Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

1) the Senate notes that:

a) during Question Time today, Prime Minister Albanese said "what the Senate can do with the support of the Liberals and the Greens is to vote for these tax cuts and vote for them today"; and

b) the Government has not put forward a proposal to ensure the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024 are passed today; and

2) on Tuesday, 27 February 2024, the hours of meeting be 12 pm till adjournment and the routine of business from 7.30 pm be consideration of the bills;

3) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the bills only; and

4) following consideration of the bills being completed, the Senate return to its routine of business.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy at any time of the day to debate tax cuts and Labor's tax plan, which will deliver greater tax cuts to millions of Australians, significantly more than under the previous plan. I would note that the opposition have been shamed into this today because of the way that they've been conducting this debate. I have been seeking a commitment from the opposition to deal with this bill this week since Sunday—it actually may have been before Sunday—and I haven't been given that commitment. I've been given, 'We want to deal with it, we won't delay it and we won't have many speakers.' Shock, horror, we've had lots of speakers. All of the commitments that we've had from the opposition haven't been delivered upon. I've sought to engage with the Manager of Opposition Business, and I again sought commitments from them this morning about how to deal with this bill this week, allowing all of their colleagues and others to speak and then the committee stage to deal with the bill. I still haven't got a response. Then there's this motion today because the Prime Minister has, quite rightly, called them out on seeking to delay this bill.

That's what's been happening. I was told you would have few speakers. You've had about 15. That is not a few speakers.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we haven't.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over yesterday and today, there have been a number of speakers. You have not had a few speakers.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You and the Greens have had more than us.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're holding it up.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept that a number of Greens have spoken on the bill, and we have had a few speakers. Anyway, the commitment that was given has not been delivered upon, and now you've been shamed into it because you're worried that you're going to be seen to be standing in the way of the tax cuts, because we're running out of time.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For what?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're running out of time to pass the bills. We wanted it done this week. The commitment we were given was that you weren't going to stand in the way, and now you appear to be standing in the way—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When is this going to make a difference to people getting their cuts?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam President, I'm being constantly interrupted. Senator Birmingham had the opportunity to speak for 15 minutes to his motion. He chose not to speak to it. He now seeks to use my time.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, please resume your seat. The minister has quite rightly drawn my attention to the interruptions. They are disorderly and disrespectful. Minister, please continue.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion's been circulated today after the Prime Minister has, quite rightly, called out the tactics of the Liberal Party, who, whilst wanting to support the tax cuts—Labor's tax cuts—want to delay them at the same time. Now this motion's come here to upend the program and the business that it has been agreed to consider this afternoon. We will support the motion, but we are considering amendments to it. I wasn't given the courtesy of having a look at this motion with enough time to consider our position, so we will be wanting to move a couple of amendments. We don't see any reason why we can't go straight to this tax bill. If it's so urgent, why can't we start it now and put the question at seven o'clock this evening? People are working—

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Family-friendly hours.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right, Senator Hume—family friendly. Your motion is open-ended. I am actually seeking to move a family-friendly amendment. Under our amendment to Senator Birmingham's motion, we would go straight to this bill now, a priority bill that you have now indicated your support for dealing with, and then we would finish consideration of the bill at seven o'clock this evening, allowing those family-friendly conditions that you've been speaking of.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're happy to assist.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, there is no reason, if we go to these bills now—and I foreshadow that amendment, and I will seek to have that circulated; I'm not sure of the procedure of that, in terms of having it written so people can consider it. The amendment the government will be moving to this motion will be to ensure that we go to these bills straight after the conclusion of this debate; that final questions be put at seven o'clock; that divisions may take place after 6.30 for the purposes of those bills only; and that, presumably, once those divisions are finished, the Senate can adjourn. I think that's a reasonable position, having been given a lack of courtesy in having this motion dumped on us in about two minutes.

I have engaged with your Manager of Opposition Business a couple of times on these bills, to get an indication of how you wanted to handle these bills. I have been unable to get confirmation on that. I followed up this morning—I think it was this morning—on how the opposition would like to deal with these bills, seeking a commitment that we were dealing with it today, drawing to the Senate's attention the fact that we have Closing the Gap statements tomorrow and that on Thursday we have a joint sitting of the parliament. I wanted to make sure we had time to deal with these bills this week.

If the view of the opposition is that we need to deal with these bills today, let's get on with it, let's get cracking with it and let's allow what would be a good three hours and 15 minutes to deal with three second reading amendments and two substantive amendments in committee. That should be more than enough time to deal with these bills today, and we will get the job done. This is the position of the government and we look forward to the support from those opposite, if they are prepared to deal with it. This would be the chamber working together to get it done with the fastest arrangements possible.

I don't seek to delay the chamber but I foreshadowed an amendment; we'll have that circulated as soon as we can. I'm happy to let other speakers put their position. But, if we are going to upend the program to deal with these bills, let's get on and deal with it now. There is no reason to sit late tonight. We can deal with it in plenty of time. We are very happy to deal with the committee stage and deal with it quickly. Before 1.30 we finished the second reading debate—the debate was summed up by the acting minister—and we can move straight to the committee stage. Unless those opposite are seeking to filibuster through the committee stage and delay the passage of these bills, I can't see any reason—they don't even have amendments; the amendments are from the crossbench. We can deal with those very quickly, and have these bills passed and sent back to the House of Representatives as soon as possible.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The extraordinary irony of this is that the Labor government are so desperate to ram their tax cuts, Labor's tax cuts, through the Senate because they say it's urgent, because they say they're running out of time. Yet the tax cuts don't actually kick in until 1 July. Why are they running out of time? I'll give you one guess, and it starts with the letter 'd'; it's the Dunkley by-election on Saturday. That's the reason why Labor is so keen to ram these changes through.

They have accused the opposition of standing in the way. How ironic! This is legislation based on a mistruth that they told by telling the Australian public, over 100 times after the election and numerous times before, and even 10 times since they changed their mind, that they were going to stick with the stage 3 tax cuts. But that disappeared with the ultimate mistruth told by both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. They commissioned Treasury to look at stage 3 tax cuts on 10 December last year.

And then, after that time, they told the Australian public that they had no plans to change that, that they were not reconsidering changes. Now it's urgent, even though the cuts don't actually kick in until 1 July. There is no urgency to this.

The opposition's position has been clear: we will not stand in the way of tax cuts for ordinary Australians; we will not stand in the way of tax cuts that will reduce the 19c in the dollar range down to 16c. We won't stand in the way of that, but that doesn't mean we condone the mistruth—that was told more than 100 times by the Prime Minister, more than 100 times by the Treasurer—that got us to where we are today. We are not standing in the way of that tax cut. Quite the opposite. In fact, when the statistics bear out how this legislation has played out in this chamber, you will see that the opposition only had nine speakers on the list. That is less than one-third of us.

We feel pretty passionately about tax cuts on this side of the chamber. Tax cuts are part of our DNA, not part of yours. You don't join the Labor Party to cut taxes. You do join the Labor Party, however, to reverse decisions of the coalition that were genuine reforms. They were real reforms that attacked pernicious bracket creep that robs your future prosperity. That's why stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3 of those tax cuts were put in place by a coalition government. This mob over here had every intention of reversing those tax cuts from day one, and now they're trying to spin it to you that Labor are the party of tax cuts. 'They're here for ordinary Australians.' That is absolute nonsense. Not only is it nonsense, but they're trying to sell it to you with $40 million for an advertising campaign on the same day that they announced $14 million for Foodbank! If they were genuine about cost-of-living relief, why would you give $14 million to Foodbank but $40 million to an advertising agency to sell their mistruth?

Nine speakers from the coalition—nine only—and yet this shameless Prime Minister has had the audacity to say it is the coalition holding up tax breaks—hardly! In fact, there have been eight speakers from the Greens, there have been four from the crossbench and there have been four from the government, desperately trying to convince themselves that tax cuts are all part of being a member of the Labor Party. What nonsense. They squirm in their seats every time they talk about it.

They would love to have given handouts like lollies, but they know it would have been inflationary. They have been sitting there looking at the coalition tax cuts that were genuine reform. They've been doing it for months. They've been doing it since before the election when they looked you in the eye and said, 'We won't change that.' They've been looking at it since the election, and more than 100 times they looked you in the eye and said: 'We have no plans to change that. Our plans haven't changed.' Then they looked you in the eye more than 10 times after they'd commissioned the work to do it and said, 'We're not reconsidering our position.' This is a shameless government that is now delivering Labor tax cuts on the basis of a mistruth. There is no doubt about that. And now they're perpetuating that mistruth by saying that the coalition are trying to hold it up. What nonsense.

Nine coalition speakers, eight from the Greens, four from the crossbench and four from Labor themselves. When they tell you that we're trying to hold up a tax cut, don't believe it for a second. Check the facts because, quite frankly, this Prime Minister's integrity is nowhere to be seen. He has sold it to you—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume, withdraw.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the remark. The Prime Minister is trying to spin a $15 a week increase for a small number of Australians into a tax cut for all. What a magnanimous fellow he is. Not exactly committed to reform I might add, not exactly the ultimate reformist, is he? In fact, he's slightly more regressive than progressive when it comes to taxation reform. He's slightly more regressive than progressive when it comes to industrial relations reform too. This country is going backwards. Economic growth is at zero.

Productivity is back where it was in 2017, yet energy prices are going up. Industrial relations are back to where they were in the 1970s, and tax is going up too. We had a chance to do genuine reform to our personal income tax system. We had a chance to do it, and Labor voted for it back then, and now they have reversed that decision. Do you know why? It is because they are cowards. They are cowards towards reform. They don't want to see Australians getting ahead. They genuinely don't. What they want to do is make sure that their union paymasters are well looked after.

So we are not standing in the way of tax cuts—not in a million years. Tax cuts are part of Liberal DNA. They're part of coalition DNA. They're not part of Labor Party DNA, so when they say that we're trying to stand in the way of reform, look twice. Look past the mistruth. Look past: 'We're not considering that. That's not our position.' Look past: 'That's not part of our policy agenda.' What is on their policy agenda? I'll tell you what's on their policy agenda. It's more taxes—taxes on the family home, negative gearing, capital gains tax, a tax on farmers, a tax on truckies. Yet, at the same time, they say, 'Grocery prices are going up. Woe is me! Isn't it terrible. The cost of living! We must get the ACCC to look at that.' They are making the taxes go up. They are making the groceries go up. You are paying for that. You are paying for their failure in economic management.

Quite frankly, they can point in any direction they like, but this is about the Dunkley by-election, and they are running scared because the people of Dunkley have expressed white-hot anger towards this government that has all the wrong priorities, is breaking its promises and isn't delivering on its commitments. Where is that $275 reduction in energy prices? Have you experienced it? I haven't experienced it. I'm pretty sure the people of Dunkley haven't experienced it. Where is this new year's resolution to bring down the cost of living that the Prime Minister had in January 2023? Yet the cost of living soared for the next 12 months while he concentrated on a voice to parliament that nobody voted for. The people of Dunkley certainly didn't vote for it, and now they're angry and Labor are desperate, so they've created this myth that the Liberal Party, of all parties, and the coalition are standing on the way of a tax cut. Save me! Save me! Save me! And now they've put together a motion to change hours so this can be done today, and we're still being criticised for it. This is just a nonsense. You are falling over your own logic.

The Labor Party will never stand for lower, simpler, fairer taxes. It never will. It's just not who they are. Only a coalition will stand for lower, simpler, fairer taxes, and we are happy to deliver them today, despite whatever the Prime Minister says and whatever nonsense he is spouting in the other place.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senators Birmingham and Gallagher!

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He will never be able to be believed again. There is no reason why average Australians, let alone the people of Dunkley, will ever believe this Prime Minister again, because his promises are false and his commitments are hollow. The Labor Party have proved that to be so today.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I really struggled to keep up with all that. It was all over the shop and I couldn't quite make it out, but what the Australian people do know is that the Albanese Labor government are going to deliver a tax cut for all working Australians. That's actually what we announced and that's what we intend to deliver on here.

If you go back and look at the history of this since the Prime Minister announced it, they haven't been coherent. They haven't had a consistent position on this. We know that their instinct was to oppose it. They want to claim it's in their DNA, but what is in their DNA is negativity, opposition and not wanting to see Australians get ahead. What I found really offensive from Senator Hume was calling Australians 'ordinary'. I don't think any Australians are ordinary. I think they make a fantastic contribution to our country, and that is why, in giving them a tax cut, we are recognising them for the work that they do.

The only thing they have in their DNA is negativity. They oppose, and we've seen that consistently through this year, as we are the ones who are delivering a tax cut to working Australians.

So they can claim all the things they want to claim, but the reality is that they are in opposition. We are the ones who are delivering, and we want to make sure that this legislation gets through as quickly as possible.

We know they've opposed this legislation from the start. They've used tactics and tricks in the Senate chamber to delay these bills and ensure they aren't passed. We want to ensure that this work does get done so the Australian people can plan for their future knowing that they will have a tax cut delivered by the Albanese Labor government. I move the amendment as circulated in the chamber:

Omit paragraphs (b) to (d), substitute:

(a) the bills be called on immediately;

(b) the questions on all remaining stages of the bills be put at 6.30 pm;

(c) paragraph (c) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;

(d) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the bills only; and

(e) following consideration of the bills being completed, the Senate return to its routine of business.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment, as foreshadowed by Minister Gallagher and moved by Senator Chisholm, has been circulated. Just so we're clear—and I'll make sure that I understand it correctly—it deletes Senator Birmingham's point (2) and adds new points (2), (3) and (4).

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

President, I'm rising to speak to the amendment as just moved by Senator Chisholm. I want to be clear about the difference before the chamber. As Senator Hume has very clearly outlined, the coalition responded to the pathetic stunt of the Prime Minister in the other place, where he stood there going, 'The Senate's standing in the way of passing these bills; it's standing in the way of Australians getting their tax cuts,' when in reality, as Senator Hume quite rightly pointed out, whether this bill passes today, tomorrow, next week or next month won't make a jot of difference to the fact that no Australian will see any difference from this legislation until after 1 July. So it doesn't matter, actually, when this legislation is dealt with.

The Prime Minister thought he'd be a tough guy and stand there in the House of Representatives' question time and say, 'It's all your fault this is being delayed.' Little did he know, of course, that there were more Labor, Greens and crossbench senators—in fact, there were more crossbench and Greens senators—who'd spoken on the bills than there were coalition senators. So it's far from our fault. I want to be clear that I'm not seeking to cast aspersions on the Greens or crossbenchers who spoke on this. The Prime Minister was the one who wanted to turn this into some sort of tough-guy routine about who was delaying the bills, when it doesn't actually matter which day of the week they pass, because there won't be an effect on the pockets and wallets of Australians until 1 July.

Anyway, if the Prime Minister wanted to play politics with it—because, as Senator Hume quite rightly pointed out, this whole thing has been cooked up around the Dunkley by-election happening on Saturday—then we were happy to call out his politics and indicate that, sure, we'd get this done. That's because actually, on our reading of the Senate, it probably won't take much longer for this legislation to pass. The second reading list has been exhausted, there are a couple of second reading amendments and there are some crossbench amendments. It could probably all be done almost in the time that this debate has gone on. I note that when I moved this motion I sat down without saying a word. It could have been voted on and done, but the government, of course, have to have their way. Senator Gallagher had to speak and filibuster while the government came up with an alternative.

Let's just compare and contrast the alternatives, because this is what the Senate is being asked to vote on. The coalition proposed something that respects all of the Senate business to be conducted today. Nothing, in terms of other business that other senators have planned for, would be disrupted, according to our motion. At the time the Senate would have adjourned, we will instead go back to government business, get the bill done—which may well only take half an hour or so—and then go back to the adjournment debate as scheduled. No senator misses out; no other business is disrupted; every single piece of business gets done.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Senator Rice's OPD?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In reference to OPDs or otherwise, let's note that today is a day when there are about 20 motions for consideration during the afternoon. We've proposed something that respects the Senate and respects those processes.

The government, because of an attitude not unlike the Prime Minister's—they just have to do it their way—said, 'Well, let's do it now.'

The consequence of the government's motion will likely be to wipe the rest of the day's business and leave a situation where things stack up and roll over to tomorrow—quite unnecessarily so. My urging to the crossbench, to the Greens, is to reject the government's motion. I urge you to support the coalition's motion, but whether you support it or not is your business. The Labor Party should support the coalition's motion, the substantive motion, because that's the one that will get the bills done today, as the Prime Minister wants them done today, even though it won't make a jot of difference whether they're done today or tomorrow. But I do urge the crossbench to not fall into the trap of the government's amendment, which is just about the government being seen to have it their way. Their way actually gets in the way of most of the things that the crossbench in this place usually value: the right to have their motions considered and the right to have them done on the days they're scheduled.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's go!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind you, Minister, that I didn't speak on the motion originally. You were the one who decided to have a debate. You could have just let the motion go through on the voices with no debate at all. You could have just had it wave its way through. If you really want, I can go for the next 9½ minutes. Trust me, that's entirely possible.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't bait him, Minister!

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie's chomping at the bit.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm ready to go!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Smith would be keen, and Senator Chandler and Senator Cash—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can do that if you want, Minister. But we don't want to do that. We actually want to let the Senate deal with its business today. We have called out the Prime Minister's theatrics in the House of Representatives by bringing this motion on. Bills that were going to pass this week—they probably would have passed tomorrow—will instead pass at some time today if one of the motions before the Senate gets up. It won't make a jot of difference to the impact for Australians when the bills pass today instead of tomorrow. But go your hardest, in terms of your campaign in Dunkley over the next few days. Tell them that you've passed these bills a day earlier than would have otherwise been the case. I am sure the voters of Dunkley are looking really closely at parliamentary practice and the timing of these bills!

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an absolute farce we have had today! The chest-beating that we've seen for the last half an hour has been a complete waste of time. We have bills that have just completed their second reading stage and are due to pass either later today or tomorrow morning. The bills themselves aren't great and, frankly, give far too much money to the very wealthy. We'd rather see that money going into dental and Medicare, into building public homes and into scrapping student debt . Yet what we've seen is some chest-beating in a pathetic exercise of pointing fingers at each other.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are you doing now? Pot, kettle, black—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash!

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to place on record, while I'm being yelled at by the opposition, that we won't support any of this nonsense. There has not been a solid case made to change the program of dealing with these bills in the ordinary manner, and the one-upmanship that's been attempted by both sides today is deeply unedifying. So let's get on with it, stick with the program, and these bills, tepid as they are, will pass. We will continue to request that the government not give perks to people earning over $200,000 and instead invest in universal services that might actually help address the cost of living.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm to the motion as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move government amendment No. 2 as circulated in the chamber:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that:

(i) during Question Time today, Prime Minister Albanese said 'what the Senate can do with the support of the Liberals and the Greens is to vote for these tax cuts and vote for them today', and

(ii) the Government has not put forward a proposal to enable the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024 are passed today; and

(b) today, the hours of meeting be midday till adjournment and the routine of business from 7.30 pm be consideration of the bills;

(c) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the bills only; and

(d) following consideration of the bills being completed, the Senate return to its routine of business.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that government amendment No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Urquhart, to amend Senator Birmingham's original motion, be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.