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

The President has received the following letter from Senator Fifield:

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

The failure of the Gillard Government to govern for all Australians.

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.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is timely that we debate this matter of public importance, the failure of the Gillard government to govern for all Australians. I want to present a context, and that is that, when someone is sworn in as a minister of the Crown, when someone becomes a member of the Australian Executive Council, they do not cease to be an ardently partisan figure, but they are called to exercise a higher duty. They are called in the business of government to have the capacity to put governing above partisanship, and we have seen the most partisan political figures in this nation's history do that.

Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke is an immensely partisan figure, yet when he took on the role of Prime Minister he saw himself as the nation's leader—not the leader of any sectional interest, but as the national leader. Even former Prime Minister Paul Keating, when he assumed the prime ministership, articulated what he saw as a vision for the nation. We on this side of the chamber might not have agreed with him, but he saw himself as governing for all Australians. Former Prime Minister John Howard—again you could not find a more remorselessly and relentlessly partisan figure than John Howard—while still being the leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, while still being the leader of the federal coalition, was also the Prime Minister of the nation, and was careful at every opportunity not to refer to the Liberal government, not to refer to the coalition government, but to refer to the Australian government. He was always very conscious that he was first and foremost the Prime Minister of the nation, and that he was a partisan political leader second.

Sadly, both under Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard we have seen a government that has failed to understand that important transformation that happens when people become ministers, and particularly when they become prime ministers—that they are the leader of the nation first. We first got an inkling of the current Prime Minister's view at the ALP National Conference on 2 December 2011, where when talking about the government's agenda she said:

This is the Labor way. This is the Australian way.

I was troubled by the Prime Minister equating her political party with the nation. I do not claim, Senator Ronaldson does not claim and Mr Abbott does not claim that the Liberal way is the Australian way, yet the Prime Minister claimed her party to be the only authentic Australian political party.

We have a number of great political parties with proud histories in this nation—the Liberal Party, the National Party and even the Labor Party. No Prime Minister should ever equate their party with the nation. We also have the now infamous rhetorical flourish of the Prime Minister when she said:

We follow it simply because we are us.

What does that mean? On Labor's historic task, she said Labor would 'be Australia's party, to lead in the Australian way'. That is not how the Australian people see the Liberal Party or the Labor Party or the National Party.

We had this view not just reinforced in the policies we have seen from this government but also in the Prime Minister's speech to the Australian Workers Union National Conference on 18 February. We heard about the real Julia, the real Ms Gillard, that we did not see at the last election but then she declared we would see the real Julia. What we saw at the AWU conference was Julia unplugged. The Prime Minister went through the luminaries who were there.

She said of Bill Ludwig:

It is impossible to write the history of this state without recording Bill Ludwig’s role.

I think that is probably a big call, which I am sure you might agree with, Madam Acting Deputy President Boyce, but such is the view of the Labor Party and their role in Australian history. And she went on:

I want to acknowledge a great friend of the AWU who is here tonight and a great friend of mine, the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, Wayne Swan, has joined us this evening.

Wayne has actually flown back from Russia to be here tonight.

Now I don’t tell you that so you get in anticipation about seeing vodka drinking and Cossack dancing.

I do not think that she should try a line in being a comedian. This was more peculiar; she went on to say of his attending the G20 meeting:

And in that room when they look for leadership they look to Wayne Swan, a man honoured as the world’s best treasurer, a man so honoured because of his passionate commitment to jobs.

Wayne, thank you for everything you’ve done …

I would think that the Prime Minister is possibly the only person in Australia who would say that with anything other than a sense of irony. Thank you, Wayne, for all that you have done!

Of course, tribute was being paid to Mr Swan because he is a hero of the AWU. She went on to acknowledge another hero of the AWU, Mr Ludwig. The less said about Mr Ludwig and his performance in his portfolio the better. Where her speech got truly disturbing was when she said:

I come here to this union’s gathering as a Labor leader.

I’m not the leader of a party called the progressive party.

I’m not the leader of a party called the moderate party.

I’m not the leader of a party even called the socialist democratic party.

I’m a leader of the party called the Labor Party deliberately because that is what we come from.

That is what we believe in and that is who we are.

Obviously, in the Prime Minister's view, it is too bad if you are an Australian who voted Liberal; it is too bad if you are an Australian who voted National; it is too bad if you are an Australian who sees yourself as a moderate; it is too bad if you are an Australian who sees yourself as a social democrat. No, she only sees herself as representing people who trace their origins to the trade union movement of this country in which 18 per cent of the workforce now are members of trade unions, and only 13 per cent in the private sector. She is seeking to govern for the most narrow sectional interest which we have seen in this nation.

You can forget the reforming ethos of Mr Hawke and the reforming ethos of Mr Keating who sought to broaden out the Australian Labor Party from being a purely trade union based party to one that represented the bulk of Australians. That particular Labor project is dead and the Prime Minister belled the cat in her speech to the Australian Workers Union. If that was not enough, there was the sight of Paul Howes and Bill Ludwig with their fists pumping in the air singing Solidarity Forever. That is not what the Australian people identify with. The Australian people do not want to see a Prime Minister going to a crowd of unionists, pumping the air singing Solidarity Forever. The Australian people want the Prime Minister to be seen to be above that sort of partisanship. They want to see their Prime Minister above that sort of a ruck.

I know that we are partisan figures in this place; we all are. We should be proudly partisan figures. But the Prime Minister of the nation should be elevated above that partisanship. The Prime Minister of the nation should be a symbol for all Australians, regardless of how they voted. However, we do not have that in this Prime Minister, sadly. I am sure that some of my colleagues will talk about the specific policies which underline the fact that this is a government that is governing for an extremely narrow sectional interest. Let us hope that this prime ministership, its overtly partisan demeanour, its overtly partisan action and its overtly partisan symbolism are but an aberration, and that with the demise of this government regular transmission will be resumed and we will have a Prime Minister—I know we will have a Prime Minister in Mr Abbott—who will govern for all Australians.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it remarkable that the opposition is bold enough to suggest that the Gillard government is not governing for all Australians when one considers that the Liberal Party is focused on cynical political tactics rather than the public interest. Last week I was fortunate enough to attend the Australian Workers Union conference where the Treasurer made some important points about how we are witnessing an alarming radicalisation of the Liberal Party, which has led it to mimic the unrestrained negativity and disregard for responsible policy-making practised by the United States Tea Party movement. When a major political party, like the Liberal Party, ignores the conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, refusing to believe it is actually in opposition and moving so far from the mainstream, it loses its ability to deal constructively with Australia's challenges. This is particularly concerning for the Liberal Party stance on economic issues vital to Australia's future.

Whenever I speak to people in Tasmania many of them ask, 'Why are the Liberals so opposed to a tax on massive mining profits?' The fact that companies have reaped such huge rewards is great for Australia, but we must remember that every time the mining boom pushes the Australian dollar that little bit higher it hurts farmers and manufacturers who export products overseas, as well as tourism and foreign student education industries. It also means the cost-of-living pressures become greater for many Australians. The risk of a two-speed economy is one of the reasons the government introduced the minerals resource rent tax and resolved to cut the company tax rate, introduce tax breaks for small businesses, help all Australians make ends meet and inevitably make sure that we spread the profits of the boom.

Needless to say, the Liberal Party chose to engage in an opportunistic campaign against the tax in step with public relations efforts waged by the mining lobby. The opposition leader's decision to link the potential for sovereign risk with the MRRT was one of the most dangerous, unwise assertions made by any Australian politician in my memory. In fact, there has been some $152 billion of capital expenditure in the mining sector since the MRRT was announced—an increase of 160 per cent.

Surely the opposition leader and his shadow treasurer were advised that when they falsely raised the prospect of sovereign risk they were unnecessarily trashing the global reputation of Australia. But perhaps those opposite really do not care.

The Liberal Party's Tea Party style goes much further. There are many examples I could point to but there is one in particular I want to speak about here tonight. Recently I was pleased to announce that the further construction of the National Broadband Network will commence in South Launceston. The NBN is about preparing Australia for the future. It is about ensuring that our local communities in places like South Launceston are not left behind as the world and our local economy change. So of course it should come as no surprise that the opposition leader is opposed to this progress and has promised to eliminate the NBN if he were to assume power. Never mind that, for many years, people living in regional and remote areas in my home state of Tasmania and around Australia have had to put up with slow, unreliable internet services. Never mind that the NBN will lead to improved education and health services and greater opportunities for small businesses and agriculture. Never mind also that the NBN will allow high-quality teleworking, making it easier to work remotely. As long as he can criticise the government's NBN for being too ambitious and expensive, nothing else matters to the opposition leader.

This country needs leaders like the Prime Minister who are perceptive enough to identify not only the challenges and opportunities that Australia faces today but what we will face in the future. The opposition leader, on the other hand, cynically moves from one short-sighted day to the next never grappling with policy, only opposing it; never considering what Australia needs tomorrow, only worrying about what his political prospects require today.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Standing order 187 is a pretty simple one and it is in there for a reason. It says:

A senator shall not read a speech.

I have been watching Senator Polley from the moment she started and she has not lifted her eyes from the speech she is reading. So I draw your attention to standing order 187 and ask that you have the senator comply with that standing order.

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

There is a certain amount of latitude given here and I am sure that Senator Polley will note your comment. It is not a point of order. Senator Polley.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This country needs development in infrastructure and it needs leaders that embrace new technologies that will enable our economy to grow and prosper to benefit all Australians. Recently, the global media have reported on a study funded by the United States National Institute of Health, which confirmed that front groups with longstanding ties to the tobacco industry and billionaire industrialists planned the formation of the American Tea Party movement more than a decade ago. This movement has been exposed for what it is, and I think that the opposition leader's real motivations will also continue to be exposed. It will become clear that the Liberal Party has been aggressively opposing vital legislative reforms, obfuscating on issues of national importance, causing undue alarm within the community and undermining the integrity of the democratic process because it is acting in its own interests and not those of the nation as a whole. The opposition is in the pockets of wealthy climate change denialists, self-interested mining executives and litigation-prone tobacco companies who refuse to play by the rules.

The opposition leader is not a man of the people concerned about protecting jobs and development any more than the Tea Party is a genuine grassroots movement. His party is not interested in governing for all Australians. It is imperative that Australians consider the real motivations for the direction in which the opposition leader has taken the Liberal Party. So consider his initial opposition to the tobacco plain-packaging reforms encapsulated in the following comment: 'I don't like smoking any more than the next person, but overwhelmingly these are some of the least privileged, least well off, people in our community.' Then consider that he made his remark at a time when 97 per cent of British American Tobacco's political donations worldwide went to the Liberal and National parties. If elected, Mr Abbott will govern for big tobacco, not for all Australians. Then consider his opposition to the minerals resource rent tax on the basis that he would not support another 'great big new tax' that threatened jobs. Consider that the mining tax saw an extraordinary increase in donations to the coalition that has opened up a huge funding resource. He would, as we know, if he were ever to assume the government benches, be governing for mining royalty, not for all Australians.

Governments should be held to account for decisions made, policies pursued and legislation passed—our democratic process depends on it. But the process begins to crack and fail when an opposition like the Liberal Party oppose every measure so as to stall progress, halt momentum and cynically exploit simple mantras like 'great big new tax' without putting forward any new ideas for how to ensure Australia's future prosperity and safety. I believe this country deserves better. I believe this country deserves better than an opposition that pursues radical Tea Party style political tactics at the expense of informed debate. I believe this country deserves better than an opposition that ignores expert opinion and evidence-based decision making on policy in favour of simplistic slogans, fearmongering and shrill opposition to any reform on the basis of shallow, predetermined political calculus. I believe this country deserves better than an opposition leader who is motivated by attaining power rather than examining the merits of government's reforms.

The opposition is not acting in the best interests of Australia; it has given in to elements of the party who refuse to believe that Labor should ever lead this country. This is because the Liberal Party has a born-to-rule mentality. When this state of mind is unleashed so recklessly by an opposition leader like the one we currently have, it can be incredibly dangerous. The opposition leader is not an 'ordinary bloke', he is not concerned about the opinions of those he refers to as battlers and he is not humbly reflecting the will of the Australian electorate. He is the orchestrator of an incredibly destructive political strategy—

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, notwithstanding your last ruling, can I again draw to your attention the provisions of standing order 187, which is in the rules for some reason. Even a cursory look at Senator Polley will let anyone see that she has read every single word of this speech. Either the standing order should be removed or it should be enforced.

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

Senator Macdonald, thank you for your comments. You are aware that there has been latitude given in the past in terms of people referring to copious notes. You are right: that is a standing order—and I think the point has been made to Senator Polley.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the opposition leader as the orchestrator of an incredibly destructive political strategy that places a premium on obstructing positive policy outcomes so that he can attain the ultimate prize—achieving leadership of this country at any cost. The Treasurer was exactly right when he noted that Australians face a similar choice at the coming election to that faced by United States voters at the 2012 presidential election. The United States electorate gave President Obama a second term and, in the process, rejected the policies and the politics of fear, negativity and alarmism perpetrated by a republican party that many believe has been commandeered by the Tea Party movement. They chose responsible economic management, not policies that only improved prospects for the wealthy elite. They chose informed public debate over the denigration of political decision. They chose vision over cynicism, elitism and self-interest. I believe the Australian people will see the opposition for who they really are: the opposition of opposition for opposition sake.

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

I give Senator Polley marks for something—and that is the courage to stand up and read a speech, which, I assume, was written by someone else because, quite clearly, this is a topic in which any member of the Labor Party would hate to be involved. Clearly, the debate on the failure of the Gillard government to govern for all Australians is a debate that really does not brook any opposition. Ms Gillard has been the most divisive Prime Minister this country has ever seen.

I have been around for some time, Madam Acting Deputy President Boyce, as you know. I was here during the days of Hawke and Keating, and I have to say that Mr Keating had a colourful turn of phrase and was thought not to be interested in uniting the country—in contrast, of course, to Mr Howard. He went out of his way to bring Australians together, and he often said that the things that unite us are greater than the things that divide us. But we now have a Prime Minister whose sole way of attack is to try and divide the country, to bring back the class warfare that has never existed in Australia; it was even done away with in England, back in the 19th century. Yet we have a Prime Minister who, at every opportunity, tries to bring on class warfare to divide Australian from Australian. I am very proud to say that I belong to a political party which does not just look after farmers. It does not just look after workers. It does not just look after tradesmen. It does not just look after businesspeople. It does not just look after miners. It does not just look after Indigenous people. It does not just look after fishermen. It is a party that is for all Australians. The Gillard government is anything but that.

We have seen that the Labor Party is a party controlled by a group of people representing just 17 per cent of workers—principally government workers of Australia. The union movement completely controls the Labor Party. As one of my colleagues pointed out: Ms Gillard addresses the AWU conference and makes it clear that she is the Prime Minister for the union movement, not for Australians, not for Queenslanders, not for the broad cross-section of our country but for the AWU and its cohorts in the Australian Council of Trade Unions. She is proud to go before the AWU and say that.

Let us look at the New South Wales Labor Party and how it governed in that state. Did it govern for all Australians? Did it work to benefit everyone who lived in New South Wales? It is quite clear from the recent ICAC inquiries that Labor ministers in New South Wales governed for themselves and their rich mates in the mining industry. Senator Polley and many of her colleagues keep railing against the coalition for looking after the big mining companies. Can I say to you, Senator Polley: Mr Eddie Obeid seems to be pretty close to the mining companies that you criticise, but I have not heard you or any of your colleagues over there at this moment criticise Mr Obeid for what seems to be a fairly clear case of big miners and big money being supported by the Labor Party in the state of New South Wales. Madam Acting Deputy President, you cannot tell me that that is a unique situation.

I now turn to the aura surrounding one of our parliamentary colleagues, Mr Craig Thomson. We see from the evidence there—and I concede nothing has been proved—that, when he was a member of the union movement, that union movement did not govern for or look after the interests of all of its members, but it did for those very select few bosses at the top. Ms Gillard is the same. She is interested in a particular section of the Australian public, which she hopes might get her back into power. She has no interest in anyone else.

Madam Acting Deputy President, you just have to look at the fiasco with the hospitals. Ms Gillard and, before her, Mr Rudd were going to—remember?—end the blame game on hospitals? Remember that? What have we got now? She is taking money out of all hospitals from all states and reintroducing the blame game. And then, when there is some pressure put on her, she decides to do a special deal with the Victorians. What about my state of Queensland? What about New South Wales? What about Western Australia? Are they going to get the same deal that Ms Gillard's home state got? Why did Ms Gillard's home state get it? It was because the polling was showing that Ms Gillard's complete disinterest in the health of Victorians was starting to have an even bigger political impact on her than her dishonesty in promising never to introduce a carbon tax. So, again, we have Ms Gillard and the Labor Party governing for those people needing health assistance in Victoria. Well, as I say, what about Queensland? What about New South Wales? What about the Northern Territory? What about Western Australia? We have heard so much from the Labor Party over the decades about how they are interested—

Debate interrupted.

Proceedings suspended from 18:30 to 19:30

Just before the break, an hour ago, we were debating a matter of public importance: the failure of the Gillard government to govern for all Australians. I had been pointing out, confirming and demonstrating with factual evidence the most divisive government Australia has seen. I was in parliament during the Keating years and that was pretty rough. I was around but not in parliament during the Whitlam government, which divided Australians enormously. The current Prime Minister has gone out of her way to pit Australian against Australian, to divide the country as has never been seen before. It contrasts so dramatically with the last coalition government Prime Minister, who went out of his way to reiterate that the things that unite Australians are far greater than those that divide us. Ms Gillard goes around the countryside accusing anyone who does not believe in her quite odd view on life of some sort of diminutive status. She does not have to like what other people think about climate change but you would think that, as the leader of a democratic nation, she would encourage debate and would welcome different views, but no. If you do not agree with Ms Gillard, you are a denier, a less than normal human being. That has been her way.

The Gillard government is clearly seeing its last days—I do not say that from our side of politics; I do not even say that from the commentariat—and you can see the death rattle within the Labor Party. Ms Gillard seems determined to enhance the destruction of her own party for reasons I find difficult to understand. At the recent AWU conference on the Gold Coast in the plush casino resort, when talking to the faithful, the workers' representatives, in her performance she clearly stated that she was the Prime Minister for every unionist, not for every Australian. This is what has been so wrong with the Gillard government. It demonstrates yet again that this is a government of narrow sectional interests, a government that is not really interested in mainstream Australia and is not interested in the small business community which is the engine room of employment and progress in the Australian economy; she is only interested in those who keep her in power—that is, the union movement.

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

I would like to thank the opposition for bringing forward this matter of public importance today. Once again, it demonstrates just how detached from reality they are. Do they really believe their own spin? We don't. We are governing for all Australians. We are governing for all Australians by focusing on jobs, by focusing on education, ensuring those Australians with disability get the support they deserve, and by focusing on delivering high-speed broadband so that all Australians can participate in an increasingly digital future.

One of the most important objectives in governing for all Australians is keeping unemployment low and delivering jobs. Our decisive action during the global financial crisis saved 200,000 Australian jobs, while there are 28 million people still out of work across the globe. Unemployment is low by world standards at 5.4 per cent and over 800,000 jobs have been created since Labor came to office in 2007. But we are going further. We have a plan for Australian jobs. A $1 billion investment in boosting Australian innovation, productivity and competitiveness will generate business opportunities and economic growth for the future as part of the Gillard government's plan to support and create jobs.

The government's Industry and Innovation Statement, A Plan for Australian Jobs, will back our firms to win more work at home, support industry to win new business abroad and help our small businesses to thrive and grow. Our plan will give Australian firms a fair chance to win work on major resources and infrastructure projects, improving their opportunities to gain the experience and business connections needed to successfully become part of global supply chains. It will translate the nation's research effort into better economic outcomes, by promoting collaboration between businesses and research institutions through a major new network of industry innovation precincts.

Small- and medium-sized businesses and start-up companies will also be provided with expanded business assistance and better access to finance through measures to further stimulate Australia's venture capital market. The government's strong economic management during the global financial crisis has provided a solid foundation for businesses, delivering contained inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment, solid growth and strong public finances. We are providing real, practical assistance to help people on income support get a job, by providing record amounts in funding for skills and training and, through measures like extra child care, support for parents looking for work.

The Gillard government is governing for all Australians, including those with disability. This government believes that the circumstances that you were born into should not affect your opportunities in life. Labor understands that the current system of disability care and support is letting down people with disability, their families and carers, and we know it needs to change. That is why we are leading the way in completely transforming the disability care and support system in this country with the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

The Commonwealth will be investing $1 billion over four years in the first stage of the NDIS. The NDIS will mean more choice and control, more independence and more opportunities for people with disability to be involved in school, work and community life. An NDIS will give all Australians peace of mind to know that, if they or a loved one is born with or acquires a disability, they will get the care and support they need to lead a good life. Let us not forget that the opposition did not govern for people with disability in the 12 years they spent in office.

This government is governing for all Australians, and this includes Australian workers. We have tripled the tax-free threshold, ensuring that those who are earning the least in our society are able to take home more of their pay. It is disappointing, but not at all surprising, that those opposite opposed the tripling of the tax-free threshold. This government is governing for all Australians, including those who are financially vulnerable. We understand that there are people who need just a small amount of assistance to improve their lot in life.

The Minister for Community Services, Indigenous Employment and Economic Development, Julie Collins, last week announced an additional $1.2 million to extend the Community Development Financial Institutions initiative that gives vulnerable Australians access to small loans and financial literacy training. This initiative fills a gap for vulnerable Australians who are able to repay a loan but are excluded from the financial mainstream because of low incomes or poor credit history. These loans are used to pay for whitegoods, cars, car repairs, medical expenses, household bills, the development of microenterprises or to pay off debt, thereby creating a positive credit history.

We are governing for all Australians with changes to education. The Australian government believes in the power of education to transform lives and is committed to making every school a great school. Between 2009 and 2012 the government almost doubled its investment in schools compared with the previous four years, to around $65 billion. From 2013, the government is building on its vision for school reforms by continuing to drive change and deliver results across a range of school initiatives. Our National Plan for School Improvement is the next step in our education reform agenda. It will provide a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve the way schools are funded and to provide our children with a fair and high-quality education system. We are also delivering a new Schoolkids Bonus to 1.3 million families of $410 a year for a primary-school child and $820 a year for a high-school child—vital financial assistance that Mr Abbott will cut if he becomes prime minister.

We have improved childcare access. There are 900,000 families now benefiting from Labor's lifting of the childcare rebate from 30 per cent under the Howard government to 50 per cent of out-of-pocket expenses. The government is also governing for all Australians through paid parental leave. More than 230,000 new parents across Australia are benefiting from up to 18 weeks leave under Labor's Paid Parental Leave scheme.

An MPI like this coming from the opposition is somewhat hypocritical because the opposition's own policies on maternity leave discriminate against mothers on lower wages. They will not be governing for all Australians. Theirs is a bizarre form of reverse need where the higher your income level the more support an Abbott government will give you. The opposition believe that someone on $150,000 a year should be paid $75,000 to have a child, while someone on $50,000 would only get a third as much. Do the opposition really believe that babies of parents on higher incomes are worth more? The opposition come into this place and claim the government does not govern for all Australians, yet they want give more money for those on higher incomes to have children than those on lower incomes. Who do they think will pay for this? The taxes of the same people who will get the lower payment amount, that is who. They will pay for it through their taxes, and they will pay for it at the supermarket checkout, when Mr Abbott puts up the price of everyday groceries through increased business taxes. Under an Abbott government wealth will be redistributed, but it will be redistributed from people on lower incomes to those who are better off.

We are governing for all Australians by building the National Broadband Network. The NBN will deliver to all Australians, either by optic fibre, wireless or satellite, high-speed broadband internet at a uniform national wholesale price no matter where they live. It will lead to improved education and health services for regional and remote Australia, as well greater opportunities for small business, agriculture and local government, to name a few. It will also allow high-quality video conferencing, making it easier to work remotely. With Minister Conroy's announcement a couple of weeks ago that the NBN's fixed wireless and long-term satellite services will be upgraded to provide broadband speeds of 25 megabits per second download and five megabits per second upload, this is a great initiative. This upgrade represents a doubling of speed for the NBN's fixed wireless and satellite services, and means that people living in regional and remote Australia will be able to access significantly faster speeds than what is available now through ADSL services.

The opposition failed to act on broadband internet in their time in government, and their plans to tear up the NBN would leave my home state of Tasmania with a high-speed fibre optic network that is unable to fulfil its potential across the rest of Australia. I am disappointed that the Tasmanian senators in the opposition cannot support the NBN like their Tasmanian Liberal Party colleagues can. I was very pleased to see state Liberal MP Jacquie Petrusma at the Kingston Beach Digital Hub last Monday at the Future Tasmania event organised by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. Obviously, Ms Petrusma understands the importance of the NBN, but the Tasmanian senators opposite do not.

The opposition speak about governing for all Australians. I think that is a joke coming from them. We are governing for all Australians by focusing on jobs and education, on ensuring those Australians with disability get the support they deserve, on delivering high-speed broadband so that all Australians can benefit from an increasingly digital future.

Senator Nash interjecting—

The opposition focuses on creating division, and by supporting those who are better off at the expense of the least well off. And there have been interjections from across the chamber. We sit here and listen quite nicely and calmly to them, but throughout my speech there have been interjections. As an ex-childcare worker I am very used to speaking over people who are yelling, so go for your life over there. I am happy for you to continue.

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

Governing for all Australians—Senator Nash, where will we start? Let us start with the Independent Youth Allowance. Look at the disgraceful decision the government made on Independent Youth Allowance to stop people from rural and regional areas getting a tertiary education. If it had not been for the persistence and the fight by Senator Nash and others on this side, those changes would not have happened to bring some sort of fairness to the government's ridiculous Independent Youth Allowance changes. They would have been here earlier if some members of parliament, such as Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott, had shown some courage and had stood up for their electorates.

The national parks—look at the fires we just had at Coonabarabran. My pet hate: locking up country and leaving it. The Greens are ruling the Labor Party at a state level and a federal level simply to cause bushfires.

At the Warrumbungle National Park a few weeks ago, close to 50,000 hectares of national park and surrounds, including the visitors centre, and 33 homes were lost.

Let's look at your carbon tax. We still have more to come. We have the carbon tax, but we have the death tax to come. What is a death tax? That is how Tony Sheldon, the boss of the Transport Workers Union, described the extra $515 million of diesel tax to be placed on our truckies come 1 July 2014—if you are still in government. I give a message to all the truckies listening: if you want an extra $515 million in tax slammed on your diesel—in other words, your rebates removed—vote for the Labor Party or the Greens at the next election. Vote to put the cost of your fuel up.

What does that do for regional Australia, which relies heavily on transport? In the lovely town I live in, Inverell, we do not have a train. Everything comes in by road—including a thousand head of cattle for slaughter at the abattoirs each weekday—and everything goes out by road. The food, the supplies, the clothing, the fuel—you name it—all go by road. But you are going to put another $515 million of diesel tax on our truckies—'the death tax', as Mr Sheldon called it. You are going to introduce a death tax if you stay in government, but hopefully you won't. If you do, rural and regional Australia will suffer more.

Senator Polley interjecting—

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

I would love to chat about the NBN—the program for which we do not have a cost-benefit analysis. People like Senator Polley and Senator Bilyk were not willing to vote for a cost-benefit analysis on the biggest public expenditure in the history of our nation. What did you have to hide? It is all coming out now. A headline in the Armidale Express, on Wednesday, 20 February, read: 'NBN rollout farce'. They called it a farce and a farce it is. I put questions on notice for Senate estimates. I asked how many premises had been passed in Armidale, how many had hooked onto it and what the cost was. We did not get any answers. They were questions from last October's estimates. For the estimates just a couple of weeks ago, I gave notice that I wanted answers to those questions. What did I get? Nothing. What are they hiding? People in Armidale can see the waste—the contractors digging up trenches, filling them in and going nowhere.

Senator Nash, you would be interested in this. A business estate at Armidale cannot get the NBN unless they cough up $225,000.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is outrageous—$225,000!

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

Yes, that's it—this business estate has to cough up $225,000, yet the network is being rolled past the homes of elderly people who do not even have a computer. You are rolling it past the houses of people who do not have computers and you expect the business estate to throw up almost a quarter of a million dollars for your magnificent NBN. Where is the money coming from? You are stealing it from business or borrowing it. You are experts in borrowing.

Let's talk about Labor's interest in rural Australia. I know a couple of former Labor politicians who are very interested in rural Australia. One is a bloke by the name of Eddie Obeid. The other is his former New South Wales ministerial colleague Ian Macdonald. Mr Macdonald had a special magic atlas in his office which enabled him to look at a part of regional Australia—say, the Bylong Valley—and immediately announce that there was coal there. Those two former Labor politicians had tremendous interest in rural and regional Australia. Mr Obeid knew there was real potential in regional Australia—he reckoned the real estate was really cheap. This is amazing. This is the interest we see from the Australian Labor Party in rural and regional Australia. Time will deliver more.

Senator Polley interjecting—

I have a simple question to ask. Perhaps Senator Polley will take it on notice. Perhaps she could explain to the Senate how many cabinet ministers in the Gillard government live in rural or regional Australia? I know the answer. The answer is none—not one. They are city people who think they understand rural and regional Australia. Not one of your cabinet ministers lives in a rural area. That must be terribly embarrassing for you when you argue against this motion of Senator Fifield's in which we say you haven't been fair. The way you have treated rural and regional Australia is a disgrace. The people of Australia are going to let you and your colleagues the Greens—and their very close friends, Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott—know that in the biggest way possible on 14 September. The people have the final say.

We saw it last weekend. This government governs for 20 per cent of working Australians. These days around 20 per cent of workers are members of unions. We saw it all at the AWU conference. We saw Mr Paul Howes, the man who brought down a prime minister. What was his great message for the weekend? 'You in the Labor Party, get behind the Prime Minister. Be supportive of her. Be stable. Do not be divisive. You must support Prime Minister Julia Gillard.' What did Paul Howes himself do in June 2010? He was one of the faceless men who did away with the previous Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd. Yet here he is with a halo around his head, with the cameras there so all Australians can see, lecturing all at the AWU conference: 'Get behind the Prime Minister'. The word hypocrisy comes to mind, Mr Howes.

This is the very person who had around 4,000 people protesting outside the front of this building about the carbon tax which was never going to be introduced. He said on TV that there were about 350. The man cannot even count, although he can count numbers when it comes to doing away with prime ministers. But now he is saying, 'Let's get behind her.' As I said, only 20 per cent of workers are in the union movement, yet Prime Minister Gillard was there, saying how she loved the unions, how they would get so strong together and how they would unite.

No, Prime Minister, you are dividing. How can you represent the workers of this country—the Aussie battlers—when you go and love up to the 20 per cent of workers represented by the unions? And that figure will go down. I wonder how the membership of the Health Services Union is going? Are they signing up new members, I wonder, or are their members just pulling the pin and leaving? If they were pulling the pin and leaving—resigning from the union—I could understand that.

Consider the lady who is cleaning the bathroom and toilets in the hospital tonight: she might be 60 years old—a good solid worker; reared a family; a battler; she and her husband paid for the house. If she resigned from the Health Services Union, would you blame her? Would you blame her, to see where her union fees had gone? You would not blame her one bit. I can assure you there will be more to come out in the future, too, in this chamber. But do not think that the Health Services Union is the only union that has abused members' contributions and membership fees. I must say that I was a member of the Australian Workers Union for 12 months. It was in the days when they said unionism was not compulsory but that I had an option: join the union or leave the shearing shed. This was the compulsory unionism that we faced back in1978. They would not do it today. That is what we faced.

You are a government of division. The way you have divided rural and regional Australia from the urban areas is unbelievable. You look after where your votes are and you do not care about the rest. I look forward to a change in government when we can govern for all Australians, be fair to small business, be fair to education, be fair to an independent youth allowance and be fair to those who are having a go. For too long, you have rewarded failure and penalised success. That is what you are about. I can go to the private health insurance rebate—'We will never remove that. No, it's a promise,' said shadow minister Roxon. 'We will never remove that.' Well, of course you did.

The people do not trust you. That is why Australians are turning against you. You cannot keep your word. You break your promises; you break your commitments. They will let you know, come 14 September this year.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. For the coalition to talk about governing for all Australians is quite remarkable when we think that under a coalition government we would have the richest mining companies in this country paying less tax. We would have low-income earners certainly being worse off, let alone what to think about the working families of this country. We have form by the coalition in this area; that is why they are in opposition. The Australian people will never forget that the reason the coalition are in opposition is their attack on working men and women in this country from their policy on Work Choices—that is why they were voted out. They talk about governing for all Australians but we know that the pockets of those friends of the Liberal Party belong to the higher echelons of income earners. They are the ones the Liberal Party is going to answer to. It is cuts to their taxes that the Liberal Party will respond to. Forget the rest of the working people. We know this because of the form that they displayed while they were in government.

Senator Williams talks about the NBN. Coming from Tasmania, I have not met one person—not one person—in Tasmania who has said they do not want the NBN or that the NBN is a bad idea. In fact, it is to the contrary. It cannot be laid fast enough. Businesses are demanding it. The growth in small business is going to be phenomenal, when a business can be located in Tasmania, as opposed to being in a big city like Melbourne or Sydney, because it has that technological advantage. It is absolutely rubbish to say, 'Where is the money going into the NBN; where is it spent?' It is also rubbish to talk about where money is going and where it will be spent when we think about coalition policy and the big $70 billion black hole that they still have festering in a corner—the elephant in the room, shall we call it? It is the thing they do not want to talk about: 'We don't want to lift the lid on that one, do we? Oh no, what's going to happen?'

We had Mr Joe Hockey in Tasmania today. He certainly did not want to talk about the $70 billion black hole. No, not at all. Then Senator Williams spoke about division. Well, let us talk about division. When we look at the coalition's policy on GST distribution, we had Mr Hockey in Tasmania today saying that Tasmanians would not be worse off under the allocation of the GST under the coalition. Tasmania will not be worse off, said Mr Hockey. Yet only a week ago we had the Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop claiming that Tasmania was 'getting handouts from Western Australia'. She said in an interview on Sky News on 10 February:

We agree that Western Australia should have a fair go and will certainly be looking at the GST in government.

Divided or united? Which way are you on GST distribution? We can go a bit further. Let us go to the Leader of the Opposition. Tony Abbott himself has flagged that Tasmania's GST allocation will be on the chopping block under a coalition government. He said:

I think that does seem quite unfair, that the people of Western Australia get so little back from the GST revenue that they provide to the rest of the country.

Well, well. There is absolutely no uniting on the issue of GST distribution, yet here is Mr Hockey coming to Tasmania, bells and whistles, pretending he is a friend to all Tasmanians and they will not be worse off. Joe Hockey repeatedly gave hollow assurances today that Tasmania would not be worse off. He failed. The answer is in the detail that he did not give. That answer is he failed to rule out that the introduction of a per capita distribution system, being demanded by the Liberal Premiers and Treasurers in all the states where there are Liberal governments, would be ruled out. On the one hand he says that Tasmania will not be worse off and, on the other hand, we have Ms Julie Bishop and the leader of the coalition saying exactly the opposite. I do not know if there is a better example of division in the coalition right now than on that issue of GST distribution.

We on this side of the chamber govern for all Australians. I am very proud to stand here as a member of the Gillard Labor government and to look at the record that we have in delivering for all Australians and especially for a number of disadvantaged Australians—particularly those who are waiting for the date when we have a national disability insurance scheme. The coalition did nothing on this issue while they were in government. They had 11 years to act and do something on this issue.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With 10 surpluses.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With surpluses? Another good reason why you did not get on with it. We are following through and getting on with ensuring that launch sites are funded and, eventually, we will then roll out a national disability insurance scheme in this country, something that no Australian would think a bad thing.

On top of that, we have supported Australians in a number of ways. We have supported women in the workforce through recognising the value of workforces that are predominantly comprised of women through the SACS equal pay case. We have supported mums and dads to further their careers and get back into the workforce with paid parental leave. We have also legislated a carbon price, something that is being followed and has been followed for some time across the globe. That will build jobs for the future and a clean energy economy—another thing that is under threat of being wiped out if a coalition government were to get their hands on it. On top of that, we have planned a strong Australian manufacturing industry, including delivering a $1 billion plan to encourage big projects to use locally produced materials. It is a really important thing for states like the one that I and a number of other senators in this place represent to use locally produced materials first and foremost.

On top of that the Prime Minister yesterday highlighted the need for ensuring that literacy education is the top priority in our schools. I know that she is very passionate about this area, being a former minister for education. The Gonski reforms, delivered through A National Plan for School Improvement, are designed to help all students achieve. Again, we are governing for all Australians. This plan is designed so that all students can achieve—not just a select few in certain schools but all students in all schools. Direct funding, therefore, will be provided on a per capita basis with a loading based on need.

There is nothing going on among senators opposite. They are not lobbying Liberal states to ensure that these national school improvements get through and that we have a national curriculum. Look at New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Those coalition states are neglecting and ripping money out of education when at this point in time we need to be skilling up our workforce and educating our students for the transition into our new economy. More than ever, we need the support of all the states, whether they are Liberal or Labor. We need them to come on board and be part of A National Plan for School Improvement.

If the coalition senators really cared about governing for all Australians—if they really had some interest beyond the politics—then they would do something about this. They would pick up the phone to the states with Liberal premiers and say: 'This is about our future, our children and our children's children and ensuring that they get the best education, the education that they need as we move into a new and transformed economy—a new economy with jobs that we have not even thought of yet.' But of course they say no. They are the 'no' party. They have been the 'no' party from day one and they will continue to be the 'no' party right up until election day and beyond. They do not really know what they stand for. They stand for no—we all know that much. Other than that, I do not think that there is anything there. (Time expired)

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the discussion of the matter of public importance has expired.