Senate debates

Wednesday, 6 September 2017

Matters of Public Importance

4:27 pm

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

When you walk down the street—pick any busy street around this lovely country—and talk to people, they don't see the world in terms of left and right. They don't talk about left and right and socialism and capitalism. I'll tell you what they are interested in: new ideas and solutions to problems that they face in their everyday lives.

The best way I have heard my party, the Greens, described was by my former leader and my predecessor in this place Bob Brown. Bob said, 'Whenever I get asked this question I say: the Greens aren't to the left; the Greens aren't to the right—the Greens are out in front. The Greens are leading this country on progressive economic policies. Let me give you a couple of examples about the Labor Party, who are, of course, being labelled as the new socialists by their right-wing opponents across the chamber, the Liberal and National parties. Guess who led on the banks royal commission? The Australian Greens. Who led on legislating for penalty rates? The Australian Greens. Who led on removing negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions? The Australian Greens. Who led on taxing trusts and companies? The Australian Greens. Who led on an infrastructure bank? The Australian Greens. I'm proud to say that if we have helped to shift the Labor Party to adopt some good policies then we are very happy about that.

It's not just the Labor Party that has listened to the Greens. Have a look at the Liberal Party. It is also a very impressive list. Senator Duniam, that's more impressive, because you've adopted some of our policies and actually legislated them in this place into reality. Let's have a look at them: a bank levy—something that we have been fighting for for 10 years since the GFC, and lo and behold, we get a bank levy in this budget; an effects test—something Christine Milne and I have campaigned on for a very long time—which will, hopefully, very soon pass fully into legislation; and a small business package, including tax cuts for small business, instant asset write-offs and a Small Business Ombudsman—a Greens' policy, again, adopted by the Liberal Party. What about housing affordability and aggregate bonds? It is another idea that we've run with that the Liberal-National Party put in the last budget. Good debt and bad debt—distinguishing our national accounts—is also a Greens economic policy. A beneficial ownership register to help tackle tax avoidance issues and account portability for bank accounts are also Greens policies. We are proud to be out in front, ignoring this immature left and right debate, looking at the solutions that people in this country want to their problems and coming up with new ideas.

I would say to Senator Paterson—who unfortunately fled the chamber as soon as I got up to speak; and may that be noted by Hansard—I think you are asking the wrong questions. The question he should be asking is: 'Why are Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn so politically popular?' That's not the question that the senators on this side of the chamber are asking. They are popular because ordinary people out there who are struggling feel very strongly that the system has let them down and they're looking for alternatives. That's where the answer to this dilemma lies. The policies of the right—globalisation and free markets—haven't delivered for people on the ground. We need markets, but markets fail and that's why we need governments.

Isn't it interesting that the Labor Party support removing perverse legislation—and we're glad they do—like negative gearing concessions and capital gains concessions, but the Liberal Party, supposedly, the free market party, want to keep them in place? They're happy to distort markets when it suits their stakeholders who donate to them, like the Property Council. The Labor Party opposed the bank levy. As soon as the bank levy was brought in in the last budget—a Greens policy—the Labor Party were out there mercilessly campaigning against the bank levy. Who would have thought that a tax on the big wealthy banks that helps pay for schools and hospitals would have been opposed by the Labor Party? It just goes to show that, if you want to have an honest debate in here about socialism and capitalism, it's bloody hard to tell where the duopoly of politics lie on this issue. I can't tell, nor can the Australian people. (Time expired)

Comments

No comments