Tony Smith (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 failure of the Government to provide stable and competent government at a time of increased unemployment and economic uncertainty.

I call upon those honourable 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—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the rest of the Australian people, Labor has watched the tumultuous last 24 hours. Many Australians actually hope that the events, regardless of the manner and the method, will be a move away from the reactionary, fractured government of Mr Abbott. We know the list. Apparently everyone in this government supported them and never raised these particularly, but we know the list of this reactionary, fractured government—this government of a wasted two years taking Australia nowhere. We remember the knighthoods. We remember the unfairness and the unbroken promises of the 2014 and 2015 budgets. We remember the more recent foolish remarks, denigrating climate change, by the immigration minister—the latest in a string of insensitive blunders and gaffs by that repeat offender. We remember the petty ideological fights with everyone who ever dared to be a critic of this government. Most importantly, we remember the lack of economic direction and the lack of economic leadership, rising unemployment, stalled growth and falling wages.

Now our new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, has made a promise to restore stability. He has said that they will restore cabinet government. Now I happen to think that just promising to have a cabinet government, in and of itself, is not exactly the tyranny of high expectations. But we, the Australian people and Labor on behalf of the Australian people, look forward to even this modicum of stability. But what I wish to place on record today is that good intentions alone are not enough. The real challenge is that Mr Turnbull leads a political party hugely of the reactionary right. The question which remains to be seen after the last two wasted years of this experimental Liberal government is: can Mr Turnbull move this reactionary party to something approaching approximating the centre of Australian politics?

Labor have always been prepared to be constructive if we receive and see rational, reasonable policy—not, of course, the unfairness and the dishonesty of the 2014 budget. But our fear for Australia is that the Turnbull Liberal government is already fatally comprised. The once great Liberals have moved to the right, and the test for the Prime Minister is: can he bring the Liberal Party back to the centre against the proclivities of a range of his MPs and, indeed, his new partners, the Nationals? But we already see that Mr Turnbull has made promises. He has been prepared to throw his long-held convictions overboard. He has made a deal with the National Party, the existence of which we had to practically interrogate the government to concede. He says, ' Well, it will all be dealt with by cabinet.' But the problem is the deal is already done. You do not run government and cabinet government by fait accompli. So much for the pledge for new process! Indeed, in his first hour on the job, Mr Turnbull has already given away $3.6 billion that his new apprentice Treasurer—we are not quite sure who the Treasurer is; we are just reasonably sure it is not the current one—has already spent on his childcare package.

In the period between now and whenever the election takes place, perhaps we will finally get the answer to the great conundrum of Australian Liberal politics: is it style over substance? Today in question time, I asked Mr Turnbull, 'Are the policies going to change?' And he said very clearly, 'We support all of our current policies.' To me this confirms that last night the change was all about the style. It was about panicked MPs worrying about their job security and not thinking about the jobs of Australians. There is nothing of substance which will change in this government.

Another way to put this question is this conundrum of Australian politics: is it style over substance? Does Mr Turnbull believe in much at all? Does he believe in taking political risks to see Australia advance? I know he says he believes in the republic, marriage equality and climate change. But does he really want to advance the republic? Will he have to be signed up to become a constitutional monarchist to keep his caucus in line? Why does he not wish to fulfil the Menzian tradition of a free vote on important matters like marriage equality? He says, 'Oh, no, we want to have the people.' That is fine, Mr Turnbull. The people will get to decide at the next election. What I do not understand is why he wants to have a $150 million taxpayer-funded opinion poll designed by the man he replaced to delay marriage equality in his country. Another example of what Mr Turnbull does or does not believe in is: will he move to an emissions trading scheme or will he compromise? Has he done a deal to obtain the highest office in the land which means throwing overboard issues which he said he has believed in for a very long time?

The truth is that Australia wants more than a new Liberal leader; it wants a new direction. Mr Turnbull yesterday, said that the case for change was this: we need to have a cabinet government. Thanks for telling us that for the last two years you were not participating in a cabinet government. When did you decide that the cabinet government was not a cabinet government, and why did it take you two years and two rotten budgets to be truthful with the Australian people? Mr Turnbull said yesterday the case for dumping Mr Abbott was that there have been 30 Newspolls in a roll. That is it—30 Newspolls in a row—and they decided: 'That's it, Mr Abbott. We are going to change who the leader is.' Furthermore, what he and his deputy said is that there was real change in the party room. Well, apart from the deputy leader and Mr Turnbull, actually there were only 52 people that changed what they thought. So all of this is the case for sacking Mr Abbott: the panic of a bare majority of Liberal MPs and some opinion polls.

I do not think, though, that last night was all about that. I think it was actually a rejection of Mr Abbott on some deeper grounds. It was not just the self-interest of Liberal MPs and it was not just a string of bad opinion polls. Last night was not just a rejection of Mr Abbott; it was a rejection of the last two years. How dreadful it must feel to wake up every morning and work in a government and realise your first two years of government has to be junked. How dreadful must it be to look in the mirror and realise that the nation does not want what you have been selling Australia: two years under this dysfunctional government, two years under what has clearly been a very divided government—although no-one told Mr Hockey what was going on at all.

But the real problems are not the dislikes of those opposite me. The real problem is that unemployment is up. I think we are all sick and tired of the government saying there have been a certain number of jobs created. Why don't they tell the truth? When you look at the number of extra Australians in the last two years of adult working age, only 57 per cent of these people are actually in work. The real truth of the matter is that this has been a lacklustre, do-nothing, disastrous government . Underemployment is up. Youth unemployment is up. Debt is up Deficit is up. Growth is down. Confidence is down. Real wages increases are down on what they have normally been. We have just gone through two years of cuts to pensions, cuts to schools, cuts to hospitals, cuts to families, cuts to carers, cuts to veterans and attacks on Medicare. There are the $100,000 degrees. There have even been cuts to the ABC and SBS.

The truth is that the question that Australians have is: what does Mr Turnbull believe in? Does he believe that this is just a question of changing the salesman or the product? Is it just a change of leader or is it a change of direction? The truth is that all those people who voted Mr Abbott out last night—Mr Turnbull and his whole coterie of supporters—have voted for every cut for every pension. There are reams of transcripts. This group, who now say that the economic direction has been wrong, were for two years cheering it along. They have sat at the same cabinet table and they have signed the same deals. I believe now that the burden is upon Mr Turnbull to choose policies that are in the best interests of this nation to prove that he believes in something beyond his own promotion.

Our party is guided by universal principles. We have certainty and comfort in our values and our vision. We shall see where this rather ratty Liberal Party goes. There is a chance for this nation to step up and debate policies in this parliament for the next election that give Australians a genuine choice about the best path to the future. Labor is up for this challenge. We will find out if the government are.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We learnt nothing about Labor from the contribution from the Leader of the Opposition. He was masquerading. He was supposed to be talking about economic stability and the plan for employment and economic growth. We heard absolutely nothing—not a word—from Labor. This is the two years of living dangerously for Bill Shorten. In that time he has had to placate the unions. He has had to keep the Labor crowd together. He has had to go further to the left to make sure his popularity was not I suppose displaced by the popularity of Mr Albanese. He knew he was not the popular choice so he has had to do the bidding of the union movement to keep his grasp on power.

We heard the Leader of the Opposition, a fully owned subsidiary of the union movement. He was to talk about a plan for the future and yet we managed to get absolutely nothing. He talked about wasted years. The wasted years were clearly the wasted years of Labor. They have talked about being constructive but have not managed to do it. They have moved further to the left, further from the sensible centre of Australian politics. They have sought to hide from their record of failure, lack of commitment and their complete absence of a plan when they were in office. They talk about what everyone else should be doing.

Even today when the 29th Prime Minister of Australia had his first question time what did we get from Labor? We often look to the member for Blaxland. Some people have him in high regard—I have him in high regard. He ended up wanting to have a conversation about whether the new Prime Minister has personally poleaxed somebody. What does that add? How does that help in any way whatsoever to get more opportunities for jobs in our economy and stronger growth and to build resilience and agility in our nation? It does not help at all, but it tells you all you need to know about modern Labor. They are not interested in policy issues. They are not interested in turning their mind to the challenges that we face as a nation. They are not interested in crafting policies that enable us to be the best we possibly can be as an economy and as a people. No, we get a question about someone being poleaxed. That says all you need to know. For all of their talk Labor has no credibility.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have lots to say as interjections but that adds nothing in terms of some sort of alternative plan. They damaged the economy. They hurt and harmed businesses. They hard-wired in economic challenges and budget burns with no plan to meet them. They have damaged every respect of good governance. They have no credibility at all to speak about the performance of this government, because they left such a mess and we are getting on with the job of fixing it.

They have spent the last 10 months or so defending a carbon tax. They have consistently voted to keep it, to hit and harm Australian households and small businesses. They do not build our capacity to compete and win new economic opportunities made possible by free trade agreements—no, they want to nobble our capacity to take advantage of those agreements and then bag the agreements as well. I recount in this place that the now opposition leader when he was the tsar of the Australian Workers Union seconded a motion at the Labor state conference—I think in 2004—opposing a free trade agreement with China before negotiations had even started. Before those negotiations even started he was against any kind of agreement with China that would open up jobs and trading opportunities. So let us have none of this nonsense from Labor that there are deficiencies in the deal. They do not want any deal at all. Why don't they want any deal at all? Because that is what the unions demand of them.

It is interesting to see where the strength in the union movement is. The unions are most dominant in the areas of the economy that are not trade exposed. That is where they are bullying, pushing around, huffing, puffing, blustering and demanding good things for the unions even if they harm the economy. They think it does not matter because all it does is push up costs and damage opportunities for others.

Do you see much union activity in the traded sector of the economy? No, you do not. This is why you see this inherent hostility to trade opportunities, to opening the door to hundreds of millions of new prospective customers—the very markets that enable our agile and enterprising businesses to delight those customers and grow the economy and the jobs that flow from them. That is what we are trying to do. Labor cannot even face up to its ambition to make it harder for Australian businesses to win the contest of modern economies—that is, new markets that are not reserved for us. This is what Labor does not seem to understand. Yes, we are an increasingly global marketplace. These trade agreements give us an advantage to make the most out of those trade opportunities to create new customers, new value, new jobs and new growth opportunities.

What does Labor want to do? Nobble our potential to meet that—load up the burdens of carbon taxes and keep the red tape festival they presided over so we lose the agility and the capacity to win those markets. Newsflash for Labor: there is a world of delicious opportunities out there but they are not reserved for us. We need to win them; we need to work to secure them and get the economic benefits that flow from them. That is off the back of the price that all of our citizens in our nation are paying for six years of Labor incompetence. We are still paying $1 billion a month to service Labor's debt. We borrowed $100 million today because of the budget settings hard-wired by an incompetent and economically illiterate Labor Party that has learnt nothing over the journey.

While we repair the budget so we live within our means, while we deal with changes in the economy, from the mining sector to the non-mining sector, while we address the demography that is having an impact on our future opportunities, while we work hard to boost productivity, entrepreneurship and private endeavour—all of the things we need to grow the incomes for the future and to underwrite the great promise of our country that the next generation will have it better than us—what do we get from Labor? Obstruction. No ideas. No capacity to engage in a constructive way. Just thinking that life is about a Labor Party branch meeting.

As long as they keep talking the talk that they like hearing amongst themselves, ignoring—is it one in eight members of our economy who are members of a union?—the interests of the rest of the economy, ignoring the opportunities we want to provide to those people looking for jobs, for new markets and for new ways to grow the economy, we have that plan and we have been implementing that plan. It is to repair the budget and it is to remove the obstacles to economic and jobs growth. You can see the results, which are extremely strong and positive. They build a great foundation for the next phase of clear-sighted and clear-minded coalition policy.

The economy is now $68 billion larger than when we inherited it from Labor. There are over 300,000 living, breathing Australians who have jobs now compared with under Labor. There are more women in the workforce than ever before and more women creating the new enterprises for the future than ever before. These are deserving of celebration. They are positive momentum. They are about opportunities and the results of a clear plan. Jobs growth in the Australian economy has been 10 times the jobs growth that we inherited from Labor. Our jobs growth makes look pale the jobs opportunity in other economies, like the US, the UK and Canada. In fact, our jobs growth over the past year has been stronger than any G7 nation around the world. If only there were a job for every bit of interjection from Labor members—there would be no unemployment, because they would just keep gobbing off without putting forward any alternative plan.

We see that job advertisements are up. That is a good sign for the future. Retail sales are up. Exports are up. For residential-building construction—for those Labor members who do not realise—for the subcontractors, the self-employed, who are at the heart of the one million construction employees, this is good news. We have building construction. That is houses being built at a 23 per cent higher rate than at the last election. Personal bankruptcies and the challenging economic insecurity that creates are at a 20-year low. We are seeing investment in the services sector.

Ms Butler interjecting—

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Griffith will either return to her seat—she should be quiet anyway.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is something we should all celebrate, because 70 per cent of our economy is in the services sector. We are seeing investment right across the services sector. Dun & Bradstreet nailed it a fortnight ago when they said we are seeing robust levels of optimism across all sectors of the Australian business community. This is fantastic! In 2014, 223,000 new companies were registered. This is really a positive sign. We are encouraging the small business men and women, and that is great.

Ms Plibersek interjecting—

That is all you have, is it? You have no content but you can pass me a book. That is fantastic. You could probably write a book on which one of you guys will be the deputy leader! What we are doing is energising enterprise. It is private endeavour. It is encouragement and incentive for courageous men and women investing in their ideas and ambitions to grow our economy. That is a plan. We have a plan and it is working. All Labor has is politics. What a surprise! (Time expired)

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

You have a plan so cunning, haven't you? From one end of the member for Wentworth's universe to another, from Edgecliff all the way to Watsons Bay, people are breathing a sigh of relief. Finally, someone sensible is in charge, they are thinking. The member for Wentworth has been out there for six years—a nod, a wink, a quiet word here—saying, 'Gosh, this Tony Abbott; he's not much good, is he? Put me in charge and see how things will change.'

We had a question time today that showed exactly how little things will change with the change of leadership. Here we have the people of Australia thinking, 'Thank goodness, we can have a change in climate change. We can have more ambitious targets; 50 per cent renewable energy. We can do something about funding for the ABC. We can move forward on marriage equality. We can do something about public transport.' I have never seen more selfies of someone catching a train! Does he want an award for this? They are thinking, 'We can restore some funding to the aid budget.' All of these changes that the member for Wentworth has been intimating to the people of Australia—with a nod, a wink and a sly word here and a little bit of tricky talk there—we saw today how long that lasted. It did not even last for question time.

We had a Prime Minister today who said he is going to stick with $100,000 university degrees. He said that in question time today. He said, 'We support all of our current policies.' We thought, perhaps, he could have used today to reset on climate change—but no. He did not just defend the weak, pathetic targets that the coalition have come up with, he defended the mechanism that he said—I cannot say it, it is unparliamentary, but the first letter is a B and the last letter is a T. That is what he called Tony Abbott's climate-change policy. He said, 'Any suggestion you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is to use a favourable term of Mr Abbott's'—moreover, he knows it. It is the fig leaf that he has adopted for his own fig leaf. And it comes to ABC cuts. ABC cuts that the communications minister has been trying to intimate to his supporters: 'We can change it; we can fix it if only you elect me'. No, he has also defended those changes to cuts. But if there are to be savings made across the board, 'The ABC and the SBS should not expect to be exempt,' he said.

Today, in question time, I asked what the Prime Minister said would be the 'obvious question to ask' about marriage equality. If it is the obvious question to ask, I am amazed that he did not have a better response than to say, 'Yes, as late as 11 August this year I was saying a plebiscite was a terrible idea. But now I have had to win over the right-wing of the Liberal Party; suddenly, it is great public policy. Suddenly, I am a true democrat.'

What we have found through question time, today, is that this new Prime Minister is just like the old one. The policies are the same. There is a difference to the style, but the policies are the same. We have found out in one short question time that the new Prime Minister is a hollow man. This new Prime Minister is the man who accused John Howard of being the Prime Minister that broke the nation's heart. But this is the Prime Minister who will break the heart of the progressive end of the Liberal Party.

It is not me saying so, it is Jeff Kennett:

This is a very, very sad day. … This is an individual who always puts self interest first.

So says Jeff Kennett:

You self centered, selfish individual. It has always been about you. … You have … put your own interests above all.

Again, that was Jeff Kennett. But what about Brendan Nelson, a leading light of the left of the Liberal Party? He said that Mr Turnbull has:

… got narcissistic personality disorder. He says the most appalling things and can't understand why people get upset.

Tom Switzer said:

… Turnbull's record as opposition leader three years ago helps explain why ordinary Australians shrug their shoulders with a profound lack of interest. All that he displayed as leader was an ignorance of his party's core beliefs, a detachment from a clear majority of the electorate, and his own arrogance and inexperience.

This new Prime Minister is Tony Abbott 'light'. No change to policy, just a change to the style.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sydney had no energy, no conviction, no policy and no ideas in that little speech, because—you know why, Mr Speaker—she is part of the guilty party. She is part of the party that took a situation with no government debt and no interest on that debt and gave us a trajectory of $667 billion worth of debt and an interest bill of $1 billion a month, growing to $3 billion a month.

Who could forget those 21,000 cheques for $900 to dead people, and those 27,000 cheques for $900 to people overseas? Who could forget that deadly, costly, pink batt disaster? Who could forget the cash for clunkers? Who could forget the overpriced school halls? Who could forget the $11 billion wasted on a failed border protection policy that tragically saw lives lost at sea? Who could forget the more than $29 billion wasted on an NBN? And who could forget having six small-business ministers in just six years? And now the member for Sydney is walking out, cowardly, from this place because she has refused to listen to the arguments and refused to take the blame for her poor performance as part of a government that received the lowest primary vote in 100 years! Her party, because of its poor economic performance, received the lowest primary vote in 100 years!

In contrast, this government, has got on with the job of creating more than 300,000 jobs, and more than 170,000 jobs for women so that female workforce participation is at its highest levels since records first began. Who can forget those three free trade agreements with our biggest trading partners in Asia—with Korea, Japan and China? There is a fault line here in this parliament between those on this side of the House, who believe in jobs through free trade, and those sitting opposite, who believe in xenophobic campaigns that are run at the behest of the union movement.

Mr Speaker, did you know that the 95 per cent of all of the goods that we export to China will be tariff free over the life of this agreement? Did you know that Australian dairy farmers are currently behind their New Zealand cousins, because New Zealand has no tariffs on its dairy? They will benefit from this agreement. Or did you know that Australian wine producers, that currently have up to a 14 per cent tariff on their exports to China, are behind their New Zealand cousins, who do not have any tariffs? We will all benefit under this agreement.

What about in financial services? There are 400,000 jobs in Australia in financial services. That is nearly 10 per cent of our economy. We will be supercharged in the financial services sector by virtue of this China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, because we are good in wealth management, we are good in banking and we are good in superannuation. And they are the products that we will export into Asia, and we will benefit from the three billion people that enter into that middle-class over the coming decades.

What about our small businesses in Australia—the more than two million businesses that employ more than four million people who benefit from the lowest small-business company tax rates in Australia's history as a result of Joe Hockey's last budget? Who can benefit more than small business and big business from the more than $2 trillion that we have cut from red tape? Who can benefit from those innovative policies, like getting rid of the employee share ownership schemes that existed under Labor? Under this government we have produced a much more small-business-friendly employee share ownership scheme. And what about in tax and what we have done to abolish the carbon and mining taxes? We have not gone through with Labor's policies of billions of extra dollars on superannuation, negative gearing and multinational taxes that ACCI and the BCA say will send investment and jobs offshore. What about our infrastructure policies, which are a record $50 billion spend on infrastructure projects like the WestConnex. It would have been on the East West Link too, but for the Labor Party introducing sovereign risk into this country by ripping up contracts.

You see those on the opposite side, led by the Leader of the Opposition, are not fit to govern again, because they do not recognise the fault of their ways and they do not recognise that we in the coalition are best placed to serve the Australian people.

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

In their stupendous arrogance they think that if they apply a smug, self-satisfied coat of paint on the same policies that nobody will notice. In their breathtaking arrogance they think they can say one thing to one group of Australians and another thing to another group of Australians, and that they will not be found out. In their astounding arrogance they think they can change the soundtrack but not the movie and that people will stand up and applaud.

The unfortunate truth for Australia is that the nation now has a Prime Minister who has spent his entire career pretending to be something that he is not. For as long as we can remember, this is a man who has put the 'con' in 'conviction'. It began so long ago when he was sitting down with Richo trying to get a Labor Senate seat in the mid-1990s, when he was all for the Labor Party and he was ready to do a deal with Richo to be on our side of the parliament, in the red house. When there was political capital in believing in a republic or believing in climate change or in marriage equality, he was all for it. When it was an opportunity to differentiate himself from the Prime Minister, he was all for it. But now there is no price that he would not pay for the job he now occupies. His suite of policies is indistinguishable from that of the man he replaced. The next thing we know he will be trying to squeeze himself awkwardly into those little red swimmers. He is so like the man that he replaced. There was the embarrassing display in question time today when he stood up and said, 'Oh, no, these pathetic emissions targets that we've announced—I'm all for those,' and, 'Do you know what? I don't think we should have a conscience vote on marriage equality anymore,' and, 'Do you know what? All of the things that I pretended to believe in, I no longer believe in.'

He wants Australians to believe that if he changes the colour of his tie from light blue to purple then people will forget this disastrous government and all of its policies. But they will not forget that he went on radio and said, 'I support, unreservedly and wholeheartedly, every element in the budget—every single one.' They will not forget that he stood at that dispatch box and said, 'But of course every single member of the government supported every element in the budget.' He supports cuts to pensions, to schools, to hospitals, to families, to carers, to veterans. He supports the attacks on Medicare, the $100,000 degrees, the cuts to the ABC and the SBS—the whole thing. He is in full-throated agreement with every single part of that disaster.

He said yesterday that the government has not been successful in providing economic leadership. The member for North Sydney said straight after that that he has never said to the member for North Sydney or to the cabinet that we are heading in the wrong economic direction. He has even disowned the comments that he made not 24 hours ago. He is just as responsible for the smoking policy ruin as any other member on that side of the House. His fingerprints are on every aspect of that disaster: unemployment up, underemployment up, youth unemployment up, debt up, deficit up, growth down, confidence down and wages down. And he has made his own unique contribution to this cacophony of catastrophes with an NBN which is half as good as ours and cost twice as much money. What a disaster!

He wants us to believe that everything has changed now that he has come to the rescue, but nothing has changed. Nothing has changed when it comes to the policy agenda of those opposite. It is not a reset; it is a rerun. The policies are the same. The dog-eat-dog ideology is the same. The message to Australians that you are all on your own to fend for yourselves is the same—the same trickle-down economics that says that if we accumulate lots of wealth at the very top of society then maybe some people at the very bottom will get the scraps, but probably not.

Australians are not fooled by this smug, self-satisfied coat of paint that those opposite are trying to apply to the policy disasters that they have piled up over two years in government. Australians know that you do not fix a catastrophe with cosmetics. Australians need real change. Our quarter-century of remarkable economic growth is at real risk if we continue down the wrong path that those opposite are walking Australia down. The Leader of the Opposition is right: as a nation we have to decide whether we get smarter or we get poorer. If we want to get smarter, we have to invest in science and technology. We have to teach and train our people for the jobs of the future. We have to grow our economy so that there is enough opportunity and enough prosperity to go around. They will not get that agenda from that side of the House, no matter who leads them. They will get that agenda from this side of the House, and the next election cannot come soon enough.

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

For anybody listening to this debate, I think it is worth reiterating what it was that the matter being brought forward by those opposite actually is. The matter is: 'The failure of the government to provide stable and competent government at a time of increased unemployment and economic uncertainty'. I have not heard anything from those opposite that goes to the real question as to whether or not this government is providing stable government and whether or not we have the economic vision right for the nation. I am here to say that the answer is that we are providing stable government and we are providing the right economic vision for the nation. I know those opposite, those in the Labor Party, do not like to let facts get in the way of a good story but, for those interested in this motion, it is important to get some of those economic facts on the record.

The first is on employment. Let's just understand this. Have the employment figures gone up or have they gone down? They have gone up. There are now over 300,000 people in Australia who are in work as a result of the policy settings of this government. More Australians are in work than ever before. And, in fact, more women in Australia are at work than ever before—more than 160,000 women are in jobs since the time that the previous government was in government in 2013. In fact, in Australia jobs growth this year has been 10 times that of the legacy that Labor left us with. When you compare us to the rest of the world—and I know they like to compare us to the rest of the world—jobs growth in Australia over the past year has been stronger than that of the US, the UK and Canada. In fact, it has been stronger than that of any other G7 nation. So do not let facts get in the way of a good story, because they do not fit with the narrative that those opposite are presenting.

Why is our focus on the economic policy of this country and on creating jobs working? It is working because we are focused on long-term plans and on a vision for the future of this nation, such as the economic opportunity that comes from delivering free trade agreements. During the course of this government we have been able to deliver three free trade agreements: with China, with South Korea and also with Japan. The one we are looking to deliver right now is with China, and that is the one that is at risk because of those opposite.

Independent modelling has demonstrated that, if we can deliver all three of these free trade agreements, we will add more than $24 billion over the next 20 years to our economy. That $24 billion will mean that we have increased opportunities for Australian businesses to grow jobs, our exporters will have access to markets that they have never had access to before, and our financial services industry will have, in China, the opportunity to compete as never before. This is to the great benefit of all Australians. But what are the risks? Well, let's go to one of the Labor luminaries who I think outlines the great economic risk that is in this place. Martin Ferguson said—

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said Labor luminaries, not turncoats.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

He said:

… too many of that shadow ministry and the caucus are almost as if they're prisoners of the union movement … they wait for the phone call from the trade union heavy to tell them what to do.

And that is what they are doing now. They are listening to the CFMEU and they are dancing to their tune—

Mr Conroy interjecting—

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind the member for Charlton that he was warned in question time.

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

They are dancing to their tune and, because they are doing this, they are at risk of imperilling the future economic opportunities of Australians—to their shame. I say to them: be honest with the Australian people. Be honest with them and come clean with them about the future opportunities that you are blocking. (Time expired)

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give the call to the lucky-to-still-be-here member for Charlton.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Whiteley. I am indebted to your generosity, as always. This MPI is about stable government, or more correctly the lack of stable government. What we have seen on the other side is all chaos. Instead of concentrating on combating the increasing economic uncertainty, the jobs crisis and the failure to get investment into this economy, we have seen infighting and desperate manoeuvres. We have seen Kevin Andrews attack the member for Wentworth, publicly run against the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, get smashed in the ballot and then do the most publicly sycophantic suck-up job to retain his defence ministership. This is the quality of them. The tragedy is that this impacts on our economy. This impacts on the future prosperity of Australia.

The truth is that all that they have changed is the salesman. The package is still a stinking carcass and it is still a used car of woeful proportions. They have just changed the used car salesman trying to sell the Leyland P76. That is what they are trying to do. They have replaced the member for Warringah with a man with some reputation. The new Prime Minister does have a reputation. He is a man who professes that his first love is for himself—so he has been honest at times! He is a man who will, I am confident, prove that the grass is always greener when you look at leadership stakes. He is a man whose management style—he ran his campaign on reforming cabinet government—has been referred to by Annabel Crabb, in her excellent piece 'Stop at nothing', as 'bad Malcolm'. She said:

Bad Malcolm, however, can be anywhere on the scale from distant to vicious, none of it good. Bad Malcolm is well known for blowing up at his staff … "He was not really interested in the tools he had; he just worked to bully them into getting the job done. If they were inappropriate for the job, he'd just keep bashing them against a rock until they were finished."

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are the tools.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that is very true. They are the tools over the other side that will be bashed. I withdraw. I withdraw. I accept that.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And your mate can withdraw too!

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Returning to the point, we are supposedly going to see good cabinet management from 'bad Malcolm'. That is the truth of the matter. But it is no surprise, because 'bad Malcolm', or the Prime Minister, has a particularly dystopian view of humanity, and we have to include Australians in it. This is a man who supposedly will care for the huge number of jobless Australians, but here is a man who has said on the public record, 'One has to be somewhat egotistical to achieve anything given the jealous carping nature of the mass of humanity.' So it is hard to believe that this man, now that he has the reins of power, will somehow discover a new love for Australians and a new love for people who are out of work right now—the 800,000 unemployed Australians.

That is why this MPI is so important. You do not have to go further than the Hansard to understand his real lack of concern and the fact that he is completely out of touch with the struggles of Australians. This MPI is about jobs, so I went back and looked at the Prime Minister's contribution to the Hansard on jobs in his 11-year career in this place. When you strip away references to 'someone had a job to do' or 'someone is doing a good job', guess how many times he has actually spoken in parliament about creating jobs. Give me a number.

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

Hundreds.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hundreds, the member for Rankin said.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! You will not engage in surveying.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Eighteen! There are 18 references to jobs in an 11-year parliamentary career. I checked it. I double-checked. To put that into context, for example, he has made references to rugby, sailing and wine the same combined number of times that he has mentioned job creation—rugby, sailing and wine! That was not isolated. The same number of times he has mentioned 'job creation', he has mentioned 'chardonnay', 'cafe', 'Ferrari', 'poultry' and 'luxury'. This is a man completely out of touch with the real struggles of Australians. I pleased to note that he has mentioned 'Conrovian' 19 times.

An opposition member: More times than jobs?

More times than jobs. He has mentioned my name—unfortunately with reference to a senator rather than me—more times than he has mentioned job creation in this place.

I will finish by saying that I am looking forward to him continuing to be the minister for women—because we have talked about female participation before. I am looking forward to him continuing to be a proud minister for women in the fine tradition of the member for Warringah. I am happy to inform the House that he won a poultry prize for a poem entitled 'A woman is just a women, but a good cigar is a smoke'. This is the quality of the Prime Minister we have in this country. This is the quality of a man who cares nothing about real Australians, who will divide this country and run this country to the ground just like his predecessor. (Time expired)

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The MPI before the House today is misleading, which is not unusual given the other side of the House. This is often the case. The poorly worded and researched opposition MPI makes it a statement based on inaccurate premises. This MPI bases itself on economic uncertainty.

Let me give the House some economic certainties that belie both the premise and the motion itself. What we can be certain of is that we as a coalition government were left with a legacy of abject economic failure from those years of the previous Labor government. We also know for certain, because it is written in the history books, that in 2007 the Howard government left office with Australia carrying a budget surplus of $20 billion, and not a net debt but a net surplus of over two per cent of GDP. We can also be certain that in two terms of government the Labor Party turned that into a budget cash deficit of nearly $50 billion and a net debt of 10 per cent of GDP. How can we be sure? Let's use the ABC, whose Fact Check division carries this quote:

The 45 years of historical data in the budget papers shows that when the Coalition won the 2013 election, the deficit was 1.2 per cent of GDP—

This is Fact Check—

… Mr Rudd inherited a surplus but Mr Howard received a deficit amounting to 2.9 per cent of GDP.

What we can be certain of is that Labor spends money and sends our great nation into debt. It repeatedly relies on a coalition government to get this nation out of the trouble that Labor creates. We can be certain again that Labor's last five years of government saw cumulative deficits of $191 billion—that is a proud record for Labor. It is certain that this profligate spending by Labor saw gross debt blow out to $360 billion and net debt passing $200 billion. That is the Labor legacy and the Labor way. It is also certain that this debt left to the government by Labor is costing us more than $12 billion in interest every year. That is $1 billion a month in interest thanks to Labor, or $33 million a day thanks to Labor or $1.4 million an hour thanks to Labor. In fact, for the duration of this short address alone we can be certain that the interest bill being paid by the Australian government and the Australian taxpayer—thanks to Labor—is $116,000. We have a lot to be grateful for with Labor.

If Australia were to endure another Labor government it is absolutely certain that we would be heading for bigger deficits and much greater debt. In fact, had they won in 2013 we would have had a projected $123 billion in additional debt in the subsequent four years, projected to peak at an astounding $667 billion of gross debt. The National Commission of Audit identified that, if left unchecked, government expenditure would have exploded from $409 billion to $700 billion within a decade. We can be certain that no Labor government would have paid it back. That was obvious.

We can be certain that the mining boom prices may have come to an end and that while the mining sector will continue to make a massive contribution to our economy the enormous growth of the last decade will not be sustained. Mining will return to long-term average prices and long-term average growth, as every smart analyst predicted. And we can be certain that the debt Labor left us will, under another Labor government, be left to our children and grandchildren to pay off. I have to say, there were some children up in the gallery here. I look at those kids and I think, 'They are the ones who will have to pay off a debt created by those opposite during their time in government.' Intergenerational transfer of debt. I found that absolutely appalling.

So, there is a lot of certainty around the economy. More importantly, this nation certainly cannot afford another Labor government. I look at the unfunded promises that Labor is making—billions and billions of unfunded promises ahead and more debt for this nation should Labor ever get back into government. (Time expired)

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to speak to the matter of public importance before the House today, because it is actually very important that we talk about the failure of the Turnbull-Abbott government to deliver stability. We have seen an utter failure to provide any stability and it is an utter shame, particularly given the challenging economic times in which we live.

Mr Deputy Speaker, if you want to think about those challenging economic times, I think it is always useful to give a bit of a stocktake of where we are. At the moment we have unemployment that is not only above six per cent but that has been six per cent or higher since May 2014, coincidentally the date of the first Abbott-Turnbull budget—that disgrace of a federal budget that we saw last year that so shattered confidence and harmed our economy.

What else can we say about the economic circumstances of the time? Last quarter's GDP growth was 0.2 of one per cent—a shocking result. It is even more shocking when you realise that it is half of what the government thought our GDP growth was going to be for the quarter. Probably even more concerning, I think, for the people in this parliament is the fact that disposable income per capita has contracted for five consecutive quarters. For the past five consecutive quarters, gross disposable income per capita has shrunk. It is a very concerning state of affairs that we have for the people of this nation. What is the point of stable government and what is the point of good government if not to deliver for the living standards of the people of this nation?

These are very troubling times for our country and these troubling times demand strong leadership. They demand stable government and they demand a group of parliamentarians in whom the public can have trust. But what have we got instead? We saw the knifing of a Prime Minister last night by someone whose self-interest is a matter of public record.

It is almost as though we are dealing with someone who, for all of his life, wanted to be Prime Minister. In fact, he actually did a really interesting interview some time ago, in which he claimed that he would be Prime Minister before he was 40. When asked for which party, he said, 'Oh, it doesn't matter.' This is the importance of power to this man. This is a man who cares about powers so much that he is prepared to compromise on principles that he purportedly held dear. He would sell his own grandmother in order to be the Prime Minister. It is a surprise that he has not done that!

Last night I thought to myself, 'This man is a sell-out.' What did I get today? Confirmation of the fact that he is a sell-out. Last night it was a suspicion. But today in question time it was proven beyond any doubt when this Prime Minister stood up for the radical Right of his party, for the radical Right of his base, when he compromised on his previously held-so-dear commitment to combating climate change, caring about the future of this world and actually taking meaningful action on climate change. What has he done? He said, 'Oh well, I know these targets are terrible, but I'm going to cop them because that is what the Right needs for me to become Prime Minister.' That is the sort of man we now have in the prime ministership of this nation—someone who would compromise on climate change.

It is actually worse than it was under former Prime Minister Abbott. Prime Minister Abbott did not believe in climate change. He thought the science was—I cannot use the unparliamentary language, but we know what he thought of the science. We also know that this Prime Minister actually understands the science and the significance of climate change and the challenge that our globe faces. Even though he understands the challenge that we all face and the work that needs to be done, nonetheless, he is prepared to cop to the radical Right and the inadequate targets that the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, had determined. He is going to cop them, even though he knows it is the wrong thing to do and that is why, when it comes to climate change, he is worse than the former Prime Minister.

He is also worse when it comes to marriage equality. Marriage equality is something that so many people across our country hold dear. So many people, their friends, their families, would like to see it resolved and resolved without a divisive national fight and a national publicly funded opinion poll. The Prime Minister knows how we can do it. We can do it with a free vote, but he is sold out on that as well. He is a sell-out of a Prime Minister. It is a disgrace.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Second Deputy Speaker, welcome back to the chamber. I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. As I do so, I am here to answer some of the criticism that has been levelled at the new Prime Minister in relation to his negotiations with the National Party, of which I am a proud member. It is much better to do a deal with the National Party—and that is under the longstanding arrangements that have always been in place for decades and decades with the coalition agreement—than it is to do a deal with the Greens and with the Independents, as happened after the 2010 election.

The agreement that the Nationals have signed with the member for Wentworth today underpins the relationship between the Liberal and National parties in the government going forward. The member for Wide Bay and the member for Wentworth have agreed on a broad range of key policy issues, including but not limited to maintaining the existing policies in relation to climate action, carbon taxes and emission reduction targets. That is important. Also, the transfer of responsibility for the water policy outcomes of the Department of the Environment and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to the agriculture portfolio. That is important. We had Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young wanting to take 6,000 gigalitres of productive water out of the Murray-Darling Basin system. We are putting it back where it needs to go and that is in the agriculture portfolio.

Also, ongoing funding for communications technology, including the mobile phone and television black spot programs. The parliamentary secretary at the table has done magnificent work in regional areas with the black spot program and that will continue in the government led by the member for Wentworth.

Also, the establishment of a new jobs program to address areas of high regional unemployment. Those over on that side do not care about the coalmines in Queensland. They do not care about unemployment in regional areas, but we do.

Also, a proper consideration by cabinet of amendments to the Australian Competition and Consumer Act to prevent abuse of market power and that will come as welcome news to many.

Also, support for the government's Infrastructure Investment Program, including the Nationals' commitment to the Inland Rail and the implementation of a plan to overcome financial barriers in accessing higher education for rural, regional and remote students. I well recall how those students were abandoned by Labor in the 43rd Parliament.

Also, support for the Nationals' commitment to the Northern Australia and Agriculture white papers and our dams implementation policies. We had a dams phobia over on the other side. We have had it for a long time, but we are in the process of identifying sites and, what is more, building dams to fill them with productive water for agricultural use.

Also, maintaining the existing policy to refer the same-sex marriage issue to a plebiscite of the people in our next term. We can think what we like about same-sex marriage, but we are going to give the people their say. And what is wrong with that?

Also, increased family tax benefit part B payments to stay-at-home parent families, with a child under the age of one being eligible. That is also important, because some people choose to stay at home and raise their families. And why not give them some relief? My goodness, Labor doesn't. It means that the Nationals are delivering for regional Australia, as we always will. It means that the member for Wentworth is prepared to see that the Nationals will continue to deliver for regional Australia. It means that the Liberal Party, unlike the Labor Party, does not make dodgy deals with suspect parties to get a broad range of policy and programs through. We saw what Labor did in the last term with the one Green member of parliament, the member for Melbourne. But we have seen today and last night the fact that the Liberals identify that regional Australia is important. We have seen that the National Party are always prepared to stand up for rural and regional Australians. That will continue. There are good regional Liberal members of government. They will benefit. All of regional Australia will benefit from the policies that we have been able to negotiate in this new coalition agreement. It is important.

This matter of public importance is an absolute nonsense inasmuch as it talks about jobs. Only 2,000 jobs a month were delivered under Labor. There are currently 21,000 jobs a month under the coalition government. We heard the Minister for Small Business say that bankruptcies are down to a 20-year low. We heard the Treasurer talking about the 75 registered cranes in Sydney's central business district and, if you count a kilometre of the CBD of Sydney, it is 165. We are getting on with the job of building a better Australia. The Nationals are getting on with the job of building a better regional Australia, and I am sure that the Turnbull-Truss government will continue to do that in spades.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired.