Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) 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 impact of the Abbott Government's chaos, dysfunction and division on business and consumer confidence" .

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.

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

This Abbott government's infighting, chaos and dysfunction not only is hurting the increasingly embattled Prime Minister and his hapless Treasurer but has also destroyed business and consumer confidence in Australia. This confusion grips the government on so many fronts that it is hard for business to be able to grow and to have any faith in them. And for businesses to grow and keep Australians employed they need strong consumer confidence. It is a measure by which they themselves can be confident that consumers will buy their products and services. However, this shambolic, dysfunctional government has lurched from policy crisis to policy crisis, giving no-one confidence it knows what it is doing. So much for Australia being 'open for business' under this government.

All of us in this place know that damage to consumer and business confidence means damaging our economy, leading to job cuts and the ensuing suffering that that brings. Australian families do not deserve to suffer because of division and dysfunction by this government. Australian mums and dads do not deserve to lose their jobs, have their hours of work cut or be unable to afford health care for their children because this government just wants to help the big end of town rather than supporting jobs and growth for all.

Consumer confidence and business confidence have crashed since leaks about last May's budget emerged. Consumers and businesses know this government is dysfunctional, and it is making everyone very nervous. According to the Westpac Consumer Sentiment Index, consumer confidence was at a level of 99.73 in April 2014 before crashing to just 91.1 in December 2014. That drop in consumer confidence is because of the actions of this chaotic government, whose policies have attacked those on pensions, students, public servants and the unemployed, amongst others. How do they expect consumer confidence to stay high when they produce policies that make sections of the community fearful for their futures? Similarly, business confidence has crashed from plus 10 in July 2014 to a level of plus two in December 2014, rebounding slightly to plus three in January 2015. It is likely that big business confidence will crash further in the next index, as they are fuming about this Prime Minister's plan to axe his promised Paid Parental Leave scheme for millionaire mums but keep the tax that was meant to pay for it. Business leaders have very publicly shown how upset they are about the Prime Minister's decision to keep the PPL tax.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Chief Executive Officer Kate Carnell said

If he didn't ditch the levy and wanted to keep it, we'd be horrified … If that is the case it is just a tax.

It does not matter what they might want to call it; it is just a tax. I seem to remember from the 2013 election campaign that Mr Abbott promised 'no new taxes'—just one of very many broken promises from this inept, dysfunctional government.

The Abbott government are so dysfunctional they are unable to keep a policy position for two days running, let alone keep a promise made before the election. There is still lack of clarity on their position on building subs at ASC. It was quite unequivocal before the election. They said that they would build at ASC in South Australia. The government then reversed that policy after the election. Just yesterday, Minister Andrews was joined at ASC by Liberal MPs Andrew Southcott, Matt Williams and Rowan Ramsey and Senators Sean Edwards and David Fawcett to announce—I might say—a rather confused position on the matter. They left parliament to fly to Adelaide—at a cost of who knows what, but thousands of dollars—for a press conference that did not really clarify the government's position and that in fact, I would say, added further to the confusion. It would have been better for them if they had not had that conference at all.

Last night I met with Australian shipbuilders and submarine builders in this place. They were extremely concerned that this government refuses to support Australian shipbuilding and submarine building. They were extremely disappointed that this government refuses to protect Australian jobs in an industry that develops important skills in the wider community. As an aside and as a senator who comes from a state that has a shipbuilding industry, I call upon this government to look to Australian shipbuilders before going overseas. Tasmanian-built ships have been used by both the Australian and US defence forces and I hope they, too, have a part to play in the future of Australia's Navy. But back to the matter in hand.

The low consumer and business confidence has forced the Reserve Bank of Australia to cut interest rates to stimulate the economy. After staying on hold for the longest period since 1990, the Reserve Bank has had to act for the first time since August 2013. AMP chief economist, Shane Oliver, outlined some of the reasons why the RBA needed to make the cut, saying:

Growth is too low, confidence is subdued, prices for key commodities like iron ore and energy have collapsed resulting in a much bigger hit to national income than expected a year ago …

I am astounded at how the Treasurer, Mr Hockey, appears to have done a backflip on the meaning of a rate cut.

In May 2012, the then shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, said the rate cut was a sign that the government had lost control of the economy. He also said:

So of course, interest rates on average should be lower but if interest rates come down today, it is because the economy is struggling, not because it's doing well.

However, this week Mr Hockey has been saying:

This is good news for Australian families and it's good news for Australian business …

There does seem to be some hypocrisy and some conflict in these two positions. Interest rate cuts under Labor, bad; interest rate cuts under the coalition, good!

Under the watch of the government, unemployment hit a 12-year high in December 2014. Before the election of the dysfunctional government, they promised two million jobs over a decade. They are not off to a good start.

Unfortunately, tens of thousands of extra people have joined the unemployment queue since the last budget. While those opposite have been busy infighting and while they spent the first 520 days of their government in a dress rehearsal, waiting for the real show to begin—which I thought was going to begin on Monday, but I am still waiting for evidence of that—thousands of Australian families have lost their primary source of income. And young people are finding it harder and harder to find work as well. The Reserve Bank said in their rate cut decision:

Youth unemployment, which tends to be particularly sensitive to the business cycle, has increased notably; 270,000 people aged between 15 and 24 years are now unemployed, 20,000 more than a year ago.

This dysfunctional government has failed young people, whether they are unemployed or students. It really needs to get its act together. It has no plan to create jobs for young people, just cut pay and conditions, saddle them with higher university debt and make it harder for them to enter the property market.

I have spoken to a number of small businesses in Tasmania and they are extremely concerned about the slowing economy. Some people are unable to sell their businesses. They are just closing them and walking away from them—and that is happening just near my office. Small towns are becoming concerned about their viability.

Public servant job cuts by the Tasmanian state government has also depressed business and consumer confidence in my home state.

As can be seen from consumer confidence figures, Tasmanians are concerned about the future of the economy and are saving more and trying to write down debt. As can also be seen from consumer confidence figures, they do not believe that this government's cruel, heartless budget is the solution to the budget's woes. They reject the assertion that this government's vicious attacks on pensioners, the sick, the unemployed and students will lead to a better economy and a more prosperous future. And, as we saw from Monday's leadership vote, a large proportion of the Liberal caucus agrees.

This government is a bad government for Australia. Its own Prime Minister admitted as much when, on Monday, he said, 'Good government starts today.' I think the Australian people would be extremely disappointed to hear that good government was to start last Monday because, as I said before, Mr Abbott and his Liberal Party have been in power for 520 days. I ask again: what have they been doing in those 520 days? How come it has taken them so long to realise what a terrible government they have been, when the Australian people have been saying it for so long and when Labor, the crossbenchers, charities, NGOs and doctor groups, to name a few, have all criticised the government's policies? They obviously have not been listening, even though they say they do. The problems with their policies at heart are caused by their own incompetence and ineptitude. The instability of this government is evident. They are divided, dysfunctional and chaotic. Unfortunately, this dysfunction has led to a weaker economy, high unemployment and the destruction of business and consumer confidence. No wonder the Liberal backbenchers want to get rid of the dysfunctional Prime Minister and incompetent Treasurer.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you know, Acting Deputy President Williams, I am only new to this place, so I am not sure if there is provision in the standing orders for the Labor Party to withdraw a matter of public importance after it was submitted in the morning before we start business, but I think they might have wanted to withdraw today's. I was listening to Senator Bilyk's contribution very closely and she failed to mention one very important thing. Let's just look at what this matter of public importance, which the Labor Party would have submitted to the President at around 8.30 this morning, says:

The impact of the Abbott Government's chaos, dysfunction and division on business and consumer confidence.

The implication there, and certainly the implication in Senator Bilyk's contribution, is that business and consumer confidence is down. I am not sure that Senator Bilyk has kept up with the news today or if she just wanted to ignore it, but consumer sentiment came out today in the Westpac-Melbourne Institute Consumer Sentiment Index. Senator Bilyk mentioned the series in her contribution but failed to announce what happened today. She mentioned the figure for December correctly, but she failed to mention that last month it went up slightly to 93.2 and today it surged by eight per cent to 100.7, the highest level since January last year. Senator Bilyk failed to mention that.

I would like to ask the Labor senators who are following. Who do we have next? We have Senator Dastiari next. He is on the economics committee. He should have seen that release today. I would like to hear him explain that anomaly, because their whole matter of public importance is about trying to say that consumer confidence is down somehow because of this government. But it is not down, and if it is not down the whole argument falls down. It is gone; it is all over. Do I have to keep speaking for eight minutes? I suppose I will. It is gone. There is no argument for them to prosecute. Later I will go through some other economic stats which show the economy is actually quite strong. There are certainly challenges. We have gone through a terms of trade boom not seen since the 1850s, and that is slowing down, so there are clearly going to be challenges. But, all things considered, the economy is doing quite well.

I take you to the first half of the matter of public importance, which talks about chaos, dysfunction and division. If any party could help us identify chaos, dysfunction and division it would be the Labor Party. They are pretty good at it. I think they would be able to spot it if we needed them to. The last time they were in power and on this side, their mistakes were not as inconsequential as just a matter of public importance; their whole government was a running saga of chaos, dysfunction and division. I know you remember that, Mr Acting Deputy President Williams, and I certainly do. Right from the beginning it was a matter of chaos, dysfunction and division. Mr Acting Deputy President, you probably remember the 2020 Summit that they started. The Prime Minister was sitting on the floor with his notepad, looking very earnest and taking notes. All the best and brightest minds came to this place to try to find out what we should do for the nation, and they came up with one idea that they implemented: a tax review. So they had a tax review and then they came up with one idea to implement, and that was the mining tax. They implemented the mining tax. We spent all that money and we implemented a tax. It was the first tax I know of in history that actually cost the government money. The Labor Party found a way to implement a tax that actually cost them money—not just a small amount of money but a lot of money.

I remember when it was announced. I was in the lock-up. Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan announced it, and it was going to raise almost $50 billion in its first four years. It was not in the forward estimates at the time, but later, through a committee process, we found out that Treasury estimated that in the first four years of operation it would raise $50 billion. It fell a little bit short of that figure. They wanted $50 billion. We know now that in net terms it raised $300 million. They wanted $50 billion from the tax and it raised $300 million in net terms, and that is just what it raised for the Commonwealth Treasury. At the time they announced the tax, they announced all these weird and wonderful other spending programs with it. They announced mining exploration, tax credits, small business asset depreciation write-offs, an infrastructure fund. They announced all these different spending initiatives. The superannuation guarantee increases were probably the most costly. All up, they locked in $17 billion of spending with this tax. It was going to raise $50 billion and they locked in $17 billion of spending. They thought they had plenty of room but, in fact, they did not.

That is just one example. I am not sure that I will have time to go through all of these. I will focus on some that hit regional Australia, coming from this end of the chamber. Senator Nash would remember quite clearly the night that Four Corners ran a program about the live export trade. There was some very horrific footage and there certainly needed to be a policy response. Indeed, the first instinct of the then agriculture minister was right: he shut down the abattoirs. But that was not good enough for the Labor Party. They wanted to do more and, because of a TV program, they shut down our exports of food to our closest neighbour—more than 250 million people—overnight, without even the courtesy of a phone call. The Indonesians found out about it through the news. It was an absolute disgrace.

I will go through these. I like these ones. Remember they had all the wars, Senator Nash? They had the war on inflation and the war on obesity. Whatever happened to the war on obesity? I do not think we were successful on that one, Senator Madigan. Then we had a war on the greatest moral challenge of our time. We lost that one. After wars come coups and revolutions, and for good measure they had two of those. They backstabbed two sitting prime ministers and now they come into this chamber and try to lecture people about chaos and division.

I recognise that the Liberal Party have had a tough couple of weeks. I have publicly said that I hope they do not change aeroplanes mid-air, because I do not think it is a good idea. The example of the Labor Party is pretty clear. Once you go down that bloody path, it is pretty hard to come back from it. It has been a tough couple of weeks, but there is a difference between that side and this side. That side did it twice. That side unleashed the faceless men and executed two prime ministers in the space of three years; we did not. That side wasted billions of dollars and racked up $300 billion of debt; we did not. That side shut down an industry based on a TV program; we did not. There is a big difference to that side. That side weakened our border protection laws and let in 50,000 unauthorised arrivals; we have not. There is a big difference. That side, right up to today—Senator Nash, you would like this one—want to allow foreigners to buy farmland without any restrictions. They opposed the announcement today that we would reduce the threshold down to $15 million. We think there should be more review of those purchases.

I started this debate—and Senator Dastiari was not in the chamber for it—by saying their whole notion has no basis, because consumer confidence is actually up, not down, and it is the highest it has been since January last year.

Senator Dastyari interjecting—

In my final minute or so, I will go through that, Senator Dastyari. ANZ job ads have gone up 13½ per cent over the past year, and that has been the fastest growth in 3½ years. We created more than 200,000 new jobs last year, and that is at the rate of about a job every 2½ minutes. Senator Bilyk's contribution was that four jobs were created. In the year before that, when Labor were in power, just over one job would have been created.

Business expectations are up. The Dunn and Bradstreet business expectations survey found the employment outlook right now is the strongest that it has been in 10 years. Our retail trade numbers have risen for seven consecutive months. Last year there were more than 200,000 new companies created, and that is a sign of confidence if nothing else. That is the highest level on record since ASIC started registering companies in 1999. The dwelling approvals are up 8.8 per cent in the past year. The consumer price index rose by just 0.2 per cent last quarter, after rising 0.5 per cent in the quarter before that. It is going at an annual rate of 1.7 per cent, well below the RBA's target band of two to three per cent. Electricity prices were flat in December, after falling by a record amount the quarter before, thanks to the carbon tax. These are the facts. We cannot take credit for all of them, but the economy is much stronger than it was when we came to power 16 months ago.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While we are talking about business, I noticed that so far we have not had any speakers talk about the difference between small business and big business.

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

Be patient!

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is a really good place to start, and I am sure Senator Back will look forward to telling us about his small business experience, which I respect. But let's look at this. There are two million small businesses across this country. They make up the backbone of the Australian business community. Everybody knows someone who runs a small business. My wife and I have run two small businesses. They are the lifeblood of our communities and our economy.

What action has this government taken to help small business in this country? We have had an announcement of a 1½ per cent tax cut, which the Greens support. Before the federal election we brought in a policy to cut small business tax rates across this country by two per cent. We also wanted to increase the depreciation allowance for small businesses to $10,000. At that time the depreciation allowance in this country was $6,500, which allowed small businesses to go out and spend money in their economy, buy capital and immediately depreciate it to help their cash flow. It was very useful. We wanted more because we feel small businesses in this country deserve more.

What has happened to that $6,500 that these small businesses relied on? It has gone. That depreciation allowance was removed when this government scrapped the mining tax. The revenue that was going to be raised from the big end of town from some of the wealthiest companies in the world was going to go towards supporting small business in Australia. Because a lot of small businesses have what we call 'lumpy' cash flows, the loss carry-back provision allowed small businesses to write their losses off against incomes in different years. It was also a very useful strategy for helping small businesses thrive. That was also taken away when this government arrogantly and stubbornly removed the mining tax without any thought for small businesses.

Senator Back aside, why is it that the LNP take small business for granted in this country? Do they really think that small business owners will only vote Liberal at the next election? I have got news for you. The Greens have the best small business policy of any party in this parliament. We have had for a while. I will admit it is sometimes hard to get that message out there, but eventually people will understand that we have been out there leading on small business. That is why Senator Milne came out this week and said she was happy to support a small business tax cut in this country because it has been our policy, supported by our members, for over two years now.

We want to see a bigger cut to small business. We are happy to see a two per cent cut. It is still only two per cent, but it makes a big difference if your cash flow is only $50,000 or $60,000 a year. While we are talking about business confidence, we have had the FoFA debacle, the attempt to repeal laws in this country for the big end of town and the damage that has done to a lot of small businesses in the financial services industry. Then we have these information leaks about tax evasion, private individuals and corporations. We have a set of laws that supposedly we are tackling through the G20, through APEC and through other forums to get rid of tax dodging by big, wealthy corporations. Where is the information-sharing plan between companies? We are going to be the last mover of all the APEC countries on sharing information to cut down on corporate tax deduction.

What about profit shifting and parallel pricing? These things are actually legal. They are loopholes that allow corporations to dodge tax while the man and woman on the street have to pay their fair share. These laws are unfair and they are unjust, and the Greens—hopefully, along with other people in this chamber—will stand up and make sure we get effective action on tax avoidance, because it ruins the morale of small businesses and workers in this country who work hard and pay their fair share of tax when they see big businesses getting away with tax evasion. So we need to do something about that, and if that is not a lack of confidence in this government's business abilities then I do not know what is.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a performance we had in this chamber from Senator Canavan just moments ago. Before touching on some of the points and the incorrect and false information that was presented to this chamber, I want to acknowledge the contribution of Senator Whish-Wilson, who actually outlined and detailed a series of policy failures from this government and the impact of those failures. Earlier we had Senator Canavan getting up here, giving a speech begging why the Australian people are not thanking this wonderful, fantastic government for the brilliant work it is doing in business confidence!

Let's be clear, when we are talking about confidence, there is one group that has no confidence in this government and that is the government itself. In the same week that 60 per cent of their own backbench tried to neck the Prime Minister, you have got senators getting up in this chamber talking about what a wonderful job this government is doing, how fantastic business confidence is and simply wondering why they are not being thanked for what has been failure after failure, lie after lie.

Business confidence in this country is down. Consumer confidence has consistently been taking a hit. Why? Because you have got a government that has not been honest with its own people. A government that has not been clear on who is responsible and what can and should be done. Of course there are economic challenges facing this country. Of course there are spending, fiscal and other challenges facing this country. But rather than have an honest debate, you have fearmongering. You have this whole fear of debt and deficit that does not match the reality of what has actually gone on in this country and of what has actually taken place. The result of all of this has been a complete hit to Australian consumers. What we should be doing in this country is talking about, firstly, what the opportunities are for growth, not turning around and playing this complete blame game of saying, 'This group is responsible for debt and deficit, and this is what is going on'—none of this whole kind of fearmongering by the government. What this government should be doing is sitting down and saying: 'Here are the opportunities; here's what we can do; here's how we can work together and here's how we can face the challenges.'

The Westpac - Melbourne Institute Consumer Sentiment Index shows that confidence remains 10 per cent lower than it was at the election. As my colleagues have noted in this chamber, notably Senator Canavan amongst others, there is a blip in today's release—an uptick of eight per cent in January. But it is hardly reason for a celebration. According to Senator Canavan, who came and started calling it a surge, Westpac's chief economist himself, Bill Evans, commented that this is a stronger result than we had expected. And that is right. The experts are genuinely surprised by what was a blip in today's results.

The Saudis have flooded the market with fuel, lowering petrol prices—a 21 per cent drop in the past few months. We all know that, thankfully, there has been a recent interest rate cut which actually allows some people a little bit of relief from what is increasing desperation to be able to meet their repayments. And the share markets have been buoyant, among other things. But what you have here is a government in disarray. What you have here is a lack of faith in the Australian public. What you have here is a constant fearmongering—a constant scare campaign. Rather than having a government that is prepared to sit down and say, 'Here are the strengths; here is what is working in this country; here is how we improve; here is how we grow,' what you have is a government that is simply limping from crisis to crisis of its own. And, to do so, it is trying to create another crisis and pretend there is a greater crisis out there. Confidence—business confidence, consumer confidence—requires strong and stable government, and that is not what we are receiving from this government at the moment.

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

Once again I thank Senator Moore and the Labor Party for the opportunity to expose the absolute failure and the incompetence of their six years in government. I will come to Senator Dastyari in a moment; I will just let him stew for a few moments, though I will allow him just this one snippet for a minute. The last time the Labor Party in government actually brought down a surplus, you, Senator Dastyari—through you, Acting Deputy President Williams—were a kid in short pants. You were six years of age. The member for Longman, Wyatt Roy, the Prime Minister of Australia in 2050, was not even born; the man was not even alive.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When's your next surplus?

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

Order!

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

Isn't it incredible how they cannot ever listen in silence because they cannot hear the truth. We are talking about a crowd over there—and I will get to surpluses and I will get to confidence in a moment—that inherited a surplus in 2007 and turned it into billions of dollars of deficits. They were an outfit that had $30 billion in the bank to spend and managed to turn it into a nearly $500 billion debt.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you hear of the GFC?

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

Senator Dastyari, I made sure no-one interjected when you were presenting your speech. I ask you to show the same respect for others speaking in this chamber.

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

I will come to the fact that then in government they had the best terms of trade in Australia's history. But what did they do with it? The first thing they did, of course, was to bring in a carbon tax and to send profitable businesses offshore. They had them compete unfairly with importing businesses which, of course, did not pay the carbon tax. The other industry going so well at that time was the resources sector, because we happened to have a product that the Asian neighbours all wanted. It was nothing to do with the Labor government—nothing to do with Mr Swan, the then Treasurer.

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

Nothing to do with you, that's for sure!

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

Order!

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

It was the fact that we had commodities that were in demand and, of course, we had excellence—

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

Nothing to do with you!

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

Order on my left!

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

in terms of iron ore and coal, and, more latterly, gas.

I turn now to Senator Whish-Wilson. Absolutely laudable, Senator Whish-Wilson—through you, Acting Deputy President Williams. Like you, small business—fantastic! A one-and-a-half per cent tax cut; I am glad you are going to support it. What else have we done? Red tape has been reduced. I hope that you—from your background, Senator Whish-Wilson—will be very, very keen to support us when we have a reasonable discussion about what the impediments are to small business in the hospitality and tourism sectors, particularly on weekends, because, again, those are going to be the areas. We have a look at interest rates and we see the benefits. You speak of the Greens policy associated with the mining tax. I know Senator Whish-Wilson well enough to know that he himself would never, in his small business, and nor would his wife in hers, go out and spend profits or income that they thought they were going to earn. We all said the mining tax would make no money. It made no money! But what did they do? They turned around and spent it, that grossly incompetent government. Do not link yourselves to them, whatever you do.

But when it comes to small business, you and I both know well about agribusiness and the farming sectors. I am very pleased to see the crossbench senators also devoting much time and attention. I am not going to go in any detail through the figures that Senator Canavan mentioned because they are there in Hansard for everybody to read, except to say—through you, Acting Deputy President Williams—to Senator Dastyari that these are not coalition statements; they are statements by the ANZ Bank. They are statements by the Dun and Bradstreet Business Expectations Survey. They are statements, again, by Ernst & Young—independent, Senator Dastyari—and they talking about the parameters that we know to be so important.

Let's now turn to what this government is achieving. One of the great faults of the last government was the raising of sovereign risk. It was not just the loss of revenue, income and investment coming into this country; it was Australians going offshore. In my own state, 65 per cent of mining exploration went to Canada. Why? It was because of the imposition of the carbon tax and mining tax. Sovereign risk was causing money to go from this country to other countries. When we should have been investing in mining exploration here, investments were going offshore. Nothing was coming in.

Let me tell you one of the greatest benefits of the work done by Mr Andrew Robb and those fine officials in the department of trade—the three free trade agreements. Nothing was achieved in the six years of the Labor government, but here we had free trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China—

Senator Lines interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Back, resume your seat. Senator Lines, when I am in this chair I continually have to bring you to attention. Stop interjecting; it is disorderly. I will not say it again. I say the same to you as I did to Senator Dastyari. When you are speaking, I will expect the other side to show the exact same respect. I will not ask you again to cease interjecting. Are you listening to me, Senator Lines?

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

Yes.

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

Okay. Continue, Senator Back.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I do appreciate that. This is a very important point because most people talk about resources and commodities with these free trade agreements. This is a stat that I would invite everyone to take on board. As Senator Whish-Wilson would know, 70 per cent of the Australian economy is made up by the service sector. It is not the resources sector—

Senator Lines interjecting—

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

Resume your seat, Senator Back. Senator Lines, I am very familiar with the standing orders. If you want me to read the part about naming a senator, I will gladly read out section 203. Enough is enough.

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

The point I am making is that the services sector makes up 70 per cent of the Australian economy but it only contributes to 17 per cent of exports. With the Chinese-Australian free trade agreement being signed, we find ourselves in a situation where the Chinese, in addition to wanting our commodities and our resources, want our services. That is what they want most. They want our legal services, education services, prudential regulatory services and insurance services. In response to Senator Dastyari's allegations of no action, imagine if we could move from 17 per cent of exports from services in this country up to 35 per cent or 40 per cent, replacing what we are losing now in the resources sector. The same will happen with Korea. There is an enormous opportunity for this to happen.

The number of tourists coming into Australia now is huge. They tell me that 100 million Chinese travelled last year. That figure will increase to 200 million. We have opportunities in our tourism and hospitality sectors. I gave a speech last year on long-term unemployment on the Gold Coast. There was an interesting stat that Senator Muir might be interested in. There are about 85,000 jobs urgently needing filling in the hospitality and tourism sectors in this country at this moment. I am not suggesting that every long-term unemployed person might be interested in those positions, but the number of people in long-term unemployment in this country is 85,000. Imagine the increase we are going to have and are seeing already now with the increase in tourism and hospitality.

I had the opportunity, at my own expense, to spend a week in Mexico in January. There are opportunities there for our country in higher education. Fifty thousand students leave Mexico each year in the energy sector and they need to the skills we have in their skills development. PEMEX, the Mexican owned oil company, is setting up its own university and asking Australia for our assistance in mining exploration in the oil and gas sector. There are enormous opportunities for us.

I am an absolute optimist. When I have a look at what we have in this country, such as the fact that we are at the forefront of 3D printing, and the thousands of jobs that are going to be needed, I am an optimist. We do not need to be held back by a regressive opposition.

Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( ): Please note that this is not my first speech; however, I am delighted to inform the Senate and those watching at home that I have booked that in for 5 March this year. I would also like to make a short contribution to today's matter of public importance. Some commentators may say that the fact I am speaking in the chamber two days in a row is a matter of public importance in itself! But I would like to speak on an issue that I believe is important and deserves attention. That issue is the renewable energy target.

On Monday, I attended a high-level industry and stakeholder roundtable on renewable energy hosted by the Australia Institute and chaired by Professor John Hewson. The roundtable created a renewed push to stop the attacks on the renewable energy target and make Prime Minister Abbott commit to the current target. The industry also turned its focus towards the longer term opportunities—in particular, how to secure stronger support for renewable energy.

Australia is at a crossroads in relation to the RET, and we have been here for far too long. The longer this discussion goes on, the harder it will get to meet the target. There are currently enough projects with planning approval that mean that Australia can meet the target of 41,000 gigawatt hours. Finding equity and investment to fund these projects is the problem, and this problem has been caused by the uncertainty created by the government.

The government's refusal to keep its commitment to the RET is creating investment uncertainty for the renewable energy sector, which must be allowed to continue to produce jobs and economic growth opportunities for all Australians. The renewable energy sector currently employs 21,000 people directly and tens of thousands more indirectly. A prolonged freeze on investment would put many of these jobs at risk. Renewable energy offers billions of dollars of investment in the future. Politicians who stand in the way of renewable energy are standing in the way of these future business opportunities and all the benefits that go with them.

I will stand firm to protect the current legislated RET. I do support minor amendments, such as extending the exemption to energy intensive industries to 100 per cent and recognising wood waste sourced from sustainably managed forests as an eligible source of renewable energy within the RET.

I also want to take this opportunity to remind the government of the importance of maintaining the Automotive Transformation Scheme at such a crucial time for the automotive industry. The loss of vehicle manufacturing in this country is tragic, and the flow-on effect through the supply chain will be huge. We need to focus on transitioning these workers and businesses, not place further pressure on the industry by cutting short the Automotive Transformation Scheme.

But one of the most important messages that I want send to the government, and indeed the opposition, today is that the RET needs bipartisan support. The renewable energy industry needs bipartisan support. I urge the government and opposition to negotiate productively and, for the sake of the sector, the environment, consumers and Australian jobs, reach an agreement.

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

Before I begin, I want to put some more truth around the statements that Senator Canavan came into this place to make today, when he skited about the consumer confidence index. It was up 0.7. If we take 100 per cent as the break-even point, it was 0.7 above that, so it is hardly something to brag about. Actually, if Senator Canavan had bothered to read beyond the glossy headlines, he would have found that it is a most peculiar increase in consumer confidence and is wholly reflected by Labor supporters. The reason for that is that the survey was undertaken during the leadership debate but before the spill motion. The confidence amongst coalition voters is at all-time low, and that is well and truly reflected in the polls that we have had this week. So I suggest that, if government senators want to come in here to brag and say that consumer confidence is up, it was up slightly and it was up due to Labor voters, who at last thought, 'Perhaps we are going to be rid of a harsh, cruel Prime Minister and his budget.'

This week, we have seen the Prime Minister admit that his government has been bad, and I agree with that. He is certainly a Prime Minister who, along with his Treasurer, is now on probation. Sixty per cent of the Abbott government members, including, if we believe the media, some of his ministers, told him on Monday they would rather have anyone other than him as the Prime Minister—anybody. Joe Hockey has apparently vowed to avoid major changes that would damage business, rejecting calls to lift tax rates or scale back tax concessions for the rich, ruling that this would hurt business confidence. But this morning the media described our Treasurer as 'a dead man walking'. So how long will it be before we have a new Treasurer, parroting yet another phrase? Really, how much credit can we give a Treasurer described as 'embattled'. The dysfunction, the chaos and the division within the Liberal Party have been well and truly on display this week; they are out in the open and there is no going back.

Still, I guess what we can be certain of is that, no matter who the leader is, or who the Treasurer is, or whatever role the foreign minister might bid for, or how many votes are bought in return for loose, open-ended promises on submarine tenders, or any other leadership secret contender or pretender, the message from the Abbott government is the same and the policies of the Abbott government will not change—and they are harming business and consumer confidence in our country.

The first Abbott government budget was full of damaging changes. Since the election, business confidence is down along with consumer confidence, despite Labor supporters being somewhat gleeful that there might be a change in leader this week. Consumer confidence is down 16 per cent, all as a result of the Abbott government's chaos, backflips and broken promises, and now a warning from the RBA that lower growth is looming—the real and harmful consequences being higher unemployment and more difficulties for young people trying to find their first job. It is the dysfunction and chaos of the Abbott government which is worsening unemployment in this country. It seems we have to call Mr Abbott our current Prime Minister, but the best that even Senator Canavan could do to shore up the Prime Minister was hope. He said he 'hoped' that there would not be a change. That is not a great, ringing endorsement that the current Prime Minister is going to be there for very much longer. Again, this dysfunction and chaos will harm the Australian community. It will harm business and it will harm consumer confidence.

Our current Treasurer believes that avoiding cutting taxes for the rich is the way to look after the average Australian, rather than actually supporting economic growth and jobs. The real truth behind their reluctance to pursue negative gearing or loopholes is that they do not want to upset their mates at the big end of town—that is the truth of it, but even the business community, particularly the big business community, is well and truly sick and tired of the dysfunction and chaos of the Abbott government. The chamber of commerce, usually good friends of the Liberal Party, agree with Labor on this. Kate Carnell said earlier in the week: 'This sort of leadership instability is actually poison for business confidence and for consumer confidence. It is essential the government focus on running the country.' This is from their mates. This is from business. So they cannot come in here and pretend that everything is hunky-dory in their parallel universe, because, in the real world of business, it is not.

The budget actually reduced economic growth by its impact on consumer confidence. The Liberals think that, if they say 'confidence is up', enough Australians will believe it. I am glad I have this opportunity to get this on the record: confidence is way down since the last federal election. We had Senator Back in here this afternoon trying to pull down penalty rates. If the government think that reducing penalty rates on the weekend is somehow going to lift business confidence, they do not have a clue—clearly, they have not got a clue. You do not attack penalty rates on business. There is a cost to running businesses on the weekend: it is a penalty rate for workers who are forced to work unsociable hours. That should be a given. If the government think that reducing the minimum wage or reducing penalty rates is somehow going to instil business confidence or consumer confidence, they know nothing. How do you increase consumer confidence when you shrink take-home pay?

I would have thought it was fairly obvious. If you reduce take-home pay people have less money to spend in the economy. It is not rocket science, but apparently it is something the Abbott government does not believe or does not understand, as their attack on penalty rates, saying it will be good for business, continues absolutely unfettered despite our being told that good government started last Monday, although we are still waiting on that.

We know that when people are optimistic, when they have money in their pocket and when their penalty rates or the minimum wage is not being attacked they are more likely to spend, and that leads to economic growth. We also know that when people are pessimistic they are more likely to save. I do not know why the Abbott government does not understand that. This is not a government that feeds optimism. The Prime Minister has the lowest poll rating of all time. It is time to listen, Abbott Government, time to act, time to stop pretending. If you are going to put in a new leader, get on and do it, but this chaos and dysfunction is now hurting our country.

Chaos and dysfunction has been a consistent trend since this government came into power. The latest chaos over leadership and the competence of the Treasurer will plunge any last scrap of confidence consumers had in this government even further. The Abbott government's budget strategy—if you can call it that, it seemed just to attack working Australians—did not pay any attention to the economy. Again, if you make people poorer they will not spend money. When you hit everyday Australians in the way the Abbott government did in its unfair, harsh budget it does impact on confidence. Confidence will continue to go down until the Abbott government, or whoever is the Prime Minister, comes to its senses. In the meantime, the damage to business and consumer confidence will continue.

Mr Abbott has given Australians a government that cannot settle on one economic message, on one economic policy, and now they cannot settle on one Prime Minister. This is a government that tells us one thing while in fact doing another. It is a government of smoke and mirrors, a government of no substance. The RBA, the chamber of commerce and consumers all tell us that confidence is down, as are the polls, which have no confidence in this government.

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

I rise to address this matter of public importance on the Abbott government. Labor has talked about a chaotic government, but leaders of both sides of politics in the past have said that one of the most fundamental tasks of government's national security. I would like to step through three areas of national security where the Abbott government has proved why the coalition consistently is the side of politics people trust with national security.

When this government came into office we were facing the lowest level of defence expenditure since the 1930s. Some $16 billion had been cut from the budget, 119 projects had been delayed, 48 had been cut and eight cancelled altogether, and industry had shed some 10 per cent of its workforce in the defence industry space. It took some months after coming to government before we finally quantified just what the backlog was, even in areas such as maintenance and remedial work on base infrastructure. There was some $1 billion that Defence had had to pull out of essential maintenance just to cover the cuts that Labor had made elsewhere. This government, by contrast, has made a significant increase—some $29.3 billion in the 2014-15 budget, which is an 8.1 per cent rise—and is well on its way to achieving the two per cent of GDP for defence expenditure.

Intelligence and security is another area. The government has engaged with both the House and the Senate to move through various hearings with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security as well as stakeholders in the community, our security agencies, key pieces of national security legislation such as the counter-terrorism amendment bill (No. 1) and the foreign fighters bill, and we are currently working on the metadata retention bill. We have outlaid an additional $630 million to disrupt terrorist activities in Australia. We have seen just in the last 24 hours announcements by the Federal Police and the New South Wales police about the arrest of people in Sydney who were in the final stages of plotting to carry out a terrorist act in Sydney. The law enforcement authorities made a very clear point that it was these new laws, which have been steadily implemented by this government, that provided the environment whereby they were able to take the necessary steps to apprehend these two individuals and save lives.

The third area I will talk about is border protection. A key election commitment of the government was that we would restore integrity to Australia's borders. It is something that the opposition, minor parties and many commentators said could not happen. They said that if we tried—if we did it—we would destroy our regional relationships. Let us compare and contrast the successive governments. When Labor came to government there were no children in detention under PM Howard and the whole detention system cost less than $100 million per year. Under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government and all the chaos that represented there were some 12 policy changes and initiatives all attempting not only to undo the Howard government policies but to put in place others when the problem started to get out of hand. The result was that the system ended up costing more than $12 billion—that is, it went from under $100 million to over $12 billion. Most significantly, and this is the thing that exercises a lot of people in the community—they are concerned about the welfare of children—under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd policies the number of children in detention peaked in July 2013, just over 18 months ago, at 1,992. It went from zero under the coalition to 1,992 children in detention.

Under this government, the boats have stopped arriving, the costs of detention are decreasing and, importantly, not only are we clearing the backlog of some 30,000 asylum seekers who were refused the right to work—with all the attendant issues of mental health and purpose in life that go along with that—we now have TPVs and they have the right to work. Importantly, there are no children in detention on Christmas Island. We have managed in 18 short months to bring the number down from that peak of 1,992 to a total of 193 children, who are in detention because they wish to stay with their parents—193 versus 1,992 because of this government's policies.

It is important to remember that we are talking about the same departments, we are talking about the same equipment available and yet we are talking about an incredibly different outcome. And what is the difference? The difference is this government which has provided leadership and consistency. It has had the courage to take the hard decisions and it has had a steadfast commitment to protecting Australia's national interest, which is the most fundamental task of any government. This government has performed well in the most fundamental task that a government can.

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

If Australia is to undo the damage, chaos, division and dysfunction that this government—and let's be honest the one before it—has caused to our economy and society, everyone knows that, while we need to readjust our spending priorities, we also need to reform our tax system. The disagreement between senators in this chamber is not about whether we legislate for tax reform, but how we legislate for tax reform. During my appearance on ABC TV's Q&A, I asked why Australia's major political parties were not considering a financial transactions tax. Both coalition and Labor politicians refused to debate the merits or otherwise of a financial transactions tax, and this only makes me fight harder and confirms that I am on the right path.

According to Parliamentary Library research:

In the aftermath of the global financial crisis the idea of applying a general FTT has been the subject of considerable debate.

In August 2009, Lord Turner, chair of the UK Financial Services Authority, canvassed the possibility of imposing a FTT on all financial transactions to promote an efficient financial sector, particularly more stable financial markets!

A general financial transactions tax has come to be seen as a way of reducing financial market volatility and excessive speculation in these markets as a safeguard against future financial crises.

The report continues:

Financial markets have massively expanded over the last few decades and it is argued a general FTT, even when applied at a relatively low rate, would raise substantial amounts of revenue.

It has been suggested that if a general FTT was applied globally the revenue raised could be used to fund a range of global public goods such as reducing poverty and combatting climate change.

If the rest of the world is debating an FTT, then why isn't Australia? (Time expired)