Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

What we are seeing with this arrogant, complacent and out-of-touch government are the cracks starting to appear inside it. We are starting to see disunity and disagreement made more and more public, on a range of issues, day by day. In recent times we have seen a dispute over immigration and dissent within the government on its independent contractors legislation. We have ministers indicating a different view on managed investment schemes. There is a completely opposite view held by two ministers in similar portfolio areas. They come on top of the disallowance motion in which Senator Joyce crossed the floor against the government.

I want to start with the issue of immigration. Senator Vanstone answered questions today in relation to the current fiasco within the government where they are, frankly, seeking to impose a completely outrageous piece of legislation and ram it through this parliament in an effort to appease the foreign policy concerns of the Indonesian government. Senator Vanstone has previously said that she is bending over backwards to listen to her backbench. But what we know from things that people in the Liberal Party have clearly told a range of national newspapers is that the bending over backwards and listening to the backbench occurring does not appear to extend to the way in which the party room has conducted debate in this regard.

We know from both the Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald, and a range of other papers, that it appears that the Prime Minister had to intervene in the party room discussion in order to gag Mr Georgiou, who was amongst a number of members of the government who have previously expressed concern about the treatment of asylum seekers in this country. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the meeting was described by those attending as ‘really nasty’ and as an ‘acrimonious Coalition party meeting’. We also have, in the Herald Sun, a description of the discussion as being ‘a spiteful exchange amongst government MPs’. That demonstrates a number of things. It demonstrates that clearly there is division within the government. But, in the context of the immigration proposal that Senator Vanstone and the Prime Minister are floating, it is pretty instructive to note that this is such an extreme piece of legislation that even the Liberal Party’s own party room cannot stomach it.

On top of that, we have the position on the independent contractors legislation. This is a very interesting one, because it appears that the divisions within the government come from the left and from the right. There are criticisms one way that it is not tough enough, and criticisms the other way that it is going to be bad for workers. We have Senator Joyce, who on Tuesday was quoted in the Financial Review as expressing real concern about the impact on workers. He is quoted as saying that the legislation went too far and would encourage employers to turn everybody into a contractor. We also know, from other reports, that there is a concern that the legislation does not go far enough, so obviously some aspects of the hard right wing of the Liberal Party think it does not go far enough and are critical of the government for the position it has arrived at. So we have the government being criticised internally from both sides in relation to the independent contractors legislation.

Then today in question time I also asked Senator Minchin some questions about the managed investment scheme. As has been extensively reported in a range of newspapers around the country, there are real concerns in the backbench about the effects that these tax breaks are having on traditional agriculture and on rural industries. It seems extraordinary—and it was interesting to watch Senator Minchin attempt to answer this—that you had Senator Abetz saying one thing and Minister McGauran and a whole range of backbenchers saying another. You have Minister Abetz, who appears to be the lone voice, defending these managed investment schemes, coming out in the Age on 14 June saying that changing these arrangements could prompt an investment collapse in key agricultural sectors, when you have the member for Forrest and the member for Moore and, most importantly, Minister McGauran expressing real concern about the market-distorting effect of these things and their negative effect on traditional agriculture. So you have two Howard government ministers running positions which are 180 degrees opposite. Senator Minchin managed to keep a straight face, which I suppose is a credit to him, but it is quite clear in his answer that they are completely opposite positions.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For those listening to the broadcast—we in the chamber are only too well of this—we are now debating the responses to questions during question time. It is called ‘Take note of answers’. It is usually an opportunity for the opposition to properly debate and make a point about answers given by ministers. But what we have had just now from the frontbench member Senator Wong was no attempt or effort to debate the answers and no attempt or effort to put down an alternative policy—none whatsoever. She simply spent her five precious minutes on some obscure, absurd, irrelevant political point—most particularly irrelevant to those on broadcast who are listening to the so-called lofty debates of the Senate. Where have all the lofty debates of the Senate gone when you spend five minutes making some obscure, in-house, unknown-to-the-public point about so-called divisions within the government? It does not rank, Senator Wong. The sooner you use your five minutes more wisely—and indeed all of you from the other side use your time for debate in this chamber more wisely—let alone put down some sort of alternative policy, the sooner you will get your message out. Trying to talk about divisions, debates and political points within the government is not getting your own message out. But I will tell you what: even if you make those points—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who do you support?

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Allow me to make this point, Senator Wong: when it comes to divisions—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGauran, you might address the chair rather than interact with Senator Wong. Senator Wong, let Senator McGauran address the chair.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are quite right, Mr Deputy President. I was so taken aback and stunned by Senator Wong, who is one of the so-called rising stars from the other side—and you will note that I am talking to you, Mr Deputy President, to inform you about Senator Wong’s so-called reputation. If anyone can come in here and try to present an alternative policy or intelligent argument, it is Senator Wong. It looks like she has caught the disease of opposition too. She has been in opposition way too long also. She missed a perfect opportunity to put down for the Labor Party a skerrick of debate.

She did not even raise the centrepiece of the Labor Party’s policy in regard to industrial relations—something that has been in and out of the papers for the last several months, something we are told will be the centrepiece of their next campaign in 2007, which they are going to fight all the way to the election. I have not heard one question in this chamber on industrial relations. Senator Wong, who again is someone who can carry that debate from the opposition’s point of view, has not asked one single question. And that is the centrepiece of what the Labor Party are going to go the next election with. It more than any other policy has been elevated to the point where they want to get the message out to the public, but they do not. Therein lies the fraud of the whole argument.

They come in here and try to talk about divisions. When it comes to division, who can match the Labor Party? They are supreme. Even the public—it is one message that you have got out to the public—are only too well aware, particularly from my state of Victoria, that when it comes to division it is all about the Labor Party. They have just come out of a bitter preselection battle down there in Victoria, where Bill Shorten was parachuted into a safe seat and Simon Crean courageously hung onto his seat under great threat. But of course we know the bitterness and the division it still causes within that party today.

When it comes to division between your colleagues, what could be more divisive than Mr Beazley not consulting his shadow cabinet or ministry—whatever you want to call it—or anyone within his own party, for that matter, and doing the backflip on AWAs a couple of weeks ago? He just did it. Talk about conflict! So much so that a timid, unnamed frontbencher came forward—I should say ‘courageous’ but I will say timid because he would not name himself, although he was courageous because he put the truth down. We all suspect who it is.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong interjecting—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As if we do not know who it is! Out of one, two or three, I could pretty much guess who it was. He was highly critical of an already embattled and threatened Mr Beazley. That is real division. That is serious division. (Time expired)

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also wish to take note of answers to questions to the government in question time. It is obvious from the answers that we received to the questions asked that they clearly point to a government that is now in disarray. It is starting to show plenty of cracks. You do not have to take our word for it.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Johnston interjecting—

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do not take our word for it, Senator Johnston—and we know how courageous you are! You would not step out the door and sling the mud at the Commissioner of Police in Western Australia and give him a chance to have his own back. You came into the castle to do it, like you always do. But do not take our word for it. There is a quote in the Bulletin of this week from none other than Bill Heffernan, one of the closest people to the Prime Minister in this building. He is reported as having told a closed party room meeting:

Too many things are being stuffed up, and if too many people keep doing so many stupid things, we’re all headed for opposition.

Those are words of wisdom from Bill. Look at the variety of issues—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan is his correct title.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will call him Senator Heffernan to appease you, Mr Deputy President. Let us look at what has happened over the past few weeks and where the government is at. Let us look at the immigration amendments. The bill is being rushed in here to appease the Indonesians and to take the pressure off in terms of migration from West Papua. We have seen disarray in your party room.

We have seen coalition senators on the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee unanimously support a recommendation rejecting the bill. Every coalition senator on that committee signed up to that committee report rejecting the bill. What have we seen? We have seen the Prime Minister and the minister for immigration scrambling for the past week or so trying to patch the thing together and stitch up a deal, trying to get something by the end of this week so that the Prime Minister can fly off to Indonesia next week and meet with Yudhoyono. He wants to be able to tell him: ‘Everything’s sweet. We fixed it for you. We have finally been able to deliver what you wanted.’ Now it is looking more and more like that may not happen.

We had the fiasco of child care. We had Jackie Kelly come out and say that she would not run at the next election if Peter Costello were the leader because of his position on child care. We had the situation with independent contractors. We had Senator Barnaby Joyce again threatening to cross the floor and saying that your policy is a mess. He said:

Some employers will be pushing people to become contractors, who for all intents and purposes are just employees. Once they become contractors they lose such rights as workers compensation and superannuation. For what benefit? Usually none ...

Now we know why they get pushed into those positions. We were told. When Senator Johnston was on a shipbuilding inquiry in Western Australia with me, we spoke to Austal. I asked the managing director of Austal in the inquiry why he had changed his employees over from being independent contractors to being employees, and he said: ‘Because we had problems with the tax department. They realised we were rorting the tax system, so we had to put them back on as employees and employ them under AWAs.’ They were using the guise of independent contracting in order to avoid paying proper taxation. We have seen the fiasco in the past couple of weeks over the amalgamation in Queensland.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGauran interjecting—

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGauran held his own amalgamation in Victoria. But, as far as the amalgamation in Queensland goes, it was born today, gone tomorrow. It never lasted. (Time expired)

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must agree with Senator McGauran and say that Senator Wong is a shining light. She is a stark contrast to the majority of senators opposite. She brings a degree of intellect, reasonableness and intelligence to the debate. However, when it comes to certain subjects, unfortunately she has to accept the brief that is given to her—the hospital handball. Today for question time she was asked to think of a subject by which she could try to score a few points from the government. I think she has done very well. If I had to give her a mark out of 10, it would be around six. It was not a bad effort. I think she has approached it in a philosophically accommodating way to her credit.

The theme of disunity in the government is an interesting theme because the most pressing and obvious issue for the Australian Labor Party today is industrial relations. The Labor Party’s leader here in Canberra, Mr Beazley, has been running around talking about abolishing AWAs. Indeed the industrial workplace in Australia is the lifeblood of senators from the Labor Party. The union movement is the fundamental foundation stone upon which the parliamentary careers of all senators from the Labor movement here in Canberra are built. So when Mr Beazley says, ‘I will abolish AWAs,’ what happens? Three or four members of his own frontbench come out and say: ‘That is not our policy. That is not what we want to do.’

Senator Wong has come in here today to lecture us about disunity. My goodness! If you want to see lemming-like disunity on the most fundamental issue that is taking us to the next election, you have got the leader of the Australian Labor Party wanting to have as a centrepiece the roll-back or abolition of AWAs while his own front bench were last weekend leaking to the media saying: ‘That’s not our policy. We are not going to do it.’ I think that is the epitome and the gold medal of disunity. Senator Wong, there is disunity—living, breathing, walking disunity.

You are taking note of all answers to all questions during question time. Western Australia currently has an unemployment rate of 3.5 per cent with a growth rate in excess of eight per cent. Again, Mr Beazley has criticised the importation of skilled labour. You want to talk about disunity? Before any skilled labourer comes into Australia, guess who has to sign off on it? The Australian Labor Party in each state government through its department of industrial relations has to sign off on it. DIMA does not allow a single skilled labourer into Australia without the state government’s approval that that industry is subject to skilled migration assistance.

You want to talk about disunity? There is Mr Beazley, off on a tangent while his own party, through its state governments, is allowing skilled migration. Again we have a walking, breathing, living example of disunity. The comparison is stark and it is a very interesting day here in parliament when the opposition wants to raise disunity. So every time Mr Beazley talks about skilled migration in the derogatory way that he does and attacks the minister, his own party—through its state governments—is welcoming every skilled migrant that they can into the workforce.

Also, Albany in Western Australia is currently going to export $130 million of woodchips from blue gum growth in the regions of the Great Southern of Western Australia. Last year they exported virtually nothing. That is due to managed investment from people from all over Australia and, indeed, the world into blue gum growth. It has been a huge boon to industry and one of the reasons why Western Australia has a 3.5 per cent unemployment rate. (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a mess you have over there—what a mess! We have watched from this side of the chamber what started as a slow but steady trickle of dissenting members from the coalition ranks, but the floodgates are opening. The perception of a united coalition is quickly fading. Instead we have members threatening to and, indeed, crossing the floor. What are we hearing from the government party room? Words such as ‘gagged’, ‘arrogant’, ‘out of touch’, ‘bullying’ and ‘shameful’ reportedly describe the atmosphere, the attitude and the actions of the coalition party room.

It is not long ago that the Australian public had to endure the joyful, gleeful proclamations of the Prime Minister when he thought he could rubber-stamp his way through another term of regressive and draconian policy. A year out from an election this is the last thing that the government leadership would want to be facing, but face it they will have to. More and more members are walking away from key government policies. We are witnessing growing coalition divisions within the Howard government. In recent weeks, we have seen confirmation of the growing rumblings in the backbench and the growing divisions between the front and backbenchers over such issues as the migration amendment bill, civil unions, independent contractors, internet filters, managed investment schemes, child care and, of course, we had the Queensland merger.

Indeed it appears to be turning into something of a mutiny on the Bounty. The voices of dissent continue to grow by the week. Already a number of Liberals, such as Judi Moylan and Mr Bruce Baird, have very publicly signalled ‘their concerns about the migration bill’. The Victorian Liberal Senator Judith Troeth is also on the record as saying, ‘There are some issues on which one should speak out and I believe that the migration bill is one of them.’ This policy proposal alone is creating tremendous division and disquiet in the Liberal Party room.

There are also deep divisions emerging in public about this government in other areas. This is clearly due to the extreme policy platforms of the Liberal Party. Indeed, the voices of dissent are growing by the day in the Liberal Party. They continue to gain momentum. This is a sign of a truly desperate, increasingly autocratic government. Recent weeks have certainly revealed the Achilles heel within the Howard government and, the more control that it tries to apply in the Senate or elsewhere, the more the dissent in the government’s ranks will grow.

When thinking about this issue I found myself posing the question: what is the government leadership doing? Is this symptomatic of a wider problem, a level of unrest about the direction of the coalition, a coalition running out of ideas, running out of puff and the leadership taking their backbench for granted? You would have to say, yes. The evidence shows that the Liberal Party and the coalition are in disarray and this fact can no longer be hidden by the government from public view.

Question agreed to.