Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

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

I want to take note today particularly of the answers given by Senator Carr in response to my questions to him, which were following up of course from the questions asked by Senator Abetz yesterday. One of the most serious allegations that can be made against any member in the other place or senator in this chamber is that they have misled their colleagues. Any reasonable assessment of the answers given by Senator Carr yesterday and the answers given again by Senator Carr today shows that he is not prepared to accept that the answers he gave this chamber yesterday to a very simple question were indeed an attempt to mislead the parliament. The sin here is that Senator Carr could have quite easily addressed this matter by acknowledging that he was caught out by a bit of good work by the opposition—that we found out what he had not yet announced. He might have sort of fluffed around the edges, but he should have just acknowledged defeat.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He should have fessed up.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Coonan says, he should have just fessed up. He should have said, ‘I got caught out. You all found out about it. Yes, that is what we are going to do. What a terrific bloke Steve Bracks is and what a marvellous job he will do.’ But he did not take that course of action. He did not take the course of action of decency, which would have been to say, ‘Okay, you’ve got me. This is what we’re going to do.’ Then he would have obviously defended Mr Bracks, and he is entitled to do so as he has appointed him. But what he failed to do yesterday was to accept the responsibility that we all have as senators—and indeed a higher level of responsibility lies with members of the executive—to ensure that what we tell the Senate is indeed correct and truthful.

Senator Carr knew very well that Mr Bracks had been approached in relation to this job. He knew very well that the other members of this committee, which were announced mysteriously very early this morning, had also been approached, but he chose to take the course of action that would enable him to put out a press release as opposed to making the announcement yesterday. By doing so, there was a gross derogation of his responsibilities to this place to ensure that what he was telling us was indeed the truth.

Senator Carr is a new minister but he has been around this place for a very, very long time. He knows what the responsibilities are for a senator. He knows what the added responsibilities are for a member of the executive. One can only assume that he decided to not take this course of action (a) to give himself some wriggle room the next morning and (b) because he was not going to acknowledge the fact that one of the people he was putting on to this committee was indeed a former union representative who had made it quite clear that the Productivity Commission was not an appropriate group to address this. The Productivity Commission, as those opposite know full well, is the organisation that should be conducting this review.

What has happened is that a former member of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, who has been vehemently opposed to the Productivity Commission since its last report, has actually leant on this government, and again it is payback for election funding. For this government to take the course of action they have, where they have appointed former union officials who are vehemently opposed to the Productivity Commission for a rational and reasonable debate in relation to tariffs, is, quite frankly, a shame on the new government. You had the choice of going to the Productivity Commission, but you know and we know that you are indebted to the trade union movement; you are indebted to the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. I have the figures here: 634,000 reasons for you to put a former union official, now an ACTU official, on this inquiry. This is not an independent inquiry. It would have been an independent inquiry with the Productivity Commission. The Australian Labor Party has sold its soul to the union movement because of election funding. (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know it must be a very difficult transition from government to opposition, but the former government were arrogant and out of touch and now they are over there on the opposition benches flailing around and trying to find an issue. They start off with the first question to Minister Carr, accusing him of misleading the parliament, and they selectively quote one part of the Hansard and misrepresent it here. It was Senator Abetz who asked the question, and I am not surprised that he is not here today. Did he know you were going to ask this question? Did he know you were actually going to run this line of questioning? He knows that was not what Minister Carr said. He actually said so yesterday and it is in the Hansard.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. That is an unfortunate reflection on Senator Abetz. The Hansard will show that comment. Senator Abetz is actually at a funeral. I hope that is now on the public record.

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

You have that on the record, but there is no point of order.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a pretty common theme today: there is no point of order. Here we have a disgraceful attack on a minister who said no such thing. One knows full well that, if this opposition were serious and thought a minister misled this parliament, every single question would have been to that minister today. But, no, it was the first question and then it completely fizzled out. There was not one follow-up question because everyone knows it was an absolute try-on. So what did they actually accuse Minister Carr of doing?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Chris Evans interjecting—

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

Order! It is unruly to interject when you are not in your place.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us go to the allegation that was outrageously made by Senator Ronaldson, who cannot wait to get out of the chamber. Come back, Senator Ronaldson, sit in your spot and listen to this, because maybe you ought to have read the Hansard. When Senator Abetz yesterday asked his supplementary question, this is what he said, and I quote directly from the Hansard:

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In that case, how much will Mr Bracks be paid per day, seeing that it was not denied that he was going to be appointed?

That is out of Senator Abetz’s mouth. It was not denied by the senator that Mr Bracks was going to be appointed. Can’t you read the Hansard? That is why Senator Abetz would have been embarrassed. I made no allegation about why he is not here today, but if he were here today he probably would have pulled you up and said, ‘Don’t be stupid. Senator Carr did not mislead the chamber.’ Those were his own words. You only have to pick up the Hansard and read it to see that Senator Abetz admits in his supplementary question that Senator Carr did not deny that Mr Bracks was going to be appointed to head this review. Enough of that.

We all know—we have been around long enough to know—that, if you seriously thought that, every question would have been asked about that. It was a pathetic effort. It really goes to the integrity of this place. To accuse a minister of misleading the Senate in a question really goes pretty damn low. But, then again, it is only your first week in opposition. I know it must be difficult—

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

Senator Marshall, your comments should be addressed to the chair and not across the chamber.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I should, and I apologise, Mr Deputy President. Through you, I advise the whole opposition that I understand and sympathise with them. They do not have the hordes of departmental officials and advisers that they used to have to give them all the answers and they are really struggling at the moment. If it was too hard to even read the Hansard from yesterday, why did they not read the press? I know that the opposition got this story up, but what does it say? The last paragraph of the article in the Advertiser from this morning says:

Industry Minister Kim Carr did not deny the long-serving Victorian Labor leader would be given the plum role …

It was clear in Hansard that Minister Carr did not mislead the parliament. The press knew it because they were not so lazy. They were not so incompetent. They actually read the Hansard.

You have to do better than that. I will not be too hasty to make judgement because I know you were arrogant and out of touch when you were in government. You have not yet worked out why you are over on that side of the chamber, and you are going to try a few things on, but you want to get a bit of integrity; you want to get a bit of honesty; and if you are going to ask questions and attack ministers, you want to get your facts right. You want to have a case, instead of running around mouthing off and making yourselves look completely ridiculous.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to take note of the answers given by Senators Conroy and Wong as part of the general motion to take note of answers but I think it feeds very nicely into the response by Senator Marshall. Today in question time, particularly from the two ministers I have identified, we saw pathetically inept attempts to deal with a straightforward question as to when working families could expect to see reduced prices at the bowser and the checkout. We will continue to hold the Labor Party to account for having encouraged this expectation that they will do something about reducing prices at the bowser and the checkout. These prices are still going up, and if ever anyone is going to be out of touch it is going to be the Labor Party for making such a hollow promise to the Australian people.

I can understand how new ministers struggle a bit. They are obviously a bit nervous. They fumble around. They have trouble with their indexes as they try to find some kinds of generic answers on their computers but I think it is not ungenerous to say that the new ministers are struggling. Senator Wong was totally unable to answer the question about whether the government had sought economic advice as to the inflationary pressures of stripping back Australian Workplace Agreements and the attendant pressures that this will have on containing labour costs. The Labor Party, now the government, claim that they are serious that their first priority—they’ve said they have about 12 priorities, as best I can tell—is dealing with inflation, but they do not even appear to be able to tell this place what economic advice they have received as to how they are going to go about it.

They are, I am afraid, giving every indication that government ministers simply have no idea how to handle a burgeoning economy. They resort to the kind of defeatist inflation rhetoric that is being run by Mr Swan and Mr Rudd at every opportunity. Like parrots, they read it out verbatim in this chamber. It is worth saying, and it is worth recording in the few remarks I have time to make, that they are without doubt peddling myths. They have inherited a booming economy—with inflationary pressures but a bulging budget—and they have no idea what to do. They are like the proverbial dog that caught a car. Mr Rudd and Mr Swan have inherited a strong, growing economy, with unemployment at close to 45-year lows, and a low and stable inflation consistent with the Reserve Bank’s inflation target.

No other government in Australia’s history has taken office under such favourable economic conditions. Already we are seeing the fault lines—the fracture lines—in Labor’s capacity to handle these economic conditions. Our economy is growing faster than the United States, Japan, Europe and Canada. Our unemployment rate is lower than the United States, Europe and Canada, and our annual inflation rate is lower than in the United States and Europe. It is no wonder that the Economist magazine has described the Australian economy as ‘the wonder down under’.

The most disappointing aspect of what Labor are doing, because it is so vital to be able to manage the economy, is that they are simply not accurate in what they say. Right now Mr Swan and Mr Rudd are misrepresenting our economic history, talking down our economy and talking up inflation. You have to ask yourself: what sort of government is it which, upon inheriting a strong, fast-growing economy with unemployment at record lows and inflation running at manageable levels—over average within the target band—immediately starts to misrepresent our economic history, to talk down our economic prospects and talk up inflationary expectations? It is very disappointing, and the performance we have seen from the new ministers in the new government has been very disappointing. I would have thought that most of them would be across their briefs by now. They have had months to get on top of it. What we have seen is a dog that has caught a car and has no idea what to do next.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst I have only been in this place a few years, listening from the opposition side in those days, I know that we sought, question time after question time, to get straight, concise answers from those very experienced ministers who sat over on this side of the chamber and lectured us continually. Many years into their ministries, they went off on long and rambling answers and completely avoided answering any direct questions. It is a bit rough for them to be coming in here in the first week of question time and casting aspersions on new ministers.

It would seem to me that we now have an opportunity as a government to listen to the community, listen to the people of this country, and address what comes forward. It was all very well, over the last 11 years, for those opposite to deny the inflation pressures. We heard, and we continue to hear, that there have been significant inflation pressures put on the Australian economy. The previous government was in inflation denial: if you did not talk about it—if you kept ignoring the issues or kept talking around the issues—suddenly the problem would disappear and people would not really understand the real troubles that could be seen in the economy.

In Senator Conroy’s answer to one of the questions today, he put forward those table marks of when warnings were given to the previous government about what was happening with underlying inflation in this country. The then government just ignored that advice. They kept picking out the good bits and concentrating on those, thinking that that would make them appear extremely sound economic managers. Then, with the change in government, suddenly the now opposition are demanding exact dates and times. The questions we heard were: could this government determine the exact date that petrol prices would begin to come down; when would grocery prices begin to come down? That is pretty rough from an opposition that, when in government, did not even acknowledge that there were problems with petrol prices or that grocery prices were biting into the weekly incomes of ordinary Australians.

In our process towards achieving government, we listened to the community to hear from them what the daily pressures in their budgets were, and they identified that there were problems. Despite the rhetoric from the then government, despite the promises, there were problems daily. So we have committed to work through a process to determine how we can meet those issues and prepare some practical solutions. Some of those were mentioned in answers today. Certainly, Senator Conroy mentioned the increased powers of the ACCC over the petrol issue. We are talking about the fact that, when you hear that there are issues, you then seek to address them and come up with solutions—not avoid them, not run away from them and not pretend that they do not exist. That is what a government should do. It should be in a consultative process with the community, it should be in a consultative process with industry and it should be in a consultative process with all spheres of government because these issues do not belong to one minister, they do not belong to one department; they belong across government. They belong to a cooperative government working together to address issues and come up with solutions

We heard questions today that were across the board—about inflation, about the CDMA process, about broadband—and yet somehow the opposition is concentrating on attacks on the individual performances of ministers early in their ministry. The real issue must be how we actually put in place plans, how we put in place solutions and how we can effectively come up with results. That was actually done by a number of our ministers today. We heard from Senator Wong, talking about the processes within her portfolio, how she is working with different agencies, how she is working effectively with IR to bring forward a future. We heard from Senator Conroy, talking about the important issue of CDMA turnover. And we heard from a number of other ministers—Senator Sherry, Senator Carr—what is happening in different portfolios to address the real issues in our economy and in our society.

This is not going to be a straightforward, one-off answer. We will not be able to say that, on some mythical date—say, tomorrow—everything will be fine. Seeking a certain date indicates that once again the real import of the issues has not been understood by the opposition. They want short, sharp, delusional answers which do not get to the heart of the problem. If you want a time, perhaps it would be more useful to work effectively in consultation—(Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers by Senators Sherry and Wong on the subject of inflation. In relation to their answers today, I have to say: here we go again. We might be on a different side of the chamber, as those opposite have kindly pointed out, but some things never change. Here Labor go again, peddling untruths about the coalition’s economic record while at the same time acting in a way that is very damaging to the Australian economy. Labor are out there telling complete untruths. Let me give one example, from Kevin Rudd on 21 January this year:

And for the last couple of years, slowly but steadily inflation has once again let loose in the Australian economy – resulting in inflation numbers for Australia that are significantly above most OECD economies.

False. Australia’s inflation is below most OECD nations and, significantly, it is below that of the United States and the euro area. Our respective inflation rates are a matter of historical record. Inflation during the last Labor government averaged 5.6 per cent. Under the coalition, it averaged 2.5 per cent—bang in the middle of the RBA’s two to three per cent target band.

But Labor are out there commenting recklessly, in a way that is likely to put upward pressure on inflation and interest rates. Wayne Swan was completely and utterly reckless when he uttered the words ‘the inflation genie is out of the bottle’. Any economist—or, indeed, any first-year economics student—will tell you that inflation is driven by expectations, because inflation expectations are self-fulfilling. If consumers think that inflation will rise, they will more readily pay higher prices for goods and services. If businesses think inflation is rising, they will react by lifting their prices to cover those anticipated costs. Thus inflation expectations become an inflation reality. The chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, said recently:

Undoubtedly, the state of inflation expectations greatly influences actual inflation ...

That is why, as Australian Treasurer, Wayne Swan’s comment that the inflation genie was out of the bottle is so reckless and so irresponsible. The Reserve Bank of Australia’s latest quarterly statement on monetary policy, released on Monday, confirms this very danger. It said:

A further risk is the possibility that inflation expectations could rise, which would make the reduction in inflation more difficult to achieve.

Labor are fuelling those inflation expectations.

But Labor are acting as though inflation is some new discovery. Newsflash for Labor: the battle against inflation is nothing new. We were fighting it for 11½ years. It is always a challenge with a growing economy. You have inflation when you have a strong and growing economy. That is the situation we find ourselves in. You always have to cast policy settings to take inflation into account. It is a policy setting that we got right in government; we handled the inflation issue well.

We have heard an awful lot about Labor’s five-point plan, but let us take a quick look at it—their five-point plan to fight inflation. I have to laugh at the first point: a targeted budget surplus of 1.5 per cent of GDP. Give me a break, please! When we came into office we had a debt of $96 billion, and Labor opposed us every step of the way in paying that down. They opposed every single measure we put into the parliament to rebalance the budget. Their target is 1.5 per cent of GDP; we had a target of one per cent of GDP. You would really have to be looking at something in the order of three per cent of GDP to make a difference to inflation. What Labor are proposing will have no impact at all.

Labor are also proposing to boost national savings. We did a lot on that. We introduced the super co-contribution scheme. We abolished taxes on end benefits drawn down from taxed super funds. Their third point is that they want to act decisively and effectively on the skills crisis. Well, here is some advice: do not get rid of the 457 visas and do not abolish the tech colleges if you want to do something about the skills crisis and deal with infrastructure bottlenecks. For infrastructure bottlenecks, again a committee has been proposed. Infrastructure Australia—that will not do much. Point 5 is boosting workforce participation. As for Labor’s new IR legislation, we want to hear two things from Labor: will unemployment go up—(Time expired)

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to take note of the answer given by Senator Evans to my question on the Northern Territory intervention. I again thank the minister for sort of offering us a briefing, and we will certainly be taking that up. I also note he implied that, in cases of extreme hardship, Minister Macklin may be able to look at those issues. I will certainly be raising with the minister a number of the issues of extreme hardship that we are aware of. Yesterday senators and members of the House of Representatives were invited to attend a briefing in the Main Committee room by representatives of Aboriginal communities from the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, only about eight out of all of the senators and members of the House of Representatives turned up. If more had turned up, they would have heard the stories of extreme distress and hardship that the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory are suffering under the new so-called Northern Territory intervention, which, apparently, is supposed to be about radical measures that will break the cycle of drug abuse and show a new way forward.

People are being provided with a ration card. By the way, this is a copy of the card people are given by Coles. This is how big it is—it is small. It says ‘Coles gift card’. What an insult to the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. Mothers at the meeting yesterday were outlining the extreme shame that they feel when they are standing in a queue at Coles or Woolies—they are the two main places you can get a card for. Standing there with no cash in their hands they are told that they have to take some of the things back because they cannot buy them on the card. They are standing there with people who have cash, and they do not. They described the deep shame they feel. It takes them back to the ration days, when they can remember that their parents, in some cases, were given rations in old sugar bags. That is how these people in the Northern Territory feel. It is outrageous.

They are given these cards and apparently the people working on the checkouts at Coles are supposed to put little stickers on the back to tell them how much they have left on the cards. Unfortunately, that does not help when the stickers come off. People are throwing the cards away thinking that they are empty and they are not. So they are actually throwing away money because they do not understand the process. As I outlined in my question, in addition to all these other issues, people are not being given financial training or counselling on how to handle their money. So I do not see how this is turning out to be a learning process.

We heard stories yesterday—and I have heard other stories, because I have been talking to as many people as I can about this—of community stores closing down because they are not being supported by the quarantining process. We heard stories of people queuing all day to get their food ‘gift cards’ and not getting them, having not eaten all day and having no money and no way of getting home. We also heard stories of people queuing all day to get their cards and then going back to their remote community only to find out that they cannot use their card at that community and therefore do not have any money. We also heard stories of people who are living in, for example, Rapid Creek up there, where they do not have any storage facilities. They are being encouraged to spend the whole of their card at once, so they go and get a trolley load of shopping which they cannot keep anywhere. Other people are spending their card on a trolley load of shopping and then having no money left to get home. They have no money left for a taxi to get home, so they are left on the footpath with a trolley load of shopping. We heard another story of a lady who is unable to send food money to her son who is studying at a college in Townsville. She does not have any available cash to send him.

As I touched on briefly in my question, I heard another story about a lady who worked for 48 years. She has been retired for 10 years and she has raised 10 kids. She went into Centrelink and had a young lady explain budgeting matters to her. I would have thought, if you had worked that long, you have been retired that long and you have raised 10 kids, that you would have an idea about how to budget your money. Imagine how she feels. I can only barely imagine the shame that she is feeling because, after all this time, she has been told she cannot manage her money. She also told of relatives who have been affected by the same shame and subjected to the same quarantine rules with absolutely no justification. This process needs to be revised now. If the government were committed to evidence based policy, it would be listening to these examples of the failure of the system. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.