Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to respond to some of Senator Brown’s concerns. The government shares Senator Brown’s concerns, frustrations and even anger at some of the corporate excess that has wreaked havoc across the world. While I think that your amendments are well intentioned and deserve serious consideration, they probably do not go far enough. By moving an amendment that only narrowly targets individuals in this area you are actually missing the wider cause of the problem. To just address this here like this does not actually solve the issues that you are seeking to solve. I share much in common with you about those issues.

You quoted extensively—and rightfully so—about the excess, greed and disgraceful behaviour of some of those corporate barons in the United States. The perverse part of what you are proposing is that there is a difference between the executives of the companies that we are seeking to assist here and those executives who were involved in that greedy, avaricious behaviour in the US. They were rewarding themselves for bad behaviour, and that bad behaviour brought on their own problems. The individuals being targeted here are the victims of the behaviour that you are describing.

The fact that they are unable to get their debt rolled over is not actually their fault. The purpose of this bill is to try and address issues for the corporations that are victims of the financial crisis, not necessarily through any fault of their own. While I laud and applaud your motives, I urge you to work closely with the government in this area. Personally, I would welcome that. There are many ideas that I think deserve serious consideration and to be put forward and debated as part of the Productivity Commission’s examination. I have got a lot of faith in Allan Fels and his willingness to tackle this area. Many of your ideas should be considered by Mr Fels in his report, and I would welcome your input into that process.

But I think you are actually confusing cause and effect in that the people who have caused this, who you identified rightfully in your last address to this place, are not the people you are seeking to put a constraint upon. They are not necessarily behaving badly or causing this problem. While I appreciate that you are determined to pursue your amendment, there is a genuine and serious attempt by this government to address the broader issues which I believe you are actually seeking to address. While we are not going to be in a position to support your amendment, we urge you to put forward all your ideas, talk with Allan Fels, talk with the Productivity Commission and join in this debate, which I think has to be had. The monumental failure of the corporate—and particularly financial—sector to manage and disclose risk has brought the world economic system to its knees. Your anger and frustration with those individuals and the systemic failure that has taken place is well placed and justified. But I believe this punishes those who have not been responsible for that bad behaviour, and it misses the larger target that we should be dealing with.

While I am sure you will pursue your amendment, and while we cannot support it, I urge you to participate and bring forward a range of policy options, solutions and ideas to the process that the government is engaged in. Allan Fels is a man of enormous integrity and I believe he will bring forward a package to address the excess, the greed, the extraordinarily bad behaviour and the systemic failure that we have seen cripple the world economy. I urge you—even if your amendment is defeated—to consider supporting this bill.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that response, but it is right off the mark. We have been talking with the government. In fact, I have written a number of times to the Prime Minister on this matter over the last six months. It is a bit precious for the government to say now that they would welcome us working closely with them on this issue. The fact is that we have had no response from the government. If you are going to work on an issue it takes a two-way discourse. I am a little jaded with the evolved position whereby the crossbench just helps the government with all manner of issues—not least the responsible way in which we helped the government with its very contentious stimulus packages of tens of billions of dollars. I will talk a bit more about this tonight; I have got some very job-rich good amendments to those packages for the Australian taxpayer. But it is a two-way street. We also have constituencies and we also have good policy initiatives—not to be made just as additions to government legislation but to be considered seriously by government and, on this occasion, by the Prime Minister himself.

It appears as if the Prime Minister has taken for granted the very public and reasoned approach to this matter of extreme executive payments since he has been in office. I have certainly had no communication about it. We are not going to be taken for granted on everything down the line. We are very, very serious players and senators in every debate that comes before this place. We expect that the government would take seriously these amendments, which went to it in March—it is now May. Except for a visit from some officers from the Treasurer’s office yesterday, we have had no response. Now the minister is saying, ‘Pass this bill and work with us and we have sent it off to the Productivity Commission. I’m sure you’d have some good ideas to put into there.’ That is putting it on to a long-term trajectory. We have no date; we have no open process that is available here.

Senator Conroy said that my amendments do not go far enough. Well, there should be little problem in amendments that go some way towards fixing this issue, and the government should be supporting them. What is the minister asking me to do? Tighten down the salary cap of a million dollars to an Obamaesque level of US$500 million? I don’t think so. I think the amendments are not broad enough and the government has had ample time to consider what it might put forward to this chamber instead. But on the eve of this debate, instead of that, the Prime Minister announced that he was asking the Productivity Commission to look at the matter. Prior to that, he was getting a report to take to an entity in Europe before the G20 conference—they were going to look at it; Australia would have a submission there. This is being duck shoved by Prime Minister Rudd. He has the description of the greed and the obscenity right, but he is not taking the action. These Greens amendments safely take action—I do admit that it is not broad enough, but they at least take limited action—which is reasonable given the circumstances, and we insist upon them.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, I think you do the Prime Minister an injustice. I do not believe he treats this glibly or lightly. If you read his contribution in the Monthly Magazine I think you will see he has a deep commitment to wanting to address these issues at an international level and at the domestic level. I think you do him an injustice. I cannot agree with you that, because he has not written back to you, it means he is not interested in your views. I assure you that you should not take it personally.

The point I was making about this amendment not going far enough is that it is poorly targeted, because you are not targeting the people who created the problem; you are targeting the victims. When I say that it does not go far enough, it does not go far enough because you are actually not addressing the very people who deserve to be addressed. This is an important and substantive issue and it deserves to address the broader corporate sector and not just be amendments. I am not being pejorative when I say this: you said, ‘We don’t just want to move amendments.’ We are offering you the opportunity to do much more than that: to be part of a process that will deliver a substantive policy and not just be an amendment. As I say, I am not being pejorative when I say that; I am responding to how you described it. You do have more ideas and you have got a broader agenda than simply this amendment. The best way to progress that broader agenda and those broader ideas is to work with Allan Fels, to work with the Productivity Commission so that we actually address those that deserve to be dealt with.

As you would be aware from my past responsibilities, I have put forward many, many suggestions about how to curb corporate excess. I have a range of ideas that I would like also to see incorporated by the Productivity Commission and the government’s response to this disgraceful behaviour. I would say to you, though, Senator Brown, that I have never thought of you as jaded. You have been in the chamber a lot longer than me. I know that you have moved many amendments over many years. It is a bit like Senator Murray, who I think kept a tally of all the times he moved one particular amendment and was defeated. He was never jaded, either. I think you do yourself a disservice to suggest that you are jaded by wanting to pursue this policy agenda. I myself pursued it for over six years—in fact, before that: I was active before I was even on the front bench.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was your success rate?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I got a couple of amendments up ultimately in the chamber—with your support, can I say.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here is your opportunity.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But my point generally to you, Senator Brown, is that this does not go anywhere near far enough. This does not even, I believe, genuinely address the people who deserve to be addressed. I have moved on from those previous responsibilities but I still share your frustration at the greed and bad behaviour of many in the corporate world. They have brought the world to its knees by their, at times, criminal behaviour, by their greedy behaviour, by their deceitful behaviour. I just think there is a more comprehensive suite of measures that could come forward that more directly target this area.

So, as I said, we will not be able to support this foreshadowed amendment, but I urge you to support the bill even if your amendment is unsuccessful. It is not a question of taking you for granted or taking the Greens for granted on this issue. This is an issue on which a substantial body of work is being prepared, and I urge you to participate in that process. Allan Fels is a man of significant integrity. He deserves the chance to hear your views and your policy responses. I would hope that, even if your amendment is not successful, you will not use the defeat of that amendment as an excuse to sink a measure that is actually necessary to protect jobs in this country you but that will pursue with us an opportunity for a suite of measures that is far more substantial than just this one lone amendment.

Progress reported.