Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

Kudos, Senator McGrath, for going through some of those questions, but I don't think you touched on my personal favourite of the questions that have been asked. I'm reasonably sure that whilst this question was asked of the Prime Minister—I'm even going to give him credit; this is probably not something he was personally responsible for—these details are able to be provided pretty easily and quickly by his EA, by anyone in his office. I know when I have hosted a function that all these details are immediately available.

Following on from Senator McGrath, the question asked by my good friend Senator Michaelia Cash to the Minister representing the Prime Minister on 25 August 2022—this question was actually asked twice; question on notice Nos. 289 and 326:

With reference to any functions, official or unofficial receptions or other events hosted by Ministers, Assistant Ministers or their Departments in their portfolio since 1 June 2022, can the following information be provided for each function:

a. name of function;

b. list of attendees including departmental officials and members of the Minister's staff;

c. function venue;

d. itemised list of costs;

e. details of any food served—

This is my personal favourite—

f. details of any alcohol served including brand and vintage; and

g. details of any entertainment provided.

We know those opposite have never seen a trough deep enough to get their snout in as quickly as possible.

I'm sure those briefs, which would be sitting already sorted in someone's drawer—that's the information you get every time you host any sort of function, particularly in Parliament House. All this information is provided to you—certainly the names of guests. You do not turn up to a function as a backbencher in the opposition without knowing who's going to be at events. There is no way the Prime Minister is turning up at any function, nor are any of his ministers or assistant ministers turning up at any events, without a list of all attendees. That would just be part of the event brief. But any event that they've ordered and they've organised would have all of that information. And I have no doubt that one of the reasons they don't want to provide this—because none of this information is being provided—is because the vintage Moet that they probably served may not align with the alleged blue-collar working values that they purport to support. The fact that that snout has delved into the trough, well and truly within the first—I'd like to say 120 days, I would have given it 120 minutes and they'd have been in. Within 120 minutes the taxpayer funded French champagne would have been provided.

Aside from the fact they don't even support Australian winemakers except Senator Farrell, we've got to give him credit for the Godfather. That's why they dined at Otis. The Otis group was only there because it's the only restaurant in Canberra to serve Senator Farrell's own wine. So we know Senator Farrell has an interest in the domestic wine market, particularly when it's supporting his own winery, but I think in any other instance we know those opposite—particularly at the far left of the chamber—love a good drop of a vintage French.

But, of course, these are the people who are all 'do as I say, not as I do', who we've been listening to bleat on about how they were going to be the bastions of integrity, the bastions of transparency, an honest government, and lift the standards. There were going to be no more mean girls. Everyone was going to be giving each other big hugs—all kumbaya. There wasn't going to be the tearing down. It was all going to be about support. It was all going to be love-ins.

I've got a two-minute statement tomorrow, and we've actually just lost a longstanding member of the Liberal Party, so I may give credit to him tomorrow. What I was planning to come and do was actually read out some of the misogynistic tweets I've received in the last seven days, because I actually thought it'd be interesting to see how the tone of politics has improved since the Albanese government has come in and called for this kinder parliament. I can tell you: it has got worse. And not only has it got worse for conservative women, not only has it got worse—I've got to tell you, there is a meme that came out today and it's hilarious. I think it's great. It's me, Bronwyn Bishop and Prue MacSween, and it's asking, 'Where's the factory that produces these?' As I replied to it, that must have been in response to: who are your dream dinner party guests? Then I got another one that was, 'Have Bronwyn Bishop and John Howard had a love child?' with a very flattering photo of me, which I sent to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, because we know he always claimed to be their love child. He responded to me, saying, 'Well, congratulations; the family's clearly expanding.'

But I digress. We're now talking about the tone, the parliamentary tone. But I'll tell you what we are going to see—the tone towards women absolutely descend. And we know where women are going to start being treated even worse than conservative women in this place and in the sewer of Twitter et cetera. It will be on worksites around this country, because we know those opposite are all talk but all delivery when it comes to union policy. As soon as John Setka gave you the call, as soon as those election results were in and John Setka was on the phone, you lot, quick as a flash: 'Quick, let's get rid of that ABCC. We've got to get rid of any security for women on building sites. We've got to get rid of any security for workers on building sites who don't subscribe to the CFMMEU.' We know how many hearings there've been, how many cases there've been. The CFMMEU just sees these fines as the cost of doing business. There is the most appalling treatment of women on building sites.

We also hear them bleat on about cost of living. There's a housing shortage. We need to boost the building sector. But how is this going help? We're going to see building companies struggle even further to attract workers, to maintain workers and to keep their workplaces going and worksites operating, as the unions are given even more overreach of power. This is only going to get worse. If you don't think housing costs are going to increase, if you don't think building costs for businesses and commercial properties are going to increase, you guys live in la-la land.

You guys, with everything you do, are making a bad situation worse. You add to inflationary pressures through every decision you make, because you don't understand consequences. You just think, 'Oh well, we'll do what Mr Setka tells us, and everything will be okay.' No, it won't. Building costs are going to go sky high. We're going to see inflation follow through. We're going to see further pressure on families trying to find housing. It's the same as what you're doing with the CDC. You know that, because you've now put $50 million more into drug and alcohol services. You know that there are going to be consequences for Indigenous families, particularly women and children, but you won't ever acknowledge it. You're just going to crawl back under some rock and pretend you don't know what's happening, because over there you don't understand consequences. All talk, no action unless your union bosses tell you it's okay to do so. Absolutely appalling.

But we do know that you're very big on action if it comes to photo shoots. We do know you're very big on action if it comes to overseas trips. We're all back this week, and we've got people here in the gallery. What they don't understand or potentially may not know is that there absolutely were a number of weeks that we could have come back on to make up for the week that we had off with the Queen's passing. But, no, the new Albanese government, who claimed they were going to be family friendly and all about family-work-life balance, decided with very short notice that they were going to put the first sitting week on the first week of school holidays. They also put the public holiday on last Thursday.

Now, why was it last Thursday? Lots of people wonder. What a lot of people don't know is that in Victoria Friday was already a public holiday for the AFL, and today there's a public holiday in WA. So Thursday kind of worked because Mr Albanese was back from overseas; it didn't upset the Victorians, because they didn't lose a public holiday; and it didn't upset the Western Australians, because they didn't lose a public holiday. It upset a lot of businesses. It also upset a lot of families because all of a sudden, in my case, I had a daughter who had to come home a day earlier from boarding school. You had parents who had to find something to do with their kids on the Thursday to then send them back on the Friday for the last day of school.

What you don't know is that Mr Albanese, who's so big on transparency and getting through all this legislation, is not even here for the next two days. So why has he picked this week to come back when we actually have another four weeks that we could have used to come back? Because there are so few sitting days that they have allocated. The Labor Party has allocated so few sitting days and pulled all the dates back because they cannot face the scrutiny. They will not answer questions when they're put on notice and they do not like transparency. They will keep us out of parliament as often as they can because they do not want to answer the questions. That is so obvious in this place, with only four ministers in the Senate.

Clearly your ministers in the other chamber are not providing substantial briefs, because all we ever hear is 'not my job' or 'I'm not the minister for'—that never washed when we were sitting on that side of the house. I can tell you, I remember watching a number of my colleagues sitting here coming in with their folders—hilariously, you could barely see them. Thank goodness we had COVID, because the seats next to them were empty for the 19 folders that they had, which, in the case of Senator Cash, required about six staff to carry them because they probably weighed about four times as much as she did! That was because we had staff who had effectively briefed her. They had provided information so that, when those opposite were sitting on this side of the house and questions were asked, we could answer them. The ministers were briefed. Even if it wasn't their direct portfolio responsibility they had done the work. They had been briefed and they understood that, under this system of government, they have responsibilities for the ministers who sit on the other place. They could answer the question. When representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham could answer the questions he was asked, because he had been briefed.

What we hear in this place when we ask questions of the Prime Minister—I don't even know what we hear. If anyone can tell me what some of those words were today—I'm not 100 per cent sure. There are no answers. There's a killing of time, an inordinate amount of waffle and then you kind of get a bit of a mumble. There was absolutely nothing that would make sense to anyone who would be listening at home. They weren't sentences that would have passed the most basic of English exams. Yet this somehow passes for an answer from a minister in the Senate from this government.

The government comes in here and talks to us about how it is this fantastic government and that in 120 days it has done so much and achieved so much. You talked about your job summit. What job summit? You've talked about a job summit. You came into government with the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. It wasn't a job summit where you needed to find work for people. You need to find the labour people. When you make people unsafe in workplaces; when you put the unions back in charge, who represent 10 per cent of the workforce but are given 33 per cent of the seats; when you've got over 50 per cent of Australians employed by small business, yet you give small business one seat at the table, how do you think you're going to actually attract the labour? You're not. All you are doing is working to detract labour. You are working to do everything you can to deter people from wanting to go and work in these industries because they will be bullied, they will be harassed, they will be intimidated, and the CFMMEU will look at that and go, 'That's alright, it is all par for the course. We will pay for it. It is all good. We still get what we want, and our blokes are in there now, who we give millions of dollars to, and they will just continue to deliver what we want.' You lot on the other side are all 'do as I say and not as I do' and, very soon, the Australian people will start see through it.

Question agreed to.