Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to speak in relation to the BCA inquiry report. I wasn't intending to speak in relation to this matter, but I understand that comments made by Senator Stoker in her contribution have cast a cloud over the proceedings in relation to this particular inquiry. As the chair of that inquiry, I feel it's important to identify the fact that this was a properly constituted inquiry into the government's proposal to reduce corporate tax rates and the BCA's commitment as to what the business community was going to do in relation to greater employment, to jobs and wages and to other investments which would flow. Of course, many people say these commitments were spurious, because not many people these days believe in the trickle-down effect. So it was important for this committee, the Senate Economics References Committee, to examine this commitment, which was given under somewhat clouded terms. We know that the commitment was provided. There were drafts of this commitment which were circulated which were much broader in their commitments, and what ultimately emerged as the BCA commitment was very much watered down and very restrictive. Nevertheless, it's important for the Australian public to be aware of the nature and detail of these commitments flowing forward.

The committee held a public hearing, and it is true that on the day there were a group of protesters who took the opportunity to exercise their democratic right to raise issues in respect of tax avoidance. The committee closed down at a particular point and then resumed later on. We continued on with the inquiry. I think the accusation that Senator Stoker has made is that threats were made to witnesses. That's not something I'm aware of. I'm not aware of the substance of that, but my recollection is that there was certainly robust questioning of witnesses during the course of the proceedings. I make no apology that claims are made about what is going to happen as a result of corporate tax cuts. The role of this committee was to sound that out, investigate those commitments and see what level of detail we could provide. At the end of the day, not a great deal of information was provided because, in my view, the commitments weren't genuine commitments that could deliver specific benefits flowing from the tax cuts. Yes, I accept that there was robust questioning of witnesses, but I reject the assertion that that indicates threatening of witnesses.

As chair of the Senate Economics References Committee, I can say that we do try to understand the gravity of the Senate process. That's an extremely important process for our country. The Senate provides a wonderful opportunity for scrutiny of a whole range of different issues. When it comes to economic matters, they are particularly important. People of Australia want us to look at these issues and get as much information on the public record as we possibly can. Of course, the benefit of Senate inquiries is that they bring a lot of sunlight into areas where it is absolutely needed.

On the relevance of this particular inquiry, as it turns out, the withdrawal of the company tax cuts made the result of the inquiry somewhat redundant. Nevertheless, it was, at the time, a very important aspect of the Senate inquiry process and a very relevant inquiry. I want to thank all of those involved in the process—the secretariat, for their contribution, the witnesses and the BCA members who appeared before the inquiry. I think they understand the importance of the inquiry. To say that it was an absolute waste of time I think casts aspersions on the role of the inquiry. It was definitely necessary at the time to look at this particular issue; I make no apologies for that. I commend the report to the Senate and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.