Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the censure of the Treasurer and the Minister representing the Treasurer, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the censure of the Treasurer and the Minister representing the Treasurer.

This motion is about a serious failure of ministerial accountability. When ministers ask the parliament to pass major legislation, they themselves have an obligation to know it, to explain it and to provide the Senate with the information that the Senate needs to properly scrutinise it. If anyone saw the interview with the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, on the weekend, he failed on all of those counts. On this legislation, those standards were abandoned. That is why this motion censures the Treasurer and the Minister representing the Treasurer in the Senate.

Just look at the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. They were asked to examine, in but two days, some of what even the Prime Minister has admitted are the most serious and significant tax changes that Australians have seen in years. Australians, you would have thought, were entitled to answers. Instead, what did they get? They got confusion, contradiction and, worse than that, evasion. Treasury officials failed to answer basic questions about how the legislation would operate, how it had been developed and what its consequences would be. Australians are now waking up to what those consequences are.

If ministers ask the parliament to legislate major tax legislation, the least the parliament is entitled to expect is that the minister, and their own department, can actually explain it when questions are asked. Instead, what did Australians get? They got the extraordinary situation where neither the Treasury officials nor the Treasurer himself, Dr Chalmers, could properly explain significant aspects of the legislation. If the Treasurer himself cannot actually explain the significant aspects of his legislation, why should Australians themselves have any confidence in it?

Sadly, that was only the beginning. After the committee had completed its work and witnesses had given evidence, lo and behold, the government actually announced that it has found serious flaws in the legislation and needs to amend it.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand this to be a debate about the suspension and whether the Senate should suspend, not the substantive of the motion for which leave has been denied.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

I am usually absolutely strict about suspension. Senator Cash, I'll just draw you back to why we need to suspend.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that is exactly why we need to suspend—because the government does not want any scrutiny in relation to the tax bills that were passed. This is a significant motion. It is all about ministerial accountability, something that this government promised to the Australian people prior to both the 2020 to election and the 2025 election—that it would have no issues with. Lo and behold, that is why this censure is needed. It is a serious motion. But then again it's also serious when a treasurer asks the parliament to pass legislation that is seriously flawed, and that is why we seek to censure both the Treasurer and the Minister representing the Treasurer in this place. Why? Because this censure motion concerns, as I said, a serious failure of ministerial accountability. What is ministerial accountability? It's actually fronting the parliament and being able to explain the changes that you are making to the legislation, and that is something that the Treasurer, in that interview on the weekend, was unable to do.

What this government doesn't seem to understand is that this motion is all about the fact that it has failed the Australian people. If ministers ask parliament to legislate what they themselves say are some of the most serious and wide-ranging tax changes that have ever gone through the parliament, I would have thought we'd be entitled to ensure the Treasurer actually knows what he is speaking about. Sadly, the parliament has now been shown that is not true. And that is why this censure motion is so important. Ministerial accountability, as we know, means more than just introducing legislation. It means knowing your legislation. It means explaining your legislation. It means being honest with the parliament about its defects, not just after the parliament has passed the legislation. And on any of those measures the Treasurer has failed. That is why this suspension motion is so important—so that the Senate can properly debate the failures of the Treasurer.

If the Treasurer cannot be honest about the defects in the legislation, then how can the Australian people have any trust in what the Treasurer has to say? This was all about legislating first and fixing the defects later. And the Treasurer himself has admitted that those on the other side have actually legislated a widow's tax. That is exactly right. So, again, this censure motion is important. The Senate should suspend standing orders so we can properly debate the failures of the Treasurer.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

The desperate and divided coalition, led by a man who knows not what he believes in, is a group of people who can't agree what they believe in and who are scribbling around desperately for a motion to distract from the fact that they do not know in what they believe. That is what we have, and that is why this suspension motion does not deserve to be supported.

But I would make this observation: actually we do know what those opposite believe in because Senator Hume has told us those opposite do not and cannot abide by the tax cuts for working people that this parliament has passed and that are being implemented, whether it's the fifth tax cut, which means that working Australians will be up to $2,800 a year better off; whether it is the new and permanent income tax cuts through the working Australians tax offset; or the $1,000 instant tax deduction with no receipts needed. We know what they really believe because in yet another one of her memorable breakfast TV appearances—

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm reluctant to do this, but I have a point of order on relevance. The motion before the chair is one about whether the Treasurer and his representative should be censured or not, and I'm waiting to hear that.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

I will remind the minister it is about the suspension. I'll also remind those on my left that Senator Cash was heard in silence, and I expect the same for Minister Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm speaking to the deceitfulness of this motion. It really is deceitful. What they really believe is that Labor's tax cuts—and I quote Senator Hume—are 'egregious'. Tax cuts for working people are 'egregious'. This is what the senator for higher taxes, also known as Senator Hume, is articulating as the deputy leader. That really lays bare how—

Withdraw that!

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Hume, withdraw your comment.

Senator Hume, I've asked you to withdraw.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind those on my left that this debate needs to be heard in silence. Senator Cash was just heard in complete silence, and that courtesy and that respect will also go to Minister Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

They can't bear the fact that their deputy leader has been very clear about what their motivation is: tax cuts for working people are egregious. Did you ever need more of an indication of what the Liberal Party really think than that—that they believe that tax cuts are egregious. Thirty million Australian workers getting a tax cut is egregious. That tells you everything you need to know about the intent behind this motion and the deceitfulness of those opposite in putting it forward. On that, I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Minister Wong regarding closure be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Senator Hanson-Young, I'm not sure what is going on at the back end of the chamber, but I can hear you clearly and I'm asking you to be quiet.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, under what standing order is that?

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Those are the standing orders, Senator Hanson-Young. Respect and order.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the suspension motion, as moved by Senator Cash, be agreed to.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a statement of no more than five minutes.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended such that I may make a five-minute statement.

Ministers are accountable to this parliament, and the motion from Senator Cash goes to one of the most fundamental principles of our democracy, yet this government wants to shut down this debate. They are accountable for the laws that they produce. No matter how bad those laws are, they are accountable for them. They are accountable for the information they provide. No matter how mean and tricky they want to be about providing that information, they are accountable for providing it. And they're accountable when they deliberately deny the Senate the opportunity to scrutinise that legislation, and that is exactly what has happened in this chamber in this last fortnight.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume, you've moved that so much of business of today be moved such that this motion be put. That is what you need to address. You need to address why you want to suspend the standing orders.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

I haven't heard you mention the word 'suspension' yet. It needs to be around why the suspension is important.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) | Link to this | Hansard source

The suspension is extremely important because what it is that Senator Cash was trying to do before she got shut down was one of the most fundamental principles of our democracy, but the government wants to shut down this debate. Ministers are accountable to the parliament. They are accountable to the laws that they introduce, and they are accountable for the information that they provide. They are accountable when they deliberately deny the Senate an opportunity to scrutinise legislation. That is what the suspension is about.

Labor said that this was the biggest tax reform in 25 years, yet they have denied appropriate scrutiny by this chamber. They have treated this chamber as something of inconvenience. There were two hearing days into this inquiry, only two hearing days. It was a sham inquiry. The written report at the end of it was tabled within a week. There were two days for the biggest tax reform—'reform', I might say—the biggest tax increase in 25 years, and yet somehow this chamber was used as an inconvenience to Labor. Labor was running a sham inquiry while Australians held an alternate inquiry just outside the door, their own grassroots inquiry, and what they told us was very clear indeed. What they said was that they were angry. They were angry at this government's attack on aspiration. They were angry at the government making it harder to save, harder to invest, harder to build a business and harder to buy a home. It is a mean and tricky piece of legislation. And Australians said it very carefully and very clearly—

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume, you have drifted away from the reason you think there needs to be a suspension.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason we need to make sure that we can suspend to discuss this is that Labor is holding the Senate in contempt. Why are they doing that? What is it that Labor has to hide here? Treasury couldn't even tell us whether they had read all the submissions to that inquiry.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume, it's about the censure.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) | Link to this | Hansard source

That's why we need to suspend. We need to suspend so that we can discuss this legislation that has been rammed through, holding the government, holding the Senate, in contempt. You have denied the parliament any opportunity to appropriately test the changes that you have made—

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume, please resume your seat.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) | Link to this | Hansard source

and that is why we need to suspend. It's because—

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume, please resume your seat. Minister Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

The suspension that is being sought is why a statement has to be made. So I'd ask you to ask the senator to be relevant to the question that is before the chair. It's not about legislation. It is not about anything. It's about her saying she has to be heard.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Wong, you will be aware that I have brought the matter of what the senator needs to be debating to her attention a number of times. And, Senator Hume, I'll remind you once again—and I incorrectly said 'censure' before, but it's obviously a suspension. Please continue.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) | Link to this | Hansard source

We need to suspend to ensure that Senator Cash has the appropriate opportunity to censure this government for its contempt of the Senate. That shows the complete contempt that this leader of the Senate has, that this government has for its Senate. And let's face it: the Treasurer made it pretty clear yesterday, when he put out there, in his interview, that he has made it 'perfectly clear'—I think I lost count of how many times he said the words 'perfectly clear'. Can I tell you: If you have to keep saying how 'perfectly clear' you have made it, you haven't made it perfectly clear at all. That's why we need to suspend: to allow Senator Cash to make this statement.

An honourable senator: You're making the statement!

And I am making the statement, right now, that speaks to the contempt that you, Senator Wong, and your colleagues have held this Senate in. This is the political equivalent of saying, 'Trust me.' Why would anybody trust you? Let's face it: you haven't been trustworthy in the past. You have tried to ram through legislation—have successfully rammed through legislation—without scrutiny, that has increased taxes—

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume, I will draw you back to the suspension.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) | Link to this | Hansard source

and that's why we need to suspend. We need to suspend to allow appropriate scrutiny and discussion of the lack of scrutiny that this government has forced through the Senate. They lied to you. They lied to you—

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume, just a moment. I'm going to ask you to withdraw. Thank you. Minister Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just make the point to the Senate that, actually, what the senator is seeking is the capacity to make her own statement, not any of the things she referenced in that contribution. On that basis, I move:

That the motion be now put.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the motion as moved by Senator Hume be agreed to.