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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers to questions asked by myself and Senator Sterle to Senators Brandis and Cormann.

Question time today has once again revealed that this is a government that has forgotten what it stands for, that is led by a Prime Minister who has abandoned what it stands for and is desperately clinging to power and looking to establish links in areas where previously they have sought to distance themselves. Gone is the principled opposition to One Nation policies, which characterised the previous generation of leadership of the coalition. I am not going to go over ground that has already been traversed, but we know that former Prime Minister John Howard adopted a far more principled approach in relation to many of the One Nation policies, which some Australians have difficulty with.

And also Senator Ron Boswell from my home state of Queensland, a National Party senator, was very strong on this issue and understood that leadership was required to defeat many of the policies of One Nation, which many people find quite disturbing. We have trade minister, Mr Ciobo, who said that One Nation has demonstrated an approach, which I mentioned in my question, which is 'reflective of what it is … to govern Australia in a fiscally responsible way'. In fact Mr Ciobo said that One Nation's approach had a certain 'economic rationalism … reflective of what it is … to govern Australia in a fiscally responsible way' and that they had a 'mature approach to economic policy'. This, I think, was dealt a blow in question time today because on the flat two per cent tax on every Australian, which I asked Senator Brandis about, Senator Brandis was very quick to say—to his credit—that he considered the two per cent tax on every Australian to be a very foolish policy. So we have a senior government minister on the one hand saying that this premise of One Nation economic policy is a foolish policy but on the other hand we have the trade minister saying that they adopt a mature approach to economic policy. Both of those propositions cannot stand.

In addition to the two per cent tax on every Australian, we know that One Nation is exploring the removal of federal taxation. This may well line up with the Prime Minister's thought bubble last year to provide taxing powers to the states—although that position quickly evaporated in a matter of days but it is hard to see much in the way of commonality there with established coalition economic policy in that particular matter. One Nation also has a policy getting rid of penalty rates across the board, something which I am very strenuously opposed to. I can see the commonality of interest there between the coalition and One Nation. It does disturb me that there will be a united force there across the chamber coming after the penalty rates of vulnerable workers.

We also see in One Nation's policies opposition to globalisation, opposition to free trade economic policies and a promise to withdraw from international treaties. Now it is hard to see how those policies can line up with assessment from Minister Ciobo that this is a party that the coalition can work with. The Labor Party has certainly got issues in relation to pure free trade. Labor certainly wants to look at all trade agreements in light of how they benefit Australia's interests. But to talk about opposition to free trade and a promise to withdraw from international treaties without discrimination seems to demonstrate the absolute desperation of the coalition to cling to power and to seek friends where, in the past, the more principled leadership of the coalition has eschewed these types of policies.

I want to put on the record that the cut of penalty rates across the board, if this is something One Nation pursues, will have dramatic impacts in rural areas and would lead to loss of income in those areas so this is a very disturbing aspect of One Nation's policy.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to admit, I am terribly disappointed again today in the pursuit of this particular issue. We had some really good questions today in question time, so different from the end of last year. Senator Carr was talking about industry policy. Senator Collins was talking about education policy. Senator Siewert was talking about the omnibus savings bill. There were some real opportunities there for this part of the chamber's proceedings to get into the guts of actually what is going on, what makes government tick. But instead we are talking about the same issue that we spoke about yesterday, the same issue that Senator Sterle banged on about yesterday endlessly and here we are again.

I have so much respect to Senator Ketter. We work very closely together on the economics committee and I have great respect for both his opinions and his approach but this is not an issue, I believe, that he should be speaking about in this chamber. To begin with, as we established yesterday, this is an issue of the state divisions of the Liberal Party. It was a decision of the state executive and has absolutely nothing to do with any single member in this chamber. It is entirely the state division's prerogative, nothing to do with anyone in this room.

The Liberal Party and the Nationals, as I understand, will be preferencing each other in every lower house seat. It is only the upper house seats where this preferencing deal will occur. And it is not uncommon at all for the Nationals to preference One Nation. Indeed the Nationals preferencd One Nation ahead of the Liberal Party in the 2008 state election. As was well discussed and well covered yesterday in this chamber, the Western Australian situation is very unique. The Liberal Party and the Nationals are two separate parties. Yes, we work very closely in coalition and we work very closely in many states, my own state of Victoria included. But Western Australia does not have that arrangement.

Western Australia's situation is entirely unique. The Liberal Party and the Nationals are not in coalition in Western Australia. They are in an alliance for the purpose of forming government but they are not in coalition. There have been occasions in the past—and again I highlight 2008—where the Nationals in the upper house in fact preferenced One Nation ahead of the Liberal Party. These are decisions made by the state division of political parties and they depend on the political circumstances at the time. But I can assure you that the Liberal Party in Western Australia is determined to make sure that there is no Labor government in Western Australia.

I find it extraordinary the hypocrisy of this conversation in this chamber. Yesterday Senator Hanson pointed out the incredible hypocrisy of Senator Chisholm. It was poetry in motion that he, having been a previous state secretary, had also undergone preference arrangements or tried to arrange deals with One Nation. It must have been so embarrassing, I think, for those opposite to have that pointed out to them. There was nothing left to say. At the same time—again, this incredible hypocrisy—the ALP will quite happily accept Greens preferencing arrangements. The Labor Party will unquestioningly accept Greens preferences and deal with the Greens, who in fact have a view of the world that we believe is far more dangerous. They want to tear up the US-Australia alliance. They want to shut down all energy security in Australia. That is possibly the most dangerous political train of thought, yet those opposite will happily accept preference deals from the Greens.

But more importantly—and I think that this has not been discussed—the senators from One Nation have demonstrated over and over again their commitment to consistently vote with this coalition government on matters of budget repair and on matters of economic importance. Not only that, but they have behaved with decorum for the entire time that they have been here. They have behaved with basic good manners. They have behaved with respect for other senators.

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

I think I need a bucket.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have behaved with professionalism and respect for this chamber. Dare I say, that is so much more than those opposite have done. This question time was merely one example of the disrespect shown to fellow senators in this chamber and to the chamber itself. (Time expired)

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

Well, there is five minutes of my life I will not get back.

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

Here's another five minutes.

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

I will talk as a Western Australian because, you see, we actually live and breathe WA politics in WA, unlike senators from Victoria. I am going to quote an article from today's West Australian. The light is not all that great, so forgive me, I just have to squint a little bit to have a read. It is by Mr Gary Adshead and Mr Dylan Caporn—all us West Aussies know who they are. The headline of The West Australian today says 'Deal puts Libs in bizarre position' and then there is a heading that says 'New face of One Nation.' I want to quote this, if I can, Madam Deputy President. Even One Nation need to listen to this:

One Nation has trumpeted its voter preference deal with the Liberal Party, saying it should guarantee the party the balance of power and the ability to block the part-sale of Western Power if Colin Barnett is re-elected next month.

I bet that was not part of their discussions behind closed doors when Senator Matthias Cormann and Senator Michaelia Cash were sharing a Chinese meal with Senator Hanson, or whatever they did. It goes on to say—have a listen to this:

In a bizarre consequence of the preference-swapping arrangement, the Liberals admit they have done a deal with Pauline Hanson that could result in their $11 billion plan to reduce debt and build new infrastructure being torpedoed in the Upper House of Parliament.

I bet they are not laughing down there now.

"I have to deal with the reality that there's a rejuvenated One Nation party out there," the Premier said yesterday when asked if he had been forced—

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

Senator Sterle, please resume your seat.

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

I am reading.

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

There is a standing order against senators—

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

I am quoting an article. You know that—

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

Senator Sterle, resume your seat.

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

Senator Sterle is a good guy, but there is a standing order against senators reading their speeches, and I wonder if the same standing order applies to senators who do nothing else in a five-minute speech but read someone else's speeches, albeit an article from a newspaper.

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

Senator Sterle is quoting.

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

Thank you for that protection, Madam Deputy President, because it is important that I do quote these words. I will continue quoting this. This is the cracker. Are you ready for this, Senator Macdonald and Senator Hume?

In another twist late yesterday, One Nation's WA leader Colin Tincknell said his party would have put Liberals ahead of Labor, the Greens and Nationals whether or not a deal had been done.

I cannot believe my luck today. He also goes on to say:

"We were always going to preference the Liberals before Labor and the Greens and the Nationals anyway,"

Are you still there? I am just making sure. How is that for a good old-fashioned slap in the mouth?

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

Quoting is fine; I think holding the newspaper up so high is not.

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

I am trying to read. I will hold it that way; it is just that the light is not all that good.

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

They did write it slowly, mate, because they knew you couldn't read it!

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Put your glasses on.

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

I just cannot see. Can I try another angle? As I was clearly saying, there is open warfare in Western Australia between the coalition partners. Senator Hume from Victoria, do you know why we got the rabbit-proof fence in WA? It is to keep the Victorians out, I am told. I do not know if that is true, but let me help you out with what happens in Western Australia. They are best of buddies for most of the time, except the last few years really has tested the mettle of the relationship between the Liberals and the Nats. I have to tell you, this is no secret; it is a well-known fact. Senator Back, who is one of the most intelligent senators from Western Australia—I will give you that; he is top of the class—

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

Hear, hear.

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

will know that the Liberals have been seething about the behaviour of the Nationals over the years since 2008, when the leader of the Nationals dared to venture across to the other side of the chamber to see if he could form government with Labor at the time. Boy oh boy, didn't that stir up a possum's nest? Thank goodness for us, it did not happen. I am so glad it did not, because then came the Royalties for Regions program. A lot of people will say the regions need to get money that is earned in the mining areas and the agricultural areas. I have no argument with that at all. But I do not know how singing toilets in Bunbury fit in.

So what have we really found over there? I would go as far as saying—as a betting man, I would chuck a $5 bet on this one—that this is a little bit of payback coming from the Liberals to the Nats. They are actually peeved off. The most embarrassing point here is that Mr Tincknell, the leader of One Nation, owned up. They would have done the deal. Now the Liberals, when they get together and hold hands in the joint party room, have to look across and say, 'Gee whiz, you know, we really have done you over.' The preference whisperer, Glenn Druery, is quoted in an ABC article today, I think, saying that this deal between One Nation and the Liberals, which would have been done anyway without the Chinese meal or whatever, could cost six to nine seats.

Now, if I were Mr Barnett and his cracker team of strategists in the Liberal Party I would be finding every rock I could hide under, because this is not a deal that is going to cut. It is not a deal that is going to stick. And we know what is going to happen, because One Nation have proved that they will slap you in the chops over there on that side of the chamber as quick as they will slap us. What this is all about is that a vote for One Nation is a vote for Colin Barnett; a vote for One Nation is a vote for the Western Australian Liberals. You will not be able to split the pair of them. (Time expired)

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

Well, hypocrisy writ large was in evidence yesterday when Senator Chisholm carried on about One Nation in Queensland and Senator Hanson called him out. Senator Hanson rose to her feet and reminded him that he was the past secretary of a union of which Mr Evan Moorehead is now the secretary. Senator Hanson said:

Well he actually called up my staff on January 25th of this year and wanted to do a grubby deal with us.

Our leader, Senator Brandis, demanded that Senator Chisholm stand and deny that statement. And did he? No. He hung his head in shame for the whole time Senator Hanson spoke.

To hear Senator Ketter raise questions about One Nation in 2003 and then to draw attention in 2017—for those in the public gallery, let me remind you, since he referred to Mr Costello, the greatest Treasurer this country has ever had, that he was dealing at that time with some $96 billion of debt left to him by the then Keating government. He eventually paid it back, and he had $6 billion a year that was no longer being wasted on interest but was being paid into the Australian economy. And in 2016 what are we doing? Get your handkerchiefs out: the current Treasurer is borrowing from overseas some $15 billion of your money every year—not to repay the $300 billion debt but just to pay the interest on the debt. All of these questions this afternoon in question time about money for education, money for child care, money for child protection—do you know, if we were not wasting $15 billion a year on repaying the interest on Labor's debt we would be putting all of these dollars through the economy in exactly the same way that Peter Costello then was able to do.

Why does Senator Ketter need to be called out? Because the One Nation party, responsibly, is assisting this government in terms of economic reality and economic prudence. The best example of the opposition failing to do that was that in 2013 they announced, 'Should we win the election, there are $5 billion in savings that we will make.' Well, as it happened, the coalition said, 'Yep, we agree with that', and the leader knows—Senator Brandis knows—what happened. In government, we brought those $5 billion of savings in—not once, not twice, but three times. These were Labor's own savings. And what do you think happened, in terms of their economic irresponsibility? Each time they opposed those savings that they themselves had indicated that they would make.

In the minute and a half left to me, let me address myself to Senator Sterle's comments. Indeed, in 2008, as the minister said, the National Party—not a coalition in WA but an alliance—preferenced us last. They preferenced the Greens ahead of the Liberal Party in 2008. And in the cliffhanger, before we decided government, the now leader, Mr Grylls, actually said, within his party room, 'I would like to move a motion that we go with the Carpenter Labor Party to form government.' Contrary to what Senator Sterle just said, it was never Mr Carpenter and his mob who scotched that one; it was the other National Party members—upper house and lower, friends of mine all of them—who said: 'We could not walk down the main street of our towns if you want to do a deal with the Labor Party. So, go down that way, Brendon; go down that way, and we will go in with Mr Barnett.'

That was in 2008. Do you know what Mr Grylls was quoted as saying recently? 'Once again, I would be prepared to have a look at an alliance with Mr Mark McGowan'—from the Labor Party. So, what has he learnt since 2008? The other interesting thing, of course, is that it is in the National Party's interests for the Liberal Party to have done this arrangement with One Nation. Why? Because in 2013, when Barnett won the election in his own right, he could have ignored the National Party. He could have said: 'I'm not interested in them. We brought them into government. The best way the Nats have of getting ministers in the next parliament is for the Liberal Party to win the election.' (Time expired)

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure most of us in this chamber today did in fact hear or read about trade minister Steve Ciobo's claims that One Nation's approach to economics had a certain economic rationalism reflective of what it is to 'govern Australia in a fiscally responsible way'. And he went on to say, as we know, that theirs was 'a mature approach to economic policy'. Well, apparently Senator Brandis did not, in answering these questions today, hear that statement, because that is what he told us in question time. And I would encourage the minister to read the paper. He does, not infrequently, hide behind the fact that he has not read the news or the paper, to avoid answering questions in this place.

But it is of great concern that anyone in the government would agree that One Nation does indeed take a mature approach to economic policy, because if you look at their policies they are beyond all rationality. The reasoning is apparently that One Nation votes for Liberals' legislation in this place. Perhaps Senator Brandis chooses not to read the paper because he is clearly embarrassed by what is evident in some of the revelations. It does seem to me that Senator Brandis, if something embarrassing is revealed, will deny any knowledge of it and use it to skirt around the question that is being asked. I think that absolutely affirms what we on this side of the chamber were saying in this place yesterday: what we really see behind closed doors here is a vote for One Nation being a vote for the Liberals. That is certainly what is playing out in Western Australia and it is certainly what you rely on in this place to pass your more erroneous pieces of legislation. On the one hand, we have Senator Brandis saying he agrees with anything Mr Ciobo would say, but on the other hand Senator Brandis is saying that he sees One Nation's fiscal policies as absurd.

Perhaps the minister needs reminding about what some of those fiscal policies are. These fiscal policies include a flat two per cent tax on every Australian, exploring the removal of federal taxation, and getting rid of penalty rates across the board—undermining the rights of workers across this nation who are working hard to keep our country going at night and over the weekend. One Nation oppose globalisation, and they do this in general terms. Back in 2001, I was in the state parliament with two One Nation MPs who were elected when One Nation was last resurgent. Those two members of parliament, who were elected to the state upper house, did not last very long in One Nation. In fact, they split and formed parties of their own after a very short period of time. This is the kind of instability that electors in Western Australia are being asked to contemplate. I remember the rhetoric at the time coming from Paddy Embry, which clearly shows that One Nation has not changed in the last 20 years but that what has changed is the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party cannot seem to be consistent on this question—you do not even agree with one another.

I highlight the kind of chaos that we are contemplating in Western Australia at the next election, with the kind of preference arrangements that are being made. We have Treasurer Mike Nahan rejecting the National Party, saying he rejects their proposed mining tax and saying he will quit if forming government comes down to a deal with Brendon Grylls. That is what Treasurer Mike Nahan placed on the record last week. What we have heard in the chamber today also points to the chaos and dysfunction within Western Australia and, indeed, within the coalition nationally as they seek to govern with the support of One Nation to get their more erroneous policies through. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.