending that hyperbole is truthful, let's stop pretending that that has any element of truth to it and let's recall that that is entirely a Liberal lie in order to give the coalition political cover for the fact that they want to hold those tax cuts hostage to the 2024 tax cuts. That is the first point.

The second point is this: there are two primary reasons we oppose stage 3. First, it is fiscally reckless. As I outlined in my second reading speech yesterday, it is clear from evidence to the Senate inquiry that this element of the tax package down the track—I think it is by 2026-27—will be growing at 12 per cent per year. What this Senate is doing by locking in that tax cut is proposing a reduction in revenue over time that grows at 12 per cent a year. That is an enormously expensive proposition for the federal budget. Unlike those opposite, we don't think all tax is theft. We actually think it's a good thing for the federal budget to be able to fund things like the age pension, aged care, health, education and social security, as well as defence and infrastructure. Why would you have a tax measure that grows so unsustainably be locked in and unfunded six years out, which will ensure it will be more difficult for any government down the track to support proper funding of health, education and essential social services?

I made the point in the second reading speech that it is that growth in the cost of the tax package that is in dispute. It's the only part of the tax package that is in dispute in this chamber. We oppose stage 2; but, in terms of the numbers in this chamber, stage 3 is the only part that is actually in dispute. I made the point that if there were an expenditure program growing at 12 per cent, you would hear the baying from the other side for it to be cut. This is three or four times more than the annual growth rate of spending on defence. This is, from recollection, six times more than the annual growth rate in family benefits. This is four times more, or thereabouts, than the growth in education funding. I laid these parameters out in my second reading speech.

This Senate is now rolling over—or proposing to, if Senator Patrick completes his backflip—to put in place, six years ahead, a tax plan that will grow in cost at 12 per cent a year. It was John Daley from the Grattan Institute who pointed out the fiscal recklessness of the plan. He pointed out that the likelihood of there being some external economic shock to which the government has to respond, as we had to respond during the GFC, is substantial. At six years out, why would you lock in a structural change to your tax system which would so deprive the Commonwealth government of revenue which is essential?

From a government that claims it is fiscally responsible, it is fiscally reckless.

The second point I'd make is the one I've made previously, which is that this is not a progressive taxation measure. Remember what stage 3 cuts do: they fundamentally flatten the tax scale between $40,000 and $200,000. And remember what that means: it means that we are essentially saying that people on $40-something thousand and people on $200,000 ought to be treated equally in the tax system. Progressive taxation for the Labor Party is something we actually believe in. We believe in it because it's fair; but we also believe in it because we do believe that government should have the capacity to provide decent health, decent education, decent social services and decent aged care for our community, as well as funding our national security imperatives—which remain imperative. Why would you have a tax cut that grows so much faster than defence spending? Why would you do that? Why would you do that six years out?

Miranda Stewart of the ANU said that this particular measure is both inefficient and a retrograde step that undermines 100 years of progressive income tax rate structure in this country. But that is what those opposite are voting for. What they want to do is to make sure that that tax cut holds hostage the tax cuts which start next month. That is only a political strategy; there is no logic to that. There's actually no logic, in fact, for Senator Cormann getting so stressed and having to guillotine and gag today and yesterday. The government, in fact, has two weeks—there's a second week. The only reason there's been a guillotine and a gag this week is because they want to get it done before the weekend. That is the only reason.

Let's also go to the unfairness of the package. Senator Hanson and Senators Patrick and Griff ought to be aware of the distributional impact of these tax cuts. The reality is that when all three stages of this tax package are implemented the benefits go overwhelmingly to high-income earners. I think 62 per cent of the benefits go to 20 per cent of taxpayers. Do people understand that? They keep talking about low-and middle-income Australians—62 per cent of the benefits go to 20 per cent of taxpayers. If you look at stage 3 alone, it is even more. As a whole, for the whole government tax package, two-thirds of the benefits go to the highest income earners in Australia. So every time Senator Cormann, Senator Birmingham and others get up and say we are for low- and middle-income Australia, remember that figure: two-thirds of the benefits go to the highest income earners in Australia.

Finally, I want to come back to the point about Longman. Senator Hanson comes in here and styles herself—she's on the front-page of one of Australia's papers today—as supporting the battlers. Well, she's certainly given herself a tax cut by supporting the government on this. I'll come back to those earning over $200,000, who are the primary beneficiaries of the aspect of this package in dispute. The national average per electorate of the number of people earning over that amount is 2,054. The number in Longman is 703. The number in Wentworth is 10,367. So, when the press gallery and others talk to Senator Hanson and she tells you that she's the champion of the battlers, I hope that they ask her why she voted for a tax cut which so overwhelmingly benefits high-income earners and so overwhelmingly benefits those people living in Mr Turnbull's electorate. And why is it that she voted for a tax package that so does not benefit those who live in Longman, in a relative sense.

This is a fiscally reckless package. It's a package which requires this Senate to sign off on tax cuts in six years time, two elections away, but Malcolm Turnbull wants it now. And the government is seeking to use those tax cuts to hold hostage the tax cuts for low- and middle-income Australia. That is the wrong thing to do and, if Senator Patrick does not hold to the position he held yesterday, he ought to explain why in 24 hours he's done this, why in 24 hours he's sold people out. He hasn't even put pressure on the government to blink. Senator Cormann said, 'Mate, we're not going to blink,' and he said: 'Okay, I'll just back down easy. I'll give you all these tax cuts that won't help the people in Mayo and that will ensure it will be much harder for future governments to fund aged care— (Time expired)

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to speak for 15 minutes.

The CHAIR: Is leave granted?

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

Leave is granted for five minutes.

The CHAIR: Leave is granted for five minutes.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hang on. You granted leave to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for 15 minutes. Be consistent here. You said you would grant leave to party leaders for 15 minutes. Be consistent. You said you would grant leave to party leaders for 15 minutes—

The CHAIR: Senator Di Natale, please resume your seat. Leave of five minutes has been granted. It's up to you whether you want to speak or not.

What a disgraceful, shameful act. What a dark day for the Senate here in Australia. Regardless of what you think of this piece of legislation, we should be at least entitled to have an opportunity, firstly, to interrogate it and to debate it—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

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

Chair, I rise on a point of order. I ignored Senator Macdonald's persistent interjections on me. I ignored them. He interjected on me for almost the entirety of my speech.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Now he is interjecting again.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

And again.

The CHAIR: Senator Wong—

My point of order is that I will be asking you to use the standing orders to deal with Senator Macdonald if he does not desist from persistent interjections.

The CHAIR: I have reminded senators on a number of occasions to respect the speakers. It's not normally my habit to call out particular senators, but if there are constant interjections I shall do that. Senator Di Natale has the right, as all senators do, to be heard in silence.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday we were denied the opportunity through the committee stage to ask substantive questions on this piece of legislation. Today we have seen the debate be gagged. This is the first time since I have been in this place I have seen a gag on a suspension. It's just disgraceful. Now we've been given the opportunity to speak for five minutes. This is $140 billion being ripped out of essential public services and the government want to ram it through the Senate. The bottom line here is that this is a package that does nothing for low-income earners. The bottom 40 per cent of income earners will get no benefit from this bill. The bottom 40 per cent will get no benefit from stage 1, 2 or 3 of this bill. This is a package that will flow to the top 60 per cent. If you look at stage 3, 95 per cent of the benefit will go to the top 20 per cent of workers.

This is the new definition of what a 'battler' is in Australia, according to One Nation. You are a battler in Australia if you are in the top 20 per cent of income earners apparently. If you are a banker, a CEO or someone on $500,000 or a million bucks, you get a tax cut. Senator Wong is right that $7,000 goes into the back pocket of these people as a result of stage 3, but the combined impact of the entire package is worth over $11,000. Every politician in this place will get an $11,000 tax cut. Bankers will get an $11,000 tax cut. CEOs and executives in industries, in big multinationals, will get an $11,000 tax cut. If you are a nurse, childcare worker or teacher, you will get a few hundred bucks in your back pocket.

The bottom line is that we face a choice here in Australia right now. This is one of the most significant pieces of legislation to ever pass through the Australian parliament. This is worth $140 billion. It fundamentally rewrites the fabric of Australian society. We cannot continue to afford to invest in all of the foundations of a decent society—decent health care, education and infrastructure, increasing Newstart and protecting our environment—if we strip $140 billion of revenue in a prescription to turbocharge inequality here in Australia.

This is what the government's already done. It's taken half a billion dollars from ARENA, over $300 million from the ABC and nearly $60 million in legal aid funding. Freezing Medicare cost nearly $3 billion. It's cut family tax benefit supplements, 4,000 jobs from the ATO, jobs from ASIC and jobs from the CSIRO. It has made huge cuts to the environment department at a time when we are losing biodiversity at a rate far greater than at any other time on earth. R&D tax offsets: $600 million gone. Local government grants: $900 million gone. There have been cuts to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. This government has presided over a litany of cuts.

Can you imagine what will happen if we strip another $140 billion of revenue from those essential services? Can you imagine what we are going to be faced with in the coming years when it comes to the cuts that we've already seen from this government?

And of course you've got Senator Hanson over there. Let me quote to you what Senator Hanson said. She said, 'I am not getting a tax cut.' She said:

The tax cuts are going to be up to $200,000. I'm a very fortunate Australian to be earning more than $200,000. I am paying … 45c in the dollar on that. I'm not getting tax relief.

Well, Senator Hanson should come into this chamber and apologise for misleading the Senate. Senator Hanson gets over $11,000 as a result of her support for this legislation.

And over there we have Centre Alliance, who are selling out South Australians. For every dollar that goes into the back pocket of wealthy South Australians, $1.40 gets taken out in vital public services in South Australia.

This is one of the most shameful, disgraceful days that I've seen in my time in this Senate, with $140 billion ripped out of public revenue—taken out of our public hospitals; many people will need to languish for longer on waiting lists. There will be more up-front costs in public schools. Infrastructure that desperately needs investment isn't going to get it—and all because you want to ram this bill through without any scrutiny. (Time expired)

The CHAIR: A point of order, Senator Macdonald?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is in relation to the decision to stop leaders having a capacity to speak for more than five minutes. Could the Leader of the Government in the Senate explain why it's only five minutes on such an important issue.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Macdonald; that is not a point of order. Senator Macdonald?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've grossly insulted me by calling Senator Cameron Senator Macdonald.

The CHAIR: I beg your pardon. My apologies. Senator Collins?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is actually an important point of order, rather than the time wasting that's happening on the government side. The Leader of the Government in the Senate indicated earlier across the chamber that the nature of his arrangement was not certain things. I would like him to clarify for all of us what the actual arrangement is. Rather than us having to debate each time one party leader gets up to try and speak, let the leader of the government tell us what the deal is.

The CHAIR: Senator Collins, please resume your seat. That's not a point of order. Senator Storer.

Tim Storer (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Madam Chair—

The CHAIR: I beg your pardon, Senator Storer; please resume your seat. Senator Collins?

How can it not be a point of order to clarify what procedure is before us at the moment? That makes no sense at all.

The CHAIR: Senator Wong?

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

Obviously, this is—

An honourable senator interjecting—

I'm making a suggestion to the chamber.

An honourable senator interjecting—

No, well—

The CHAIR: I remind the chamber that we are in Committee of the Whole.

We are in committee.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The CHAIR: Order! Senator Wong?

There is obviously some confusion because the procedure the chamber is now undertaking or utilising is a procedure that is entirely contained within Senator Cormann's head, as discussed with Senator Patrick, and, even as we have been conducting debate, the procedure has changed.

Initially we had an argument where I was denied my request for leave for 15 minutes unless I gave an agreement that this be concluded by a certain time. I refused to give that agreement. I was then given five minutes, and then, after the five minutes concluded, I was given an additional 10 minutes.

I do think it is incumbent on the government, given that they have agreed that party leaders speak, to explain what the procedure actually is. In particular, why is it that the Leader of the Australian Greens, who is a party leader—a party that I oppose regularly, but—

The CHAIR: Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Thank you. The Senate has determined how this matter will proceed, and there is to be no debate on the points. However, senators are entitled to the right to seek leave, and I think that's where we are up to with Senator Storer.

Tim Storer (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to seek leave to speak on this motion.

The CHAIR: Leave is granted for five minutes.

The Senate is the house of review. Our job is to thoroughly scrutinise each and every bill brought before us. These motions moved by the government to limit debate on the Personal Income Tax Plan, the biggest tax cuts in Australia's history, should not meet with majority support, and it goes against the principles of accountability and transparency, which are of paramount importance. This was clearly the platform on which the Nick Xenophon Team ran at the last federal election. It was the central part of their philosophy, and I believe that Centre Alliance today should be abiding by that by allowing the Senate yesterday and today to adequately discuss and debate these measures.

They are very significant measures which have significant implications for future debt, deficit considerations and services. They should not be taken lightly. That's why I put forward a revision to the whole plan to pass stage 1 of the plan, which I saw as reasonable and appropriate, providing tax relief to low- and middle-income earners, and then to look at further changes to tax relief when appropriate given that the Secretary to the Treasury himself noted that there are significant error bands in forward estimates beyond three or four more years further. So I did support yesterday the Senate setting aside stage 3 of the personal tax plan, and that would have left $40 billion or so set aside in the future. Should the economy and international economic circumstances make that round of tax cuts affordable, we could do so then. But that is in 2024, which is two elections—six years—away.

Then stage 2 would cost $80 billion, twice as much as stage 3, and it would still be two elections before it would be brought about. Some crossbenchers are suggesting that, with economic circumstances, these changes would be easily wound back, but that's not the lesson that we've learnt from the 2007 tax cuts, which proved unaffordable in the wake of the global financial crisis but were locked in. It's made the task of returning the budget to balance impossible at least for the last decade. The alternative that may come will be to slash services like health and education. That was tried and it proved unpalatable to the public and ultimately to the Liberal government.

The government presently is struggling to find the money to pay for the level of services that the public has come to expect. It plays down the risks of enacting the entire package in one hit, even though Treasury itself acknowledges the error bands, as I've mentioned before. The recent 24 hours has seen geopolitical trade tremors that may well pass, but they are a salutary reminder of just how quickly times can change. The Reserve Bank is clearly worried about the prospects of investment. Financial markets are concerned that a return to protectionism would mean less trade. Either development would have a marked effect on the Australian economy and on revenue, making reducing debt and returning the budget to balance even more difficult. Cuts to education and health would be inevitable, with fewer teachers and nurses in South Australia and uncertainty about the infrastructure plans, in terms of roads and bridges, upon which the budget just passed. The Greens have put forward that for every dollar of tax cuts received by South Australia the state would lose $1.40 for spending on essential services, and that hardly sounds like a good deal. So, as I have argued before, such an uncertain economic environment demands that the Senate rethink yesterday's and today's decisions regarding the pushing forward on the whole bill. This is what the Centre Alliance said they wanted yesterday in terms of removing stage 3, so I do not believe we should vote for this bill. At present, it should be considered in an orderly fashion.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, I am seeking a point of clarification. I'm just wondering if Senator Hanson is going to make any statement to the Senate in relation—

The CHAIR: Well—

If you'd just let me finish—

The CHAIR: Senator Cameron, that's a matter for Senator Hanson.

I'm just asking the question.

The CHAIR: No, I'm asking you to resume your seat. Senator Cameron, please resume your seat. Senator Cameron, I'm asking you to resume your seat.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Chair, I have a point of clarification as well. I understand that there are other parties yet to speak, quite aside from the issue that Senator Cameron raised, but I also understand that in the program at 11:45 there's what is ordinarily a hard marker, so I seek clarification from you as to what will occur procedurally if senators are still responding to this somewhat vague opportunity that's been agreed to by other senators behind doors. What procedurally happens in this place as opposed to Mathias Cormann sitting here saying, 'Five, five'? Is this how we run the Senate now? This is outrageous.

The CHAIR: Senator Collins, please resume your seat. There is a hard marker at 11.45 where the business of the Senate will continue from where we left off.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

The CHAIR: The question is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

The CHAIR: I'm sorry, Senator Whish-Wilson. The minister has moved. The question needs to be put without debate, so please resume your seat. There are two motions here and both must be voted on. It's my intention to take the vote on one and then move to the second one. If there is a call for a division, we'll ring the bells for one minute. Senator Bernardi?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are some really unseemly interjections being levelled towards Senator Hanson from the Greens.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Bernardi. Please resume your seat. The question is that the procedural motion moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the committee does not insist on its amendments.

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

I move:

That the resolution be reported.

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

A point of clarification: does the motion that the Senate passed yesterday mean that this motion is not debatable and that no suspension of standing orders can be moved in order to debate it?

The CHAIR: That's correct.

Yet again the government's refusing to debate its tax laws.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Wong.

I ask a further question, which is whether the government will now grant leave for party leaders, given what has just occurred—that the Senate is not insisting—to be given five minutes.

The CHAIR: I'm going to put the question. The question is that—

I've asked a question.

The CHAIR: There's a motion before us and it needs to be put.

Well I'll move an amendment.

The CHAIR: There's to be no amendment or debate.

I've asked the government if they will—

The CHAIR: It's a matter for the government, Senator Wong.

Is the minister going to respond?

The CHAIR: He hasn't stood, so I'm going to put the question. Senator—

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

We are past the hard marker and we ought to be moving on to other business.

The CHAIR: Senator Marshall, we're already in the process of dealing with these motions, so they now need to be concluded regardless of us having passed that hard marker.

The CHAIR: The question, as moved by the minister, is that the resolution be reported.