Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) 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:

"Despite the change of Prime Minister, the Turnbull Government has adopted former Prime Minister Abbott's misplaced priorities and broken promises".

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

We may have replaced the Prime Minister, but the only difference that can be seen between former Prime Minister Abbott and Prime Minister Turnbull is that Mr Turnbull wears a nicer cut of suit. So many people have made that comment that it has got to be true: that the only difference is that Mr Turnbull wears a nicer cut of suit.

The government removed Mr Abbott because he was unable to sell their misplaced priorities and disastrous broken promises. They did not remove him because they rejected his cruel policies. They still support those same cruel policies. The policies that caused the Australian people to decry Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey are still the same under Mr Turnbull. He is just hoping that nobody will notice. Mr Turnbull is also hoping that no-one will notice that the urbane, small 'l' liberal Mr Turnbull of times past has sold out every single principle he has to become Prime Minister—every single one. We are now seeing a huge gap between what the Prime Minister says and what he does.

He was hoping that by breaking promises during the summer holidays, when Australians were enjoying time with their families, no-one would notice. Between Christmas and New Year Mr Turnbull's Liberals confirmed they will dump the needs-based Gonski reforms and keep his massive school cuts. The new education minister has said that he will not fund years 5 and 6 of the Gonski school education funding reforms. This is an enormous disappointment to parents, to students and to teachers right around Australia. The students who will suffer the most are those in remote schools and in disadvantaged schools and particularly Indigenous children. Before the last federal election Christopher Pyne trumpeted his unity ticket on Gonski claiming, 'You can vote Liberal or Labor and you will get exactly the same amount of funding for your school.' Well, that is a clear broken promise—one which they tried to hide during the Christmas break.

This comes after two consecutive Liberal budgets that will strip $30 billion from our classrooms over the next decade. That is an average of over $3 million in school funding lost from every school in Australia. Australians should be outraged by these cuts. It is a farce that Mr Turnbull talks about innovation at the same time he is cutting funding for every school across the nation. The Liberal government's cuts to our classrooms are the equivalent of sacking one in every seven teachers.

Labor knows that, if you are serious about education policy and equally if you are serious about this country's future economic growth, then you need to get our education system right and that means real investment in the programs that make a difference to increasing Australia's educational attainment. Labor's 'Your Child. Our Future' is a fully costed policy guaranteeing long-term education for all Australian children. We have a plan that will improve the literacy and numeracy of every child in every school in every state and territory and we have a plan that will increase year 12 retention, because we know that this is the biggest indicator of whether these students will go on to be employed. Labor's 'Your Child. Our Future' plan will see an additional investment in our education system of $4.5 billion over school years 2018 and 2019 and a total provision of $37.3 billion for the package over the decade. Labor has done it through finding sensible, appropriate and fair savings of $70 billion to pay for the most important program of school improvement in a generation.

As well as failing to properly fund schools the government's misplaced priorities have seen them cutting funding to the healthcare system. We saw recently the Australian Medical Association's Public hospital report card 2016 that confirms the crisis being created by the Turnbull government's decision to cut more than $57 billion in public hospital funding. Before the last election Labor had a signed agreement with all states and territories committing to fund 50 per cent growth funding at the national efficient price. The Liberals promised to match it. They have again broken this promise. Most importantly, this agreement included reforms to improve the efficiency of Australia's public hospitals to reduce waiting times and increase capacity. Instead, in one of their first acts in government the Liberals completely walked away from this promise. In doing so the Liberals immediately gave up on any attempt at reform and cut more than $57 billion in the process.

The government has fundamentally attacked bulk-billing of pathology and diagnostic-imaging services through $650 million in cuts for bulk-billing incentive payments. There are 50 million pathology tests done every year. It is extremely alarming that there will be many thousands of Australians who will end up not having vital pathology tests because they will no longer be able to afford them. This is a shameful attack by this government on the health of those who are least well off in our community. It is utterly shameful. This government's attacks on health are just more broken promises.

Labor has a $7 billion plan to close tax loopholes and stop multinationals shifting profits offshore but the Liberals are refusing to adopt it. It is not a priority that they want to pursue. In fact, they have made it even easier for companies and high-wealth individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax. The tax office has confirmed that more than half of the 2,149 redundancies in the ATO in 2014-15 came from the compliance business line, with the pivotal private groups and high-wealth individuals section losing 270 officials, or nearly 20 per cent of its workforce. It makes absolutely no sense for this government to sack the people responsible for ensuring that appropriate amounts of tax are paid by private groups and high-wealth individuals.

Instead, the government wants to increase the GST to 15 per cent as well as increasing the base of the GST. It wants to slug the least well off in our society with a massive increase in the GST. We could see a massive increase in the cost of fresh food, education, health care, electricity and other vital daily expenses. A 15 per cent GST on everything, including fresh food, health care, aged care and education, will see an average family pay an extra $6,200 in GST per year—$6,200 extra in GST per year. That is a huge attack on household budgets and that is why on that side some of them are talking about compensation, but we all know that that compensation, because of inflation, gets eroded, gets eaten away, so any compensation is only temporary. This is a terrible attack on the budgets of millions of Australian households and it is not what the Australian people want.

The government has also shown that it does not care for our communities through its savage cuts to the DSS grants program. The government savagely cut $270 million from vital services that support and advocate for vulnerable communities, families and children, including domestic violence services, emergency relief and financial counselling.

And what about the government's utter lack of interest in Australia's cultural heritage? The government's attacks on the arts community have been unfair. They have been unrelenting and they have been totally misguided and inappropriate. The Abbott-Turnbull government's attacks on the arts include more than $100 million of cuts in the 2014 budget, including $37 million from the national cultural institutions and $25 million from Screen Australia, a further $13.2 million cut from the Australia Council, Screen Australia and the Ministry for the Arts in the 2015 budget and, most appallingly, $105 million ripped from the Australia Council to fund the government's ministerial slush fund. In December, the government made an extraordinary cut of $10.4 million from Screen Australia to help fund the government's spending on two films by the American filmmaker Ridley Scott—Alien: Covenant and Thor. This government, the Turnbull government, has decided that it will utterly decimate the Australian film industry to fund foreign films. So, apart from its broken promises, the government continues to show that its priorities are completely and utterly wrong.

As we have seen, the new Prime Minister has just continued the cuts, broken promises and wrong priorities of the previous Prime Minister. Mr Turnbull sold out every belief he had to become Prime Minister and his continued following and implementation of Mr Abbott's policies shows this to be so. He is beholden to the conservatives in his cabinet and on his backbench—those who want to cut health, cut education, cut the arts while allowing multinationals to pay almost no tax and allowing very high income earners to get extremely large superannuation tax concessions. He has done nothing, and will do nothing, to change these terrible policies.

He has been happy to allow the least well-off Australians to suffer, just to fuel his personal ambition. Mr Turnbull is rapidly looking like the Wizard of Oz: just a powerless man in a shiny suit hoping that no-one will notice he is a fraud, arguing against everything he used to believe in. I can assure Mr Turnbull and his senators opposite— (Time expired)

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

First of all, I want to thank Senator Moore and Senator Bilyk for raising this matter for debate today because it gives me the opportunity to highlight some of the exciting new policies being brought forward by the coalition government. Can I start with the $1.1 billion National Innovation and Science Agenda, which will help create a modern, dynamic 21st-century economy for Australia. Our innovation agenda will promote a culture of entrepreneurship and place innovation at the heart of everything we do as a nation. We will make it easier for start-ups and new innovative businesses to access early stage capital to grow their businesses by providing a 20 per cent tax offset for investments up to $1 million, as well as capital gains tax exemption. And we will be establishing a $200 million CSIRO Innovation Fund to turn world-leading research into commercial outcomes and to help small CSIRO spin-off companies access capital to grow their business. Our innovation agenda will help transform Australia into a leading innovation nation and position us to seize the next wave of economic prosperity.

This is a debate, and I simply cannot let pass some of the fantasy stories told by the previous speaker in her contribution. She talked about school cuts under the coalition government. As Senator Birmingham pointed out time and time again in question time, there are no school cuts; there is increased funding for schools. What happened was Labor—without any budgeting, without any money—said, 'We're going to spend X amount on schools.' This was not funded at all. We get into government, find there is no money there and so we have to increase the money that is there to do the things that the coalition government wants to do. So Senator Bilyk is wrong on school cuts: there are no school cuts; there are increases. Similarly with Gonski: there were no forward funding commitments for Gonski. That is being contributed by the coalition government.

Senator Bilyk talked about the tax of multinationals. The Labor Party was in power for six long years and did not a thing about the problem that Senate Bilyk now says is such a major concern for the Australian economy. By contrast, the coalition government has already introduced legislation to deal with that. There has been no talk by anyone on our side of politics about a 15 per cent GST, but day after day after day I hear Labor's spokesmen saying nothing else but '15 per cent GST'. The only one actually proposing this, until two days ago, was the Labor Premier of South Australia. He was the only one, until Mr Baird entered the debate; until then, for the last four months the only one who has been advocating a 15 per cent GST has been a Labor politician, the Labor Premier of South Australia.

Senator Bilyk also talked about arts funding. I am delighted today to hear that, out of the minister's Catalyst fund, the Girringun Aboriginal community—based in Cardwell, between Townsville and Cairns—has received funding through Catalyst to the display of the works of the Girringun Aboriginal Corporation, and the wonderful painters and contributors they have from that community, in exhibitions in Sydney and at the Monaco art festival. This is made possible not by the Australia Council, not by state governments, but by Senator Fifield's Catalyst fund, which allows the government to fund wonderful, very useful and very worthwhile groups like the Girringun Aboriginal Corporation to display their artworks around the world. I understand from Senator Bilyk that she would be opposed to this, so I will make sure the Girringun Aboriginal community are aware of that.

The subject of the debate does have some credence, because there are things that the Turnbull government will not be changing. For example, we will not be changing the coalition's policy of stopping the boats—a policy that Labor could not even comprehend, but we did. The Turnbull government will continue that policy to save lives and to save having children in detention. Furthermore, the Turnbull government will continue the coalition government's campaign to get children out of immigration detention. When we took office, almost 2,000 children were in detention under the Labor-Greens government that ran Australia; now there are fewer than 100. We are going to continue the policies that have allowed that.

We have abolished the carbon tax, and I can assure you that no coalition government ever again in the future will be reintroducing Labor's carbon tax. We will be meeting the climate change targets that the coalition government have set and which I see that the new Chief Scientist has said are well set and will be able to be met by the coalition's policies. And it is wonderful to see that we are doing something about reducing carbon emissions while the rest of the world just talks about it. We are actually doing it, and we will continue doing it.

We are going to continue the coalition's policy of having a referendum on same-sex marriage. What can be wrong with asking the Australian people in a plebiscite to determine this difficult issue? When you are in a democracy, what can be more democratic than asking the Australian people to do it?

Another thing the coalition will not be changing is our determination to build the infrastructure of the 21st century for our country. The money that the Australian government has put in and has leveraged from others into our infrastructure is just legend. Over the Christmas break I had the opportunity of driving to Brisbane along the Bruce Highway, and I am amazed at the amount of work that has been done. I had heard about it. I had seen media releases about all the work along the Bruce Highway, but I actually experienced it. This is work that the coalition has done which Labor could never do, and that policy of building the infrastructure for the next century will continue.

Could I finish on northern Australia. The coalition government have a wonderful policy on northern Australia that we have been considering for the last 10 years, I have to say, and in earnest for the last three or four years. We had a green-paper process on northern Australia. We had a white-paper process. We consulted everyone. We launched the white paper in June last year. I have to say that the wonderful initiatives in that—including the $5 billion loan facility, the CRC, the new infrastructure, new water policies and a new dam policy—are all happening. We are no longer talking about them.

But, by contrast, what are Labor doing? Let me tell you what Labor are doing. Labor have suddenly decided that they have to set up a northern Australia task force to consult with people on what they should do for their policy. They have not got a policy. They have never had a policy on north Australia. And suddenly they are starting, about five years behind the coalition, on looking for a policy for north Australia. With respect to my friend and colleague Senator McLucas, I think she is in charge of that, but unfortunately the Labor Party in their wisdom have got rid of Senator McLucas from their Senate team and replaced her with a bloke from Brisbane, a union delegate—a union hack from Brisbane to replace northern Senator McLucas. And yet she is given the unenviable task of trying to pull together a northern Australia policy before she leaves the Senate in favour of a Brisbane union hack who is taking her place.

As to this discussion by the Australian Labor Party, I am delighted they have brought it forward. It allows me and my colleagues to demonstrate just what wonderful new initiatives are coming forward under the current government and under Prime Minister Turnbull but also to emphasise that the tried and tested policies that the Australian people elected us on will continue for the benefit of all Australians.

Robert Simms (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Macdonald for highlighting the fact that, despite the change of leader, the Liberal Party have stuck with the same deeply unpopular and divisive policies, the kinds of toxic policies that are bad for our nation and bad for our planet. They are things like inaction on climate change, things like cruelty towards asylum seekers and things like spending $160 million on a costly and divisive plebiscite on marriage equality, asking a question when we already know the answer. We know Australians support that reform.

It is interesting. When Mr Turnbull became Prime Minister, he talked a lot about new ideas and new innovations: 'There has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian,' and so on and so forth. We have heard these lines repeated ad nauseam over the last four months. But it is clear that Mr Turnbull is all sizzle and no sausage. It is clear that he is all sizzle and no sausage because, when it comes to putting the meat on the bones, when it comes to actually articulating a different policy agenda, all the Liberal Party have under Malcolm Turnbull is the same stale, Abbott-era policies as Senator Macdonald has highlighted. He is leaving the room, no doubt embarrassed by the reality of that.

In terms of this issue of a plebiscite, Mr Turnbull has made his views on this very clear. He said in a media interview to 3AW just the other day—and these comments were widely reported in the news at the time—that he favours a traditional free vote in the parliament as a way of resolving the issue of marriage equality but that, when Mr Abbott was the Prime Minister, it was determined that the matter would be put to the people through a plebiscite. That is the position that he has adopted, on the basis that it is Mr Abbott's position.

The Australian people may well ask: who is running this show? Who is running this government? Is it Mr Turnbull, or is it Mr Abbott and his conservative supporters on the backbench? Despite the fact that Mr Turnbull has articulated a view in favour of marriage equality, he seems to be completely powerless to rein in his colleagues and to deal with this issue. We saw last week the unedifying spectacle of the Liberal and National parties tying themselves in a knot over this issue, quite frankly making a meal of an entree over the issue of marriage equality, making this issue far more complex than it has to be.

We know from media reports over the last week that the numbers are now here in the parliament. For the first time, we have a majority of members of parliament in both houses who support marriage equality and want to see action on that reform. But there is one thing that is holding back progress on this issue, and that is Mr Turnbull. Because Mr Turnbull is refusing to grant his colleagues a free vote, because he is wedded to the Abbott-era policy of a deeply divisive and costly plebiscite, he is holding back progress on this issue.

The reality is the Australian people do not want a costly and divisive plebiscite on marriage equality. Just today we saw a poll that came out in Nationals-held seats that found that 63 per cent of those polled described the $160 million plebiscite as 'poor' or 'very poor' value for money. Fifty-six per cent of voters supported the parliament resolving the issue on its own. Only 28 per cent of those polled supported a plebiscite. So it seems this idea of a plebiscite on marriage equality is about as popular as its architect, Tony Abbott. It is going down like a lead balloon in the Australian community. It really is time for the Liberal Party to dump this policy. We have seen a change in leader but we are seeing a continuation of the same unpopular policies that led Mr Abbott to be repudiated so strongly by the Australian people.

The reality is that the numbers are mounting. The list of policy failures for this government is growing. It is time for the government to show some leadership and take action on this issue. The issue of marriage equality presents an easy win for Mr Turnbull. Heading into an election year, why doesn't he put it to the parliament and let the parliament decide it? There are two bills—a bill before the Senate and a bill before the House of Representatives. All he needs to do is grant a conscience vote, and we can save $160 million and get this matter done.

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

The legacy of former Prime Minister Mr Abbott will be that he was a Prime Minister who could not be trusted. He was a Prime Minister who broke his promise on almost everything he committed to in the lead-up to the election and after the election. His legacy will be that of the worst Prime Minister in our recent history, a Prime Minister absolutely despised by Australians who voted for him in the end—

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

And his own party.

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

Yes, and his own party—thank you, Senator Cameron. He could not be trusted on health. Despite his saying there would be no cuts to health, we saw the cuts from day 1. Despite his saying there was a unity ticket on Gonski—tricking the Australian voters to vote for him, believing that a vote for Mr Abbott would mean no change to Labor's commitment on Gonski; we saw those signs, and I certainly saw them in Western Australia—almost immediately upon his winning government we saw that broken promise. Very quickly it was: 'Nah. Sorry. You've voted for us. Now we've got our three years and we're not committing to Gonski.'

We saw cuts to SBS and ABC and we saw those ridiculous interviews with Prime Minister Abbott in which he tried to justify it, saying it wasn't quite a promise. The cuts were there. And then others were trying to break the bad news that it was a promise he should not have made. In fact, Mr Turnbull had to try and deal with that one. We saw the appallingly weak efforts of the Abbott government on climate change—introducing Direct Action. Not only was it a laughing stock in Australia—not supported by any kind of scientist or scientific body you would care to name—but now, after Paris, it is a joke among developed countries in the world. Was it any wonder really that backbenchers and those in marginal electorates got a little bit nervous and last year decided that Mr Abbott needed to go? So along came Mr Turnbull.

A lot is known about Mr Turnbull because he likes to talk about himself. He has been an absolute advocate for a republic. But are we going to see a republic? No, because, according to Mr Turnbull, who was the leading advocate when we had the referendum on becoming a republic, somehow things have changed. He was a leading sceptic on Direct Action and he has made well publicised comments about how useless Direct Action is and how it will not deliver, and yet what we see is that he is going to continue with that policy. It would seem that he is no longer a republican and no longer a supporter of action on climate change.

In his electorate of Wentworth there are a lot of same-sex couples, and he has advocated on their behalf as a supporter of marriage equality. But, no, he has decided—or Mr Abbott and his 44 supporters have decided—that we have to continue with this ridiculous plebiscite. Even members of the government cannot name it properly; we just heard it being called a 'referendum'. Perhaps those speaking notes that were leaked yesterday need to make sure that government backbenchers get the language right. Someone should tell Senator Macdonald that actually we are not having a referendum; we are having a $160 million plebiscite that means nothing.

What we have seen in the new year is Senator Abetz come out and say, 'We don't really care what the Australian voters think, because we're sticking to our guns and we will not vote for marriage equality'. We are a joke. There are many countries that are much more conservative and that have strong religious backing around the world who have moved on marriage equality, and yet we are dragging ourselves along, limping along. The plebiscite will deliver nothing. We do not trust the question; we have not seen it yet; we do not know when it is going to happen. There is still uncertainty.

So, for those couples who want to get married, who want to be like every other couple in Australia, it is those on the other side, it is the Turnbull government, it is Mr Turnbull himself, who are standing in the way of them and marriage equality. The time is long done. For a government that goes on and on and on about money, they are quite happy to throw at least $160 million at this ridiculous question, even though quite a number of their backbenchers have said, 'We don't really care what the plebiscite is; we are still sticking to our guns and not allowing marriage equality.'

Of course we have seen the attacks that former Prime Minister Abbott made on our health system and they have continued well and truly. In fact Mr Turnbull, who seems to think that women need supporting, over the Christmas break tried to put through changes to Medicare that would directly impact women: going after women's health, going after the diagnostic tools that are required to ensure that women are able to have pap smears so that cervical cancer is easily detected.

All of those are thanks to Mr Turnbull. They are his very own cuts. He has taken the legacy of Mr Abbott and moved it forward: Direct Action, poor policy, nothing on marriage equality, nothing on a referendum—supposedly things Mr Turnbull believes in, all crashed and burned. And now he is making his own draconian cuts that attack women directly.

I do not know how those opposite can think that it is okay to say to women, 'You will have to bear an up-front cost for a pap smear.' The thing they did not research—Turnbull government ministers do not really research very well—is that it says in the Medicare arrangements that if you are not bulk-billed for pathology and diagnostic services you have to pay up-front for them. That is a cost of thousands and thousands of dollars that they are imposing on every single Australian, particularly on women. That is who they have gone after. Is that any wonder? The Turnbull government seems to ignore women in its own cabinet and around the country. It might have put a few more women in, but it is a long way from being equal.

We saw the disgraceful behaviour of Jamie Briggs over the break. Some members of the Turnbull government tweeted, 'Never mind mate!', ignoring the fact that what he did was reprehensible and that no-one should have been supporting the disgraceful comments and actions of Jamie Briggs. Yet they did. A number of them came out in support of him. He has paid the price for that, as he should have. It is indicative of the Turnbull government, because women do not feature prominently anywhere on their agenda. Australian women, ordinary women, will pay dearly under the Turnbull government's cuts to health.

It was Medicare's 32nd birthday last year, but we know that right from day one Liberal and National governments have opposed Medicare. They think that people should somehow be paying for their own health, that it is not something that we as Australians should hold near and dear. Under Mr Fraser they tried to knock it down. They tried and tried and tried, but it is in place. Generations of Australians have taken Medicare for granted. What Australians have now learned is that under a coalition government you cannot take Medicare for granted, that the only governments that protect Medicare, that do not seek to run it into the ground, are Labor governments. We understand that health should be universal, that you should have access to health regardless of your income.

These cuts to pathology and diagnostic services will hit those who can least afford it. We know that we need more investment for pap smears, because women are not presenting for subsequent tests. Mr Turnbull's government has made it worse by saying to women that they are going to have to cop out-of-pocket expenses. What would men understand about this? They never have to have pap smears. They never have to front for the sorts of tests and for the sorts of health issues that women have. For breast cancer it is not just one X-ray that you have; it is several. It is three, four, five or six, until we get to the nub of the issue. All of those will have to be paid for up-front because of the savage Turnbull cuts. So women again will bear the brunt of these cuts. We have seen the savage attacks on women, whether it is women in the Public Service or women on parental leave being accused of being double dippers. Now it is women's health that is right there, front and centre.

Guess what? Women in our country vote, and when they go to the ballot box they will remember. They will not support the Turnbull government, which has done nothing but make life much harder for Australian women. It was a disgraceful attack on women over the Christmas break.

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

I am really pleased to be able to contribute to this matter of public importance debate on the Turnbull government. This is a debate about priorities. It is a debate about our government's priorities. Senator Lines spent a lot of time talking about a republic. Fair enough, I am a republican.

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

Oh!

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

I heard that phrase from my colleague Senator Smith, but I do not see a republic being the top issue for Australians. I do not see it as being the issue about which they are beating down our door. The priorities are somewhat different. Senator Lines just launched into an attack, and there was an attempt in question time: 'Prime Minister Turnbull said this three years ago. He said this five years ago.' I just don't think it is working.

Opposition senators interjecting—

I don't believe it is. It is a little bit flat. It is little bit like they are going through the motions. They are saying, 'What about this you said about the republic? What about that you said about climate change and direct action?' I don't think the Australian people are interested, frankly. It is gotcha politics. If you go down to the pub and quiz people: 'Did you know that Prime Minister Turnbull said X on the republic five years ago and he said Y today?', you would find that most people would not care. What they would care about are the priorities of this government and, primarily, about the economy.

I will talk about some of those priorities and some of the things that we have delivered. It is a long list. I am not going to be able to get through it in the five minutes I have to speak, but I will do my best to get through some of the significant achievements and priorities of this government versus the Labor Party's priorities. Let us be clear, what are those? We know from its year of ideas what they are—more taxes. Those were the ideas it came up with. Bill Shorten said, 'I'm going to come up with all these ideas, this year.' What he came up with was that we will do more taxes. That is not a plan. It is not a genuine priority to say that you will tax more. You should be looking to tax less. That is my view and it is the coalition's view. You should be looking to keep taxes as low as possible. Deliver the services that are necessary and deliver them well, but try to keep taxes lower.

We have seen jobs growth in the past year. That is our priority. We have created something like 335,000 jobs since the last election—I think it is beyond that now. We have reduced Labor's budget deficit by tens of billions of dollars through savings we have made. We have seen female workforce participation at record levels. Is that not a great thing? We are seeing women coming into the workforce in record numbers, bankruptcy at the lowest level in 20 years and environmental approvals to projects valued at more than $1 trillion. Think about the great job opportunities that are there when we have an environment minister who will put on conditions but will not just mindlessly block projects at the behest of the Greens.

There is $50 billion in infrastructure—that is growing our nation and growing jobs. There are tax cuts for small business, which is just sensational. We have seen small businesses around this country getting some of the best conditions we can offer them and the lowest tax rates they have seen since the 1960s—that is a great achievement. And, of course, even as we have sought to get the budget under control, funding for hospitals is up over 25 per cent over four years and funding for schools is up 28 per cent over four years.

We are delivering on the key service areas, we are delivering on tax cuts for small business, we are delivering by signing free trade agreements with our major partners—Korea, Japan and China. Think of the possibilities, the endless possibilities, when we open up more and more trade with our major Asian trading partners. This is a government that is focused on the priorities of Australians. Australians want to see us focused on jobs and through our innovation package on growing jobs in new ways. We accept that, whilst mining will continue to be important for us and resources will continue to be important for us, we always need to be looking to grow new industries.

The service opportunities of even just our free trade agreement with China are phenomenal—that is where so many of our strengths are, of course. I know, here in Canberra, our export industries—our service industries, primarily—are the smarts of individuals and businesses coming up with great ideas that they can now have greater opportunities to deliver to the likes of the Chinese market.

We got rid of the carbon tax and that has saved hundreds of dollars a year on people's electricity and gas bills. They said we would not be able to do it, and we did, at the same time delivering Direct Action—that is, delivering on our targets but without a carbon tax, which the Labor Party would love to bring back.

National security and border security are the kinds of priorities we have that we know the Labor Party did not take seriously. They did not take it seriously because we saw the tens of thousands of boat arrivals, the thousands of illegal arrivals. Yet, when we said we would stop those unlawful arrivals, the Labor Party, the Greens and parts of the media said we could not do it. Well, we did. We said we would do it and we delivered on it and, as a result, not only did we save lives but also we restored order to our immigration process. Unfortunately, we have seen that other countries that do not maintain control of their borders suffer the consequences over time. Australians support an orderly immigration program. They support a strong immigration program, provided it is done according to the rule of law and according to our priorities.

So these are some of the achievements of this government; these are some of the priorities of this government. On the other side there are higher taxes, more wasteful spending and an inability to actually deliver on the promises they want to have the Australian people believe they will deliver on. (Time expired)

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to add my contribution to this debate, one that goes to the heart of decisions pending for the Prime Minister, Malcom Turnbull. Since taking over the leadership, there has been expectation and anticipation that perhaps we would see a change from the new Prime Minister, a departure from the harsh, cruel and blunt ways and policies of the previous Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. When it comes to the issue of children in detention, I am very, very interested in watching and listening to precisely what this Prime Minister does in this regard.

Today, as I stand here, there are 90 children in Australia who are anxiously waiting on the results of a High Court decision to be handed down tomorrow. The reason they are waiting anxiously for this decision is that only two weeks ago the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, directly threatened these children. He said that if these children and their families lose the High Court case tomorrow, they will be sent back to the hellhole of Nauru. These are children, many of whom have been transferred to Australia because of the damage that has been done to them in detention on Nauru; women who have been subjected to sexual abuse and assault that we know has occurred inside the Nauru detention centre and on that island—it is well documented by numerous reports, including the government's own Moss review; and children who have been subjected to abuse, intimidation and violence at the Nauru detention camp.

For example, a five-year-old boy, who was sexually assaulted and abused in Nauru, was sent to Australia to get the appropriate medical assistance. That boy's life now hangs in the balance as to whether he will be deported to Nauru, back to the place where he suffered such abuse and such inhumane treatment, or whether the Prime Minister will do the right thing and override his minister's call? Will Malcolm Turnbull stand up to Peter Dutton and ensure that this four-year-old-boy and the other 90 children here in Australia are not sent back to the detention centre and the prison island that is Nauru?

Many people have been watching and waiting for Malcolm Turnbull to show more compassion or empathy on this issue. Many have been waiting for him to stick by what he previously said which was that he did not believe that children belong in immigration detention. Well, this is the big test for Malcolm Turnbull tomorrow

His minister says these families and these children will be on the next plane to Nauru. Will Malcolm Turnbull let him be that cruel or will he step in and save them from that awful fate?

Only 2½ or three weeks ago I visited a family in Melbourne who had been transferred from Nauru to Australia because of the very, very severe impacts on their mental health as a result of their indefinite detention. They had been in detention on Nauru for two years. Their baby was born here in Australia. She is now almost one year old. That family are now going to sleep tonight with the fear that if the High Court case fails they will be sent back to living hell.

I find it extraordinary that we have a Prime Minister who talks about not wanting to see children in detention and talks about a fair and compassionate society. How can he stand there tomorrow and allow these families to be deported? Hundreds and thousands of people across the country today—as they will be tomorrow—are calling for the Prime Minister to do the right thing, and I hope that he does.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to make a contribution to this matter of public importance debate. Whilst it is true that we have a new Prime Minister and that Prime Minister Abbott is no longer at the wheel, so to speak, it is important to put on the public record once again that Mr Turnbull sold out on climate change to get the top job, sold out his position on marriage equality to get the top job and has compromised and sold out his position on a republic to get the top job. That is not a bad trifecta! Things that he has had widely-held and deeply-felt views about have been put aside to take the top job.

It is very important to also put on the public record his public comments about the Abbott government. Prime Minister Turnbull has publicly supported the worst of the Abbott cuts and broken promises. He supported every measure in the Abbott and Hockey unfair budgets, with the comment:

I support unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element in the budget. Every single one.

He supported the GP tax. He said:

I support every element, of course, including the Medicare co-payment.

He supported the $100,000 degrees and cuts to university funding. He said:

I support the reforms to higher education.

He supported cuts to family payments. He said:

I support the changes to family payment reform.

He supported the $80 billion cuts to schools and hospitals. 'Of course, every single member of the government supports every element of the budget'—that was his public statement.

We know that as communications minister the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull delivered a slower, second-rate NBN process and doubled the cost. While we are at it, let's look at the promise of no cuts to the ABC or SBS. As minister he cut $254 million from the ABC and $25 million from SBS. So all of the work that Tony Abbott was castigated for which caused his backbench to revolt and overthrow him is being continued as we speak every day of the current Turnbull government.

We heard Senator Macdonald's contribution. I suppose on the bright side he went from the worst day of his life when Prime Minister Abbott dumped him to, in this last year of the government, probably sniffing an opportunity. If there is a coalition win, will he make a comeback? Will the worst day of his life when he was dumped as a potential minister mysteriously turn into someone recognising his talents and promoting him? His contribution certainly seemed to be in that vein. He was out here auditioning for a role in a future Turnbull government.

I want to go back to question time. If you listened to question time and this debate you probably think there are two parallel universes. In the debate on funding in education we are painting one clear picture and the government is saying something completely different. Senator Birmingham let his guard down a bit when he mentioned that money is not the only way of improving education. He almost came clean and said, 'Yes, now we are cutting,' but he did not quite. But the reality is the government's promises to every South Australian before the last election were very simple and very clear: 'Liberals will match Labor's school funding dollar for dollar.' That was abundantly clear in all of the electoral material that was distributed in South Australia. As I said in question time today, I will seek leave to table the document which underpins the veracity of that line of questioning. I seek leave to table this document.

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

Is leave granted?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Leave not granted.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not surprising that the government would not grant leave for something that hangs them or hoists them on their own petard. They said they would match the funding. The reality is they are chopping and cutting. They are going to be convicted in the court of public opinion in South Australia, because parents know that things are not right in their schools. They know that public schools need more resources, not fewer. If Senator Birmingham is underwhelmed by a public school, he ought to resource it better.

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

I extend my best wishes to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, on the first day of our parliamentary year and, indeed, I extend them to all of my Senate colleagues. I pity, of course, my Senate colleagues on the opposite side. We saw today just how much of a struggle it is for Labor in 2016 to come to grips with the new modernity and leadership of our national leader in Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of the coalition. They have struggled with the same story and message that they tried to prosecute last year on the first day of this new parliamentary year when we have a fresh, reinvigorated government and a fresh, reinvigorated Prime Minister.

Labor is confused. It is dazed. It cannot find its mojo under the national leadership of Malcolm Turnbull. When Labor talked today about the government's priorities, it was interesting to hear what they did not talk about. They did not talk about the success of the previous Prime Minister and, indeed, the coalition government, in abolishing the carbon tax. They did not talk about the success of the previous Prime Minister and the success of the previous coalition government in abolishing the mining tax. And they could not bring themselves to have a touch of graciousness when it came to the policy that has stopped deaths at sea. They could not bring themselves to even credit the coalition government with having stopped deaths at sea with its stronger borders approach.

I want to touch briefly on the suggestion that this government, as we approach the election this year, in some way or in some form, has the wrong priorities. The government has stopped the carnage on the high seas by halting the flow of boats, meaning that people are no longer drowning when they try to travel to Australia illegally. How can that be a wrong priority?

There are more Australians employed today than ever before. Month after month, Labor come here trying to predict doom and gloom in the unemployment figures, but unemployment is heading down under the coalition. There were over 300,000 jobs created in 2015—the largest number since 2006, easily surpassing anything Labor were able to achieve in office. How can that be a wrong priority?

Indeed, on issues important to my home state of Western Australia, the government has concluded free trade agreements with Japan, South Korea and China—agreements that Labor were good to talk about but bad in bringing to a conclusion when they were in office. They were all talk when it came to free trade agreements; there was no ink on the final agreements. These agreements, as we know, will create significant new export opportunities for Australian producers and might be part of the reason consumer sentiment continues to be on the rise in our country even as it declines elsewhere in the world. How can these be wrong priorities?

We have heard Labor and, indeed, the Greens very predictably try to prosecute arguments about the republic, try to prosecute arguments about same-sex marriage and try to prosecute arguments about climate change. I am tired of having to come to this place and say, 'While those are issues of some importance and relevance to ordinary Australians, they are not issues that are "top of mind".' Let me tell you what issues are top of mind for everyday Australians. They are: keeping our borders strong, generating jobs growth and, importantly, from my home state of Western Australia again, tackling this big, bold dream that we have always had in our country to develop northern Australia.

Let me briefly, in the time that is available, reflect on the government's success in keeping borders strong but also, importantly, in making sure there are no unfortunate deaths at sea. Just last year, in December, the immigration minister reflected on the achievement of the government. Over 1,200 people drowned when Labor were in government. Five years of Labor mismanagement meant that people lost their lives at sea. In the two years since, no-one has died risking their lives to come to Australia. Since commencing the turnback policy, more than 20 boats carrying 650 passengers—people who are paying people smugglers—have been returned to their country. There is no excusing the fact that Operation Sovereign Borders is a tough policy; it is tough on people smugglers. But it is a great virtue because it saves people's lives. There has been nothing from Labor about the important policy priority of protecting our borders. It is worth reflecting on what happened under Labor. Labor opened 17 additional detention centres. The coalition has closed 13. Around 9,000 people who arrived illegally by boat were in detention when Operation Sovereign Borders commenced. We have reduced this to just 900. Most importantly, we have reduced the number of children in detention. More than 8,600 children were detained during Labor's two terms, peaking at nearly 2,000 in July 2013. We have reduced that number to fewer than 100 today. No-one likes children in detention. Senator Hanson-Young is right: 80 is too many. But the clearest dividend of the government's success in regard to Operation Sovereign Borders is the government's generosity in addressing the humanitarian crisis in Syria and Iraq by resettling 12,000 additional refugees here. These places are for the most vulnerable people: persecuted women, children and families with the least prospect of ever returning to their homes. There has been nothing from Labor in regard to the important priorities of protecting our borders, reducing loss of life at sea and, as a dividend, being able to bring 12,000 refugees to our country to give them a better opportunity at a new life.

The government has made it clear: jobs and growth are its mantra; jobs and growth are its priority. It is worth reflecting briefly, in the time that is available to me, just how successful the government has been so far in its first term. The government has a strong record when it comes to jobs with 427,200 jobs created since we came to office. It is worth comparing that with Labor's last year in office. In 2013, employment growth was just 1,900 per month—an annual growth rate of just 0.2 per cent. Over the past year, jobs growth has been more than 10 times that amount with more than 25,100 jobs created per month—an annual growth rate of 2.6 per cent. The government's priorities are right. The government's priorities reflect the priorities of ordinary Australians, and that will be reflected later in the year at the general election.

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

Order! The time for consideration of the matter of public importance has expired.