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

We are now coming to the end of the second week in the 45th Parliament. We are starting to get to the business end of town. This is the first piece of legislation we have got before us today that is substantial, and it is very telling that this piece of legislation is about the priority, both for the Labor Party and for the Liberal and National parties, in this nation for budget repair. This was the priority of our previous government under Prime Minister Tony Abbott. 'Budget repair' is code for 'cruel cuts to the less fortunate in this country and an attack on renewable energy and climate change action'.

Now, I put the proposition to the people of Australia and to senators in this chamber that the great moral challenges of our time have not changed in recent years. They remain inequality and global warming. The Greens are not in parliament and in the Senate just to soften the worst excesses of this Turnbull government; we are in parliament to have the courage and vision to bring about much needed economic reform that deals with the great moral challenges of our time, like inequality. I found it very hard to believe that in The Australian just three weeks ago the Prime Minister said the great moral challenge of our time is deficit and debt repair. Why can't we do all three at the same time? Why can't we walk and chew gum? Why can't we find revenue measures and cost savings that also make this country more fair and equal and tackle the absolute imperative of global warming? We can do all three. The Greens have put up sensible measures and, during this debate, we will be talking in much detail about what we need to do.

Let us think about deficit repair—$6.3 billion in savings. The omnibus bill is a conglomeration of different pieces of legislation, of different bills. In a way, it is a bit like a bus, with each seat on the bus being a separate piece of legislation. That legislation essentially delivers us cuts to spending, which we can then bank as savings. What you have not heard from the Labor Party today is that on that bus, in the front row, is an attack on renewable energy and climate action in this country. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency has been stripped back to its bare bones in recent years by both the Abbott and Turnbull governments. It is an agency that invests, Senator Williams—through you, Acting Deputy President Reynolds—nearly 70 per cent of its budget in rural Australia, in innovation, in creating jobs, in tackling rising emissions and in developing new technologies that deliver both clean energy and jobs. But it is being stripped back to its bare bones. Labor and the Liberals are the clean energy charlatans of this parliament, and shame on the Labor Party for voting for this. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency was part of a package that the Greens negotiated with Labor under the Gillard government, and it is not acceptable that we will now lose another $700 million from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. What next?

Let us talk about inequality. I am not going to go into a lot of detail on the schedule of bills within the omnibus bill, but my fellow Greens colleagues will. I am particularly interested that right now, as we are debating this omnibus bill, in the other house, the green house, we have another piece of legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Relief) Bill 2016, which gives a tax cut to the top 20 per cent, the most wealthy, of Australians. Anyone earning over $80,000—which is not 80 per cent of Australians, but which includes us here in the chamber—is going to get a tax cut. There might be some justification for a tax cut if you felt it was going to have a positive benefit for the economy or for the people who are going to get that tax cut, but, as we have worked out and as has been spoken about, it is barely a muffin and a coffee. I can accept that $5 or $6 a week is important to people on low incomes—it is incredibly important. Why are we giving a tax cut to the most wealthy Australians? By the way, it will cost $4.3 billion. Today we are debating a bill in the Senate to raise $6.3 billion, taking money off the less fortunate and off clean energy, and, across in the other chamber, we are giving it back to the most wealthy Australians. What else is coming our way when parliament resumes in a month or so? Tax cuts for business. Where is the equality? Where is the fairness? How are we dealing with the growing divide in this country—the gap between the rich and the poor, which we know is getting worse?

This bill before us here today has been rushed. The Labor Party and the Liberal-National government have denied us the chance to have a public inquiry. We have been denied the ability for the Senate to call witnesses and hear evidence. But the Greens went ahead and did our own inquiry, and we thank the crossbenchers for their help. We called witnesses who work in the social services sector—people who deal with these issues every day. They see the impacts on those on Newstart or on the pension. They know how hard it is for these people and how important it is that the government play an active role in their lives by providing a safety net and supporting them. It is outrageous that after the 2014 budget, which essentially killed then Prime Minister Tony Abbott's leadership and ultimately took away his job, the very first bill we get in the 45th Parliament is almost the same. It is like groundhog day, and winter is coming for the less fortunate in this country if someone in here does not stand up for them.

Let us talk about clean energy. I remember sitting in here during the last parliament and having the Labor Party come in and tell the Greens—and I noticed Senator Conroy is on the speaking list, coming up very shortly—how we had caved in on a multinational tax avoidance negotiation with the government, where the Greens got a fantastic outcome to put in legislation to tackle the biggest end of town not paying their tax. The Greens negotiated a fantastic outcome for the Australian people. I remember Senator Cameron saying, 'You guys don't know how to negotiate; you don't know how to do deals.' Well, guess what: nor do you. You have caved in on renewable energy.

There is an old saying that perhaps maybe senator McGrath may be familiar with: in every government bill, there is always one sacrificial anode. I do not know if that is necessarily true because I have not been in government but, let me tell you, cuts to clean energy did not need ever happen under this bill. If the Labor Party and Liberal Party had negotiated harder, as we were doing, we would not have lost $800 million to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. But you made your priorities clear, Labor Party and Liberal Party. The priority of the Labor Party and of the Liberal Party for this 45th parliament is deficit repair, not tackling rising inequality or global warming.

So let me deal with this issue of deficit repair. There is a dishonest debate in this chamber that debt is bad, that somehow the moral challenge of our time is to reduce debt. By the way, let's legislate all our policy to keep the ratings agencies happy. That is essentially what you are saying, Senator Gallagher. This is about keeping the triple-A rating and keeping the ratings agencies happy. It comes straight from the big banks. I do not know how many Australians are aware that our triple-A credit rating means that the banks automatically have a double-A credit rating; they sit below the triple-A credit rating because governments are default risk free. So guess what? If the government loses its triple-A credit rating, that means the banks automatically lose their double-A credit rating, which of course they do not want to see happen because it is going to be bad for their business model.

Let's talk a bit more truthfully about debt. As you well know, Acting Deputy President Reynolds, not all debt is bad. I have argued in this place that we can borrow sensibly for productive and transformative infrastructure spending in this country. We should be borrowing at least $50 billion to $70 billion of extra money, off the balance sheet, and restructuring the way we finance infrastructure in this country to get money moving. Government should be playing an active role in Australia. If we do that, and if we pick the right projects with fully transparent cost-benefit analysis financed the right way then we will stimulate sustainable economic growth in this country.

All the metrics that the ratings agencies use that look at the potential loss of a triple-A rating rely on metrics around GDP—expenditure to GDP, debt to GDP et cetera. If we stimulate GDP then there is not a problem. If you sit down with any decent economist in this country and you ask: what is the issue about losing our triple-A rating? They will say actually it is inconsequential in the short term. The Senate select committee that I chaired said the same thing. Standard and Poor's said the same thing. But they will tell you the problem is the trend and it relies on uncertainty around economic growth at least 12 months down the track. So here is a good suggestion: let's actually stimulate infrastructure spending in this country, do what just about every expert not just in Australia but internationally with the IMF and others say, and actually have government play an active role in our life.