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

I move:

That the Senate take note of all questions asked by coalition members of the government today.

It was yet another question time where not even the scriptwriters for Utopia could have ever dreamed up a script and a story about Labor's aviation policy that is as absurd as it is incompetent. It would be sad if it weren't so important to all Australians and having an impact on all Australians.

Here we went again, debating Minister King's decision to side with Qantas over cheaper airfares for everyday Australians. There have now been nine different and sometimes conflicting excuses as to why this government wants to stifle competition and stop cheaper airfares. As I said, not even the writers of Utopia could have dreamed up a story as ridiculous as this, but sadly, for Australians and for Western Australians, this is absolutely true. Catherine King, when she was asked a question by Sabra Lane on ABC Radio regarding how much the Qatar airport security incident weighed into her decision, said, in answer 1: 'Well, it wasn't a factor in the decision'. A few hours later, the transport minister at her press conference released the government's aviation green paper changing her story. Her next story was: 'It wasn't the only factor, but it was one factor.'

Minister Farrell also advised the chamber during question time, 'I've just travelled through Doha airport on my way back from a holiday a few weeks ago, and I personally don't see any risks.' So, perhaps if the minister actually consulted her colleagues prior to such an important decision, she would have had a more informed view. She wasn't finished yet with her flip-flopping answers. She said last week: 'As you would expect, I consulted colleagues prior to making the decision, but it was my decision.' But her comments conflict with Senator Farrell, who told ABC Radio National, 'I can't say that I specifically had a conversation with her.' The Deputy Prime Minister also told the media that he simply wasn't consulted. There is a sad and sorry theme coming from those opposite, from the government—nine different stories. Utopia couldn't even dream it up.

Let's have a look at the consequences of their disastrous bungling and, quite frankly—I was going to say mistruths—conflicting answers, and that's just from the minister alone. It does matter and it does hurt. It hurts all states and territories. In my case, being a senator for Western Australia, it has significant consequences for every Western Australian who wants to travel, and Western Australians travel a lot. We have to travel a lot given our remoteness.

Travel before COVID was already hideously expensive, and it is now, in many cases, double or more of that. Let's not forget that, when COVID hit, Qantas, our national carrier, closed up shop pretty darn quickly and were very slow to open up shop again. It was airlines like Qatar that brought home Western Australians who had been stranded overseas because of COVID. Critically, they also kept freights coming and going from Western Australia, which was so critically important for our businesses to keep not only their goods going out but also their vital supplies coming in. Quite often we forget this, but I have not forgotten that they were often flying with less than ten passengers onboard but kept flying when our national carrier did not. So it's not much of a reward for their commitment to our state and to our nation.

I've also had a look at data on Perth Airport's website that shows that international passenger numbers still have not recovered to pre-COVID levels. We are a state, as I said, that needs to travel, and you can only assume that those numbers are because people cannot afford to travel out of Western Australia.

WA is already suffering and continues to suffer. I say shame on you, not just for your bungling but also for the impact you're having on Western Australia.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this question time, Senator Colbeck asked a question accusing the government of not listening to the Australian people about the Voice. I have to say, Australia does not have a good record of listening to our Indigenous people. It wasn't until 1967 that Aboriginal people in our nation—our First Nations Australians—even had the right to vote. Then, in 1973 or thereabouts, Gough Whitlam introduced the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee. The Fraser government got rid of that. Then they put in place the National Aboriginal Conference. Then they got rid of that. Then, Bob Hawke put in place—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt, you know the use of props is—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not a prop, it's a speaking note.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not a speaking note—I can see the other side of it. You are a temporary chair as well—please.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it against standing orders to rip up your papers? The National and Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Commission was put in place by Bob Hawke until, again, we got rid of that.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt, please. You have fine rhetorical skills; let's rely on those.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will desist from ripping up the pieces of paper, but I think my point is made.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your point is made.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Congress of Australia's First Peoples first met in 2011. The Howard government defunded that. Then First Nations people, with the support of the government, were asked to go away and look at Constitutional recognition and how they might be heard. They didn't want just Constitutional recognition; they wanted to be heard, because our nation has had no history of listening to First Nations people.

The Uluru Statement asks for a Constitutionally enshrined Voice to our parliament. That is something that needs to go in our Constitution. It must go in our Constitution, otherwise—as we've seen throughout history—that Voice, that right to be heard can simply be done away with. The parliament has the power to make such laws, and the people have the power to insist that the parliament make such laws so that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can be heard in a Voice to parliament and so it can't be done away with.

Of course, as legislators in this place, we should also know that we have the power to change the laws that the Constitution gives us the power to change. The future laws that govern a Voice can be amended and changed by this parliament, should the referendum be successful. The opposition are seeking to allege that we are not listening to the people. Hundreds and thousands—millions—of Australians are united in the call to listen to Australia's First Nations people.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of all questions. In particular, I'd like to take note of Senator Colbeck's last question today. He asked, 'Why are Australians increasingly being kept in the dark because of the Prime Minister's mismanagement and broken promises?' He also noted that 'the Prime Minister promised that when he was elected there would be transparency, accountability and integrity'. There is nothing that grinds my gears more than when governments refuse to be accountable and transparent. The Prime Minister said, prior to the last election, that his was going to be a different government; he was going to be accountable and he was going to be transparent. Yet, within months of coming to office, that promise was broken.

He refused to release the minutes of the National Cabinet meetings that he had with the premiers, despite saying that he would. We are still waiting for the Prime Minister to release the minutes of those meetings. Those meeting minutes matter, because we need to know what's going on between the federal and state governments. As I've noted many times before in this chamber, our country is being run into the ground by the dysfunctional relationship between the state and federal governments. That's a really key point, and a promise the Prime Minister has broken.

He also said that we would have a royal commission into COVID. He has not met that promise yet. That particular motion has been put forward, here in this chamber, a number of times and Labor and the Greens have voted against it every time. It's another example of Labor's lack of transparency. He's also knocked back an inquiry into the impact of transmission lines on the environment. Here's a government that claims to care about the environment yet refuses to look into the impact on our environment, our biodiversity, our nature, farmlands and our fisheries of wind turbines, both in national parks and offshore, in our fishing reserves. I note that state governments are cracking down on our fishermen at the moment, yet they turn a blind eye to the impact of wind turbines on the environment. The same goes for North Queensland. We've got the Chalumbin wind farm proposal up in the Great Barrier Reef catchment. They can build up there, on the Great Dividing Range, with hardly any environmental approvals, while our farmers are bogged down in both green tape and red tape.

The other point that's worth noting is that Prime Minister Albanese has been unable to provide any details on the Voice. When he was asked in a radio interview if he'd read the pages behind the so-called one-page document of the Voice, his words were: 'No, I haven't. Why would I?' What type of response is that, to holding a referendum on which we're going to spend—I think it's $80 million to hold the referendum on the day, and there's been a couple of hundred million dollars in advertising, so I'm led to led to believe the cost is about $300 million. When you're spending so much taxpayer money when we have a cost-of-living crisis—that's what he should be focused on, because he's broken many promises there—what type of response is that? That just goes to show he's treating the Australian public with contempt over this Voice. Yet again, you have to ask yourself, 'What is he hiding?' Why is he so keen to not talk about the pages that lead into that one page of the Voice? There are 120 pages that have been written behind that one page. You need to go into the detail, but we know that the Prime Minister is not a details man. He's all hot air. He's all form, no substance—and this is why the country is going backwards.

The other thing that he voted on, and the Labor Party voted against in this chamber, was the proposal to have a quarterly report on energy pricing so that people could properly benchmark energy prices. What gets measured, gets improved. It is very important that we get a benchmark on our energy prices that is broken down by the source of the energy and shows how much each particular energy type is. Why on earth did Labor and the Greens vote against that? If they were serious about controlling energy costs and the price of electricity, they would disclose the price of energy on a consistent national basis so that consumers and taxpayers can be properly informed about the cost of living. So I call out the Albanese government for their lack of transparency, their lack of accountability and their lack of details around the things that matter.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the questions asked by opposition senators in this question time—in particular, the question by Senator Colbeck.

In the premise of his question, he said that our Prime Minister had failed to listen to the Australian people when it came to the Voice proposal. As we head into the final weeks of this campaign—as we head into the final weeks before referendum day on 14 October—what a disappointing thing it is to try to further divide and mislead when it comes to the Voice and when it comes to what this referendum is all about. We know this referendum is, at its very heart, about listening. That is its purpose, that is in its design. This is about listening when we haven't listened before; it's about listening, even when it's hard to do so; and it's about listening with purpose: listening to build a better future, listening to change the way we do things and listening to improve our policies in this country. It's about listening to close a gap that has persisted, year after year, decade after decade. Through good intent, through good will and through good investment that gap has persisted and persisted, and we have let Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country down.

That's because governments have not listened; they have not listened with purpose. I, for one, am not willing to accept that: I'm not willing to accept the gaps which exist. I'm not willing to exist with more of the same. Let's be absolutely clear: a 'no' vote is acceptance of more of the same. A 'yes' vote is the extension of a hand—a willingness to do better, to do differently. A 'yes' vote is taking that hand and stepping forward together in unity, with purpose, further down that path of reconciliation so we can do things better in this country, because we haven't done well enough.

We haven't done well enough by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country. We haven't done well enough by the children who are let down year after year in the education system. We haven't done well enough by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people incarcerated at a rate much, much higher than their peers. We haven't done well enough when it comes to life expectancy, when we have a life-expectancy gap of almost a decade in this country. We haven't done well enough when it comes to their maternal health—when it comes to the healthy birth of babies in this country. These gaps persist and they pervade, and they will continue to persist and pervade if we don't change our path.

There is an opportunity to change our path. There is an opportunity to accept a generous offer, given to the Australian public—a generous offer which allows us to do differently. It's an offer to listen, it's an offer to share and it's an offer to work together in codesign to make this country better and to close the gap. This is an opportunity for unity. For months, it has been used as an opportunity to divide by certain people from the coalition who want to use it as an opportunity to divide and who see it as an opportunity to pursue a path of more of the same. It's not everyone: I acknowledge those opposite, in particular, Senator Bragg, and others in the other chamber, who have stood up for their values. They have stood up after many, many years of advocacy and work to try to do better. I acknowledge them.

This is our opportunity to do better. This is our opportunity to listen with purpose. This is our opportunity to deliver something different. A vote for no is a vote for the status quo, and I cannot accept the status quo. We should not accept the status quo! We have an opportunity to do better in this country. We have an opportunity to listen with purpose. We have an opportunity to deliver something different. That's why I'm voting yes, and I hope that every Australian opens their heart to the idea that together we can do better. Together this can be an opportunity to unite us, and not divide us.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answers given by the ministers in the government today. It is another day, and it is another reminder that the economic policies of the government are perfectly calibrated for the vested interests which enrich their campaign machines and their preselections through their donations. The reality is that, when you are so busy lining the coffers of the people that sent you to Canberra, you don't have time to do any work for the Australian people. That is the central problem with the government's economic policy. Everything is about grifting and delivering for unions and big super funds and other fellow travellers. The list of priorities is so distorted, and that is the central problem that the government and the country face. In what universe does a country with a productivity and inflation problem need pattern bargaining, the abolition of labour hire and more and more money sent to a locked box called superannuation, where a 25-year-old prospective first home buyer can see their hard-earned money 35 years from now? The reality is that, until Australia has a government that is prepared to look at governing for all the people of Australia and to take seriously the dual problems the country has—high inflation, driven by public spending, and low productivity—I fear that we are looking at a very difficult economic situation in the next few years.

It is true that, if you do a survey of people in Australia, you will find that high mortgage costs and high rents are the major problems that are facing the Australian people. Under this government, we've seen 11 interest rate rises in a row. The Reserve Bank has been trying very hard to rein in inflation in an environment where the government can't say no to their favourite vested interests and they keep on spending. They've already had two budgets which increase spending, and the government come in here and tell us that they are running a neutral budget policy. The reason they say it's neutral is that they have the gall to come into this chamber and argue that their new spending is offset by the energy price caps and that the energy price caps are the parliament enacting a law to reduce inflation, effectively. If it were that easy then we could just pass a law tomorrow saying, 'Okay, we're now setting inflation at three per cent, the top of the RBA's band, for the next five years.' We're getting to the stage of having Argentine style economic policy here in Australia. The whole show is run by the unions and the super funds, and the government is leading its economic debate by arguing that price caps and legislating away inflation are the way to go. We are in very dangerous territory, I would say.

The other point I wanted to make is that, when you have no time to look at the broader challenges facing the Australian people, you do, of course, just focus on the issues that are important to the vested interests. What else do the vested interests want? One example is that the super funds have asked the government to legislate an objective of super so they can keep all the money in the funds and never be forced to release any money for first home buyers who might want to use their super for a first home. I can't find any Australian that can say to me, 'The No. 1 priority facing us is that we want to see the objective of superannuation legislated,' but it is a very good example of the twisted priorities of a government that is run by vested interests. As I say, when the preselections, the funding and the organisational arrangements are all run by the unions and the super funds, maybe we shouldn't be surprised that all the policies and all the rhetoric about the economy comes from outside.

Question agreed to.