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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Ketter today relating to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (Queensland).

It wouldn't be a Senate sitting week without some exercise in semantics by Senator Brandis, and today's exercise involved asserting that despite there being absolutely no dispute whatsoever that the LNP in Queensland intends to preference One Nation ahead of Labor in 49 seats—I'll repeat that: One Nation ahead of Labor in 49 seats—the Attorney-General is willing to come into this chamber and say that there is no deal. He said this, I gather from his answer, on the basis that there's no agreement about a shared ministerial role and no agreement about a coalition of any kind. But it really doesn't negate the basic fact, which is this: in Queensland, the LNP has chosen to put One Nation ahead of Labor in 49 different seats, thus significantly increasing the chances that One Nation may play a significant role in the next parliament in Queensland. The practical consequence is that they're just rolling out the red carpet for One Nation there, just as they did in Western Australia and just as they did, I might say, in this chamber when they insisted on forcing through a set of reforms to the way the Senate is elected, which gave rise, in the full Senate election, to having three One Nation representatives sitting on the crossbench.

I say to coalition members, some of whom I am certain will be very concerned about this: you ought to be very, very cautious about bolstering the political opportunities for One Nation. However, you don't need political advice from me; you can make up your own minds. My concern is what they're doing to Australian public policy, because they are absolutely clear on what they think about Australia's multicultural society. They were very clear about their position back in July. They said:

Multiculturalism has failed everywhere. It is negative and divisive, a weight that is drowning our once safe and cohesive society. One Nation will abolish multiculturalism …

Shame on them for laying the blame for Australia's problems at the feet of our ethnic communities. We couldn't find harder workers or more loyal citizens than our ethnic communities. And shame on One Nation for asserting that in their election material. But the greater shame lies with the LNP, willing to give One Nation a leg-up into the Queensland parliament.

One Nation have also promised to abolish the Racial Discrimination Act. In a week where Australians have overwhelmingly rejected discrimination, how extraordinary it is that the coalition is willing to tolerate arrangements that politically support a party committed to removing one of the most important protections against race based discrimination. It's absolutely shameful. The reassurances from Senator Brandis really ring hollow, because, in the end, you can talk all you like about how committed the coalition is under Malcolm Turnbull, supporting multiculturalism—blah, blah, blah—but the practical truth is that, through their political actions, their party will go to voters in Queensland, just a short while from now, and say to them, 'We recommend that you preference One Nation above Labor. We recommend that you cast your vote in a way that will maximise the opportunities for One Nation to enter parliament.' I can tell you what the people of New South Wales will think. Fifty-four per cent of people in New South Wales have one or both parents born overseas, and they understand absolutely that when One Nation make derogatory comments about multicultural communities and talk about winding back protections for multicultural communities, they're talking about them—the multicultural communities in my state of New South Wales.

One person who might want to give a bit of thought to how he's going explain this position is Mr Alexander. As I understand it, John Alexander intends to stand again in the seat of Bennelong, where there'll be a by-election on 16 December. Mr Alexander will have to explain to the 75 per cent of people in Bennelong who've got one or both parents born overseas why it is that his party associates itself so closely with One Nation when an election is going on in Queensland and why it associates itself with One Nation here in this chamber, allowing them to shape and drive a coalition policy that is hostile to multiculturalism and hostile to multicultural communities. I tell you what—I don't think they're going to be very forgiving of such a position.

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

Isn't it telling that the Australian Labor Party, in moving after question time that the Senate take note of an answer, should deal in pure politics and not policy. They have an incapacity to deal with the issues confronting the Australian people, like jobs, job creation and the cost of living. And why don't they want to address those issues? Because they know that their track record in Queensland is abysmal, and therefore they will seek to talk about any issue other than those that really matter to the Australian people and, on this occasion, to the people of Queensland. It was interesting that the Labor senator opposite referred to the contest that is about to occur in the seat of Bennelong between that excellent Liberal candidate John Alexander and another former, failed Labor Premier. It reminds me of that former, failed Labor Premier Peter Beattie, who tried to contest a seat in Queensland and failed. Similarly, Kristina Keneally, the Labor candidate in Bennelong, should also fail because she was a failed Premier in New South Wales, leading the Labor Party to the biggest defeat ever of any political party in that state. Of course, she had under her nose and served with three ministers that were referred for corruption. So thank you for the opportunity to remind the electors of Bennelong not to worry about the nonsense that the Labor senator talked about and to remind them of the quality of candidates that they can choose between at the forthcoming by-election in the seat of Bennelong.

In relation to this silly issue that has been raised—not jobs, not job creation, not cost of living, but this alleged deal on One Nation preferences—let's be very clear: no deal has been done. No deal has been done, so for the Australian Labor Party to continually assert that a deal has been done is to seek to run another 'Mediscare' campaign on the people of Queensland. It is simply untrue. I learnt a long time ago, as a young lawyer, that the mere repetition of a false assertion does not obviate the need for facts. Clearly not a single fact was offered in that five-minute speech by the Labor senator as to why she asserts that a deal has occurred. No evidence. Why? Because no deal has been made.

If we do want to talk about One Nation in Queensland, if a Labor Queensland senator were to join this debate he may tell us how the Labor Party won the seat of Herbert at the last federal election. The honourable senator would be telling us how One Nation preferences delivered the seat to the Australian Labor Party. Here they are, gathering in the One Nation preferences and winning seats on that basis, and then saying, 'This is a bit embarrassing; what do we do?' Rather than fessing up to what they do, they seek to assert that that is what the Liberal Party does.

What is more, Senator Hanson herself has indicated that the Australian Labor Party contacted One Nation asking One Nation to run dead in Labor seats. Talk about sleazy deals! They tried to do a deal with One Nation. It appears as though they've been rejected. They've never repudiated or denied that which Senator Hanson has asserted—that Labor tried to do a deal with One Nation. They got rejected, so what is their defence? They falsely assert that the Liberal National Party has sought to make such a deal—a deal that does not exist; there is not a single shred of evidence in support of that false assertion. Yet again the Australian people get an insight into the Labor Party—false assertions and an incapacity to deal with the real issues of the day: jobs and cost of living.

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

As a Queensland senator, the only Tasmanians who are going to lecture me about Queensland are my mum and dad. That also clears up my citizenship at the same time; they were both born in Tasmania. This debate is actually all about jobs, health and education. That's what it is all about. We know what happens when those opposite do deals with One Nation—workers are the losers. They lose industrial rights and there are health cuts and education cuts. That's the consequence of these deals. When this government and the LNP do deals with One Nation, that's what we see.

As Senator McAllister highlighted, the support for multiculturalism from those opposite is just words. In question time we spoke about One Nation's policy to abolish multiculturalism. This is how One Nation describes multiculturalism:

It is negative and divisive, a weight that is drowning our once safe and cohesive society.

That is how One Nation described multiculturalism. We know that Senator Brandis has previously reprimanded Senator Hanson for ridiculing the Islamic community and said it was an appalling thing to do, but, given the opportunity in question time today, Senator Brandis failed to do it. He failed to do it in regard to One Nation and he failed to do it in regard to his Queensland LNP comrades and Tim Nicholls.

This is part of a pattern of behaviour from Senator Hanson over many years. We know she has attacked Asians. We know that she has attacked foreign students, who are economically important for Australia. She has consistently attacked multiculturalism as well. It really is concerning that Senator Brandis failed to condemn Tim Nicholls and the LNP for their decision to preference One Nation in 49 seats.

The arrangements between the LNP and One Nation have consequences. One Nation had four senators elected, but there are now three, as Senator Anning left earlier. We have seen in this chamber One Nation vote with their coalition partners 85 per cent of the time. They voted for antiworker industrial relations laws. They voted for cuts that have impacted on pensioners and those who can least afford it. The concern is that this is what is coming to Queensland, because the decision from the LNP to preference One Nation in 49 seats is going to mean that there are more One Nation MPs elected in Queensland. That is going to have consequences for Queensland if they form a government with Tim Nicholls after Saturday week. We have to imagine the damage that will do to Queensland.

What we have seen at the federal level over the last 12 months will apply to Queensland—their antiworker agenda. We know what they did when they were elected in 2012. We know the cuts they made, the job losses, the cuts to health, the cuts to education and the antiworker agenda. We know the importance of ethnic communities in Queensland as well. This decision they are dismissive of will have real consequences in Queensland. It is not the first time the LNP have done it. Over many years they have done deals with One Nation and they have suffered a price. That's why they're denying it. That's why they're saying there is no deal—because they know how damaging electorally it is.

What are Senator Brandis and Tim Nicholls going to say to the Vietnamese community in Mount Ommaney? What are they going to say to the Taiwanese community in Mansfield? What are they going to say to the Vietnamese community and the Taiwanese community in Mansfield about their deal with One Nation? What are they going to do with the Chinese community in Toohey as well? This is what the decision of One Nation has done. Let alone the growing Indian community throughout Brisbane, particularly in Chatsworth—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Indians don't vote for you either.

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

That's a very arrogant attitude from Senator Brandis. This is what they don't like. The LNP will be held to account for their decision to preference One Nation in Queensland.

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

After question time in this take note of answers debate you've got to love it when you smell a whiff of hypocrisy floating over to this side of the chamber. I have to say that, of all the cheeky things those opposite have said in this chamber, what I just heard from the previous two Labor speakers really does take the cake. Instead of coming in here and talking about jobs and development for Queensland in the state election, as we predicted they came in and absolutely failed to tell the truth.

First of all, I will make it very clear: there is no preference deal between the LNP and One Nation in Queensland. Any suggestion that there is is just simply untrue, no matter how often they suggest that in this chamber rather than talking about Queensland jobs. The LNP have made their position very clear: no deals, no coalition, no shared ministry. But listening to Senator Chisholm then reminded me of an exchange in this chamber with Senator Hanson earlier this year. While Senator Chisholm is no longer in the chamber, I will still read this out, because it absolutely puts paid to the lie perpetrated by those opposite in question time and now in take note of answers. Senator Hanson absolutely belled the cat in the Senate earlier this year, on what we've just heard from Senator Chisholm. Senator Hanson said:

Isn't it amazing what comes across this chamber? Wow, you must be really worried about One Nation, because you have spent your time on this—

as they have again today and not on jobs—

that a preference deal had been done. The whole fact is that Labor have approached One Nation for preferences.

Senator Dastyari, if you recall, you said:

No, we haven't.

Senator Hanson replied:

You do not want to talk about that. How about Evan Moorhead, the Queensland state secretary?

That is, the state secretary of the Labor Party. Senator Chisholm, who was just in here saying something completely different, said:

We'll put you last.

Senator Hanson then replied:

You should know him, Senator Chisholm; you were a former state secretary in Queensland. He—

that is, Evan Moorhead, the Queensland ALP state secretary—

called up my staff on 25 January this year and wanted to do a grubby deal with us. Listen to this: Evan Moorhead wanted One Nation to run dead in all Queensland Labor seats and in return Labor would run dead in One Nation strongholds or in seats they had no chance of winning. So don't talk about grubby deals.

How short your memories are on the other side! Instead of talking about Labor's policy for jobs and job creation in Queensland, again, as we expected, you have come in and made accusations about things that are simply not true. But I think you must have forgotten that we actually rang that bell in here earlier on. We found out who was the one who was trying to do preference deals with One Nation, and it was not the LNP; it was Evan Moorhead, the Queensland state Labor secretary. How short your memories are!

It doesn't stop there. Instead of talking about jobs and job creation in this chamber and making sure that countries like India use the cleanest possible coal—which is Australian coal—the Queensland Labor Party, who previously absolutely supported the project, have now, surprise, surprise, bowed to the Greens and turned their backs on Central Queensland for inner Brisbane seats. Queensland Labor had promised voters that they supported the Adani Carmichael mine and the tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs that would go with it. In fact, on 18 February last year the Hon. Curtis Pitt, Treasurer for Queensland, wrote to Josh Frydenberg, the then minister for northern Australia. Guess what he said? Guess what the Queensland Labor minister said to Josh Frydenberg? He acknowledged that the Queensland government must be a legal conduit for the NAIF, that the government would continue to support the NAIF's objectives, and provided a list of projects that was to be assessed by the NAIF. Guess what? This project was on that list. In May this year, the Treasurer affirmed that the Queensland government would uphold its responsibilities should any NAIF loan be given to Adani. Well, well, how times have changed! (Time expired)

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

I want to acknowledge the very lovely contribution that Senator Reynolds made earlier today—it does feel like it's been more than one day!—on the issue of marriage equality. I want to acknowledge that before tearing apart the slanderous arguments she's been making since.

Senator Reynolds interjecting—

You started off well and it's been downhill since then. When is this government going to stop running a protection racket for One Nation—when? We saw what happened today. We are at a point now where questions are being written by the government for One Nation. Senator Reynolds is about to leave. I was going to make some fantastic rugby references but, unfortunately, I barely understand how that sport works, unlike you, Senator Reynolds. So I will not make an analogy.

But what I do want to say is this: One Nation has been given a blank cheque by this government time and time again. What is happening in Queensland is a precursor of what is to come—a 49-seat preference deal. It does not pass the believability test to turn around and say, 'There's no deal; it's just a coincidence'—just a coincidence that, in 49 seats of the 58 they're even bothering to contest, One Nation are preferencing the Liberal National Party. That's not a coincidence; that's a deal. That's what a deal looks like. I'm not sure it's a good deal but it's definitely a deal. One Nation are a dangerous, dangerous change to the type of political debate we're having in this country, and the step-up that they've been given by preference deals from the Liberal Party should be very, very concerning. On the weekend I was out in Sydney in the federal electorate of Bennelong.

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

I was in Bennelong on Saturday. It is an amazing community. I don't know why Senator McKenzie is saying such horrible things about it.

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

I withdraw that. Senator McKenzie was making a reference to regional Victoria.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you withdraw that?

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

No; she was making a reference to regional Victoria. That was actually true.

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

Senator Dastyari, please address your comments through the chair.

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

Speaking to cafe owners and local shop owners and getting them to sign a petition highlighting the preference deal that has now been done between the LNP and One Nation, there was just horror from these amazing multicultural communities in Sydney that the LNP up in Queensland can act so differently to how the Liberal Party has acted previously. The former member for Bennelong John Howard, the former Prime Minister—again, not someone I necessarily agree with on many points—at least had the strength to rule out preference deals with One Nation. Malcolm Turnbull, the so-called giant of the Liberal Party, hasn't even been prepared to pick up the phone and order the Queensland branch to not do deals with One Nation—something John Howard, as Prime Minister, was prepared to do. We will expose the hypocrisy of what the Liberal Party in Sydney and in our multicultural centres say about multiculturalism, say about ethnic communities and say about our migrant communities, and we will expose the reality of the decisions and the deals they make in places like Queensland.

Today, we saw how close the relationship between One Nation and the Liberal Party has become. We see it time and time again. We see it when Senator Hanson gets dragged into Senate estimates to run protection for Minister Cash. We see it in the types of questions, and how the questions are asked, between Senator Canavan and Senator Hanson and we see it very, very clearly in the preference deal that sees 49 seats. Senator Chisholm touched on this point earlier, but these things don't just happen by chance and they have consequences. The consequence is going to be a huge One Nation presence in the Queensland parliament, which is bad for democracy, bad for multiculturalism and bad for the vision of Australia that many of us have.

Question agreed to.