Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) 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.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

I think the discussion is now over. If all senators could simply either resume their seats, or those in the process of leaving the chamber should continue to do so.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can understand emotions are running high after the crazy week we have seen with the knifing of a first-term Prime Minster. But I just want to touch on some of the questions put to ministers today that they did not answer. Senator Cormann was a repeat offender. He could not even answer, directly, how much money has been put aside—and where is it going to come from?—for this promise that has been made to the Nats.

The new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, who has prided himself on being environmentally friendly, has made a massive commitment to the Nats—at what price, I still do not know—to take water from environment and give it to Minister Joyce in agriculture. I do not know what was going on, in that room, to secure the deal but—crikey—it is going to end in tears.

It is very important to know why these deals are being done by the junior members of the coalition, the Nats. There was no concern about the bush. I say that as a long time chair of the rural and regional affairs and agriculture committee, both in references and in legislation, and because of the amount of work that I and my colleagues on the committee have done over the years addressing the issues faced in the bush, in remote and rural communities.

One of the biggest issues that has come to light, just recently—and no bigger, seriously, for canegrowers in Queensland—is the plight of the sugar growers of Australia, who are in dire straits. Senator Macdonald knows this because he was on the inquiry with me, as were Senator Williams, Senator Canavan and Senator O'Sullivan. Canegrowers in Queensland, predominantly, are facing extension. The words I am using sound a little emotional, but I went out of my way with my colleagues on the committee to go and visit—

Senator Bushby interjecting—

Senator Bushby is being a little bit smart. I do not think he should, because there are many Queensland canegrowers, in particular, and some in Northern New South Wales who would not take kindly to smart remarks, in interjection, when I am talking about the future of the sugar industry in Australia.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's your solution?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to take that interjection. What is the solution? Here is the solution, Senator Bushby. There is a group of Nat senators and members—Nationals not Country Party—who, with the agreement of former Prime Minister Abbott, formed a sugar task force. Their local members, being the Nats in Queensland, were absolutely switched on to know that this industry is in dire straits. So listen carefully, Senator Bushby.

Off they went, under the guidance of Mr Christensen, the member for Dawson. I honestly believe the member for Dawson is in touch with his electorate, as are the other National senators and members mentioned in Mr Christensen's web page who are talking about the good work. The sugarcane growers are under serious attack, because of Wilmar, foreign millers. Currently, they are able to market their sugar through QSL. QSL is disappearing so they will not—and Senator Bushby, listen very carefully—be able to choose who will be marketing their sugar. That is why my office is inundated with canegrowers coming to visit me and they are on the phone regularly. Mr Christensen and the other hardworking Nats from Queensland are really worried. They made certain recommendations. Senator Bushby asked how it could be fixed. A mandatory code of conduct is the answer.

You do not have to take it from me, because that is what Mr Christensen said in his task force. He and his fellow hardworking, diligent, panicking members of the National Party in Queensland want a mandatory code of conduct. My report came out in full support of my colleagues. Both the government senators and the crossbench senators, the Greens, agreed that they should have a mandatory code of conduct. That is how we fix it.

While deals are being cut from Mr Turnbull to take the prime ministership at the wishes of the party, in the Liberal Party room, he still has to do deals with the Nats. I would love the Nats to come in here and tell me—we have their $4 billion deal but we do not know of anything else that has been cut. What have they done to Queensland's canegrowers? I am not Mr Christensen and I am not a Nats member but we all share concern for a very important industry in Queensland.

It was made very clear to us. If the cane industry goes down—and Senator Macdonald, correct me if I am wrong—the suffering that would create in Queensland's remote communities will never be repaired. (Time expired)

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

This is a very good opportunity to reinforce the competent management of the budget, this $4 billion that is part of the coalition's agreement. It can only come about through prudent fiscal management. That is what this government has always been about. It has always been about repairing the budget so that there is this kind of latitude in there, so that when you identify different policy areas that are in need you can make the adjustment. That is what the Nationals brought to the table yesterday and that is what they negotiated.

It is no secret that the National Party enjoy a great deal of popularity on the east coast of Australia. They are represented there in numbers; therefore, it is not unusual for them. That may vary down the east coast. Water is one of those issues I can talk about. Under the six years of the Labor government we saw an explosion in desalination plants. In South Australia my own experience with water is that we now have a dormant $2.3 billion desalination plant that costs $1 million a week not to operate. That was the reaction on water policy that Labor came up with. It costs $1 million a week to run a desalination plant that the government cannot afford to turn on. It is the same deal in Victoria and the same deal in New South Wales. That is what happens when government policy on water goes into the hands of people who do not understand the water requirements of the bush.

There has also been some sniping across the chamber about the fact that the National Party took the opportunity to raise the issue of extra money for families. And why wouldn't they take that opportunity. It is no secret that many National Party members in this chamber have spoken quite passionately about the needs of young families in Australia. I find it somewhat disingenuous that people in the Labor Party no longer want to represent the views of young families in this country. It is quite amazing. They are disrespectful when they call the Nationals 'the doormats to the coalition'. It is appalling. All these people were doing was raising an issue at a time when the Prime Minister felt the budget could allow that money for young families.

The issue that we have in relation to family payments could only be seen as good government policy and a policy adjustment at a time when it was appropriate. The Leader of the Nationals, Mr Truss, is a very considered fellow, a very credible fellow and one of the most sensible statesman you could meet. I am sure that when they sat down to look at this the Prime Minister looked at it in terms of how he could help. They obviously feel quite strongly about it—as they do about the effects test with small business. That has been raised as well. And Senator Dastyari, on the other side, knows that the effects test was raised with us in a recent Senate hearing. There are a lot of people raising these issues about small business, and it is quite right of the National Party to raise this. Some might say that was opportunistic. It was not. It has been raised in this chamber in recent times. Their views on it are well known, and good on them for bringing it up.

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

I want to acknowledge the contribution from Senator Edwards, a fine senator whom I have had the opportunity to do much work with on many of these issues. For the record, I am happy to endorse him for any position he ever runs for! Some questions were asked in question time regarding this agreement between the National Party and the Liberal Party. Was it worth $2 billion? Was it worth $4 billion? We are not sure of the amount. I am getting a bit confused by this because we have heard some very different things in this chamber. On one hand, we heard from the National Party that it was an amazing deal, that they went in hard, that they negotiated tough, that they demanded a list of things from the government and that the government willingly oblige. And then we heard from Senator Cormann, who effectively said that all of this had already been promised and there was nothing in the agreement. I am confused about whether the National Party has played the Liberal Party or the Liberal Party has played the National Party. If there is anyone whose word I will take on this, it is Senator Canavan. You can call this what you want. You can call it a negotiation. You can call it an agreement. Personally, I call it a ransom payment. It is a $2 billion to $4 billion ransom that was paid to the National Party to get an agreement up. They even held up question time yesterday to be able to strengthen their negotiating position. It had all the hallmarks of a ransom payment. There was the media. There was the leaking about it earlier. There was the press conference. The one thing that has been missing is the proof of life ;that is the only bit we are yet to see.

And today Senator Cash, in response to questions, went on with the outrageous claim that the Labor Party had been xenophobic in our position on trade. Yesterday they were telling us we were 'Xenophonic'! Today they are telling us that we are xenophobic. I want to explain what 'Xenophonic' means. I have actually been looking this up. 'Xenophonic' means 'having a fear of two or more Nick Xenophons in the same place at the same time'. I can understand that they have been pretty afraid of this. They are so 'Xenophonic' on the other side that they got rid of their Prime Minister! They are so 'Xenophonic' that they are about to make Christopher Pyne the Defence Minister of Australia! This is a frightening set of situations. And they accuse the Labor Party of xenophobia! In question time we had members opposite yelling out comments that somehow in this chamber it is now allegedly appropriate to say that you have to 'talk Australian, mate', that there is a ruling that this is somehow now appropriate language to be using in this chamber. Frankly, what we saw in the answers at question time today is a government that is devoid of action and devoid of any real plan. What we saw was audition after audition for people's own jobs.

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

A dress rehearsal.

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

It is a pathetic dress rehearsal. It is embarrassing. It is unbecoming. Leadership battles are not easy, they are tough. The outcomes are hard. But at least on our side of politics, when they happen, people have the decency to turn around and offer their resignations—on different occasions five or six resign. If leaders want to accept the resignations or bring them back, that is up to them. Frankly, this ungracious, undignified auditioning for positions—people out there backgrounding and begging to keep their jobs—is unbecoming. The great Gareth Evans said: 'Pull out, digger; the dogs are pissing on your swag.' I think, frankly, that is some advice that can be used for a whole bunch of the frontbench ministers of this government, who should be offering their resignations and stepping down. If they stood by what they said and had any decency or integrity, they would know they have lost the confidence of the people to serve in this place.

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

I think the great Gareth Evans might have also said to the Labor Party, as has every other serious Labor Party leader: 'Sign the China free trade agreement.' Apart from that, there is nothing memorable that I can recall in anything that Mr Evans has ever said to this chamber.

I am sorry Senator Sterle is leaving the chamber, because I do want to respond to his well-meaning but inaccurate comments about the sugar industry. Before I do that, I explain to members of the Labor Party who might be interested that they keep talking about my friend and colleague Senator Canavan but Senator Canavan and I are in the same political party. We are in the Liberal National Party of Queensland, which is the Queensland division of the Liberal Party of Australia. In this parliament and elsewhere, the coalition is one big, happy family. We are a broad church. We have various different people with different inclinations on policy issues, and that is what has made the coalition government so strong. We all work together. We are all interested in water policy; we are all interested very much in the sugar industry. Senator Sterle asked: what has the coalition ever done for the Queensland sugar industry? I will tell you, Senator Sterle, because I was a member of the government at the time. Back in 2004, we provided over $400 million to save the sugar industry from the difficulties it was going through at the time, as a result, partly, of the deregulation of the sugar industry in Queensland by the then state Labor government. It was the state Labor government that deregulated the sugar industry, which Senator Sterle, as I understand him, is now suggesting should be re-regulated. I also say, Senator Sterle, that you complain about—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Deputy President, Senator Macdonald has misled the Senate. My report never mentioned bringing back regulation at all. He knows that that is a lie and he needs to withdraw—

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

Senator Sterle, resume your seat. I remind senators that there are no points of order to be raised if a senator simply disagrees with what another senator has said. There are other opportunities to correct the record, but a point of order is not the appropriate mechanism for that.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President, and I will not worry about the accusation that I am lying. Those sorts of sticks and stones do not break my bones, and names will never hurt me. Senator Sterle, you talk about foreign investment in the sugar industry.

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

Senator Macdonald, I would ask you to direct your comments through me.

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

Yes, Mr Deputy President. Senator Sterle raised the issue, directly talking to me, of foreign investment in the sugar industry. I remind him that, when Wilmar came in and bought out all the Sucrogen mills, the deal was approved by Mr Wayne Swan, the then Labor Treasurer of this country. Now Senator Sterle has a new interest. I have to say, in Senator—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order, on relevance. This is a debate about the questions asked by the opposition and I do not think we asked a question about sugar. So perhaps Senator Macdonald might want to come to the topic.

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

I do not need other senators to rule on the point of order; that is my role. Senator Conroy, while the motion before the chair is that the Senate take note of answers to questions asked by the opposition, it is a debate and Senator Sterle did introduce this subject in much of his contribution. It is in order for Senator Macdonald to respond to the comments that Senator Sterle made.

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

I was about to pay Senator Sterle a compliment, because he is one of the few Labor senators who I think is sensible and rational and actually tries to help, and he chaired the committee that looked into this issue very, very well. But he tries to make some division between the Liberal and National parties when there is none. I remind him that some federal parliamentarians are vitally interested in the sugar industry, and I am one, of course, because I am one of the few members of parliament who actually live in a sugar town—as do Mr Christensen, Mr Pitt, Michelle Landry, part of whose electorate is in a sugar region, and Stuart Robert. Of those, three sit with the Nationals in Canberra and two with the Liberals, and one of those Nationals has a different view to Mr Christensen on the issues that Senator Sterle was talking about.

The matter that Senator Sterle raised is a complex issue and it will not be resolved in a five-minute debate, but I disagree with Senator Sterle's comment that the sugar industry was 'in danger of collapse'—or he used some other term like that. Can I tell you: the sugar industry in Queensland, particularly in the electorate of Dawson, where I live in my home town in the Burdekin, is a very vibrant industry with lots of different farmers, many of them better businessmen than most other businessmen you would find around Australia. The sugar industry will continue to flourish in North Queensland and will continue to be guided by sensible leaders and sensible representatives. I decry that the industry is in any danger. Any danger coming to the industry is from this campaign to abolish sugar from our diets. That is a real issue, and that is what millers and growers should be getting together to fight. (Time expired)

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

I am pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon about the vague answers that we were given to some pretty important questions in question time today. Here we are, on day 2 of the bright, new Turnbull era of the Abbott-Turnbull government, and already we can see just how different this government is not going to be. This is not a government that is in any shape or form significantly different from the one that Australians have been ashamed of and disgraced by so frequently since Mr Abbott came to office. We still have ministers avoiding answering any of the questions, and we still have the same policies intact—the cutting of $57 billion from health remains and the cutting of $30 billion from schools remains. Yesterday in question time we saw the new Prime Minister confirm that he supports all of the policies. All of their measures that will bring a change of style to the role will not do anything in terms of changing the direction. That was evident in Senator Cormann's answers to my questions today.

When I asked my first question about the deal that was stitched up between Mr Turnbull and Mr Truss to secure the Prime Minister's job, there was a question about the families package that is supposed to be coming as part of the deal to improve the lot of people in the bush. Well, nice try! But the answer we heard was that it would be 'cost neutral'. And the National Party are trying to dress themselves up in a new suit as well. With this new agreement that they have made with the Turnbull government they acting like they are great heroes. But we have seen week after week, month after month and, sadly, year after year this Liberal government absolutely trash its partners in coalition—the National Party—and rip off the people of the bush. And they are being sold another dud on this families package. 'Cost neutral', says Senator Cormann. That means no more money for those families. So they should listen very carefully to the web of lies that is already being spun by those in this place who seek to pretend that they represent the people of the bush.

Going to the question about Minister Joyce's dams, again, the National Party has made some claims that they have this great deal. We had some of them saying, 'Let's not go into a deal'. Others have rushed headlong into it. We are getting claims that Minister Joyce has secured this great deal about dams. But, again, what did Senator Cormann reveal? He said, 'Oh, no, we'd already done that deal. That's already accounted for.' Again, this shows the gap between what the Nationals are trying to tell their constituency, who have been loyal to them for many years in the bush, and the reality that is emerging. When the finance minister has to cough up the money, it simply is not there.

Let us go to the last question that I asked of Senator Cormann. It was a question about Senator Canavan's claims on radio in Brisbane yesterday that there will be between $2 billion and $4 billion—additional dollars—that they have for the bush. What did the minister have to say about that? In his comments, he confirmed what he has already put on the record with the media, and that is that that is not correct. The first two items, as was clearly indicated in Senator Cormann's response, were cost neutral—already in the budget. This claim of $2 billion to $4 billion is a furphy. It is not the truth. And that is what we get: you cannot get the Liberals telling the truth and you cannot get the Nationals telling the truth. That is what we have got: a completely untruthful government. Whether it is left or right, whether it is city or country, they cannot tell the truth about what they are doing.

They certainly do not respect the people of the bush. The people of the bush, who have aspirations for their children, know not just in their heart and soul and not just in their sense of integrity and fairness but in their hip pockets that they cannot possibly envision a future for their children with $100,000 degrees on the horizon. That is what this government will try to continue to push through. They know that they cannot afford a GP tax. Whether it is the one that they advertised that they wanted to bring in to put a price signal between sick people and their doctor or the shameful one that they snuck in by regulation on the first day of July in this new financial year where they froze the indexation, the people in the bush will pay. It is hard enough for them to get petrol in their car and drive the distances that they need to get to a doctor, but this Liberal-National coalition will put a barrier between people in the bush and health.

They are continuing on their merry way. Turnbull is nothing new. It is all the same—the same old, same old. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.