Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A letter has been received 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 Coalition Government's failure to provide the economic leadership our nation needs.

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 the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

I do think it is worth acknowledging, as other senators have done today, the contribution of the former Prime Minister, Mr Tony Abbott. He is certainly not someone who I have agreed with on many things—or anything, to be honest. But you have to understand and appreciate that there is a very personal element to these kinds of events. Sometimes in politics we forget that we are dealing with real people and real consequences. Again, while he is not someone who, on a policy level, I would necessarily agree with, I do want to acknowledge that there are people in this place who have contributed their lives to public policy. It may not be public policy that we all share and it may not be public policy that we all agree with, but in doing so those people do it in the way that they believe is best and in the national interest.

When we are talking about the economic path, plan and direction of this government, I think we really have a government with no plan for jobs and no plan for growth, and with no business confidence being built. There is no plan for emerging industry. What we have seen is a government that has been relying on slogans over substance and a complete and utter lack of economic leadership.

These are not simply words and language being used by me; this is the description that was used by the now Prime Minister of Australia about the economic performance of those opposite. The former Prime Minister, John Howard, said of Mr Turnbull a few hours ago:

… he has the capacity to explain economic concepts very clearly and very lucidly, and that, as he indicated yesterday, will be a very important part of the skill-set he brings to his new responsibilities.

What is that a demonstration of? It is a demonstration of the fact that this is a government that has failed on the economic front. But they have misunderstood what they have actually failed on. The problem has not just been how the message has been delivered; the problem is the product. The problem is what they are trying to sell. The problem is what they are trying to perpetrate against the Australian population.

What has been the common theme between these two governments—between this Abbott government and this new Turnbull government? It is that those right at the top have not necessarily changed. Sure, there might be one small change between who the Prime Minister is and who is not. But on all the other key economic positions there still has not been a change. And most damaging of all, we still have the same deputy leader driving the same economic policy—the same deputy leader who is now onto her fourth leader.

I appreciate that these are difficult things for people to participate in. I appreciate that these are not easy times. And I appreciate that people come to it with different perspectives. What I have never appreciated in politics is rank acts of disloyalty. And I will leave the judgement of disloyalty on that front for others to make.

But this is about their failure in the economy, on how this has been treated and on the role that the deputy leader and foreign minister—and a key member of cabinet—has had in these economic decisions. This morning I said that if the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party ever ran for the leadership there is a song that I think would be her campaign song. I said it would be Destiny's Child's Survivora song I know that you are very familiar with, Mr President.

But that sparked some other interest. Some other people put their own views forward. Rob Walter told me that I was wrong, that in fact it would be a song by the group called Survivor—Eye of the Tiger. Robert Gunner told me that in fact it would be MC Hammer's Can't Touch This. Tanya Plibersek, from the other place—the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party—chimed in and told me it would be Gloria Gaynor's, I Will Survive. Jordan Jansen told me it would be the Bee Gees' Stayin' Alive. Teo, all, as I affectionately refer to as 'Teo from Oz', as it is his Twitter handle, told me it would be Britney Spears', Oops, I Did It Again.

But then there was Samantha Ajardi, who brilliantly—and I think she was right on this—said that it would be Bob Marley's I Shot the Sheriff. Let's be clear here:

I shot the sheriff

But I didn't shoot no deputy.

The problem is with all these references is that they are kind of from the seventies, eighties and early nineties. I just do not think they are really relevant to the debate we are having as a nation now. But I will tell you who is relevant: Taylor Swift. And in Taylor Swift's poetic, beautiful and—I think—touching song, Blank Space, which really is a modern soliloquy on the Liberal Party, she says—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

I am quoting a poet here. I notice that other senators are laughing; I just do not think they are treating this with the respect that it deserves:

Magic, madness, heaven, sin

Saw you there and I thought oh my god

Look at that face, you look like my next mistake

…   …   …

New money, suit and tie

I can read you like a magazine

Ain't it funny rumors fly

And I know you heard about me

…   …   …

So it's gonna be forever

Or it's gonna go down in flames

You can tell me when it's over

If the high was worth the pain

What we have here is a government in crisis, a government in dysfunction and a government that has completely fallen apart. What have they done? What is the decision they have made? They are prepared to throw anything or anyone overboard simply to protect their own political hides. But, frankly, they think the problem has been in the delivery of the message. The problem is in the message itself.

I noticed in question time today that Senator Ronaldson had a bit of a Freudian slip. I think he was trying to say that he was really worried about 'xenophobia', but he actually said he was worried about the 'xenophonic' attitudes of the Australian public. That is a new word. It means when there are one or more Nick Xenophons in the same place at the same time. I know that something, certainly at the South Australian level, has really frightened the Liberal Party. But, frankly, this is a government that is in crisis and is out of control. (Time expired)

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

I thank Senator Moore—she is a gift that just keeps giving. I saw this today:

The Coalition Government’s failure to provide the economic leadership our nation needs.

My first message to Senator Moore, of course, is about the absolute disdain with which Senator Dastyari treated this question. Before he leaves the chamber, if Senator Dastyari wants to talk about deputy leaders and foreign ministers he need go no further than Ms Gillard, because one thing all of the leaders of our party know is that the deputy, Ms Bishop, was never there with a knife in her hand—do not worry about shooting sheriffs, it is that knife in the back—with every single solitary leader of this side or the other side looking to see whether the deputy was going to put the knife straight in. It is not the opportunity today to speak about public sector people in New York, but I will speak to Senator Dastyari and I will share with him the information that came to me from senior officials in our mission at the UN, and they will compare the performance of Ms Bishop with that of Messrs Rudd and Bob Carr—you would not have raised that comparison, Senator Dastyari.

I am delighted to speak about the performance of our government because it enables me to start with what the last crowd in government, the Labor Party, did. Of course they had inherited no net debt; they had a $20 billion surplus and they had $45 billion in the bank. There is an old saying in Western Australia: 'If you want to lose a surplus, vote in a Labor government.' And do not think that over six years they did not perform. The people of Canning will remember this on Saturday. What did they do with the $20 billion surplus in six years? They turned it into a $220 billion deficit. What did they do with the no net debt? They raced it towards $670 billion of debt. People in the gallery need to know that this country is borrowing $1 billion a month to pay the interest—not to repay the debt. Do colleagues know how much that is? It is two new primary schools a day. It is a new teaching hospital. The new teaching hospital in Perth, the children's hospital, is worth two months of interest on the debt. That is what this mob left us with. When Senator Moore invites me to comment on the failure of the economic leadership of our government, I say to her, 'Thank you very, very much.' Even in their last year Labor produced 11 estimates in 2013-14, eight of which they said were going to produce a surplus. We know the results of that. In government, just by way of comparison, the coalition's MYEFO estimate in 2014-15 was a $47 billion deficit. The budget estimate was $49.9 billion. What did it come down at? It came down at $48.5 billion. How close, how accurate—how excellent is that economic management?

Let me turn to the economic performance of this government. Already in two years the budget is $68 billion bigger. We have spent $50 billion repairing the budget. Is that economic failure? In two years there have been 313,000 new jobs, 440 a day, and half of them are for women. Compare that with the last three years of Labor—not 440 new jobs a day but 44—10 per cent of the coalition's performance. Some economic failure! It gets even better. In the eight months of this year, there have been 167,000 new jobs. That is 700 new jobs a day, seven days a week—outperforming the US, the UK, Canada and every other G7 country. Job advertisements are 16 per cent up from when we took over from Labor; retail sales are nine per cent higher; exports are 11½ per cent higher. Do I need to keep going on about the economic failure of the coalition government? I intend to. I intend to bury this issue. Dwelling starts have increased—and we know what new residential dwellings do. They create jobs in the construction industry. You would not believe it, would you? Residential dwelling starts are now 23 per cent higher than when we came into government two years ago—33½ thousand new dwellings. Multiply that by four, and that is the number of people in new homes—better than the absolute high point under the Labor government. One million construction workers are benefiting from this, a lot of them in the seat of Canning. Bankruptcies are at a 20-year low—15 per cent lower. Those opposite do not like this because they have to sit and listen to it—it is the fact. Investment in the services sector rose by 12 per cent last financial year, and the story gets even better. Last week Dun and Bradstreet said:

… we're seeing robust levels of optimism against all sectors in the Australian business community.

It is a shame for Labor in opposition to have to suffer this when we inherited what we did from them. In 2014 a record 223,000 new companies registered. Iron ore exports out Port Hedland were at a record level last month—34 million times, better than a million times a day.

What has the Labor Party done to assist us in this whole process? We remember the $5 billion of budget savings that Labor themselves announced prior to the last election that they were going to bring in with our support. What happened to that when it came into this chamber? They opposed it—they stood on the hose. That is what we are seeing with the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Gough Whitlam was their great hero, and fortunately for Gough he lived long enough to find a Prime Minister worse than himself, in Ms Gillard, but when he went to China, the first opposition leader, he was lauded by the opposition side. This is an interesting story; Senator Bullock might know it but apparently when Gough met Mao Tse-tung he was introduced as the Leader of the Opposition and Mao reportedly turned to a translator and said 'What's opposition?'. Whitlam should quite rightly be accorded credit for his work in establishing the relationship with China, and yet we see today in this place and in the other place, with poor leadership from Mr Shorten and Senator Wong, this opposition standing in the way of hundreds of thousands of opportunities. We will lose $600 million if we do not ratify this agreement by the end of this year, and another $600 million three weeks later. This is what the Labor Party is doing.

Senator Moore refers to economic leadership for our nation. Let me go through that topic in a little more detail. This is how the coalition government is delivering more jobs, stronger growth and a better economy in Australia at a time when, around the world, Asia and Europe are absolutely suffering. Yet see what Australia is doing: $5.5 billion in the last budget in the new Growing Jobs and Small Business package, which is already kick-starting economic growth, better outcomes and employment in the engine room of our economy. The Labor Party do not know about the engine room of the economy called small business; they think it is all either government employment or big business, who they can try to dominate. It is small business, where we have that $5.5 billion.

Again, in the small business sector, we see $3.25 billion in tax cuts for small business and $1.75 billion in accelerated depreciation measures, encouraging small business to start up and expand. Do you know what they do when they start up and expand? Senator Ruston knows—they employ people. And if those employees work well they get permanent employment and so the whole thing grows.

The next thing we want to look at is $6.8 billion in jobactive, the new employment services system, helping people get jobs which they will be able to sustain over time. Then we have a record $50 billion for infrastructure. Senator Dastyari was courteous to give some accolades to Mr Abbott. Certainly he will be known as the infrastructure Prime Minister, because he has invested that $50 billion in infrastructure for the 21st century.

I conclude my contribution with the three free trade agreements that Labor could not get anywhere near. Since 2007, when New Zealand negotiated a free trade agreement with China, their trade has gone up by a factor of five. It has quintupled. In that time, ours has doubled. If anybody wants to know the value of the free trade agreement with China to this country's economy, it is two against five. That is where the potential lies. The other side had better get on board.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the coalition's failure to provide the economic leadership that our nation needs. Certainly there is no greater proof of that than the last two years. On behalf of the Greens, may I say that we are thrilled to see the back of the former Prime Minister. I am personally thrilled to see the back of the nastiness, the small-mindedness, and the lack of vision and long-term planning. The new leadership is an opportunity for the coalition to reset. I hope that we will see some policy change. Australia is crying out for policy change. It would be incredibly depressing if we saw no policy change but just a different talking head. This is a real test for the government and for the new leader.

If there is to be genuine economic progress, clearly the biggest challenge, which the entire globe is facing, is how we tackle climate change. Of course it is an enormous environmental issue. Of course it is an enormous social and justice issue; but it is also an economic issue. It is the biggest economic issue of our time. There were some encouraging words said by the now Prime Minister yesterday. But then, when he was pressed on whether there would be any policy changes on climate change, I was very disheartened to hear the now Prime Minister say that he endorsed the climate policies of the former Abbott regime. Not only that, his deputy then chimed in and said they endorsed the targets that have been announced to take to Paris.

What a missed opportunity! I urge the government to reconsider. There is a genuine opportunity to create prosperity while we tackle this enormous threat to our very way of life, not to mention the life-support systems and the things that we hold dear. This is an enormous opportunity. The job creation potential in clean energy is so exciting. We saw that under the Renewable Energy Target Scheme, if it had not been slashed—sadly, both the parties ganged up to do that—there would have been $14½ billion of investment in large-scale renewables by 2020. How absolutely exciting. That is the future, and it could have been ours. Instead, we saw the target slashed from 41,000 to 33,000 gigawatt hours. That represented a loss of 6,000 future jobs.

It is very interesting to hear the focus on economic prosperity, because we know that until last night we have heard the lies, frankly, of big fossil fuel companies trotted out in this place like gospel—particularly in Queensland, where I am from. The initial promise by Adani, the Indian coal company, was that they would generate 10,000 jobs from their Carmichael coalmine. Under scrutiny they back-pedalled enormously and said, 'Actually, it is only 1,464—sorry, we got carried away there.' Yet we have still seen members of the frontbench in this place trot out that discredited and incorrect jobs figure.

Opening up coalmines in the Galilee Basin, including that Adani mine, is absolutely the wrong way to go. We should not be tipping $5 billion into a slush fund for fossil fuel infrastructure, which Adani is now seeking to access. We should not be going down that path. If we do not tackle global warming, then we see a real threat to the Great Barrier Reef and to our agricultural sectors. While we are in this economics frame, those two are enormous employers and enormous generators of prosperity. The reef employs more than 60,000 people and brings in more than $6 billion every year to our bottom line. If we look after that beautiful place, which is an absolute paradise and truly magical, we can bring that prosperity and those jobs in every year. That could be a sustainable prospect for us in Queensland and for the nation.

Likewise, if we safeguard our agricultural sector, help them transition to more sustainable farming methods, as they already wish to do and some are already doing, and genuinely tackle the impact that global warming will have on food production, rather than pockmarking farms with coal seam gas wells or turning them into enormous open-cut coalmines, we can safeguard those jobs as well.

We really need to start getting some long-term perspective onto these questions of where our future economic prosperity lies. We know it is not in last-century thinking. It is not in the big mines and the big old infrastructure items. It is in the exciting new areas of clean energy, innovation, science, and research and development of technology, and in our services sector and ecotourism. These are the green and prosperous economies of the future, which we know will provide employment and sustained income to our bottom line.

I hope we see moves in that direction. I think the Australian community is desperate to see a move in that direction. That is why it was very disappointing to hear the Prime Minister last night already ruling out changing the climate change policies of the Abbott government. He has no doubt had to bring an awful lot of climate sceptics along with him in order to ascend to the leadership, but I urge the Prime Minister to seriously base his policies on science. I urge all members in this place to restore the centrality of science to decision making, particularly as it pertains to climate change—which is intricately linked to our economic prosperity—and to realise that the momentum is on globally.

The transition towards a low-carbon economy is not some fringe, crazy notion as the leader of government business in the Senate would have us believe every time he howls us down when the Greens ask a question about climate change. It is actually fringe to not be making that transition. Look at the rest of the world. That transition is on; it is happening. And every day Australia is getting further and further behind—when we have some of the best clean energy resources in the world. We have some of the world's best sunshine, yet we have a government that is hamstringing the CEFC from investing in rooftop solar—or in wind, for that matter, because a bunch of people are awfully concerned about the health impacts of wind, of which there are none, and forget about the health impacts of coalmining, which are well known and actually documented by real scientists. I hope we see a diminution of the influence of the fossil fuels sector on both of the big parties. I am an eternal optimist. It remains to be seen whether anything will change. It needs to change. We cannot just have the same old, tired, failed policies with a slightly better salesperson at the helm.

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

Today is Mr Turnbull's first day as Prime Minister. It has been marked by the release of a NATSEM-Anglicare report that serves to demonstrate that the Liberal Party has yet again promoted another out-of-touch leader. This research for Anglicare Australia focuses on the changes in living standards for a broad range of family types in Australia up to 2014. It is almost like two worlds colliding. They could not be more different and they could not be more stark. One of the first points the report makes is that the gap between the rich—that is, Mr Turnbull—and the poor, those on low incomes and benefits, has only grown under his predecessor and shows no signs of slowing down. Our egalitarian culture and our fair go for all are now well and truly under attack by this LNP government.

The NATSEM/Anglicare report states very clearly that life will get harder for those on low incomes. For hundreds of thousands of Australians, their decline in living standards is a direct result of the proposed cuts to pensions and family tax benefits supported 100 per cent by Mr Turnbull. For wage earners it is the very low growth in wages supported by Mr Turnbull and his government. The report predicts flat growth over the next 10 years, along with a very low GDP. Income growth is slow, and last year members of the then Abbott government applauded that. But of course that affects what people have to spend. Whereas in the past wages growth has been about four to five per cent, it is now around two to three per cent. This is only marginally above inflation—not enough to enable individuals, couples or families to get ahead.

Earlier this year, in an arrogant attack on his own Public Service, Senator Abetz accused public servants of living in a 'pay rise paradise' and wrongly claimed that the Public Service had received wage increases far above those in the private sector. His economic leadership—or, rather, no economic leadership—failed to acknowledge that the ABS statistics, the real truth, and not Abbott's 'never let the truth get in the way of a story' rhetoric shows clearly that there is not very much difference between the public and private sectors on wage increases. In the decade between 2004 and 2014, private sector total wage growth was 42.5 per cent. In the same period the broader public sector wage growth was 45.9 per cent—hardly the pay rise paradise that Senator Abetz was trying to invent. The LNP government has failed its Public Service. There has been a high 'no' vote on the unfair Abetz enterprise bargaining deal, and levels of industrial action not seen in many years are now happening right across the public sector.

The LNP government, no matter who the leader is, has failed to provide any economic leadership. It has record unemployment and very high youth unemployment, particularly in the seat of Canning, where youth unemployment is at an alarming 14.6 per cent, with no plan to change that. Since the coalition government's first budget was handed down in May 2014, economic growth has slowed. The annual growth rate has declined from three per cent in the March quarter of 2014 to two per cent in the June quarter of 2015. Australian incomes are down right across the board, not just in the public sector. Living standards have fallen, and Australians' disposable income is down 1.8 per cent in real terms. Consumer confidence is down. Again, that has gone down since the coalition came into government. That is based on the Westpac-Melbourne Institute index. Wages growth has slumped. Apparently the LNP government thinks it is a good thing that wages growth has slumped. But of course it is not a good thing, because there is less money in the economy. Unemployment is up at record levels. It never had a six in front of it when Labor were in government, not even at the height of the global financial crisis. What a disgrace. Unemployment is well and truly up. Those opposite will talk about the jobs they have created. But what are those jobs? They are part time, casual and low paid, mainly occupied by women. That means those people need continued support from a government that is hell-bent on making sure that that support is not there—that wants to pull the rug away from families and from single parents struggling to survive under its harsh budget.

What is Mr Turnbull's response to that? We know he backed in both budgets of the LNP government. He backed them in 100 per cent. Today he has backed in the old-fashioned view of marriage equality to waste millions of taxpayers' dollars holding a vote that is not necessary, and he is sticking to an old-fashioned, outdated climate change policy. The coalition have well and truly bungled the economy, and it will not change under the leadership of Mr Turnbull.

All over this nation Australians have been hurt by the failed economic leadership of this government—formerly the Abbott government and now the Turnbull government. What is Mr Turnbull's approach? He just seems to think he needs to communicate better. The voters of Canning and, indeed, all voters across the country deserve better than that. But Mr Turnbull will not change. He will continue to back in, as he has done in the past, the harsh, unfair policies of the LNP government. The people of Canning know that—and, thankfully, they get to vote this Saturday.

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

The voters of Canning and, indeed, all Australians understand the failure of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government to provide the economic leadership our nation needed six years ago. The voters in Canning—where I campaigned with Mr Randall during his very first attempt at the seat, which he was successful at—and, indeed, all Australians should look at the Australian economy.

Let's have a look at shipbuilding. The Labor government was in power for six years and did not do one thing to establish any forward trajectory for building the new ships that the Australian Navy desperately need. Let's look at the manufacturing industry. All of the problems of the Holden, Toyota and Ford motor vehicle companies occurred in the six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. The problems for those motor car companies did not start the day Labor lost the election; they were a result of inaction by the Labor Party, and Senator Carr in particular, over the previous six years.

Let's go to agriculture and look at the Labor government's record there. The Labor Party are never supporters of agricultural industries. There was Senator Ludwig's decision to stop the live cattle export trade and the destruction that that brought to a once vibrant industry. That cost jobs, homes and properties. Let's have a look at financial management. Under the last year of the Howard government there was $60 billion in the nation's piggy bank in credit. At the end of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, there was nothing left of the $60 billion of credit, only a debt approaching $700 billion that was costing Australia $1 million a day in interest to foreign lenders.

Let's have a look at tourism. Under Labor there was no interest in the Barrier Reef and in supporting the tourism jobs there. All they did was tax and scare away any investment in the tourism industry. In the trade area, which is so essential to Australia's future, the Labor government tried and tried for six years. I do not think they could have tried very hard, because they achieved absolutely zero, zilch, nothing. In the two years of the coalition government there have been three trade agreements with our biggest trading partners—Japan, Korea and China. That is a wonderful effort that will create jobs.

I heard the previous speaker talk about climate change. Remember that Australia emits less than 1.2 per cent of all global emissions. What did the Labor Party do? It shut down jobs in manufacturing and mining and exported jobs overseas so Australia could reduce its emissions of carbon by five per cent—five per cent of 1.2 per cent! Gee, that is going to save the world from climate change, isn't it? It was an absolutely ridiculous, ludicrous and nonsensical hoax on the Australian people. A number of jobs that used to be held by Australians were exported overseas in that crazy period of the carbon tax and the mining tax.

Mining, one of the most important job creators, particularly up in the north of Australia, was discouraged by the Labor Party with a mining tax! That tax just sent investment out of Australia to South Africa, South America and even some places that would make you wonder why anyone would dare to go to there. But the mining companies found it safer investing in Africa and South America than in Australia. Why? It was because of the Labor government's retrospective, unexplained and unheralded attacks on mining. That is the Labor government's record of economic leadership.

I will go through those things again to show what good economic leadership can do, starting with shipbuilding. What did the Abbott government do about shipbuilding? We announced contracts for Australian workers. That happened after six years of nothing by Labor. In manufacturing, we got rid of the carbon tax. We brought some sense to the renewable energy target so that Australians can feel confident that their jobs will be there tomorrow, particularly in the cement and aluminium industries, which, had Labor stayed in power, would have continued to be exported overseas because of Labor's crazy policies.

I have mentioned what Labor did with agriculture. By contrast, the coalition government has put out an agriculture white paper on the heels of a white paper on northern Australian development which encourage and support agriculture and show all Australians, but particularly farmers, that we are their friends and that we want to help. The Labor Party and their allies in the Greens would have had you believe that the Barrier Reef was ruined. I regret to say, Senator Waters, in a most un-Australian way, toured the world telling everybody not to go to the Barrier Reef because it was destroyed and damaged, a complete pack of lies—

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy President O'Neill, I raise a point of order. Just to clarify: it was actually government ministers that toured the world. I did not tour the world. I can do my job from Queensland to protect the reef.

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

Clearly, there is not a point of order. I always get these frivolous points of order when I expose to those who might be listening to this debate the absolute hypocrisy of the Greens political party and the way that they—and Senator Waters in particular—set out to destroy the Barrier Reef and Queensland's wonderful tourism industry. As Senator Waters or anyone would know if they ever bothered to go to the Barrier Reef, it is still one of the seven natural wonders of the world. It is something that should be talked up not talked down as Senator Waters and her mates in the Greens political party do.

In trade, Labor could do nothing. I have mentioned that the coalition has three new trade agreements—two confirmed and a third one with China on exactly the same terms and conditions as to employment as others. Suddenly, the Labor Party are opposed to that. Senator Wong, as shadow trade minister, should hang her head in shame. This is an absolute disgrace, and I cannot help thinking that it is the Labor Party returning to their old White Australia roots. Remember the old White Australia policy promoted by the Labor Party? If you did not have white skin, you could not get a job in Australia. Now it seems to me—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did the Liberal Party do about it?

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

That was the Labor Party policy, wasn't it?

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did the Liberal Party do about it?

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

Was it the Labor Party policy? Who introduced that? Was it Arthur Calwell who made some comments about that? I will debate that with you—

Senator Moore interjecting—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I ask you to make your remarks through the chair please. And Senator—

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

I would appreciate if you could protect me from these vicious interjections by Senator Moore trying to shout me down in exposing the truth that the White Australia policy was Labor's. In fact, it was Mr Menzies who got rid of that vile policy. The way the Labor Party are going on in this xenophobic way with the China free trade agreement, you would think that some in the party want to return to the 'good old' White Australia policy days. You would almost think that, for some reason, they are anti-Asian or anti-Chinese. There is no fact in their argument. Clearly, the China free trade agreement will create jobs for Australians and wealth for Australians.

All through the coalition government, the approach is to good financial management that does not leave Australia like Greece. Australia has to pay off the debts that it runs up, but the Labor Party have no plan for that. We will do that. At the same time, we will continue to create new jobs, like the 17,000 jobs alone that were created just in August of this year. We will continue to encourage exports, encourage productivity in Australia and get Australia moving. One of the ways that we will do that, of course, is to bring a crooked union movement to account, and the royal commission is doing that. The Abbott and Turnbull governments have everything to be proud of in their economic management, unlike the Labor Party.

Joe Bullock (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The mission of the Australian Labor Party is to defend and advance economic opportunity for the working people of this country and for their families. This is the economic leadership that our nation needs.

Today, Australia is entering a new period of leadership under a new Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and we are entitled to ask what this leadership holds for working people. There are some important indicators of the substance of this leadership—rather than merely the style—which are worthy of drawing to the attention of the Australian people. Firstly, we have the perspective of our Treasurer, Mr Hockey, which he offered just yesterday. Before commenting on the outrageous disloyalty of some, he said, and I quote,

Mr Turnbull made a number of claims about economic leadership that are completely unfounded. He has never said to me or to the cabinet that we are heading in the wrong economic direction.

So there it is from the Treasurer himself. Mr Turnbull has consistently endorsed the economic direction set out by Mr Hockey. He has endorsed the cuts to health. He has endorsed the cuts to education. He has endorsed the cuts to the ABC and SBS. He has endorsed all of the government's broken promises—the cuts to the dementia and severe behaviours supplement, the increased tax on petrol, the $100,000 university degrees and the attempts to further impoverish pensioners by cutting their indexation arrangements. All of the horrendous measures proposed by Mr Hockey in the government's 2014 budget, along with all of those measures which have been carried over into the 2015 budget, bear the Turnbull stamp of approval.

So that is Mr Turnbull's past and his present, but what of his future? What is the guiding philosophy which will set the tone of his impending leadership of the nation? Helpfully, Mr Turnbull set out his philosophy in his victory speech last night, when he said words that will, hopefully, haunt him throughout the remaining few months of his purloined prime ministership. He said:

It will be a thoroughly Liberal Government committed to freedom, the individual and the market.

This is the Turnbull philosophy: a world of individuals freely striving alone against market forces, a world of individuals needing to be agile and to be more and more competitive to survive the buffeting of market forces, and a Darwinian world of self-interest and self-service in which only the fittest survive.

Mr Turnbull understands self-interest. As former Liberal Premier of Victoria Mr Kennett said yesterday of Mr Turnbull's challenge: 'It's about self-interest. It's not about community.' There, in a nutshell, is the difference between the economic leadership offered by the elitist Mr Turnbull and that which will be provided by a Shorten Labor government. Labor does not see a dog-eat-dog world of individuals in which the fittest survive. Labor sees the individual as a member of a family, as a member of the community and as a member of society. Labor seeks opportunities for people, for families and for society. Labor's vision is a big, broad, generous vision: leadership to take us forward as a society, not to advance one at the expense of another; economic leadership for the nation, not just for the few, the privileged, the winners—the people who believe that $100 million entitles you to the prime ministership.

Labor supports free trade while protecting Australian jobs. Labor wants to open the doors of educational opportunity, providing affordable training for the jobs of the future. Labor stands for fair taxation, recognising capacity to pay, not regressive arrangements favouring the rich, like increasing the GST to fund tax cuts for the wealthy while failing to close loopholes offering tax avoidance opportunities to multinational corporations. Labor stands for a fair day's pay with appropriate penalty rates for work at unsociable hours and for the right of unions to negotiate collectively for their members. Labor stands for a healthcare system accessible through Medicare, not through your credit card. Labor is prepared to meet the challenges of protecting our environment, not shy away from it. Labor stands for a modern communication system, not one cobbled together with copper wires. Labor stands for the many, not for the few; for the family, for society, not for the individual and the unrestrained market. Labor provides economic leadership for the whole nation, not just for Point Piper. As has been observed elsewhere, when choosing a model for leadership, 'We're all in this together' trumps 'You're on your own'. In closing, I trust the Australian community will come to respond to Mr Turnbull in the same way that Mr Kennett did yesterday when he said, 'I will never, ever, ever vote for Malcolm Turnbull', and then added, to avoid doubt, 'Ever.'

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The really lucky thing for Jeff Kennett, who is 'never, ever, ever, ever going to the vote for Malcolm Turnbull', is that unless he moves into the seat of Wentworth he is never going to have to.

It seems somewhat ironic that the matter of public importance that has been put on the Notice Paper by the Labor Party today is in relation to economic management. There is a certain irony in us being lectured by the Labor Party about economic leadership. I listened to Senator Bullock's contribution with great interest. I have a lot of respect for Senator Bullock's opinions and views on many things, and much of what he said I thought probably made an awful lot of sense. The only problem was that when his side were in government I do not think they delivered many of the things that Senator Bullock has just aspired for the Labor Party; they do not hold true. So while it was a fabulous ideological speech, I am not necessarily sure there was any substance in the delivery of it whatsoever. To be lectured by the Labor Party, a party that promised surplus after surplus after surplus after surplus and recorded nothing but deficit after deficit after debt after debt after deficit, does strike me as being rather extraordinary. It seems that the minute the coalition were elected to parliament and the Labor Party were removed to the opposition benches, they immediately forgot everything that they had done and have spent this whole time criticising us for things that we have done, even though much of the activity in the economic space during their watch had been nothing short of complete and utter abject disaster.

Many of the behaviours and actions of those opposite, following the election of the coalition government, were somewhat more mischievous than just sitting there throwing bricks at us. They actually stood in the way of approximately $5 billion worth of their own budget savings, savings that they had already put on the record prior to the election that they were intending to implement in order to deal with the issues of the debt and deficit, problems that I think the entire Australian public would be in no doubt whatsoever about—that is, that we have a problem with debt and deficit. To then come into this place and deny the incoming coalition government the opportunity to realise the savings that they had already put on the public record prior to the election was quite extraordinary.

Another thing I found extraordinary is the situation we have at the moment with ChAFTA. There is absolutely no doubt, as I said this morning and as I have probably said a thousand times since I arrived in this place, that Australia is an exporting nation. We are never going to get rich selling to ourselves, because we do not have the population or the capacity to sustain a population that will allow us to continue to sell to ourselves. So the most important thing that we can do in an economic management sense is to make sure that we develop our export markets so that Australian businesses can prosper in their manufacturing, in their production, and can sell overseas, because unless businesses in Australia are prosperous, there will be no jobs.

I acknowledge that the most important thing that we can do in Australia is to make sure that every Australian has a job. Most particularly it would be nice to think that every Australian could have a job that they liked, a job that was going to give them the economic prosperity, the lifestyle and the standard of living that all of us aspire to have. That is the bottom line, but we cannot deliver that unless we give the prosperity and the economic ability for growth and prosperity to businesses. To be standing in the way of the China free trade agreement, our largest trading partner in the world, is an absolute disgrace. To then come into this place today and criticise us about economic leadership—the economic leadership shown by those opposite was some of the worst that this country has ever seen. I probably would not trust the Labor Party to run a chook raffle when it came to economic management.

The track record of this government has been very good. There is certainly no doubt, and I do not think anybody in this place, no matter who they are, would not agree that we can always do better in the economic space, but what I would ask those opposite is to please allow us the opportunity to do better in this economic space. Allow us to implement the policies that we went to the Australian public with in 2013. Allow us to be able to give businesses incentives so that they can create the jobs and so that those jobs can go to the people who we all agree are the reason we actually govern this country. The coalition government has got a good track record. I agree we could have a better track record. I can say, for one, that I am very keen to work with this government to make sure that we increase the economic prosperity of this country.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have heard a lot from the latest Prime Minister during the last 24 hours about economic leadership, but we have not heard a lot about what that phrase actually means. Australians are familiar with the opposite of economic leadership, of course, because that is what we have suffered for the last two years. Economic leadership is not a treasurer who spooks markets by releasing a press release every time he has had a thought bubble because he is not prepared to work up proper policy proposals. Economic leadership is not a prime minister or indeed a former prime minister who is so disengaged from the economy that he thinks a grocery code of conduct is an acceptable response to the challenge of the European debt crisis earlier this year. Economic leadership is not a communications minister, or a former communications minister, who claims to be interested in the opportunities presented by technology but who guts the NBN to ensure that Australian businesses have to face the challenges of the future using the technologies of the past. Economic leadership is not a small business minister who leaves the business community in a state of suspense about whether anti-competitive changes to competition law will or will not be enacted. Economic leadership is not a social services minister who lets youth unemployment climb to 19.1 per cent—the highest rate in 16 years—and then decides that the proper policy response is to punish young people by forcing them to live on nothing while they apply for the Newstart allowance. Economic leadership is not a government that is asleep at the helm whilst 781,000 Australians are out of work—a 13-year high—when GDP growth has contracted to just two per cent, when the budget deficit doubled in the last 12 months, and when consumer sentiment has slumped 15 per cent since the coalition came to office.

What does economic leadership look like? The government has a responsibility to create policy settings that enable businesses to grow and to create prosperity for the nation. But it needs to do this in a responsible and evidence-driven way that is clear and is communicated to all. That is the only way to avoid the capital strike that some commentators say is confronting our economy. That is a bare minimum of competent governance. But economic leadership requires much, much more.

The business community is not a single entity. It has marquee companies that benefit from existing regulations, and technological disrupters who want to change the status quo. It has price makers and price takers. It has importers and exporters. Economic leadership is about balancing those competing interests in a way that is fair. It is about investing in research and development so that we can provide Australian businesses and workers with the tools they need to be competitive in the future. Can we expect this from a man who supported $100,000 university degrees? Can we expect it from a man who was happy with the coalition government ripping millions of dollars from higher education and from science and research?

The economy consists of more than just business, as Senator Bullock has pointed out. It includes us as employees and as consumers. Economic leadership requires the benefits of growth and the fruits of prosperity to be distributed fairly. Can we expect this from a man who unhesitatingly endorsed a GP tax and cuts to hospitals and schools?

Economic leadership may require decisions that cut across your political interests. It may require you to raise taxes on highly profitable companies that have the clout to run media campaigns. It may require you to cut benefits to wealthy people in your electorate. Can we expect this from a man whose own colleagues accuse him of having put himself first throughout his career? Can we expect principled decisions from a man who declared former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's climate policies to be 'bull', and now shows no inclination to change them once in power?

When the latest Prime Minister is called upon to show economic leadership, the loudest voices in his ears are going to be the voices of those who have the most to lose—the men who have a silver spoon firmly in their mouths. The question is: can we trust this man to make decisions for all Australians? Can we trust him to show economic leadership? History says no.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are there any other senators wishing to speak in the MPI debate this afternoon? There being no other speakers, I declare the time for discussion expired.