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

On a day when the government is already a total shambles over negative gearing, a day when the Treasurer of Australia, according to one of the commentators upstairs, is a guy who pulled the pin out of the grenade and threw the pin instead of the grenade, and a day when it is just total mayhem on that side of the House, now we have the extraordinary prospect that a member of the government has said that he does not support the government's bill. No wonder the relevant minister, the Assistant Treasurer, has not shown up to sum up her own bill. No wonder she has sent the member for Mitchell. The Assistant Treasurer of this country will not show her face in here to defend her own bill, knowing that she has put a bill before the parliament that is not supported by her own party. This is a very big part of the shambles, the chaos and the confusion that reign in economic policy on that side of House. We have this extraordinary situation where Labor has a view on the life insurance bill, and the Assistant Treasurer has a very different view to her own members of her own government when it comes to the life insurance bill.

When you look right through economic policy, at capital gains, negative gearing and superannuation—at all of the important components of a credible economic policy in this country—we can now add to a very long list the shambles that is occurring over there when it comes to life insurance policy and financial advice in this country. For the Assistant Treasurer not to have checked with her own colleagues that they support her bill is an extraordinary gaffe. This is a very big deal. We have a backbencher who has stood up and said, in this place, moments ago, that he does not support his own government's life insurance bill. On a day when there are all these other shambles, we cannot let it go unnoticed, in this parliament, that the government is hopelessly divided when it comes to economic policy.

We know that the member for Warringah is in the party room, shirt-fronting the Prime Minister when it comes to negative gearing, and savings versus taxes and all of this. We now know that the member for Forde wants to shirt-front the cabinet of this country when it comes to life insurance reforms. This is an extraordinary thing. It may be that the Assistant Treasurer, who is probably, right now, hiding in her office, does not want to enter this chamber, does not want to come in and explain this extraordinary shambles that she has presided over—in this case, life insurance. It may be that she is in there thinking about the shambles of negative gearing that the Treasurer is presiding over and the shambles that the Prime Minister is presiding over as the member for Warringah leaks sensitive information against him. It may be that the Assistant Treasurer of this country thinks, 'With all of this other stuff going on, all of these other huge problems in the government, maybe my problem won't get any attention.'

We need to mark on the parliamentary record what is happening, right now, in this place, as it relates to life insurance. We have an Assistant Treasurer who not only cannot get her story straight on this big scare campaign of the Prime Minister's on house prices—after days and days of the Prime Minister saying, 'This'll force house prices down', the hapless Assistant Treasurer went on Sunrise and said it will force prices up—she was forced into this humiliation. It was day after day after day of extraordinary humiliation; she cannot even get her story straight when it comes to house prices. And now, to add to a very long list of gaffes, this error-prone Assistant Treasurer has to deal with the fact that her backbench is in revolt over her bill. She cannot even come into this place and defend this shambles, this pile of humiliation that has accumulated around her, as she gets one thing after another wrong in this place and beyond.

In the absence of the Assistant Treasurer, my question to the assistant minister who, at least, showed up, is: what is your response to the fact that the member for Forde, a backbencher from the Liberal side of the parliament, does not support the government's legislation?

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Rankin for that five-minute presentation, which, really, amounted to a series of abuses against the Assistant Treasurer. There was no comment about the bill or the impacts of the bill, which, I understand, the Labor Party is completely supporting, as it is the government's amendments. I understand the opposition supports every objective of the government in this important area—the Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016. Not only does the opposition support the government's intention, but they also support the government's legislation and processes and, indeed, they have spoken so in the House.

The member for Rankin asked me a question in relation to the operation of the Liberal Party in Australia. I will give him an answer, because I think it deserves an answer. In the Liberal Party, disagreement is not division. If you have a different opinion on something, you are allowed to disagree. Let us contrast that with what happens in the Labor Party. If you disagree on something—if you are Joe Bullock and you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman—you are forced to resign from your own party. You are forced to resign from parliament because you disagree. That is what the modern Labor Party has come to. We handle disagreement well. You are allowed to disagree on policy. It is a genuinely liberal party.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You laugh, because you are a collective. You laugh, because you are a bunch of communists. You laugh, because you execute anyone who disagrees with you. That is what you do. You execute them. You force them out. You stood here yesterday and said, 'Let's have a free vote on gay marriage.' But you have already forced anyone who disagrees with you out of your own party. In the Labor Party, you are not allowed to disagree. You are not allowed to have a disagreement. So I understand why you do not understand the Liberal Party. I understand why you do not understand how a government can reconcile different points of view into the same conclusions. Why? Bert van Manen, the member for Forde and someone who has a lifetime experience in this industry, has a different view. He is able to reconcile his view and stay part of this government, because he knows that this government is best for Australia. He knows that this government is best for his constituents. But he is allowed to disagree because we are a liberal party.

I would say to you that it is not a great system for this parliament, not a good way for the modern Labor Party to be, to execute members of parliament who disagree on any issues. I do not stand for that system. I believe you should allow people to have disagreements within their own party. I have had disagreements with my own party. I have some today. You do not have to agree on 10 out of 10 things. You can disagree on one or two of 10 single issues. That is the question you asked me here, as a minister in this place. I believe our parliament is better and stronger if you are allowed to disagree within the confines of your own government; absolutely so. That is the question you have asked, and that is the way I will answer it. I would also say that, if you have a comment about this bill, if you have an objection about this serious bill about the provision of life insurance risk products in Australia, make it. If you do not, if you are here for a cheap political game—we are here to govern the country. We are here to do these serious amendments and reforms. We have had the discussions. We are all here, and we will support this. You support these amendments. Let us pass this legislation, and let us get on with the government of Australia. Let us not play these ridiculous games.

Frankly, just because you disagree on something does not mean you should have to resign from parliament, like Joe Bullock. If you disagree on something, you should not have to resign your parliamentary seat. That is certainly not the case in the Liberal or National Party. If you disagree on a policy issue, you can remain in our party. You can stay. You are welcomed. Your disagreement on a policy is absolutely welcomed. We know that that is not the case in the Labor Party. It does not make good government. It does not make good legislation. I would say to the member for Rankin: I do not think you have made any good points.

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

What an extraordinary display! The fact that the Assistant Treasurer could not come in and defend her own mess leaves the assistant minister in this awful position where he has to say that his main criticism of what I have just said is that there are communists everywhere! Everywhere you look—under the dispatch box, under the desk—there are communists! That is what explains the economic omnishambles that exists on that side of House—that there are communists everywhere. What a complete joke this government is when it comes to economic policy!

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

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.