Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Warringah proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government to keep its election commitments

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today is in fact a very historic day in the life of the Australian parliament. It is not a historic day just because this is the first business day of the 43rd parliament; it is not a historic day simply on account of it being the first day under the operation of the new reformed standing orders. It is in fact a historic day because this is the first day since 1941 when an Australian government has lost a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. This is a historic day because it is the first day since 1941 when a government has been defeated on the floor of the House of Representatives.

15:28:47

What that means is that this is finally a real parliament. This parliament is finally no longer an echo chamber of the executive. This opposition entirely accepts the result of the election—but that result is that this government can no longer command a secure majority on the floor of this parliament. And I also let the Australian people know that this is a government that cannot be trusted to keep its commitments. This government lost a vote on the floor of this parliament because it proposed to put into the standing orders something which was a breach of a commitment. This government promised that there would be no recommittal of votes in this chamber without, first, a suspension of standing orders. That was the commitment this government made and that is the commitment this government proposed to break with the standing order it put before the parliament earlier today and which vote it lost in a historic moment on the floor of the parliament.

I know that there have been some difficulties over the parliamentary reform agreement, and I am sorry that one aspect of the agreement could not be put into practice because it was constitutionally unsound and legally unenforceable, but there was no reason the government could not put its commitment into practice today. It chose not to put its commitment into practice simply to suit its own convenience and so was quite rightly defeated on the floor of the parliament in a mighty historic first. This means that for the first time since 1941 we have a real parliament that is no longer an echo chamber of the executive.

The promise that was sought to be broken today was certainly not the first broken promise from this government. I intend to go through some of the other broken promises of this government but, before I do, let me remind the House of a very important statement of principle:

I think when you go to an election and you give a promise to the Australian people, you should do everything in your power to honour that promise. We are determined to do that. We gave our word to the Australian people in the election and this is a Government that prides itself on delivering election promises. We want Australians to be able to say well, they’ve said this and they did this …

I am not quoting some arcane reference. I am not quoting Barlin. I am not quoting any ancient Clerk of the House. I am not quoting Burke or Bagehot. I am not quoting Chifley or Curtin. I am not quoting Nye Bevan. I am quoting the current Prime Minister, who has put it as clearly and as unambiguously on the record as possible: governments should keep their commitments.

Now, as we know from the parliament today, it has all changed. No commitment can be given so solemnly, no commitment can be given so seriously and no principle can be held so sacredly that it cannot be broken by this government simply because of the different circumstances which now exist on the floor of this parliament. Sure, a finely balanced parliament might make keeping commitments more difficult, but a finely balanced parliament does not lessen the obligation that a government has to honour its promises. A finely balanced parliament does not justify saying one thing before an election and doing something entirely different and absolutely opposite after an election. A hung parliament is no excuse for a weak government and what we have now is not only a weak government but also a deceitful government.

Let me remind the House of what the Prime Minister said just before the election. On 16 August, a mere week before the election, the Prime Minister said:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

The day before the election, on 20 August, the Prime Minister said:

I rule out a carbon tax.

That is what the Prime Minister said the day before the election. What does she say now? Just three weeks after the election, when asked about a carbon tax, she said:

… I just think the rule-in, rule-out games are a little bit silly.

If it is so silly why did she play precisely those games prior to the election? We have a Prime Minister in this parliament who says one thing to win votes and then does the complete opposite in order to cobble together a government. This is a Prime Minister who has misled the Australian people in order to save her own political skin. This is a thoroughly dishonourable and deceitful government and it deserves to be exposed as such.

In the parliament today the Prime Minister said that when it comes to the subject of a carbon tax you could not possibly expect her to keep her commitment because the numbers have changed—the government does not have a majority. I remind the Prime Minister that there were two main parties contesting the election. There was the coalition—the Liberal-National Party—and we definitely, comprehensively, unambiguously and with crystal clarity ruled out a carbon tax. Then we had members opposite not saying much on this subject for most of the election campaign, but when the heat was on in the last days of that campaign what did they do? They unambiguously, in words of very few syllables, ruled out a carbon tax. So there are two main parties in this parliament and both of them ruled out a carbon tax. What possible excuse does the Prime Minister have for now ruling it in? The numbers in this parliament should be against a carbon tax because every member opposite was elected on the promise that there would be no carbon tax.

I am not surprised that the Prime Minister has absented herself from the chamber on this subject. If she has any honour, if she has any shred of conscience on this subject, she must be ashamed of what she did before the election and what she is doing now after the election. She has sent the Deputy Prime Minister into this chamber to defend her. I am looking forward to the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech. But it is impossible to defend the indefensible and it is absolutely indefensible to say one thing before an election and do the exact opposite after an election. That demonstrates that this government is built on a lie. It perhaps has constitutional legitimacy, but it does not have ethical legitimacy given that its election was built on a lie. The Prime Minister was not the only person who was complicit in this deception.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are more?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, there are more—none other than the Deputy Prime Minister. When asked this question about the carbon tax, what did he say? He said that this was just ‘an hysterical allegation’ and that it certainly was not true. I am sorry, Mr Deputy Prime Minister, it is absolutely true. This Deputy Prime Minister, like his leader, is guilty of misleading the Australian people—and I am inclined to say he knowingly misled the Australian people. He said one thing before the election and he is now doing quite the opposite after the election. It is simply dishonest and the Australian people ought to know that this government is based on a lie.

This is not just a mere academic question, because whether there is a carbon tax will have a direct bearing on the standard of living of the Australian people. We know that the Australian people are under cost of living pressures. We know that this government have not delivered the kind of prosperity the Australian people had come to expect from the previous coalition government. We know that and we want to protect the Australian people from any further unnecessary hits on their standard of living.

We know that since November 2007 the price of electricity has risen by 35 per cent. That is a 35 per cent hit on the cost of just about everything people do in their households. We know that a $40 a tonne carbon price would double the wholesale price of electricity. That would mean higher costs for pensioners, higher costs for small business and higher costs for families. That is precisely what this government are attempting to do. They deceived the Australian people before the election and they have comprehensively broken a pre-election commitment, and that will run a dagger through the standard of living of many Australian families. It is simply, absolutely and utterly unacceptable.

This government are busily trying to lower expectations. I understand that. I understand that this government are trying to say to the Australian people: ‘Don’t expect us to do anything. We don’t really have much of an agenda. We don’t think we can win votes in the parliament other than on a good day.’ The public will not fall for this. It does not matter what the situation in the parliament is, the Australian public expects the government to govern. The Australian public expects the government to keep to its commitments. If this government could not keep to its commitments, the Prime Minister should not have accepted the Governor-General’s commission. I say to the government on behalf of the Australian people: stop making excuses and start governing, and you can start by keeping your commitments.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Congratulations, Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, on your new role. We have just heard from an opposition leader whose only vision is division. He is someone who lacks a positive agenda for Australia. He is someone who does not have any plans for the future. He is someone who is driven entirely by short-term political gain for the Liberal Party. He is someone who would rather see the country fail than see the government succeed. He does not have the national interest at heart at all. He is on about short-term political interests, not the long term national interest. He has the balance all wrong.

I believe that approach will be comprehensively rejected by the Austrian people, who a few months ago elected this government and expected us to come together and find common ground to pursue the national interest, not the selfish political interests of the Liberal and National parties. How absurd it is to be lectured by the Leader of the Opposition—a bloke whose word is not worth the paper that it is written on. Only a couple of weeks ago he signed the document committing himself to parliamentary reform and then repudiated it and went the other way. He is a spoiler, a wrecker. He is somebody who entered into an agreement with the Independents and minor parties, and when the decision did not go his way he went out and ripped it up. Well, his reputation is dead, buried and cremated by that one act because what the Australian people do expect from a Leader of the Opposition is that he is a man of his word. What he proved following that agreement between the major parties and the Independents is that he cannot keep his word. That is what he has proven.

The Leader of the Opposition is not up to the task of meeting the great challenges which face this country: dealing with the aftermath of the global financial crisis and the global recession and dealing with the great economic, social and environmental challenge of climate change. He is not up to dealing with the investment in infrastructure, such as in superfast broadband, that is required to meet the challenges of mining boom mark 2; not up to putting forward a positive plan to deal with the challenges of the mining boom and what it means for all of our communities but particularly our communities in rural and regional Australia.

It is the duty of this parliament to the people, to the country and of course to the national interest to address all of these issues and to address them in a way in which the people expect us to given the election result that has been achieved. Neither major party has a majority. We are even-steven in terms of the major parties. The Australian people want us to find common ground. But we know what the Leader of the Opposition wants; he wants nothing more than another election. That is why I say his vision is division, because he is determined to tear everything down.

We on this side of the House want to build up our economy, to build up our society, and we have a positive plan to do that, but all we are seeing is a self-interested political response from those opposite. They are attempting to do everything they possibly can to send Australia back to the polls. Those are precisely the tactics that I believe the Australian people do not want, and the Leader of the Opposition is pursuing this goal at his own grave political risk. The Australian people expect us all to do the right thing. They are sick and tired of the type of politics that is being played by the Leader of the Opposition. They want us to go back to work and to get the job done—to strengthen and broaden our economy; to do good things for our society; to strengthen our prosperity for our children and our grandchildren. They want these national issues addressed by all parties in this House. But if you were to ask those opposite what their positive plan is for Australia to secure these objectives they would say they simply do not have one. They know how to oppose; they know how to wreck.

We heard in question time today the defence from the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the Opposition as to why they tore up the agreement on parliamentary reform. They tried to create a fig leaf and they based it on a legal opinion from Lord Brandis of Brisbane. He commissioned his own opinion, he delivered it to himself and he expects this parliament to treat it in a credible way. Well, I am afraid the opinion of Lord Brandis of Brisbane is worthless, and indeed it was rejected by the Solicitor-General, who provided comprehensive legal advice. So there is no fig leaf for those opposite to hide behind when they claim they had no choice but to rip up this agreement that the Australian people expect all of us in this House to honour. They expect us to cooperate. They expect us to work together. They expect us to make the most of what they have delivered to us through the vote. But this Leader of the Opposition will stop at nothing to pull policies down, to pull the people down and to pull this parliament down.

Why should we be surprised by this excessively negative attitude? We really should not be too surprised because it has been a feature of his life’s work in politics and, sadly, increasingly a feature of the Liberal and National parties in this House. When this country was threatened by a global financial crisis and a global recession, what did they do? They opposed the measures that we took. They did that for political advantage. In fact, they rejected the second stimulus package in the Senate. Finally, we got it through because those in the minor parties in the Senate and the Independents put the national interest ahead of a political interest. Just imagine where Australia would be today if the opposition had succeeded in that sterile opposition to stimulus package No. 2. Would we have the national accounts figures that we received for June, as the strongest-growing advanced economy in the developed world? No. We would have seen unemployment going through the roof and business closures going through the roof. We would have seen higher deficits and higher debt as a consequence of their negative approach and their unwillingness to come together in this parliament to put in place policies in the national interest.

They opposed the bank guarantees. I remember this time two years ago, just after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, when the whole financial system across the globe was melting down and the opposition were in this House scoring cheap political points, trying to panic the Australian people. And when we put in place the bank guarantee, arguably one of the most important things done by a government in this country in our entire history, they opposed it. They came into this House and sniped at it and they scored cheap political points again and again. So there is a history of this negativism here.

Of course, during the election campaign what did they oppose? They opposed our very logical proposal for a very significant tax cut to small business, they opposed the investments in schools, they opposed trade training centres—they opposed all of these measures which were quite logical. Then we get to the ultimate in stupid, ignorant opposition. They oppose our minerals resource rent tax. They oppose a funding source, agreed to by the mining industry, that we can use as a nation to make all of our companies more competitive, that we can invest in our great mining regions. They oppose that. They think the mining companies are paying too much tax. Can you believe that? They came into this House and mounted the argument that mining companies were paying too much tax. And of course we have seen the investment figures continue. Investment in mining is still increasing dramatically, the profitability of the industry is increasing dramatically, the long-term plans for investment are increasing dramatically, the nation is crying out for a positive response to mining boom mark 2, but that is just opposed by the modern Liberal and National parties, who do not have any positive policies to deal with the challenges of the future.

Let us go to the ultimate absurdity, which is their opposition to the NBN, to superfast broadband. Our regions understand how important superfast broadband is. They understand how the Liberal and National parties over 12 years did nothing in this critical enabling technology that can join our regions to our cities and join our cities and our regions to the world in the Asian century. What could be more important to a small business in regional Australia than superfast broadband? But none of them understand that. They are entirely negative yet again.

You can go through the litany of things they oppose to see what they stand for. What do they support? During the campaign they supported an increase in the company tax rate of 1.5 per cent, making all of those small businesses more uncompetitive, and they opposed our tax cut for small business, the $5,000 instant asset write-off, which will be of enormous benefit to the millions of small businesses around this country, not all of which are doing well. Even in the booming mining states there are small businesses that are not doing it well and need a helping hand. Do the Liberal and National parties understand any of this? They understand none of it. That is why I say yet again that the only vision the Leader of the Opposition has is division. It is his natural approach, it is his natural style. He thinks he is crumbling another team on the football field. We cannot afford in this environment, given the result delivered to us by the Australian people, to have two teams at each other’s throats. They want us to work together in this parliament. That is the message from the people, but it is one that the Leader of the Opposition simply does not understand. He is not a builder; he is a wrecker—and that is what he has demonstrated in this House time and time again.

We on this side of the House understand this one important fact: that securing a prosperous economy and delivering opportunity to all of our people is our central role in this parliament. It is not just a question of economics; it is a very important question of how we relate to each other as a society. During the global financial crisis we all worked together. One of the reasons we came through so well was that we worked together—employers and employees. We came together. We did it well. Now we have to take that and, having come through so well, we have to use it. We have to work together, given the opportunities we have because we did not go into recession, to strengthen our economy so we can maximise all of the opportunities, social and economic, which will flow from the Asian century. There are fantastic possibilities for our country in the years ahead if we get the economic framework for the future right. That is what we are doing. That is the program we put to the people at the last election

I can think of no greater pleasure than spending my time in here talking to all the Independents and the minor parties about our plans for the future. They will deliver what the Australian people expect. They know we need superfast broadband. They know we need investment in critical infrastructure to expand the capacity of our economy and to ease inflationary pressures. They know we have to lift productivity. They know all of those things and we have a program to do those things.

It would be a different thing if those on the other side had a program at all but they do not have anything. Can anyone name three or four policies they stand for? They just stand for themselves. They do not stand for the common good, they do not stand for the national interest; they stand for their own selfish interests. Until they learn to behave better, we will continue in this parliament to work with those of goodwill to put forward a program which will grow our economy and make our society a better place. We need less anger and more thoughtful reflection from the opposition; we need fewer slogans and more policies. All we have at the moment is a series of slogans and a lot of anger. It is not going to make our country a better place.

What will make our country a better place is a decent program which has at its core making our economy more competitive and cooperative, so that we can grow it and make a better society. We must put in place the policies we need in health and education, to fund them and build infrastructure, so that we do not get the sorts of inflationary pressures which can flow from the mining boom we are currently experiencing. That task lies before all of us.

For us on this side of the House, our central purpose is to protect the national interest. Those on that side of the House ought to think very seriously about their divisive approach. I know this: the Australian people will judge them very harshly. Their tactic of trying to create an election again, to go back to the people, to ignore the will of the people, is going to blow right up in their faces. If they keep going the way they have gone in the last 48 hours they are going to face very harsh judgments. (Time expired)

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Breaking promises is simply the Labor way. They believe promises are made to be broken. The entire record of the previous government was a litany of broken promises and this government is obviously going to be no better. Some of you may remember the promises from the previous government. Remember former Prime Minister Rudd looking television cameras in the eye on paid Labor Party advertisements and saying, ‘I am an economic conservative. I am committed to balancing the budget.’ That was before the election before last. He did not deliver a single balanced budget. Indeed, he delivered record budget deficits every time—record deficits, never balanced the budget, a broken promise to be an economic conservative.

What about Labor’s broadband promises? We have heard something about it from the Deputy Prime Minister, who is leaving the chamber. Labor promised before the 2007 election to deliver fibre-to-the-node broadband at 100 megabits per second to 98 per cent of Australia’s population beginning from Christmas 2008 at a cost of $4.7 billion. Now the cost is $43 billion. Hardly anybody has got it three Christmases later and, of course, two million Australians—mainly in regional Australia—have been left out of the promise altogether. Labor axed the OPEL contract, which would have been delivering high-speed broadband to most of Australia by now, and now it has got some fairy-land proposal without a business plan—another broken promise. If regional Australians ever get any of this broadband, some time about 2018, they are only going to get the same wireless that was committed under the OPEL contract—a broken Labor promise.

Remember Kevin Rudd’s famous statement: ‘Labor’s policy is that if people are intercepted on the high seas then the vessel should be turned around.’ That was Kevin Rudd’s commitment to the Australian people before he was elected as Prime Minister.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the Nationals ought to refer to the Minister for Foreign Affairs by his title.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was referring actually to the Leader of the Opposition at the time. At that time he made it clear that the boats would be turned around, but not one boat was ever turned around. That is indeed Labor’s approach. If you go to my website, you can find 60 or more of these broken promises; promises made—expressed essentially, we are told, in good faith—but never delivered.

Who can forget GroceryWatch and Fuelwatch and the promise to restrict government advertising—it goes on and on and on. To add insult to injury, the former Prime Minister said that Labor would honour every promise that it made to the Australian people. He said that on 17 March 2008. Labor would honour all their promises—does this not sound rather familiar? Now we have a new Prime Minister and her promise was also that she will honour all of Labor’s promises. She says the government should keep its promises. But within days of election, in spite of the fact that everyone is talking about ‘new politics’, and we are even supposed to have a new Julia—she is a year older but she is certainly no wiser—the promises are falling like autumn leaves.

We are only a couple of days into the new parliament and Labor’s election agenda has largely been ditched. The election platform has been junked. She has got all sorts of novel excuses. Now it is the Independents’ fault or it is the Greens’ fault. If this were such a problem to her why did she go out to the Governor-General and say, ‘I can deliver strong and stable government for the people of Australia’? She promised the Governor-General that she could deliver on her election commitments but in fact she is now walking away from them. She seems to have no intention to deliver on her election commitments and the Independents and the Greens are going to be blamed for her failure to deliver.

It is important that governments should deliver on their election promises. It is especially important when the issue is as important as something like a carbon tax. That is going to have an enormously detrimental effect on the whole of Australia, and Prime Minister Gillard knew that before the election. That is why she said in clear and unmistakable terms, repeated by the Leader of the Opposition just a few moments ago, on 16 August, just days before the nation went to the polls, ‘There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.’ One day before the election: ‘I rule out a carbon tax. I rule them out.’ There is no mincing of the words. You cannot mince and dice them and make them come up to mean anything else—‘There will be no carbon tax under a Gillard government.’ Here we are just a couple of days into the parliament and somehow or other that promise does not hold true any more. It is not as though it was her only promise on climate change during the election campaign. Remember that Labor told us in the last parliament that we had to have a CPRS or civilisation would end. Anyone who did not believe in a CPRS was somehow or other a climate change denier. Direct action plans were unacceptable. You had to have an obscure trading scheme if you were going to save the planet. She ditched that before the election.

During the election campaign, we had this great announcement: Labor’s new solution to climate change was a committee of 150 people chosen at random from the phone book who were going to decide what the government’s climate change policy would be—150 people on a committee were going to do the job. It was one of the most ludicrous policies I think anybody has ever heard. I was waiting for the committee of 150 to decide the defence policy, and another committee of people chosen from the electoral roll to perhaps decide on the next budget. I thought we were having an election to choose people who would make the decisions. But Labor, of course, is never capable of making any decisions at all.

Labor ditched the 150 people on the committee and now the new solution—now that the promise that we are not going to have a carbon tax has been ditched—is another new committee. This is some kind of multiparty committee, although its members really only seem to be the Greens and the Labor Party. You are not even eligible to be on this committee unless you commit up-front to a carbon tax—the carbon tax Labor said we were never going to have. But the only people who can go on this committee are those who believe in a carbon tax. This is no genuine inquiry. This is no attempt to gather the facts and make the best decisions. This is in fact an inquiry where you sign up first to the outcome before you can even be on the committee.

This is the classic way in which Labor undertakes its policy processes. We saw the humiliating spectacle of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister with Senator Bob Brown and Senator Milne—this Greens-Labor alliance—to announce this new committee. We saw the rudeness of Senator Brown as he talked over the Prime Minister. It was clear this was a Greens initiative. This is the Greens tail wagging the Labor dog—and what a dog of a policy it is actually proving to be. The Greens are happy. If anyone has any doubt about whose idea this was, just ask the new member for Melbourne who tweeted to the world that because Melbourne went Green there would be a carbon tax committee set up. Bingo! That is exactly what happened. This is a Greens policy, born in compromise as Labor seems to walk away from the commitment that it made to the Australian people. This is a very significant issue for Australia. A carbon tax or its equally ugly big brother, an emissions trading scheme, will cost seriously the Australian economy and the Australian people.

The Australian people are upset now about the increases in the price of electricity under state Labor governments and the policies of this Labor government. If we have a carbon tax of $40 a tonne, even though the Prime Minister did not seem to know this during question time today, it will effectively double the wholesale price of electricity. So pensioners and people in households struggling to meet the cost of their electricity bill and the cost of food need to know that Labor’s and the Greens’ carbon tax proposal will double their electricity prices. It will substantially increase their food prices. It will add to the cost of transport. It will add to the cost of everything we do in this country. It will cost Australian jobs as industry moves to places that do not have this tax and do not have this extra cost.

But what is even worse is that it will achieve nothing for the environment. Extra taxes in Australia will not change the temperature of the globe. They will not lower the sea level. They will not save the Barrier Reef. What we need is a comprehensive and properly worked through proposal and direct action, as dictated by the coalition, if we actually want to deliver on this important issue. (Time expired)

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to address this matter of public importance. The Leader of the Opposition began by saying that this is a historic day. I think we all must agree that this is a historic day, but perhaps the reason for it being such a moment of history is something that we might disagree upon. I say at the outset that I find it rather strange that we are held to account in a matter of public importance brought forward by the current Leader of the Opposition on trust and delivery of election commitments, because his record in government and even beyond government in opposition and particularly as Leader of the Opposition demonstrates a man whose word cannot be counted upon. It is a word that cannot be counted upon, and we have seen demonstrations and evidence of that in the last couple of days in his failure to deliver on the agreement on parliamentary reform.

That is, of course, but one example of how the Leader of the Opposition is a man whose word cannot be taken as the truth. He said just a little bit earlier this year that there was a distinction to be drawn between gospel truth and those matters that might be crafted and scripted in a not so careful way in the heat of the moment and in the heat of battle. We saw that at a time when he was about to do a backflip on a commitment that he had previously given to not increase taxes. So he came forward and said that he would not increase taxes. That was one of the first commitments that he gave as Leader of the Opposition. The first backflip, which was only a matter of days later, was to come forward and say, ‘I will increase taxes. I will slug business in order to deliver a paid parental leave scheme.’ Even he did not have the intestinal fortitude to take that to his shadow cabinet before announcing it publicly. It is a policy that does not have the support of his own party room and it is a policy that did not have the support of the Australian people at the last election.

On the question of the truth or otherwise of statements that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition, let us have a look at what was said throughout the course of the election campaign. I welcome the commitment of the opposition to delivering the platform of matters that we took to the Australian people before the last election. I can only take it that it is a commitment of that nature because for the Leader of the Opposition to come forward and challenge the government to deliver its election commitments but to then stand in the way of the delivery of those election commitments would be nothing short of hypocrisy. That is the challenge. That is the point at which the Leader of the Opposition has set that bar.

There were many things that we took to the electorate in the last election that we will now be calling the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition to account on to help us deliver. That involves delivering tax reform. It involves delivering reductions in company tax. It involves simplifying personal tax with the tick-and-flick arrangements. It involves improving retirement savings and delivering for the superannuation needs and retirement savings needs of working Australians into the future, tackling that great challenge that our government and previous governments have identified but few have done sufficient to address—and that is the ageing population. Lifting retirement savings by lifting the standard of living of working Australians as they move towards their older years in life is something that we are committed to doing. We took a plan to the election and we intend to deliver on that plan.

I welcome the fact that the Leader of the Opposition today said he believes it is important that governments deliver on election commitments that they take to the people. I do note, however, that the Leader of the Opposition is a man who in government said immediately before an election not all that long ago that when it came to the Medicare safety net he was prepared to give a rolled gold, cast-iron guarantee and then shortly after the election in which he was a part of the government that was re-elected he had to front the people and say that that was not actually the position the government was going to take. Subsequent to that he has tried to argue, ‘Sometimes you get rolled in cabinet. I can’t help it.’

The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition is a man whose word cannot be trusted. We were not able to trust it when he was in government and he has not been a trustworthy person in opposition. What we have seen with him welching on this agreement on parliamentary reform is a man who even though just a short time ago said, ‘If it is in writing you can trust it,’ is now saying, ‘If it is in writing you can trust it as long as you have a QC’s opinion from a QC of our choice who happens to be sitting within our party room.’ I would suggest that at the very least they need a second opinion, because when it comes to Mr Gageler SC or Mr Brandis QC I know where I would put my money. At the very least they should be out there getting a second opinion. This is all smoke and mirrors, because the reality is that the only time the Leader of the Opposition ever intended to deliver on that deal was if he formed government. He did not form government and he is pretty upset about that. I can appreciate that. That is fine. But the fact is that he broke the deal. He broke his agreement. The word that he gave he has reneged on. That is true to type for this Leader of the Opposition, because he has done it time and time again.

The Leader of the Opposition said today that this is a government that is built on a lie. I suggest that the entire election campaign of the opposition was built on one of the biggest lies that we have seen in recent Australian political history. It was built on a $10.6 billion lie. This was the lie that they tried to keep hidden. In fact, I think, Mr Abbott referred to it as an arcane debate about costings. This was about whether or not the alternative government were ever going to be able to deliver on the commitments that they were making during the election campaign.

They visited seats all around the country. I saw Mr Abbott come into my seat and sprinkle money all around—$5 million here, a couple of million dollars there—because ‘we are going to get the budget back into surplus’. Yet there was no plan for delivering these commitments which was exposed. They were very cynical and they almost got away with it. They did not win the election, and it ended up requiring the Independents to come forward and shine a light on the big $10.6 billion hole. That is the lie upon which the opposition’s election campaign was built, and it is a lie that has now been exposed. So, please do not come into this place and tell me that this government is built on a lie.

I look forward to the opposition making good on the commitment that they have made today. No-one has stepped forward and suggested that this is not the case so I am left to draw the conclusion that the Leader of the Opposition, speaking on behalf of all of his troops, is now saying that they believe—and notwithstanding that he failed to deliver on election commitments when he was in government—that election commitments are so important that he will ensure that we deliver those commitments.

The main example that is brought forward is the whole question of climate change. Both parties took a position to the 2007 election on climate change and a number of people on the other side of the chamber jumped up and down just before the last election and said, ‘You failed to deliver on what you called the biggest moral challenge of our time.’ Yet the only reason that commitment had not been delivered was that people on the other side, who took a similar commitment to the electorate, chose to walk away not only from that commitment but from an agreement that had been signed by the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth.

After having knocked it back several times in the Senate the deal on the ETS deal that had been reached went through your party room, albeit with a narrow margin, and then you beheaded your leader. The qualification to election commitments is—(Time expired)

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would commend to the parliamentary secretary the provisions of standing order 64, which set out that he ought not refer to any member by his or her name, and he referred to the Leader of the Opposition using, I think, his name Tony Abbott. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is said that a week is a long time in politics. The three months since 23 June 2010 feel like an eternity. The date of 23 June 2010 will be one of those dates enmeshed in the collective public memory whereby people will ask, ‘Where were you when that first-term Prime Minister was knifed and brought down by his own deputy?’ It is a date to be forever known as ‘Kevin Rudd’s Fundamental Injustice Day’.

A minority Labor government was sworn in yesterday for its second term. But you could have sworn it was for its first term. Instead of embracing the achievements of the Rudd/Gillard government, Labor was distancing itself from the so-called achievements of that government at a rate of knots.

The Prime Minister is desperate for the public to believe that this is a shiny, new government and not a continuation of the old, failed government. She is desperate to adopt Julia’s ‘year zero’. She is desperate to distance herself from the failures of that Rudd/Gillard government. She is desperate to walk away from the government of which she was the deputy leader, a government of which she was the co-author of all its policies, a key member of the ‘Gang of Four’, our very own ‘Madam Mao’. She was one of the quartet responsible for the failed policies, the disastrous implementations and the broken promises of the Rudd/Gillard government.

Memories of that government will not fade. Its disastrous failures will not go away because there are families still living in homes with electrified roofs and in unsafe environments courtesy of the government’s failed insulation program. There are schools lumbered with expensive kit-form halls and canteens entirely unsuitable for use courtesy of the government’s Building the Education Revolution plan. There are record numbers of boats arriving on our shores with Christmas Island overflowing courtesy of Labor’s failed asylum seeker policies.

Yes, the ramifications of that political assassination on 23 June just will not go away and, like Lady Macbeth washing imaginary bloodstains from her hands, the Prime Minister is busily washing her hands of the former government. But Banquo’s ghost remains in the midst of the Labor Party. The former Prime Minister just will not go away, haunting the government by his very presence and being inherently, intrinsically present in all Labor’s policies.

If members were in the Senate yesterday listening to the Governor-General’s address which outlined the government’s policy agenda, they would have heard it was all the same old Labor—the same high-taxing, high-spending old Labor. Sure, the Prime Minister would love everyone to forget that she led a disastrous election campaign that resulted in a first-term Labor government losing its majority. Sure, she is desperate for everyone to forget about the belated emergence during the election campaign of the real Julia, replacing the fake Julia, who had taken the leadership of the party. The member for Griffith knows all about the real Julia. The member for Chisholm knows all about the real Julia. What happened to EMILY’s List? What happened to the Labor sisterhood? And, as this matter of public importance shows, the Prime Minister is desperate for everyone to forget about all those pesky promises she made to the Australian people prior to the election.

Take climate change. But first cast your memory back to late April, when the then Prime Minister announced that he would dump his policy designed to combat the ‘greatest moral challenge of our age’. He was going to dump the emissions trading scheme. We all now know that he took that controversial decision at the urging of his self-proclaimed loyal deputy. That decision was the beginning of the end for the former Prime Minister, and it was all by the hand of the loyal deputy, who said that she was more likely to fly to Mars or to play full-forward for the Bulldogs than to challenge the member for Griffith for the Labor leadership.

Well, that has certainly given us an indication of the character of the new Prime Minister, for she is proving by the day that she cannot be taken at her word and she cannot be trusted. Just ask the member for Griffith. Hiding behind that giggling facade is a ruthless political operative who will stop at nothing to gain power. There is no promise that cannot be broken. There is no commitment that cannot be abandoned for the sake of political expediency.

The broken promise on a carbon tax is the new paradigm for Labor. There can be no doubt that this government gave a clear commitment to the Australian people before the election of 21 August. In response to a question about a carbon tax, the Treasurer said on 12 August on ABC television:

We have made our position very clear. We have ruled it out.

On 15 August, again on ABC television, the Treasurer said:

What we rejected is this hysterical allegation that we are moving towards a carbon tax.

The next day the Prime Minister said on Network Ten:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

Then, on 20 August, the day before the federal election, when the public was focused on the Prime Minister’s promises, she said:

I rule out a carbon tax.

It is hard to imagine a more definitive response to the question of whether the Labor Party intended to introduce a carbon tax, yet today we are faced with the government’s plans for a stacked committee to rubber-stamp a predetermined decision to introduce a carbon tax.

This is what we are going to have to expect: hypocrisy to the power of 10. No other conclusion can be drawn. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer took a calculated decision to deceive the Australian people about their true intentions. What possible excuse could this tricky new Prime Minister come up with for her broken promise? Well, so far it is all the fault of the Greens and the Independents. The Prime Minister is trying to spin the line that because she lost Labor’s majority she is forced to negotiate and change her policies. If we follow this logic to its conclusion, Australia has arrived at the position where the new Prime Minister feels no obligation at all to abide by any of her election commitments and no qualms at all about walking away. There is something fundamentally rotten at the core of this government.

It is in reality a Labor-Greens alliance, and we are only in the early stages of seeing the influence of the Greens within Labor. The closer we get to the new Senate in July 2011 the greater the influence the Greens will exert over Labor. In many ways, members, we are witnessing an historic event, which is what Labor fears: the passing of the baton from one political movement to another—the cannibalisation by the Greens of the grand old Labor movement. We know the Greens agreed to a preference deal with Labor before Labor had even announced its environment policy. It was a secret deal, but everyone knows the outcome. The Greens will gouge Labor from the inside out, and they have pretty pliable material to work with. The Greens are dealing with a Prime Minister who will change policies in a heartbeat if she whiffs a change in the political breeze and with a party that will change its leader in a heartbeat if it sniffs a change in the political breeze.

Make no mistake: the coalition will not sit idly by and allow dishonesty to reap a reward. We will not be silenced by the sanctimony from Labor. The coalition will vigorously scrutinise the failings of this fundamentally flawed government and we will expose the deception that lies in its heart. The Prime Minister, by her conduct and by her behaviour, has shown the character of the person who now leads this nation. A clear pattern has emerged. The Prime Minister cannot be taken at her word. The Prime Minister cannot be trusted and, in the good old-fashioned Labor tradition, Labor will continue to say one thing to the public before an election and do precisely the opposite after an election. Labor cannot be trusted to govern.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s time has expired. I also draw her attention to standing order 64.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, may I congratulate you on your new appointment. I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on this MPI. I have to say that I did enjoy the theatrical performance by the previous speaker, the member for Curtin. There was even reference made to Shakespeare in that performance. Maybe there should be an appointment for the member to shadow minister for the arts after that! We heard the member for Curtin make a lot of reference to the word ‘desperate’. However, can I say that this matter of public importance shows the serious desperation of the opposition. Their latest strategy of criticising the Labor government for failures on election commitments has to be looked at in the context of truth and honesty and the mover of this matter of public importance.

Let us look at the mover of this MPI and the matter of honesty. The Leader of the Opposition, in talking to this MPI today, referred to the prosperity that people came to expect under the Howard government. We all remember the slogan ‘Australians have never been better off’. We also remember the slogan ‘Interest rates would be kept at record lows under the Howard government’. This is the same government who squandered the resources boom and who ensured that Australians were left worse off under Work Choices. We heard the Leader of the Opposition actually say that you cannot believe his own words: it is not the gospel truth unless it is in writing. Now we hear that, when it is in writing—when it is signed by the Leader of the Opposition in good faith—that cannot be trusted either. We hear from the opposition that a signature to a document is an informal arrangement, whereas I and many institutions, including the legal institutions in this country, believe that a signed agreement entered into in good faith is actually a formal, binding document on the parties. But the Leader of the Opposition and his party say that it is an informal arrangement and that they can pick and choose what they want to stand by.

When we talk about truth and honesty we should talk about Work Choices. We do not need to go back to the Howard government to talk about this; we need only go back to the budget reply by the Leader of the Opposition in 2010—this year; only a matter of months before the election—when he stood at the dispatch box and said: ‘In government the Liberal Party would reintroduce individual agreements and scrap unfair dismissal laws.’ He said he would do that as Prime Minister of this country. Then he changed slightly and said, ‘Work Choices is dead’. Then—and I will use the member for Curtin’s reference—the Leader of the Opposition said he may be willing to change policy if he whiffs a bit of change in the political breeze. Well, there was certainly a whiff in the air, because when the election came around Work Choices was dead, buried and cremated. We even saw the Leader of the Opposition put that in writing.

The level of desperation that the opposition party stooped to and the level of credibility that it has with the Australian public became, I think, very evident when I and other residents in my electorate started to receive in our letterboxes a flyer from the Liberal Party saying that ‘Work Choices was dead, buried and cremated.’ What does it say about a party’s credibility when it believes that it needs to spend money on distributing a flyer telling people what it is not going to do? So I think we need to put this whole debate in the context of the truth and honesty from the Leader of the Opposition.

I welcome this debate because it talks about climate change and about the truth of climate change. The Labor Party made it very clear prior to the election in 2007 and prior to the election in 2010 that we were committed to dealing with climate change in this country—and we continue to stand by that position. We held that position before the election in 2010 and we hold that position today. We make no apologies that, as a party in government and in a hung parliament, we sat down and negotiated with the crossbenchers. The crossbenchers had positions on a range of issues, including climate change. They wanted to see a party in this parliament that was genuine about addressing climate change. We make no apologies for having those discussions and for reaching an agreement with the crossbenchers that we would form a committee and genuinely sit down and look at the issue of a carbon tax and climate change. If the opposition were genuine they would put up representatives to sit on that committee and talk through these important issues in the national interest.

When we talk about honesty, we should also go back to the position that the Liberal Party held in the lead-up to the 2007 election. They told the Australian people that they were committed to an emissions trading scheme. They went to the election with that. The Labor Party also went to the 2007 election with a commitment to an emissions trading scheme. After the election in 2007, the Liberal Party walked away—not straight away—from their position. They pretended to be genuine about it for quite a while. They even had a shadow minister sit with the government and negotiate a carbon pollution reduction scheme, and they reached an agreement with the Labor Party to introduce a bill in this House for a carbon pollution reduction scheme. But the Liberal and the National parties were so opposed to recognising the importance of climate change that they chose to roll their leader.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mrs Mirabella interjecting

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am hearing from the member for Indi about electricity and water prices and that the Australian public should be very concerned about increases in electricity and water prices. I heard the Liberal candidate in my electorate talk about what they would do to try to put pressure on to reduce water and electricity prices and that Liberal candidate at a public forum said, ‘We control the funding on health and education to the state governments, so we can put pressure on state governments.’ I think we have heard this before. I think there was a billion dollars ripped out of the health system trying to put pressure on state governments. So the member for Indi agrees that we should actually cut health and education funding out of the state systems so that we can try to reduce water and electricity prices.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask the member for Petrie to withdraw that comment. It was an absolute and deliberate misrepresentation.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Indi finds it offensive. If the member for Petrie would like to assist the House, she might like to withdraw that.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. What I can say about election commitments is that the Labor government did deliver in its first term of government. It delivered a 50 per cent increase under the national health agreement to the health system. We committed to improving education by delivering computers in our schools. I am pleased to say that over 90 per cent of computers have already been delivered to secondary schools in the electorate of Petrie and we still have almost 18 months left to deliver on that policy program. We said that we would deliver on trade training centres and I have trade training centres being built in the electorate of Petrie right now. We have new science and language centres in our schools. We have a national curriculum being developed right now under consultation with our schools across this country. We are working to improve education. I am proud of the halls and libraries that we have in our schools across the electorate of Petrie and across this country. This has provided state-of-the-art facilities for our schools and for our schoolchildren and for our broader community.

We said that we would deliver on infrastructure and we have delivered more in the first term of government than the opposition did in 11 years, and we have much more to deliver. I am very proud of the fact that we will be delivering the Petrie to Kippa-Ring rail line in the electorate of Petrie. That will also benefit people in the electorates of Dickson and Longman. These are just some of the commitments that we have made. (Time expired)

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion has concluded.