Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received the following letter from Senator Fifield:

Dear Mr President, pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The Gillard Government's incapacity to govern competently as it lurches from crisis to crisis.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the history of Australian governments is written the Greens-Labor government under Ms Gillard and Senator Bob Brown will go down as the worst ever. In the index, under the word 'crises', the entries will be lengthy: cabinet leaks, the cash splash, Fuelwatch, GROCERYchoice, the Fitzgibbon resignation, pink batts, Building the Education Revolution, solar panels, Green Loans, 'cash for clunkers', border protection, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the no-carbon-tax promise, mandatory precommitment on poker machines, the superprofits tax, the live animal exports—and the list goes on and on.

And today we have of course the addition of the Qantas debacle. We have a Prime Minister who can ring a 14-year-old boy in a prison in Bali, who can ring Australian sporting superstars on their success and try to get publicity but who is unable to lift the phone to ring the CEO of Qantas in circumstances where the nation was ground to a halt as a result of industrial action. At the behest of the Greens, this is a Prime Minister who can stop the live cattle export industry overnight, but this is a Prime Minister that cannot stop industrial action within a few hours, although she has that power in legislation that she herself wrote, namely, section 431 of the Fair Work Act. Her reason for not using it was that it was untested, it was untried. Who put it in her legislation? She did. Why is section 431 in the legislation if it cannot be used because it has never been tried? What a wonderful endorsement of Ms Gillard's personal work that she says her own legislation does not work and will not work.

Today we have had proof positive of what we on this side have thought for so long: that if the government were not so beholden to the leadership of the Transport Workers Union—the leadership of which will undoubtedly become the leadership of the national Australian Labor Party at their national conference—they would have been able to act and stop the Qantas fleet from being grounded. Qantas have today confirmed that if the government would have taken decisive action and promised action under section 431 they would not have grounded the fleet.

We have on the other side of this parliament a smorgasbord of trade union officials like you would not believe—28 out of the 31 sitting over there are former trade union officials priding themselves on being able to read the industrial relations scene. Yet, allegedly, not one of them predicted what Qantas might do. When Qantas gave them hours and hours of notice of what they were intending to do, they said they were ambushed and they were flat-footed. They did not even ask Qantas, it would seem, for an extra hour or two to consider the government's position with a view to intervening in the dispute so that tens of thousands of Australians would not need to be inconvenienced by the grounding of the fleet. Why didn't the government do that? It has all these industrial relations experts on the other side, but dare we raise the issue of the strikes that were being threatened day by day by union leadership? Those opposite claim to be the champions of the workers, but take my tip: Thursday night, as the parliament rises, and Friday morning the Labor senators will all be there in the Qantas Chairman's Lounge whooping it up courtesy of Qantas. They will not tell the workers that they were there in the Qantas lounge whooping it up courtesy of Qantas. They will be saying, 'We were there fighting for the workers.'

We now have this bizarre proposition that somehow we on this side got advance notice from Qantas. It is news to me and it is news to my family. Why on earth I had to fly up here on Monday morning on a Virgin flight when I usually leave on a Sunday evening is beyond me. If I had all this notice and all my other colleagues had this notice, why did so many of the coalition frontbench—all of us, in fact—have to make alternative arrangements to get here for this week's sitting? The Labor Party, devoid of any excuse for their inaction in this, just make up this story that somehow Qantas had told us. What do you do? The Labor Party think that attack is the best form of defence. They make up a story, feed it to the media and hope it gets legs. I invite anybody from the Australian Labor Party to have a look at all the coalition frontbenchers who had to make changes to their flight schedules to get themselves here for the parliament. If we had had advance notice that would not have been necessary.

I am sure that Senator Cameron, having debunked that conspiracy theory, will in his fertile mind rustle up some other conspiracy theory to try to condemn the coalition. But the Australian people know this: it is Labor and the Greens who are in government and they are the ones that have to justify their incapacity to run this country. Their disputes between themselves are now becoming legion. We have Senator Kim Carr—they call him 'Rusty' these days because he leaks everywhere. We know that on border protection they have heated disputes within cabinet, because the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Bowen, sided with the coalition policy on border protection—others did not. Ms Gillard won the day only because her pride got in the way of good sensible policy. We know as well, courtesy of leaks, that four or five cabinet ministers in a phone hook-up on the Qantas dispute were in dispute between themselves. It is quite clear that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Mr Albanese, and the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Shorten, wanted the government to take the sort of action that somebody was suggesting a week earlier on Meet the Pressand that the Victorian Premier and the New South Wales Premier were suggesting. These were summarily dismissed by the great expert Ms Gillard herself.

But we know that action could have been taken and should have been taken. What is more, there are Labor ministers anxiously leaking to put on the record that they were on the coalition side on border protection and that they were on the coalition side with the Qantas dispute. Yet they still come out with these outrageous claims that somehow we knew about it before Labor did. As if that were the case—really! Do you expect the Australian people to accept that as an excuse for Labor's gross incompetence in this area? The Manager of Opposition Business, Senator Fifield, was absolutely right to put before the Senate a matter of public importance that states:

The Gillard government's incapacity to govern competently as it lurches from crisis to crisis.

Not only is this government incapable of making good decisions on border protection, workplace relations or the carbon tax but let us not forget that great deceit perpetrated on the Australian people 'There will be no carbon tax', and here they are all lemming-like running to the cliff to throw themselves over to vote for a carbon tax that they promised the Australian people they would not have. And here they are, all lemming-like, running to the cliff to throw themselves over to vote for a carbon tax that they promised the Australian people they would not have.

But the greatest indicium, the greatest indicator, of a government in crisis is when the cabinet leaks and when the cabinet leaks on a regular basis. Labor has it now leaking out no longer by the bucketful; it is coming out not drip by drip but by the swimming pool. The leaks are huge. The border protection leaks were absolutely devastating. Now we have got the workplace relations leaks in relation to Qantas. So there is no doubt that this is not only an incompetent government in relation to its management of its own affairs; it is also failing the nation. (Time expired)

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At least Senator Abetz had the honesty to smile when he was doing that. He actually knew that this was so much rubbish that he was going on with. If you talk about incapacity to govern competently, I think the record holders in that were the Howard government. The Howard government set a big benchmark on incompetence, the incompetence of Howard and Costello, the ongoing fight between Howard and Costello. You can imagine Peter Costello going back to his staff and saying, 'Look, Little Johnny won't let me become Prime Minister.' And what did he do? He walked away from politics because he had no internal fortitude. He could not take John Howard on, he could not deliver decent economic policy, and what did he do? He just allowed John Howard to conduct a spendathon when he was in government, an absolute spendathon. There was no economic credibility, in my view, from the Howard government.

It is an absolute myth that the Howard government were economically competent. You only have to go back and have a look at the exposure that was done on John Howard and Peter Costello by Peter Hartcher. What did Peter Costello say to Peter Hartcher? He said, 'I had big fights with Howard all the time'—not just some fights but he had fights all the time with John Howard. He went on to say, 'As the party of low taxes, I thought we ought to keep the ratio of taxes to GDP low.' He might have thought that but he did not have the backbone to actually force that position through as the Treasurer. 'My view was always that cutting taxes was more important than new spending. This would be a point of argument and contention between the two of us,' he said. So here you have the so-called dream team, John Howard and Peter Costello, arguing and fighting all the time, an absolute crisis of leadership continually in the Howard government, a crisis of leadership between the two senior Liberals in government, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister.

What did they deliver? They delivered nothing. A spendathon is what they delivered. Peter Costello said that he had to give in—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order on relevance. I know we are allowed very wide parameters for these debates, but the subject we are discussing is the Gillard government's incapacity to govern competently as it lurches from crisis to crisis. I do not think Senator Cameron is aware of the subject of the day. He is talking about things completely foreign to the matter before the chamber.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind Senator Cameron of the topic we are discussing.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The topic I am discussing is a crisis in the Howard government. You have an accusation of crisis against the Gillard government. I am entitled to go back and talk about the crisis that was an ongoing crisis in the Howard government, and that was the incapacity of the then Prime Minister and Treasurer to get on with each other. That was a crisis, and we saw that crisis in the Howard government played out many times.

In 2001 when Costello was arguing that they should be fiscally competent, John Howard broke all previous records with $26 billion worth of new spending. It was simply spending to try and buy votes. He topped that with a new record in 2004 with $66 billion of new spending. Then he set a new record in 2007 that would be an all-time record of new spending, $128 billion, including election promises. The crisis for the Howard government was that Peter Costello did not have the courage, the capacity or the backbone to put a stop to this. So I will not be lectured by the coalition about any crisis when there was an ongoing crisis in the Howard government and that crisis was a crisis of leadership, a crisis of economic competence and a crisis that meant that this country did not take the steps that were required to deal with the big emerging environmental and economic issues that it faced.

There was no infrastructure investment. We had a crisis under the Howard government of infrastructure investment. Time and time again they were warned by the Productivity Commission, they were warned by government departments and they were warned by Engineers Australia that we had to build infrastructure in this country to take advantage of our natural resources. The crisis continued and there was no spending on infrastructure.

There was a crisis in education. It took the Labor government to fund decent infrastructure in education in this country. The Labor government had to do that. In the seat of Macquarie you see some of the schools where they had outside toilets, freezing toilets, old toilets, 100-year-old toilets still being used. The Howard government did absolutely nothing about that. Under the Howard government, there was a crisis in manufacturing. When the Howard government took over, elaborately transformed manufactures were growing. When the Howard government finished, manufacturing jobs were in rapid decline and free trade agreements were being signed with the US, putting our manufacturing industry under challenge.

The Howard government failed dismally to deal with climate change and you can see why they failed to deal with climate change—it was because people like Senator Macdonald did not believe in climate change. People like Senator Macdonald are climate change deniers.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

He can deny that all he likes. If you look at the record of Senator Macdonald, not only on the floor of this house but at inquiries and at Senate estimates, you will see that he is a climate change denier.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr President: is there any provision in this chamber to stop a senator telling deliberate lies which he knows are deliberate lies? I have always acknowledged climate change exists—and it has for 20 million years, Senator Cameron.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, that is a debating point and you will need to withdraw the comment 'deliberate lie'.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw because you have ordered me to, Mr Deputy President, but what Senator Cameron said was a deliberate untruth.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, I remind you of the topic under discussion in the chamber today.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I repeat, Mr Deputy President, that the topic is about governments and that the topic is about crises. The Howard government's failure to deal with climate change demonstrates a crisis of competence in that government. That is directly on topic and it is directly to the point. You cannot have a position where the coalition come in here, run all their spurious arguments and then, when faced with some home truths about their lack of capacity to deal with some of the bigger economic and environmental issues, get up and bleat like stuck pigs, saying, 'You cannot raise those issues.' I will be raising those issues. They are directly on point and they go directly to the issue of competence.

The Howard government were incompetent in dealing with workers. What was their approach on workers? We see a crisis in the coalition now because some of them want to continue Work Choices. The member for Moncrieff, Steve Ciobo, is down there arguing to go back to Work Choices and Senator Abetz is trying to paper that over. The big crisis is not a government crisis; the big crisis is the lack of direction, the lack of vision and the lack of policy on the opposite side. We know that the member for Moncrieff is standing over Senator Abetz, trying to get a hardline, right-wing industrial policy in place. We know that is the crisis, the battle, which is going on within the coalition and we know who will eventually win, because we know that the hardliners, the right wingers, in the coalition want to create another crisis. They want to create another crisis for working families in this country by implementing Work Choices once more. We know that is the battle that is on and we know that is where it is all heading. So I will not be lectured by the coalition about crises; I will not be lectured by them for one minute.

What have the big crises been? There have been two crises which, from my perspective, are worth talking about today. One crisis was the global financial crisis. During the global financial crisis, what did the coalition have to say? They tried to pretend it was not happening. They called it 'the North American crisis' as if it were not a problem, as if we did not have to bail the banks out here and underpin them to maintain confidence in the financial system. The coalition thought things would go ahead. They said, 'We will just wait and see what happens.' If ever there were a crisis of competence, that was one. When the International Monetary Fund, when the OECD, when the Treasury and when the Reserve Bank were all saying, 'We have to stimulate the economy; we have to make sure we keep people in work,' what did the Labor Party do? We stimulated the economy and we kept 210,000 Australians in jobs. That kept rural communities and regional communities going. It kept people in work. We were not prepared to do what the coalition wanted to do—wait and see what would happen and end up in a major recession, if not a depression. We fixed that. Our record in facing crises is there for people to see. We take action and we actually deliver on jobs in this country.

What is the other crisis? The other crisis, they say, is Qantas. We heard Senator Abetz wax lyrical about Qantas. I do not mind if the coalition want to stand up, day in and day out, defending big business and defending Qantas—who showed absolutely no interest in looking after the travelling public, who treated the travelling public with contempt and who simply closed their business down and left Australians and international passengers stranded all over the world. If that is what the coalition want to defend, I am not surprised. We know they are the party of big business, we know they are the party which sucks up to big business, we know they are the party which does not want the big mining companies to pay one extra cent and we know they are the party which wants to give $10 billion back to Gina Rinehart, Twiggy Forrest, Anglo American, BHP and Rio Tinto. They want to give $10 billion back to the mining companies when the rest of the country is struggling. We want to deal with the crisis of the patchwork economy by making sure that everybody gets a fair go. And what do the coalition want to do? They want to give $10 billion back to some of the richest, most powerful companies not only in the country but in the whole world. BHP and Rio Tinto are saying, 'We are prepared to pay.' What an absolute joke these people are.

We know a crisis is on in the coalition, because we know that the Nationals do not like the Liberals, we know the Liberals do not like the Nationals and we know the Liberals do not like each other. It is all being papered over at the moment, but it is all ready to burst out like a big boil. And it will happen. Mark my words: it will happen. The crisis is one of competence in the coalition—a massive crisis of competence. They are just completely incompetent.

When we acted decisively on looking after working people in this country, when we got rid of Work Choices, what did they do? They said, 'Well, you had better look at giving more flexibility to the employers.' I have been around the industrial relations scene for a long time and I know what flexibility for employers is—it is getting rid of workers' penalty rates, their shift allowances and their annual leave loading, and making sure that they work any hours the boss wants. That is where this lot want to go. Make no mistake about it, if there is ever a coalition government again Work Choices is back. It is not a crisis of government then; it is a crisis for working people. They are the party of big business. They are the party of sucking up to big business, taking the money off big business for their election campaigns and delivering in spades to big business at the expense of ordinary working people in this country. They are an absolute disgrace and they absolutely have a hide to come here and talk about any crisis in a government that looks after working people in this country.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is amazing how Senator Cameron has to talk about the past. He cannot talk about the present—the factions and the disputes. As Senator Cameron heads for the doors I am reminded of when he said, 'Kevin Rudd has my total support as Prime Minister,' and a few hours later Mr Rudd was politically decapitated. Now Senator Cameron is doing a bolt from the chamber like the horses down the straight at Flemington instead of sitting here and listening to what I am about to say. How disappointing. Please listen, Senator Cameron. Come back, don't bolt!

Where do we start? We can start with government spending. Today interest rates went down by a quarter of a per cent. I think that is a great thing, but I ask the question: why? Why did we have seven interest rate rises in the first place? Why did the official rate go from 3.0 per cent to 4.75 per cent? Well, the Reserve Bank raised them because the government had their foot on the accelerator, borrowing money and wasting it throughout the economy. Our debt as of last Friday was $215.6 billion. To the people listening on radio, how many generations of your children are going to be mortgaged away with $215.6 billion of debt?

Where was the money spent? There was the pink batts fiasco, where $1.8 billion was spent to put insulation into ceilings. Now they are going to spend another $1 billion to take it out and have it policed.

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The lowest unemployment in the OECD.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the interjection by 'senator pricklebush'—sorry, Mr Deputy President; Senator Thistlethwaite. The point is that four people lost their lives in this crazy scheme. That is the sad thing.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: I would like you to rule on that kind of petty name calling that the senator is engaging in.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was disorderly. Senator Williams did correct himself. I remind Senator Williams to use the correct title for senators.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies. I will certainly do that. There is a very important thing in the interest rate decision today. Remember Melbourne Cup Day last year when interest rates went up by 0.25 per cent and the banks, like the Commonwealth Bank, raised them 0.45 per cent? I think NAB was 0.35 per cent. Let us see if the banks reduce interest rates for home loans; we know they will not do it for businesses. We look at the huge reduction in interest rates during the global financial crisis—some four per cent reduction in official rates—and businesses and farmers got just a 1.5 per cent reduction in their rates. I am sure the banks are scared, because Treasurer Swan, the Deputy Prime Minister, has warned them that if interest rates go down today the banks must follow. The Treasurer has said that some 50 times before and the banks have not paid any attention to what he was saying.

But I ask the question: why did the rates go up in the first place? This is the point. The nation is wallowing in debt brought about by the huge spending of this government. They raised their debt limit first of all from $75 billion to $200 billion and then just recently from $200 billion to $250 billion—remember that sneaky little piece in the budget last May that was brought into the House of Representatives late at night to be passed through, so no-one knew of the hidden way of extending the credit card debt for all Australians.

Ask where there money went. There were the school buildings: the $600,000 kiosk as the Tottenham school, where you cannot swing a cat it is that small. I could take you to the Kingstown school, north of Tamworth where $330,000 was spent for a building about eight metres by four metres. An amount of $300,000 would build you a huge solid brick home with four or five bedrooms, but they get a room eight metes by three or four metres for $330,000. We could go on with the waste. That is why the Labor Party are polling a 29 per cent primary vote. The Labor Party knows that to win an election they need a four in front of their primary vote. The Australian people are not fools. They have seen the debt building and the waste and they have judged them. Let us look at the issue of asylum seekers and the cost of that to our nation, let alone the cost in lives. They say that some four per cent may lose their lives coming here on leaky, dangerous boats. It is an industry that has been cranked up because of the actions of this government. The budget had the cost of asylum seekers to the Australian people at $1.2 billion—a huge amount of money. But that figure blew out by $1.1 billion, making a total $3.2 billion of borrowed or taxpayers' money for the cost of asylum seekers to this nation last year. Before the election, it was the East Timor solution and then it was the Malaysian solution, which the High Court rightly ruled out. On Perth radio last year, the Prime Minister said, 'I will not send asylum seekers to countries that are not signatories to the refugee convention.' But then she went in the opposite direction and pursued her policy to send them to Malaysia—not a signatory to the refugee convention. She went back on her word. That is no surprise.

We know the carbon tax promise that was made before the election. That will hound Prime Minister Gillard to her political death. She will be remembered for that broken promise. That was stimulated by the Greens and the Independents—Mr Tony Windsor and Mr Rob Oakeshott, who played a major role and were complicit in the Prime Minister and the Treasurer breaking their word to the Australian people. Make no mistake about it, those others were complicit in the failure of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to keep their commitment made to the Australian people prior to the election.

Let us look at live cattle exports. I watched that Four Corners and I was disgusted with the treatment of those cattle. As I have said before in this chamber, I am no stranger to a butcher's knife. For many, many years, my brother and I slaughtered our own cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry. I thought the behaviour I saw on that program was disgusting. Why didn't Minister Ludwig the very next day just get a copy of that Four Corners program, get on an aeroplane and go straight to Indonesia and meet their agriculture minister, and say, 'We have a problem and it is unacceptable to see animals treated like this'? But, no, all the emails came in and the government, being poll driven, put a suspension on the whole industry. We have the situation now with the export of live cattle to Indonesia where a cow must not exceed 350 kilograms and we have cattle being carted from the top of Western Australia to Inverell in northern New South Wales at $200 a head for freight. That is the legacy of this disgraceful decision by this government.

We could go on about so many other things regarding this government's performance. There was the cash-for-clunkers scheme. What happened with that policy? It was announced before the election. It has been put aside, like so many other things. There was the promise by this government to put downward pressure on fuel prices with the Fuelwatch scheme. What a waste of money. Then we had GROCERYchoice. I remember looking at the website for northern NSW and it had some grocery prices in Tamworth and some in Grafton. It is a long way from Tamworth to Grafton. This was supposed to put downward pressure on grocery prices!

The government lurch from fiasco to fiasco. But the Australian people now know that they cannot trust this government to spend taxpayers' money wisely, to protect our borders and to even keep our aircraft flying with some sort of regularity. Let us look at what happened there. Qantas management were pushed to the extreme in taking the action that they did. It caused a fiasco for the travelling population both here and abroad, because the government failed to see the situation and it failed to act.

I want to go back to interest rates. We had seven interest rises under this government, because of their wasteful spending to stimulate the economy, while the Reserve Bank was pulling on the handbrake. The government have their foot flat out on the accelerator and the Reserve Bank pulled on the handbrake seven times. If the government had not borrowed so much and if they had not wasted so much, interest rates would have stayed lower and, importantly, the exchange rate would have stayed lower as well. The cost to rural Australia has been huge as a result of the Australian dollar being above parity, with the consequent loss in the value of our exports.

To top it off, what are we now going to get? A carbon tax—a tax that is going to create so many jobs! If it is going to be so good for our nation, why don't they double it to $46 a tonne? Of course they will not do that. This tax will adversely impact many of our exporting industries. Take the cement industry, where we have lost two factories—Rockhampton and Kandos. Those jobs have been lost and the industry has had to shut down because they could not afford greater costs. This government think that a carbon tax is going to save the world and build all these jobs. It will do none of that; it will simply add to the cost of living and to the costs for industry. It is tax on business—the sector of the economy that derives our nation's wealth. This government hate business, hate them employing people and hate them making a profit. And what do the government intend to do? They intend to strangle business. This is why they have been a most disgraceful government.

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last Friday afternoon, I had the pleasure of visiting East Maitland Public School in the electorate of Paterson and opening that school's brand new Building the Education Revolution facilities. These facilities, a $3.4 million investment, provide four new classrooms and a covered learning centre. Two of those brand new classrooms are for special-needs children—children with severe learning disabilities, Down syndrome and autism, and some who are non-verbal. I was touched to visit that school and to talk to the principal, who was over the moon about the fact that finally her school had some facilities that could offer a decent education for kids with learning disabilities. I spoke to a parent at the completion of the ceremony who had moved from Western Australia to get their kid into this particular school because of the educational opportunities that could be offered to their son, who has a severe learning disability. In the government's view and in my view, this is money well spent. It is invested in public education and in greater educational opportunities for kids, particularly those with learning disabilities.

I am flabbergasted to still hear the criticism and the ridiculous claims from those opposite about this scheme. I challenge any of those opposite to look in the eye of the parent of a kid with learning disabilities and tell that parent that the money we spent in providing their son or daughter with the same educational opportunities as other students in that school was a waste of money.

When I was a kid at school and a university student, I can remember a time when debates in our nation's parliament were about a belief and a vision for our country, a genuine contest of ideas, a battle for the hearts and minds of the people of Australia. I can remember a time when the Liberal Party had vision and belief, albeit a conservative belief and one that I did not agree with, and they had policies on issues. This matter of public importance today clearly demonstrates that the modern Liberal Party have no belief, no philosophy, no vision and in particular no policies for this nation. They are a policy free zone.

When it comes to policy development, they are woefully inferior to the Liberal Parties of the past and that shows in this MPI today. It reflects the philosophy under the leadership of Tony Abbott, whose approach is to say no to every idea, no to every policy, no to every vision, no to every philosophy for our nation. It is not only the policies of the Labor government that Mr Abbott opposes; it is also his own party room. When was the last time we heard a policy announcement from the Leader of the Opposition? When was the last occasion on which a shadow minister made a policy announcement? I cannot remember.

The only policy to have come out of the Liberal's party room in the last few months has been from the member for Mayo, Jamie Briggs, who said that individual contracts should be part of the Liberal Party's workplace relations policy, that the Liberal Party should consider extending the GST to the likes of food. They are a policy free zone and this MPI today demonstrates that. It is not for me to make these claims. It is not for me to criticise them when one of their own is doing an ample job of doing that. I draw the Senate's attention to a quote from former Leader of the Liberal Party John Hewson, who said in respect of Tony Abbott:

He's not a policy-driven person; he sees politics as a game—you say or do whatever you have to win and if you have to change your view, you do. His strategy is to be provocative, to be in people's faces … He throws a bomb and then he moves on, or if it blows up too badly, he apologises.

That was the view of John Hewson, a former leader of the Liberal Party. Why is that? Why are they a policy free zone? When they announce policies we see why. Let us have a look at the last election and how the Liberal Party proved what wonderful economic managers they would be of our economy. Not only were they pledging to cut services but when they lodged their election commitments for costing, they came up $11 billion short. Not even their own financial auditors would give an unqualified signoff on their accounts. There was an $11 billion black hole in their costings—and they claim to be an alternate government!—and that black hole was only beaten by a recent leak from their shadow cabinet about $70 billion worth of cuts which they are planning.

On their direct action policy on climate change, they say that they agree with our policy of a five per cent reduction in emissions by 2020. How will they achieve that? They will pay big polluters. They will provide subsidies with no guarantee of reductions in emissions.

I always thought that the Liberal Party philosophy believed in market efficiency. Indeed, I had a look at the Liberal Party website today. One of their beliefs is that government should not compete with an efficient private sector and that businesses and individuals are true creators of wealth and employment. If you looked at the Liberal Party policy on climate change, you could be blown over and fooled by the fact that it is in direct contrast to their beliefs on their own web site.

Then we have had them criticise us about Qantas—but they do not have a policy when it comes to workplace relations. I asked those opposite, 'What is your policy on workplace relations? Are individual contracts in or out? Is the member for Mayo right or wrong?' When are we going to get a policy announcement from those opposite on important issues? They fail to understand that the provisions in the Workplace Relations Act relating to suspension and termination of bargaining periods have been there since 1993. They were there for the whole period of the Howard years. Not once—never ever—was that particular section, which allows the minister to make a declaration, used by those opposite, yet they seek to criticise us.

Our philosophies and our policies are clear. We are a reforming government. We have put our policies before the people. We have announced our policies and we continue to do so. They are fully funded and fully costed. Our policies and our vision are for economic growth with fairness and we are delivering on that. We have one of the best performing economies in the world, with unemployment half that of the United Kingdom and the United States. We have created jobs. We have protected jobs during the global financial crisis.

Senator Williams mentioned debt. Australia has one of the most enviable rates of net debt in the developed world. Our average is well below that of the OECD. We have a clear plan to return our budget to surplus. We have a clear plan to protect the environment by pricing carbon through a market based mechanism that will allow businesses to make their own decisions about how they reduce their costs associated with carbon emissions, a plan that will drive investment and jobs growth in renewables technology in the new economy. We have a plan to reform our health system and we are delivering that reform, with more doctors and nurses being trained and pressure being taken off our hospitals and our emergency centres with GP superclinics. We have an ageing population, and this is something that we realise will place a great impost on our budget. That is why we have a plan to increase occupational superannuation from nine per cent to 12 per cent. We are delivering extra public housing. We are delivering pension increases. We are delivering tax reform for low- to middle-income earners. When it comes to policies, Labor has a clear plan. The opposition is a policy vacuum, and this is well demonstrated by this motion this afternoon.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a matter of public importance. This government's level of incompetence is such that I do not think anybody in this chamber in their lifetime has seen anything that resembles the crass incompetence of this government, of these ministers, of this Prime Minister and, indeed, of the senators in the Labor Party here in this chamber. It is very interesting in such a pointed matter of public importance that Labor senators have not sought to raise any legitimate achievements that have arisen from good public policy and good administration. In questioning why that is the case, the answer is that there simply are not any. This government lurches from one fiasco to another. This last weekend we saw for all to understand incompetence in living, breathing form in ministers and the Prime Minister.

Good government has a number of qualities. Firstly, it has a competent leader in control of her ministers. Secondly, it comprises competent ministers in a cabinet who are loyal to their leader, the Prime Minister. Thirdly, good government has a party room or a caucus that is loyal and in support of the Prime Minister and her ministers. This Prime Minister and this government have none of those three features. Kevin Rudd is running a relentless and utterly ruthless campaign to regain the leadership of the Labor Party, and this Prime Minister has no authority to discipline him or deal with him in any shape or form whatsoever. He is on the loose, out of control and undermining this government at its very foundation. She is so lacking in authority she can do nothing but smile and watch.

This campaign of Mr Rudd's would not have a feather to fly with if it were not for the void of honour and integrity that this Labor cabinet has created. It is a void that is so hollow and deep that Kevin Rudd is enjoying rock star status. He gave the performance we observed on Friday night in Perth unchecked and undisciplined. This is all because these ministers in this government are so disloyal, undisciplined, lacking in honour and lacking in integrity. They are collectively disloyal. They are incompetent and ill disciplined in everything they do. One can probably name more than 50 different policy approaches that have come off the rails, been a waste of money and so poorly understood and administered by these ministers that they are a standing joke in Australian public policy circles.

In terms of public policy in government, the skills of these ministers can be summed up in one word. That word is 'spin'. They muck up something and then they will tell you that they actually were successful. Last weekend we observed Qantas in chaos and the travelling public in chaos. What did we have from the government? They were saying that they had resolved the issue successfully. The fact is that they were caught out in a most obvious and ridiculous way. They were sitting on their hands. They had plenty of warnings. With three hours notice that there was to be a lockout what did they do? They did absolutely nothing, leaving the public in the lurch.

Why does this Prime Minister lack all authority? There have been a number of events that have indicated that she is prepared to say and do anything to get a by-line, to get over a hurdle and to avoid scrutiny. The first and most obvious thing was the promise that there would be no carbon tax under a government that she personally led. We all know the level of integrity, honour, honesty and truthfulness in that statement. But when confronted with various problems in the execution of Kevin Rudd she tossed up the East Timor solution. The incredible fact about this was that she did not even bother to tell the East Timorese. Then, when pushed, she threw up the Manus Island solution. Again, the Papua New Guineans in Port Moresby were not even consulted. Needless to say, the Malaysian solution has gone the same way as the other two—a complete and utter fiasco. But, more importantly, our foreign policy stance with our near neighbours is an absolute shambles.

This is a Prime Minister and a cabinet that have totally lost their way, are extremely incompetent and lack integrity. Where is the evidence? The evidence, as I have hinted at, is the performance of Kevin Rudd at CHOGM. At every single opportunity he upstaged his Prime Minister. Every single time she wanted to make an announcement he was there butting in a day or half a day before, ripping the rug out from under her. His conduct with respect to the government's policy of mandatory precommitment in clubs for poker machines is virtually giving two fingers not just to cabinet and the Prime Minister but to his party. She does not have the authority to come in and discipline him. He has refused to endorse the policy.

The second piece of evidence, which is the smoking gun of the complete collapse of integrity inside the Labor Party, is these cabinet leaks. The business of cabinet is only going to be conducted successfully if people can talk freely and can conduct their business with a sense of confidence and security. We have cabinet ministers openly briefing journalists against their colleagues. This is indicative of the last days of a decadent and collapsing government. The point about this cabinet is that its members are so full of bile and invective towards each other that they are now seeking the assistance of a hungry media to launch campaigns against each other. We have seen people accused: a senator in this place has been accused of perpetrating the leaks. We have seen ministers arguing: we saw Minister Albanese and Minister Evans arguing with each other about the way to resolve the Qantas dispute on the weekend. We found out about that because ministers are leaking against each other.

This Prime Minister's authority is so low that there is a complete and utter failure to enforce any discipline or to run this cabinet properly. Indeed, Kevin Rudd is now so confident—he has undermined the foundations of this cabinet so much—that he is openly sending out signals and invitations to those who assassinated him that there will be no retribution upon his return. All is forgiven. That is the level of this Prime Minister's lack of authority. She is just floating on the surface, treading water, waiting for the inevitable. The sorts of events we saw this weekend are a product of that.

Of course, the Prime Minister has absolutely no-one but herself to blame for this, because it all comes back to the public's perception of what is integrity, what is truthfulness and what is a reliable element in her make-up that the public can have confidence in. The first thing that everybody in Australia goes to, to see what sort of a person this Prime Minister is, is her promise just before the last election that there would be no carbon tax under the government she leads. She made that promise because she knows that this is poison. Yet here she is, having sold her soul to the Greens, pushing on with it. She and her cabinet are doomed.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This afternoon the Senate debates a so-called matter of public importance. This is not a matter of public importance; it is a deliberately designed matter of political impediment. This is a device to waste the parliament's time, a device by an exclusively negative opposition to focus solely on politics, a device to enable more carping criticism of the government. Mr Abbott's strategy is clear for all to see. I will share it, with due apologies to Johnny Mercer, with the Senate: 'You've got to eliminate the positive, accentuate the negative, let go of the affirmative, don't mess with Mister In-Between.' As I said: due apologies to Johnny Mercer.

I have to acknowledge that this is the best tactic the opposition can adopt, because they do not have any policies themselves. Everybody knows what the opposition are against; no-one has a clue what they are for. How could they? No-one in the Liberal Party has a clue what their own party actually stands for, but they know they are against the minerals resource rent tax, they are against 12 per cent superannuation for workers, they are against tackling global warming by pricing carbon, they are against investing in the NBN, they are against any health reform, they are against a fair industrial relations system that has basic protections for workers, they are against the GFC stimulus that saved 200,000 jobs in Australia, they are against the banning of exit fees on home mortgages by banks and they are against the flood recovery packages for Queensland and Victoria. That is just a small sample of the things we know that the Liberals are against. While we do not know what they would actually do if they formed government, leaked internal coalition documents show the Liberal Party will have to make up $70 billion in cuts to the budget over four years to pay for not what they want to do but what they actually want to undo. That is what we know about the Liberal Party.

I acknowledge that the minority government faces particular challenges, certainly with ensuring the passage of its legislative program. So far in this 43rd Parliament 222 government bills have been passed by the House of Representatives. I actually think that the Prime Minister and the government have proved skilful negotiators with crossbenchers. In fact, I think the hung parliament has worked far better than most predicted it would. Major reforms have been passed, including the structural separation of Telstra, the NBN, national health reform, cyclone and flood reconstruction, plain packaging for tobacco, improvements to higher education and, of course, our budget measures. Perhaps it is now time for the opposition to accept that it did not form a government after the last election and perhaps it is time for it just to play a more constructive role into the future.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the discussion is concluded.