Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, three proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Gallagher:

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

'The Prime Minister's ongoing failure to show leadership.'

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

The proposal being supported, I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I'll ask the Clerks to set the clocks accordingly.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think everyone in this chamber recognises that the summer we've seen has been one of the most dreadful on record, particularly in relation to the bushfires that this country has seen. Yesterday, of course, we devoted the day to a condolence motion to recognise those who lost their lives in these fires—33 Australians, including nine firefighters—and I commend everyone on the speeches that they made yesterday.

During my contribution to that debate, I recognised that a condolence motion was not the place to talk about some of the gross failures of leadership that we saw from the Prime Minister and this government in the lead-up to the fires, during the fires and in their response to the fires, but I did say that it is something that needs to be discussed. This government does need to be held to account for its failures in relation to these fires, and I intend to use this debate to do that today.

The truth is that this Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, displayed an unbelievable lack of leadership before, during and after the bushfires. As has been said by many commentators and many Australians that I've spoken to, natural disasters and other significant events tend to be the time when our leaders actually stand up. That's when leadership tends to come to the fore. Even people who would otherwise be seen as fairly mediocre leaders find an extra gear during national disasters and really demonstrate leadership, pull the nation or their state together and show a way forward. They inspire people, ensure that people have the confidence and the comfort to know that they can get through it, and then forge a path out of those disasters or other significant events afterwards.

Some of the better leaders that Australia has seen have come to the fore during natural disasters. Even just in recent times there was Kevin Rudd during the Black Saturday fires and Anna Bligh during the 2011 Queensland floods. It's been done on all sides of politics. I will give John Howard credit for the leadership that he showed after the Port Arthur massacre. Even during these fires, we have seen incredible leadership from a number of figures—again, not restricted to one side of politics. The New South Wales Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, I think has been recognised as having demonstrated leadership; the Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews, I think has been recognised similarly. Of course, some of the officials in charge of the response to the fires, including Shane Fitzsimmons, the head of the Rural Fire Service in New South Wales, and so many ordinary Australians have shown leadership. Whether they be firefighters, volunteers who have fed the firefighters and done other volunteering jobs or people who've cared for wildlife, so many ordinary Australians whose names we will never know have shown true leadership through these fires.

But there was one person who the entire nation would have expected to demonstrate leadership during these fires who comprehensively failed to do so. Of course, that was the Prime Minister. If there is one person in this country that you would expect to show leadership during an almost nationwide natural disaster, it's the Prime Minister. But what did we see from this Prime Minister? In the lead-up to the fires, he did nothing to prevent them. In the planning and the preparation for these fires, as is so often the case with this do-nothing government, he did nothing. When the fires hit, he went missing in action—unseen, unavailable and nothing to say to the Australian people. When he did eventually have to face up to what was happening with these fires, rather than take responsibility, he tried to blame others and, as we have come to expect from this Prime Minister, he was loose with the truth. He demonstrated the very opposite of leadership.

Again, this is not something that has just been observed by people who are political opponents of the Prime Minister. A recent opinion piece by Niki Savva, a former adviser to Liberal governments, said:

Elections are not tests of prime ministers. They are tests of politicians and their campaign skills. Scott Morrison passed that with honours last May. National crises are the true tests of prime ministers and leadership. The sad truth is that Morrison faltered and stumbled, miserably, sometimes seemingly wilfully, at almost every critical point during this rotten summer beginning with his ill-­advised holiday to Hawaii.

That was not a Labor person. That was one of the Liberal Party's long-time advisers with an absolutely scathing assessment of this Prime Minister's leadership.

I understand today the Prime Minister was asked what he learned about leadership over the summer. His response was: 'Always to listen, always show up and always put Australians first.' My question is: why did it take a natural disaster for this Prime Minister to learn that leadership involves listening to people? Why did it take a disaster that has claimed the lives of 33 people for this Prime Minister to learn that leadership means showing up? Why did it take the loss of 3,000 homes, one billion animals and over 10 million hectares of bushland for the Prime Minister to learn that leadership means putting Australians first?

This is not just political rhetoric. The Prime Minister's lack of leadership has had serious consequences. His actions, his lack of leadership, placed Australians at risk, placed our economy at risk and placed our environment at risk. The truth is that this Prime Minister comprehensively failed the test of leadership in planning for the bushfires, in responding to the bushfires and, as we are already seeing, in recovering from these bushfires.

Time does not permit me to go through every example of that failure of leadership from the Prime Minister, but I will remind the Senate of some of the more notable ones. When it comes to the planning and preparation for these bushfires, the Prime Minister cannot say that he wasn't warned that this was coming. One of the things that came out over the Christmas break was that the incoming government briefs from the Department of Home Affairs provided to the government after the May election warned about the serious risk this country faced from bushfires. So, if they didn't know about it before the election, they certainly did afterwards. The CRC for bushfire and natural disaster research, which the government hasn't committed funding to into the future, issued its August outlook and warned of an above-average fire risk for Australia this bushfire season.

Then, of course, there were the ex fire chiefs who repeatedly sought to meet with the Prime Minister to inform him of the risk that we faced and provide him with some solutions about what could be done to mitigate that risk. They wrote to the Prime Minister in April, seeking a meeting. They never got a response. They wrote to the Prime Minister again in September—no response. And he still hasn't met with them. Even after these fires, he's not willing to swallow his pride and meet with people, dozens of people, who have decades of experience in fighting these kinds of fires.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Arrogance.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is arrogance, Senator Polley, from the Prime Minister. What would they have told him if he had deigned to meet with people with decades of experience in fighting fires? Just one thing of the many things they would have told him was the need for more water-bombing aircraft in this country. They weren't the first to make this point. The National Aerial Firefighting Centre, which coordinates water bombers across this country, first requested funding from this government four years ago. Four years ago they asked for funding to increase the firefighting fleet. No response. They submitted a business case to this government seeking a permanent funding increase two years ago. I knew about it. I'm the shadow minister; I'm not the government. I knew about this request and I asked about it in estimates last year. They didn't respond to it then. It was nine months after Labor made an election commitment to have more water-bombing aircraft and it was six weeks after the opposition leader, Mr Albanese, asked for more firefighting aircraft before the government responded—and it was months after the fires began.

This is one of many examples that I could give, and I could reel off examples of the government and the Prime Minister failing the leadership test in the response and the recovery as well. There will be more time to do that in the future. This Prime Minister comprehensively failed the leadership test over this summer. His actions have put Australia at risk. He needs to show leadership in the future. (Time expired)

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

What a tawdry display of petty partisan politics the Senate has just been subjected to by Senator Watt, allegedly a leading light of the Australian Labor Party, coming as he does from the state of Queensland, which gave the Labor Party—what was the primary vote at the last election?

This motion is not about the fires; it is about leadership. Leadership is the ability to direct and motivate others to achieve individual and team goals. And, can I say, Mr Morrison delivered by the bucket-load in relation to that on 18 May. When the Australian Labor Party thought that they were going to sail into office, virtually unopposed, the simple fact is that Mr Morrison was able to ensure that individuals won their seats and that the people of Australia, in listening to the messages that he had on offer, in comparison to the Labor Party, switched their vote from that which Labor thought was going to be theirs over to the coalition. That is why the Australian Labor Party continues to sit on the opposition benches.

Now, let's be very clear: Senator Watt just delivered 10 minutes of diatribe against the Prime Minister, saying what a failure the Prime Minister is. In that 10 minutes, not a single nanosecond was spent on what the Labor Party might have done in the event that they were in office. There was no alternative to offer the Australian people. Of course, when it comes to the specific issue of fires, who is responsible for fire management? Who is responsible for land management? Who is responsible for fuel reduction burns in the forests? It is the state governments.

Who is responsible for asking the federal government to get involved in these issues? It is the specific state governments, and they have all agreed that everything which was asked of the federal government in the circumstances of the fires was, in fact, delivered.

But this motion, as it's put before us, is a general statement alleging the Prime Minister's ongoing failure to show leadership. Well, I knew this Prime Minister before he was Prime Minister. He didn't show any leadership at all, did he, on border protection, something that Labor failed to deliver on time and time again! Mr Morrison delivered on border protection, showing leadership, going against what the Australian Labor Party said. Labor said it couldn't be done; Mr Morrison stood up and delivered for the Australian people. That is what leadership is—doing what is right in circumstances when everybody else is throwing stones at you, something that the left-wing media in this country and the Australian Labor Party are so very good at.

Of course, the leadership that is required in this nation is not to throw rocks—as the Australian Labor Party do—because that is not leadership. It is to set out an alternative. And so why didn't Senator Watt spend a nanosecond of his speech telling us about the alternative Labor agenda? Because he can't. Where do they stand on negative gearing? Where do they stand on franked dividends? Where do they stand in relation to coalmining in Australia? They had their leader go up to Queensland and say, 'I support coalmining' and then go down to Victoria and say, 'I don't support coalmining'—and then they wonder why the Australian people say there is a lack of leadership and direction within the Australian Labor Party. Can I say that those people that might be listening in to this debate would be a lot more interested in hearing Senator Watt and the Australian Labor Party telling us about their alternative policies: what they would do if they were in government, and why people should vote for them because their alternative is so much better. But no, all it was was the typical vacuous vitriol that the Labor Party are so good at throwing across the chamber. They are incapable of providing a genuine alternative to the people of Australia.

Let's be very clear: the leadership of Mr Morrison has protected our borders, helped us get our budget back into shape in such a manner that we are now able to face the elements of the fires, a coronavirus and those curve balls that are thrown up for us from time to time. And the resilience of our budget is courtesy of budget management, which was very much part of Mr Morrison's portfolio prior to becoming Prime Minister. And now, as Prime Minister, there has been a legacy of leadership by Mr Morrison that the Labor Party simply drool over, because they don't know what leadership is. Mr Shorten was their great leader—dumped, pushed aside—and now it's Mr Albanese, without any vision for the future, without any alternative to provide to the Australian people. The great authority that Senator Watt seeks to quote is a person who is on the public record as saying that, as a journalist, she had lied and made up sources. That is the sort of person that Senator Watt has to rely on to try to give a single feather to his wing—but, can I tell you, that single feather won't get this motion to fly, especially when it is such a stripped feather in relation to questions of integrity. When someone themselves admits that that is how they operated as a journalist, and you then seek to quote them as a great authority—that's indicative of how little information and how little support there was for the proposition that Senator Watt is seeking to put to this chamber this evening.

The simple fact is that the Prime Minister has shown leadership on every single occasion, on every portfolio that he has held, and, what's more, his leadership has been supported by the Australian people in the only poll that counts, and that was on 18 May. We saw the sinking faces of the Labor people. My good friend Senator Wong and others who were doing the commentary started the night with a big grin, especially the ABC commentators looking forward to a Labor win. Of course, by the end of the evening, they were looking extremely glum and upset.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is very unbecoming of you, Eric!

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

Senator Watt, interjecting as he does, having got 22 per cent of the primary vote in his home state of Queensland, looked extremely glum, and with good reason. And what was the reason? Most sensible commentators said of the leadership of Mr Morrison that he had pulled the government through by standing firm, by not listening to all the commentariat, all the Labor brickbats that were thrown at him—by simply holding a course knowing that what he was saying and what he was doing was the right formula for the benefit of the Australian people.

That is what we are now continuing to deliver: good, sound economic management; decisive action in relation to the coronavirus; decisive action in retaining strong borders; decisive action in maintaining a good budget position. You can go through the list: committing to the reduction of power prices; reducing welfare dependency; modernising our Defence Force; a record level of infrastructure investment; further investment in our schools and hospitals; standing up for our interests and sovereignty on the world stage. The list literally goes on: opposing union business; establishing a task force to protect against foreign interference. This is a list of actual achievements, of actual leadership, of the sort of leadership that the Australian people voted for, wanted and are benefiting from as a result of that which Mr Morrison is delivering for the Australian people.

I simply say to the Australian Labor Party that throwing rocks is not a substitute for a sound policy formula which might actually excite the interests of the Australian people. If you want to be a fair dinkum player on the Australian political stage, you can't just throw rocks and engage in vitriol. You've got to engage in genuine public policy development and ensure that the Australian people support you. That is what Mr Morrison achieved on 18 May. (Time expired)

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Crisis can bring about the best in people, and indeed it has brought out the best in our communities this summer. But sadly it has also brought out the worst in the Prime Minister of Australia. What we needed during this bushfire and climate disaster was courageous, truthful and wise leadership. What we got from the Prime Minister and this government was the exact opposite. They have been cowardly, dishonest and incompetent. Full of science deniers, they have behaved like a bunch of climate criminals, with 'Scotty from marketing' at their head.

Even before he fled to Hawaii, the Prime Minister showed himself completely incapable of any sort of leadership. He refused to give payments to volunteer firefighters until he was dragged to the table. He refused to meet with former emergency services chiefs who were trying to warn him about this impending disaster. He refused to acknowledge that the climate crisis had made bushfires more frequent and more intense. Instead, he sent his ministers off to block global climate action in Madrid. He put a misogynistic, climate-denying MP on international television. He behaved pathetically in the community, forcing people to shake his hand and running away from the criticism he well—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order: I ask you, Acting Deputy President, to ask Senator Faruqi to withdraw the aspersions that she cast on a member of the other place in her speech just then.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faruqi, Senator Seselja is correct. I believe you should withdraw your comment regarding one of our colleagues from the other place.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What comment was that, Mr Acting Deputy President?

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not going to repeat it. I think we all know which comment it was, Senator Faruqi.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I'm not clear. But, sure, I withdraw.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please continue.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our Prime Minister behaved pathetically in the community, forcing people to shake his hand and running away from the criticism he well and truly deserved. Honestly, if he won't do the right thing and resign he should probably just head back off to Hawaii. But we need more than just a change in useless leaders; we need real leadership and a wholesale shake-up of our political, social and economic systems.

Now, I wouldn't want anyone to think that the Prime Minister's failure to lead is isolated to his inaction on climate; he's not fit to lead on any front. We see this in everything from his government's ongoing cuts to education to his alarmist, xenophobic China travel ban and his response to the sports rorts scandal. Yes, former Minister McKenzie had to step down, but everyone in the government, from the PM down, benefited from the co-ordinated pork-barrelling. If Scott Morrison were anything other than a failed leader, he would take responsibility and step down. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

nator POLLEY () (): I rise to make a contribution to this MPI and the ongoing crisis in leadership engulfing the Morrison government. We have a Prime Minister who does not know the meaning of the word 'leadership', let alone having the ability to show any. What we had from Senator Abetz previously is a speech you hear over and over and over again from him. The reality is: there's one thing about the fact that Morrison won the federal election. Yes, it's true; the Australian people elected him as Prime Minister, but what the Australian people have found during this crisis across the country, with state after state being engulfed in fires, is that they do not have trust or faith in this Prime Minister. He has the ability to put people offside. Normally a Prime Minister grows in stature during a national crisis, but we've seen a very arrogant Prime Minister and a very indecisive Prime Minister. We've seen a Prime Minister who has no empathy, a man who is okay with being the Prime Minister but unwilling to execute the office with any semblance of responsibility.

Australia has a Prime Minister who does not believe that ministers should be held accountable to the highest standards. He was unwilling to do the right thing and stand down Senator McKenzie, the 'minister for sports rorts'; he was unwilling to act. Then, when he decided that he was going to have an investigation because he didn't like—and wanted to ignore—the independent Auditor-General's report, he got his former chief of staff, who heads up the Prime Minister's department, to investigate. That shows the integrity of this Prime Minister: 'We'll get one of our own to investigate one of our own.' It was quite clear that the Australian community did not accept and would never accept Senator McKenzie's rorting of the grants program when she was the Minister for Sport; it would never pass the pub test. I know the Liberals have been very quick to say, 'This happens all the time in elections; you see and you hear the same rhetoric,' but there is a very stark difference between election commitments and a Commonwealth government grants program.

What we have seen from the Prime Minister is that he has in fact exposed himself to the Australian people. We have seen his pattern of behaviour. The Australian people have seen him, and they do not have any faith in him. Not only was he slow to react to the bushfire crisis, showing poor judgement by going overseas on a holiday during that crisis, but he failed to address the shonky behaviour and the rorting from the former Minister for Sport, and there are also still questions hanging over Mr Taylor.

It's quite clear that the Prime Minister is both an arrogant and a shonky Prime Minister who is leading a shonky government who are not accountable and who believe that they're above everyone else in this country. He does not take responsibility for the lack of transparency from his the ministers. We have seen that Mr Morrison, during the last election, was pretty good at marketing—pretty slick, really—but he's now demonstrated very clearly to the Australian people who he really is.

The fire crisis had gripped our country, and it was horrendous. We saw our firefighters and volunteers putting their lives on the line and, unfortunately, some losing them. We had our overseas friends, neighbours and allies come to assist us on the frontline. The Prime Minister, when he came back from Hawaii, said, 'Well, the Australian people knew that I wouldn't be out there holding a hose.' Of course they didn't expect him to be at the fire front. But what they did expect—and what every other Prime Minister in my lifetime, and, I think, even beyond that, has always done through a national crisis—was for him to be there, front and centre, making sure that the Australian people knew exactly what was happening and what resources were being made available and acting in their best interests. But, no, he was slow off the mark.

He was more interested in roaming around, forcing people to give him a handshake when, quite clearly, they were distressed. They had been at the frontline of a fire and they had lost their homes, and all he wanted was a picture opportunity. That was this Prime Minister. He was also quite quick to blame the New South Wales Premier—one of his own colleagues. He was shifting the blame to someone else—'Don't touch me. I'm Mr Teflon. I don't have to be accountable to anyone.' I can assure you: the Australian people have seen right through him.

How insensitive, and what a very clear demonstration of the lack of empathy by this Prime Minister, to actually go up to someone and grab their hand and want to shake it when they were so visibly upset and understandably so. There was such loss of life. He went to Kangaroo Island and his insensitivity there when he talked about no-one losing their lives was crushing to the residents and visitors of Kangaroo Island, and that was a message that was relayed out to the Australian community. He should hang his head in shame. I would be embarrassed if I were on that side of the chamber to see a Prime Minister who failed so miserably during a national crisis.

We all look to the leadership—it's irrelevant whether it's a Liberal or Labor government—at a time of crisis in the country. We rally together and look to that Prime Minister for leadership and to give people comfort and solace to know that their government is standing by them, because Australians expect that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them. We do that. That's what we, as Aussies, do—we stand up for one another. For a Prime Minister to so clearly demonstrate that he's not fit for the job, we couldn't ask for anything better from a political point of view on our side. But that's not what we want to see at a time of crisis. We want to be able to be proud of whoever holds that office and know that they are going to be front and centre and be the figurehead with respect, empathy and understanding and will act immediately.

The Prime Minister was sitting back and saying, 'Now I have to change the rules so I can bring out the army.' The issue that I think galls me and the Australians that have raised it with me the most is the fact that this Prime Minister slipped back to being 'Mr Scotty Morrison, the marketing man' to do an ad using the Defence Force.

And let's not forget: he authorised that, but, when you clicked on the link to make a donation, where do you think that link took them?

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the veterans?

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not to the veterans. No—sorry, Senator Lambie—not to them. And not to those who are victims of the fire crisis—no, not at all. It was to the Liberal Party! He wanted to use the distress, the crisis in this country and the sweat and the tears of our firefighters and our volunteers to raise money for his political party. He should be ashamed of himself. Those people on that side of the chamber should also be hanging their heads in shame. I have never, ever seen anything like that—never! It was appalling and showed lack of judgement. It also showed the arrogance of the man. It showed the arrogance of a Prime Minister who is so out of touch. He might have worked in advertising previously, but his spin and his smoke and mirrors have been exposed, and so they should be. I don't believe that the Australian people will forget his ineptitude at being Prime Minister during a time of crisis. He is a disgrace. (Time expired)

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a time when, if we had natural disasters—and we have a lot of natural disasters in Queensland quite regularly—politicians would put politics aside and get on with doing what was necessary to support communities through the difficulties as they dealt with cyclones, floods and bushfires. Queenslanders will remember the speeches that then Premier Anna Bligh and then Lord Mayor Campbell Newman gave during the floods that occurred through Brisbane and Ipswich in 2011. They rallied Queenslanders to help one another, pull together and clean up after the floods, and you know what? We did. Was there a call for then Prime Minister Gillard to show leadership? No, there wasn't. At first glance, you might think that this represents a double standard. You might think that means there's one rule for Labor and a different standard applied to those on this side of the chamber.

Natural disaster management, as those opposite well know, is properly a matter for the states and the territories. The senators opposite know that's the reason why the Prime Minister wasn't roasted about it in 2011. Section 51 of the Constitution specifically sets out what the Commonwealth is responsible for and, by virtue of being the Prime Minister, when the Prime Minister is supposed to act. Nothing in there says it's a Commonwealth responsibility, and yet the selective ignorance of the Constitution on that side stands out every time. The Commonwealth can only act in circumstances of a natural disaster when they're asked to do so by the states. For them to roll in and try and take charge without invitation, without the states asking, is really nothing short of a coups d'etat.

So, you want to hear about leadership? Well, how about a PM who commits to working with the states to set up a long-term protocol for when we need to bring in military assistance to help in natural catastrophes, in a way that means the failure of the states to accept other federal offers to assist, as happened in the bushfires this summer, won't happen again? How about this leadership: taking the unprecedented step of calling out around 6½ thousand Australian Defence Force personnel to rescue people from danger, distribute supplies and help clean up the mess; calling out 3,000 reservists; providing the comforting presence of knowing that help is on the way, when state governments are nowhere to be seen? That's leadership.

There's another key leadership trait that Liberals and Nationals rate highly, and that is financial responsibility. As Treasurer, the now Prime Minister had the goal of a balanced budget and, together with now Treasurer Frydenberg, they have delivered the first balanced budget, and 'surplus' is a word we can use now.

I ask those opposite: can you remember the year? We can. It was 1989. I was in year 1 and I was reading Dr Seuss books. I had a spiky fringe that didn't really date well in the photos.

A lot has changed since 1989, but the economic credentials of those opposite haven't. Not all fashion decisions date well, but I can tell you that their economic policies have dated even worse. Labor don't see responsible financial management as a good leadership quality. They don't value it. But I can tell you that, without it, there wouldn't be the capacity for Australia to provide immediate financial support to Australians affected by bushfires. There's been $52.6 million paid out to 44,150 people, people who had nothing more than a quickly packed suitcase as they evacuated: $1,000 per eligible adult and $800 per eligible child—an amount that was doubled to assist with back-to-school costs. And disaster support payments were paid in less than 20 minutes in over 90 per cent of cases.

Yet late last year Labor were in this chamber demanding that any potential surplus be spent up big-time. 'Boost all the welfare spending right now,' they said—well, of course they did. That surplus was burning a hole. And it wasn't even their money; it was the Australian people's money. It wasn't even in their pocket and yet it was burning a hole. They felt that, from the opposition benches, they had the right to demand how the government governed on behalf of the Australian people who elected it. Without the leadership the Prime Minister showed in holding fast in spite of all that pressure, there wouldn't have been the resources to set up a bushfire recovery fund and to fund it with $2 billion to cover the establishment of the National Bushfire Recovery Agency, which will be headed by well-respected former AFP commissioner Andrew Colvin.

The National Bushfire Recovery Agency will be there for as long as it takes to help individuals; to help families; to help businesses, big and small; and to help communities get back on their feet. The agency will distribute $2 billion to local councils and to the states. It will provide support and counselling to make sure that there is both mental health support and financial support for those people who are struggling with the recovery. It will help organisations that are working to heal the sick and injured wildlife who've been harmed by this disaster and help to restore their habitats. It will help charities provide direct financial assistance to those assessed as needing it. It will double funding to the National Aerial Firefighting Centre, because, let's face it, fires are a continuing part of the Australian way of life. And it will fund domestic and international tourism campaigns to help get inbound tourist dollars back to the areas that have been affected.

Yet here we are in this chamber not talking about the important bills needed to make this stuff happen. We're not here talking about the agenda that is front of mind for Australians: how we pay our bills, how we buy our home, how we get ahead and how we educate our kids. No, we're here arguing about the petty semantics of what those opposite think constitutes sufficient leadership, against goalposts that they shift depending on who is in government—and it just ain't fair. It's time the ball was called on that. It is worth stopping to cut through all that political nonsense and think about what we mean when we talk about leadership. It means knowing what you stand for, being frank about it and not being pushed around by those who might want to bully you around to their position.

The quiet Australians nationwide are pleased to see the Prime Minister dealing with our climate in a way that is balanced; in a way that cares for our environment, whilst making sure no-one's jobs are put in jeopardy; and in a way that achieves improvements in how we go about generating energy, using developments and technology rather than draconian measures designed to send us back to the Stone Age. They are so pleased to see a Prime Minister who doesn't cave into the hysteria of those opposite.

We've seen from Labor and the Greens, and from the media, for that matter, a determination to tell Australians why they got their judgement wrong at the last election rather than listening to what they're trying to say. They're not being listened to by the people I've described, but do you know who is listening? The Prime Minister and this government are listening. The Prime Minister knows he's got two ears and one mouth for a reason, and he listens to the people who speak quietly, the people who are working hard, the people who are raising their kids, the people who are building their businesses, the people who are shaping their local communities. Do you know what? They're too busy to be activists. They're too busy to be lining the streets, shouting hysterically, a la Greta Thunberg. They're building this country, helping it be the best it can be.

Leadership is about courage, it's about conviction, and it's about holding fast when people like those opposite get hysterical and pretend that there's only one way to ensure that we have a good balance between jobs and the environment in this country. The PM understands what's necessary to make sure the jobs of Australians are always front of mind, even as we do all we can to protect our natural environment.

If you want to see bad leadership, come to my home state of Queensland and take a look at the Labor state government. We've had Premier Palaszczuk telling fibs on Sunrise about the information that she's been provided— (Time expired)

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I'd like to talk about one particular area where the Prime Minister could show some real leadership: political donations reform. The coalition finally told the Australian public this week about the $24 million they received in political donations. The Labor Party released information about $18 million. Here's a newsflash for anyone who hasn't noticed. It's now February. The election was in May last year. Money changed hands between donors and parties more than eight months ago, and we're only finding out about it now.

Even though we don't have all the details, we know enough to wonder, 'Have we been sold out?' Have you sold us out? Big business and lobby groups are secretly donating millions to the Liberal and Labor parties and putting pressure on them to change their policies. Crown casino gave to both parties, and both parties voted against investigating Crown's alleged corruption. The gaming lobby gave over a million to both parties, and both parties have the same policy on pokies—surprise, surprise! What exactly do these donors think they're buying with all this money? You're trying to pretend to us that they just throw their money around because they value our democracy that much. Bloody rubbish! Absolute rubbish! Let's get real here! These disclosures are too late and too limited. You can bet that the big donors have already gotten their big bang for their buck. They've cashed in before we knew anything about it, and it's just not right. Things need to change.

I've introduced a bill today to finally fix our dodgy donation laws. I encourage the Prime Minister to take a good hard look at my proposal. My bill would fix our donation laws so that you would have to disclose your donations if you give over $2½ thousand in a six-month period, and disclose it in real time. Income from fundraising dinners and your lobster dinners, where people can pay thousands for soggy chips just to see a minister, will finally be called for what it is—a donation. It's about time this government showed some leadership and told Australians the truth about what's going on behind closed doors. This is the bill, and it will do the job.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am talking on the matter of public importance: 'the ongoing failure to show leadership'. Some examples have been given already from a number of commentators. The government has already said that Niki Savva is never welcome to another dinner or fundraiser, that there's something fundamentally wrong when she's contradicting the Prime Minister. Of course, the Prime Minister, on the other hand, is saying, 'Listen; I now listen.' Well, Niki is one of yours, and you aren't listening. Here's another one of yours—John Hewson. John Hewson wrote an op-ed on 2 January. He said:

You were elected to lead, Scott Morrison. It was a surprise, and great that you won against the polling, and that your marketing slogans cut through…

I'd say they'd probably give that a tick, wouldn't they? That's nailing it for the government. He goes on to say:

But they were only slogans. There was no detail.

He went on to say:

You are expected to govern in the national interest … prepare our nation to deal effectively with challenges before they become crises.

He had more to say:

Nobody expects you to "hold a hose" against the fires, but they do reasonably expect you to lead with an immediate response to them and to implement a genuine longer-term strategy to deal with what will be an increasing challenge into the future.

The former Liberal Party Leader of the Opposition went on to say a bit more:

Also you have not shown the leadership expected to make us more drought resistant … Slogans mask a shallowness of leadership skills and strategic thinking. Neither Donald Trump nor Boris Johnson should be your role model. Remember Malcolm Turnbull failed to deliver the "better government" that he promised on seizing the leadership.

In actual fact, it's not what Labor's saying; it's what the community's saying. There are some simple, critical things. It's what the Liberal Party members are saying—senior activists and some of those quiet Australians that were referred to before. I'm not sure whether Nikki Savva and the ex-leader are unquiet Australians whom we should disregard because they have previously been activists in the Liberal Party, but they have got one very important thing going for them, and that is that they are prepared not to be quiet and they're prepared to speak out. There were some quiet Australians referred to in a report in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in February this year, which quoted an Ipsos research paper that 'also revealed majority support for greater action on climate change'. It said:

Some participants see Scott Morrison as irretrievably damaged by the bushfire crisis and thought this was particularly likely to be the case for voters in areas that were fire-affected.

We aren't raising these issues to score points; we're raising these issues for the Prime Minister to listen to and take into account what the quiet Australians are saying—what your own are saying.

Then we start looking at the issues in the economy. We have a crisis in our economy. Wages growth is slowing to a few points from inflation. Rather than getting out of the way and letting unions, the main forces who would drive an increase in wages, do their work—an increase in wages is something that the Reserve Bank and economists want to happen—the government are hell-bent on standing in the way of this. What they do is come up with ideas like the trade union royal commission and the ensuring integrity bill—God, ensuring integrity! I think 'ensuring integrity' was recently described by another journalist, Michael Pascoe. He said:

Let's be very clear about this. The rorting of the $100 million community sports grants program was flagrant corruption and Prime Minister Morrison and senior ministers were in it up to their ethically-devoid eyeballs.

The attempts to turn around and make sure that real policies make real differences for real people are about starting to deal with the issues with wages being so low. They are about giving an opportunity for unions, workers and other people to collectively stand up and fight for better wages and conditions. It's about the Prime Minister not trumpeting the unemployment rate when the unemployment rate is doubled by underemployment. Underemployment in regional areas and throughout Australia is at a critical level. (Time expired)

Jim Molan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address the matter of public importance that we're considering at the moment. I've listened to Senator Abetz and Senator Stoker and the logic, understanding and vision that they have shown. I have also listened to Senator Murray Watt, Senator Faruqi, Senator Polley and Senator Sheldon, and I've heard half-truths, accusations, generalities, hysterics and media runs, and that's about all I've heard. I'm not too sure what I heard from Senator Lambie.

Everyone in this house—everyone who listened to the speeches on the condolence motion yesterday or who has read the papers over the last six months—should know that this should be a time for sober, respectful reflection in a period when we're managing the drought, managing the coronavirus program, fighting the fires and commencing the bushfire recovery and when our focus should be on the needs of those impacted by these national disasters.

But we don't see that in the opposition, we don't see it in the Greens and we didn't see it from Senator Lambie.

The assessment of a national leader should never be limited to policies or plans or intentions or hopes alone but should be based on the actuality of what leadership in this case delivers, and that is security and services to the people. This Prime Minister has delivered. What a leader does is assess a situation and act for the betterment of the people, not posture or panic or rush about pointlessly, as some previous leaders have done. As a national leader, the Prime Minister has acted decisively for the benefit of the people. Perhaps what this matter of public importance does, in fact, is illustrate Senators Murray Watt, Faruqi, Polley and Sheldon's total misunderstanding of the nature of leadership, and I wonder if that says something about what they have in their own leaders. I wonder if they have never admitted that, with hindsight, they may have done things differently. I wonder if they are all the epitome of leadership in all respects. If that is the case, I stand in absolute awe of them.

Every one of us who has experienced leadership knows that it is more than acceptable to admit after an event that, with the benefit of hindsight, perhaps, indeed, we would have done things differently. So admitting that you are not perfect is a strength of leadership. Assuming that you are perfect and have all the knowledge is an arrogance that got the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government into so much trouble. It got them into trouble on border control and on pink batts, in particular. We do not manage similar situations in the arrogant Labor way. Let's never forget that under Prime Minister Morrison's leadership—and his leadership was a key element, as Senator Abetz has reminded us—we stopped the boats. That's something that Labor could never do.

That level of leadership has been applied to all the Prime Minister's portfolios to this day. We've recovered the budget, despite being left a Labor legacy of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years of $46 billion. We would expect to bring that budget at least back to balance this year. Who was the Treasurer for most of that period, and who, along with his team, should be given the credit of bringing us back into balance? That was Prime Minister Morrison. The opposition may be surprised to hear that budgets don't just get themselves back into balance. They must be returned to balance by leadership, by inspiration, by discipline and by vision. That's what Prime Minister Morrison has done.

The most important thing about being a leader is the ability to inspire, to set the vision and to carry your team with you. Our strong financial management, led by the Prime Minister, has made Australia more resilient economically. As a leader, Prime Minister Morrison has been competent and successful—so competent and successful that, since his time on the boats and as Treasurer, he has won the prime ministership and, since then, an election. So let's face it: if you think that is unsuccessful leadership, maybe that explains an awful lot about Labor's lack of electoral success in the recent past.

Let us also remember that, as a federal leader, Prime Minister Morrison has not only reacted to every request that the New South Wales government made of the federal government for assistance during the bushfires, as a good leader should, but, at an appropriate time, leant forward and used the Australian Defence Force in an innovative way, which is exactly what leaders at a national level should do. I reject the matter of public importance. (Time expired)

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to this debate on the Prime Minister's ongoing failure to show leadership. Nothing more clearly demonstrates it for me, in my portfolio areas, than his failure to understand the impact that his lack of leadership in terms of our social security net is having on those people who are trying to survive on the absolutely appalling level of Newstart, and the way that the government are treating the most vulnerable members of our community is absolutely appalling. It's all very well for the Prime Minister to think he's got lots of brownie points because he's got a surplus. It's a surplus on the back of the most vulnerable members of our communities, on the back of people who are living so far below the poverty line that they are going to find it very hard to be able to survive, and they are finding it very hard to survive.

But not only are they struggling below the poverty line on Newstart; the so-called employment services are also absolutely failing them. Not only do the government think they are doing a good job by keeping people in poverty and not increasing the level of Newstart—which is so low that, with the government's failure to show leadership to increase it, ACOSS has now had to increase its call for the level to be raised by $95 rather than $75—but the government are also planning to put people who are on Newstart, on the Disability Support Pension and on carers pension on the cashless debit card. We saw comments over the weekend from the minister that she wants to roll out the cashless debit card across the country, including to people over 45—and more than 50 per cent of people on Newstart are now over the age of 45. They are suffering from ageism and suffering from discrimination in the workplace. They're finding it increasingly hard to find work. That is a total failure of leadership from this Prime Minister, and a failure to recognise that he needs to act to increase Newstart to ensure that these people are no longer condemned to poverty, where they find it even harder to find work. (Time expired)

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise just to talk about some disappointment with the response by Prime Minister Morrison in relation to coronavirus. I will lead with some facts. Our travel warning was upgraded to a much more cautious warning only after the UK government, the German government and the US government changed their travel warnings. It was the Chinese president that stopped direct flights from Wuhan to Australia, not the Australian Prime Minister. The government did not order rigorous tracing of people who had arrived in Australia from Wuhan in the period immediately prior to the flights ban and, of course, unfortunately, we've now seen two people in Adelaide and in Queensland infected by the virus—people who'd come from Wuhan. It was school principals in NSW that led in relation to barring students from attending school if they had visited China on an overseas holiday. In fact, Mr Morrison sent his education minister out to say, 'That's the wrong move. It's business as usual.' No, I'm sorry—not for the welfare of our children in schools. It was Monash University that led in relation to dealing with the prospect of arriving Chinese students. We then followed with some relatively good measures—but in all of this we have followed. The government took a glass half-full view to the coronavirus in circumstances where they needed to be taking a glass half-empty view because of the serious nature of the coronavirus and its potential impact on Australians and their health. Thankfully, we're in a better place now, but, if you examine what's happened, you wouldn't be impressed. (Time expired)

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fault for poor leadership cannot be laid entirely at the feet of the Prime Minister because he went on summer holidays, as some people have suggested. The Prime Minister can't be on the job 24/7. He has an entire government to run the country. The entire government does not go on holidays. We had an Acting Prime Minister: the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg. We had a Deputy Prime Minister—and still have a Deputy Prime Minister—Michael McCormack, who, oddly, was not considered the right person to step up to the top job. Mr McCormack's leadership qualities are, however, good enough for the National Party it seems. Australia had two leaders on the job—well, one-and-a-half. Australia was not without an Acting Prime Minister; we were without leadership. If we are going to add to the fires with flaming tiki torches of our own, One Nation would ask this place to direct that effort where it needs to go. We need to hold that acting leadership to account. More importantly, we need to plan for the next fire event—now.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this debate has expired.