Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the answers to the questions from Senator Bilyk to Senator Payne. As a number of my colleagues have already outlined, the shambles that is the Turnbull government is becoming more and more clear every hour. I thought I'd seen it all before question time began today, but we saw it again here in this chamber, where minister after minister tried valiantly to defend the latest energy policy put forward by this government, while their backbench behind them were putting their head in their hands, trying to be anywhere other than here. From what I've been reading on Twitter I understand it was very similar in the House of Representatives. Every backbencher in this place—House of Representatives or Senate—would have rather been anywhere possible other than standing or sitting behind their ministers as they tried to defend the latest energy policy from this government.

I thought the most interesting thing about Senator Payne's answers to Senator Bilyk's questions was the lengths to which Senator Payne went in order to avoid answering these questions. She was up on her feet straightaway trying to deflect the questions away from her, saying it was nothing to do with her, nothing to do with her portfolio. I think Senator Payne was doing the right thing there, because why would you, as a minister in this government, want to take any personal responsibility for what this government's current policy is when you know very well that it's probably already changed? It is now half an hour after question time, so I suspect that once I sit down I will see that there's been yet another shift from this government in response to internal pressure.

Apart from the rollcall of coalition backbenchers in their internal ranks, one other person who has been speaking up very loudly about this government's position on energy is Senator Hanson. In the last week or two, we have seen her being very active on social media, putting forward her position on energy, and she has been doing it down here again today. It's interesting that Senator Hanson should be speaking so loudly about energy, because we know what is really going on in the background is that, for all of Senator Hanson's comments to the contrary, she is on the move and she is yet again trying to do a deal with this government on company tax cuts. We resumed the debate on company tax cuts just before question time, and it was interesting that Senator Hanson was one of the only contributors in the limited time that we had before question time intervened. The reason she wanted to get on the record is that she is still desperately pleading with this government to do a deal with her and get these company tax cuts through.

The notorious flip-flopper from Queensland is at it again. I think we're up to position No. 13 from her on company tax cuts. Her current position is that she's not going to support them, but, just as you can be sure that the government is going to change its policy again on energy, you can be absolutely sure that, by the end of the day, Senator Hanson will have changed her position yet again on company tax cuts. She even used her question to Senator Cormann in question time today as another attempt to put a deal to the government. She was indicating very clearly the kinds of things that she would be looking for from the government if they want to get her vote and the vote of her colleague on company tax cuts. Her questions were about the banking royal commission and what this government is prepared to do to step in and better help the victims of the banking scandals.

If this government actually cared about the victims of the scandals in the banking royal commission, it would have the decency to join Labor and come forward with a compensation package. But instead they're having to have their arms twisted into it by a dirty deal with Senator Hanson. Even apart from her question to Senator Cormann, in Senator Hanson's speech before question time today, she actually outlined in crystal clear terms the terms of any deal she would be prepared to make with the government to see it get its company tax cuts through. She outlined that what she is looking for from this government is changes to policy on the banking royal commission. She wants to see a reform to the tax rules for large gas projects and changes to ensure that gas licences are used. She wants to see more apprenticeships, ignoring the fact that she voted with the government to cut apprenticeships already. And the list went on and on and on. She used her speech to outline the terms of a deal that she would be prepared to make with this government about company tax cuts. Now, this isn't someone who opposes a deal on company tax cuts. This is someone who is using her speeches to the Senate to outline the very terms of a deal that she's prepared to do. I can't believe that anyone who ran in the Longman by-election would want to do a deal with this government, but it looks like Senator Hanson is up to her old tricks.