Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received the following letter from Senator Moore:

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

The chaos, division, dysfunction and mistrust at the heart of the Coalition Government.

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.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I am very pleased to be able to speak on this matter of public importance. And what could be more important now than the chaos, the division, the dysfunction and the mistrust that is at the heart of the coalition government? I have to say, Mr Deputy President, when you talk about the coalition government and you talk about heart, you really cannot focus too well—because there is no heart in this government. They are heartless. They are a heartless, divided, dysfunctional and chaotic government. When we talk about the Abbott government and heart, we are talking metaphorically, because this government has no heart.

Two-thirds of the backbench—at least—are so concerned about the heartless policies, the incompetent policies, and the economic incompetence of this government that they actually want to change their leader—two-thirds of the backbench of this government who was going to be a grown-up government! Well, grown-up government they are! They are so grown-up that they are at each other's throats continually, and the bubbling mass of discontent is bubbling away still. This is a government and this is a leader, Mr Tony Abbott, who is on his last legs. And why is this government in such disarray after such a short time? Why is this government in such chaos? Because their economic policies are wrong, their economic policies are bad, and their budget was totally unfair. That is what underpins the problems this government has.

The other issue is that this government came to power based on lies—based on commitments given to the Australian public that were never going to be kept—and the lies continue. We have the Prime Minister ringing up Senator Edwards and telling Senator Edwards that the submarines would be openly competitive—that there would be open competition for the submarines to be built in South Australia. He gets Senator Edwards to vote for the Prime Minister, and as soon as the vote is in, what do the Prime Minister and his cronies do? They turn around and leave Senator Edwards up a dry gully—with no commitment for the submarines to have an open tender; absolutely none. And we had Senator Edwards embarrassed, going out there telling the press that he has had a great victory, and that South Australian senators have had a great victory, with this commitment from the Prime Minister. Mr Acting Deputy President, the commitment from the Prime Minister was the same as the commitment he gave to the Australian people—not worth anything. That is the kind of commitment you get from this Prime Minister.

The dysfunction will continue. The square-ups will continue. Mr Turnbull's minions—Malcolm's minions—will continue to try and make sure that he becomes the Prime Minister. We have seen it, and we see it now: all that stuff that is going on behind the scenes to try and get Mr Turnbull to be the next prime minister of this country. But the question here is if you change the prime minister, do you change policy? And what we found out last week from Senator Cormann is that not one frontbencher in this parliament—not one frontbencher!—complained either to Senator Cormann or the Treasurer or the Prime Minister about the unfairness of the budget. So we had them all there supporting it—all the ministerial team supporting an unfair budget; a budget that will mean pensioners will be $80 a week worse off down the track, where the young unemployed will be $50 a week worse off—the unemployed can hardly survive now, but they will be a further $50 a week worse off under this dysfunctional and chaotic government. The unemployed will have to wait six months before they can even get access to any support—the poorest and the weakest people in this community cannot get access to government support—public support—because of the ideology of this government, and because of their dysfunction, and because their whole budget is dysfunctional.

A single-income family on $65,000 a year will be $6,500 worse off, and yet politicians and the well-off will not even know that they have had to make a so-called contribution to the so-called budget repair. They will not even know about it—will not feel it. Pensioners, young couples trying to survive and some of the poorest people in this country are the ones who are going to get hammered—people in New South Wales, in my area, in the western suburbs, in Penrith, in Blacktown, in Mount Druitt and in St Clair. These are battling families—doing it tough, many of them—and they will be the victims of this dysfunctional and chaotic government.

Under this budget, 1.2 million families will be $3,000 a year worse off. Those opposite are cutting the pensioner education supplement, cutting the seniors supplement, ripping $36 billion out from education, bringing in a GP tax, freezing indexation and making a further $5 cut, which they are putting in place because they could not get their $7 co-payment through the parliament. The doctors from Tamworth who appeared at the hearing last week of the Senate Select Committee on Health said that they will have to abandon bulk-billing and that, to keep their practices viable, they will have to charge concession card holders $65 and charge $100 for those who do not have a concession card. We heard in this place former Senator Joyce—now on the front bench of the coalition—talking, and trying to scare people, about a $100 leg of lamb under the carbon tax. What we have now is doctors in Tamworth, in Senator Joyce's own backyard, saying, 'If you're going to come and see a doctor, you'd better have $100'—$100 to see the doctor! That is because we have a dysfunctional government, a chaotic government, an erratic government and a government that is too busy fighting amongst itself.

I have said it before in here: we know that the Liberals hate the Nationals, we know that the Nationals hate the Liberals and we know that the Liberals hate each other. It has all been played out before us over the last few weeks. We have a Prime Minister who is not up to the game. We have a Prime Minister who is hopeless. We have a frontbench who are economically irresponsible. We have a frontbench who just do not know what it is to have fairness and equity. I could not believe it when Senator Cormann said that no-one in the coalition had raised the issue of unfairness in the budget—no-one! Everybody knows that this is the most unfair budget that has ever been delivered in this parliament. The big end of town and the high-income earners get off almost scot free, and yet, if you are a family battling away on an income of $65,000, 6½ grand is what it is going to cost you. It is not fairness when you take away support for health, when you take away support for education, when you take away welfare support, and when you take away from the weakest and poorest in this country. That is the reason that this government is on the nose. That is the reason this is a chaotic, dysfunctional government. The policies are rotten to the core.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President Edwards, before I address some of the other issues that Senator Cameron raised, may I take a point that Senator Cameron raised with regard to your own contribution to fighting for South Australia's industrial base and submarines. Senator Cameron—in true Scottish, pessimistic style—has decided to attack one of the individuals that have been fighting for a fair go for South Australia. From my point of view, I was satisfied that it was important to get good value for taxpayers' money in building the submarines, and I was satisfied that there was going to be a guarantee that South Australia would have more jobs as a result of the decision that the government was taking. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with an open tender, because I want to see the best value for Australian taxpayers. I have no problem whatsoever with the government making a decision that they think is in the best interests of taxpayers, as long as South Australia is better off.

The problem that we have is people over the other side, who were economic vandals in their own governance of this country, who hate to see taxpayers' money being spent fairly and wisely and not thrust about in a cavalier manner for all sorts of ridiculous projects that have put us on a debt—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Cameron! Senator Lines!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

trajectory up to $667 billion. That is what Senator Cameron and his government, which he was unfortunately not a part of, did. Senator Cameron was the one who referred to his government as 'lobotomised zombies', if I recall correctly. The lobotomised zombies, as Senator Cameron described them, were on a debt trajectory of $667 billion.

Unlike Senator Cameron, I feel that I can approach this MPI with a degree of integrity because I have been a critic of some decisions that the government has undertaken over the last 16 months or so. Senator Cameron, you cannot deny that I have been a critic of some of those decisions, because I have stood up in this place and said, 'I can't support them.' The government has indeed made mistakes, but no government is perfect. It is about the framework in which it has evolved. Let me just tell you that a lot of the difficulties the government—

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! I remind everybody on the left and the right that it is disorderly to interject.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the people of Australia that a lot of the difficulties this government has had have been because of the intransigence of those on the opposite benches. I understand that they are playing politics with this. I understand that they are not interested in rescuing Australia and our children and our grandchildren from the $667 billion debt legacy they built up. I realise they are more intent on clinging to power and getting back onto the government benches than doing the right thing by the country. But, in doing so, I truly think they discredit themselves and their cause. To be fair, as critical as I have been of this government on occasions for some decisions, I have to recognise the government has delivered on much of what it promised to do.

Let us recall the government's promise to stop the tens of thousands of people travelling to this country without valid visas. It promised to put an end to the deaths and drownings at sea. It promised to enact a robust border protection policy to protect not only Australia but those people who are seeking a better life. The government delivered on that. It delivered where those on the opposite benches said it could not be done. As a result, our humanitarian refugee program is greater than it was before. As a result, we have stopped boats from entering Australian territorial waters illegally. We have saved—who knows?—perhaps hundreds, maybe thousands, of lives at sea. I say to Senator Cameron and his successors in this speaking debate: perhaps it would be ideal if just one of them could get up and congratulate and acknowledge the government for that achievement, because it was something they said could not be done.

Let me also make the point that we promised we would reduce electricity bills for Australian families. We said we would remove the carbon tax. I understand, once again, it is a bone of contention about whether a tax is somehow going to save the climate. Those on the other side say that it is. Let me tell you: it is not. No amount of tax is going to save us or stop climate change from taking place in this country. Climate change is something that has been occurring for aeons. If you want any understanding of that, I think you simply have to go back through history and realise that there were times when it was warmer than it has been now; there were times when it was cooler than it has been now. And let me assure you: none of those changes were due to any form of tax. We have delivered a savings for Australian families of some $550 or thereabouts per year because of that.

We also recognised that having a tax that actually costs more to implement than you are collecting is a demonstration of economic illiteracy. Some would call it the height of stupidity. But it was the tax that Mr Swan and Ms Gillard introduced. It was called the mining tax. What they saw was the goose that was laying the golden eggs in the mining industry, and they said: 'If it's successful, let's tax it. And, if it's hopelessly unsuccessful, let's subsidise it.' That was the original plan for the mining tax. It was ridiculous. They were going to socialise the losses and allow the profits to be corporatised. It was just a joke of a policy. We got rid of that, thanks to the support of some intelligent people who understand that higher taxes are bad for business. We have removed billions of dollars worth of red tape and we have got billions and billions more to do, let me tell you, because we need to reduce the permits and the licences and the bureaucracy and all the requirements that were necessary under previous administrations to establish a business or to build up an enterprise in this country.

So there are some significant achievements that this government has delivered on. Of course, it has made mistakes. There is no question it has made mistakes. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that. He has said that the Paid Parental Leave scheme is not appropriate at this point in time, and he has heard that message from the backbench; he has heard it from the people of Australia. Rather than congratulate a Prime Minister for heeding the message that he has received, those on the other side use it as an opportunity to somehow attack and exploit him. Let me suggest that, when the Labor Party were in office, if their prime ministers had decided to listen to the Australian people more than to their own factional henchmen, if they decided they were going to act in the national interest rather than in the selfish, self-centred self-interest of their union buddies and their bosses, the country would be in better shape today. But they did not, and the Australian people realise that.

Senator Polley interjecting—

I note that Senator Polley is interjecting, but the Australian people rendered their judgement. In rendering their judgement, they said: 'We don't like how they behaved. We want a new government. We don't like how they conducted themselves and dealt with their leadership and how they divided up the spoils of power,' because it was all about power, whatever it takes. They did not like that, so they voted for a person who they thought had some integrity, who they thought had some credentials, who was going to act in the best interests of the country.

Let me tell you: I believe the Prime Minister and the government have overall, on any real assessment of it, delivered on much of what they promised. They have faced difficulties—there is no question—because we have a runaway debt situation. And I do not believe in putting up taxes. I think we should be lowering taxes, because that will stimulate economic activity. But we have been unable to get through savings measures which are about sustainability—I know it is a buzzword, but it is about sustainability—and ensuring that our country can function appropriately in an economic way for decades and decades to come.

Those opposite make fun of the level of Australia's debt, saying, 'It doesn't compare with Greece or America or anywhere else.' You know what, it always starts somewhere. It has got to start somewhere, and you have got to start saving and arresting the growth in debt at another point.

This is about responsibility. It is about being responsible to the Australian people. It is not about self-interest, it is not about making it hard for people who are finding it difficult; it is about getting the balance right. That is what we are trying to do as a government. I am making my modest contribution to it by saying where I think they go wrong, and I tell them when I think they have gone right. It is about time you did too.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful that Senator Moore, from Queensland, has submitted for discussion today's matter of public importance, which has told of the chaos, division, dysfunction and mistrust at the heart of the coalition government.

Today has been a historic day. A Prime Minister survived, by the skin of his teeth, a serious attempt by members of his own party to get rid of him. The only person to blame for this attempted political hit is the Prime Minister himself. Of course, he and his apologists will attempt to blame others for the Abbott ministry's near-death political experience. They will attack the backbenchers and lay the blame for government chaos, dysfunction and mistrust at our feet. However, any Australian with common sense, eyes that can see and ears that can hear will know that the deep dissatisfaction and lack of trust felt by members of the Liberal Party—indeed, by the great majority of Tasmanians and other Australians—has been caused by the Prime Minister's tin ear, heart of stone and inability to admit he got it wrong and to apologise for his actions.

Up until today the chaos, division, dysfunction and mistrust at the heart of the coalition government has been caused by one man and one man only, and that is Tony Abbott. But from today onwards the chaos, division, dysfunction and mistrust at the heart of the coalition government is shared by every member of the Liberal Party room. This morning they had an opportunity to use the knowledge and the common sense that God gave them and elect a new leader who would govern in the best interests of all Australians, not just a select few—the rich at the top end of town. When the time came for that this morning, the Liberal Party room choked and failed to show courage. This morning the Liberal Party room was once again controlled by cowards who are more concerned about their damned titles and the perks of office than about the suffering of normal Australians.

Tonight, if you are a homeless person in Tasmania you have an official wait of 21 weeks, or over five months, on the public housing list. According to the Tasmanian Council of Social Service report, the latest waiting list figures for public housing show there are 2,465 applicants on the wait list—and that is growing by the day. The average wait time for people who are housed is 36 weeks. How do you think the 2,465-plus Tasmanians who are struggling to feed and house their families would view this Abbott government's record of government and their behaviour today? I think they would be entitled to view the behaviour of this government with a sense of mistrust. No-one would be surprised if a homeless Tasmanian described the federal Liberal government's performance as one of chaos, division and dysfunction. And if the homeless knew that one of the main reasons they were denied the chance of state public housing was because the Abbott federal government insisted that over half—or $17 million—of the federal housing budget of $32 million a year invested in Tasmania's public housing be paid back to the Commonwealth government to service a federal debt of $200 million, then I have a feeling that words a little stronger than 'chaos', 'division', and 'dysfunction' would be expressed.

Parliamentary Library research I commissioned, which studied the funding crisis surrounding the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, states:

Leading Australian housing researcher, Professor Patrick Troy describes the funding situation under the CSHA:

Most of the Commonwealth funds advanced to the States since the 1945 CSHA were actually repayable interest bearing grants (the average citizen held the mistaken belief that a 'grant' was just that when in the arcane language of the Commonwealth it was actually a 'loan').

One consequence of this was that each year the States were forced deeper into debt and was one reason they could not fund the needed infrastructure. It was a neat pea and thimble trick.

So here we have the federal government caught out big-noting themselves about giving, in Tasmania's case, $32 million while slyly taking straight back off them—that is right!—a cheque for $17 million within 24 hours. Is it any wonder this Abbott government is mistrusted and viewed as dysfunctional?

In order to help this government recover the trust they have shattered with ordinary Australians and to help them repair their damaged reputation, I call on the Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, to waive the $200 million of Tasmania's public historic housing debt. A debt of $320 million for South Australia was scrapped a few years ago, and while I do not begrudge the people of South Australia that money, I make the point that both South Australia and Tasmania are suffering from similar social and economic crises and challenges—unemployment, economic stagnation and homelessness.

If the Commonwealth government can scrap the public housing debt of $320 million for South Australia, they can also scrap the public housing debt of $200 million for Tasmania. They can just scrap that $200 million debt for Tasmania, because Tasmania needs it. This would mean that the backlog of $90 million in housing maintenance could be addressed. I agree with retiring TasCOSS CEO Mr Reidy, when he says that Tasmania needs more affordable housing, and that waiving the public housing debt would be a great start to fixing our public housing crisis in Tasmania. Waiving Tasmania's public housing debt would also have an immediate effect of fixing the crisis of public confidence in this government's ability to prioritise the proper investment of public funds.

It would not be right of me to stand up today and not mention Defence pay. Put aside Mr Abbott's lies and broken promises to every Australian in higher education, health funding, Medicare co-payments, funding of the ABC and SBS, aged pensions, workers' superannuation, veterans' superannuation and entitlements, and God only knows what is coming up over the next few weeks. Put aside the fact that Mr Abbott's leader in the Senate—our very own Tasmanian Senator Abetz—has twiddled his thumbs and enjoyed the prestige of political office for 21 years and has done absolutely nothing to save the jobs of 10,000 Tasmanian workers that are at risk because of the outrageous Renewable Energy Target and our Bass Strait crisis. Put aside the fact that Senator Abetz has allowed his Liberal Party to put its foot on the throat of the Tasmanian economy by creating a crisis with the Bass Strait shipping and transport costs. Put aside the fact that Senator Abetz and his prime minister are happy for Tasmanian business to be placed at a huge disadvantage compared with the mainland states and to pay unfair and excessive freight charges. Put aside all those facts and outrageous injustices and there remains one injustice that the people of Tasmania and other states of Australia will not easily forgive the PM for, and which contributes to the deep level of mistrust for this Abbott government.

How can the Prime Minister and his cabinet, even after today, steal money from the men and women of our Defence Force—especially at a time when we rely on their protection so much? It would only take $121 million to deliver a fair pay rise for our Australian Defence Force personnel. If Mr Abbott wants to make a fair dinkum attempt to repair the damage he has caused to the office of prime minister and to the morale of our diggers, then all he has to do is announce—like his backbench member, Mal Brough—that he will support a fair pay rise for members of our Australian Defence Force. In the centenary of Anzac—and I say it again; this is the centenary of Anzac—how can he, in all good conscience, stand with our diggers and have photos taken with them with a smirk on his face as he takes food from their children?

Mr Brough had me cheering in front of the TV when he told a reporter on 3 February 2015:

Our defence force is one of the best in the world because of its people and the very least we can do is to ensure that their wages are not diminished.

Being a Liberal, Mr Brough is not without his faults but I am glad he has supported my stance on ADF pay. He is a former officer in the Army, but unlike the lazy Tasmanian Liberal backbencher, former Army officer and ex-brigadier, Mr Nikolic, Mr Brough has on this matter shown courage, honour and a sense of loyalty to his former colleagues by challenging the PM and speaking out for our diggers and their families.

Department of Defence figures indicate that nearly 800 Tasmanians are employed: 90 on a permanent basis and 700 in the ADF Reserves. There are almost 8,000 veterans living in Tasmania. We should never forget the thousands of Tasmanians who have left our state and served in mainland or overseas locations. Every one of those people would be prepared to reassess their opinion this government—that it is cruel, unfair and cannot be trusted—if it would only do the smart and conscious thing and give a fair pay rise to our ADF.

It is now time for action. The PM has a perfect opportunity to step up to the plate. He can do that with the flick of a pen today. The men and women in the ADF put their lives on the line for us every day. I want to see some action out of this PM, and this is the first action I want to see. I want the PM to replace the money that he has stolen from them—and I want it done today! (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak on the matter of public importance today, which is the chaos, division, dysfunction and mistrust at the heart of the coalition government. We all know that the good ship, the Liberal Party, is sinking. It is floundering in a sea of gross unpopularity. The captain, Prime Minister Abbott, has driven the ship into the iceberg and survivors are battering each other to get to too few lifeboats. They have not just tried to rearrange the deck chairs; they are actually battering each other to get to those lifeboats. The government's competence and judgement have been tested and found sorely wanting. They are chaotic, divided, dysfunctional and certainly unable to be trusted. This is what they meant when they said, 'The adults are back in charge'!

The Liberal Party had a leadership contest this morning, and it has shown that a large proportion of the Liberal Party backbench want to roll Prime Minister Abbott. They did not even have an identified alternative putting their hand up; they wanted anyone but Abbott. It is the 'ABA' group, and we have heard about it quite a lot of late. The Liberal Party room is divided, dysfunctional, chaotic and full of animosity. I can give you a precise figure on just how divided: it is 39 per cent divided. However, I am sure this figure has become out of date since this morning and that it will be rising fairly quickly, I should expect, after Mr Abbott's statement that 'Today is the day good government starts.' I think the Australian people should really stop and listen to that comment, because after 520 days in government, what have the government been doing? What has been happening for the last 520 days if today is the day that good government starts? They should have started good government 520 days ago. They should have been thinking about what they were doing 520 days ago. I am really concerned that one member of the government is so dysfunctional or so concerned about the whole Liberal Party that he or she was unable to write 'yes or no' correctly on a ballot paper that only provided those options. Obviously, one person in that room has absolutely no faith in the Liberal Party. They wrote 'pass'. What a joke! Although Mr Abbott survived this morning's attempt to remove him, his government is still in chaos; it is still dysfunctional. This government is still divided and it is still racked with mistrust. I am sure that we will see another leadership challenge against Mr Abbott in the future, as his government keeps on focusing on itself rather than on the issues that matter.

In last Monday's speech at the National Press Club—a speech designed purely and solely to shore up his own leadership—Mr Abbott promised a more collegiate and consultative government. His backbenchers and ministers must take such a promise with a grain of salt since, as reported in the media, he has made that comment, that same promise, 12 to 15 times since 2009. When I worked in child care, if I had a child that kept promising to change their behaviour 12 or 15 times in a few years, I would be taking very severe action against that child when their behaviour was so unacceptable. I think the Australian people will show what they believe at the next election, whenever that might be. They will not put up with untruths and broken promises from the government of the day. Maybe Mr Abbott will change, but I doubt it—I very strongly doubt it. That is unfortunate, because this government needs to change. Many of the obviously sensible senators and members that were in their caucus room this morning knew that; they knew that it had to change.

Some in the government blame the sales pitch—'We haven't sold our policies very well'—but Australians know that it is not so much the salesmen but the policies that are so bad. So you have got a bad salesman or two or three or four or five and you have got disgusting, absolutely unacceptable policies coming out. The Australian people are not fools. It does not matter what those opposite decide to do in their caucus room with regard to leadership. It will be shown at the next election that they will have done the wrong thing. The thought-bubbles, the captain's picks—and very dodgy captain's s picks at that—the directives of Rupert Murdoch and the hard-core ideology of the Institute of Public Affairs are not the policies that Australians need.

The Australian people want their government to act on their behalf, not on behalf of foreign media magnates, Sydney based lobbyists or the rich miners. Whilst Mr Abbott might be Prime Minister today, when they do decide to replace him—with Mr Turnbull, Ms Bishop, Mr Pyne or whoever—their policies will still be the same; they will be thoughtless, they will be heartless and they will be targeting the most vulnerable in our society. The government do not need a change of face; they actually need to have major heart surgery—because they are not looking after the people in Australia who need to be looked after. And the people in Australia who really do need to be looked after are feeling betrayed and angry that this Liberal-National government wants to transform Australia so drastically and so cruelly. And, should the policies change, it will say, 'Actually, we didn't need to be that hard.' That will be an interesting dilemma for those on that side as well.

We all know that Australians believe in a fair go, in helping the underdog—and that is why they are so opposed to what this government is doing. The Australian people do not want a GP tax. The Medicare system, which allows access to health care for all Australians no matter what their financial circumstances, has been a key right of Australians—except for a shortcut under the Fraser Liberal government—for 40 years. How can the Australian people trust this government when they did not even announce that they wanted to destroy Medicare? And what is even more ridiculous is the continued back-flipping on this issue. Chaos? Chaos rules! First, there was going to be a $7 co-payment, which was then taken off the table. Then they wanted to cut the Medicare rebate for short consultations by $20, which they then pulled out just days before it was to come into effect. Now there are comments that, after this morning's spill attempt, any form of co-payment will be taken off the table. What does that say? It says, in actual fact we did not have to have that co-payment, we did not have to be so harsh and unrealistic and treat so harshly those in Australia who cannot look after themselves. It is just a joke as far as I am concerned, and the people of Australia think you are a joke. This position will probably change a few more times—as long as they are in government, who knows.

Another thing the Australian people really do not like is this government's attempt to introduce $100,000 university fees. They are proud that they have got a university sector that allows their children and grandchildren to gain access to world-class higher education in an affordable manner. Australians know that a higher education benefits not only the individual but the nation as a whole. If you want to have a smart Australia, you need to let people have access to higher education. But by making a degree cost $100,000 you remove the aspirations of young Australians from low-income backgrounds, who are quite seriously afraid of being saddled with such a debt for their entire lives. It is a figure that will leave higher education to the children of the wealthy. It is ideology again, coming through loud and strong. And that is not how our egalitarian society should be working.

Senior Australians are concerned about a cut to pensions despite the government's promise it would not do so. As a result of changes to indexation arrangements, in 10 years time pensioners will be $80 worse off than they would otherwise have been. So there is a cut.

Australians hate the attacks on the ABC and the SBS. Those TV stations show how diverse we are, how clever we are, how hardworking we are as a nation. But no, 'There will be no cuts to the ABC.' Well, bless my cotton socks, there have been. (Time expired)

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

At 8.30 this morning Senator Moore presented this ridiculous MPI on 'chaos, division and dysfunction'. Of course, by 9.30 it was shown to be the lie that she always knew it was going to be. It is a shame she did not have the common courtesy to withdraw it. The simple fact of the matter is that, yes, there is chaos, division and dysfunction—and I am going to explain over the next few minutes why it has been caused in the Senate by the Labor Party and some of their hangers-on and why the Australian people are so badly disadvantaged.

Mr Abbott did make one mistake when he came to government. He made the mistake of—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! You were heard in silence, please afford the same.

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

Mr Abbott made the mistake of believing that the then Labor government's deficit for that year was $18 billion. The reality is that it was not $18 billion, it was not $20 billion, it was $40 billion.

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! I would ask those on my left to remain silent. Interjections are disorderly, and I remind you that you were heard in silence.

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

Senator Fifield made the opposition today—and he is quite right—that economic policy must lie in parallel to social policy.

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order!

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

What the other side, in their bleating, conveniently overlook is that, what they inherited as a surplus in this country they managed to turn into an accumulated deficit of $200 billion, running towards $600 billion of debt. What that means is that we pay $1 billion a month in interest on our overseas debt. That is a new teaching hospital that we forgo every month as a result of the interest on the debt incurred by this crowd over there. That is $33 million a day. That is two new primary schools, seven days a week, that we are giving up because we are paying interest on money borrowed overseas. I will not listen to the nonsense being put forward by the other side when it comes to responsibility.

Let me come to the higher education sector. The Labor Party are opposing the changes. The fact that every vice-chancellor in Australia is now in favour, and the fact that the Labor Party in government lifted the caps on numbers but did not lift the cap on the capacity to deliver quality education, seems to have escaped them.

Senator Bilyk goes on about $100,000 degrees. It is time she went to school and learnt the cost of a four-year agriculture degree—at a cost of $16,000 a year—at one of Australia's top universities, UWA. As far as I know, four 16s are 64, not 100. Senator Carr, the shadow minister, continues to go on with this ridiculous statement.

But, of course, that is also affecting our international higher education sector. I remind you that international higher education is the fourth largest export income earner and indeed the highest non-commodity export income earner in this country, of some $16 billion. Why is it being put at risk? Because, internationally, the universities in our region and elsewhere are now perfectly capable of exceeding us in terms of quality. Why is it that the vice-chancellors are asking and begging the Labor Party and indeed the crossbenchers to pass the legislation? Ask yourselves that question. My good friend and colleague Senator Xenophon says, 'All we need is another inquiry.'

We have had the Bradley inquiry, commissioned by Labor. We had the department's inquiry, in 2009. We had the Behrendt inquiry, in 2011, commissioned by the Hon. Chris Evans. We had the Lomax-Smith inquiry, the Phillips inquiry, the Kwong Lee Dow and Braithwaite inquiry—how many more inquiries do we need before we actually move and pass this legislation?

I do remind you, Deputy President, and those who might be listening that this is the same Labor opposition, claiming chaos, division and dysfunction on our side, which actually brought into this place $5 billion of budget savings when it was in government, which were accepted by the coalition. What has this crowd done in opposition? It has simply opposed what were its own policies when it was in government and we are invited to come in here today and talk about chaos, division and dysfunction. We are a government about improving employment and the economic circumstances of this country.

Senator Lines interjecting—

I can explain exactly, through you, Deputy President, the three free trade agreements. Let me give you one illustration. The services sector in this country accounts for 70 per cent of our economy and yet only accounts for 17 per cent of export income. With respect to the Australia-China Free Trade Agreement, yes, the Chinese want our commodities. What the Chinese want more than anything else is our services. If we could increase the services sector's export-earning income, from 17 per cent up to 25 per cent, 30 per cent or more, you bet your life, through you, Deputy President, to Senator Lines, we would be in a position then where this country would be returning to the sort of stability and economic position we need to be in to achieve these goals.

I speak of international competitiveness. I speak about the offshore gas industry in my home state of Western Australia. There has been $200 billion of recent investment, a tremendous story. Gas prices are going down, as are oil prices and iron ore prices. They are going to adversely affect state and Commonwealth royalties. But we must remain internationally competitive. It is now costing $4,000 a tonne—and these are McKinsey's figures, not mine—to develop an offshore facility off WA. The cost of production in an equivalent field, the most recent one being the Sabine field, on the American side of the Gulf of Mexico, is not $4,000 a tonne but $1,500 a tonne. This is what we have to compete with internationally.

I am an optimist and I say that this is one of the greatest countries in the world, but we must get out there and understand that we do not exist in an international vacuum. We exist in the overall international economy. Greece is currently defaulting on its debt. We have Europe watching what will happen to Greece as it defaults. We have the powerhouse Germany, saying, 'We are not prepared to forgive you that $400 billion or $500 billion euros of debt.'

The United States of America, which, because it found cheap energy through shale gas, has now brought manufacturing back into its country. We see employment levels going up. But remember that we have $1 billion a month interest on our debt; the Americans are borrowing $1 billion per working day. Each year they are borrowing $250 billion each year.

We have phenomenal opportunities in this country. We must not as a Senate, as a country and as an economy be held back by an irresponsible opposition, which itself caused the economic malaise and demise. I finish with the words of Senator Fifield, 'You must have economic policy aligned to social policy if you wish to succeed.'

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak today on this matter of public importance. What we heard from the Abbott government was more spin than you would get from a whirling dervish. They cannot tell the truth, even on a day when their poll results have hit absolute rock bottom. Never before in this country have we had a Prime Minister as unpopular as Mr Abbott. Since Australia Day, after the Prime Minister's 'knightmare' backlash from the Australian public in knighting Prince Philip, the chaos, the division, the dysfunction and the mistrust eating at the heart of the coalition government have been well and truly on display. It culminated this morning in a spill motion where 39 MPs and senators, a majority of backbenchers, voted for a spill motion to have a new leader—any leader—anybody other than the Prime Minister, Mr Abbott. Surely, the Prime Minister himself admitted to this chaos, division, dysfunction and mistrust today in his own government when he said after the spill motion, 'Good government starts today.' What an insult to Australian voters! Australian voters had a right to good government from September 2013. But no, 18 months later, Mr Abbott finally says, 'I'll have a go at good government from now on.' What a disgrace!

Almost 40 people in the Liberal Party—because I believe even a Liberal member is capable of filling out a ballot paper without getting it wrong—deliberately wanted anybody other than the Prime Minister. What confusion we saw.

What we see from the Abbott government and the ministers in this place is that they are living in a parallel universe. They are claiming everything is fine. Clearly things are not fine when the Prime Minister of the country commits to good government from today. Clearly things are not fine when at least 39 backbenchers say they want anyone except the current Prime Minister.

It is one thing, perhaps even expected, that a conservative tea party government like the Abbott government would let down low-income earners and Australian workers and would put trade unions offside. However, this government has managed to get everyone offside with its bucketful of broken promises, back flips and captain's picks.

Doctors are out campaigning against the mistrust they have in the government. Perhaps the PM has not been into a doctor's surgery lately, but let me assure him that in my doctor's surgery I recently saw not just one notice opposing the Abbott government's cuts but three notices and a petition. I can assure those opposite that the Abbott government's cuts to Medicare were the talk of that waiting room.

Are the Prime Minister and his team listening? Of course they are not, because they are committed still to cutting Medicare. The AMA is not convinced, because their campaign continues. Turning to business groups, the Abbott government has even managed to put off its mates at the big end of town. They are asking: you have done the big backflip on PPL, but what about the levy? What are they being met with? Absolute silence. So, now, business groups, which are the Abbott government's traditional mates, are offside. What about farmers? What is the National Party doing? We have been suffering drought in this country. The PM went out on a farm but again there were just empty promises. We have seen nothing but poor policy delivered in that area.

The chaos, the division, the dysfunction and the mistrust will continue, because that genie is out of the bottle, and once the genie is out of the bottle it cannot be put back. Those low polls and the backflips and broken promises of the Abbott government will continue, and they will continue to live in their parallel universe trying to pretend that everything is somehow fine in the country, when all of us know better, until the next election. A change in government is what this country needs, and it needs it sooner rather than later.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had the opportunity during the earlier take note of answers session to talk through some of the significant achievements of the coalition government over the last 17 months, so I will not go over them again, except to say that they are significant and we now need to build on those. Given the tenor of the MPI and some of the ridiculous statements we have heard from those opposite, you get a sense of a notion of projecting, because we have seen how they were in government. They are looking to project that chaos and dysfunction onto us.

In UK newspaper The Telegraph I found a nice summary and timeline of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. They give an excellent summary of the real chaos and dysfunction, which is in stark contrast to what this government is about. I wanted to highlight it, because I think there is a lot of projecting here from the Labor party:

2010

June 23—Then deputy prime minister, Gillard challenges Rudd to a leadership ballot as his popularity plummets following a series of policy mis-steps including shelving an emissions trading scheme and skirmishes with the powerful mining industry over tax hikes.

June 24—Gillard goes on to win unopposed, with Rudd declining to contest the ballot. She quickly calls national elections.

August 21—The Labor party fails to win a majority, prompting Australia's first electoral deadlock in 70 years.

September 7—Minority lawmakers throw their support behind Gillard after lengthy negotiations, ensuring Labor's return to power with a fragile coalition. Gillard appoints Rudd as foreign minister.

2011

March 8—Gillard's popularity drops to a record low amid plans for a pollution levy, despite pledging there would be no such tax under her government. Furious protests break out around the country.

August 31—High Court strikes down Gillard's refugee swap deal with Malaysia, seen as a solution to the inflammatory issue of boat people, forcing Labor to scrap offshore processing and release refugees.

November 8—Labor passes its controversial emissions reduction scheme, but fails to make any headway in the polls. Rudd consistently places ahead of Gillard as preferred leader.

2012

February 22—Rudd resigns as foreign minister in Washington and says he is returning home to consider his future.

February 23—Gillard calls a leadership ballot and says both contenders must accept the outcome as final.

February 27—Gillard wins the ballot with a commanding 71 votes to 31 and vows to lead a unified front to the 2013 election. Rudd promises full support and says he holds no grudges.

2013

January 30—Amid renewed talk about Gillard's leadership, she announces national elections for September 14.

February 15—Rudd dismisses mounting speculation he will again challenge Gillard, telling everyone to take 'a long, cold shower'.

March 12—An opinion poll shows Gillard would be crushed in a national election, but Labor would easily win if Rudd was leader.

March 21—Senior cabinet minister Simon Crean demands Gillard call a leadership vote and urges Rudd to stand. Gillard immediately calls a ballot but Rudd declines to challenge and she retains the leadership unopposed. Rudd vows not to challenge again.

June 26—After weeks of rising speculation Gillard announces a party leadership ballot cutting short party-room moves to depose her. Both Rudd and the prime minister commit to quit politics if they lose.

Rudd wins the ballot by 57 votes to 45.

Labor lost the election. That is a nice summary of the last few years of Labor government. What Labor is trying to do is to somehow contend that it is the coalition that has the issue and the problem.

I think there is another contrast they will want to draw. It is the vicious way in which the Labor Party publicly treated each other.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unlike those saints on the other side.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In comparison to you lot we bring civility to a new level. We all remember what Wayne Swan said about Kevin Rudd. This, of course, is a leader who you put back into the prime ministership after you had gotten rid of him. You all knew how dysfunctional he was. Wayne Swan said:

… for too long, Kevin Rudd has been putting his own self-interest ahead of the interests of the broader labour movement and the country as a whole, and that needs to stop.

The Party has given Kevin Rudd all the opportunities in the world and he wasted them with his dysfunctional decision making and his deeply demeaning attitude towards other people including our caucus colleagues.

He sought to tear down the 2010 campaign, deliberately risking an Abbott Prime Ministership, and now he undermines the Government at every turn.

He was the Party's biggest beneficiary then its biggest critic; but never a loyal or selfless example of its values and objectives.

For the interests of the labour movement and of working people, there is too much at stake in our economy and in the political debate for the interests of the labour movement and working people to be damaged by somebody who does not hold any Labor values.

This is what Wayne Swan thought of Kevin Rudd. This is the guy that those opposite put back into leadership after all of those years of dysfunction.

We know that all the players have admitted what they thought of him. We saw on 29 June 2014 the headline "Julia Gillard admits political war with Kevin Rudd was 'all about ego'". Then there was the article with the great line from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate which said:

Senior Minister Penny Wong came to her in tears. She, too, was abandoning Gillard. Why? “It’s the South Australian seats,’’ Wong replies.

“I knew then that I’d lost it,’’ Gillard said.

Then there was 'Bill Shorten: The man who knifed two prime ministers'. That article said:

Mr Shorten did not believe he had been dishonest in telling the media over the past two weeks he was still supporting Ms Gillard.

"As I was going through the process of thinking what to do, do you think it is my job to be a public worrywart? That just destabilises the situation," he said.

"Up until the spill ... I was going to support the prime minister."

Of course, that was until he did not.

Then we had the Gillard article titled "She says: 'Why I had to knife Kevin Rudd'". Then we had Nicola Roxon's classic line in another article. It said:

She acknowledged that removing Mr Rudd from The Lodge in 2010 was "an act of political bastardry" but she said it was only possible "because Kevin had been such a bastard himself".

That is what we have left behind.

Let's be clear: all governments face their challenges. You can react to it in that way, as the Labor Party did, or you can react to it in a far more sensible way. That is what we in the coalition are going to do. We are going to get on with building on our achievements. Getting rid of the carbon tax, stopping the boats and the deaths at sea, securing our borders, conducting free trade agreements, hundreds of millions of dollars of environmental approvals, removing red tape all over the place—these are the achievements that we need to continue to build on. We are not going to be lectured to by the Labor Party.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Time for this discussion has now expired.