Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary performance by the member for Watson. The member for Watson has obviously been taking acting lessons over the summer break, because his performance in this extraordinary debate today would make Laurence Olivier blush; it was so over the top. I think most people have not seen a performance like that since Theda Bara in the silent movies. I was embarrassed that the member for Watson could get himself so worked up about a matter that is so vitally important to the nation—so vitally important to the nation that it took until question 20 to be asked about it in question time today.

Listening to the member for Watson, you would think the most heinous crime in the history of federation had been perpetrated by the Minister for Agriculture on the Australian polity. Yet it took until 3.05 pm in question time for the first question to be asked. When the opposition wants to build up momentum or they want to get to a crescendo—bring the House to boiling point—that would require a descent in the speaker's ruling or a motion of censure against the Prime Minister or government, usually there is a bit of spade work that goes into it. It usually starts at about two o'clock and by about a quarter to three the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the Opposition are talking about whether now is the time: 'Do we do it now? Do we bring the trap shut, right now, while we are still on television, or do we wait and keep building the momentum for the great crescendo, the great performance, the magic trick, the smoke and mirrors that will bring the House down?' That is what usually happens.

I know a bit about that because I have done it a bit myself over the years—with a bit of success—and the member for Grayndler has done it a bit over the years too. He was blushing with shame, dare I say it, during the member for Watson's performance, because he knows it was all very half cocked. It all went off very half cocked. At five past three, the opposition rose to its feet to bring the Minister for Agriculture down, to get his scalp.

Sadly, the opposition has been desperately floundering since the budget. That is what is absolutely apparent. The opposition have run up the white flag on the budget and they are looking for any distraction they can find. They have spent 18 months basking, relaxing, lying on a banana lounge sucking on a vanilla milkshake, thinking this is all very easy: 'We'll all be back in government.' All these lovely frontbenchers think they are all going to be ministers in 18 months. They have done none of the hard work necessary in opposition to convince the Australian public to change the government. They thought it was all going to be plain sailing. The member for Watson is a great downhill snow skier, as we know. He thought all he had to do was bend ze knees and he would get into government at the next election.

Sadly for them, the budget has been very well received. The government is getting on with the job of doing what small business need and require to create jobs, of doing what families want, in terms of child care and support for them to get back into the workplace. The government are focusing on productivity and participation and population. The government have switched the agenda to the things that the Australian public want to talk about. The Australian public want to know what the government are going to do about jobs, and they got the answer in the budget. They want to know what we are going to do about productivity, and they got the answer in the budget. They know that we are bringing fairness into the workplace through the changes to the paid parental leave scheme. They know that we want to reduce the tax burden, we want to cut spending and we want to achieve savings and, in this way, make the country prosper and the economy grow.

But when they look on the other side of the House they see a blank page. They say, 'The future is now.' They say, 'We are us.' They say, 'Them are you,' or whatever the latest expression is. They say, 'I don't know what she said, but I agree with it anyway.' They say, 'It doesn't matter where you start as long as you get somewhere in the end.' The member for Jagajaga says that the money has to be paid for by somewhere. Someone has got a pay for it. They have got to find the money somewhere. The problem is the Australian taxpayers are looking at the opposition and saying, 'What would they do if they were elected?' What they know is that they would increase spending. They would cut the savings of the government. They would increase spending by $16 billion in foreign aid alone. They know that they are going to increase taxes. They would introduce a super tax of 15 per cent on self-funded retirees. They know that the opposition is utterly unreconstructed since the chaos and circus-like atmosphere of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government.

Instead, led by this very weak Leader of the Opposition, they are looking for distractions. The distraction, I think, quite wrongly, has been marriage equality.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

See this speech in context