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

I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am this morning Senators Gallagher and Siewert each submitted a letter in accordance with standing order 75 proposing a matter of public importance. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot and, as a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Gallagher:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The very, very mediocre performance of the Turnbull Government.

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.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr President. Some of my colleagues wanted me to come back into this place and again place on record that I agreed with Senator Brandis so that they could be assured that I did actually say that in this place yesterday. I agreed with Senator Brandis when he made the comment on air that he thought that the Queensland LNP were 'very, very mediocre'. Just to assure my colleagues that I really did say it, I have put it on the record again.

If it were just a matter of me putting that on the record and taking on face value what the Leader of the Government in the Senate actually said about the Liberal National Party of Queensland, that would be fine. But the reality is that this government is very, very, very, very mediocre—at best. I would have thought that someone like the Leader of the Government in the Senate would at least reflect on his own contribution to this government and to this chamber before even he was willing to pass judgement on his coalition partners and his own party in Queensland. Because of all the backflips, failures and let-downs of this government, I would not be alone in saying that the performance of the Turnbull government is in fact very, very mediocre at best.

The Turnbull government are truly the gift that keeps on giving. They cannot help themselves. Week after week since they have been re-elected, they have stuffed things up. It does not matter what area of policy you want to talk about; it is just the reality of life with this government. We have people in the House of Representatives—the other place—who actually vote against their own government. In fact, it was a minister in the Turnbull government who voted, and who had her colleagues vote, against the government. We have also seen, time and time again, a very desperate Prime Minister grabbing thought bubbles as they pass by, around a whole range of policy areas. The problem is that, when he grabs those thought bubbles, they burst—and that happens before they even hit the ground.

So, if the Leader of the Government in the Senate casts aspersions about the ability of his colleagues in Queensland, I would have thought that the government would have a look at their own performance. We know that the Turnbull government ran around the country before the election and during the election campaign chanting 'jobs and growth'. In fact, as I have said previously in this place, the former Liberal member for the federal seat of Bass would have his staff gather around and do their daily chant, 'jobs and growth', trying to motivate themselves. Not once have they actually delivered anything when it comes to having a strategy, a plan, for the economic future of this country. They have done nothing when it comes to creating jobs or to giving the platform and the framework so that jobs, very important jobs, can be established in this country.

What we found during that election campaign was that there was a lot of noise but not much else. We know that the Prime Minister promised so much to the Australian people and that he has, in fact, delivered nothing. He has delivered nothing but disappointment, but we know that he is very capable of doing whatever it takes to ensure that he keeps his own job. He is certainly—almost on a daily basis, with all his backflips and his burst bubbles—doing whatever he has to do to keep the right wing under control. He is doing what he needs to do to keep his own job. That has been the Prime Minister's priority since 2 July: to do whatever it takes to keep his own job.

But we also know that his big economic plan is all about giving the big end of town, big business, $50 billion in tax cuts. That is their priority—nothing for the Australian people. What we also know, and what demonstrates how mediocre their performance is, is that we are almost at the end of the parliamentary sitting year. What have we already seen about the sitting pattern of next year? That they are doing everything that they can to keep out of the parliament, because they know that, when they sit in the parliament—in the House of Representatives and here—they have to face the scrutiny of the opposition. Of course, when the government is in trouble, there is always a telltale sign, because they cut the number of weeks that they sit, and there has not been a better champion of that than Mr Turnbull himself.

I understand that this week the National Party called a panicked meeting, lasting for two hours, which I would have thought was an extremely long time for the National Party to meet on Monday night, because there were issues around the fact that they had—what was it?—three cabinet ministers who failed to support the cabinet decision on the Adler gun.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know that's not true!

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

Order on my right.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly what happened. We have heard the contributions and seen what happened, with a Nationals senator this morning talking about the backpacker tax. But he is not prepared to cross the floor to help rural and regional Australia—no, he will not do that when it comes to the backpacker tax. But what he will do is cross the floor in support of bringing in an automatic gun. Where are the priorities, I ask?

We know that Mr Turnbull has a very divided caucus. We know that because we hear the mutterings around Parliament House all the time and we read about it in the newspaper. What I find extraordinary is that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Dutton, has been, as I understand—

Senator McGrath interjecting—

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

Senator McGrath, interjections are disorderly. I notice you may be seeking the call to speak in this debate, and you will have an opportunity to speak then.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise, Mr President.

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

Thank you, Senator McGrath. We will have Senator Polley heard in silence. I am sure the same courtesy will be extended to you, Senator McGrath.

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

On a point of order, Mr President: while Senator McGrath is over there, he might like to reflect and withdraw the comment about Senator Polley's reading abilities.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was surprised she could read—but I am impressed!

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

Thank you, Senator McGrath.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

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

Thank you. Senator Polley, you have the call.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the inability of the Prime Minister to lead a united government, to show that he is the Prime Minister of the 21st century and that he would lead a government that is agile and innovative, he has failed on all of those things. Very, very mediocre—that is what I would say. Under his watch, we have seen the second-rate NBN rolled out in this country. We have also seen underfunding of the education sector in this country. We have also had to endure cuts to family payments, which will leave so many Australians worse off—very mediocre. When I said they did not have a strategy for the future, one strategy they do have, because it is in their DNA, is to undermine Medicare. Through you, Mr President, Senator Bushby should hang his head in shame, when he knows that Tasmanians are putting off going to the doctor because they cannot afford the increases that his government has brought in.

We also know that down in their bottom drawer they still have their plan to charge young Australians $100,000 to get a university degree—we know that to be a fact. As I said before, we have a Prime Minister who promised so much but has delivered nothing at all. The Leader of the Government in the Senate attacks his own Queensland colleagues for being very, very mediocre. I think this government will be recorded in history very, very well, and when people look back on this government they will say that they were indeed very, very mediocre.

We would really encourage the Prime Minister to break out of the shackles that the right wing of his caucus has on him and to show the leadership he promised during the election campaign. Quite frankly, what he is doing now as the Prime Minister of this country is presiding over a government that is very, very bad indeed. 'Mediocre' does not really cover how bad they are, because they just keep stuffing things up day after day. We need a strong leader— (Time expired)

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to speak in this matter of public importance debate and to look at the hypocrisy we have already seen in terms of mediocrity in a mere 10 minutes of this debate starting. When I think of mediocrity, I look opposite and I see a sea of mediocrity. It is something that scares me, because the Labor Party, the opposition, are the government in waiting; they are the alternative to my government. When I look at the Labor Party I am scared, I am fearful, because, if we fail to win the next election in 2½ years time, these knuckle draggers opposite, these oxygen thieves, will have their fingers on the levers of power.

To those poor people who may be listening at home, who were searching for Triple M or Triple J and accidentally wandered onto this broadcast, I say that, to understand what mediocrity is, you just have to listen to the Labor Party and watch the Labor Party. And be very, very afraid, because this is the Labor Party that is led by Bill Shorten. I am chairman of the 'Bill Shorten appreciation society', because we want Bill Shorten—

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

Senator McGrath, refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his correct title or his seat name.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am chairman of the 'Bill Shorten Leader of the Opposition appreciation society'. The Leader of the Opposition is actually our patron. We want the Leader of the Opposition to stay being the Leader of the Opposition, because he is not doing a very good job of being Leader of the Opposition, but it is suited to him. We do not want the Leader of the Opposition to become the Prime Minister. We also do not want the member for Grayndler. He is not a bad guy—the member for Grayndler is a pretty good guy. I do not know if I can say his name, but the member for Grayndler is lurking in the shadows. A book is being published. Half the people opposite cannot read—it does not really matter, because it does not have pictures in it.

This is the modern Labor Party, who believe in playing politics. This is the modern Labor Party, who exist purely and solely for politics. Those opposite do not care about public policy and they do not care about the interests of this country; they care about the game of politics. That is what is so sad about the Labor Party. They have not evolved; they have devolved. They are going backwards. The Labor Party of Curtin and Chifley—indeed, you could say the Labor Party of Keating and Hawke—is not the modern Labor Party. The modern Labor Party is purely about politics, purely about saying anything and doing anything in order to win an election, and that is sad.

We witnessed that during the recent election in Australia on 2 July, when the Labor Party, led by the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, went around the country with Senator Dastyari. Remember Senator Dastyari? I do not know where he has gone lately—Senator Dastyari, with his little EFTPOS machine that he walks around with when he meets people from China. Remember that guy? Senator Dastyari and the Leader of the Opposition were on that bus, going around Australia. And do you know what they did when they went around Australia? They lied. They told the truth never. They fibbed, they fibbled. When truth entered a room they left the room very quickly.

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

You are all fibblers opposite, all of you—these mugwumpian fibblers opposite who do not understand what truth is. In fact, the modern Labor Party treat the truth like anyone would treat a cow pat: they try to avoid it. But I tell you what, cow pats are good for you, and truth is good for you, and the modern Labor Party should understand that one day it should tell the truth, and it will be good for it, because at the recent election the Labor Party's entire campaign was based upon lie after lie after lie. That is bad, and that is sad for Australian democracy and sad for the Australian Labor Party, because they should be presenting a viable opposition to the government. That is the nature of the system of government, of the parliamentary democracy that we have in this country—that we have the coalition, the Liberal-Nationals party, on the right and then we have those ratbags over there on the left. And they should present a viable opposition, but they do not, because all they can do is lie. What is fascinating is we look at this actual—

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

Senator McGrath, I have been listening very carefully to what you have been saying. You have been sailing close to the wind. You cannot really make accusations about members opposite the way you have. So, just be very careful with how you present the rest of your speech.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I shall focus on the achievements of this Liberal-Nationals government, who have done so much for Australia, so much to ensure that Australia transitions to a new economy where there are jobs for people, rather than just lies. We understand that Australia should focus on our resources, because we are a resource-rich country.

And talking about resources, let us talk about the support of the Labor Party for our resources sector. Hands up, over in the Labor Party—for anybody listening at home—wave your hands in the air: do you support our resources sector? For those who are listening at home, no-one put their hands up, because the modern Labor Party does not support the resources sector, because they have been captured—it is fascinating: they have become an axis of incompetence and an axis of far-left green politics, because Labor are focused on the preferences of the Greens at every election. So, we have a Labor Party that does not support the resources industry. In Queensland we have the New Hope mine at Acland, which is a wonderful opportunity for more people to get more jobs. We can talk about Adani and the wonderful things Adani will do for Australia that this government has pushed. But has the Labor Party really come out strongly and supported Adani? Not really, actually, because they are so worried, they are so concerned about Greens preferences. Of all the many factions in the Labor Party—there are more factions in the Labor Party than there are M&M's in a packet—the most important one is the green one, the green faction in the Labor Party, because they need their preferences for the coming election.

So, we have a modern Labor Party that specialises in being below average. They are not even a C minus; they are a D, they are an E, they would probably even be a Z, if I were a teacher marking them on what they are doing for modern Australia. They are playing politics with motions like this. They have not put a motion up to talk about serious policy issues, a motion to talk about how we deal with youth unemployment. We could talk about the PaTH project, or what we are going to do with taxation reform. We could talk about how we want to lower people's taxes. They could put a motion up on free trade agreements. But no, they do not support the free trade agreements, the wonderful agreements of Andrew Robb, a fantastic person, followed by Steven Ciobo, a great minister. They do not want to talk about the policy issues, because they know that on every single policy issue we have won and are winning. We are a government that is delivering for Australia, and the only thing the Labor Party are delivering is, sadly, a below-average approach to public policy development in this country.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This matter of public importance put forward by the Labor Party is titled 'The very mediocre performance of the Turnbull government'. Now, I think calling the Turnbull government mediocre is giving them too much credit, frankly. But I did not rise to speak about the performance of the Turnbull government; it speaks for itself. What I want to talk about is the performance of this parliament. I am not going to disagree that this is a government that is ignoring the big issues that confront us as a nation, but we have to do better than this. It is this parliament that runs the risk of not just being mediocre but also being a laughing stock if we do not start challenging the big issues that lie before us as a nation.

So, here is a reality check, people. We have a looming crisis in Australian democracy, and until we take heed of that we are going to see further alienation and division within our community, and that is bad for good government. There was a survey just prior to the 2016 federal election from the University of Canberra. It showed that less than half of Australians are happy with the performance of our politicians. The survey from the Scanlon Foundation, Mapping social cohesion, is very interesting reading. Have a look at the section on trust and democracy. A whole range of issues are listed regarding people's concerns about life here in Australia. The second most important, after management of the economy, is the quality of government and of politicians. That is the second-ranked issue of concern for the Australian community.

And we are starting to give reason for Donald Horne's saying that this is a country run by second-rate people, because the performance of this parliament has been appalling—absolutely appalling. In the Scanlon Foundation's survey the proportion of people who think we need to tinker around the edges, make some minor change to improve our democracy, is falling. But the number of people who want to see major reform to Australian democracy is on the rise, and it is no wonder when you see silly debates like this.

How about we have a debate about matters of public importance that really matter to people? How about we have a debate about the corrosive influence of political donations? How about we have a matter of public importance about the establishment of a national anticorruption watchdog? That would be a good start. People are angry—and they have a right to be angry—because they have lost faith in the people who govern them. Yet here we are. We have had a Greens proposal to establish a national anticorruption watchdog consistently voted down by both major parties.

People are angry that we have the great challenge that lies ahead of us as a nation—that is, tackling dangerous global warming—and what are we doing? We have pathetic targets and we do not even have a plan to reach those targets. We have governments that continue to chase away foreign investment and job creation in the renewable energy sector, which is a pathway for new employment for people in regional communities—nothing of that. We witness those record breaking temperatures year on year on year and see the tragic images from the Arctic, where the sea ice is melting, and yet what do we have? We have the government—with, it must be said, the support of the Labor Party—slash funding for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. More than half a billion dollars was taken from it.

People are angry that there is a growing gap between the rich and poor. Property prices are through the roof, yet the government is not prepared to take on issues like negative gearing and capital gains tax reform. We have wealth concentrated within a privileged few, yet we see the two major parties, with the support of One Nation, get together to give a tax cut to the people who need it least—the richest 20 per cent of Australians get a tax cut while, at the same time, we are cutting services for ordinary people.

Just yesterday we were told that we do not have time to have a debate about important issues like the US alliance and Australia's national security. What does the alliance mean for us now? How can we better forge an independent path into the future? No; what we see are silly little games played out in this chamber. We had a sitting convened until 3 am in the morning to discuss an issue that no-one understands or, to be frank, cares about, except for the ideological warriors from this government.

No; it is not the government that is mediocre. I think that is giving them too much credit. It is this parliament that is mediocre. It is the parliament that needs to be reformed. How about we focus our energy on something much more important? Our democracy is broken. People have lost faith in the people who govern us—and it is about time we fix that.

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

Speaking of the Turnbull government being very, very mediocre, I have to say that the previous performance by Senator McGrath was one of the most bizarre and off-topic performances we have had. I am not quite sure what he was rehearsing for, or what he thought he was interviewing for. Maybe it was part of that McGrath government he mentioned. I presume that will come after the Abbot-Turnbull-Joyce government. It is going to be the McGrath government. I do wish you could just sort out which one it is.

Senator Williams interjecting —

He said 'the McGrath government'—'my' government. I do wish that you could sort that out. Even that much would help us. When Senator Brandis described the Queensland LNP's performance as 'very, very mediocre' I had no doubt that what he said was sincere and correct. It is not often that I agree with Senator Brandis, as people in this place know, but I do think it was sincere and correct. I will be interested to hear if Senator Williams—I notice he is next on the speakers list—actually takes it up to Senator Brandis over this. That would be interesting to watch too. Having said that, I do think that Senator Brandis should look in a mirror sometimes, because when he talks about mediocre performances, given his own performance and that of the government he represents, a phrase about pots and kettles springs to mind.

It was Senator Brandis, as Minister for the Arts, who was the author of the disastrous 'Catalyst' arts ministerial slush fund, which caused a wave of devastation to sweep through Australia's arts industry, and it was Senator Brandis, in his current position, who launched an all-out assault on the independence of legal advice to government, forcing the resignation of one of the most prominent constitutional lawyers in this country. This was a crisis of Senator Brandis's own making—in fact, both crises were of Senator Brandis's own making—and it is he, not Mr Gleeson, who should have resigned. Let's also not forget the long-lasting damage Senator Brandis has inflicted on legal assistance in Australia through his cuts to legal aid. All of this obviously explains why the LNP member for Ryan, Jane Prentice, encouraged journalists to ask Queensland MPs what they thought of Senator Brandis's own performance.

But when it comes to this government's performance, the word mediocre is, as Senator Di Natale said—and I agree with Senator Di Natale in this respect—just a bit too kind; it is a bit too complimentary. This is a government at war with itself. It is obsessed with the myopia of its own internal squabbles and it is trapped in a quagmire, with no plan to deal with slow economic growth and a budget deficit which is deteriorating on a daily basis. After waxing lyrical about jobs and growth and after all the talk about being innovative and agile, what has this government put forward as a policy agenda in the last year?

The government has put forward: a couple of bills to give effect to their ideological war against the trade union movement—which took about three years to get up anyway; a bill to give effect to a wasteful and expensive $170 million opinion poll on marriage equality; a thought bubble on states and territories raising income taxes; and an inquiry into changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which is designed to appease the conservatives on Mr Turnbull's backbench. On that last matter, we know that the conservatives are the ones who are actually in power. Time and time and time again Mr Turnbull has been forced to cave in to the extreme Right in the Liberal Party.

We know Mr Turnbull is the leader in name only, while right-wing ideologues like Mr Christensen and Senator Bernardi call the shots. Senator Bernardi, even from as far away as New York, where he is at the moment, is able to pull the strings of the puppet Prime Minister. Not only are there factional divisions within the Liberal Party; there are divisions between the Liberals and the Nationals, as we heard from the comments Senator Brandis made and as was shown by the recent vote over the Adler shotgun. It was this government's infighting that led to a former Treasurer, Peter Costello—one of their own—to declare that Mr Turnbull is 'in government but not in power.'

Mr Costello also observed, when he spoke to the ABC's Four Corners, that the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, did not plan 'to be a backbencher for the rest of his life' and questioned what the government could possibly achieve with a razor-thin majority and its own internal divisions. It is no wonder that those opposite are in disarray in this place—with members who head home early and miss crucial votes, or, when they do turn up, actually vote to condemn themselves!

While this government fights a war with itself, its budget continues to deteriorate to an even worse position than when Mr Abbott declared a so-called budget emergency. The Treasurer's promise of a budget surplus by 2020-21 has become an absolute joke. In 2015-16, the Treasurer, Mr Morrison, delivered a budget deficit eight times bigger than those opposite inherited. The 2016-17 deficit has tripled and net debt for this year has blown out by more than $100 billion. Just this week we have had warnings from Deloitte Access Economics that Australia's AAA credit rating is at risk. It begs the question, after more than three years of a Liberal-National government: how long do we have to wait for those opposite to start taking responsibility for their own poor fiscal management and stop pointing the finger at Labor? In fact, I am still waiting for good government to start.

The closest thing this government has to an economic plan is a $50 billion tax cut to big business—a tax cut which is overwhelmingly going to benefit shareholders overseas, and a tax cut which Treasury itself says will only deliver a 0.1 per cent benefit to Australia's economy. That is $1 of benefit for every $1,000 this government spends on its tax cuts. It defies logic that the government would continue to pursue a wasteful $50 billion tax cut at a time when the budget position continues to deteriorate.

In pursuit of budget repair, those opposite have continually tried to target the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community all the time failing to take real action on the waste of multinational tax avoidance or negative gearing. While I am pleased to finally see some real action on the blowout in VET loans and generous superannuation concessions, Labor has been calling for these issues to be addressed for years while the government has been sitting on its hands. Despite all the talk of budget repair, through budget estimates we keep revealing examples of waste and mismanagement, like the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ms Bishop, who sent 23 public servants to Paris at a cost of $200,000 to talk to each other about how to save money. How bizarre is that? That is not very, very mediocre; that is just very, very stupid.

The task of budget repair certainly has not been helped by Mr Turnbull's disastrous management—first as communications minister and then as Prime Minister—of Australia's largest infrastructure project, the NBN. We know that Mr Turnbull and Mr Abbott's decision to roll out a second-rate copper network has caused delays and cost blowouts. Despite insisting that the government would only invest $29.5 billion equity in the project, the cost blowouts and lack of revenue from Mr Turnbull's second-rate NBN have prompted the government to invest a further $19.5 billion. At the same time, there has been an almost 150 per cent increase in NBN-related complaints to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman compared to last financial year. NBN issues now account for almost 12 per cent of all TIO complaints, even though the NBN only comprises less than four per cent of fixed and mobile internet services. As a result of Mr Turnbull's second-rate NBN, Australia has fallen from 30th to 60th in global rankings on broadband speed. That is also less than very, very mediocre.

Not only has the government mismanaged the budget, but it has been lacklustre on the issue of economic growth. The self-proclaimed government of jobs and growth—that is what we kept hearing—is one of the worst performing in Australia's history according to recent research by the Australia Institute. The research examines the performance of governments since Menzies across a range of indicators including GDP per capita, the unemployment rate, employment growth and the growth of real business investment and intellectual property investment. In fact, the economy under the former Gillard Labor government, which those opposite continue to criticise for supposed poor economic management, actually performed better on 10 out of the 12 indicators than under Mr Abbott and Mr Turnbull—and they did not have to steer Australia through the global financial crisis.

The Australian economy certainly has not been helped by this government's backpacker tax fiasco. This process has been bungled from the beginning and, because of the uncertainty, accommodation, agriculture and tourism businesses in my home state of Tasmania are reporting huge drops in applications, putting agricultural production across the state at risk. I am sure it is not only in Tasmania that that is happening. I attended the inquiry in Tasmania, but I know from the report that that is not just happening in Tasmania.

Also putting Australia's economy at risk has been the government's intransigence on climate change and renewable energy. Australia's ratification of the Paris climate agreement is welcome but is meaningless without a commitment to strong targets. Bloomberg New Energy Finance recently reported:

Australia's current climate policy framework is insufficient to meet the current targets, let alone deeper commitments.

(Time expired)

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

I rise to contribute to this waste of time in the Senate—this MPI and the way it has been presented. That is what it is: a waste of time and a waste of taxpayers' money. I am following on from Senator Bilyk, who did a pretty good job reading that speech that her staff put together. The problem is that, when they read their speeches, they run out of time. They cannot complete it.

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

Senator Bilyk, on a point of order.

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

It has been mentioned before in this place—

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

What is the point of order, Senator Bilyk?

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

The point of order is that it has been mentioned before in this place that I admit to using copious notes because I have had two brain tumours. If you want to get personal, Senator Williams, I am happy to take it up to every single person on your side doing that.

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

Thank you, Senator Bilyk.

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

I am not getting personal.

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

Yes, you were.

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

No, I am not, Senator Bilyk. I am not getting personal. I simply said that, when you read your speech and the time runs out, you leave yourself without completing your speech. That is the point I am making.

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

Through the chair, Senator Williams, please. Continue.

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

Certainly. I am sorry. My apologies, Mr Acting Deputy President. I rise to contribute to this debate, which I think is a waste of time—a political hand grenade thrown across the chamber. It is about the only time I ever agreed with the Greens leader, Senator Di Natale: we should actually talk about proper, decent issues that relate to the people.

We have the criticism from those opposite. Senator Bilyk says it is our financial management. How ironic is that? You would remember 2007, when the Rudd government were elected. What sort of financial position were they in? What were they in? They were in a position of money in the bank—net debt free. What sort of a mess did they make of it? The first budget was going to be a surplus, and, then, of course, they were into debt building. Remember the handing out of the money. Remember the schools building program, the economic stimulus package and Building the Education Revolution, where many builders did not even get paid. The contractors went broke, sadly. And even down at Wagga Wagga, where they built one of the buildings, we were launching a National Party campaign there, and the building fell over. So it was not built very well or very solidly.

I want to talk about some positive things we have done in government—some real positives. The coalition has committed an additional $60 million to the Mobile Black Spot Program. That would make a total of $220 million. The Mobile Black Spot Program has already delivered 499 new services and upgraded mobile base stations. How many new mobile towers did the Labor Party build in government in six years? Have a guess. We have now completed 499. How many do you think Labor built in their six years? Would it have been 200? We have done 499 in a bit over three years. Do you think they would have done 200 in six years? No. Do you think it might have been 100, Senator Ruston? No. Let us go down to 10. They did not build 10 new mobile towers for people in regional areas especially—they did not build any. Zero! That is what regional telecommunications means to the Australian Labor Party. They do not care about people in regional areas having a telecommunications system. They built zero. I am pleased to see that my colleagues Senator Fiona Nash and Minister Barnaby Joyce have pushed hard on these very issues to succeed and have those rollouts of the mobile black spot phone system being done, and more every day.

Senator Nash announced today the Building Better Regions Fund. What a good fund this is—almost $300 million. Regional Australia allows our cities to exist. That is the fact: regional Australia allows our cities to exist. It supplies the energy sources, the food—you name it, regional Australia provides the primary production. There is a huge potential for economic growth in regional areas. What a good job Senator Canavan is doing about putting the developments into northern Australia. There is huge potential up there. We need to grow our exports and grow our industries to feed hundreds of millions of people around the world. People rely on Australia to feed them. It is good to see the growth there. It is good to see the steps going forward to build dams. Mr Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson, I know you are a big supporter of building dams. I appreciate that very much. With the dams come not only the water to grow more food, for more exports and more jobs, but also the hydro schemes for electricity—a good renewable, clean way of generating electricity.

Badgerys Creek: how long did the opposition, the Labor Party, talk about another airport for Sydney? When we go to Sydney Airport, as I am sure all of us in this place do on a frequent basis, it is congested and often running late. So at last former Nationals leader and transport minister Warren Truss made the announcement and got on with the job to build another airport, because the one we have now is simply not big enough.

Inland rail: I do not know how many of you have driven up the Newell Highway of late. It is a very busy highway. There are many, many trucks and B-doubles. They are simply doing their job, doing their work and I wish them well, being someone who has driven trucks for some period of my life. $893.7 million has been budgeted to finalise reconstruction and acquire the land necessary to construct the project—to buy the land back, because you cannot run the train line through a house or property without buying it back and giving proper compensation. We have started on-the-ground work to deliver the inland rail, as I said, with $893.7 million, with the route through Karara and Leyburn, the regional connection to the Charlton and Wellcamp areas, and the route west of Warwick via Karara and Clifton. That is well and truly under way, thanks to the coalition government.

The NBN is being rolled out. We know that the original plan was going to be hugely expensive. The government's equity contribution of $29.5 billion to NBN Co is expected to be fully utilised in the current financial year. The good news on that today is that it is being rolled out. The good news is that where I live, near Inverell in northern New South Wales, it will be rolled out in the second half of next year, and in the New England area in the first half. It is good to see that proceeding. Sky Muster—the satellites to provide good, fast broadband communication for some 440,000 residents—is being rolled out as well. It is another great initiative by the coalition government.

The rural general practice grants—we all know the importance of health and having those services provided to us. We now have some support going out, just announced by my colleague the Assistant Minister for Rural Health, David Gillespie. Grants of up to $300,000 will be provided to medical practices in rural areas to train and retain health professionals. You need good facilities, you need good buildings. Here we are assisting those regional GP practices to improve their facilities and to retain young doctors in regional areas, which is most important.

We abolished the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Remember that? That ruling by the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal earlier this year, which was to come in by 4 April, was going to send 35,000 mum-and-dad businesses—owner-driver truckies—broke. Luckily we got in and abolished that crazy idea. The registered organisations bill is now passed to make sure that union leaders are accountable for their actions just the same as directors of companies are. We hope the ABCC bill will go through very soon. The backpacker tax that Labor increased from 29 per cent to 32½ per cent in government—the AAT ruled that it must include backpackers—hopefully very soon we will have that cleaned up as well. I am glad to say that on 1 January liquidators changes come, which I pushed very hard to have.

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

I rise today to contribute to this debate. Firstly I acknowledge that the wording of this motion describes the government as 'mediocre'. I get that—it is kind of funny, because of Senator George Brandis's slip-up in his moment of truth on television only a couple of days ago. I want to say, first up, that I think that is pretty soft. It is not that the government is mediocre: they are cruddy, pathetic and useless. All we have seen from this government for the last 12 months is blaming everybody else and not being able to get on with the job at hand.

The one thing I wanted to talk about in particular here today, in relation to how cruddy this government really is, is the behaviour and actions of the minister for water and Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce. This is a man who, only four years ago, in the middle of the debates around the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and giving the authority the powers to manage the basin in a way that was meant to set the river system up for a sustainable future, said to my home state of South Australia, 'Oh well, if you don't think you've got enough water, South Australians, just move to Queensland.' That was his response to the very dire situation down in the lower end of the Murray and in SA.

Now that the Deputy Prime Minister is in charge of this portfolio, we see that he could not wait to get his hands on it. He loved the idea that he could finally get his hands onto managing the Murray-Darling Basin, because he has never supported the Basin Plan. He has never supported the approach of ensuring that there is enough environmental flow to keep that river going into the future. We know that, over many decades, too much water has been taken out of the river. The water allocations have been overallocated. Upstream states—particularly, big irrigators upstream in Victoria, New South Wales and, of course, Queensland—have sucked too much water out of the system, so much so that the river was starting to choke. In recent years we have seen the mouth of the Murray close because the flows were not coming down the river, particularly at a time when the climate is drier. We had a long, drawn-out public consultation and debate about how we set the rules so that it is fair and so that we can get above and beyond this political bickering between states and between states and the federal government, trying to understand that you needed an environmental voice and stake in a plan that was meant to manage this river system going forward if you are going to give it any kind of fighting chance. If those communities along the river are going to have any chance of economic and social survival, you have to keep the river alive.

Yet right from day one the Deputy Prime Minister never really supported and was never committed to the idea of having proper water buybacks that would ensure environmental flows to keep this river functioning to give it a fighting chance to get back to health and to keep it healthy going forward. Four years on we now see the minister for water, the Deputy Prime Minister, in charge of this, and all he wants to do is blow up this Murray-Darling Basin Plan. He wants to blow open the agreement and reset the rules, and that, of course, is all about letting upstream states take more water back out of the river again. Giving Barnaby Joyce control of water is one of the cruddiest things that this Prime Minister has done. It is like giving the fox the keys to the henhouse. He is obsessed with making South Australians and the lower end of the Murray suffer, because he wants more water to be given to upstream irrigators. He is not interested in fair rules that keep the river alive. He is not interested in acknowledging that, in a drying climate and in a time of climate change, we have to do more to ensure environmental flows. This government is not just mediocre; it is cruddy to the core. (Time expired)

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

This government has never seen an evidence based policy that it did not want to unpick. That is one of the many reasons that it is a very, very mediocre government. They are working on trying to unpick Gonski now, an historic agreement to introduce needs based funding reached under the last Labor government. They have done a great job of unpicking the arrangements put in place to tackle dangerous climate change, putting us in the embarrassing position of being one of the few nations internationally that has actually removed an effective emissions trading system designed to deal with climate change.

Now this government is turning its sights on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is more than just some technical instrument. It is not just some government plan that can be toyed with at the whim of the Deputy Prime Minister. It represents an incredibly powerful consensus, one which was hard fought, one which was hard to achieve, and one which was achieved under the last Labor government. There has been conflict about water use along the Murray-Darling Basin for longer than Australia has existed as a nation, and it was something indeed to come to an agreement about how we would handle that conflict when the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was put in place. Contrary to some of the views that are given in this place, it is not a radical environment plan. In fact, it most explicitly seeks not to return the system to a natural state but rather to deliver a healthy working river system that could not only deliver for agricultural communities but could also deliver on the ecological needs of all of those amazing systems that exist up and down the Murray-Darling Basin.

So I completely sympathise with the anger and the frustration of my South Australian colleagues here in this chamber, because there are many sensitive sites in South Australia that do need watering, and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan needs the water so that we can keep those sites alive. It is also the case that the South Australians, quite reasonably, would like a healthy channel in the Murray, because that is so important for them as a source of drinking water and so important as a source of agricultural water. So I stand by South Australian colleagues—and I stand by South Australians—when they stand up here and push back hard, quite rightfully, against the Deputy Prime Minister's outrageous plan, because, as has been talked about often in this chamber this afternoon, he is actively walking away from a constructive process that was put in place to try to find the additional 450 gigalitres that the scientists tell us are necessary to deliver a healthy working river—not to return the system to pristine environmental health; simply to deliver a river that can perform all of the functions that we demand of it as the Australian community.

I worry too about the way the Deputy Prime Minister talks about the Murray-Darling Basin system. He quite rightly points out that it is not an interconnected system of hoses, and I agree with that; it is not. But the implication he seems to draw from that is that you can take as much water as you like out of the northern basin and it will not make any difference, because it does not make any difference to South Australia. He seems completely oblivious to the amazing assets that are in the northern basin, and we are starting a consultation at the moment about the northern basin. There have not been any decisions made about how much water the recovery targets are for the northern basin. But we do know that there are some assets there that will come under pressure if the recommendations are implemented. As we work through this consultation process, we need to be scrutinising that. We need to be looking at the implications for the wetlands on the Barwon-Darling. We need to be looking at the implications for the Culgoa. We need to be looking at the bird breeding on the Narran Lakes, an incredibly significant international site. We need to be coming to some conclusions about what it will mean if we change the arrangements and the water recovery targets in the northern basin. I have not drawn a conclusion about that, but I will say this: when the Deputy Prime Minister talks about it, he talks about it as though these things mean nothing, as though ecological sites mean nothing, as though the only value in the basin—and in the northern basin in particular—is its agricultural value. That is simply not so.

I had the very good fortune to visit the Paroo in early 2000. I remember the Indigenous people who were there, the Indigenous people who right now are saying that they are angry about the lack of consultation, the lack of involvement and the lack of opportunities for them to be involved in decision making about water in the northern basin. They were there back in 2000 when we declared the Paroo River a place a special importance. We said that we would not regulate it any further under a Labor government. I say to those people: we will stand by you as you seek to be included in the process for making decisions in the northern basin. People need to be very careful about this—very careful, indeed. (Time expired)

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

Senator Gallagher is just the gift that keeps on giving. I had to check whether it was Christmas coming early when I saw the subject of today's discussion—'The very, very mediocre performance of the Turnbull Government'. Well, you have to compare mediocrity with something. So what is the only thing we can compare this statement of Senator Gallagher's with? Of course, it is the last six years of the Labor government. Time does not permit me to say much, as I have only nine minutes, not 90 minutes.

I am going to start with defence, because it was the previous coalition Prime Minister Mr Howard who famously said, 'We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances under which they arrive.' Let me first start with Labor in government. I will tell the people here in the gallery today what Labor did when they were in government relating to defence. The first major thing they did was to rip $18 billion out of the defence budget. That is not a bad effort! The second thing they did was to create what was called a valley of death. The valley of death related to the fact that when it came to naval shipbuilding they made no plans. They made no plans at all. When we came into government we saw that circumstance that needed reversing. The Labor government of the time managed to get defence expenditure down to levels equivalent to 1938. For those up in the students' gallery, that was just before the Second World War. When it came to submarines, there were two of the six Collins class submarines operational at that time, with no plans to replace them.

Let's have a look at what the Abbott and then Turnbull governments have done on future submarines. There are 12 submarines to be constructed here in Australia. There is the future frigates program. Again, it is principally to be in South Australia, with maintenance probably in WA. Then there are the future offshore patrol vessels and the future Pacific vessels that are already being built at Henderson. There is work being done for the land army. There are the new helicopters and the C17 aircraft for the RAAF. Importantly, there is a commitment of up to two per cent of GDP right out to 30 or 40 years in the future. These vessels will be Australian built and Australian maintained. And the members of the Defence Force themselves, both those in uniform and those supporting them, know that they have long-term employment.

I had the privilege of farewelling the HMAS Arunta from Garden Island from HMAS Stirling the other day and made the point to those 191 personnel that many of them are going to be the leaders of the Navy into the future simply because the coalition showing the leadership we are showing in the defence space will ensure that there is a defence budget well into the future. There is a white paper on defence, accompanied by a defence industry paper so that industry knows where it is in that particular space.

Associated with protection of borders and long-term security, we obviously have the question of detention. The previous speaker spoke of unpicking a policy. She was not around when the incoming Rudd government unpicked what was a very successful policy of the then Howard government when it came to asylum seekers. There were none. There were none coming to our shores at that time. There were none dying at sea. There were none in detention. Therefore, there were no children in detention.

What did we inherit when we came back into government in 2013 because the Rudd-followed-by-Gillard government decided to unpick a policy that worked? Fifty thousand people arrived by sea in 800 successful smuggling events. No wonder the people smugglers at the time thought the Rudd and Gillard governments were the bee's knees. Eight thousand children were in detention. When we came into government, there were almost 2,000. Today how many children are there in detention? None. Zero. We know about 1,200 people who died at sea. That is one every two days of the last Labor government. We know about 1,200 because, regrettably, they are the ones who were found. When I spoke to the skippers of patrol vessels and asked them, 'How many were there?', they said, 'Senator, we have absolutely no idea.'

This apparently mediocre Turnbull government has now gone through 840 days in which there has not been a successful entry by people by sea. So the people smugglers' trade has been closed down. The biggest risk to that would be a future Labor government. That is the situation associated with defence and asylum seekers.

I turn then to the apparent mediocrity of the performance of the Turnbull government as it relates to free trade agreements. Those of you who are interested know we are a big exporting country. From our state, Senator Reynolds and I know 95 per cent of our grain is exported. The vast majority of our beef and sheep meats are exported. How many free trade agreements were negotiated during the six years of the Labor government? None. Zero. How many have been negotiated by the Abbott-Turnbull government to date? There has been one with China. China is not a bad little organisation—we only do about $100 billion worth of trade with China!

Even New Zealand was able to strike a free trade agreement during the term of the Labor government. We could not, but we have now. South Korea is a major trader with us—$21 billion dollars of trade. With Japan, it is $50 billion of trade, and we now have a free trade agreement with Japan. Most importantly, because of the excellence of the then minister, Andrew Robb, we enjoy most-favoured-nation status with each of them.

So, when it comes to the apparent mediocrity of the coalition government, all I can say to you is to look at the benefits flowing to Australia now and into the future. I spoke earlier today about the opportunities that exist in Mexico in terms of hard-rock mining, agriculture, oil and gas, services and higher education—and on it goes. Those are the opportunities that are presenting now.

The sorts of jobs that the young people who are up in the gallery now are going to have into the future will be high-paying jobs, because the main benefit of the free trade agreement with China, for example, is in the services sector. As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson, from your background in finance, about 70 per cent of the Australian economy relates to services, but only 17 per cent of our exports are services. Imagine if we could double the proportion of our services in higher education, health, education, corporate governance and prudential banking. All of these are services the Chinese want. The young people looking down at us here today, Mr Acting Deputy President, are the people who are going to capitalise on that because of the excellence of the coalition government, led by Mr Turnbull. Just one small example is 3D printing. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I say to you young people up there: whatever you do, get into 3D printing, because the jobs are limitless—and the support from the Turnbull governments in the field of innovation is obviously where that is going to go.

We have these free trade agreements, and of course there are opportunities now with the EU in agricultural exports. Once again, with Britain leaving the EU, opportunities are opening up already, and I am meeting with our trade minister, Mr Ciobo, to make sure that we are aware of all those opportunities.

A space that is of critical importance to us all is employment. Apparently we are mediocre in government; what was the performance of the last Labor government in its six years? In the period from September 2012 to September 2013, a lousy 87,000 jobs in total, or 7,300 jobs per month, were created. What we have been able to achieve is a figure of some 500,000 jobs that have been created in this country since we came to government in 2013. If that is mediocrity, I will wear it any time. If you want to see excellence, have a look at the performance of the last Labor government!

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

The time for the discussion has expired.