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

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

The impact of the Government's failures in policy and leadership in respect of Australia's forgotten families.

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

After one of the most extraordinarily graceless prime ministerial performances in question time that this House has seen in many a long year, it is worth reminding the House of the words of the current Prime Minister just a few years earlier. Just a few years ago in 2006 the now Prime Minister, then a senior Labor frontbencher, said:

We have to remember that question time is supposed to be one of our key accountability mechanisms. If there is a big scandal or a corruption allegation, you are supposed to be able to get the matter in question time, and it is not serving that role now.

That was the statement by the member for Lawler—then a frontbencher, now a Prime Minister—and she should be judged and condemned by her own words. We have seen an extraordinary display today: a bristling, petulant performance from the Prime Minister, who is trying to insist that, of all people, George Brandis—the shadow Attorney-General—in some way has serious questions to answer and serious statements to make on the subject of improper behaviour and that the member for Dobell does not. Also, the claim was seriously advanced by the Prime Minster today that Senator Mary Jo Fisher, who suffers from depression and is facing her day in court, is somehow equivalent to the member for Dobell, who has run away from his day in court and got the Labor Party to pay his legal fees. It was an absolutely disgraceful performance by this Prime Minister in question time today.

This week marks the first anniversary of the election that nobody won, least of all the Australian people. In the 12 months since last year's election, thanks to the Greens and Independents, who put this government back into office, we Australians have been saddled with a bad government that is getting worse every day. The great economist Adam Smith said that 'there is a lot of ruin in a nation', and indeed a bad government eventually produces very bad outcomes for the Australian people. Increasingly in recent months we have seen the dividends of an incompetent government that has the Midas touch in reverse. We have seen out of control borders—I remind the House that over the last 12 months we have seen 99 boats with more than 5,600 illegal arrivals come to our shores. We also have a Prime Minister with out of control integrity—she said before the election that there would never be a Pacific solution from this government and that detaining illegal arrivals offshore was 'costly, unsustainable and wrong as a matter of principle'. Yet what is she doing now? As we learned today, she is proposing to send boat people who arrive in this country back to Malaysia, where, according to reports, they are subject to increasing brutality from Malaysian police and others.

We have had the surplus that will never happen, and $150 billion worth of deficits that have well and truly happened. We now have waste on an epic scale. We thought that the school hall waste could not possibly be repeated, but now we have the biggest white elephant of them all: the National Broadband Network. Not only did the infrastructure tender to collapse but also the Chief Financial Officer of the NBN Co. has today been forced to resign, which surely presages more waste and incompetence. Then, of course, there is that which most grieves the Australian people: increasing evidence of serious job losses to come in the manufacturing industry. There are the BlueScope job losses, the OneSteel job losses, the Qantas job losses and the Westpac job losses. What is this government doing about the steel industry? The steel industry advocate position has been unfilled for nine months, and the Steel Industry Innovation Council did not meet for six months. This government has a Prime Minister in hiding and a member in protection, and, increasingly, it is paralysed in the face of the problems which bedevil this country because of its own incompetence.

This government is lurching from crisis to crisis. It has a Prime Minister who lacks the courage or the integrity to force the member for Dobell to answer elementary questions—the questions which Kathy Jackson of the Health Services Union knows need to be answered. What did we see from the Prime Minister in question time today? Nothing but contempt—she has not the slightest shred of sympathy or the slightest skerrick of fellow feeling for a brave woman who wants to see the right thing done. What is the Prime Minister doing? Nothing but vituperation and stonewalling. It is graceless, unbecoming and demeaning of the high office which the Prime Minister holds.

The government is rapidly revealing all of the dysfunction and lack of principle which characterised the late New South Wales Labor government. So why should we be surprised when we see the Prime Minister and other senior members of the government lining up now to excuse the inexcusable and defend the indefensible that we have seen reported in connection with the member for Dobell? It is New South Wales sleaze which has now come into the heart of this government and which this Prime Minister and senior members of this government are so desperate to defend. This is a government which has no plan for our country. It has a plan to survive, not a plan to govern, and the Australian people deserve so much better.

Since December 2007, the cost of living pressures on the forgotten families of Australia have only got worse. Since December 2007, electricity prices around this country have gone up 49 per cent. Water prices have gone up 46 per cent. Education costs have gone up 24 per cent. Health costs have gone up 22 per cent. Rent has gone up 22 per cent and food has gone up 15 per cent. Mortgage repayments now cost $500 a month more for the average home loan than they did just a couple of years ago. It is no wonder that the Australian people look back to the time of the former government as a golden age of economic growth that has now been lost, because, since members opposite came into power, GDP-per-head growth has been less than one-half of one per cent a year compared to well over two per cent a year under the former government—and it is just going to get worse with the big new taxes that this government has in store for us. The carbon tax is going to go up and up and up. It is a bad tax based on a lie; yet this is at the heart of this government's plan for our country. Even on the government's own figures, the carbon tax is going to leave well over three million Australian households worse off—and these are not rich people, by any means; these are not people who are importing yachts and motor cruisers. Take, for example, a school teacher married to a shop assistant. They will be worse off under the government's carbon tax package, even on the government's own figures. A policeman married to a part-time nurse will be worse off under the government's carbon tax, even on the government's own figures.

But the worse thing about this carbon tax, which is going to wreak havoc with the way every single Australian lives and works, is that it is not actually going to do its job. The whole point of a carbon tax is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. What is the point of a carbon tax if it does not actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Yet here in black and white on page 18 of the government's own document, Strong growth, low pollution—modelling a carbon price, we are told that our emissions are 578 million tonnes now and in 2020, with a carbon price of $29 tonne, they are not going down; they are going up to 621 million tonne.

Members opposite like to boast—oh, don't they like to boast!—about their 'fantastic target'. Everything this government does is 'the best thing that has ever happened'—it is historic; it is magnificent; it is stupendous! Gough Whitlam never did anything, Bob Hawke never did anything and Paul Keating never did anything! Nothing happened until this mob came along—aren't they great! But do you know what we are going to get in 2050 with a carbon price of $131 a tonne? A carbon tax of $131 a tonne is going to reduce our emissions from 578 million tonne now to, wait for it, 545 million tonne. That is not an 80 per cent reduction.

I thought this had to be a misprint. I have been looking every day for erratum slips to start appearing in the government's own documents. But, no, this is what they are going to achieve. They are going to impose a $131 a tonne carbon tax—more than five times what it is proposed to be in the middle of next year—for what? For a reduction in our emissions of about six per cent. They want to turn the way we live and the way we work upside down—for what? A six per cent reduction in our emissions. How is that going to save the world? If people knew what this mob were planning, they would laugh them out of office this very instant.

But it just gets worse. The Prime Minister tells us that this carbon tax is going to create jobs left, right and centre and transform the steel industry into something magnificent. You can just imagine a steel mill run on solar power and a motor plant running on windmills. Aren't we going to have a great steel industry and a great car industry in this country? Look at the government's own figures. On the government's own figures, our gross national income per person will be nearly $5,000 less under a carbon tax than it would otherwise be. This is a carbon tax that is going to cost jobs big-time and wreak havoc with the standard of living of the Australian people. It is not going to reduce carbon emissions and it will, on the government's own figures, impoverish us. This is an act of economic lunacy; yet it is all this government has to offer.

But we know that in her heart of hearts not even this Prime Minister believes it. We know what she really believes, because during the break Geoff Kitney told us. What she really believes is that you can achieve a five per cent reduction in emissions through the coalition's direct action plan. That is what she really believes. That is the secret memo that she gave to other members of the inner cabinet just before she conspired to politically assassinate the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.

This is a truly bad government. Members opposite like to say that everything they do is historic. Well, this is a historic government all right! It is historically the worst. It is historically the worst we have ever seen. Those people who merely say that it is the worst since Gough Whitlam are wrong. They are being totally unfair to Gough Whitlam—who did not lack idealism and who never sold his soul to the Greens and Senator Bob Brown. This is the worst government ever. It lacks integrity; it lacks ideals; it lacks honesty; and it should be gone—and, increasingly, that is what the Australian people want. Be gone!

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Doesn't it just say it all that the Leader of the Opposition moves a matter of public importance on forgotten families and he forgets to mention families? This was supposed to be all about Australian families but, instead, the Leader of the Opposition talked about the member for Dobell; he talked about Senator Fisher; he talked about the Pacific Solution; and he continued his here, there and everywhere strategy on carbon dioxide. He forgot to talk about the very thing that he is pretending to care about here today, and that is Australian families. We have heard enough of the rhetoric, we have heard the negativity, we have heard the attacks—the easy opportunism—of the opposition leader, and now it is time that we inserted some reality into this discussion. It is time we actually—wait for it—talked about some policy, and it is time that we actually mentioned Australian families and what this government is doing to stand shoulder to shoulder with Australian families.

I must say that the fact that the Leader of the Opposition moved a Matter of Public Importance on forgotten families and then forgot to mention them is not the only element of irony that we have seen here today, because there is an intense irony when one considers the very last vote that this chamber undertook today. And then the Leader of the Opposition had the gall to talk about forgotten families. We know that there is a precedent for this. He failed to mention them today, but at least in his budget reply speech the Leader of the Opposition dropped a quick sound bite about forgotten families. But when it came to the vote he forgot them.

Today, the very last division that took place in this chamber was where the coalition voted against a measure which will allow an extra $59 million to be invested in delivering quality child care for some of Australia's most vulnerable children. Let's talk about the forgotten families now. That funding, which passed through this House, I am happy to say, with the support of all except those in the coalition, will be invested in 140 budget based childcare services across the country. These are the services which the government funds because they operate in communities where a commercial childcare centre may not be deemed viable. They are in communities where there is a need for us to step in and make sure that the neediest children in Australia do not miss out, but those opposite decided today that they wanted to vote against that. These services generally operate in rural, regional and remote areas. They often have an Indigenous focus and they service some of the most vulnerable children and those in the most disadvantaged families in this country. We are making sure that these families are not the forgotten families, and the Leader of the Opposition forgot to mention them today. We know that these are the very children who potentially have the most to gain from the critical early learning experiences that they receive whilst they are in child care.

Those who voted against this measure said today, just before question time, that it is more important to give the very small percentage of families across Australia—mostly on higher incomes and using large amounts of quality child care—more than $7,500 per child per year than it is to provide the most basic childcare services and infrastructure for the some of the most disadvantaged children in the community. These disadvantaged children are in families that this government will not forget. This government believes in supporting those families. We believe that they are entitled to early education and care for their children, and we have not forgotten them, unlike the forgetfulness those opposite displayed earlier today. Nor will we forget and ignore the almost 800,000 Australian families who place their kids in care each week, as the coalition did when in government—and as we heard about from the Prime Minister earlier in question time. So, far from forgetting families, this is why we increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of out-of-pocket expenses up to an annual cap of $7,500 per child per year. The opposition, when they were in government, were quite happy for this cap—the cap that they said today could not possibly stay at $7,500—to reach a maximum of just $4,354. Far from forgetting these families, we have made a 72 per cent increase in what is available in terms of government funding than what was available under the Howard government, and that is something that on this side of the House we stand proud of.

Those opposite go scaremongering about the costs of child care in the community. As a result of the investment, the proportion of family income that is being spent on child care has almost halved since 2004. We know that families making the family budget come together can often find it difficult when looking for the hard earned dollars to pay their bills, but we also know that in 2004 13 per cent of the average family income for families with one child in care was being spent on child care. That is for families on $55,000 a year. From 13 per cent in 2004, it now stands at seven per cent of their family income. It is a dramatic difference and something that we have done to ensure that these families are not forgotten.

We also promised to pay the childcare rebate quarterly, and we have delivered on our commitment. Then, further, we promised to pay the rebate fortnightly, and we have delivered on that commitment. This is making it easier for thousands of parents to balance the family budget, because they now receive their childcare assistance at the same time that the bills fall due. Overall, this government is investing a record $20 billion over the next four years for early childhood education and care. This includes some $16.4 billion to help Australian families meet the cost of their child care, through either the childcare benefit or, indeed, the childcare rebate. In contrast, this is more than double the funding amount offered under the previous government.

Beyond child care, this government is ensuring that we do not forget the Australian families who are out there doing it tough. We are committed to supporting Australian families to participate in society and we are committed to ensuring that they can balance their work with the important job of raising their children. That is why we will spend around $20 billion on family tax benefit, the baby bonus and paid parental leave. We are proud that the 2011-12 budget includes new cost-of-living support for families—families that the Leader of the Opposition deemed forgotten families and then forgot to even mention when he was meant to be talking about them. We are delivering on our election commitment to increase family tax benefit part A by up to $161 per fortnight for teenagers aged 16 to 19 who are in full-time secondary study from 1 January 2012. We are delivering. The families of around 650,000 children turning 16 over the next five years may be eligible for up to $4,200 in increased assistance if their children stay in school, because we know that is the best thing for Australian families.

From 1 July families have access to more flexible arrangements for advance payments of their family tax benefit to help with unexpected costs, such as the family car breaking down. On 1 January, we delivered Australia's first Paid Parental Leave scheme. Eligible working parents who adopt a baby on or after 1 January 2011 are now able to receive 18 weeks parental leave pay at the national minimum wage, currently around $590 a week. So while those opposite come in here, play politics, choose to talk about the member for Dobell, Senator Fisher or any of the other things that the Leader of the Opposition was rabbiting on about, we are getting on with the job of delivering to and supporting Australian families. We know that around 85,000 working parents have applied for paid parental leave so far and around 33,000 parents are receiving it right now. For families that are not eligible for paid parental leave we are continuing the baby bonus, currently $5,437 a year, to assist them with the extra costs associated with a new or adopted child. Also, from 1 July, the education tax refund has been extended to cover the costs of school uniforms, another measure that we have put in place to help Australian families balance their budgets.

This government is committed to assisting families who are experiencing disruption to their lives or who may need additional support or work to raise their children. We have the new Family Support Program, which offers greater support to the most vulnerable in our community and helps to build more resilient families and communities, with $335.2 million committed for family service providers in 2010-11. But we also know, when talking about forgotten families, that there are different experiences in different parts of Australia. Different families are coping with different circumstances. Some are doing quite well, but we also acknowledge that there are parts of Australia where families are particularly struggling. This government has stood up and said, 'These families will not be forgotten by this government.' We know that nothing is more important for dealing with household bills than having a secure job, a decent wage in a safe workplace, which is why we have worked hard to create over 750,000 jobs in Australia since coming to office.

Yet, sadly, we also know that there are still members of our community who have been unemployed for too long, and that is why this government has said: 'We will not walk away from you. We will ensure that you will not get left behind.' We want to give them a second chance, which is why we have put record levels of funding into our employment services. It is why, at priority employment areas right across Australia where we know that there are particularly tough circumstances, we have put in place additional measures, local employment coordinators and funds so that they can have jobs expos so that the government can stand shoulder to shoulder with the Australian families who are doing it toughest.

We know that the Australian economy needs more workers if it is going to successfully take advantage of the minerals boom and manage the challenges of our ageing population, which is why we have also announced measures to ensure that those Australians who join the ranks of the very long-term unemployed now have more assistance than ever before. We have put in place new wage subsidies in the most recent budget so that we can help move people back into employment. We are investing more into our disability employment providers by setting up new wage subsidies that they can offer and by working with employers to change the stigma. We will make sure that those who have been forgotten in the past will not be forgotten anymore. We can ensure that those who have been at risk of staying on the margins—the very long-term unemployed, mature age workers and the disabled—can step into employment and enjoy the comparatively favourable circumstances in the Australian economy.

We know that when we are talking about forgotten families that the Leader of the Opposition is a risk to every Australian family's future. He is a risk to jobs and he is a risk to workplace protections. He opposed the stimulus package; he would have thrown 200,000 Australians onto dole queues. We know, and we continually hear the rumbling from the opposition backbench, there is nothing that would bring the opposition more happiness than to bring back Work Choices.

Beyond that, the Leader of the Opposition is a risk to the budget. He went to the last election with an $11 billion black hole, which we now see has blown out to $70 billion. He is a risk to basic services that ordinary families rely upon in our community. He has promised cuts already to computers in schools, to trades training centres, to GP superclinics and the after-hours GP hotline, and to the National Broadband Network, which we know is so important to our economy and particularly to many of our regions. He is a risk to the cost of living. His fiscal recklessness would only add to price pressures in the economy. He would want to bring back bank exit fees. We know, and we heard in his contribution earlier, that under his climate change policy each household would have to pay an average of $720 more in taxes, and that he would give that money—money from Australian families and hardworking taxpayers—straight to the big polluters themselves. He will say anything he needs to in order to get the five-second sound grab on the television news, but when it comes to standing in this place and taking action or voting accordingly to make sure the interests of Australian families are considered or to anything beyond rhetoric, the Leader of the Opposition proves, and proved again today, that he is all spin and no substance.

Australian families, which he forgot to even mention in his matter of public importance contribution on forgotten families, deserve better. They deserve a government that is committed to supporting them with the costs of living. They deserve the delivery of quality services that they rely on. They deserve our assistance to help them into jobs and for us to continue to create jobs in the Australian economy, like the 750,000 that have been created since we came to government. This is exactly what the Gillard Labor government is doing. It is exactly what we intend to do, and we will ensure that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Australian families that are at risk of being forgotten if the Leader of the Opposition ever made his way onto this side of the chamber. (Time expired)

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

There is a deficit at the heart of this government. There is a deficit at the heart of the government that performed so shamefully in question time today. I am not talking about the national budget deficit, the accumulated $150 billion budget deficit delivered by a government that, when in opposition, promised the Australian people that they were committed to budget surpluses. I am talking about a deficit of leadership at the heart of this government. I am talking about a deficit of trust in this government amongst the Australian people. It is not surprising though that there is a deficit of trust because this government is based on a deliberate and duplicitous statement made by the Prime Minister prior to the last election on the issue of a carbon tax.

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

Order! The use of the term by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition 'deliberate and duplicitous' is outside the standing orders and I would ask her to withdraw.

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

I will move on, Mr Deputy Speaker. She made a deliberate and calculated statement—

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

The deputy leader has to withdraw the disorderly statement.

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

I withdraw. She made a deliberate and calculated statement designed to mislead the Australian people.

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

Order! The deputy leader is not able to say that the Prime Minister made a statement 'designed to mislead'. That is disorderly and I would ask her to withdraw.

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

I withdraw. Let me come to the Prime Minister's performance in question time today. This Prime Minister likes to talk about leadership principles. At the recent launch of former Victoria Police commissioner Christine Nixon's memoirs, the Prime Minister lauded Ms Nixon as:

… person of integrity who opposed corruption at every turn.

The Prime Minister said the book was 'a record of Christine's leadership'. These are traits that the Prime Minister clearly admires in others but has not adopted for herself.

We have heard repeatedly this week that the Prime Minister has full confidence in the member for Dobell. She accepts his explanation for the use of his union credit card to pay for escort services, cash advances and tens of thousands of dollars on his election campaign—reportedly undeclared to the Australian Electoral Commission. The Prime Minister apparently does not want the member for Dobell to provide that explanation to the people of Australia, let alone to the members of the Health Services Union.

This week the coalition has attempted to provide the member for Dobell with every opportunity to speak under parliamentary privilege to the Australian people and the tens of thousands of members of the Health Services Union about the explanation he gave the Prime Minister in relation to these allegations, the explanation upon which the Prime Minister bases her full confidence in the member for Dobell. Yes, last night the national secretary of the Health Services Union said:

Anyone in our organisation who misuses union money—be it for prostitution services or other unauthorised services—has committed a crime and in particular has defrauded the membership.

The Prime Minister should inform the Australian people whether she believes that such conduct would constitute fraudulent and criminal behaviour. We are unlikely to know. As Kathy Jackson said of the member for Dobell:

... he should go on the record and repeat those statements ... He owes it to the members of the Health Services Union.

The Prime Minister does not respect the wishes of the Health Services Union members, the tens of thousands of members of that union who Kathy Jackson described as:

... working-class people, they earn less than $20 an hour doing work that nobody else wants to do ... These people are salt of the earth. These people deserve answers ...

Yet the Prime Minister has gone to extraordinary lengths to protect the member for Dobell and to prevent him from giving a statement to this parliament under parliamentary privilege.

We are not talking about a few dollars here and a few dollars there; we are talking about the systematic and calculated defrauding of what the union claims to be over $100,000. Under this Prime Minister, Labor has made every effort to hide these allegations and protect the member for Dobell from scrutiny.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: with respect to the deputy leader, she is quite entitled to speak in general terms, but she is not entitled to make assertions if they are directed at an individual member without an appropriate notice of motion.

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

That is correct. I will ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to observe the standing orders.

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

As I was saying, under this Prime Minister's leadership, Labor has made every effort to hide these allegations.

After the defamation action collapsed, Labor stepped in to pay the member for Dobell's legal bills and presumably struck a deal with Fairfax to suppress further reporting of the matter. Yet the Prime Minister refuses to answer questions on this issue, but the Australian people are entitled to ask: who advised the Health Services Union to inexplicably refer the matter of the misuse of union credit cards to Fair Work Australia? It is inexplicable, as the Attorney-General would know, because it would appear that a matter of fraud should have been referred to the New South Wales Police. What jurisdictions does Fair Work Australia have over a fraud investigation? Perhaps it might make some sense when one realises the connection between officials in Fair Work Australia and the Labor Party.

According to the Health Services Union, this issue was referred to Fair Work Australia more than two years ago yet there has been no progress in terms of a finding. There are many questions that need to be answered about this slow-moving fraud investigation and the Prime Minister has failed to show any inclination to come clean about this matter. It goes to the very heart of the deficit of leadership and the deficit of trust that the Australian people have in this Prime Minister.

We know from Senate estimates that there has been contact between the government and Fair Work Australia about this matter, but the Prime Minister has refused to detail that contact. When asked about it today, she avoided answering the question, so it remains unanswered. These questions will continue to dog the Prime Minister beyond next week, beyond the week after and until parliament returns. Did anyone in the government advise the union to refer the matter to Fair Work Australia? If so, what was the legal basis for that advice? Why was the matter regarding the member for Dobell—this was two years after he was elected as member—referred to Fair Work Australia and not to the police? What has been the nature of discussions between members of the government and officers of Fair Work Australia? This investigation has been going on for two years. It has been reported that the general manager of Fair Work Australia is a factional ally of the Prime Minister and was appointed by this government in 2009 to be responsible for Fair Work Australia.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, again imputations are being made against an officer of the Commonwealth and if those sorts of imputations are going to be made, that they have acted—

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

The Attorney-General will resume his seat. There is no point of order.

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

The National Secretary of the Health Services Union, Kathy Jackson, has said that the investigation of allegations against the member for Dobell by Fair Work Australia was far too slow. I asked the Prime Minister today to detail the contact between her as Prime Minister or in her former role as Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, or the contact of her staff or any minister and their staff with officials of Fair Work Australia. She not only avoided the question but the Prime Minister appeared slippery and shifty. She will not say what has gone on between Fair Work Australia and the Prime Minister's office over this investigation. But should we be surprised by this lack of principle on the part of the Prime Minister? We know how the Prime Minister came to office. She had promised faithfully as Deputy Prime Minister that she would never challenge the Prime Minister for the leadership of this country prior to the last election. She was specifically asked on radio on 10 May 2010:

So will you promise you will not be leader at the next federal election?

Julia Gillard:

I can, completely. … this is, you know, it makes good copy for newspapers but it is not within cooee of my day-to-day reality. You may as well ask me am I anticipating a trip to Mars. No I'm not...

So how can the Australian people believe anything this Prime Minister says? She misled her leader into believing she would never challenge him for the leadership, and challenge she did. She stood before the Australian people at the last election and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' (Time expired)

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

I would, before calling the honourable member for Fraser, just remind all honourable members that, while this is a wide-ranging matter of public importance debate, we are as a parliament debating the impact of the government's failures in policy and leadership in respect of Australia's forgotten families. Families, of course, are the subject of this particular matter of public importance.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion before the House today refers to Australia's forgotten families. It is clear where that reference from the Leader of the Opposition comes from. It is a hearkening back to the great Sir Robert Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party. What the Liberal Party want to do today is to say that they have some of the policy credibility of Robert Menzies. The Leader of the Opposition is in fact the Sarah Palin of Australian politics. He is willing to say anything, to do anything, to wreck the economy.

I know a little bit about the Menzies government, and the Leader of the Opposition is no Robert Menzies. Robert Menzies opened up Australian trade with Japan. The Leader of the Opposition would start a trade war with New Zealand. Any chance he gets he will fearmonger about foreigners investing in Australian agriculture. Robert Menzies established the Colombo Plan to bring young Australians to help build a better region. The Leader of the Opposition would scrap aid to Indonesian schools. Robert Menzies began the initial steps of dismantling the White Australia policy. The Leader of the Opposition refers to 'boat people' and he wants to turn back boats to who knows where.

Robert Menzies was committed to Canberra, this fine city that I am proud to represent. The Leader of the Opposition would strip 12,000 jobs out of the Public Service, which the ACT government estimates would drop the employment rate in the ACT by six per cent once you factor in the flow-on effects. The Leader of the Opposition would happily send Canberra into recession. Robert Menzies believed in respect, believed in treating all people with decency. Any time he thinks he can get away with it the Leader of the Opposition will just slip in a reference using the Prime Minister's first name. He is always happy to use the Prime Minister's first name if he thinks he can slip it past whoever is in the chair.

Robert Menzies massively expanded the CSIRO and massively expanded the scientific research base in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition attacks scientists, describes climate change as 'absolute crap' and thinks CO2 is weightless. But there is, I suppose, some similarity. After all, Robert Menzies made a lot of his career on attacking communists but won the 1961 election on communist preferences. The opposition leader for a while bankrolled court cases against One Nation but now is quite happy to address extremist rallies with their signs about 'new world government' and misogyny.

But the motion before the House today goes to Australia's families and it is worth running through some of the achievements of the Gillard government to date in delivering for Australian families. In the global financial crisis we put in place timely, targeted and temporary fiscal stimulus that saved 200,000 jobs. Those opposite would have been happy to see young lives blighted by unemployment. Their view is that you would never take on any debt, so no stimulus because it would send the budget into debt. No matter that most of the debt is actually in revenue downgrades—that is what happens in a recession: you get less revenue. So those opposite would have taken the Herbert Hoover approach—they would have slashed government spending as the recession hit. That is right; as the private sector scaled back, their view was that the government should have scaled back as well. What a disaster that would have been. The Gillard government and the Rudd government have seen 750,000 jobs created since we came to office—three quarters of a million jobs with the pay packets and the dignity that goes with work. We put in place the largest increase to the pension since it was introduced: $128 a fortnight for single pensioners and $116 a fortnight for pensioner couples. It is a little bit more money for those who are doing it tough in Australia. We have got rid of Work Choices, to make sure Australians get a fair go at work and to make sure that Australians have the rights that they deserve. For Australians with children in care, and that includes me, we have increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, recognising that this is a rebate that helps families and boosts labour force participation by females.

We have put in place paid parental leave and we have launched My School 2.0 in an unprecedented wave of education reforms. We have trade training centres rolling out across the country, recognising that we have to start investing in trade skills for the next generation and that we can do so while children are at school. I am particularly proud of the trade training centre here in the ACT, which is a consortium of schools, including some on the north side. There is the national curriculum, which ensures that those thousands of Australians with children in school who move across state borders have the opportunity for those children to continue their education. And there is a new health deal that is, frankly, the biggest health reform since Medicare.

There are all of these achievements, and yet there is a major agenda for the future. We are putting a price on carbon because we know the scientists tell us that climate change is happening and the economists tell us that a price on dangerous carbon pollution is the most effective way of dealing with the problem.

We are putting in place a big health reform agenda: e-health and investment in hospitals. In immigration, we have a regional solution through the Bali process. It has two aims: firstly, to increase the number of humanitarian migrants that come to Australia, and boosting that intake by 1,000 a year; and, secondly, to ensure that we send the right disincentives to people smugglers and make sure that fewer kids die on the seas between Indonesia and Australia. No-one wants to see a repeat of the Christmas Island tragedy, and the Malaysian agreement is aimed at ensuring just that.

We have major reforms with the National Disability Insurance Scheme, aged care and mental health: issues that were long regarded as the third rail of Australian politics—too dangerous to touch. We have major reports on those issues and we are setting about the consultations with states and territories to make them happen. On superannuation: we are boosting retirement savings because we know that Australians need a little bit more in the bank when they get to retirement. Fifteen per cent superannuation is good enough for those opposite. They are happy to give themselves 15 per cent—I do not see them moving any motions, saying: 'No, no, no! Don't let us have 15 per cent. Let's drop parliamentarians' super back down to nine per cent.' But nine per cent is good enough for ordinary Australians in the view of those opposite. We do not believe that. Labor is the party that put in place superannuation in the early nineties over the objections of those opposite. And Labor is the party that is now boosting superannuation to 12 per cent.

As was highlighted in question time, those opposite are happy to turn out to openings of new school buildings. Senator Gary Humphries joins me from time to time when I am opening new school buildings in my electorate. I am sure he is proud to be there, opening those new school buildings. But those opposite attack the school hall program generally. They are happy to take a swipe at the whole program but are also delighted to turn up for the photo op when it is happening. We see exactly the same in trade training centres.

We see a clear contrast on the big issues in Australian politics. We want Australians to get a fair share of the minerals that are their birthright. The opposition thinks that miners pay too much tax. We are committed to global trade and committed to the notion that Australia has always prospered as a small, open economy engaged with the world. They want to start a trade war with New Zealand. We are committed to rapid fiscal consolidation and clear budget rules. They have a $70 billion black hole, which is going to look even blacker when we have a Parliamentary Budget Office and there really will be nowhere to hide on those costings—no way of going to an election with an $11 billion hidden black hole as they did at the last election. Of course that $11 billion black hole at the last election looks pretty modest set against the $70 billion black hole that the opposition now faces.

We want to put a price on carbon pollution because we know, as all sensible policy makers do, that going to the heart of the problem is the right way to solve it. They want to put in place a direct action scheme. Maybe it is because they do not actually understand this stuff. Of course, there was the classic interview in which the Leader of the Opposition asked:

If you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax?

But the thing that surprised me most, as an economist, is the next bit:

Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more, then at the end of the year you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate?

I am not sure what the Leader of the Opposition was thinking at that point, but if you did it that way it is actually true that the assistance would undo the price effects. But that is not what anyone is proposing. We are proposing generous household compensation, untied to your carbon tax bill.

We want to put in place world-beating health policy on cigarettes. Those opposite think that smoking is fun, and say things like, 'Well, life kills'. (Time expired)

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the few very short minutes that I have, I want to reflect on the MPI and the proposition that in fact the government has failed in policy and leadership in respect of Australia's forgotten families.

Mr Speaker, as you know, in this place debate can be robust. In this place there is a contest of ideas but there is also a contest of values, and that is just as important as the contest of policy and ideas. The contest of values is based on the fact that the people who stand at this dispatch box and promulgate a view are in fact also the leaders of the nation. They are the people who are expected to set the benchmark for behaviour, for honesty, for integrity and for the enunciation of good principles.

What has been most disappointing to me this week is that the values of the Prime Minister and the government should have been so absent. They have been missing, and the great fallout from that behaviour is in fact Australia's forgotten families. Whether it be through the loss of jobs or, consistently, the loss of confidence, the loss of opportunity or the removal of reward for risk through higher taxes and more regulation, this is a government that is now consistently denying the best interests of the Australian people and focusing only on its own interest—that is, the protection of its power in this place.

Its own base is now walking away from it. For a major Australian union to walk away from the Labor Party as it did this week—for proper and fully understood reasons—is a significant event, because union leaders are putting the interests of their members—the working poor—ahead of the interests of Julia Gillard. If the Prime Minister does not realise that, by being bereft of values and principles, she is now reflecting poorly on the unions and the working poor then she, sadly, misunderstands her own country.

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

Order! The time for this discussion has now expired.