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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Regional Development (Senator Nash) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Well, what another pathetic performance from Senator Cash! What an absolute pathetic performance—not one question answered. The minister had to come here at the last minute and table an answer after her department was sent to go and find an answer for the incompetent minister. This is a minister that is absolutely sidetracked because her eligibility to be here is under question. This so-called minister was so incompetent that she couldn't stand up and deal with the questions that were asked. This is a minister incapable of answering any questions over the last period of time. There was incompetence and unprofessionalism from this minister. This is a minister that just cannot deliver for rural and regional—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi, a point of order?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron took note of the answers provided by Senator Nash and then went on to condemn the exemplary performance of Senator Cash. I'm just a bit confused. Senator Cameron, you are ranting about the wrong minister.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Bernardi. I'm very clear that Senator Cameron is taking note of answers from Senator Nash.

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

I thank Senator Bernardi. I did say 'Nash', but I could incorporate Senator Cash in what I've said—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, would you resume your seat please. Senator Hinch.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order: Senator Cameron did say 'Senator Cash'.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Hinch. I've dealt with that.

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

Well, the 'Human Headline' is in again! The 'Human Headline' is there with all the great help that this place needs—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, please resume your seat. Senator Bernardi.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will draw a point of order, because it is inappropriate to refer to senators in this place by anything other than their correct title.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Bernardi. I would ask Senator Cameron to withdraw.

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

I withdraw. That was a bit easier than earlier! This is a minister—Senator Nash with an 'N'—who is in absolute policy paralysis and absolutely distracted from operating as a capable minister. She has a total lack of accountability because she cannot even do her job. This is pathetic. Senator Nash has got dual citizenship issues before the High Court and her performance demonstrates why she should have stood aside. She should have done the same as Senator Canavan. Why is it Senator Canavan can stand aside and Senator Nash cannot? There is a huge double standard here. The National Party are so incompetent that they can't ensure that three of their ministers, the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator Canavan and Senator Nash, are actually eligible to be in this place representing their states. The National Party are so incompetent that they are trying to bluff and bluster their way through this whole affair.

This is a minister who has been reduced to a new level of ineffectiveness. The minister has not been very effective since she's been here, but we're now seeing a new low from this minister. Her ineffectuality underscores the National Party. She is unable to answer questions about the pork-barrelling that's going on in New England to try and save the seat of the Deputy Prime Minister, who may not be eligible to be in parliament. They are doing everything they can to cling to power in the lower house, because only one vote stands between them and disaster in the other place.

There are key issues facing rural and regional Australia. They should have ministers there that can concentrate on the issues, not ministers that are so distracted and so sidelined because they may not be eligible to be in this place. People in rural and regional Australia need help on ensuring penalty rates are in place to make sure they can afford a house, help to make sure that the TAFE system in rural and regional Australia is protected, and help to make sure that energy prices are dealt with. This lot cannot deal with any of that. They are so divided, so amateurish, so bad, such a rabble that they can't even get their act together to deal with the key issue of energy prices in this country, which they actually sent the Chief Scientist to go and look at.

The fundamental proposition, the key proposition from the Chief Scientist, was to put a clean energy target in place, yet this rabble of a government can't even get their act together to do that. And now we're seeing projects being announced in New England to try to save the hide of the Deputy Prime Minister—if the High Court determines that he is ineligible to be here. This is a coalition in disarray. This is a coalition that just do not have an answer for the key issues facing Australian people. (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is often said that, out of the overflow of the heart, so speaks the mouth. And what we have just heard is five minutes of personal denigration, hatred, nastiness—all those sorts of qualities that really are unbecoming of anybody in this chamber, let alone somebody who seeks to portray themselves as a frontbencher and an alternate minister in an Australian government. I just hope the Australian people who might read the Hansard or have listened to this broadcast stop to consider and ask themselves the question: would you really want such a person representing you in the high office of a government ministry?

We on this side are used to these tirades from Senator Cameron, but they do him and the Australian Labor Party a great injustice. What we on this side of the House are continuing to do is deal with the questions—and that is what Senator Nash is doing as well—dealing with the questions and issues confronting the Australian people. The Australian people want their government to be focused on international security—think North Korea. That is what the government's been doing with the Prime Minister in telephone conversations with the President of the United States, and our Minister for Defence has been making a tour of the region to ensure that our international security is guaranteed. What the Australian people want to know is that our national security is guaranteed—think border protection. That is what this government is focusing on: delivering national security for our fellow Australians. What the Australian people want us to be thinking about, talking about and delivering on is security of household budgets, how we can drive down the cost of living for our fellow Australians—think energy cost: the ever-burgeoning cost of energy and electricity for Australian households, Australian small business, Australian farmers and indeed our big manufacturers.

That is why the government is focused on ensuring that these issues are dealt with so that we can in fact undo the legacy issues of the idiotic ideology of the green movement, which has seen the complete compromise of our energy system. All we need to do is look at the hapless Labor government in South Australia, who bragged that on some days they can get 102 per cent of their energy from renewables. Of course, when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, their energy supply is zero—and they then wonder why they have blackouts. The Australian people also want their government to look at intergenerational fiscal equity—in other words, that we don't pass on a legacy of debt to the next generation, as the Australian Labor Party would have done with their irresponsible promises day after day after day.

These are the issues that Senator Nash, a very capable minister in the coalition government, is dealing with on a day-by-day basis. And what does the Labor Party say? They focus on an unfortunate issue in relation to citizenship, which will be resolved by the High Court in due course. But do you know what the Australian people want? They want Senator Nash—a very capable, competent minister—to keep on with the task of running the country, of governing in the best interests of the Australian people, and not be distracted by this particular issue. Of course, if we were to listen to the Australian Labor Party then the postal survey on whether or not we should change the definition of 'marriage' was going to be thrown out by the High Court. Well, the news is—it was hot off the press about one hour ago—that that prediction by the Australian Labor Party was completely false, and not just by a slim margin. It was 7-0. Once again, the Labor Party, in this area, have sought to play the game of spoiler, to deny the Australian people the opportunity to have a say. We, on this side, are saying: 'We trust the Australian people. We want them to have a say.' There's a great distinction between Labor and the coalition on all these issues. (Time expired)

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

I really wonder if there's any cognition of how desperately in need the Australian people are and how much failure is being demonstrated by this government. I asked a question about the Central Coast of Minister Nash today. On the Central Coast, youth unemployment is now at 17.3 per cent. The national average is a shameful 12.9 per cent, but it is 17.3 per cent on the Central Coast. That is why you'd think an investment in proper training for young people on the Central Coast would be so good. I specifically asked a question today about a grant of $2.7 million that has gone through the Community Development Grants to the Central Coast Group Training Ltd. I would like to put on the record a few detailed remarks about what's going on with that project.

In 2014, the Abbott government funded this $2.7 million shiny new training facility, supposedly to boost skills and employment opportunities. But, as revealed in the Newcastle Heraldyesterdayby award-winning journalist Joanne McCarthy, a great Central Coast resident herself, the building, which opened in 2016, is almost empty, with only three of the 10 light industrial bays actually operating. The Turnbull and Abbott government's complete waste of tax money is evident not only in the failure to have that operating but in a whole lot of probity questions around it that need to be scrutinised.

Central Coast Group Training chairman was none other than local Liberal mayor—now disgraced Liberal mayor—of Wyong, Doug Eaton. He is the council candidate who is up for this weekend's local government election as an independent—not endorsed by the Liberal Party, but certainly associated with them. Mr Greg Best is the manager of the Central Coast Training scheme. He was also on the council and very closely aligned with Mr Eaton. On Tuesday night, I spoke in this place about the seriously concerning links between Mr Eaton and Mr Best and their long association with another party called the Save Tuggerah Lakes Party—a puppet party created by Mr Eaton, who's on the record as having invested $1,500, as did his wife; and Mr Best invested $1,500, as did his wife. This is the council situation that's going on in the Central Coast.

With regard to the building, the Turnbull-Abbott government's decision to pay Mr Eaton's company to build this failed training facility raises serious questions about the conduct of the minister, especially given the site for this facility was leased by council, of course, when none other than Mr Eaton was the mayor himself. There are many more questions, and if I thought it were worth asking them in this place to get answers, I would. But the fact is that what we have seen from the minister is a complete inability to answer anything in any detail about the serious matters that have been raised with her in this place. But she's good at answering one question. When she's asked if they're doing anything wrong, she says, 'I reject that.' Let me put these questions on the record with regard to the Central Coast Group Training facility. Did the former member for Dobell, Ms McNamara, or the minister know that, when the Wyong mayor, Mr Eaton, was the chairman of the Central Coast Group Training, he would financially benefit from this construction? What discussions did the minister have with Mr Eaton about the development? I'm sure these further questions simply won't be answered by those opposite.

This facility represents, I think, another breach of faith with the people of the Central Coast in the context of these dodgy deals that are being done by the Liberal Party at multiple levels. I join with local community campaigners such as Jo and Laurie Eyes in calling for the Australian National Audit Office to conduct an audit of the Community Development Grants Program and investigate the government's decisions with regard to the Central Coast Group Training and this facility, which remains unattended. That is quite remarkable. I again repeat: with a 12.9 per cent youth unemployment rate on the coast, with a 17.3 per cent youth unemployment rate on the Central Coast, you'd think this place would be absolutely full. But there's something that really smells about this spending of money. If this facility were fulfilling its purpose, you could accept it. But the fact that it's operating at a third of its capacity, at best, is a very, very serious concern.

In the short time that remains to me, I want to put on the record my great concern about the fact that this government continues to say that there are no new commitments to the electorate of New England that have not yet been publicly announced. Well, the minister went on the record here today. We'll be holding her to account on that matter. (Time expired)

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of Minister Nash's answers to questions today. I said two days ago in this place that I had never been prouder of Minister Nash, and that is even more the case now. I am utterly ashamed of the tactics of those opposite in this matter over the last four days, and I'd like to go through exactly what those opposite have done this week. They have asked 17 questions of Minister Nash over the last four question times. It is absolutely their right to do that, but it is the way they do it and the nastiness and meanness of the intent of this. You can have a look at the questions. Every single day, that very smart and very nasty Labor tactics team have sat down and worked out, 'How do we get her today?'

What they did on Tuesday was ask Senator Nash five questions in a row, and they were very cunning: 'How do we try to make the minister lose her cool? How can we make her look bad? How can we get under her skin? We'll just ask the same question over and over and over again'—questions that Minister Nash answered on 17 August in great detail and that the Attorney-General reinforced on 18 August. So, this is their cunning plan. They had five female senators in this place, one after the other, who got up—Senators O'Neill, Kitching, Pratt, Collins and Bilyk—all asking the same nastily intentioned questions of the minister. The minister was calm, she was graceful and she answered those questions with great dignity. That was Tuesday.

The day before that, they did exactly the same thing. On the Monday, they had Senator Moore to Senator Nash, and Senators McAllister and Polley asking the same questions again, which were repeated five times on Tuesday. Then on Wednesday the Labor tactics team had this bright idea: 'Maybe we'll ask her some questions that are so obscure, one after the other, that she won't be able to answer the questions. We can question her integrity and what else she's doing or what she doesn't know.' So, on Wednesday there were questions not only within her portfolio but outside of her portfolio—five questions again, not seeking in any genuine way to get answers to these questions; it was all about ganging up and being completely horrid to a minister who has done absolutely nothing wrong. She has done absolutely the right thing. She's entitled to be here. Nobody except the Labor Party is suggesting that she is not entitled to be here as a minister. It is only those opposite.

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

We are!

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the Greens as well—I'll take that interjection. She is absolutely entitled to be here. The Solicitor-General has provided advice, and I would remind those in the chamber that his advice was spot on, as we saw today in relation to the same-sex marriage plebiscite.

So, that was Wednesday. And what did that cunning, nasty Labor tactics team do again today? 'Well, let's do what we did yesterday.' While we've got North Korea, high energy prices and other things facing this nation, for four days in a row they thought, 'Let's gang up on Fiona Nash, because we haven't quite beaten her up enough.' Again, there were four questions to her about regional grants, something that it is completely hypocritical for the Labor Party to ask about, because they absolutely, as the minister said, rorted that scheme. There was no pretence of accountability. You've done that four times in a row. All of you should be ashamed.

Another thing I would point out is that I absolutely know that women on this side would never, ever dream of ganging up. If a woman on any side of this chamber were in the situation that Senator Nash is in, we would not think it okay to get together and gang up on another woman just because we're women.

You imagine if we on this side did that to anybody on the other side of this chamber! It would be a national disgrace and a scandal. The fact that the Labor Party—and the Greens—think it is okay to treat a minister of this state in this way, and do it in a way that is directly relevant to her gender, is an absolute disgrace. Nobody else in this place, or even in the media, may have called it out but the tactics are very clear. It makes me utterly ashamed. Again, I'm very, very proud of Senator Nash, who you have mercilessly hounded this week. She has not even raised a sweat, and for that I am very proud to be not only a colleague of hers but also a friend.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would agree that in some regards Senator Nash didn't raise a sweat, but that's only because she didn't answer any of the questions. She goaded us and said to ask her about policy, but when we went to policy Senator Nash couldn't answer. The whole reason we had to spend so much time this week focused on Senator Nash—and this is something that Senator Reynolds didn't mention—is that she came in here and announced her dual citizenship five minutes before the Senate shut down last sitting week. The only opportunity we've had in this place to ask questions of Senator Nash has been this week. Absolutely there's been a consistent theme to them, because there's been a consistent nonanswer from Senator Nash.

There really are three parts to this that have been consistent, in my mind: (1) the lack of clarity from Senator Nash about decision making; (2) the difference between Senator Canavan, who stood down, and Senator Nash and the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, who are still holding their ministerial portfolios; and (3) the policy dysfunction and chaos that this government is responsible for.

Today we saw a lack of clarity when it comes to the decision making at the heart of this government and Minister Nash. We had no clarity into how those decisions are being made. It really does appear as if Senator Nash is a minister in name only. The only thing we could point to that has been close to a decision by this government has been the tender going out for roads project in New England, which is going to help only the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce. That's the only thing we could see that this minister has been a part of since it was announced that she has dual citizenship.

Again, we go to the point of being unable to see the difference between Senator Canavan, who stood down, and Senator Nash and the Deputy Prime Minister, who are still holding their ministerial portfolios. The only conclusion you can come to is that they are leading a protection racket for the Deputy Prime Minister. It's clear from the answers that we've seen—and I said earlier in the week that you start to feel a little bit sorry for Senator Nash—that she knows she is doing the wrong thing.

But the thing that really concerns me is the policy dysfunction and chaos. Senator Nash asked us to ask her about policy. We did that. We asked her about energy policy and we asked her about other issues in regard to her portfolio. Senator Reynolds said the questions were a bit unfair because they were too precise. Well, that's exactly what this minister should be across. She couldn't give us a coherent answer on energy. Over the last couple of days, we've asked significant questions about local regional communities, which this minister is responsible for, that she has been unable to answer.

There is another significant thing that goes to the chaos and dysfunction of this government, and we saw this in question time today. Senator Abetz touched on this as well. I think what he said was that he wants to focus on the questions and issues confronting the Australian people. What are the only two recent achievements of this government? They mentioned them both in question time. The only two recent achievements of this government revolve around sending two letters—one about marriage equality, the other one to energy consumers. This is the federal government of Australia. This is their record over recent months: two letters—one about marriage equality and one to energy consumers in regard to power prices. This is the record. This is the federal government of Australia, and this is what it's saying its record has been over recent months.

What's the common link between these two things? It is the weakness of the Prime Minister. The weakness of the Prime Minister is leading to the chaos and dysfunction on policy on his side. He wasn't able to stand up to his backbench when it comes to marriage equality. He was boxed into a corner. His way out of it was saying that we would have a postal survey. That is his record when it comes to marriage equality, something that he says he has believed in for a long time. He is now pursuing this survey for the Australian people. The other one is around energy. Unable to gain a commitment from his backbench about a clean energy target, he is out there looking for distractions. His most recent distraction has been repeated cups of tea. The outcome of them is a letter. That is all the Australian people are going to see from this between now and the end of the year. Power prices are going up. We're paying for an expensive survey because of the weakness and the ineptitude of this Prime Minister. It really is not good enough for the Australian people.

Question agreed to.