Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

The Government's repeated failure to deliver on its election promises including its failure to deliver honest and accountable government.

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—

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today we are debating a very serious matter of public importance: the government's repeated failure to deliver on its election promises, including its failure to deliver honest and accountable government. We have had, day after day, week after week, month after month, broken promise after broken promise. The government that said before the election that there would be no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to the ABC or SBS and no threat to pensions has threatened every one of those things. The government that said that they would be a government of adults, that they would be accountable and that they would be transparent have been running interference for weeks now for the Assistant Minister for Health and the stench around her chief of staff and his dealings.

Before the election the Prime Minister said they would be a government of no surprises and no excuses. Since then he has said, 'There has been no broken promise and there will be no broken promises under this government.' If only that were true. Let me start with the assistant health minister. The coalition promised before the election in their real solutions booklet—do you remember that one?—to 'restore accountability and improve transparency measures'. What we have seen this week in parliament, what we saw the previous week in parliament and what we have seen right through Senate estimates is obfuscation and unwillingness to answer questions. From the Prime Minister today, question after question was left unanswered.

Not just that—the government has refused to release incoming government briefs and information on border protection and has refused to comply with Senate orders or even, in most cases, to return journalists' calls. The Prime Minister said in October last year that what he wants is a government that is transparent and open, yet the Assistant Minister for Health's chief of staff was a junk food lobbyist and was employed by a company that got a $16 million grant from this government, and the Prime Minister is refusing to answer any questions about the relationship of that lobbyist, his role in securing a grant and whether he personally or his company benefited from that grant.

Today we heard the news of job losses at Qantas. All of us on both sides have a great deal of deep concern for those workers who are going home today to talk to their families about their future. My father worked for Qantas for 21 years and I know how we felt about the security of his job. He would come home every week in the days of the cash pay packet and hand over the envelope with cash in it to mum. That was everything for us: that was the roof over our heads, food on the table, me being able to go on a school excursion and mum being able to buy me school shoes. That pay packet paid for all of that. Our whole family knew how important it was. That is one of my earliest memories. Because the people at Qantas do not know who will lose their jobs there are thousands of Qantas employees going home today who can no longer give their family that security, who can no longer be confident of their economic future.

Let us compare this government's rhetoric before the election campaign with their practice since the election. Before the election they said they would create one million jobs. What has actually happened since their election? One job has been lost every three minutes. Every time a minister on the other side fails to answer a question in this place one job is lost. For every answer not given, for every obfuscation, there is one job lost. Up to today there have been 63,000 jobs lost and, with Qantas's announcement today, another 5,000 jobs will be lost. Contrast that with when we were in government. There were one million jobs created while we had the worst economic circumstances in three-quarters of a century—the global financial crisis. What do we have from the Prime Minister? We have: 'I know nothing. I can do nothing.' The lack of—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regret.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a lack of regret, as one of my colleagues says, and a lack of a plan. One of the most important things a government can do, one of the greatest responsibilities of a government, is to look to the future and say: 'What sort of economy will we have? What sort of society will we have? What will the jobs of the future be? How do we equip our people to make the most of those opportunities?'

Has anybody heard a plan for the future from this government or any vision for these workers who have been 'liberated' from the car factory production line? Where are their jobs coming from? These workers who have been 'liberated' from the production line at SPC Ardmona—where are their jobs coming from? These Qantas workers—the Deputy Prime Minister wants to ship their maintenance jobs overseas—where are their jobs going to come from in the future? The Prime Minister pretends that we are saying to him, 'You need to guarantee every single job'. But do you know what would be a great comfort to these workers? A great comfort would be to know that they were going to get immediate assistance from the government to help them cope with the biggest change in their lives. The other thing that would help these workers is to know that the people sitting opposite have some inkling, some idea, some plan for the future.

Those opposite also said there would be no cuts to health and no cuts to education. No cuts to health? Let us have a look at the difference between the 2013 budget and the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook under those opposite. What came out of hospitals in that time? More than half a billion dollars—$560.3 million—cut between the budget in May and the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

Ms Henderson interjecting—

Oh, one of the members opposite is talking about Victoria. Guess what Victoria is going to lose between the budget and the midyear economic forecast—$277 million. What do you say about that? And there is not only the change to hospitals—what about the $265 million that was announced for upgrades to Westmead Hospital? There is no upgrade for Westmead, no upgrade for St George Hospital, no MRI machine for Mount Druitt hospital, no specialised cancer care in Western Australia and no cancer care coordinators. And the South Australian government needed to step in and build the neonatal unit at Flinders Medical Centre that was already budgeted for. That money was set aside. That money was in the budget, and those opposite cut it. They cut it, despite their promise.

Honourable members interjecting—

And education. The Minister for Education never comes in here to answer a question on education. When was the last time anybody heard the member for Sturt say a single thing about education? Instead—

Government members interjecting—

I'm talking about education—he is off on some frolic of his own. But he promised no school worse off under your government, and all of you have to go home and you have to explain to your schools why you are robbing them, why you are robbing those children of education funding.

Government members interjecting—

You have to go home and explain why you are cutting education funding. Labor's Gonski proposal—

Honourable members interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will have some quiet in the chamber, and I would say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: she will address her remarks through the chair.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, $14.65 billion was our proposal. What is their proposal? It is $2.8 billion. What is the difference between $14.65 billion and $2.8 billion? The difference is the education of our children, investment in future generations of Australians to prepare them for the jobs of the future—and you have robbed them. You have robbed them of that future. When the member for Sturt said 'no school worse off', he was wrong. It is just one of the many lies told by this government.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a quick point of order. While I respect that it was rowdy on both sides during that, it is highly disorderly when people interject out of their seats, and I draw your attention to the member for Mitchell.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business is quite correct. If you wish to interject, you must be sitting in the correct seat—simple rule.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is irony day. Let me begin with a simple 'who said' quote. Who said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'? Who said that? Who could possibly have said that? It would not have been the ALP, through the guise of the then Prime Minister, before the 2010 election, would it? It would not have been then. It is just worth remembering. You may not have picked it up from the deputy opposition leader's speech as to what this so-called matter of public importance is about.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you assist me? I always thought—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not a point of order to assist you.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No; the member is standing over there and not sitting down. He has been talking in the aisle. It is my understanding—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume her seat. Will people who wish to have a conversation either go outside or take their seats.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will assist the member for Shortland. The topic of this MPI is:

The Government’s repeated failure to deliver on its election promises—

And it goes on to talk about delivering 'honest and accountable government'. That is why this is about irony.

First of all we have the question of the carbon tax. It is a small matter of importance—just a small matter—because it represents not just a fundamental breach of faith, a fundamental defiance of a commitment prior to an election, a fundamental denial of that which was taken to the people, but also rotten economic policy. Right now, on the day that they are concerned about Qantas—as we all rightly are—Qantas had a $106 million bill. They paid that bill last year, they will have a similar bill this year and they will have a similar bill next year. The difference, of course, is that this year's carbon tax is likely to be higher than last year's carbon tax because the carbon tax has gone up, and next year's carbon tax, under what they are proposing to occur if it is not repealed—although we will repeal it—would be even higher. In short, at the very moment that they come to this House and talk about trust and election promises and honesty, they are responsible for the most significant and gross and fundamental breach of a cornerstone election promise that this House, this parliament and this country has seen in decades and decades. So that is why it must be an element of irony which is confronting us.

Let us move forward, though, because there is a second component. Prior to the last election, who said, 'We will abolish the carbon tax'? We did. We went to the election pledging, promising and committing, not just once or twice but on hundreds of occasions in hundreds of for a—whether it was the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister, or any of the frontbenchers or any of the pre-existing members of the House, or any of the candidates who have now been elected to the House, they all, on various occasions, I believe, pledged, committed and promised—to repeal the carbon tax if elected. So what did we do? We came into office. We did exactly what we committed to.

The first piece of legislation which was brought before this House was to repeal the carbon tax. The first piece of legislation passed by this House was the repeal of the carbon tax. And now what do we see in the Senate? We see an opposition, which says it is fundamental to uphold your promises, doing everything they can to ensure that a government does not uphold its promise. There may be a certain element of hypocrisy. Now, of course, I cannot allege that against any individual member of the opposition, but, collectively, they might just want to consider: if they bring a motion about a failure to carry out election promises, and if they bring a motion about honesty and accountability, perhaps—just perhaps—looking in the mirror might be a great place to start!

Having said that, this was the same group that, when in government, pledged that there would be no budget deficits. I remember the great Kevin Rudd saying: 'Our budget orthodoxy is identical to the Howard government's. There is not a sliver of light between us. I'm an economic conservative and that means budget surpluses.' Except, let me remind the House: $27 billion, $54 billion, $47 billion, $43 billion, $18 billion and, this year, well over $30 billion and climbing—those are the deficits from their six budgets. Six budgets; a perfect record of six deficits!

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

No, I believe in budget surpluses and we will deliver budget surpluses.

They promised to be tough on borders. They were going to maintain, as, I think, Kevin Rudd said, a very hard line, a very tough line, on people smuggling.

Mr Chester interjecting—

Well, as the member for Gippsland says, how did that go? Not altogether well! But we pledged that we would take measures to stop the boats, and we are stopping the boats. It is 70 days and counting—we are not claiming victory yet; we are not overclaiming; but 70 days and counting is an especially good record so far.

They promised that they would not touch the private health insurance rebate. Well, we can forget that one. And then they promised there would be no new taxes. Apart from the carbon tax, there was the superannuation tax free changes, the restrictions on business losses, the changes to the employee share scheme, the impost of the mining tax—Oh, the mining tax! How are you going, member for Perth? It's great to have you in the House!—the ethanol taxation increases, the LPG increase, the tightening on restriction on medical expenses, and the increase in the luxury car tax.

But let me turn, now that we have looked at the issue of broken promises, to the second part of this motion, which is all about honesty and accountability. I cannot help but go to the words of none other than the Leader of the Opposition, who has an eye for honesty and accountability wherever he goes, talking to Neil Mitchell:

Neil Mitchell:

You've run a union, you understand these things, do you support him?

They are talking about Craig Thomson. 'Oh, yeah,' says Bill Shorten—all he had to say was, 'I support him'—

Oh, yeah, I believe him.

Neil Mitchell:

You believe him, no case to answer?

Bill Shorten:

I believe him …

Talk about an eye for honesty!

So that is what we say to these people: you come here talking about honesty? Let us remind you about a couple of other things. The Leader of the Opposition said, in 2012, on 18 June:

The 2012-13 budget delivers on the government's commitment to return the budget to surplus …

Oops! $18.8 billion dollars was the deficit which you guys had. That was the deficit which the Leader of the Opposition declared was a surplus. He also went on to say, on another occasion: 'It's a remarkable accomplishment.' I just want to repeat that:

It is a remarkable accomplishment when you look around the rest of the world to see how well this government and our Treasurer have done—

that was when they were still friends—

in producing a surplus.

Oops! Not quite! Then he went on, on another occasion, to talk about:

… delivering on our commitment to return the budget to surplus and with surpluses growing over the forward estimates.

Except for the fact: there were none!

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

I will tell you what we did: we delivered 10 out of 11 surpluses.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the mining boom.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have now delivered 11 out of 11 deficits.

Opposition members interjecting—

I will take on some of the comments here. 'It was the mining boom.' Their whole philosophy of government is: 11 out of 11 deficits, and they are unlucky; and we deliver 10 out of 11 surpluses and we are just plain lucky. So, if you want to understand the difference in approach—

Opposition members interjecting—

They believe that government is about luck and bad luck. We believe that government is about—

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Kingston is interjecting outside of her place.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

good policy and bad policy. We also believe that government is about openness, honesty, transparency and accountability, and that is why, when we said we would repeal the carbon tax, we carried out our carbon tax commitment. We brought it into this House. We had it repealed. We are waiting for you in the Senate. And if you actually believe one word of this motion, which, as I said, is about failure to deliver on election promises, let us deliver our election promise. The only people standing between us delivering on the carbon tax repeal election promise are those on the other side and their senators, who are out on strike. I have to say: we have work-to-rule in the Senate from the ALP senators. As of Sunday, it will be three months exactly since the carbon tax repeal bills were delivered in the Senate. So, if you want to see openness, honesty, accountability, transparency and delivery of election promises, get out of the way and repeal the carbon tax. (Time expired)

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a fairly extraordinary contribution from the Minister for the Environment, which is a title many members of the environmental movement say now with tongue in cheek. The Abbott government has certainly failed its first test of integrity. Mr Abbott's assistant health minister, Senator Nash, has breached the Prime Minister's ministerial standards. Let me take you to those standards. They are standards that require that ministers act with the greatest integrity of office, not allow their decisions to be affected by bias and make decisions in the public interest. In fact, that is principle 1.3 under those standards, which says:

(i) Ministers must ensure that they act with integrity …

(ii) Ministers must observe fairness in making official decisions—that is, to act honestly and reasonably, with consultation as appropriate to the matter at issue …

(iii) Ministers must accept accountability for the exercise of the powers and functions of their office—that is, to ensure that their conduct, representations and decisions … are open to public scrutiny and explanation.

By any standard, the Assistant Minister for Health has failed those standards.

There was a conflict of interest at the heart of her office. That conflict has led to an infected public policy decision. It is so corrupted by the conflict of interest that the only way to resolve it is for the Minister for Health to reverse it. The Minister for Health claims to be so concerned about the health impacts of obesity and diabetes, but he has let this infected public policy decision stand. Worse, he has allowed the ridiculous antics of the member for Herbert to mock a health policy that every public health and obesity expert in the country supports. Sixty-six eminent public health professionals have written that this infected public policy decision should absolutely be reversed, and all he can do is mock.

Instead, the government has sought to destroy two years of work on the health star rating system and to trash the strong relationships that the former shadow parliamentary secretary, the member for Boothby, spent years developing with the sector. They trashed those relationships with the sector that the member for Boothby developed. The member for Boothby has shown some integrity in this debate by standing up for the health star rating system. A former health professional himself—

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member can disagree with our argument but she cannot question our integrity just because she is opposed to it.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Boothby has shown great integrity in this debate, standing up for the health star rating system. I cannot say the same for the Assistant Minister for Health. When the conflict of interest emerged, she tried to cover it up. Now she continues to mislead parliament and refuses to accept responsibility. She misled Senate estimates yesterday. She said her former chief of staff, Alistair Furnival, had resigned his directorship of SMI, which owns the lobbying firm Australian Public Affairs. This is not true. The records show that he still held that directorship on 13 February. She said the Prime Minister's statement of standards allowed for staff to divest interests to their spouses. This is not true. The statement says that transferring interests to family members is not an acceptable form of divestment. Senator Nash told estimates that she had required her chief of staff to divest himself of these interests and directorships. She said: 'I required those undertakings. It was my responsibility. I ensured that they were done.' The trouble is that these things were not done. But now she is refusing to accept any responsibility.

What emerged further last night was just how close this cosy little relationship was between the Prime Minister, the assistant health minister's former chief of staff and the announcement of $16 million for Cadbury. There was only a candidate between them at the announcement of Pollie Pedal, sponsored by Cadbury. There are photos of the Prime Minister and the former chief of staff together, teammates in the Cadbury Pollie Pedal that I was denied the right to have a ride in. If ever there was a case of something being rotten in the state of Denmark then this is absolutely it. The Prime Minister should reverse this infected policy decision now. (Time expired)

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member was impugning improper motives towards the end of that. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that last section of her speech.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Ballarat would assist the chamber in the interests of getting on with the job if she would withdraw.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am unable to withdraw because it is simply true. There is a close relationship between the Prime Minister, the assistant health minister's former chief of staff and the $16 million Cadbury—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat does not have the call. I will now ask the member for Ballarat to withdraw. If you do not, you will be defying the chair and you know the consequences.

Regretfully, I am defying the chair.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just withdraw.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regretfully, I am defying the chair.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are standing by your statement that you will not withdraw. Under 94(a) the member for Ballarat will leave the chamber for defying the chair.

The member for Ballarat then left the chamber.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an outrageous slur we have just heard from the member for Ballarat. It is outrageous to come into this place and disparage, of all things, the Pollie Pedal ride. The Pollie Pedal ride has raised literally hundreds of thousands of dollars for extremely worthy causes in this nation. It has had bipartisan support in the past. Members of both sides have participated in the Pollie Pedal. I am staggered that the member for Ballarat would seek to disparage a charity ride like that in this place and then defy the chair—but I am not surprised, because this matter of public importance goes straight to the issue of trust. It goes straight to the heart of the difference between this government and the previous government.

I know it hurts those members opposite—they have suddenly gone very quiet, haven't they?—those government change deniers opposite. The Australian people made a decision in September last year, and that decision was that they simply do not trust the Labor Party anymore. They simply do not trust the Labor Party to deliver value for money with taxpayers' dollars. They did not trust the Labor Party to repeal the carbon tax, they did not trust the Labor Party to regain control of our borders and they did not trust the Labor Party to deliver responsible government after years of sleaze and scandal. They simply did not trust the Labor Party to govern the greatest nation in the world. In voting for their local Liberal and National Party candidates at last year's election, the people instinctively understood that they were leaving us with a huge job to do—and we are up to that job. They know we have a mess to clean up.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You failed in six months.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rumpole, they know we have a mess to clean up. They know there is a huge repair job ahead of us.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the Deputy Speaker to ask the member to refer to members by their title.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gippsland knows that he should refer to members by their title or their electorate.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw 'Rumpole'. Sorry.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member is defying your ruling.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, he withdrew.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, he repeated the insult—not withdrew it. I would ask him to withdraw it.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gippsland will withdraw the comment unreservedly.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unreservedly. As I was saying, the Australian people understand that we have a mess to clean up. It is more likely that the Australian people would phone their local Jim's Cleaning service to clean up this mess than ask the Labor Party to do it. I actually had the time during question time to check with Jim's Cleaning in Canberra. They are currently offering a no-obligation free quote for their cleaning service. Their promotional material is very interesting stuff. I would like to quote from it:

In this day and age security and trust are a vital for the consumer …

I would say that they are vital for the Australian voters as well. But the big advertising message for Jim's Cleaning right here in Canberra is very insightful:

So sit back, relax and let us do the dirty work while you spend your spare time doing the things you enjoy!

There you go! Perhaps someone from Jim's Cleaning right here in Canberra is sending a new political strategy to the Australian Labor Party:

So sit back, relax and let us do the dirty work while you spend your spare time doing the things you enjoy!

Now what would that be? What do those members opposite like doing? I don't know. Stacking branches, perhaps? I don't know. Plotting against their leader? Wasting taxpayers' money running false scare campaigns, opposing every new thing that this government puts forward?

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sledging military leaders.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the member for Dawson's interjection. I encourage those opposite to get back to what they enjoy doing and let us get on with the job of cleaning up this mess. I am amazed, as the member for Flinders was, at the audacity, the irony and the hypocrisy of those opposite in proposing this matter of public importance which speaks about a failure to deliver on promises.

We only have to go back two or three years ago and reflect on what the member for Lilley told us in his budget speech in 2012:

The four years of surpluses I announce tonight are a powerful endorsement of the strength of our economy …

He went on:

This Budget delivers a surplus this coming year, on time, as promised, and surpluses each year after that, strengthening over time.

And then there was the member for Lalor, who said:

I rule out a carbon tax ... There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead …

No-one on this side of the House, no-one in the Australian community, has forgotten that fundamental breach of trust between the former Labor government and our nation. It goes to the core of every bit of anger in the community in the lead-up to last year's election. It explains why the Australian people simply do not trust the Australian Labor Party and why they want to us clean up the mess.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a sad day when I am having to rise to actually point out to those on the other side their repeated failure to deliver on their election promises. The list is very long, and I will get to that point. There is also their failure to deliver honest and accountable government. Before the election, we heard the Prime Minister say, 'There will be no surprises and no excuses,' from a coalition government—there will be no nasty surprises and lame excuses from the people that you have trusted with the future. But, unfortunately, day after day we see this Prime Minister come in here and make lame excuses and announce nasty surprises. Of course, it starts with jobs.

There was a promise before the election of one million jobs in five years. But, day after a day, we see this Prime Minister say that it is regrettable there are job losses at Holden; it is regrettable there are job losses at SPC and it is regrettable there are job losses at Alcoa—and the list goes on and on. He does not come in here and actually explain what he is going to do. He does not come in and say what his plan is to create one million jobs. He just comes in here. But it gets worse. He will go on TV or send in one of his cheerleaders to blame the workers: 'They get paid too much at SPC.' 'They get paid too much at Qantas.' 'It is the workers' fault that they are losing their jobs.' Then he will blame the unions: 'It is the unions' fault for standing up for their members and asking for too much money.' Heaven forbid that they should ask for penalty rates in an enterprise agreement! That is outrageous. 'If only they didn't do that, they would not be losing their jobs.' Then from time to time the government blame the companies: 'The companies have not negotiated good, lean, efficient agreements. It is their fault that people are losing their jobs.' Of course, over and over again we hear this Prime Minister make excuses about why there are job losses, but there is never an explanation about how he is going create one million jobs. There is never an explanation for why he is cutting co-investment from places like Holden and Toyota—places that are creating jobs. The exception is if you are a chocolate company. If you are a chocolate company then there is a special deal of co-investment. I think this has really highlighted to the Australian people that, despite the promises before the election of honest and accountable government, the disparity in the government's behaviour. To SPC and Holden, they say, 'We won't give handouts to these companies; they don't deserve it; private companies shouldn't be propped up,' but for Cadburys it is a different issue.

The government have failed to explain how it is different. They have come with—in the Prime Minister's words—lame excuses about how one is a tourism grant and the other is investment in industry, but there is no difference between the two, except one important point—that is, as we have heard today, it is not a junk food lobbyist; it is a chocolate economist. That is the difference between SPC and Qantas and Cadbury. It is appalling that they have not had to go through proper accountability measures. All it took was one person, one lobbyist, to sit down next to the Prime Minister and have a quick word in his ear. We now know that he was given as a reward a promotion to sit in the Assistant Minister for Health's office, to whisper in her ear, to get more deals done.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 90, the member is imputing a motive against the Prime Minister. I would ask her to withdraw that.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kingston will withdraw that imputation if she wants to continue speaking.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to withdraw the imputation. It was not to the Prime Minister, though; it was to the Assistant Minister for Health. I have to say that the broken promises of this government are endless. I will start with the broken promises in health. I have the member for Chifley here. The member for Chifley worked hard to secure an MIR machine for Mount Druitt. It was funded in the budget and this government cut it. This government cut it from the hardworking people in Mount Druitt. The member for Chifley will continue to stand up, as will this opposition, for health and to stop health cuts in this place. Unfortunately, this government needs to stop making up lies—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The word 'lie' will be withdrawn.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw that. Stop misleading the people of Australia about health cuts. (Time expired)

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It takes a particular type of chutzpah to come into this place and to claim that those on the other side of the chamber were people who delivered honest and accountable government and delivered on their promises and that we on this side of the chamber are not doing so. In fact, it is not just chutzpah; it actually takes a breathtaking arrogance to make such a claim. Let me remind the chamber of the record of the previous Labor government. Let us start with the carbon tax. At the last election, Kevin Rudd claimed that he was going to get rid of the carbon tax. This was off the back of Prime Minister Julia Gillard declaring that there would be no carbon tax under the government she led. So initially they promised not to do it; but they did it. Then they said they would get rid of the carbon tax; but now the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, is blocking us scrapping the carbon tax, as we promised the Australian people we would do, in the Senate. This is quite extraordinary. This is a $9 billion a year tax that they are blocking us getting rid of in the Senate today. If anybody is standing in the way of us delivering on our promises it is, in fact, the Labor Party. They have a very poor record of being able to deliver on theirs.

The second issue I would like to draw the attention of the chamber to today is the claims of the previous government that they would be economic conservatives. Kevin Rudd claimed he would be an economic conservative. Julia Gillard said she would continue on in that tradition—and, boy, did she ever!—and Wayne Swan guaranteed that he was going to be a Treasurer who delivered surpluses. He actually guaranteed this, along with Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd, over 500 times. In fact, even when delivering his budget, he said he had done so, that he had delivered a surplus. Many people in the electorate were misled by the previous government because they distributed pamphlets saying it had been done. Of course, their record was to deliver not one surplus over six years. In fact, they delivered six deficits, cumulative deficits that added up to more than $190 billion.

If we did nothing today and simply went down the same path, the same trajectory the Labor Party had set for us, there would be $123 billion of deficit to come and gross debt of more than $650 billion. We are not going to do that, because we acknowledged to the Australian people that we needed to repair the damage done by the previous Labor government, that we needed to repair the national balance sheet. We said that we would do that by making sure that we as a government would live within our means and that we would be true economic conservatives, because we know how to deliver a surplus and we know how to balance a budget.

We have put in place already a Commission of Audit, which, line by line, is going through all of the spending, all of the schemes, all of the programs, put together by the previous government and that we need to repair, and this will form part of our next budget package when it is delivered in May by the Treasurer.

The third thing I want to draw to the attention of the House is border protection. The previous government said it was going to be tough on border protection and dismantled the previous very successful Howard government scheme. We saw more than 50,000 people arrive, unauthorised, by boat, we saw more than $11 billion blow out in the budget as a result and, tragically, we saw more than 1,000 lives lost. We have now put in place Operation Sovereign Borders, and we have done that so as to stem the loss of life on the seas. We have done that because we believe it is important first to have sovereignty on our borders. This has already yielded very strong results. Already, we have seen not one boat arrive for more than 70 consecutive days; whereas at the same time in the previous year under the previous Labor government more than 1,800 people arrive, unauthorised, by boat. So we are delivering on our promises. We are delivering on the promises we made to the Australian people, because we are a responsible government. We believe it is important to keep the trust of the Australian people. We will not have the same failure that the previous government had on this issue of trust, and we will continue to deliver for the people of Australia. (Time expired)

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The 5,000 people at Qantas who found out today that they will not have a job anymore, the 63,000 full-time employees who have found out since the election that they will not have a job anymore, the workers in Gove and the workers at Toyota and Holden will be really, really relieved to hear today from the Prime Minister that, instead of a plan for jobs, he is offering a glass and a half of hope. The reality is that hope will not put food on the table for all of those tens of thousands of workers while the Prime Minister determines that he is above coming up with a jobs plan for our community.

The Prime Minister's word might mean something if you are a chocolate lobbyist or a chocolate economist. If you are a former Howard government minister, his word might mean something. As I have said before, the job market is flash if you used to be in the Howard cabinet. But for 63,000 people, it is pretty ordinary. The members who spoke before me, the good speakers from our side, talked about the broken promises in health, education, and in terms of transparency and standards, and there are the other broken promises on things like the ABC and the NBN. I know that the Prime Minister has said before that you can only take him at his word when it is a scripted comment, so I thought we should probably go back to his campaign speech. He would not only like to pretend that he is not the same guy who made all these promises; he would like to pretend that he has never met him. Let us remind people of what he said in his election campaign speech:

It's performance, not promises, that will earn your respect; it's actions, not words, that you are looking for.

When it comes to the jobs market, it is not enough to have a glossy brochure about a million jobs when you are going backwards by 63,000 jobs. The then opposition leader also said in his campaign speech—and I agree with him:

… you don't build a better society by issuing a press release.

The same is true about a glossy brochure about a million jobs. Another thing that the then opposition leader said in his campaign speech:

I want our workers to be the best paid in the world …

That is what he said in his campaign speech when he was looking for people's votes. He wants people to be the best paid in the world, unless they are in aged care, child care, small business or any of the other industries where we have seen wages cut. He also said:

I want to lift everyone's standard of living.

Again, that is unless you are in aged care, child care, small business; unless you are relying on the schoolkids bonus or low-income super; unless you are a multicultural community relying on a grant to help out your community; unless you want to take your kids to the doctor, particularly if you have a big family, and paying $6 every time stings. That is what he said about the standard of living.

Those opposite will like this one. He said:

We'll get the budget back under control …

Those opposite are all into that. Then he did a grubby deal with the Greens to take off the debt limit on the national credit card. He said before the election, 'We'll get the budget under control,' and then he did a deal with the Greens to jack up the debt.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the Buzz Lightyear deal: 'To infinity and beyond.' The next thing he said in his campaign speech was that Australia will be 'open for business'. Again, that is unless you are GrainCorp, Holden or Toyota; unless you are the small businesses that he took the investment allowance and the loss carry-back from. Australian is open for business except if you are in any of those industries. Another thing he said really got my attention when I was reading it today. He said:

I will govern for all Australians.

Again, not if you are in a multicultural community and you require a grant, not if you have sick kids and you cannot afford to go to the doctor, not if you are in small business and you need loss carry-back or the investment allowance, not if you are someone who needs a couple of hundred dollars at the start of the year to buy the textbooks, not if you are a childcare worker looking after little kids in our community—

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Racist.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the member to withdraw the comments in relation to multicultural communities. They are offensive and carry deep and dark implications and should not be allowed to stand.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the member to withdraw the accusation of 'racist'.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will firstly rule on the minister's point of order. It has been a lively debate and I will let the comments stand unless the member for Rankin would like to withdraw it in the interests of the chamber.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I will do that. Thank you.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Rankin. And I would ask the member for Corangamite to withdraw the comment in the interests of the chamber.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the previous reference has been withdrawn, I happily withdraw. Thank you.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will give the member for Rankin some extra time. He has about 40 seconds.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It remains the case that the multicultural grants have been cut and the Victorian branch turned around after cutting the multicultural grants and asked for a donation from the multicultural community. Those are the facts of the matter. The reality is that this is not the government that people voted for. They did not vote for lower wages. They did not vote for fewer jobs. We will keep holding the government accountable. (Time expired)

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an honour to speak for the first time on a matter of public importance. As if it could not get any more ironic than the topic of the MPI, I get to follow the member for Rankin. This MPI is really two MPIs in one: 'the government’s repeated failure to deliver on its election promises' and 'failure to deliver honest and accountable government'. I will talk about the second part first. I could not help but note with interest the member for Rankin's comments, and I note also that he is a doctor of economics. If I am not mistaken, the member for Fraser is also a doctor of economics and in the former parliament there was another doctor of economics, the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness. I cannot help but think that, given the fact that we are to be honest and accountable, we should start with accountability. I am glad that a medical doctor takes the Hippocratic oath and has to promise not to kill anybody, but that does not apply to doctors of economics because their field of expertise is the economy.

After six years of the Labor government, the economy is in bad shape. Yes, we are in government right now. We have $123 billion of debt in the forward estimates and gross debt will hit $667 billion. This economy is in a state of cardiac arrest. It needs strong and stable government and decisions that are taken in the nation's interest and not for political expediency. The Abbott government will do that, and I am proud to be a part of this government. It is ironic to have our honesty questioned when we have to deal with the legacy of a government responsible for probably the biggest election fraud in our history. In a lot of ways that is probably a motivation for my standing before you today.

This is a great country, but it had a bad government. This country has opportunity and prosperity in front of it, but it needs good government. As for failure to deliver our promises—and other members have commented on this—70 days without a people smuggler's boat is a start. It is not the end; it is the start. Getting the carbon tax repeal legislation through must be done. All the economists on the other side can sit around and talk about theory, but I come from a family business background. I can talk about economics in practice, what happens on the ground. The expense side of every P&L statement of every business in Australia, irrespective of size, has been mercilessly persecuted over the last six years.

It will be small and medium-sized businesses that will solve the employment problem this country has. Whilst today is a tragic day for Qantas, it will not be government, it will not be unions and it will not be big businesses that solve the employment issues this country has. It will be, as it has always been, small and medium-sized businesses that do so. They are the backbone of not only Reid but Australia and they should be supported. The best way to support them is to allow us to implement our election commitment, get out of the expense side of their profit and loss statements and let them employ people.

This government is building infrastructure, and in my electorate that infrastructure is the WestConnex. My electorate is cut in half, and Parramatta Road has become slower and slower. It is great to be out on the ground, working with my two state colleagues in delivering this vital piece of infrastructure. Parramatta Road is a car dealership haven. It is also great to be part of a government that did not follow through with an act of lunacy that would have killed car dealerships Australia wide by not legislating on the fringe benefits tax. These are some of the issues we have confronted already. I, like my colleagues, urge those opposite to get out of our way and let us get on with offering Australia the government it voted in on 7 September. We will make decisions to enable companies to do the lifting and employ people to give our kids the future they deserve.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The performance of the Abbott government is summed up by one fact and one quote. The quote is from the now Prime Minister on 28 November 2012:

… I am committing a future Coalition government to creating one million new jobs within five years …

The fact is this: in the first six months of the Abbott government, 63,000 Australian full-time jobs have been lost. That is the reality of the situation—the quote, the reality. Today an additional 5,000 hardworking, dedicated Australians are being shown the door at Qantas.

On 5 December Qantas lost their investment-grade credit rating. Since that time they have been screaming out for some form of government assistance. We have all seen Qantas management walking up and down the hallways of Parliament House in the last three or four months. They have been seeking some form of government assistance and commitment to a national carrier. What response did they get from this government? The same response that Holden got, the same response that the workers at SPC Ardmona got—not a thing. They did not get one whimper from the government about the importance of Qantas as a national carrier. In fact, they got the complete opposite—just as Holden were goaded into leaving Australia, Qantas have been goaded into taking on their staff or getting 'their house in order', as the Prime Minister and others opposite have said. The implication is that Qantas will drive down the wages and working conditions of their employees as a condition of getting this government to do anything to assist our national carrier.

I say to those Qantas workers, to those who are uncertain, particularly those in my community, where many of them reside, that Labor does not blame them. We have sympathy for them and we are thinking about them. Labor will fight to ensure that Qantas has a future in this country, that Qantas has its board in Australia, that Qantas does maintenance in Australia and that Qantas remains our national carrier. That is our commitment to job creation and to the workers of Qantas, unlike those opposite, who will not lift a finger to help our national carrier.

When it comes to education, our nation's education system is failing our kids. We have all seen the results from the fall in standards in education. Labor developed a new model for funding schools—a needs based model to ensure that those kids that are falling behind, many of them in country areas, in low socioeconomic areas, kids with disabilities, get the support that they need through our education system. It was a thorough study undertaken over many years comprising consultations with academics, experts, teachers, principals, parents and students. It was the Gonski reform model. What was the commitment of the Abbott government prior to the election? It is in this quote from Tony Abbott:

… as far as school funding is concerned, Kevin Rudd and I are on a unity ticket.

That is what the Prime Minister said. What did the Minister for Education say? On 29 August 2013 he said at an education forum:

We have agreed to the government's school funding model.

What is the reality? The reality is they have completely undermined that needs based system of funding by not ensuring that the states put additional money into the Gonski reform package, by not ensuring that the states are committing to a needs based funding model. In my home state of New South Wales we have seen, to his credit, the education minister stand up to Tony Abbott and to Christopher Pyne—stand up to the education minister and say, 'It's not on.' He understands that if you are going to improve results, if you are going to improve student outcomes in New South Wales, you need to be investing in education, and they have committed to putting more money to funding the Gonski reforms—unlike the education minister, who said to Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory: 'It's okay. You don't need to put more money into education. You don't need to invest in a needs based model.'

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We rightly point out on this side of the House that those opposite are divided on so many things, but we have seen today that they are united on one thing: they are completely, utterly unembarrassable. Have a look at the front of this MPI—to come in and lecture the government on honesty and accountability, when the previous six years of government was littered with dishonesty and incompetence which was covered up with more dishonesty and incompetence.

Speakers on this side have rightly pointed out the uncountable number of times the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley, pledged a surplus and then announced a surplus and declared a surplus when it never existed. We can go right back to the time they had their first deficit. The instinct of those opposite was to cover up. The member for Lilley delivered the budget speech with a deficit except he omitted to actually mention what the deficit was. When you add up a budget, when it all comes down to it, it comes down to a number—a surplus or a deficit. Having gone into deficit and missed target after target, he then projected surpluses and, as we know, announced that that surplus had occurred. It was the budget equivalent of photoshopping.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allocated for this discussion has expired.