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

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research (Senator Evans) and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

We want to go to the issue of trust and the credibility of this Prime Minister and this government. In the Adelaide Advertiser today there was the headline 'Faceless men overrule Julia'—of course, referring to Ms Gillard, our Prime Minister. The last paragraph of the article says:

On Monday, Labor MPs somehow thought this devious and incompetent woman could still win the public's trust.

Two days it took for that fantasy to be destroyed.

The article also talks about the situation around the planning to bring former Premier of New South Wales, Mr Carr, into this place, so that he could be the foreign minister—but the denials are there. We talk about credibility in this place. We have those famous words: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.'

It was a very interesting answer from Minister Wong today talking about the 'voluntary emissions trading scheme in Japan'. I wonder how many contribute to it. I wonder what it is achieving. Why have we not heard details of it? Senator Boswell interjected—a very clever interjection—'Why don't you give Australia a voluntary emissions trading scheme?' No, it has to be the compulsory one—the broken word.

But it goes on. There was the commitment to Independent for Tasmania, Andrew Wilkie—oh, the poker machine reform. You can imagine them sitting around the room after the August 2010 election: 'Mr Windsor, what would you like?' 'I would like to see the multiparty climate change committee formed and of course money for regional Australia'—and that includes $500 million to go to the Perth airport road that was classified as regional Australia. 'Mr Wilkie, what would you like?' 'I would like poker machine reform'—stamped; guaranteed. And what did he get? The reneging.

That is why the former Speaker of the House of Representatives was moved from the Speaker's chair and put onto the floor—to sure up the numbers for the vote in the House of Representatives. It was no surprise when Mr Slipper took on the Speaker's job. It was something that I had predicted for six months—that Mr Jenkins would be forced out of the Speaker's chair for an extra vote. Of course, what brought it on was the betrayal of the Prime Minister's guarantee to Mr Andrew Wilkie. And here we talk about credibility. This is the very issue: the credibility of this government. That is why the polls are like they are. People have lost faith. They do not trust this government and they do not believe the things that they promise—the things that they never actually deliver to the people.

A classic example is the solar hot water rebate. I go back to when they had the $8,000 subsidy for installation of photovoltaics—introduced by the Howard government. Of course, it just went out of control. There was something like $56 million budgeted and it blew out to something like $300 million or even more. People were putting in a 1kPA—or whatever the measurement is—solar hot water system for free. It cost about $8½ thousand to install one in a house for those smaller 1kW systems. They got an $8,000 subsidy, and away went the budget. It was totally out of control. Mr Garrett was the minister responsible, and he just pulled the curtain down on that. I am a great fan of solar hot-water systems, because they represent good value. Over time they will pay for themselves. Where I live we get a lot of sunlight, sadly too much sunlight at times during the dry season. But the return on investment is far more effective than it is for photovoltaics. It is a good system. A lot of people work in this industry. It is now very effective as it has been designed and improved over decades. Yet the plug has been pulled on that: another broken promise.

I turn to trusting the government on its expenditure. What is the greatest expense of all? The greatest expense is the NBN, the deal that Senator Conroy did with former Prime Minister Mr Rudd, the defeated challenger, on an aeroplane. Where was the cost-benefit analysis? There was none whatsoever. It was pursued in this place and in the House of Representatives, but no cost-benefit analysis will be carried out for the biggest expenditure ever in the nation's history—up to $50 billion. Who knows where it is going to end? We do not know what the benefit is going to be, because this government is hiding behind that very analysis. The Independents who would not vote for it want to hide it as well. This is where the credibility of the government has been blown apart. The people of Australia have turned away from the government and hence they cannot wait for an election.

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

I was extremely perplexed in question time today by some comments, particularly in the questions from Senator Brandis about the issue associated with the PM's recent visit to St George. Senator Brandis tried to qualify his remarks after question time by claiming that the PM had not visited Brisbane for the last four months. Most Queenslanders know that to get to St George from interstate you fly through Brisbane. I am sure those opposite who are Queenslanders would recognise that.

Here we go once again—another deceitful untruth being manipulated by those opposite. Let us not forget as well that approximately a year ago we were debating in this chamber a Queensland flood levy. Who opposed that? Those opposite opposed a flood levy for those who were in urgent need of assistance. Ninety per cent of the state was ravaged by floods and Cyclone Yasi, yet those opposite were not even prepared to assist the Queenslanders in desperate need at the time. When it comes to a need, the Prime Minister was out there just recently, on 11 February, with Senator Joyce. I happen to have a photograph of Senator Joyce with the Prime Minister on that occasion. Try and deny that and claim that some other person is in the photograph.

I want to refresh our memory on what was provided in 2011 when those disasters hit Queensland. There was $1,000 for each eligible adult and $400 for each eligible child. There were 399,536 payments to Queenslanders totalling $465.7 million. In total to date we have committed $5.6 billion to Queenslanders in desperate need. That is why the Prime Minister on 11 February was visiting those areas of St George, Mitchell and Roma that were hit by severe flooding. It was not the case that the Prime Minister has not visited those areas for the last four months or has not flown into Brisbane in the last four months. That is a complete untruth.

If you want to subscribe to those sorts of untruths, let us reflect on what the Leader of the Opposition has to say when it comes to telling untruths. I referred to this in the chamber the other day, but I will do so again. The headline of the Sydney Morning Herald article on Mr Abbott is: 'Read my lying lips: Abbott admits you can't believe everything he says'. This article is dated 18 May 2010. In it Mr Abbott admitted to lying to the Australian public. He was asked to reconcile the promise that there would be no new or increased taxes under a coalition government. We know that is not the case. We know that if they ever form government again they will lift taxes by implementing a 'Rolls-Royce paid parental leave scheme', as Senator Boyce described it, costing big businesses extreme amounts of new taxes. Senator Boyce has refuted that that was the correct policy. She said rather than use a Rolls-Royce scheme they should be looking at a 'Holden scheme'. I think that was her description.

I have a lot of respect for Senator Boyce. She was on the same committee as I was at the time we introduced paid parental leave. That is something I am proud of and I am certain that she is proud of it as well. That is why she has said to her leader: don't use this Rolls-Royce scheme. Don't introduce a new tax for paid parental leave costing $2.7 billion. Use a Holden model, the model that this government has implemented which is serving women in this country quite well. (Time expired)

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

The fact remains, irrespective of attempts by the other side to fudge the issue, that the Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, has not been in Queensland in the last four months campaigning in the state election. The reason that has happened is that there is scarcely room for her to be involved in the state campaign in Queensland, because Ms Bligh and her very good friend Kevin Rudd are insisting on taking centre stage at every opportunity. If Ms Gillard turned up to campaign in Queensland she would have trouble finding a photo opportunity that did not have Mr Rudd in the same photo, along with his close friend Anna Bligh.

To suggest that somehow the opposition is not sympathetic to and is not active in assisting flood victims and cyclone victims in Queensland is blatantly untrue. We did not oppose assistance for flood victims. In fact, we pushed and pushed. It was this government that was slow to provide assistance to business, and it was even slower to provide assistance to not-for-profit organisations, but because this government has gotten itself into such a definite situation it had to introduce a levy. Some of the people the Prime Minister visited when she went to St George were probably people who had to pay the levy. There were businesses affected by the floods that were obliged to pay the flood levy. That is how competent this lot is. Of course, if Ms Gillard ever did get herself to Queensland, perhaps she could talk to Ms Bligh. I am not sure it would be very helpful for Ms Gillard to tell Ms Bligh how to go about getting the support of business because, if you look at every example, business is currently terrified of, in fear of and confounded by the poor policy making and the poor implementation of this government.

I am indebted to a correspondent to the Courier Mail, Mr Paul Anderson from The Gap, for making the point that this government has learnt from experience in one area. In June 2009 it scrapped the solar panel installation rebates with seven hours notice, putting hundreds of businesses into very difficult financial situations. In February 2010 it scrapped the home insulation scheme and reduced solar hot water rebates with five hours notice. The government has learned its lesson, because it announced the scrapping of the revised solar hot water rebate after close of business on Tuesday, with no hours of notice at all. Perhaps that is something that Ms Gillard could help Ms Bligh to perfect: the technique of how you leave businesses completely out in the cold. To suggest that this lot has any way of understanding business is outside reality. This government does not understand how businesses run; why would we expect it to? Like the Queensland government, it is composed almost entirely of union officials and staffers.

There is one area where Ms Gillard could seek some advice from Ms Bligh. I refer to the case of Mr Gordon Nuttall, who was a former minister in the Beattie government in Queensland. Mr Nuttall was first known as one of the faceless men who attempted to unseat then Premier Beattie and replace him with Anna Bligh. He went on to become health minister in the Beattie government. To use a phrase used in here recently by Senator Furner, he was one of a conga line of health ministers that the Queensland government has had because of the appalling maladministration in that department. In 2009 he was charged with and found guilty of corruptly receiving secret commissions during his time in office, and he was jailed for seven years. In 2010 he was found guilty of another five charges of official corruption and five charges of perjury, for which he received another seven years. He is the longest serving criminal Commonwealth politician. (Time expired)

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

The matters that those opposite are seeking to take note of here today highlight the complete lack of any critical analysis or comprehension of policy in this place by those opposite. When it comes to the issues that really matter to the Australian public, when it comes to the main game in this place—the issue of policy development—those opposite come up woefully inadequate every time. We have seen it on display once again here today in question time and in the context of this debate.

The performance of those opposite in question time today again demonstrated a complete ignorance of the facts when it comes to policy and policy development. Not only did they not know that the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Senator Joyce, was in Queensland and had visited St George with the Prime Minister during the past month, but Senator Williams, Senator Macdonald and Senator Boyce also do not have any understanding of the way in which the solar bonus scheme was originally implemented and announced. I have before me a media release from the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, from 17 July 2007. It is very illuminating because it is the media release in which Malcolm Turnbull announced the introduction of the solar bonus scheme here in Australia. Malcolm Turnbull said:

Funding of $252.2 million over five years will also be provided for up to 225,000 solar hot water rebates of $1,000 for households …

We have gone beyond that. We have ensured that 250,000 households throughout this country have benefited from this program. In accordance the media release that was issued by Malcolm Turnbull at the time, in accordance with the original instructions for the setting up of this program, it has run its five-year course. And in accordance with sound fiscal policy and sound obligations by this government to balance the budget and ensure there is not a budget overrun on this particular program, it is being ended. The media release is also quite illuminating because it states at the top, in Malcolm Turnbull's words:

The Australian Government will commence work on a world-leading greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme …

Well, we all remember that, don't we? Those were the days when all those opposite believed in the benefits of emissions trading. They were loyal disciples of their Prime Minister, John Howard, and loyal disciples of their environment minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and they were all out there spruiking the benefits of moving to a market based mechanism to reduce carbon emissions in our economy. Once again, it has come to Labor to deliver a world-class emissions trading scheme to reduce emissions in our economy.

But not only do those opposite lead with their chins when it comes the issues highlighted in question time and in this take-note debate; they do not understand the way the scheme works. If they did, they would understand that there is a four-month application period for the rebate. So those who have ordered or purchased a solar hot-water system can still apply for the rebate for the next four months. Up to which point? Four months time is the end of June, which is when the scheme will end. Once again, there has been a complete lack of comprehension of how policy should work. That is why they find themselves with a $70 billion black hole in their costings. That is why they found themselves at the last election $11 billion short in their costings. They have no idea when it comes to the details of running policy. That is why they are incompetent and have an inability to run government. (Time expired)

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'—so said the now Prime Minister on Channel 10 some five days before the last election. What has that been shown to be? A promise broken. It is almost as if this government thinks that being in government is a long audition for the TV show MythBusters, where they make a promise and every second or third one can get put through their filter: 'Here's a promise. Show it to be a myth. Busted! A cannonball of frozen chicken at that one!

Here are more promises. The Prime Minister, prior to 2007 election, said:

We want to make sure that no one is engaged in improper conduct in the building industry, whether employer, union or employee.

The last sitting period of the House of Representatives has shown that that promise is going to be broken. It is nothing more than a myth and it is busted. How? The bill coming up from the House of Reps to the Senate has in it a provision for when Fair Work Australia or another court inquiring into alleged misconduct and illegal action in the building industry must cease that action. The bill says—I am quoting but abbreviating—that where Fair Work Australia is exercising any powers related to a building matter it must cease exercising those powers 'if the issue has been settled or resolved by the building industry participants involved'. Oh, please!

It goes on to say that where there is a proceeding before a court for a civil remedy related to a building matter the court must cease dealing with the proceeding if the issue has been settled or resolved by the building industry participants involved in it. Oh, please! How is that making sure that 'no-one is engaged in improper conduct in the building industry'? Of course, it is not. What a myth—and it's busted!

All that this bill is going to do is encourage illegal behaviour, encourage improper conduct and sanction it. But that is not enough for Ms Gillard. The second reading speech introducing the bill says 'anyone who breaks the law' in the building industry 'will feel the full force of the law'. No, they will not—not if they break the law and then settle with other building industry participants involved. So says the soon-to-be legislation. Ms Gillard goes on yet more: 'I'm disappointed that there are still pockets of the industry where people think they are above the law.' Really? You have to be kidding, Prime Minister, when you are about to legislate to make it so those pockets will self-create. The legislation will not only sanction but encourage those pockets of the building industry to be above the law with their dirty deals. Once again, not enough for our good Prime Minister.

In case there is any doubt at all, in summing-up the bill she says: 'There should be absolutely vigorous, hard-edged compliance and no tolerance at all for unlawfulness.' Well, what a myth—and it's busted! No tolerance at all for unlawfulness? Make a deal, settle with building industry participants involved and there will be every tolerance. It's a myth—and it's busted! But there is more. In the speech she says, 'Each and every breach of the law is wrong.' Well, no, it is not—not if you breach it and then settle or resolve it with the building industry participants involved. It's a myth—and it's busted!

But there is more: 'Each and every breach of the law should be acted upon.' Well, no, it will not be, because the Prime Minister is going to legislate so that it cannot be. This government governing the country is not a show of MythBusters. It is not a case where you make a promise, let it be a myth and have it busted. If you cannot keep your promises the Australian people will not— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.