Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the answers given to questions by coalition senators. This being a Senate-only week, we do have slightly more people in the gallery than we normally do over here in the Senate. It is also broadcasting day. For those up in the gallery: when the lights are on, that means we're being broadcast around the nation. You might be wondering what this debate is about. We are taking note of the answers that were given in question time. There are three speeches apiece: three on that side and three on this side. We take turns in examining the answers that were given.

What we're seeing here is a display by those opposite of obfuscation. They are coming in here and trying to deflect the reality of what is actually going on on that side of the chamber. Consider the absurdity of the suggestion that we are in bed with the Greens! The only party that has proven time and time and time again over decades to be in lock step with the Greens is, of course, the Australian Labor Party, and no-one is closer to the Australian Greens than the Prime Minister of this country. The Prime Minister has in recent times had an opportunity, when he's been asked about it by journalists, to rule out a power-sharing deal with the Greens if they were to be in minority government, which is what, at this point in time, the polls are saying will be the case. The Prime Minister will not rule it out. The only leader of a major party who has ever ruled that out absolutely—without any shadow of a doubt, without any weasel words and without any shrinking away from the substance of the question—is, of course, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton. He's the only one who has ruled out a deal with the Greens.

Senator Birmingham asked a question of Senator Wong about what plans the government has in relation to negative gearing. We know that the Australian Greens have in their manifesto and in their election commitments—as they have done over many elections—said, in the words of Mr Bandt, 'We want to wind back those tax breaks for wealthy property investors.' It's just one of the crazy conditions that the Leader of the Greens has put on a power-sharing deal. If they're in a position where the Prime Minister wants to hold on to the power of leadership and keep the keys to the Lodge, he's going to have to do a deal with the Greens, and we know that they want to wind back negative gearing. So the question was put by Senator Birmingham to Senator Wong, representing the Prime Minister in this place: 'Will you rule it out?' Of course, we didn't get that. What we got was weasel words.

You know that a politician is not able to fully tell you exactly what's going on when they say words like, 'It's not in our plans,' or 'We have no current plans for that.' The only way that you can actually definitively rule it out is to say, 'We will never do that,' or 'We won't do that.' But, no, they're saying, 'We have no plans.' What that means is that they have no plans until they do have plans—until their plans actually change. We know that following the election, with a secret power-sharing deal that's been done with the Greens, that's exactly what they will do. They will succumb to those needs and wants and—guess what?—their plans will change. If you want to see an impact on housing, that's one way to see downward pressure, particularly on rental properties and other investment properties, because we know that investors will have to walk away from that. They'll put the money into other areas because of these sorts of crazy deals.

The Prime Minister and Senator Wong in this place had an opportunity today, and have had many opportunities, to rule out both a power-sharing deal and the implementation of negative gearing changes. This will send shudders right through the economy, and what is ahead of this nation if we see a Greens and Labor government is dangerous.

Question agreed to.