Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and the Public Service (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Chisholm today relating to the Morrison Government.

Now that I look at the words I've just said, I think I'm being extremely generous to Senator Fifield in describing his response to Senator Chisholm as an answer because this is the question that several government ministers have now found impossible to answer over the course of this week and, in fact, over the last couple of weeks, ever since they deposed, knifed, killed off—however you want to put it—former Prime Minister Mr Turnbull. More than two weeks have now passed since Senator Cormann, Senator Fifield, Senator Cash and a number of other government frontbenchers knifed former Prime Minister Turnbull. Over two weeks have passed since then and not one of them has yet been able to explain to the Australian people or to this chamber why they took the actions they did.

Senator Reynolds interjecting—

I can hear Senator Reynolds over there. She at least had the decency to stick by former Prime Minister Turnbull, and a number of her colleagues did as well, but not one of the ministers whom we've asked these questions of has yet been able to give an answer as to why they thought it was so important for the government—or for the country, more importantly—that former Prime Minister Turnbull be killed off.

Senator Cormann has laboured through a number of answers over the course of this week, regaling us with stories about how the Westminster conventions work. I can assure him that most of us, having come to the Senate, have a little bit of an idea about that and we don't need a civics lesson from Senator Cormann. Senator Fifield took the same measures today, referring to Westminster conventions and how the Liberal Party works, and proceeded to explain to Senator McKenzie how the coalition works and how the National Party get no say in who the Liberal Party leader will be.

The reason he did that was that Senator McKenzie on Q&A last night made the embarrassing admission that she had absolutely no idea why former Prime Minister Turnbull was knifed by the Liberal leader. We have not one government minister here able to explain why Mr Turnbull was knifed. The Deputy Leader of the National Party has no idea why Mr Turnbull was knifed. Is it any wonder that the Australian public are scratching their heads, struggling to understand why this government took the measure it did of killing off yet another Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, whom they all regarded as a massive disappointment but whom none disliked or hated in the same way they do former Prime Minister Abbott.

There's only one person, in fact, in this entire debate within the government who has carried himself with any decency, and that's the leader of the government in the House of Representatives, Mr Pyne. I'm sure members opposite will agree with my characterisation of Mr Pyne as a man of decency. Mr Pyne has at least had the good grace to admit that the question as to why so many government ministers decided it was important to kill off Mr Turnbull is a good question, and he has encouraged people to ask that question of those who took the knife to Mr Turnbull, which is exactly what we have been doing over the course of this week. Probably the best answer I've seen so far, or attempted answer that I've seen so far, from a government minister for why they had to kill off Mr Turnbull was from the new Prime Minister himself, Mr Morrison. This morning he was in the media trying to explain to people, 'We've been very good at the what but people want to know the why.'

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They do. They do want to know why.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know about you, Senator Keneally, but I had to read that statement several times to come even close to understanding what on earth he was going on about: the why, the why, the why. Clearly, Mr Morrison himself still doesn't know why he's the Prime Minister. He doesn't know why he's in government. He doesn't know why this government is still in government. They don't have any idea about what they want to achieve. What this means is that this is a government that is completely lost. They are hopelessly divided, they are leaking on each other day in, day out. Worse than that, they are lost about what they actually want to achieve for the Australian public. And who loses out of that? It's the Australian public, on the whole.

Australians, for too long under this government, have been suffering from wages that aren't growing, from job insecurity that is growing and from the fact that everything they have to spend money on keeps going up but their wages aren't keeping pace with that either. Their health care is falling in quality, their schools aren't getting the funding that they need and their power prices keep going up under a government that can't get an energy policy. One of these days this government is going to have to explain why they knifed Malcolm Turnbull— (Time expired)

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do appreciate Senator Watt's efforts in being a history teacher to us all, trying to rake over the coals of history rather than looking forward. I thought he was getting there towards the end of his contribution, when he started talking about issues that actually do matter to the people of Australia—the people of Queensland, the people of Far North Queensland, that he purports to represent—but instead we spent the entire time on a series of questions talking about the inside of politics, the things that they think matter to people, because they've read it in the paper or they've watched it on Sky News. They watched Credlin one Wednesday night, as I know Senator Keneally does, and they think that is what the real world is interested in—no. I have to give Senator Watt credit: he was getting there towards the end, talking about things like power prices, education and being able to ensure that Australians have jobs to go to so they can actually pay their bills, pay their power bills, pay their mortgages and send their kids to school. But, instead, as I say, the focus wasn't on that. There was a question that Senator Watt posed in his contribution just then—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why?

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and it was: 'Who's the biggest loser out of this?' I want to put it back on Senator Watt. The opposition—an opposition which is sent down here to try and hold the government to account—spent the entire time asking questions about things that don't matter to real people, the people out there—

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They want to know.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that interjection from Senator Brown. They want to know. Well, come out door knocking with me then, Senator Brown. Let's go. Let's take Senator Singh and we'll go doorknocking and we will see what people want to know about. They don't care about what happens down here. They want us to get on with our jobs and actually do things that improve their futures. The point I want to come to is: what is important? As was pointed out not only by Senator Fifield but by a number of other ministers that provided answers in response to a very similar question—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why?

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think Senator Watt should change his name to Senator Why. He keeps saying it, and I think it's probably more fitting—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How?

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator How, yes, true. We should look at the things that actually do matter—the achievements of this government. I'd love Senator Watt to get up and take note one day of all the good things that this government has been doing—for instance, the million jobs that have been created in this country since this government came to office in 2013. Why does he not—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: we're very tolerant on this side of the chamber, but there is persistent interjection, which you should be calling the opposition senators to order on.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. I remind senators that senators do have the right to be heard in silence. Please allow Senator Duniam to continue without interjection.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will try not to incite interjection. I'll go through some of the things that were referred to in question time today in response to what we, this side of the chamber—the government—think are important as opposed to insider political games, and as opposed to filling time slots on Sky News to try and add to the political intrigue, which is what so many opposite do. As I said, a million jobs have been created since 2013. That's more than 1,000 jobs per day. That's something I know that people want to know about. When I go doorknocking, as I did in Braddon, and as I did during the state election campaign, that's what people were talking about. They weren't talking about insider politics in Canberra. That wasn't of interest to them.

Although, if we are going to talk about insider politics, which is what the tone of the questions was about—and I know Senator Fifield made reference to this in his answer to Senator Chisholm's question—there was a bit of a history lesson in return, which I'm sure Senator Watt appreciated, about how collective decisions are made under the Westminster system. It is like the decision that was made in Tasmania over the weekend with regard to the Labor Senate ticket, which sadly saw Senator Singh relegated to the fourth position on the ticket again. If you want to start talking about this, we can go into what's going on in the Labor Party in Tasmania. We can talk about how Senator Singh, the most popular senator in Tasmania when it comes to the Labor side of politics, has been relegated to the fourth position, if you want to go over history.

As I said, I'd rather talk about the achievements of this government, including reducing the tax burden on the Australian people, which is a great achievement for small to medium businesses and is something that those opposite weren't too keen on at all. They thought, as I've said previously in this place, that taxpayers' money is better off in the pockets of government, so that they can spend it how they see fit: 'The government knows better than you, ladies and gentlemen of Australia! Let's rip it out of your hands and bring it down to Canberra, and we'll determine how it's spent.' That's something we reject. As has been reported on widely, this government has championed lowering taxes for small to medium businesses and indeed for individual Australian households. They know what is best. This government is listening, and we will do what is best for them, and that doesn't include playing political games—or as Senator Cormann said, political shenanigans—in Canberra. (Time expired)

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

() (): I also wish to take note of answers to questions asked of Minister Fifield, specifically the question of why Malcolm Turnbull is no longer the Prime Minister and why Scott Morrison is the 30th Prime Minister of Australia. Why? We are here today in this chamber, we were here yesterday and they were in the House yesterday and today, and no-one can answer this question. This is a question that remains unanswered. We heard last night on Q&A the Deputy Leader of the National Party, a minister in this Morrison government, Senator McKenzie, saying that she didn't know why the Liberal Party had changed their leaders. We've heard Christopher Pyne pose in public, on television—including even on Sky News, about which Senator Duniam seems so concerned as to whether it has enough people available to fill its interview slots. Christopher Pyne, on his own show on Sky News

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Keneally, I need to remind you to refer to those in the other place by their correct titles.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Senator Duniam might observe that Mr Pyne, in the House of Representatives, the member for Sturt, observes on Sky News that it's a very good question, why Scott Morrison is the Prime Minister, why Malcolm Turnbull is not the Prime Minister, and a question that has not been answered by those who have caused the insurrection and the instability within the Liberal Party. How does the foreign minister, Minister Marise Payne, explain to her counterpart in the United States, the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, why Malcolm Turnbull is no longer Prime Minister? How does she, in that first phone conversation, explain her position and what has happened to the former foreign minister, Julie Bishop? How does she explain that? Australia has got to explain to all its partners around the world why Scott Morrison is now the Prime Minister and why Malcolm Turnbull has been dumped by his own party.

It was incredibly interesting listening to Senator Duniam attempt, in his five minutes, to get to a list of achievements of this coalition government. Over the five-minute period he did manage to list two: job creation and reducing the tax burden. Let's take those in turn. When it comes to job creation, I would have thought that it did not need to be explained to the supposedly free market oriented Liberal Party that government does not create jobs—that is not what government does—and that the tax burden on ordinary Australians would be less under Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, and Labor's plan, and that the coalition walked into this Senate and voted against a greater tax cut for low- and middle-income people. This coalition voted against Labor's plan for those people.

So, it was interesting to listen to Senator Duniam attempt to get to some achievements of the coalition government under the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, because he didn't want to list too many, did he? If he lists too many achievements under Malcolm Turnbull's government, it makes Malcolm Turnbull sound like a good Prime Minister, which raises the question: why did they get rid of him? This is the problem the Liberal Party now has: how do they go about trying to own the supposed achievements of the Turnbull government yet maintain that Malcolm Turnbull needed to be dumped as Prime Minister? The reality is that they can't.

If you are going to seize the Prime Ministership of this great country, if you are going to put yourself forward as the leader, if you are going to do, as Scott Morrison says he has done, take charge—well, you'd better have a really good answer for the parliament and for the people of Australia about why you did it. If you don't have that, then how can people know why they should vote for you? Why would people decide to vote for a Prime Minister or a political party that can't even explain what they are doing occupying the office?

I just want to end on this point: Shaun Carney of the Herald Sun wrote:

In our latest coup, Morrison and his ministers have gone another way: they just refuse to say. To hear "ScoMo" tell it in parliament yesterday, he got there as if by magic.

It's not magic; it's dark arts. It's the dark arts of the internal division of the Liberal Party, and the people of Australia are the ones who are losing out under this miserable coalition government.

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

I, like other coalition senators, think it's time for Labor senators in this place to move on. What we heard about in question time today was very 24 August 2018. What people want to hear about and know about is: what are the plans for this government and what are the risks of the alternative government? I wish I was on the frontbench, because I will tell you why Malcolm Turnbull is not the Prime Minister. It's because some coalition people want the coalition to win the next election and beat Bill Shorten. That is the reason. That is the single reason. There's only one group of people in the whole country who care about the fact that Scott Morrison is the leader now, and that is the Labor Party, because, for the very first time in a while, the comfort zone that they were beginning to experience is evaporating. You know that you are about to have an electoral contest. You know that. You weren't going to have an electoral contest with Malcolm Turnbull. You were getting comfortable. You were getting ready for government. Only under Scott Morrison is Labor beginning to worry that the next election will be a very, very real contest.

Why do I want Scott Morrison as the leader of the Liberal Party? Because he will beat Bill Shorten. And why don't I want Bill Shorten to be the leader of the country? Because he'll impose higher taxes. He will slow down economic growth. Senator Keneally says: 'Oh! The coalition senators can't name any achievements.' I'll name 21 of them. This is a powerful insight into how Senator Keneally thinks. She thinks the coalition government's achievements are owned by one person. They're not owned by one person; they're owned by the coalition government.

Senator Keneally interjecting—

Senator Keneally, when you were the Premier of New South Wales, were the achievements of your government only your achievements? Were they not the achievements of your colleagues? It's a powerful insight into how Senator Keneally thinks. Watch this space, ladies and gentlemen. Watch this space.

The 21 reasons are: a stronger economy; more jobs; less welfare dependency; income tax relief; smaller tax cuts; instant asset write-offs; less red tape; more affordable energy; fixing the budget; record infrastructure spending; tackling union unlawfulness, and we'll come back to this in a moment; secure borders; fighting terror; a stronger Defence Force; more affordable child care; better health care; more school funding; supporting seniors; welfare to work; and lifesaving medicines. These are the achievements of the coalition government and the achievements of every cabinet minister and minister responsible for having delivered on those for the last five years. They're not the achievements of one man—not Tony Abbott alone, not Malcolm Turnbull alone, not Scott Morrison alone when he was the Treasurer—but the achievements of an entire government over five years.

It's only Labor that is worried about the new leader of the Liberal Party and the new leader of the coalition government. People should be very, very alert to the risks that a Labor government would present to this country. It's interesting that, in the last week, Labor could have talked about a number of things. They could have talked about the economy. Senator Duniam is absolutely correct in this. They could have talked about what they were willing to do or would be willing to do in government to tackle trade union unlawfulness—or, put less politely, trade union bullying. These are not accusations that coalition senators make against the trade union movement or against Labor senators, but accusations, comments or observations that are made by court judges themselves.

I'm not someone who wants to spend another moment talking about accusations of bullying in this parliament, because what Australians absolutely hate is hypocrisy. Everyone's performance, everyone's personal conduct in this place, without exception, can always be improved upon. The best way to do that is not to approach it with— (Time expired)

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

What we saw in the chamber today in question time—more than two weeks on from the change in the leadership when they tore down the previous Prime Minister—was that they still can't answer a very, very simple question, and that is: why do we have a new Prime Minister? Why do the Australian people have to put up with an illegitimate Prime Minister, someone they didn't vote for? The reason those opposite can't answer that question is: they've all got different reasons as to why it happened, so they can't actually agree as to what the reason was.

There are basically four different motivations from those opposite for why they tore down Malcolm Turnbull and foisted upon us and installed an illegitimate Prime Minister in Scott Morrison. Let's explore those four reasons. There are basically four groups. We know them quite well.

First there are the anyone-but-Turnbulls. We know those ones; there's former Prime Minister Abbott, and in this chamber they're represented by Senator Abetz. They would basically vote for anyone but Malcolm Turnbull. If the alternative to Malcolm Turnbull was Mickey Mouse, they'd vote for Mickey Mouse—or for a muppet, I should say, given how they've described it. We know their motivation, because basically their careers or their ministerial careers ended on the day that Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister all those years ago. So that's their motivation.

Then we have those who run with them, who are basically on the extreme right of the Liberal Party. They just can't stand anything that Malcolm Turnbull, the former Prime Minister, supposedly stood for. So they were never ever going to cop him, and they have used every opportunity they've had to undermine the government. So they're the second group, basically.

Then the third group were the Dutton backers. They are probably the saddest group of all, because they, at some stage, must have thought that Peter Dutton, the minister, would make a good Prime Minister. That's actually quite scary. It probably says a fair bit about Malcolm Turnbull and how useless he was as a Prime Minister that there was a group opposite, the third group, who thought that Peter Dutton, as Prime Minister, would do a better job.

Then there's the fourth group, the Turnbull supporters, who obviously stuck with Malcolm Turnbull until the end. We know that there was some toing and froing from the Senate leader, Senator Cormann, in that regard. At the end of the day he wasn't part of that group. But there were others in this chamber and in the other place who stuck loyally to the former Prime Minister.

If you think about those four groups, they've all got such different motivations. Up through the middle came the current Prime Minister—the current, illegitimate Prime Minister in Scott Morrison. But none of them can actually agree as to how or why he got there. That's the fundamental problem that they have. That's why they can't actually answer this question as to why we have a new Prime Minister.

The Australian public deserve so much better. You need to be honest with them. You need to actually say why we got rid of the former Prime Minister. Explain the reasons why. Be up-front and honest with the Australian people. They deserve better than what you mob are giving them at the moment. What we know—and this goes to those four groups I talked about and to the dysfunction of the Liberal Party—is that, no matter what the issue is, they are completely dysfunctional. We also saw today that the coalition government is dysfunctional as well. Senator McKenzie, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, was unable to provide any clarity on TV on Q&A last night or in this chamber today. So you've got the Liberals, who can't answer the question about why we have this illegitimate Prime Minister. You've got the Nationals, who aren't providing any support to them. And the Australian public are, subsequently, being treated like mushrooms.

What we know with the coalition and the Liberal Party is that they are completely divided. They're split when it comes to leadership, they're split when it comes to personality and they're split when it comes to policy. We know that they have been focused on their own internal divisions for more than two years now. The Australian people democratically elected the Prime Minister just over two years ago. Yet they've disposed of him and they provide no justification and no explanation to the Australian people. The Australian people deserve so much better than what the Liberal Party has dished up in the last two weeks since they disposed of the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.

When it comes to the illegitimate Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, we know what his record is. We know he stands for cuts to health and education. We know that he opposed a banking royal commission 26 times. We know he supports tax cuts for big banks and big business. That is a continuation of what the Turnbull government stood for. That's all we're seeing when it comes to the new Prime Minister, Scott Morrison.

Question agreed to.