Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition's conspiracy theory knows no bounds. Apparently, according to his conspiracy theory, the only reason the government is supporting Senate voting reform is all of these consequences he has listed. Presumably that was the reason his party supported Senate voting reforms until only a few weeks ago. We were all on a unity ticket, until very recently, and now, of course, because it does not suit his immediate political objectives, he has decided to go against it.

The real problem for the Leader of the Opposition is how he can reconcile that with the strong position that was taken by the Labor Party formerly, before the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. That position was advocated day in, day out by his shadow spokesman. The member for Brand was advocating that day after day— making the case in this chamber, on the radio and on the television—and now, suddenly, the Leader of the Opposition has pulled the rug out from under the member for Brand because it does not suit his purposes any longer. Even the member for Gorton, I noticed on Sky News, was asked today to concede whether the changes in the Senate would be an improvement. He said, 'Well, they could be better, but it's being thrust upon the parliament'—he complained that it was being 'thrust upon the parliament'. I think the Electoral Matters Committee reported in 2014, and a year ago the government was being chastised by the member for Brand for not getting on with the job.

Really, the Leader of the Opposition has to do better than this. If he is interested in the big issues confronting the Australian economy he should be asking why his policies are so destructive of jobs and investment. Why is he proposing to increase capital gains tax, right at a time when we need more investment? Why is he proposing a set of policies that will lower house prices, increase rents and reduce entrepreneurship? He talks about jobs. Every policy he as announced to date is calculated to reduce business activity and reduce employment. Do we really think we are going to see more jobs in the construction industry, for example, if we take no steps about the CFMEU's disregard for the law? Apparently the law is not important in terms of the construction industry. And of course he feels that reducing the value of housing is going to encourage more construction. Really, the lack of understanding of the dire consequences of their policies is marked. The Labor Party does not understand the economy, and if they are given a chance to lead it they will put it at great risk. (Time expired)

See this speech in context