|
senate vote 2023-09-12#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-01-19 09:06:50
|
Title
Business — Consideration of Legislation- Business - Consideration of Legislation - Speed things along
Description
<p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>I seek leave to make a statement of two minutes.</p><p>Leave not granted.</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from making a statement.</p><p>What we have seen here is the government doing absolutely everything that they possibly can to deny this chamber the opportunity to even talk about a significant change to the order of proceedings for today, on the basis of the fact that they have eventually done a deal with the Greens to bring back on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill and associated bills. I ask those up the other end of the chamber, the Greens, who have obviously done a deal with the government for this: Senator Shoebridge, what sorts of dirty deals in dark, smoke-filled rooms have been done that you're always so often—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Ruston, please resume your seat. I remind you to direct your comments to the chair. Please continue.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>Thank you very much, President. President, I ask through you: what sorts of dirty deals have been done in dark, smoke-filled rooms with the Greens to enable this bill to be brought back on? We know today that a billion dollars has been put on the table. That's on top of the $2 billion that was thrown around earlier this year in an attempt to try and get the Greens over the line so that they could move forward on this ill-conceived policy to try and deliver social and affordable housing in this country.</p><p>But what we really want to know is what other deals have been done with the Greens in these dirty, smoke filled rooms to enable this to come forward. We know from reading the paper this morning that the Greens have now come back and said that they will secure the fund, but, in the words of one of the Greens representatives in the other place: 'We will not stop fighting until there is a freeze on rent increases.' Following the decision this morning or over the last few days, what will we see turn up in MYEFO for this deal to be done between the Greens and the Labor Party? The question also has to be: 'What other deals are there?' I asked Senator Lambie. Obviously, she's done some sort of deal for her support. What are the deals? Have you managed to get a billion dollars out of the government for what you want—a billion dollars for Tasmania? I ask Senator Tyrrell that, as well. What did Senator Pocock get for his support for the Housing Affordability Future Fund? What deals have been done with Senator Hanson, Senator Babet and Senator Thorpe?</p><p>We come into this place to try to have open and transparent dialogue, and all we see is that, every time the government mucks up on its determination in relation to a policy, which we see time and time again. All they do is heap a whole heap of taxpayers' money at it. This is taxpayers' money that keeps getting thrown to buy the reparation of ill-conceived policy that you hadn't done your homework on when you put in the policy in the first place. Guess who ends up being the poor sucker to pay for this? It's the Australian taxpayer. If you'd done your homework in the first place, we would have had this housing affordability bill negotiated and consulted. You wouldn't have had to throw $3 billion at the Greens and God knows how much more that we don't even know about. Who knows what's hiding in MYEFO when it comes to decisions that have been made for you to try to buy a deal to try and make sure that your signature policy doesn't go down the tube because you didn't do the work, consultation or modelling. You have refused to be transparent about this. Once again, we see the Labor Party just saying: 'Taxpayers? Don't worry about you. You can pay to fix up the mess that you didn't make in the first place.'</p><p>But the greatest travesty that we see here is in spending all this money that you guys at the other end of the chamber—through you, Mr Deputy President—put through the dirty deals and the smoke filled rooms that Senator Shoebridge is so happy to come in here and talk about all the time. You're quite happy to go and do those dirty deals in smoke-filled rooms when it suits your purposes. But, at the end of the day, it doesn't change that this is really bad policy that has had to be funded by dirty deals in order to get through this place. It is still really bad policy, because this is financial engineering like you've seen before. This is to keep it off the balance sheet so you can get your budget surplus. There is no consideration whatsoever of the implications. Who knows whether any money will end up in social and affordable housing? The only money that will end up in social and affordable housing is the $3 billion that you've had to pay to get your policy out because you didn't do the homework on your policy in the first place.</p><p>We stand here today as a coalition who support good policy. We support policy that's transparent and uses the right financial levers and policies that have stood the test of time. The Minister for Finance should be absolutely ashamed that she has allowed this policy to go through. Not only is it $10 billion off the balance sheet that Australians will have to continue to pay the interest on forever, but they've had to fork out at least $3 billion to buy the support of those at the other end of the chamber. Australian taxpayers are the ones that pay for your bad policy.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I rise to make just a few points, starting with the lack of necessity of the debate that we are having. We manage conflict and division in this chamber sometimes by doing everything precisely by the rules, using each ounce of the standing orders, including standing order rights to seek to suspend standing orders. But we also manage conflict and division in this chamber through the extension of courtesies and through the ability to work across party lines and manage that conflict. In this instance, Senator Ruston rose to seek to make a two-minute statement about the motion that has just been considered. It's not exactly an unprecedented move. It's one that has been done time and time again and one where this government has extended that courtesy on occasion where something has happened. Where a motion has been rammed through the Senate without any debate, it's extended the courtesy for a two-minute statement to be made by the opposition. Certainly, the previous government did the same thing time and again, managing the conflict in a way to achieve a courteous outcome that also ensured the smooth running of the chamber. Instead, on this occasion, leave was denied, and here we are now having a debate over the suspension of standing orders on the question of Senator Ruston being able to make a two-minute statement.</p><p>We've now spent close to eight minutes on the two-minute statement question, and it is unnecessary. It was asked for; it was even foreshadowed and yet the leave was denied, unnecessarily so. Why did Senator Ruston want to make a two-minute statement? She wanted to make clear points about what the chamber had just done without any debate occurring. The chamber had just significantly varied its hours and applied yet another guillotine by this government to a significant piece of policy. So yet another guillotine was applied by the government that promised it would treat the chamber with respect. It promised there would be greater transparency and accountability from them, but, no, it's another guillotining of legislation.</p><p>It's not legislation that is inconsequential, but legislation that entails billions of dollars of taxpayer money being committed. And the remarkable thing is that the totality of those billions of dollars keeps changing, from when the legislation was first introduced to now when it is being considered. Firstly, we had the fund that was all off budget, nothing to see here, nothing was touching the budget. But then more money was found, because the pressure came from the Greens. A billion dollars was found; $2 billion was found; $3 billion was found over the space of some weeks and months. It's like an auction was going on, with the government responding to the Greens' demands to find the extra cash that they were demanding.</p><p>There's little detail as to how those billions of dollars are going to be spent—just a promise that the government will shovel it out the door somehow to some effect. There's been little discussion about the actual detail of the fund, the off-budget fund that's being established, notwithstanding the fact that the country has significant debts, and the money is simply money that maintains and adds to the type of debt that is carried forward. They're trying to establish this like the Future Fund was established by the Howard and Costello governments but forget that the government had eliminated all debt at the time the Future Fund was established.</p><p>We've been clear all along that this is bad policy. It's bad policy to establish more of these sorts of funds. It's bad policy, because it does nothing to actually address the questions of home ownership. It's bad policy, because, insofar as it actually generates additional housing, it's a drop in the ocean and is contradicted by the government's anti-competitive, anti-productivity industrial relations and other agendas that will simply see challenges in the housing market get worse. But the policy will be debated in the limited time the government has now allowed through its deal with the Greens. The real question is, through that debate, why the government felt the need at the outset to act without the basic courtesies of the Senate—to ignore those—and to provoke the quite unnecessary debate in terms of how this chamber operates.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>I just want to respond to a few of those comments. This chamber does work with courtesy extended and with agreement reached where appropriate. I had informed the Manager of Opposition Business that we would not be providing leave for a two-minute statement in a week when we are doing a number of other things to facilitate requests from the opposition. Let's just put that quite fairly on the record. I move:</p><p class="italic">That the question be put.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Gallagher that the question be put be agreed to.</p><p></p> -
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-09-12.10.1):
- > *That the question be put.*
- In other words, they voted to end debate and instead vote on the matter straight away.
-
-
|