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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Abetz today, relating to parliamentary practice, and a question without notice asked by Senator Bernardi today, relating to the economy.

It is hard to believe that in just two full days of this parliamentary sitting Labor’s second term is already built on incoherence and a list of falsehoods worse than in the first term.

Even in their first term, Labor admitted that they were off the rails—so much so that it was enough to bump off a first-term prime minister. All their incompetence of the first term—

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You won’t be here for our next term!

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

Nor will you, Senator. I have been waiting for this—it is not lost on me. Let’s just put it this way: I am going down with all guns blazing.

The disregard for the national interest and the incompetence of the first-term government were not lost on the Australian people, for that matter—

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’d better put steel capped boots on.

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

And what is more, I did not lose my preselection either, which is a bigger disgrace, Senator Forshaw. You ought to cop that.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn’t lose mine! What are you talking about?

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

Why are you even saying anything? You never said anything for the whole term that you were here! You are going down with all guns blazing too, are you?

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s like Blazing Saddles!

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

For goodness sake—there goes our consultancy together!

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Senate will come to order. Senator McGauran, I ask you to address your remarks to the chair, not across the chamber.

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

I am desperately trying to make the point that what we have in the second term, after the disgraceful first term—which was not lost on the Australian people—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Desperate is correct.

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

At least give me some respect—or sympathy, even, if you could! For goodness sake!

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’ll give you empathy, Julian.

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

Empathy will do. That is all I have been getting, by the way. Not much sympathy; plenty of empathy.

The whole point is that it is the same old, same old Labor government. For the whole 20-plus years I have been here it has always been the same old, same old Labor government. They have now fluked a second term, and it is still the same old, same old Labor government in their second term. Nothing has changed, nothing has been learned.

Spin trumps substance—we saw that in the Governor-General’s reply speech. What a droning reply to the Governor-General’s speech that was. It was full of cliches, trivia, fillers and repeats. This is the same old, same old, where the truth is trumped by lies. We saw that with the Prime Minister before the election when she said that there would not be a carbon tax. Now we have a carbon tax policy this side of the election, thanks to the Greens. The same old, same old; when factional power rules over merit for ministry promotions.

We see it here right across the front bench. Time does not permit me to go through each one of them, but let’s just say that Senator Sherry was overlooked for a failed climate change minister. And a minister once called in this place a political hoon, who was at the centre of the pink batts disaster, has not lost his ministry at all. In fact, I think he got promoted because he backed the Prime Minister. Of course, I am talking about Senator Arbib. And so, on it goes. I see Kate Lundy is on the front bench—Senator Lundy, for goodness sake.

The whole appointment of the ministry was a shambles. And the announcement of the ministry was a shambles. They left out the ministry of education; they spread it over three portfolios, which is just a recipe for disaster, turf wars and confusion within the public service. And we have two cabinet ministers who are there by the grace of blackmail. If one of them should ever have got the sack, it is Mr Garrett. It is a dysfunctional administration and it just gets worse, with its coalition and the selling of its soul to the Greens.

Senator Forshaw, wait till the workers of the western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne get a load of you, the Labor Party, selling your soul to the Greens—to a bunch of wackos who are after their jobs. The soul of the Labor Party is the workers. Give me a nod on that if nothing else. The Labor Party has sold its soul to the Greens for the sake of power, and the Greens are off to a flying start. Social policy is up and running on euthanasia, an issue that is seminal to the Greens. They are now at the heart of the government’s policy-making. They will dictate policy, too, and it is quite easy to see how they have been dictating policy to date—for example, same-sex couples. They have been just as diligent in the economic area—for example, the return of the carbon tax and the mining tax. I heard Senator Ronaldson raise the issue of death duties. The Greens have always been very open about this policy. Labor has always been desirous of it, but now they have found their scapegoat to introduce death duties. This is one to watch, even post July.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Collins.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You won’t rise to it, though, Senator Collins!

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, Senator Brandis, I am quite happy to follow that contribution because, of course, this opposition’s unfounded accusations occurred earlier in today’s debate on the Governor-General’s speech. The ideological raves that have just occurred in question time, the unfounded accusations and attacks on the standing of the Governor-General, cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Anybody listening to today’s question time would have seen it deteriorate even further after Senator McGauran’s contribution just now. He talks about a list of falsehoods. He talks about the same-old, same-old and he talks about the spin. Yet what we have seen is just sheer blatant scaremongering, again. During question time I had sent down to me a copy of the Labor Party-Greens agreement. Let us look at the provisions in that which pertain to policy, just so we can deal with the facts. The first issue of policy is indeed climate change, and let me read it for the record:

That Australia must tackle climate change and that reducing carbon pollution by 2020 will require a price on carbon. Therefore the parties agree to form a well resourced Climate Change Committee.

The other major issue of policy that is in the agreement—and the only other major issue of policy that is in this agreement—is on dental care. So where is this scaremongering really taking us? It is taking us to this coalition-opposition trying to conceal the debacle of their lack of policies and their very poor costings in the lead-up to the election. We are accused of a lack of transparency. I think Senator Abetz during question time challenged me as to whether I had read any of the red book. Under freedom of information we did make available the red book, but what is more interesting is what is outlined in the blue book. In terms of pressures on the future and cost of living issues of Australians, the blue book is very interesting. Firstly, on the point of transparency, let me show you an example of one critical page of the blue book, and I hold it up for you to see.

My, my, what is blank? What have the opposition blanked out before they released this to the press gallery? What likely sensitivities have they blanked out in their paid parental leave policy? They have blacked out the likely implications for the very few people that would actually benefit other than very high income families. Secondly, they have blacked out the cost implications of this extraordinarily extravagant scheme. And, thirdly, they have probably blacked out the impact of the 1.5 per cent levy or tax that the opposition were proposing to impost on Australian large businesses. That would be my guess of what is blacked out, but the opposition talked about transparency. Here, there is no transparency at all.

This was the key policy area of the opposition leader, Mr Abbott. He had this fantastic policy to show that he related well to women and that he was a sensitive new-age guy. When you look at the recklessness involved, the National Party—coalition members—would never have supported it. Had the Liberal Party made government, they would never have supported it. It was simply a fraud. People wonder why Tony Abbott has captured the phrase ‘the gospel truth’. This was a fraud.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Collins, you must refer to a member in the other place by their proper name.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Mr Deputy President, I should say Mr Abbott. I think I did the first time. People wonder why Mr Abbott has attracted the phrase ‘Phoney Tony’. I think that would be an appropriate way to deal with that point.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will let it through

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will have to eat those words, Senator Collins!

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No; I do not think I am the first person to say it. Phoney was indeed the problem—or the fraud was indeed the problem—in this particular issue. I look forward to seeing more areas of the blue book. The blue book will tell us much more.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I think presidents and other presiding officers have ruled before that to accuse a member of the other place of fraud is unparliamentary.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I listened carefully, Senator Brandis; I do think that is unparliamentary, Senator Collins, and I think you should withdraw it.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, if that is taken from my comments, but I was indicating—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can’t qualify it.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that the policy was a fraud.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it indicated to me that you were referring to Mr Abbott and referring to the fact that perhaps he had committed fraud, and I do not think that is the correct way to go. That is why I insisted that you withdraw.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I have indeed withdrawn. What I intended to indicate was that the policy was a fraud, and I do not understand that to be unparliamentary. So this paid parental leave policy was indeed a fraud. That is why there is so much blank space in the blue book excerpts that have been released to the press gallery. So, in conclusion, today we had a scaremongering campaign over the Greens-ALP agreement, which does not allude to many of the policy areas that were highlighted— (Time expired)

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Returning to the motion before the house to take note of questions asked today by Senator Abetz and Senator Bernardi, I was particularly struck by the response that Senator Abetz’s question elicited from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans. Senator Abetz asked a very sensible question about what legislation was discussed by the Prime Minister and Senator Bob Brown in the meetings that had been organised pursuant to the agreement between the Greens and the ALP. Senator Evans was asked what proposals had been submitted for costings, what public servants Senator Brown had been given access to and what agreements had been reached beyond 1 September. The minister’s response was less than encouraging. He was very dismissive, very casual, almost cavalier, about those meetings: yes, there had been meetings and, ‘We’ll announce something in due course; what’s your hang-up about these issues?’

I think that position is deeply concerning and quite unacceptable. There was a singular lack of transparency about a process which is at the very heart of how this new, re-elected, minority Labor government will work. I ask senators to contrast that with the situation that would have operated under a coalition government and did operate under the previous coalition government. The Liberal and National parties in that government sat together in cabinet. They sat together in both chambers. They campaigned together during elections. Their policies were joint policies and the policies were transparent; they were upfront. Pursuant to those policies, the decisions or outcomes that were agreed to in cabinet meetings were available for the electorate to see. But that is not the case here. The policies of the Labor Party and the Greens are not the same. They are very different. In fact, some of those policies are contradictory. The Greens do not sit in the cabinet—at least, not yet. So we cannot simply take what has been announced as the outcome of a cabinet meeting as an indication of the results of discussions that have taken place between the Greens and the Labor government.

So it is fair for Senator Abetz to ask: what precisely do the Australian community and the Senate have in front of them to understand what mechanisms are at work in this government to involve the Greens and, for that matter, the Independents in the other place, who have a formal or informal role in the government of Australia? Senator Abetz’s questions went to those issues. What is it that we can have to indicate what influence the Greens and other parties are exercising on the decisions of the Gillard Labor government?

Senator Evans was very dismissive of that: ‘None of your business. Go away. The conversations are confidential.’ But I think we need more than that. We need to be able to see exactly what has been the input of parties like the Greens and what has been the outcome in terms of the government’s decisions. I accept we are on new ground, I accept that there are no precedents for this position, but that is not an excuse for making it up as you go along. If non-government members and senators have a privileged position within the Australian government, if they exercise unprecedented influence on the decisions of the government, by virtue of an agreement they entered into to guarantee that government supply and support against no-confidence motions, then we need a mechanism to reveal precisely what that influence is. And that was not evident in anything that Senator Evans said in his answers to Senator Abetz’s questions. That is very disturbing. It is of course the opposite of transparency and openness.

The deal-making with the Greens and parties in the other place that no doubt will go on in the ranks of this government is apparently not to be put on the table in a way that we can all see it, and that fills me with a great deal of trepidation. I think, if this government is going to be serious about this new position it finds itself in—a position it obviously does not welcome but nonetheless is in—where it has accepted the support of other parties to give it power, then it should be honest with the Australian people about what that means and how that influence on the government is actually exercised. That was the purport of Senator Abetz’s question, and it was not answered. If we do not know how these processes will work in future, we are entitled to assume the worst—and the worst coming from the Greens will be very bad indeed.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to participate in today’s debate on the motion to take note of answers given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans. In particular, I want to focus on the comments made by the opposition about the IMF report and interest rates. Today, the International Monetary Fund released its article IV concluding statement, strongly endorsing this Labor government’s responsible economic and fiscal management. We should put that in perspective, given we have just gone through one of the worst financial crises this country and also the world has ever seen. We entered that period of darkness with a $42 billion stimulus package and we are on the path to recovery due to that package. In doing that, we stimulated the economy and we protected jobs. We protected working families. We protected people who at the time were in need. Also, on the back of that, we increased pensions and pension rates. So, all in all, in the last period of government, a Labor government performed in an economically sound way, in every shape or form.

To stand in this chamber and to claim that in some way we are irresponsible for what we have done for working families is incorrect and not a statement that should be taken for granted and accepted by the wider community. In taking that decisive action and by implementing that stimulus package, we are now on that path of strict spending discipline and we are on a rapid return to surplus in less than the period that we initially felt we would. In less than three years from now we will be in a position where we will be returning the budget back to surplus. We have put a very strong fiscal consolidation in place and we are once again tracking the delivery of that, bearing in mind that around about 1960 was the last time we were in this situation. That is why the IMF has basically endorsed our economic plans to meet the challenges of mining boom mark 2.

Interest rates is an interesting area and an interesting debate that should be had. The limited time that I have this afternoon prevents me from going into much detail. Obviously, everyone in this chamber knows that interest rates are a matter for the independent RBA. We are not going to speculate, nor should we and nor should anyone in this chamber, on future movements. Our focus will be, rather, spent on implementing those economic plans and tackling the capacity constraints that were left unattended in the mining boom mark 1. We also know that, while our economy and job creation is strong, mining booms will also bring significant challenges in capacity and high dollar demands. That is why we are making historic investments to expand our capacity and why we are investing in transport infrastructure, NBN, skills and education.

I spoke widely yesterday in particular about the Building the Education Revolution. Some people really need to get out and experience what is happening in schools and see the joy and satisfaction of those children, those parents and those citizens. Principals and teachers are telling me when I open those Building the Education Revolution initiatives of how they are improving their education. It is not just the children but the community at large that, on the back of those initiatives, are getting opportunities not seen before. I wish some of those people on the other side would go to some of those openings. In Queensland I have been fortunate to have Peter Slipper, the new Deputy Speaker over in the other house, come along to one opening and he was so overwhelmed and so happy with attending an opening he wanted to be in a photograph with me.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don’t believe that.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will send you a copy of that, Senator Brandis. I would love to send you a copy because I sent it to Peter Slipper, and he is happy. I am sure he has got it pinned up on his noteboard in his office. Closing on interest rates, I want to make this final statement and it is all about this inconvenient truth—the inconvenient truth of our having the highest interest rates. We should go back to a period when I understand, as reported, interest rates were 21.4 per cent when John Howard was the Treasurer of the government. (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the responses by Senator Evans to this place during question time. It is entirely appropriate for the people of Australia to want to know what the preferences deal was between Labor and the Greens leading up to this last election. It is all well and good for now Prime Minister Gillard and Senator Bob Brown to say they did not know what they were, but I can assure you that the Australian people deserve and want to know what they were. For the record, there are six Labor members in the other place, including the Treasurer of this country, who are there as a result of Greens preferences. In July next year there will be one Labor and one Greens senator joining us in this place as a result of those same preferences. It is duplicitous of Senator Evans to not even want or attempt or try to answer the questions in relation to the cost of living. They were entirely reasonable questions and deserving of an entirely reasonable answer.

Let me just take the attention of two or three policies of the Greens that are going to have a dramatic impact on the wellbeing of Australians and on the cost of living. The first is the demand by the Greens that there be removed the 30 per cent and, in some cases for older Australians, the 40 per cent health rebate. What is that going to add to the cost of living for Australians? Let me give you this understanding now. Despite the relatively low cost to the economy of private health insurance, 40 per cent of all patients in this country are treated in the private sector and 60 per cent of all surgery is undertaken in the private sector, yet the government, according to 2007-08 figures, contributed only $1.7 billion through rebates whereas they had to contribute $31 billion to the public health system. If and when the Labor government, driven by their Greens partners, do remove the private health rebate, what impact is that going to have on costs of private health and on availability in the public health sector, which, as we know, is already heavily under pressure?

The second point that I draw to the attention of the chamber is the demand by the Greens that we wind down support for the Catholic and independent schools sector, remove all further funding for capital works and take anything away from so-called wealthier schools. Let me tell you what the statistics are in this country, whether you support private education or not. The cost to the taxpayer of every child in a state school in this country is $12,600. The cost to the taxpayer of children in private schools—Catholic and independent—is $6,600, the difference being $6,000 per child that the taxpayer is saved by having them in Catholic and independent schools. The cost in WA alone is $780 million a year saved as a result of parents putting their children in Catholic and independent schools. It is some $780 million in WA and $7.5 billion nationally. Those are the sorts of increases in the cost of living we are going to see in this country if and when the Greens get their power with the Labor government. What they are doing sitting on the crossbenches and not over on the Treasury bench is absolutely unknown to me.

In the time available to me, I now come to the increase in the cost of power and other utilities that is going to accompany this madness associated with the increase and the tax on carbon. It is completely and utterly without any validity for us to go through this process, but let me assure the chamber that as we move to areas such as some of these renewables which are unsustainable—the Scandinavians are already going away from wind power—we have not yet had the opportunity to investigate the real cost. Take the cost of green jobs, for example. In Spain, a country which is now in economic denial and demise, there are at least two jobs lost for every green job saved.

And it is not just the cost of living; it is going to be the cost of dying. Add that to the families beyond as the Greens death duties come into play. We heard that comment in this place earlier; it is now the time for this Labor government to tell the Australian people the truth.

Question agreed to.