Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is obvious that we have to have this discussion and it will go on. The Labor Party, and the Greens to support them, have said that we are going into a period of stability. I have been fascinated by this announcement, this epiphany of stability. It is only in recent memory that we have had the free character assessments given by Wayne Swan about his state colleague and person from his alumni at Nambour high, Kevin Rudd, and the free character assessments dished out by Senator Conroy and Minister Burke, and there were the return serves by Mr Cameron and Mr Ferguson, and then we had Mr Albanese, who just did not know what to say. He did not know what the story was, so he said something about fighting Tories—it made no sense at all—but it was obviously a highly emotional event for him.

It is fascinating that when we are talking about stability, we are referring to a crowd that said that their government was chaotic and that it lacked discipline, method and purpose. The grand architect of this chaotic, ill-disciplined, methodless, purposeless government was the Hon. Mr Kevin Rudd. What did they do with this person? They made him the foreign minister. Of course, those are the greatest credentials for that office. What you do when you are looking for stability, when you are doing the right job for Australia, is give that person the representation of our nation in every way, shape or form in the highest meetings throughout Australia. Of course, it makes so much sense! That is obviously the reflection of a government that has the capacity of stability!

I had a week away during the floods. Before I left, I remember looking across the chamber and, correct me if I am wrong, Senator Ludwig was there—he was the Leader of Government Business in the Senate—and Senator Arbib was there. When I came back, Senator Arbib was there and Senator Ludwig was there. I do not know what happened. In the middle of the night, there was a change—a bit of a promotion. Obviously, Senator Arbib had been lobbying for a job and he got one. He bumped off Joe. But now Senator Ludwig is there and Senator Arbib is there, but Senator Arbib is going out there—he is leaving. What will we have then? We could have Senator Ludwig going there, but we have Senator Carr there, but he is going back there. We have Senator Conroy there and he is generally around at Senator Cameron's throat, but he will be there and talking to the person there. It is going to make so much sense! Senator Penny Wong is there and there. She has been all around the place. She has been in the Finance ministry. So, of course we have stability! In the other place, we have Minister McClelland. He is there, but he is going back there. Then we have Mr Ferguson. He is there. He might stay there, but he will probably go back down this way a fair bit, I would say. It is obviously stable! It is like the Rock of Gibraltar! It is completely under control! There is nothing to see here, nothing to worry about—everything is under control! All the deck chairs are arranged on the Titanic and it is going straight ahead.

It is all going to come unstuck. We know that, because this is just a purposeless, methodless, ill-disciplined government. Last week we had an absolutely perfect character assessment of the Labor Party by Kevin Rudd. Then we had a perfect assessment of Kevin Rudd by Julia Gillard and about 15 other people.

What else is in this stable ship? What have we got? We have the carbon tax—because of course the people who cannot even get their own ship together are going to cool the planet. That would make sense! That is obviously on the cards! In fact I could feel the chill as I came down here. It was decidedly cold—cold and nasty. It was very cold and very nasty. And it is getting chillier by the moment. There are some rooms here where it is virtually freezing and there are some where it is red hot. There are a lot of climatic themes happening around this building at the moment and they are going to keep happening for quite a while. The carbon tax is on and the Australian people are sitting back, scratching their heads, saying: 'Is this what should be running my nation or is this some extension of John Cleese's latest tour of Australia? Has he created a whole retinue of comic characters acting as the Australian government, giving us Monty Python's flying parliament?' It is beyond belief.

Then we have the debt. While this complete soap opera is happening in the foreground, in the background our debt is just racing through the roof. You should go to the Australian Office of Financial Management website and go to the front page—it is on the front page because you have to be completely transparent to the people overseas who are buying our bonds. There you will find that last week we extended our debt by $2.3 billion—enough to buy around 5,000 houses in regional towns or the outer suburbs. There is nothing to worry about there! The week before, we extended our debt by $3.3 billion—enough to buy close to 7,000 houses, or you could buy a couple of towns. That was how much we extended our debt in one week. The week before that, they extended our debt by in excess of $2 billion. We are now $229.7 billion in debt and we are heading towards our limit. We have a limit at $250 billion. The way we are going, we will get there very soon. They will be able to tick that box. They will have actually reached a target: our debt ceiling. What are we going to do? If they do not extend the limit, the public service will shut down. This is the chaos which is absolutely manifest in the government.

Obviously the person who is completely, totally and utterly incompetent is our current Treasurer. He is completely and utterly out of his depth—

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is the best Treasurer in the world!

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer of the millennium! My suggestion to the Labor Party has always been: if you are going to change the sheets, change both of them. If you are getting rid of Gillard, make sure you take Swan with you as well. You have to make sure you clear this up.

Drilling down through this debt issue, we are actually going to smack up against the limit—we are coming against the ceiling. They will probably try to sneak through an extension of the debt limit. They always say, 'Don't worry; it is net debt.' But they can never actually explain the net debt. They can never explain how they get the net debt figure. We know what the gross figure is, but what they are going to take off the gross figure to get back to the net debt is a mystery. It is hidden in one of those rooms. It is obviously in the capable hands of Mr Wayne Maxwell Swan, the person who told us, when he extended the debt ceiling to $200 billion, that that extension was because China was going to go into recession. China never missed a beat, but our debt certainly went into hyperspace.

Whilst these people are running up this debt, whilst they are completely and utterly out of control—a complete and utter fiasco—they are building themselves a little telephone company. Because what we want is another telephone company! It is all right because they are borrowing all the money! Ultimately we will end up with about another $50 billion worth of borrowing. They will say, 'Oh, but some of it is a lease.' But you have to pay money for the lease. There will be $27 billion in borrowings up front—but it will work its way out and they have long-term leases and so on, they tell us.

Then, on top of all that, we have the clean energy fund of $10 billion. It is just so simple—obviously we need the Greens to be managing $10 billion, because they are such great economic managers! They have been doing such a splendid job, and it makes sense that Bob Brown deserves $10 billion! He is going to have $10 billion to splurge around the economy. This is what the Australian people are seeing at the same time as our democratic process is being dragged through the mud. The honour of office has been completely and utterly sullied. It has been a fiasco.

Think of this show as the nation's local accountancy practice. We have had the vision in the last week of them throwing the staplers at one another, of them kicking over the photocopiers, of them yelling and hurling abuse and of every staff member picking the side of a partner and joining in the fray. Then they look at the Australian people and say, 'We want your business.' 'No,' the Australian people say, 'we just want you out of town.' The Australian people are going to take their business somewhere else. They have to because, if we continue on this way, Australia will go out the back door.

Tell me one thing about this government which actually suggests competence. So help me—the Prime Minister lauds, as her greatest achievement, the carbon tax. That is your crucifix, not your achievement. That is the most absurd thing. That is the thing the Australian people have the most passionate dislike for. Yet, to show how completely and utterly out of touch they are, they say that the carbon tax is the Labor Party's greatest achievement. (Time expired)

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Needless to say, I rise to reject the terms of this matter of public importance and to reject the remarks that have been made in support of it. It really does take some gall—gall of a very high order indeed—for those opposite to come in here and lecture this government about honesty, transparency and accountability. But then, as was said yesterday in question time, the audacity of the Liberal-National Party coalition is breathtaking. The Liberal and National parties, under the leadership of Mr Abbott, are currently engaged in one of the greatest policy swindles this parliament has ever been witness to. Is it honest, transparent or accountable for Mr Abbott to run around Australia promising a cornucopia of government spending to every interest group in the land? Any interest group that comes onto his radar screen is immediately the recipient of a commitment, a promise. Is it transparent or accountable to say that Mr Abbott's government will repeal the carbon price, the mining tax and the means testing of the private health insurance rebate, increase government spending in various areas and yet somehow bring in a budget surplus?

Not for much longer will this opposition be able to get away with this pea and thimble trick that it is trying to perpetrate in this Senate and across the country. Now that the focus will return to the Abbott-Gillard contest, this is policy nonsense the Liberal Party must start facing up to. Senators opposite cannot go on much longer opposing every revenue measure that this government introduces, opposing every spending reduction that this government implements and pandering to every interest group and lobbyist that offers them a donation, and still hope to retain any credibility as we head towards the next election.

This month we saw an outstanding example of this opposition's idea of honesty, transparency and accountability as we watched Mr Hockey trying to wriggle out of his admission, late last year, that a coalition government would have to find $70 billion in spending cuts over the forward estimates in order to make its budget balance. This is what Mr Hockey had to say:

I will tell you what we are doing. We are going through the budget, line by line and item by item. The government will spend—Liberal or Labor—will spend $1,500 billion over the next four years. It is a massive amount of money. Therefore finding 50, 60 or 70 billion is about identifying waste and identifying areas where you do not need to proceed with programs.

In other words, Mr Hockey said that a coalition government will cut between $50 billion and $70 billion out of the budget over the forward estimates. On 8 February Mr Hockey was interviewed by Linda Mottram on the ABC. This is how he dodged and wriggled from under his own figures:

Mottram: You said the number $70 billion. There is no resiling from that.

Hockey: And 60—or 50. I mean I …

Mottram: Yeah, 50, 60, 70—okay, so which one is real?

Hockey: Okay, I shouldn’t have said any because it was part of a debate and now it’s been taken as a statement of fact.

Mottram: Were you plucking it out of the air though?

Hockey: Well, it was offered to me—I mean, you’ve got to read the full transcript.

There is plenty of honesty, transparency and accountability right there. The brains trust of the economic team hiding inside the Liberal Party, no doubt deep in a bunker somewhere, are avoiding all the scrutiny, accountability and honesty that is required of them.

But wait, because there is more. On 11 February the devious internal workings of the Liberal Party frontbench were revealed by none other than that well-known leftie Mr Andrew Bolt, who wrote the following:

Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey has been whacked around the head this week for denying he ever admitted a Coalition government would have to slash existing programs by $70 billion to meet its own spending commitments …

How the figure got into the public domain and became an albatross around Hockey’s neck is an interesting story …

In August last year, as the Coalition’s expenditure review committee looked for potential savings, there was a leak.

A news report claimed that documents from the so-called 'razor gang' revealed a warning by Hockey that $70 billion needed to be found.

In fact, well-placed sources say, the documents did not contain an overall savings target at all. Hockey provided it to shadow ministers when he spoke to them in person.

And—here’s the devious bit—he gave each of his colleagues a different figure. The reason? So that if there was a leak he would know where it came from.

The $70 billion leak immediately pinged the leaker. But it also left Hockey with the problem that now plagues him.

'I’ve never said $70 billion,' Hockey told a radio interviewer on Wednesday. But he did say it—to one member of the shadow cabinet.

Then we are: the shadow Treasurer, one of the most senior members of the opposition frontbench and, at least on my own account, a constant source of entertainment, has admitted that he set a trap for his frontbench colleagues to find out which one of them was undermining him by leaking to the media. 'A cunning plan, Baldrick,' one might say.

How is it that this performance of a ramshackle opposition goes to notions of transparency, accountability and honesty? Of course, it does not, because this opposition is absolutely resolved to creep into power without any scrutiny. It is creeping into power, having promised everything that it needs to promise to all those whom it runs across in the course of its work, without ever having to be called to account. The shadow budget is a work of fiction. One can only imagine the musings of the opposition razor gang as they sit through their fantasy budget meetings and imagine their fantasy cuts. This is typical of the standard that this irresponsible, reckless and clueless opposition has set. That standard was set by its leader, who has admitted that he only tells the truth when he feels like it. This opposition's senior members cannot even be honest with one another about what their spending plans are—perhaps they do not understand them from one meeting to the next. This opposition simply cannot be trusted to tell the Australian people about its plans to cut spending.

The opposition realistically puts forward the proposition that it will return the proceeds and the revenue streams from the minerals resource rent tax, a truly remarkable proposition. Lindsay Tanner famously dubbed the mining interests' campaign against the tax the 'billionaire liberation front', and I cannot help but imagine the moment when the Liberal Party hands back a cheque to the billionaire liberation front. No doubt, as the opposition wanders back to Canberra and tries to explain this glaring chasm in its budget, it will at least draw some sustenance from the fact that it has returned $11 billion to the people in this country who least need it.

But wait, because there is more. This opposition is positively fascinated by the proposition of returning vast sums of money to those Australians who least need it, and nowhere is that plainer than with its plans for the carbon tax. There we see the opposition's honesty and transparency on full display. This opposition intends, quite literally, to on the one hand say to Australian business: 'Do not buy the permits. Do not invest in the permits,' to promote sovereign risk, to do some of the most destructive things that policymakers can do to business confidence in this country, and on the other hand offer a policy prescription in this country which says that the proceeds of the carbon tax will be returned to the greatest polluters. How is it, one might very well ask, that the Liberal Party is going to meet its targets to abate carbon—targets that are the same as those of the government—yet literally promotes carbon pollution by returning the proceeds of the carbon tax to the big polluters? The Liberal Party says it has the answer to this puzzle, and that answer is Tony Abbott's direct action plan. In the direct action plan we can see the fruit of years and years and decades and decades of Liberal Party thinking. For all the gobbledegook that the Liberal Party likes to speak of—individual choice, individual rights, individual freedoms—we can see that, when the rubber hits the road, Tony Abbott has reached for an eastern bloc soviet style scheme that would have Santamaria himself turning in his grave. It is literally a multibillion-dollar plan to abate carbon emissions in this country by coming up with big government spending programs.

We have the Labor Party on the one hand having a fixed price scheme moving to an open trading system. The Labor Party's proposition to this country is to let us have a carbon market, let the forces of supply and demand drive innovation, let the forces of supply and demand and the marketplace liberate Australian entrepreneurialism so it can help find the solutions that this country so desperately needs. Where does the dead hand against capitalism come from? It comes from where it is perhaps least expected—the Liberal and National parties. Their dead hand is very literally proposing— (Time expired)

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

It is amazing to be lectured by the Labor Party on economic responsibility—I am reminded of Dracula and the blood bank! If Senator Feeney and any of his colleagues in the cabinet or on the front bench had any business acumen—and they have none; all 22 of them they have a maximum of eight years—they would know that the best predictor of future behaviour and performance is past behaviour. I think back to the $96 billion—as Senator Feeney leaves—that Treasurer Costello paid back. We not only paid back the $96 billion but also saved $6 billion a year in interest. What sort of a challenge have we got next time? We have upwards of $220 billion of debt that is going to cost well in excess of $100 billion in interest alone without paying back the principal.

This is a Labor government that came in on the promise of honesty, transparency and accountability. I remember Prime Minister Gillard saying 'let the sunshine in'. It was the former Prime Minister, and recently foreign minister, who said only last week, 'Julia has lost the trust of the Australian people and we must change her or we will end up in opposition.' The former Attorney-General said:

... I don't think we have a realistic prospect of being re-elected under Julia Gillard ... I don't think we have captured the attention or the support of the broader Australian community, and obviously if we want to win an election, they have to listen to us, they have to trust us, they have to have empathy with us ...

How true. The best and only way to test that in a democracy is to go back to the people and let the people decide whether we have seen honesty, transparency and accountability from this Gillard led government.

Let me start a long litany. The mining resource rent tax: where was the accountability, transparency and honesty when now Prime Minister Gillard negotiated with three multinational overseas companies—BHP, Rio and Xstrata—and left all the Australian mid- and small-cap miners out of that equation? Where was the accountability when my colleague Senator Cormann asked repeatedly for the financial modelling that shows the government was actually going to make any funds out of it? They have flatly refused to present those figures. We had a lecture from Senator Feeney about the carbon tax. Honesty, transparency and accountability—only two quotes will suffice. Prime Minister Gillard said, 'There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead.' And days before the 2010 election the world's best Treasurer, Wayne Swan, said: 'Well, certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax from the Liberals in their advertising. We certainly reject that'—and I reject every assertion made by Senator Feeney in his condemnation of the coalition.

If time permitted I could move to how Ms Gillard is going to move to the trade exposed, emissions intensive industries of this country when they are decimated by their competitors. How are they going to explain to import competitive companies here in Australia how the carbon tax is going to drive them into an uncompetitive situation? How are they going to explain to our exporters how they are going to fare when they are exporting into markets where their competitors do not have a carbon tax around their necks? How are they going to explain it to households? That simply has not come to the fore with this openness, transparency and honesty in government.

I turn now to a more serious, in some ways, instance of a lack of honesty and accountability, and that is the question of government grants. We learnt only recently, as a result of an Australian audit, that Ms Gillard, when she was Minister for Education, on more than three occasions approved grants to schools in her electorate and other electorates in defiance of the recommendations of her department and failed to comply with then Prime Minister Rudd's requirement that she report her decision to the then finance minister Lindsay Tanner.

As one who has run his own businesses I make the point that, in government trading entities and government departments, excellence or rot starts at the top—and do we not see evidence of that here now. In that audit, there were no fewer than 33 cases where ministers failed to alert the finance minister to the fact that they had made grants in their own electorates—and in 11 of those 33 cases, that was against the advice of their departments. That is the calibre, the honesty, the transparency of this government. I turn to the government's recent record on regional grants, the responsibility for which lies with Mr Crean's portfolio. The Australian National Audit Office examination indicates that some $200 million has recently been allocated to seats held by Labor and Independent members in regional Australia. Isn't that interesting, when Labor holds less than 30 per cent of seats in regional areas? So the rot starts at the top and then disappears down into the organisation.

I could go on for ages about Senator Conroy and the NBN, but just briefly I will focus on the Australia Network. For those of us who have spent much time overseas in the last decade, as I have, that station—which is broadcast by the ABC—is an embarrassment. Fortunately, the Australia Network was put out to tender on a $223 million contract. The advisory committee recommended that the contract go to Sky, but Senator Conroy said, 'No, I don't want that; go through and examine it again.' However, his own audit team came up with the same conclusion, and unfortunately that got leaked. What did Senator Conroy do in this climate of alleged transparency, accountability and honesty? Far from pulling the contract and giving it to the party that legitimately won it, he attacked the leaker.

I go to the matter of the answering of questions on notice in Senate estimates. Prior to this last round of estimates 75 per cent of questions were outstanding by departments, including broadband and communications and health and ageing. One hundred per cent—the perfect record; or the imperfect record—of questions were outstanding from immigration, infrastructure and transport and AusAID. Yet the Australian community is asked to believe that this is evidence of the light shining in—evidence of honesty, transparency and accountability.

Then there are the super funds, in which $1.3 trillion are invested. The portfolio responsible for them is controlled by Minister Shorten, and he is hiding from scrutiny the fact that there is very little accountability by fund managers. Super funds are not obliged by law to disclose detailed investment outcomes or senior executive and board remuneration. Unlike public companies, they are not even required to provide members with a full set of audited accounts. What has Mr Shorten been doing? He has been trying to reverse what could be a miscarriage of justice in these matters. Which are the super funds that are most at fault and most at risk? You do not have to go too far to find out. They are led by MTAA.

I turn finally to the debacle that has been the investigation of Mr Craig Thomson by Fair Work Australia. It has been four years, and there has not yet been any advice to the wider community. In fact, in Senate estimates the other day we were told by the person responsible that the report might not be released, even though Mr Thompson himself is on the record as saying that he would like to see this information come out so that the due process of the law can be dealt with. Here are some comments from members of the public about the matter. One person said, 'What is the point of this organisation if it simply covers up union corruption. Isn't it supposed to protect workers? Another one said, 'Why are they hiding this? Have their political masters told them to? 'A further comment was: 'Totally weird—if he's innocent, say so; if the report is not published, he must be guilty.' That is the level of confidence that the Australian community now has in this Labor government. The only way to see a restoration of honesty, transparency and accountability is to hold a general election. (Time expired)

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

Today's matter of public importance debate is yet another exercise in political desperation from the opposition, who have scraped the bottom of the political barrel and decided to debate the issue of government standards. It is a very courageous move from the Liberal Party to initiate a debate on honesty, transparency and accountability given their absolutely lamentable record in these areas.

Let us look at the facts. Let us look at just some of the achievements of the Labor government since it was elected. Just three days after the Rudd government was sworn into office, a tough new code of ministerial conduct—the government's Standards of ministerial ethicswas released. The code requires ministers and parliamentary secretaries to conduct themselves to a higher standard of conduct than has been expected of them in the past. The standards are underpinned by the principal that ministers and parliamentary secretaries must act with due regard for integrity, fairness, accountability, responsibility and the public interest. The code means that it is no longer possible for ministers after their retirement or resignation to transition to lobbying or conducting businesses in an area where they have had ministerial responsibility until an 18 month cooling-off period has passed. This is very different to Mr Howard's nonstandards in that area. For the first time, a code of conduct for ministerial staff was introduced to codify the role of the staff of members of parliament and to ensure high standards. The code of conduct for ministerial staff sets out the standards that ministerial staff are expected to meet in the performance of their duties. The importance of the role of ministerial staff in providing advice and assistance to ministers in the performance of their functions is well recognised and accepted. Their closeness to the most significant decisions of government is a privilege that carries with it an obligation to act at all times with integrity and with an awareness of the expectation of the Australian community that the highest standards of conduct will be observed. We now have a MOP staff annual report that provides updates on staff costs, staffing levels and changes in staffing arrangements.

The government introduced a new lobbying code of conduct and register of lobbyists. Within one year of coming to office in 2007 it established the lobbying code of conduct and a public lobbyist register. The lobbyist register allows ministers and their staff to know who is engaged in lobbying and whose interests are being promoted.

The code includes a prohibition on lobbying activities for former ministers and parliamentary secretaries, and former senior ministerial staff as well as former members of the public service and Defence Force. The code has gone further in promoting integrity and transparency in the way third-party lobbyists and government representatives interact. Lobbyists who represent third parties must be on the register before they can begin to lobby the government.

The government introduced important public service reforms such as merit based selection for the employment of heads of government agencies to which the Public Service Act applies. Performance pay for departmental secretaries and senior statutory officers was removed. And, of course, this Labor government has been responsible for major reform of the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act. It has worked hard to promote a pro-disclosure culture across the government.

These reforms have been critically important, in my view, in promoting more open and transparent government. We abolished conclusive certificates—a provision of the old FOI Act. That was used by the former Howard government to prevent the release of information that it found to be politically sensitive. FOI application fees have been abolished. The range of exemptions has been narrowed. We have created an Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. Shorter access periods for government records are now in place.

These amendments to the FOI Act have resulted in a much more transparent culture across the Public Service. I for one believe that they have been very significant, very positive reforms, and I am personally proud that I have been an advocate for them.

Now, perhaps, we might focus some attention on the record of the Howard government on honesty, transparency and accountability so that in the unlikely event that anyone is listening to this debate they might compare and contrast the records of the current government and its Liberal Party predecessor. Let's go for a trip down memory lane: travel rorts, balaclavas on the waterfront, and Mr Stan Howard and National Textiles. What about Mr Peter Reith and the Telecard affair? What about 'children overboard' or, if you like, 'truth overboard'. 'Truth overboard' is something that has gone into the political lingo as a result of the outrageous behaviour of the Howard government.

What about the $300 million 'wheat for weapons' scandal? What about the lies about Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction? What about the abuse of government advertising that became the hallmark of the Howard government? What about all the ministerial resignations? We could start with poor old former senator Jim Short and his subsequent reward appointment to the European Bank. We could mention the resignations of Parliamentary Secretary Gibson and Minister Prosser. We could talk about Minister Jull. We could talk about Minister Sharp or Minister McGauran, if you want. We could talk about former senator Warwick Parer, who was the minister for resources, who owned an $8 million interest in a resources company—a share in a coalmine.

What about Peter Reith becoming a consultant for the defence company Tenex just after he resigned as the defence minister, not to mentioned the Telecard affair? What about Dr Michael Wooldridge, as health minister signing a $5 million deal for the RCGP and, shortly after, getting a $300,000-a-year consultancy for the college?

What about the Federation Fund scandal? What about the MRI scandal? What about the use of Kirribilli House—as I dubbed it, 'party central'—by Mr Howard and his cronies for Liberal Party fund raisers and knees-ups for the Liberal Party? So do not come in here with your hypocrisy and dare try and debate issues of honesty, accountability and transparency.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Your record is a disgrace. You were absolutely right, Senator Brandis, to call Mr Howard a lying rodent.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to take this opportunity to note the fine contributions that Senator Faulkner has made over many years to government. That speech really lets him down. That very grubby party-political comment takes away from the great contributions that he has made in the past to good government. It is no surprise that he is currently sitting on the back bench, as opposed to being part of the current government. I do recognise his good work, but I wish that kind of contribution had not been made. It adds nothing to his reputation.

The MPI today talks about honesty, transparency and accountability. I know that Senator Arbib is keen that we engage in a round of party political bashing, but I do not need to do that because the Labor Party itself has done quite a good job in highlighting the fact that people cannot actually trust the things the Prime Minister is saying. We just need to look at the carbon tax or the comments of the former Minister for Foreign Affairs that he was a 'happy little vegemite'. We could go on and on. We could look at the efficacy of their programs such as school halls and pink batts, what was transparent and what was not, how well it was managed and why it was not reported up front; but, to be honest, the public knows that, so it is not going to add a lot to the debate.

I would like to look at the impact of those characteristics of the government—the fact that their honesty is suspect, they are not transparent and they are not held accountable—in a far more important area, which is national security. As you read various commentators or you look at the world stage or at headlines around the world, the events of last week have done considerable damage to Australia's position in the world and have done considerable damage to our relationships with key international stakeholders. Even processes that the Labor Party has held dear and that the coalition has been prepared to support, such as looking at a temporary seat on the Security Council, have been set back by the affairs of last week, which were caused by the internal focus of the Labor Party. If we go back in the history of the government, we also see the dysfunction that we are talking about has been previously reported but that the lessons do not appear to have been learned. Both sides of politics quite happily stand up and say that national security is one of the most important roles for government. When Prime Minister Gillard first took over the role of leading this country, she was accused of having a scandalous disregard for national security, because instead of attending meetings of the national security committee of cabinet she found other things to do and would send her bodyguard on her behalf. That never came to light until leaks within the ALP started to prompt other people who had been involved in the process to reveal details.

That transparency—that difference between what is said and what is done—is at the heart of the dysfunction of this government, and it affects really important areas such as national security. Even senior Labor ministers conceded that the animosity between the Prime Minister and Mr Rudd was killing their election campaign and causing them not to manage as they should. The ABC reported that even Mr Rudd had shown a casual disregard for the national security committee and at times had sent his chief of staff, 31-year-old Alistair Jordan, to deputise for him. Former senior public servants described Mr Rudd's and Ms Gillard's attendance records as very odd and very, very unusual. Compare that with Prime Minister John Howard, who attended all but one national security committee meeting of cabinet. Under his prime ministership, only senior ministerial staff were allowed into that meeting—a completely different approach to national security.

As of August last year, there were some six senior positions unfilled in the defence and national security bureaucracy. Even the position of National Security Adviser was vacant from last August. There was not a lot of transparency around that from the government and it was only after considerable media coverage that, very quietly, the position was filled. An internal memo announced it; there was no public announcement. That is in stark contrast to that which accompanied the then Prime Minister Rudd's appointment—again, a lack of transparency. Senior officials looking at the treatment of that appointment within the national security structure of government said, 'It looks like they're killing off the job by neglect.' It is one of the most important and key roles of government, yet they are killing it off by neglect.

Mr Michael Carmody, the CEO of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, said in the 2010-11 Customs annual report that Customs was struggling to maintain current operations given the devastating budget cuts that the agency had received. Some $34 million was slashed from Custom's Passenger Facilitation program, Critical Area Surveillance was cut by $20.8 million and cargo inspection was cut by $58.1 million. On the one hand, you have the rhetoric but, on the other hand, you have what is done. What we see is a lack of transparency, a lack of accountability and a lack of honesty between the government and the Australian people over things far more critical than the pink batts or the school halls that people love to put in the headlines. This is national security; these are things that really matter.

Prime Minister Rudd and later Prime Minister Gillard both said that they would be supporting Defence, whose budgets have had bipartisan support over many years—figures such as three per cent real growth, 2.2 per cent real growth in the budget out to 2030 and 2½ per cent fixed indexation. But then look at what they did. In 2009 there was $8.8 billion in deferrals and $1½ million in absorbed measures. In 2010 there was no reinstatement of the cuts, despite the economic recovery, and there was a further $1.1 billion in absorbed measures. As of 2011, there is $1.3 billion of investment delayed. Talking around the fact that this government supports defence and our national security, what they are actually doing is completely different. Where is the honesty, where is the transparency and where is the accountability in how this government is approaching national defence? The real issue is that there is a sting in the tail. If you look at forecasts to meet Defence's capability program between 2012-13 and 2016-17, you will see there needs to be a 107 per cent increase in defence spending to get back on that capability curve.

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

Shocking.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Shocking,' Senator Johnston says, and that is absolutely correct. Where is the honesty, transparency and accountability in the government towards our national security? On the one hand, they say nice things but, on the other hand, they put us in a position where there is an almost unachievable recovery path to provide the capability that our Defence Force needs. Lastly I would like to come to the issue of leadership. Minister Smith, as the Minister for Defence, has not shown the kind of openness and transparency in leadership that is required to provide the guidance that the department needs. We have just got to look at the recent reports around the Kirkham report and how he has handled that issue. Today in question time when Senator Johnston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Carr, about this, the response we got was, 'We haven't released that report because there are sensitive legal issues.' If that is the case, why did the minister decide at the time that he could leap in, boots and all, and reach down—like the chair of the board beneath the CEO—to actually try to run the organisation? The Defence Act actually appoints statutory authorities to run the Defence organisation, and it is a gross breach of his duty for the minister to try to reach beneath that, to effect outcomes which have obviously now had unintended consequences. He is too embarrassed to be transparent enough to allow the Kirkham report to surface so that he can be held to account for the things that he has done during his leadership of that portfolio. Honesty, transparency and accountability: this government has not covered itself in glory in many aspects across different portfolio areas; but in the area that is perhaps the most costly and has the most significant long-term implications, the Gillard government has been found extremely wanting.

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

It is absolutely easy to stand here this afternoon and refute the claims of those opposite—that our government is unable to run an honest, transparent and accountable administration. You only need to look back on our record since we have been in government, since 2007, and to look at some of our achievements and identify those matters and the transparency with which we have delivered them.

Let us start with Work Choices. We promised to get rid of Work Choices and we did. Everyone should be reminded about that insidious policy that those opposite delivered, which made four million workers lose basic protections and which made more than a million workers suffer real pay cuts of up to $90 a week. This is something that those opposite are proud of and that they want to re-introduce should they ever form government again. Around 2.8 million workers lost legal protection against unfair sackings—sackings that I saw as a union official before I started my career here.

Let us not forget the Australian workplace agreements that cut penalty rates, overtime, public holidays, shift allowances and rest breaks. Women and casuals were the worst-affected by Australian workplace agreements—which Mr Tony Abbott says were 'one of the greatest achievements of the Howard government' and 'not all bad'. They were so bad that, before they came into government, they were not even prepared to have the debate on their grand plan of Work Choices.

During the global financial crisis, the quick thinking of the Labor government saw an investment of $42 billion for our Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan. It created jobs and prevented our nation from going into recession. We should not forget that those opposite opposed that stimulus package. They opposed people being secure in their employment. They opposed infrastructure rebuilds and facilities around our nation. We saw investment in schools under the Building the Education Revolution, with more than 9,500 schools nationally receiving new facilities such as science and language centres, multipurpose halls, outdoor covered learning centres, resource centres—and the list goes on. As a duty senator for five electorates in the state of Queensland—Longman, Dickson, Brisbane, Forde and Wright—I get around and see a lot of openings of these facilities and I have a great opportunity to receive the gratitude from principals, teachers, parents and students who are so proud that our government has invested in education. This is an area that was neglected under the coalition during their term. There has been around 100 per cent positivity about our great investment from the people in those communities. Last week, I attended eight Building the Education Revolution openings throughout my five duty seats.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

I cannot imagine you have been to one, because you do not have any faith in it. You are embarrassed by the fact that we are doing something good in education—something you were not ever, ever able to achieve.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Furner, ignore the interjections.

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

I am sorry, through the chair. Just last week I opened eight facilities in a whole variety of locations. On Friday I was up at Murphys Creek, and that was a pretty solemn occasion. It was an eerie experience to be up in Murphys Creek at that opening.

Senator Johnston interjecting—

You can laugh at that, Senator Johnston. That is a disgrace, laughing at a town that lost people in their community, and you are using that as an opportunity to make fun of Murphys Creek. What a disgrace. What an absolute disgrace you are.

Following that, we went to Mount Alford and later on in the afternoon we went into other areas of the electorate of Wright. One of the schools I visited was the Bribie Island State High School. That school received a new science and language centre, where they are able to carry out experiments and even learn foreign languages. The school has an arrangement with the University of the Sunshine Coast, where students are able to begin learning Indonesian online, with access to lectures and lecturers.

At other schools I have seen huge halls which can now fit whole student bodies into the one area. For some schools, this has been the first time they have been able to address all the students. I would like to acknowledge some opposition colleagues from the House of Representatives who have come along to those BER openings. There is the member for Longman, Wyatt Roy; the member for Wright, Scott Buchholz; and the member for Forde, Bert Van Manen. Picture this: you go along to these openings, and here you have the member for Longman, the member for Forde or the member for Wright. You have this huge conga line of wannabes—disingenuous groupies, as I refer to them. They turn up for something they opposed, the BER, but no doubt they turn up for the photo opportunities. This is hypocrisy at its greatest. What stark hypocrisy to see these disingenuous people turning up at school hall openings that they opposed. Once again, we see a huge conga line of disingenuous LNP members from the House of Representatives turning up for the chance at a photo opportunity at school openings. And I am not trying to make fun of young Wyatt Roy, but young Wyatt Roy at some of the openings—

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, please use the member's correct title.

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

Mr Wyatt Roy—he is a mister. Mr Wyatt Roy turns up at some of these openings and he is about the same height as some of the students. Sometimes the teachers put their arm around him and try to usher him back into class because they think he is part of the student group at these schools. That is what happens if you go along to attend the opening of these halls when you do not believe in it and you are there for the photo opportunity. What more do you expect?

This $16.2 billion program not only provided schools with facilities they never thought they would get; it also kept many people in jobs. Many, many contractors and construction workers have come to these openings and indicated their thanks to the government for keeping them in employment as well.

We have also been transparent with the BER through the government's establishment of the Building the Education Revolution Implementation Taskforce in 2010 to examine the program, and its report was released to the public. Our economic stimulus plan also invests in our roads, railways and ports. We have injected $37 billion and there will be even more when the minerals resource rent tax goes through.

When the coalition was in government, our nation ranked 20th of the 25 OECD countries for investment into infrastructure as a proportion of national income. One of our election commitments was to promote a pro-disclosure culture across the government by building a stronger legislative foundation for openness and transparency. Reforming Australia's freedom of information laws was a key component of that commitment, and an improved FOI regime commenced on 1 November 2010. The reforms also established the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner, supported by the Privacy Commissioner and a new freedom of information commissioner, is a specialist independent monitor with the ability to review FOI decisions and investigate complaints. The commissioner will also work with agencies to develop best practice standards in the areas of FOI and privacy and to monitor compliance. Labor is committed to improving transparency across government and increasing trust in our democratic institutions.

Another area that we are reforming is health. Under the national health reform, we are working to transform the health system to be more efficient, accountable and transparent. In 2014-15 the federal government will increase its contribution to efficient growth funding to 45 per cent and then 50 per cent in 2017-18.

Returning to the nature of this matter of public importance, I want to reflect on a headline in the Sydney Morning Herald dated 18 May 2010. The headline is 'Read my lying lips: Abbott admits you can't believe everything he says'. In an interview on the 7.30 Report he admitted, on air, to Kerry—what was his name?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Kerry O'Brien.

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

Kerry O'Brien—in part:

… sometimes, in the heat of discussion, you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark, which is one of the reasons why the statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth is those carefully prepared scripted remarks.

These are the comments of a confessed liar, someone who has admitted on air—

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The statement that came from the senator is itself an untruth, but the point is that you cannot in this chamber refer to a member of this parliament by that term.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brandis. Senator Furner, you should withdraw that comment.

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

I am only referring to the actual headline: 'Read my lying lips'—

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

On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President, the senator, although he has not been here for very long, should know that he cannot reflect on your ruling, nor can he hide behind a quotation mark to make an unparliamentary remark. He should withdraw without equivocation and apologise to the chamber.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brandis. Senator Furner, I ask you to withdraw the comment.

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

I do withdraw that comment. Once again, they are not my words; it is a headline in the Sydney Morning Herald, based on an interview between Kerry O'Brien and Mr Tony Abbott. As Mr Abbott said:

… which is one of the reasons why the statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth is those carefully prepared scripted remarks.

I do not know what that means and I do not know what the public thought of that, but certainly after that interview there was a poll. I know the opposition get excited by polls. The poll asked the question: will Tony Abbott's admission devalue everything he says in the lead-up to the election? The overwhelming majority of respondents, 68 per cent, said yes, while 32 per cent said no.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the discussion has expired.