At 3:07 pm on Friday 14th May 1999, Senator Brian Harradine rose to address the Senate.
As with this week ten years later, it was just after a federal Budget had been delivered – Peter Costello’s third. Unlike this week, discussion over the content of the Budget had been quickly subsumed by speculation over whether the GST – the defining issue of John Howard’s government at the time – would manage to pass the Senate.
The irony of the debate occurring in the Senate on the GST legislation in that week in May 1999 is that everyone assumed that the one person who wasn’t participating – Brian Harradine – was the one that would decide the fate of all that was before us. As a small example, on this day 10 years ago, I had spoken thirteen times – mostly on housing related amendments, but also matters relating to the treatment of acupuncture, counselling and complementary medicine. Brian Harradine not only did not speak, but also had not voted in any of the many Divisions that had been called on various amendments that had been moved during that stage of the debate.
The fact that the Senate was having a relatively rare Friday sitting in May to debate the GST legislation and a massive raft of amendments, shows the political and time imperatives the government attached to the issue.
I have particularly strong memories of that moment ten years ago. Partly because I was the speaker immediately before Brian Harradine rose to his feet, and partly because of all the unforeseen and dramatic things that flowed on as direct consequence of what he said.
Immediately preceding Brian Harradine’s speech, I was speaking to a Democrat amendment dealing with the application of the GST on residential aged care accommodation.
As I was doing so, I was struck by the sudden appearance of huge numbers of journalists from the Parliamentary Press Gallery in the viewing area reserved for them in the Senate. This was particularly striking because even though the equivalent space in the House of Representatives fills up every day for the vaudeville of Question Time, it is a very rare day for more than two or three of them to appear in the Senate, even though the Senate sits just one floor directly below the offices the Press Gallery inhabit.
To have thirty of them suddenly file in without warning as I was part way through my thirteenth speech for the day on a fairly technical (though of course extremely important to those affected) amendment was somewhat unsettling. Eventually, even my notoriously dysfunctional political antenna sensed that perhaps they were anticipating something, so I diverted from my incisive arguments to say
“It is an important amendment that the Democrats have moved—sufficiently important, I note, for the press gallery to be suddenly filled with people, so it must be an important matter. I hope that, with the enhanced audience, Minister, you might be able to address the couple of questions I have raised in relation to your amendments.”
Whereupon Brian Harradine rose to speak.
Not only had the Press Gallery viewing area filled up, but so had the Senate chamber, as word had got around that Harradine was about to speak! Very few of those watching knew what he would be announcing, but everyone knew it would be significant.
Ever since the 1998 election, when John Howard had managed to be narrowly re-elected (despite receiving less than 50 per cent of the two party preferred vote), the major political issue was whether he would be able to get his GST (Goods & Services Tax) passed by the Senate. The unpopularity of this tax had been a key reason why Howard had nearly achieved the rare feat of losing government after just one term, only 30 months after the deeply unpopular Paul Keating-led Labor government had been drummed out of office by a baseball bat wielding electorate.
Because those Senators elected in 1998 did not take office until 1 July 1999, Brian Harradine held the sole balance of power up until that time – a role he filled only due to the Mal Colston saga, (an extraordinary story in its own right, but one for another time). On 1 July, the Democrats would have sole hold over the balance of power.
It was an almost universally assumed, including by everyone in the Democrats, that the stated positions of the Democrats and the government on the GST were much too far apart for there to be any prospect of an agreement being reached. Brian Harradine was seen by all parties and all pundits as being the only plausible path for the GST to pass the Senate. This was highlighted by the frequently repeated view that the government needed to get his agreement prior to July 1.
Certainly amongst the Democrats Senators and staff there had been almost universal assumption for months that Harradine would reach some sort of deal prior to July 1. I had certainly often said so, and also heard it stated frequently by virtually everyone else I had contact with over the preceding months – sometimes with resignation, sometimes with contempt, sometimes with admiration and sometimes with anger, depending on who was speaking and perhaps what mood they were in at the time.
The fact that no one in the Howard government had approached anyone in the Democrats at all at any stage since the election the previous year also showed how confident the government that they would be able to reach an agreement with Harradine.
I have no way of knowing for sure, but if I had been able to take bets at the time I would be very confident that the vast majority of those present as Harradine rose to speak on that May afternoon ten years ago were expecting him to announce his willingness to support a GST in one form or another.
As Michael Gordon wrote in The Age the next day, “the expectation of those who rushed in to witness the speech was that Harradine was about to blink, just as he had blinked on the 30 per cent health insurance rebate and Wik last year.”
Instead, after teasing everyone with his lead-up, including an endearing (to me anyway) reference to his wife, Harradine moved towards the core of the matter:
The question now in my mind is whether it is inherently regressive to such an extent that it should not be supported. The GST burdens the poor and those with the least capacity to pay. It discriminates against the poor and the pensioners who are living a hand-to-mouth existence and spending the bulk of their income on the necessities of life—food, clothing, rent, heating, power, bus fares and so on.
I have always been conscious of the fact that the true test of a civilised society is how it regards and treats its most vulnerable. But I do not claim here a monopoly on moral judgments in respect of this. I do not criticise the government, and I do not reflect upon the government or on any of its members. I just happen to believe that the inherently regressive nature of the GST does not achieve that test. The regressive nature of the goods and services tax is why compensation is invariably needed to secure its passage wherever it is introduced throughout the world. The government’s genuine attempt to compensate and to lock in that compensation is something to be commended, but it cannot be guaranteed.
But one thing can be guaranteed, and that is that the goods and services tax, once enshrined in legislation, will never be removed. Decisions we make now on this issue are not for the next three years; we are making decisions here that will affect generations.
As the various Government Ministers present began slumping in their seats as they became sure what was coming, the clock ticked to 3:26 pm and Brian Harradine said
The question that I have to ask myself is whether I am going to be a party to imposing an impersonal, indiscriminate tax on my children, my grandchildren and their children for generations to come.
I cannot.
A couple more paragraphs followed, including apologies to various members of the government and the quaint assertion that he now knew “his name will be mud”, but that was that. Various short speeches from all sides followed (some more gleeful than others) assuring the Senator that everyone still respected him (including one or two who hadn’t exuded overly respectful pronouncements in the preceding weeks) and the Senate adjourned.
Immediately following Harradine’s announcement, the pronouncements flowed forth from most commentators and many inside and outside the government that the GST was dead. As Senators flowed out of the Senate that afternoon following the dramatic announcement, the media lay in wait to get their views.
The views expressed then by Democrat Senator Andrew Murray were widely shared. The Australian of the next day reported his comment that the GST was “gone. It’s finished. They (the government) haven’t got the numbers. It’s dead – stone dead.”
The reality turned out to be very different of course, but that’s a story for another time.
Brian Harradine’s full speech can be read at this link.
11 Comments
Funny isn’t it. If Harradine had voted for the GST the Democrats might have survived as a balancing force within the senate. I along with others I know abandoned the Dems after that betrayal (I realise that you personally voted against it).
Evening Andrew. Interesting that you take up the GST topic. Recently on an Ian Lowe story on New Matilda you commented at length and I took you up on some things including about the GST as “regressive”. You said I was “confused”. I said gratuitously that perhaps you were with a sly comment about a glass of binge. This was a phrase that Annabel Crabb likes to use here in Sydneybig media commentary over the alcopops tax.
But there is a meta aspect to my comment which might actually be real news. Within a day or so I had an email comment from the editor of New Matilda (Rod McGuinness) saying my comment was edited. I wrote back in fairly broken grammar that I disagreed with the edit because of various reasons like you are a public figure etc past on the public record, and besides you ’started it’.
I got a condescending response that my correspondence was incomprehensible. So I wrote back to the editor saying they censored me once before (then editor Marnie Cordell – on a far more serious matter in the Middle East/Mordechai Vanunu) and I reported NM’s emerging culture on my Sydney Alternative Media site here:
http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/blog/index.blog/1814242/new-matilda-blocking-our-analysis-on-busy-palestine-israel-string/
And that his job was not to protect you ex Senator Bartlett. Sooo …. being busy out on a rural block these days I return to my email 2 days later and a whole email folder is missing called “SAM tech” and no less than 3 months of email part Feb, March April, part May 2009.
Including interesting the corro with NM’s editor. Only I found a copy in my deleted box which hadn’t been dumped yet, and printed it off. I’ve emailed him asked does he or his New Matilda tech boffins know anything about sabotage of my email inbox.
No response in the last 24 hours from New Matilda. Such is our state of Australian Democracy, Andrew!
Thanks for the comment Tom. I’ve “taken up” the GST topic many times over the years – I’m glad you find it interesting.
I did call the comment that you left on the New Matilda post “confused” because that’s what I believed it to be. That was in response to the comments you made regarding my alleged attitude to the Greens, not any view you expressed on the GST.
I actually hadn’t gone back to that New Matilda post until now to see whether any further responses had been left, and I have no idea what New Matilda’s policy is on editing/moderating comments. They certainly aren’t “protecting” me – I have written pieces for them on occasion in the past (unpaid) and may well do so again, but they have no reason or need to “protect” me. Seeing you have described your comment as gratuitous, it’s a reasonable assumption to think they mayhave felt the same. But frankly, accusing them of trying to “sabotage your email Inbox” is just ludicrous.
Glad you voted against the GST. Didn’t know that. I recall Stott similarly?
“ludicrous” you claim, and yet the “SAM tech” file with google adsense password and other capacity for running SAM website has been as they say … “f*cked”. A coincidence I guesss that in February I pulled 34,000 readers for the month in NM’s local demographic being Sydney based. My history is deconstructing the big media sector. I just read Tim Blair attacking me back in March 2008 directly. I’ll take that – judge me by my enemies.
No doubt purely a coincidence I also got an eviction notice in Feb at my home office 60 days notice no grounds, based in Marrickville. Only unit out of 8 in run down building renovated by Randwick developer. Home of Bob Carr’s right wing Labor stooges. Marrickville is on the tipping point to the Greens for premier apparent Carmel Tebbutt. I’ve worked the electorate for 3 years since late 2006.
Yes it does make one a little worred about the coincidences. Ex PM Howard (amen for that) used to refer to the “fangs of the left”. Meaning of course Labor which is not very left at all, or green for that matter.
Of course all this is equivocal but Carr always bragged about not leaving fingerprints and it is demonstrably his style – ask 1994 leadership rival Peter Anderson who literally had his preselection lost after seat redraw allowing Carr to take the prize ironically courtesy of greenies (small g) like me.
And not just the “SAM tech” file deleted but also 3 months of the inbox starting from the day of last contact from New Matilda backwards. Quite selective deletions I would say. Yes it’s all equivocal, and I accept your assurances and overall I would say it would be, if true, a damn pity for a silly and or haughty editor of NM to panic so or be so vengeful.
I don’t drink, or smoke, not gunga or tobacco. So spare me the innuendo about paranoia. I just respond to the facts.
And another thing about “ludicrous” – I understand said editor has geeky credentials.
By way of example I know another geek who trained me up on using the net – not talked to him or contacted him for 2 years but he’s frighteningly capable of doing what I just described above and so much worse. I decided it was better to drift away from reliance on such a service provider. Point being, if he can, then it can be done. Which is why I run a certain respectable well known security protection here of Russian origins but I’m advised the authorities can skate through any of those on the domestic market. Again if Big Brother proper, can others can and do. To suggest otherwise is naive.
So much for privacy let alone democracy.
I will never forgive Brian harradine for adding costs to every piece of food people buy. Rather than have a banket 10% on everything, he created a situation where various basic food items were exempt. If it had been 10% on everything, at the end of the month the food retailer could get 1/11 of their gross and remit it to the ATO. Pensioners could have been compensated for the extra cost on basic items so they would not be worse off, thus keeping costs out of the process.
Instead, retailers had to hire expensive accountants to deliberate on what is exempt and what is not. Coupled with submissions to the ATO to bring down rulings on INDIVIDUAL items. This all added cost that would be passed on to the consumer.
But the most expensive part was the software required to track each item that was sold, along with the computer memory and processing of the item sold to work out what the ATO was owed. This was a massive investment with on-going cost. Unfortunately, every consumer including pensioners etc pay for this inefficieny that Brian introduced when he did what he did 10 years ago.
He was a simple old man, totally out of his depth and should be condemned for his actions.
Thanks PeeBee. It’s not for me to defend Brian Harradine, but he didn’t vote to exempt basic foods. He voted against the GST entirely. That’s what his speech was about.
And while I didn’t vote for the GST either, it was very clear that applying the GST to food was particularly regressive. It was also not just pensioners who needed compensation for a regressive tax, leaving aside the fact that compensation can be devalued over time.
tom,
i’m still the editor of newmatilda.com. rod is the managing editor. we have no idea what you’re talking about re emails, sorry mate.
marni
Andrew, I’ve mentioned this on Robert Merkel’s thread at LP, but I can’t help but get the feeling you’re blaming Harradine for this whole thing.
Do you think he should have done a deal in the first half of ‘99? Do you think he actually ‘reneged’ on an onspoken agreement of some sort?
Is this all about the theory that the eventual GST legislation spelled the doom of you party?
I think the Tasmanian acted decently in all this (sorry to see there are people with overactive imaginations RE what he actually did). The backroom politics of it all are beyond me.
On the meta thing, not happy, but moving on.
On the actual topic of the post – the 10% GST has created a WHOLE NEW POLITICAL CONSTITUENCY. Meaning people down the bottom of the financial food chain – like me, by choice or otherwise have had years of self realisation they are tax payers no matter the ATO form they lodge or don’t every year. The resentment was palpable post GFC.
I view the political impact and popularity of stimulus I and stimulus 2 in that light – or as I’ve said elsewhere BBGR – Beazley’s Belated GST Rollback. It goes like this: Hard times hit. The grumbles of the poor over their GST burden turn to a roar. The ALP feeds the mob who are pissed off at being ground down.
Implication for voter sentiment post stimulus? Well at some point most fair dinkum types will say OK that’s enough, I’ve had my GST reimbursed enough, now what about the best thing for the country. In hindsight given the poll report early this week we might just have seen the high water mark of the angry/grumble phase reverting to patriotism and concern over the ‘cream puff’ budget with little cutting of middle class welfare. Might have been better to go harder in the national interest.
No, nickws, I’m not blaming Harradine at all – my apologies if any of my words gave that impression. He was totally entitled to come to whatever position he liked – the only point I was trying to make was that most people expected at the time that he would come to some sort of deal, and were (a) somewhat surprised when he didn’t and (b) completely unprepared for what might happen next if he did say no. It had never occurred to me that he ‘reneged on some sort of unspoken agreement – it was just that it was expected he’d do some sort of deal because that is what he had done a number of times in the past (and I’m not particularly criticising him for any of those agreements either, just saying that that had been a bit of a pattern. (in any case, in politics even more than elsewhere, an unspoken agreement is no agreement at all). Even when I’ve disagreed with Harradine’s position on a specific issue, I’ve never suggested he’d acted other than decently, in the sense that he was acting in generall accordance with his beliefs, even if I didn’t always share them.
It’s my view that the GST deal which some Democrat Senators voted for was a pivotal moment in what turned out to be the eventual demise of the Democrats – not just because of the decision itself but what did (and didn’t happen both before and after it. But that wasn’t really my focus on this post – this post was really just trying to provide a reminder of a significant and dramatic moment in recent political history.
Andrew
Thanks for an informative view of times past.
In times to come many will consider the GST as part of the Howard rollback of equality in Oz society.Further attempts being House prices and of course Worstchoices.
Sadly spin still clouds the inequity of having a GST and its direct detriment to the non trust/company class, ie about 70% of the OZ people.