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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that his government on Monday supported a white supremacist slogan in the Senate and on Tuesday upended 70 years of bipartisan foreign policy and that today the former Deputy Prime Minister is doing the numbers to depose the current Deputy Prime Minister? How can the Prime Minister claim that a vote for the Liberals in Wentworth is a vote for stability when he refuses to explain to Australians why Malcolm Turnbull is no longer Prime Minister?

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Members on both sides!

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

Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition really does need to grow up. He really does. There are important issues that we are dealing with on a daily basis, like the economy, the drought and the residential-aged-care inquiry. We're working to ensure that we have a strong economy that can support Medicare, that can provide affordable medicines and that can keep Australians safe.

All the Leader of the Opposition wants to do is drudge around in this building in the bubble of politics. What the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating to the Australian people is that he is just another politician in a suit. The Australian people have no idea what this Leader of the Opposition believes. They have no idea what he stands for. All they know is that this Leader of the Opposition is about one thing: himself. He cannot put forward a set of beliefs that he can hold from one part of the country to the other. He says one thing in one part of the country to one audience, and then another thing to another part of the country.

What the Australian people can know about me and our government is that our beliefs are clear, our principles are clear, our policies are clear and our results are clear. More than a million jobs have been created under the policies of our government. We're backing in small business, ensuring record funds for health and for education, backing in Medicare, ensuring we're listing the PBS drugs. When the Labor Party was running the government, they couldn't afford to do it because they didn't know how to manage a strong economy and they didn't know how to manage a budget. I would suggest the Leader of the Opposition get out of the gutter of the politics and focus on the issues that are of national interest to all Australians.

On the issues of foreign policy, we have no problem with Australians deciding the issues we should be talking about in this country any more than we have any issue with Australians deciding who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come. On that side of the House, we have the member for Sydney, who thinks that Israel is a rogue state. The member for Sydney has come into this place as a member of this House and called Israel a rogue state. Now, I don't know if the member for Melbourne Ports agrees with that or if the member for Wills agrees with that. Perhaps members over here do agree with that. I have no idea what the member for Watson and the member for McMahon think about these questions of support for Israel, but I do know the Australian Jewish community can trust one party in this chamber: the Liberal and National parties.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The member for Grayndler and the member for Sydney will cease interjecting. The members for Moreton and Bruce interject constantly. They are warned, as is the member for Wills for the same reason.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise how the government's core beliefs and principles are working to deliver policies that provide a stronger economy, guarantee essential services Australians rely on, keep Australians safe and keep Australians together?

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

I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. I welcome all those members of the Cairns convoy which has come to Canberra this week, the TNQ convoy. I congratulate him on his working relationship with his local community.

Our beliefs as Nationals and Liberals, our beliefs as coalition parties, are what drive our agenda for a stronger economy, for guaranteeing the essential services Australians rely on, for keeping Australians safe and for keeping Australians together. Our beliefs are for a fair go for those who have a go. Our beliefs are that a fair society is always created by ensuring a more prosperous society, by ensuring our economy grows. We do not do things that slow the growth of our economy. That's what fairness is in this country—when you pursue prosperity together with a fair agenda which gives a fair go to those who have a go. We believe the best form of welfare is a job, and we also believe that you don't lift people up in this country by pulling others down, with is the politics of envy pursued by the Labor Party and championed by this Leader of the Labor Party, the Jeremy Corbyn of Australian politics. We believe that our policies on defence, foreign affairs and border security should be decided in Australia, not by the instructions of anywhere else.

We are a sovereign country and that's why we believe in lower taxes and are delivering lower taxes. That's why we believe Australians should be keeping more of what they earn and that's why we support lower taxes. It is why we support small and medium-sized businesses and family businesses. The Labor Party opposes them by putting higher taxes on them and by not supporting laws that give small businesses a level playing field. It is why we support trade deals, which are opening up markets. Those opposite have used everything they can to try and frustrate our agenda to expand trade relationships for our country.

It is why we support our farmers, with $1.8 billion of support for those farmers and rural communities affected by drought. We have a cop on the beat in the Australian Building and Construction Commission because we believe the rule of law should apply right across the Australian economy, particularly in the building and construction industry. But the Labor Party wants the law-breakers in the union movement to be the law-makers when it comes to industrial laws in this country. It is why we are bringing the budget back into balance. We've been able to retain the AAA-credit rating, so we can pay for Medicare and pay for all of our commitments when it comes to schools and when it comes to hospitals.

Australians know what they believe. You need an atlas to understand what the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party believe because he says one thing and believes one thing in one part of the country and another in another part. That's why you can't trust this leader of the Labor Party. You don't know what he believes. And when you don't know what someone believes, you don't know what they will do. (Time expired)

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday in question time, he said, 'I will never, ever background a journalist.' Does he stand by that answer and is he aware that Ray Hadley said today that the office of the current Deputy Prime Minister was the source of many of the leaks against the former Deputy Prime Minister and that people in glass houses should not throw stones?

Mr Littleproud interjecting—

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

Excuse me, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources will cease interjecting. I'm struggling to see how that question is in order. Before I call the Manager of Opposition Business, in the interests of being upfront, I always review question time and, in reviewing yesterday's question time, I feel I did err in not ruling yesterday's question out of order, having looked at the text of it. I can't see how the question is in order. I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business and then the Leader of the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, yesterday in question time the Deputy Prime Minister made a number of statements and it should be in order for us to be allowed to ask whether or not he stands by those statements. It is also clear in Practice that ministers are meant to be across what is being said in the media about their portfolios—that's specifically referred to. When something has been said in the media that contradicts what was said yesterday, it should be right and proper for us to ask whether he stands by his answer.

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

Mr Speaker, ministers are responsible for matters within their portfolio and they are specifically, in the standing orders, not responsible for the comments and statements of, for example, media commentators, and nor are they really responsible for allegations made anonymously about their office doing or not doing something. So the part of the question about whether or not he stood by a statement he has already made in the House may well be in order, but the rest of the question is not in order.

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

Yes, I think certainly the bit about yesterday's answer and standing by the statement is in order. The rest of the question and references to media commentary are not in order. And the only reason that part of the question today is in order is because I failed to rule yesterday's question out of order, which I should have, so I'm making that very, very clear. The member for Hunter is lucky, but I will be listening very carefully to any other questions he has. The Deputy Prime Minister will address himself to that part of the question that asked him whether or not he stands by his statement yesterday and he doesn't need to address any of the material other than that.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Less is more, Michael!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the shadow infrastructure minister say, 'Less is more,' but, in the infrastructure portfolio, we are providing more. We are providing $75 billion—a record amount of infrastructure—and the shadow minister for infrastructure knows full well that we are making sure that we build the roads, the ports, the aviation and the railway lines for getting people home sooner and safer. But more to the—

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

I'd say to the Deputy Prime Minister: I've tried to be generous, but I can't see how the answer's in order now!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure. More to the shadow minister's question: I stand by everything that I've said in this House. I have never misled this House. I have not misled the parliament. And, indeed, I stand by everything that I've said, both in this House and as a member of parliament—just like I stand by the fact that I stood by my irrigators when the member for Watson threatened to take their water away from them, and just like I stood by my electorate when Labor members threatened to take away all the Building Better Regions programs that were put in place. I stood by them, just like I've stood by the fact that we are investing in our regions, when, under Labor, regional funding programs went to the member for Lalor's electorate when Julia Gillard was the member, and to the member for Watson's electorate, when they should have been going to country electorates. I've always stood up for regional people. I always will stand up for regional people. And I stand by the comments I made then. I stand by the comments I make now.