Julian Simmonds (Ryan, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to debate this particular MPI today because it gives a perfect example of what this side of the House—the government—is focused on this week versus what Labor members are focused on. What have the Labor members been focused on this week? Playing silly parliamentary games. They probably had a few other things on. I'm sure the member for Hunter probably went for dinner at Otis at some point during the week, as did a bunch of other Labor members. But mostly the Labor members have been focused on political games.

What have the government members on this side of the chamber been doing? We have been focused on the Australian people. We've been delivering the spending commitments that deliver on their priorities: dealing with the drought, dealing with fire recovery, dealing the coronavirus response, establishing flexible parental leave, helping to lower electricity prices, helping to keep our borders strong, lowering taxes, listing new PBS medicines. We know how to take proper spending decisions with due process and probity.

We won't take lectures from the Labor members opposite on due process and probity when it comes to spending decisions. Do they all have such a short memory that they don't remember the last time they were in government? Cash for clunkers, cheques for dead people, pink batts, school hall funding that didn't actually deliver school halls in particular schools. Is that Labor's idea of due process and probity when it comes to spending decisions? I suspect it is. And while that's Labor's idea of good spending priorities, it's certainly not this government's idea of it. But do you know what? Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's not talk about the last time they were in government. Let's talk about these members and what they are doing right now.

We introduced the ensuring integrity bill into this place—a bill to ensure that registered organisations do the right thing and work for their members to make sure registered organisations, like unions, practice due process and probity exactly like this government. What did the Labor members do? They ran a protection racket for them. 'Unions shouldn't have to meet those high standards. No, no, no. Government has to, but unions definitely shouldn't!' It went to the Senate, and Labor's Senator Glenn Sterle said this: 'We should not be rushing legislation to try and prosecute union officials who have to break the law sometimes to get an outcome.' Let me just say that again: 'who have to break the law sometimes to get an outcome'. What kind of laws are they breaking? Well, they're probably around due process when it comes to spending decisions. But, more than that, the type of laws they're talking about breaking to get an outcome are coercion, bullying, intimidation, unlawful strikes, unlawful accesses, stoppages, and spitting on and assaulting female police officers. This stuff is disgraceful. Labor members opposite run a protection racket and then pretend to lecture this government on integrity. Well, no, we're not copping a bar of that.

They could've come in here and talked about the priorities that Australians and Australian families have like this government does every day and that we are acting on every day. But instead they choose to play their silly political games. The hypocrisy is absolutely galling because, as we have heard previously from the member for Tangney, who pointed this out, they are talking out of the other side of their mouth. The member for Ballarat presided over Labor's local grants program. The Auditor-General found out that she approved projects against the recommendations of experts. But it's unfair of members on this side of the chamber to single out the member for Ballarat, because she's in great company, holding hands with, of course, the member for Grayndler, who was minister for infrastructure at the time. Let's see if this rings any bells when I read from the Audit Office report for the Labor members opposite. This is what the Audit Office had to say about the now Leader of the Opposition:

…   …   …

… projects located in electorates held by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and Independent Members were more successful at being awarded funding than those located in electorates held by the Coalition parties.

(Time expired)

See this speech in context