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

My question is to the Prime Minister. The government claims its decision to endorse a white supremacist slogan in the Senate was an administrative error. Was it an administrative error when the government voted to cut $14 billion from public schools? Was it eight administrative errors when it voted to cut penalty rates? Was it 26 administrative errors when the Prime Minister voted against a banking royal commission? Is the government's message in Wentworth really: vote for a government that has absolutely no idea what it's doing?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House on a point of order.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, the preamble to that question is deeply offensive. I would point out to the House that the Senate has just recommitted the motion from yesterday and has unanimously voted against it. To continue to repeat that canard is quite offensive and I'd ask the member to not do so.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Manager of Opposition Business, I don't think I need your point of order. I understand the point the Leader of the House is making, but it's really not for me to judge those matters. It's really not. The question is in order. The Prime Minister has the call.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The electors of Wentworth have an important choice to make on Saturday. They can support a government that has delivered economic growth that has been the envy of the developed world. They can support a government that has created, in working with business and those all around the country, more than a million jobs over the last five years. And they can support a government that has ensured we've been able to keep Australians safe.

The Labor Party likes to talk about bipartisanship on these sorts of issues. But what I know about the Labor Party is that they subcontract the hard decisions on national security and the economy to the government. They're happy to support us on occasion, but what would actually happen if the Labor Party were sitting on these benches when it comes to Australia's national security? When it comes to our border security? When it comes to our economic security? When the Liberals and Nationals are not there to make the decisions about taking down taxes for individuals and small business? What would happen if the Labor Party—

Ms Butler interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith is warned!

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

got one step closer—this leader of the Labor Party, who thinks that his vision of Australia and his version of leadership is to divide Australians on one side and the other, into winners and into losers: into those who employ and those who turn up and work for wages; between parents who want to send their kids to an independent school and parents who want to send their kids to a state school? The Leader of the Opposition only has a plan to divide this country for his own political interests and purposes.

Our government has a plan to keep our economy strong; to ensure that we can guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on; and to take the difficult decisions to keep Australians safe, whether it's in the playground, or overseas or on our borders. We have the record for achieving that; it's our plan and it's our record as a government that we are keeping Australians together. That's the plan that Australians can vote for in Wentworth on Saturday.

A vote for anyone other than the Liberal candidate puts the wrecker, the leader of the Labor Party, one step closer to taxing you more, slowing our economy, making you less safe and driving Australians apart.