Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Prime Minister stated in the course of the last parliament, right through the election campaign, that he would take debates. He was critical of the previous Prime Minister for not taking suspensions, and somehow this would be a government of transparency, the sunlight would shine in and this Prime Minister would run a new system, a more transparent system. But do you think that has happened today? Again, no, it hasn't. It hasn't happened, because the Prime Minister doesn't want to talk about his role in dividing our nation in a way that no predecessor of his has since Federation.

It's important to point out that the Prime Minister has taken the nation on a $450 million merry-go-round that has resulted in a situation where he raised expectations for Indigenous Australians. He told them that he could deliver an outcome which he never had capacity to deliver. He said to the Australian people that he was going to ask for their support but then refused to provide any of the detail, which, again, is completely and utterly without precedent. What prime minister takes the country to a position of division? What Prime Minister says to the Australian public, 'I have a proposal before you, the biggest change proposed to our nation's rule book, the insertion of a new chapter in the Constitution,' and then doesn't give the detail? There was no constitutional convention where there was a discussion of views, and Greg Craven's piece in the Australian today is constructive. There's been no point in our country's history where a prime minister hasn't sought a bipartisan position in relation to such a totemic issue. There's no precedent for it whatsoever.

The Prime Minister wasn't interested in the unifying moment. The unifying moment, as history now records, would have been to ask Australians whether they supported recognition of Indigenous Australians in our Constitution. The Prime Minister didn't do that. He sought to use the goodwill toward that recognition to mask the unpopularity of the Voice. His plan was to speak in this coded language—and you saw him chopping and changing over the course of the campaign as to what that language was, but essentially his proposition was to try and mask the Voice with constitutional recognition. Why did he do that? Because he knew that the Voice couldn't stand on its own two feet. He knew that he couldn't explain the design of it, because this Prime Minister is never across the detail.

We saw it during the campaign. We've seen it in relation to cost-of-living measures. We've seen it in relation to two budgets now. The Australian public is crying out for support from their Prime Minister, from their government, to help them with cost-of-living pressures, but this Prime Minister has been completely obsessed with the Voice for the last 17 months.

It came as a surprise to Australians on election night when, having had no real discussion in the course of the last election campaign, the Prime Minister announced that this would be his highest priority. So, instinctively, at the start, Australians of goodwill said, 'Okay, well, do we want to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas? Of course we do. So we support the Prime Minister's proposition. We take it at face value, in good faith'—expecting that the detail was going to be provided, expecting that there would be an understanding of how these practical outcomes could be delivered. But, instead, none of it was furnished. In fact, had there been success in the referendum on the weekend, had the 'yes' vote prevailed, the design process was due to have started this Monday. Now, I don't know whether they've leased office space. I don't know whether people have been employed. I don't know whether design architects have been engaged by the Commonwealth. But think about that proposition for a moment, because I think the Australian people thought about it over the course of this campaign. They were being asked to vote on the Saturday for something that was to be designed the following Monday.

The whole concept of cart and horse comes to mind here, but this Prime Minister stuck steadfastly with it. Why? I mean, why was he not able to explain it? Why did the design not start until after the vote had taken place? We know that he hadn't read the full detail. We know that he hadn't engaged properly to understand what it was that was being proposed. Whilst he stood at one point in this chamber waving around the Calma-Langton report—remember that—when we asked him for the details upfront, he said, 'Why don't you read the Calma-Langton report?' As it turns out, he'd never read it, because the Calma-Langton report didn't recommend going to a referendum, the way the Prime Minister did, at a cost of $450 million. The Calma-Langton report recommended that local and regional bodies be formed and provide advice to the government. That wasn't what the Prime Minister adopted. He went against even the advice of those experts that had put the model together.

Why did that expert body consider going to local and regional arrangements before going to a national model, which they'd recommended against? It was because they knew, as he did, that the Australian public wouldn't support it. Noel Pearson himself is on the record as having said this quite prophetically a number of years ago: the Australian public would not support a referendum question put to them that went to a model that hadn't been explained or hadn't been in practice to demonstrate how it could provide the outcomes.

This is no flippant situation that we're dealing with. This is a Prime Minister who made a conscious decision, ultimately searching for his Redfern moment or his apology moment. He wants to be one of the great leaders of the Labor Party. He sees himself as Bob Hawke. He regularly sees himself in the mirror as Bob Hawke. This bloke is no Bob Hawke, let me tell you that much. This bloke is not Bob Hawke. But I'll tell you who he is. Every single day the incompetence displayed by this Prime Minister and his ministers on rising electricity prices, on rising insurance bills, on getting less and less when you turn up to the supermarket for every dollar that you spend, has him looking more and more like his mentor: Kevin Rudd. K-Rudd, A-Albanese—A-Disaster-Albanese.

This Prime Minister is no light on the hill. There's no question about it. This Prime Minister is a fading light, a flickering light on the hill. He is a flake, and he doesn't have the capacity to show the leadership this country deserves. If this Prime Minister was a Hawke figure, if this Prime Minister had any of the capability or capacity of Bob Hawke, he would stand up and take responsibility for the reckless course that he has taken our country on over the course of the last month and a bit.

This country didn't deserve to be divided. Indigenous Australians deserve more from their Prime Minister. They didn't deserve to have their expectations raised unfairly and without any opportunity or likely prospect of success. We stood in this chamber and we advised the Prime Minister respectfully, having asked question after question for the detail, that this would not pass on the vibe. The Prime Minister decided instead to go down a path to divide our country and spend $450 million that could have provided endless support to Indigenous communities, to those kids. This Prime Minister does not deserve the support of the Australian people.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. I'm delighted to support the Leader of the Opposition in this suspension of standing and sessional orders. In so doing, I condemn this Prime Minister for his divisive and incompetently managed referendum. I condemn this Prime Minister for refusing to hold a constitutional convention, making no effort whatsoever to achieve bipartisanship, wasting $450 million of taxpayer money and proceeding with his personal vanity project when it was so, so clear that it was going to go disastrously wrong. This is the referendum that Australia did not need to have.

The Prime Minister's incompetence has split Australia right down the middle, and still he refuses to apologise. I listened carefully on Saturday night. I heard a reluctant acknowledgement of taking responsibility and then an immediate blame-shift because that's what this Prime Minister does. He doesn't understand that, when you are at the top of the country, you get to take responsibility. Instead of accepting blame, his response was a bit like, 'Oh well, we tried.' He made this outrageous claim that this was an election promise and therefore it was delivered. It was a rare moment, actually, when the facade cracked and we finally saw the Prime Minister admit that this was always about the electoral politics. Today he kept a straight face and he bemoaned the fact that referendums don't succeed without bipartisan support. But Prime Minister, in the Liberal and National parties, we decided more than six months ago that we wouldn't give this referendum bipartisan support.

The Prime Minister's a well-known political hack. He's a student of political history. He knew that we would not support this referendum, but he chose to proceed anyway. It's just not good enough from our nation's leader. As I've said for months, if I were an advocate of the 'yes' campaign, I would be so disappointed with this Prime Minister. I would be so disappointed in how he handled this referendum and made his case because Australians across this country have been confronted with an arrogant prime minister whose first words as national leader were to write a cheque he should have known he was never in a position to cash.

His first pledge on election night was to enact in full a proposition which was completely unfamiliar to the Australian people. It was a commitment he made with a mandate that was manufactured from a technicality but not transparency. It was a promise he made to our First Australians that he could never keep. In the 18 months since, time and again the Prime Minister has arrogantly placed ideology over practicality. He tried to wedge his political opponents for electoral benefit, but what did we see this Prime Minister do? He took a 65 per cent majority for yes to an almost 65 per cent majority for no, directly because of his decisions. He ignored all warnings. He failed to course-correct. He made it clear that it was his way or the highway, and he forced Australians to choose the highway. He's taken us to a moment of national disunity, and it's hurt our country.

Indigenous Australians and many people across the community have walked a long way in this process. I want to acknowledge those many people who have invested a great deal in good faith to this effort. But, in putting his own political legacy before a long walk of reconciliation, the Prime Minister sprinted ahead and left Australians behind. It's a familiar theme. He charges ahead on this, and he leaves Australians behind. He's left Australians behind every single day since he became Prime Minister. The Australian people have responded clearly in rejecting this divisive approach. Now the Prime Minister should apologise. He should apologise for how he has mishandled this process.

This suspension motion is not just about condemning the Prime Minister, important though that is. It's about a better way as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. It's about practical things that we can get on with right here and right now: a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities—how can this Prime Minister today arrogantly dismiss that suggestion with a jeer and a sneer that we're all so familiar with in this place?—and a careful audit of the expenditure on Indigenous programs, the money that comes from government and goes out into the community. Every taxpayer deserves the best value for their dollar, but, most importantly, every Indigenous Australian deserves the best value for their dollar.

We have never ever stepped back from what we have always said in Indigenous Australians policy: we will support practical policy ideas that improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, that help close the gap and that allow us to come together and forge a better path forward to deliver a better future for this country, because Australians should be proud of our country. We're fair minded, good hearted, compassionate people, and we care. We care about the future of this country and the future of our Indigenous communities. It was outrageous that we did not go ahead with this suspension earlier and debate this important issue for the Australian people. Shame on the Prime Minister!

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government respects and accepts the decision of the Australian people that was made on the weekend in the referendum. This referendum was an idea that came from First Nations Australians. A voice to parliament was an idea that came from First Nations Australians, and the referendum was always about keeping faith with those First Nations Australians and the Australian people and delivering on the commitment that the government made, prior to the last election, to hold a referendum of the Australian people on the issue of a voice to parliament. We maintained that commitment on the weekend.

Now, the issue of constitutional recognition of First Nations Australians is something that was established by the previous coalition government. It was a process that was started by the Abbott government. There were literally thousands of consultations that took place across the country by First Nations Australians, culminating in a constitutional convention at Uluru in 2017. The Uluru constitutional convention was very clear with the Statement from the Heart and a request of government to hold a referendum of the Australian people to enshrine a voice in the Constitution. This government delivered on that commitment. We delivered on that commitment on the weekend, and the one thing that you can say about the Prime Minister out on the weekend is that the Prime Minister is a man of his word. He did what he said he would do in the lead-up to the last election.

Contrast that with the leader of the opposition.

Opposition member s interjecting—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kingsford Smith will resume his seat. Order! I can't hear. There's too much noise. The member for Kingsford Smith has the call.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Contrast that with the Leader of the Opposition. Now, the Liberal Party, when they were in government, supported the notion of a voice to parliament. Then, when the current Leader of the Opposition took the reins, the situation suddenly changed. They even established a process when they were in government: a codesign process with a number of committees. The member for Berowra chaired one of those committees. There were thorough consultations of the Australian people, and it came up with a process. That process was designed by the Liberal and National parties in government, and now they've walked away from it. It was this Leader of the Opposition who walked away from that process. He walked away from it a number of months ago.

During the campaign for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament, the Leader of the Opposition said: 'Oh, don't worry. You can vote 'no' to this one because we'll hold another referendum on constitutional recognition after this one. We'll hold another referendum.' And what do we find out today? The Leader of the Opposition is walking away from his own promise. He's walking away from his own view once again.

The one thing that Australians have learnt over the course of this campaign regarding this referendum is that the Prime Minister is a man of his word and you cannot trust the Leader of the Opposition. He is sneaky. He is deceitful. You couldn't trust him as far as you could throw him. He has no policies and no solutions to this issue or the other issues that are important to the Australian people.

This government, the Albanese government, is about trying to get better results not only for First Nations Australians but for Australians more generally. We know that Australians didn't vote for constitutional change, but they didn't say no to closing the gap on Aboriginal disadvantage in this country, and that's what the government will continue to focus on. We'll work with First Nations Australians to achieve that for the good of the country, as we have been doing in other important policy areas. That's what this government really has all been about. It's about dealing with the issues and the challenges facing the Australian people at the moment and developing the policies to deal with those issues.

Let's look at some of the policies that the Albanese government has come up with and prioritised that have been opposed by those opposite. The focus of this government, which has been the focus of this government the whole way through, is the cost-of-living pressure and alleviating the cost-of-living pressure for many Australians. I speak of electricity bill relief. When we put electricity price caps in this country, what did those opposite do? They opposed it. When we introduced rebates to ensure that households had assistance to get through this difficult period, those opposite opposed it. When it comes to the issues that are affecting Australians, those opposite have no policies. Cheaper child care is a huge issue for families across Australia looking to be able to afford child care. This government came up with a policy to increase the rebate and remove the cap on hours, and as a result cheaper child care started on 1 July. It is providing real relief for families throughout the country. What did those opposite do? They opposed it. What is their alternative? None, no policy—no other policy.

We have increased assistance for the most vulnerable Australians. We have increase rent assistance and some of the other family assistance payments. We changed the qualifying period for single mums so that they can get more support from the government to get through this difficult period with cost-of-living pressure increasing. What have those opposite done? They've opposed it. We are increasing and tripling the rate of bulk-billing incentives to ensure that more people can get access to a GP across the country that is bulk-billed. Our urgent care clinics are another commitment that was promised by the government in the lead-up to the last election to take pressure off our emergency departments, and those clinics are being delivered. I am very fortunate that I have one of those urgent care clinics in my electorate. It is taking pressure off the Prince of Wales Hospital and ensuring that families can get access to the health care they need when they need it, from 8 am until 8 pm. All they need is their Medicare card. That is real action that is delivering better health care and better health services for Australians across the country, and once again it was opposed by those opposite.

We have introduced fee-free TAFE places because we know we have skill shortages in a number of places across the country. The government's policy in the lead-up to the election was to offer fee-free TAFE to ensure that we have more Australians taking up apprenticeships and traineeships in areas where we have skill shortages. We are rolling out the program, and we are delivering that program particularly for younger Australians to get access to the education they need and, importantly, so that employers get access to the skills they deserve so that they can grow their businesses across this country. We know that housing is a huge issue for the Australian people at the moment. Many Australians are struggling with the cost of housing. Thankfully, the government's Housing Australia Future Fund recently passed the parliament and will now be starting to deliver relief in the form of additional supply in the Australian market. Once again, this was opposed by those opposite. We followed that up with a national approach to housing through National Cabinet, a new target to build 1.2 million well-located homes over five years from 1 July 2024, a national plan for reforming the way that planning and zoning are done throughout the states, a $3 billion new homes bonus to incentivise state governments to make the reforms necessary to get more homes built in areas where they are needed, securing a better deal for renters throughout the country and working with the states to deliver our help-to-buy policy, another commitment that was promised during the last election campaign and has now been delivered.

But we are not stopping there. We are working with the states on the urgent issue of ensuring that we are building more social housing, and we are delivering a further $1 billion commitment to public and community housing throughout the country. These are some of the policies of this government, as well as getting wages moving again.

We know that those opposite don't want to see Australians' pay packets increase. They don't want to see that cost-of-living relief through the old hip pocket, delivered through work. No! They're opposing that as well. The Leader of the Opposition can come into this place and try to move this motion to distract Australians from the issues that they're facing at the moment. We know that Australians are facing cost-of-living pressure, and that's why we're focussed on these issues and have delivered these policies to assist Australians. I say to those opposite: what are your policies on any of these areas? I don't know what they are and the Australian people don't know what they are, because they haven't announced any! They do not have any policies to deal with the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are facing at the moment.

Opposition members interjecting—

You're all about rhetoric, you're all about causing trouble and you're all about being a wrecker! The one thing that the Australian people have worked out through this referendum is that you just can't trust the Leader of the Opposition.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to.