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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

There is an old saying, but a true saying when it comes to the coalition: the more things change, the more they stay the same. We have had exactly the same rhetoric, the same spin, the same nonsense paraded before this Senate today that we have had for the last two years of dysfunctional, incompetent government from the coalition. Changing the leader made no change. The same rhetoric, the same three-word slogans that the new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, was saying would disappear all got a run again today in question time. This is a government that is an absolute rabble. This is a government that has got no concept and no understanding of the economic necessities of this country. This is a government that had an opportunity to stand up and say what it would do to move this economy and this society forward, and what did we get? We got the same old spin—same old, same old from the same old tired, incompetent, dysfunctional government that parades around as a so-called government in this country.

We know they are split up the middle. There is another old saying: if you cannot govern yourself, you cannot govern the country. This lot cannot govern themselves—absolutely no chance. You saw the vote last night, tipping out Prime Minister Abbott, who was the great hero of the coalition, the great hero that brought them to government. It was only last week they were standing up there, one after the other, defending the then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and running the same three-word slogans that the former Prime Minister ran every day. They cannot change it. It is in the DNA of this government to attack pensioners, to attack those on welfare, to attack working people in this country—that is what the DNA of this lot is.

They have got no understanding of how ordinary families battle every day to put food on their tables, buy their kids' schoolbooks, buy their kids their school uniforms. This is because predominantly they think about privilege when they think about this society. They think about the big end of town. They think about how they are going to cuddle up to Rupert Murdoch in this country, and they have now got a leader who actually comes from that end of town, who is a rich individual with absolutely no idea what it is like to battle in this country. Why else would he have supported every attack on working people in this country that was in that first budget? Why would he support attacking pensioners, attacking the youth of this country who are battling to get a job? Why did he say that he back every aspect of what was the worst budget this country has ever seen? What he says—I do not often agree with Malcolm Turnbull, but he did say that the government had not been successful in providing the economic leadership that we need. You do not provide economic leadership by attacking the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country. Malcolm Turnbull is backing—sorry, the Prime Minister is backing that in, and that is what he is going to continue to do.

We had Senator Cormann here, in the same robotic splurge of argument that we get every day, trying to defend this position, but Senator Cormann, according to the Prime Minister, was a failure in his position, an absolute failure. The best we can do for this country is get rid of this government, not change the leader. (Time expired)

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We may have had a change in the prime ministership of our country, but we clearly have not had a change in the shallowness, the short-sightedness of Labor senators here. I might just add, Senator Cameron, that I think there was only one person who lost sleep last night in this country, and that was Bill Shorten. That would have been Bill Shorten, because even though the coalition may have had a change of leader, we did not have a change of ambition. Our ambition is to make sure that the Australian Labor Party stays out of government.

It is a bit disappointing that Senator Cameron could not even find the good grace to reflect positively on what were some significant achievements of the coalition government under the stewardship of Tony Abbott. In my contribution this afternoon I might just reflect on what Mr John Howard had to say about Mr Abbott's contribution towards stewarding this nation for two years in difficult times. One of the most notable achievements of Mr Abbott in his period of prime ministership was the way that he dealt convincingly with the issue of border protection. I think it is just worth reminding this chamber and Labor senators what it was that Mr Abbott inherited when he became Prime Minister.

We know that under the previous government 50,000—it is easy to forget the magnitude of the number—asylum seekers arrived on over 800 boats. Policies under the previous Labor government led to 1,100 deaths—not injuries but deaths—and what we saw were a thousand children in detention centres, and John Howard is absolutely right when he reflected on that this afternoon. For all his great stewardship of this country over 11 years, John Howard's concession was that even he had not thought it would be possible to correct that—and, of course, Mr Abbott did. Mr Abbott and the coalition government did that, and Mr Howard went on to say that, in his mind, that was one of the most outstanding achievements of the Abbott led government over the previous two years.

It is true that these are interesting times politically. It is absolutely correct that the electorate has an increasing expectation of parliamentarians, an increasing expectation of the governments it elects. But it is also beholden on each of us to reflect on what some of those other achievements are. I am disappointed in Senator Cameron—and it will be interesting to hear the contributions of other Labor senators this afternoon—not even having the good grace to reflect on what were remarkable achievements that are recognised in the community as being important and sizeable achievements and achievements that have reflected the priorities of ordinary Australian voters and families over the last two years. Those achievements include the abolition of the mining tax, a tax which hit particularly hard in my home state of Western Australia, the abolition of the carbon tax, which has ordinary households an average of about $550 better off because that it has gone. So there has been the abolition of the carbon tax, the abolition of the mining tax, the protection of Australia's borders and—importantly, of course—reducing that significant loss at sea. Then there are the 335,000 new jobs—jobs for ordinary Australians that were created under the tenure of Mr Abbott.

The challenge is actually not on the coalition today. The challenge is on the Australian Labor Party and its senators in this place to think about how they will change. How will they change to make sure that Australia and this parliament get the best possible benefit they can from the new leadership that will be shown by Mr Turnbull. These are important but challenging times for our country, with an ageing population and the increasing industrialisation and development of our Asian neighbours. The world is becoming more competitive and we cannot afford to rest. We must stay vigilant, and I am confident that under the leadership of the new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, this country will go from strength to strength. (Time expired)

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of questions asked by the opposition today, and I will start my comments where Senator Smith finished his. I must say it is a fair stretch, given the last 24 hours, to stand with a straight face and argue that it is the Labor Party that should change—that the Labor Party should change what it is doing in response to the tearing down of a Prime Minister that we just saw played out in real-time on TV over the last 20 or so hours.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should have been around six years ago. It happened twice.

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

Order!

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister started the assault on Tony Abbott yesterday with a very clear attack on the economic leadership of the government as it was. In fact, I think his own language was:

It is clear enough that the Government is not successful in providing the economic leadership that we need.

He went on to say:

We need a style of leadership that explains those challenges and opportunities, explains the challenges and how to seize the opportunities.

This was a clear attack on the economic team of the government, which includes Senator Cormann and the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, in that they had failed to sell the message. But when you look at the message they were trying to sell, anyone would have difficulty with it. Unemployment has increased from 5.7 per cent to 6.3 per cent. For the first time in 20 years over 800,000 Australian are out of work. Confidence is at an all-time low. New taxes and charges are being implemented and people are paying more. The deficit has doubled in the last 12 months. So, not that I stand here in defence of Mr Hockey or Minister Cormann, but it is a pretty tough message to sell because the results of the economic leadership, if you could call it that, have not been great.

But now we have open warfare within the Liberal Party. We have got division and disunity and we saw it on show in question time today with senators slumped in their seats, still looking a bit shell-shocked over what has happened in the last 24 hours. Senator Abetz was doing a good audition to maintain his position as leader in the Senate by holding the team together during these very difficult times. But what we do know is that whilst you can change a leader pretty easily—as it seems—it is a much harder process to deal with the disunity and division that is on show.

Anyone who knows how numbers fall will know that 55-44 is not a ringing endorsement of either Tony Abbott or Malcolm Turnbull. It really sets a challenge ahead for the new Prime Minister as to how he is going to manage what is a deeply divided and dysfunctional team. It will be very difficult for a Liberal like Prime Minister Turnbull, who has made very clear statements in relation to big issues facing this country like climate change; like the republic, an issue close to my heart; and like marriage equality, an issue that many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Australians care deeply about. They are things he has made very clear statements about, and people will expect him to deliver on those statements; but how can he when he is in charge of a very split team with a lot of conservatives within it who will be very unhappy with any progress made in any of those areas.

We know that the budgets that led to the problems facing the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, and the previous Prime Minister, Tony Abbott—the cuts, the unfairness of those budgets, the attacks on families, the attacks on workers, the cuts to state and territory run services like health and education—were all decisions taken around the cabinet table. As much as people would like to distance themselves from those decisions now that they have proven to be as unpopular as they are, we know—and I certainly know from putting budgets together—that to finalise a budget you need the agreement of the cabinet, and Prime Minister Turnbull was sitting at that cabinet table. He was not only sitting there but also agreeing to the budget and then going out and implementing it. No matter how hard he tries now—you can change the leader but changing the direction of the government is going to be a much harder job. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion before the chamber is that the Senate take note of the answers given to questions asked by members of the Australian Labor Party. That is very difficult to do, because all of the questions were so juvenile, irrelevant and lacking any policy content that it makes it hard to debate on the questions asked.

This is from a party riven by factional enmities and full of, to quote Senator Cameron, lobotomised 'zombies', controlled and answerable to no-one except the criminals who are part of unions like the Health Services Union and the CFMEU. That is who the Australian Labor Party are directed by and answerable to. The CFMEU—thank heavens for the royal commission into trade unions—we know comprises many people who could not be described as anything but criminals. They are represented in this chamber by none other than the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, a former employee of the CFMEU and a person who proved herself to be the worst environment minister we have had for many years, the worst finance minister we have had for many years and now the worst shadow trade minister that the country has ever seen.

This government is the same government that was elected on 13 September 2013 with a number of policies which we have implemented and continue to implement—policies like border protection and stopping people drowning at sea; abolition of the carbon tax; and creation of new jobs. In August alone, 17,000 new jobs were created by this government. The union royal commission has been set up as promised. Again, this government is proceeding with its policy, which it promised before the last election, to retain the definition of marriage for the term of this election and to provide that we will go to the Australian people for a decision on that in the next term of parliament. Those policies stand. That is what we were elected to do and we will continue to do. The new leader, Mr Turnbull, confirmed that last night.

With the Liberal and National parties Australians know what they are getting. They know that when our parties go to the election and promise certain things we will do them, no matter how hard the Labor Party and their allies in the Greens political party will try to put forward some other proposals. We are not like the Labor Party. We do not go to an election promising that there will be no carbon tax and then immediately following the election bring in exactly that. We will continue on the policy we took to the last election, and that will play out in Paris this year. This is a government which keeps its promises. This is a government which has set a path and which will continue on that path. Although the leadership has changed, the policies of the parties remain and the new leader has made that very clear.

By contrast, you have a group of people opposite run by the trade union movement. As I often say here, if the trade union movement were anywhere representative of Australia, it might give the Australian Labor Party some credibility. But I emphasise that, according to Bureau of Statistics figures, the union movement represent 12 per cent of workers in the private sector—that is, 88 per cent of all workers in the private sector choose not to join the union. The way the unions carry on, and the way their representatives in this chamber carry on, you can well understand why most hardworking Australian workers choose not to join a union. It is because they see the unions for the criminals and thugs that the royal commission has exposed them as and for the rabble that you see in this chamber opposite. (Time expired)

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In commencing my contribution, I take up a point made by Senator Smith when he called upon the opposition to express some gracious response to the changes in leadership that have occurred overnight. From my own perspective, I commiserate with Mr Abbott over the way he has been treated overnight and I wish him the best in his future endeavours. I also congratulate Mr Turnbull on his election to the leadership of the Liberal Party. For the sake of the people of Australia, I hope that he is able to discharge the duties that he has now been entrusted with. It is incumbent on us to say, however, that whilst we might reflect personally on Mr Abbott's demise, one certainly cannot consider his period in office as Prime Minister as anything other than a disaster for our country. I certainly believe that there has been a lot of economic vandalism perpetrated in that period of time.

With Mr Abbott's statement this morning—I will come to Senator Abetz's responses to my question in due course—I think it is important to note that he spoke about the white-anting that had occurred during his period of leadership, about the febrile media culture that rewarded treachery and about conniving and dishonour. He also made reference to 'the assassin's knife'. So this government has clearly now gone from exhibiting chaos and dysfunction down to a new level of division and chaos which I think does not bode well for our country.

Today I asked Senator Abetz whether the Prime Minister agreed with the coalition's Direct Action Plan or whether it was an 'environmental fig leaf', to use Mr Turnbull's terms, and 'a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale.' In his response, Senator Abetz confirmed that the Prime Minister will be supporting the plan which the government is taking to Paris. I think that confirms that Mr Turnbull is a person who will say anything and do anything in order to obtain political power. I think it is important that the Australian people look at Mr Turnbull's public statements, given he aspires to the top job in the land, in respect of this issue of climate change. He has previously said that he would not lead a party that was not as committed to action on climate change as he is. This is a Liberal politician who has previously expressed in writing, in December 2009, some home truths about the farce that the coalition's policy, or lack of policy, on climate change had descended into. He acknowledged that one cannot cut emissions without a cost. He said:

To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money.

To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money.

Somebody has to pay.

So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott—

I do not want to quote the specific term that Mr Turnbull used, because I fear it is unparliamentary, but he certainly described Mr Abbott's position on this matter in fairly explicit terms.

So we have a Prime Minister who, regrettably, is a person who cannot be taken on his record. He is a person who will say anything and do anything in order to obtain high political office. It should not be forgotten that Mr Turnbull sat around the cabinet table that delivered the toxic first budget of this government. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.