Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The House should agree to this amendment, because it doesn't require the government to pay one extra dollar. In fact, it might ensure that money that's being spent by the public, to get people through this crisis to which the government's failures have led us, doesn't go to billionaires to buy private jets, like the last JobKeeper payments did. For an amendment to pass the Senate, it requires a broad range of support from right across the political spectrum and from right across the country. And that's what happened with this amendment. It's a good amendment that was moved by Senator Patrick, that reflects legislation the Greens have put to the Senate, to ensure greater transparency and ensure that JobKeeper and money like JobKeeper doesn't go to billionaires or big corporations that don't need it but finds its way to where it is needed.

What's telling is that the government could not even be bothered putting forward one argument about why the amendment should be rejected. They just said, 'Reject it.' And, when you look at the details of the amendment, you can see why. The amendment requires the publication of a list of, effectively, the financial situations—in broad, so no confidential details—of the corporations that receive this new form of financial assistance. Why is that necessary? We know it's necessary because the government has previously given billions of dollars to corporations that then went on and increased their profits or paid out executive bonuses, or to billionaires who bought private jets. We know that is what the government has done, and we know we need to fix it for next time.

This amendment doesn't even restrict the government from making any payments. All it does is require the publication of information about certain corporations. So there's no need for this amendment to hold up the money that needs to flow, and quickly, because the country is hurting, because the government has failed in its vaccine rollout. That is the situation. We are in a situation where we need to get money to people quickly. But nothing in this amendment will slow things down. If the government is serious about supporting people through the pandemic and also ensuring that money does not go to billionaires and corporations that are profitable anyway, just to help them pay some more executive bonuses or buy another private jet, then it should support this amendment.

I reiterate that when an amendment passes the Senate with the support of Independents, the Greens, the Labor Party and One Nation it should tell the government something about where it sits. This government is afraid of transparency. We know why, because we see rort after rort after rort. This is an opportunity to restore a bit of trust. We all agree—and there's going to be support for this bill—that financial assistance should be provided, because people are doing it tough. But what the majority of the Senate agrees on too is that there should be some transparency about whether corporations who don't need the money are getting it because the government has failed to design the scheme properly. Perhaps the government might want to deign to give even some small justification about why they're going to knock this back.

I say to the opposition: this isn't going to hold things up. This amendment could be passed today—bang—right now. Not one additional obligation is imposed on the government to pay an extra dollar. In fact, it might save a bit for the kitty. But people would get the money they need. Nothing in this amendment is going to hold anything up. The money will flow as quickly as it did before. I say to the opposition and others here: support this amendment and say no to the government's proposal to knock it back.

Question agreed to.

See this speech in context