Treasurer, Minister Representing the Treasurer

Michaelia Cash

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

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

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

Michaelia Cash

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Hume, I've asked you to withdraw.

Jane Hume

I withdraw.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines

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

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

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

Excuse me, under what standing order is that?

Sue Lines

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