Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Well, it has all been laid bare today. My good friend and colleague Senator Askew asked a very straightforward and serious question about exactly what the putative Premier of Tasmania, Rebecca White, the member for Lyons in the Tasmanian parliament, had done in terms of preparing for her promises to the Tasmanian people around health in particular. But our acting leader, Senator Cash, has pointed out what she hasn't done. Because the answer that was provided to Senator Askew highlighted in fact that Ms White, the leader of the Labor Party in Tasmania, didn't even bother to pick up the phone. She did not ask once the Australian Labor government, the Albanese government, her very good friends. You would think her federal counterparts would be able to have a conversation with her about whether she can make promises like the ones she has.

Now, Labor are not good with money. They never have been despite what they say—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And never will be.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is absolutely right. That includes when it comes to these promises that are being made about health funding in Tasmania. We have a stretched health system. It requires huge investments and, yes, the Commonwealth government has over a very long period of time supported the state of Tasmania in these crucial investments. Ms White, the Labor leader, has gone around Tasmania telling people that she, in partnership with the Australian Labor government, will fund massive infrastructure projects in all of our hospitals—the Royal Hobart Hospital, the Launceston General Hospital, the Mersey Community Hospital and the North-West Regional Hospital. As it turns out, those promises haven't been funded. Not a dollar of the hundreds of millions of dollars that Rebecca White, the Labor leader in Tasmania, has promised will be funded. Not once has she bothered to check with the Australian government's health minister, Mr Butler. Not a cent will be funded. It's quite disappointing, but it is not surprising, because we expect nothing more than that.

Tasmanians want the truth when it comes to promises being made about their health system. Much has been made by the Australian Labor Party and the Tasmanian Labor Party about what's happening in our health system in Tasmania. This is why I'm so incredibly disappointed that Ms White, whom I respect, has gone so low as to make promises to the Tasmanian people she knows she can't keep. There is no way to understand how much they are going to be able to fund from Australian government coffers to make her promises work. By contrast, however, we've seen the Tasmanian government, the Rockliff government, put forward a sustainable plan, one that is fully costed and funded. They've been managing the health service in Tasmania in an exemplary way for the last decade.

I want to talk about the number of nurses that were cut in the years up to 2014, when the Labor Party had been in government for 16 years—the last four of which, I might add, were in partnership with the Tasmanian contingent of that mad crew, the Australian Greens. Two of them were ministers in the Tasmanian government. We saw nurses sacked, hospital wards closed down and beds from hospitals put into storage. This is exactly what we're going to see again if Tasmanians even think twice about voting for the Tasmanian Labor Party, because you know exactly what's going to happen: they're going do another deal with the Greens. You're going to see Vica Bayley and Rosalie Woodruff, the two Greens members of the Tasmanian parliament, in cabinet with Premier White. That is a nightmare recipe right there, and it will result in exactly the same things that we have been warning about for a long time.

So proven—

I will take the interjection from the acting leader. A coalition of chaos—that's exactly what it will be. There is no way that Rebecca White, the Tasmanian Labor leader, can ever govern in majority. It will always be, particularly in the lead-up to this election, with the support of the Tasmanian Greens. That is why, I must say, this is something Tasmanians need to know. The Albanese Labor government didn't even know they'd made those promises—those hundreds of millions of dollars of federal money that had been promised to the people of Tasmania on behalf of the Albanese Labor government. It's a con, it is a joke and it is something Tasmanians cannot trust.

So, as we hurtle towards Saturday and as Tasmanians cast their vote, I'll look forward to engaging in some sparkling, glittering, gleaming repartee with Senator Polley on the Sky News panel on Saturday night. When we analyse the results, we are going to be quite the beacon on Saturday night, as we are able to stand out and shine for people to see what the truth is. But people will cast their vote on the day, and I hope it's Liberal.

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

I listened with a great deal of glee, of course, because we have a very serious issue in this country about the cost of living. Labor have put up a number of suggestions about how we deal with that. One of the questions we were asked was about the new vehicle fuel efficiency standard, which will actually be good not only for the hip pocket but for the environment. Of course, those opposite have finally caught on to the cost-of-living question about this, because the reality is that it will drive down costs and improve the environment.

But, when they start talking about the cost of living, of course they always avoid talking about all the other details of the cost of living, because they have voted against every initiative that this government has put forward to drive down cost-of-living pressures on everyday Australians. When it comes to electricity bill relief, the average family would have been $230 worse off last year without Labor's Energy Price Relief Plan, and, of course, the coalition voted against it because they vote against every initiative, whether it's car fuel efficiency or electricity bill relief.

But don't worry. There's more they vote against when it comes to the cost of living—not only EVs but boosting income support payments, which is increasing support payments by $40 a fortnight, or over $1,040 a year. The coalition voted against that. There's building more affordable homes and the Housing Australia Future Fund, which will build 30,000 social and affordable homes. The coalition voted against this. So this is what happens when it comes to cost of living, whether it's EVs, electricity bill relief, boosting income support payments or building more affordable homes. And there's more. When it's about creating jobs and getting wages moving again, the largest increase to the minimum wage in decades was under Labor. The minimum wage grew by 8.6 per cent, or $1.85 an hour. Based on a 38-hour week, this is a $3,655 yearly raise. And of course the coalition voted against it, because they always vote against cost-of-living relief that helps everyday Australians. They think there's some magical trickle-down thing. No, you actually go out there, go to people, work out what's affecting the community and make a change. The important part of the change that we've made is with regard to cost of living with new vehicle efficiency standards.

The coalition can't look at the cost of living on new vehicles, because they can't see it even in the IR reforms that we did. Criminalising wage theft? They voted against it. Stronger protections for employees subject to family and domestic violence? They voted against that. When it came to closing the labour hire loopholes that Alan Joyce used to illegally sack his workforce and replace them with cheap, disposable labour hire, they voted against that. It goes on and on. What about helping casuals get secure jobs? Whether it's fuel efficiency, IR reforms, electricity bill relief, boosting income support payments, or creating jobs and getting wages moving again, on every occasion they vote against it.

It goes on. They also voted against ensuring truck drivers earn enough money that they don't have to work themselves to death. They voted against that. Not only are they voting against more-fuel-efficient vehicles that many drivers use in their everyday lives; they're voting against more opportunities for people to save money and help the environment. You can do two things at once. But no; when it comes to truck drivers and IR reform, they vote against better vehicles, fuel efficiency, the environment, people's hip pocket and truck drivers earning enough not to have to work themselves to death. When you start looking at that, you also see that many of those workers out there in the transport industry are gig workers. They voted against gig workers getting paid a reasonable enough amount that they don't have to kill themselves getting their work done so they can put food on the table.

Now, I know there are some good people on the other side—and not only are they good people but they actually have some real understanding of these issues. But their party voted against some of the most highly exploited people in the Australian economy, who get paid by piece way below the minimum wage, without workers comp and without safety. By the way, many of you use vehicles or get a benefit and the option to go to electric vehicles. They voted against them as well. Everywhere you look, they vote against everyone. For the people who actually can get the benefits across the Australian economy from these changes that we've made, you keep turning around and driving down.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Across Australia over the next few days, Liberals in our home state of Western Australia, Senator Cash, in New South Wales and, indeed, in South Australia will be wishing the Tasmanian Liberal Party all the very best of good campaign fortune as Tasmanians go to the polls. We'll be wishing them all the very best of good campaign fortune because we don't want Tasmanians to be subject to the 'coalition of chaos', as it was called by Senator Duniam. We don't want them to have to suffer the same sort of bad Labor policies that the rest of the country is experiencing as a result of having elected Anthony Albanese and the Labor government in May 2022. Indeed, in our own state of Western Australia we don't want Tasmanians to have to suffer the same sorts of bad policies and poor economic management that Western Australians have seen first under Premier McGowan and now under Roger Cook. We know that, when Labor is in government, things go astray.

Just to follow on from Senator Sheldon's comments on cost-of-living challenges, they are very real for Australians. That's whether they're in Western Australia, Tasmania, South Australia or your home state of New South Wales. They are struggling under the cumulative effect—just think about that—of layer upon layer of interest rate rises. They're struggling at supermarket check-outs as cost-of-living pressures are seen and realised on the shelves of our shops. Indeed, as we talked about yesterday, Senator Sheldon, their ability to travel and stay connected with loved ones is suffering as a result of the government's inaction on high airline prices.

In my home state of Western Australia, they have much to be concerned and disappointed about, having now lived for about two years under a federal Labor government. What has that seen? I see Senator Sterle from Western Australia mocking, but let's just think about this. A ban on live sheep exports cost the Western Australian economy $120 million and cost the livelihoods of regional families, Senator Sterle, that you often come into this chamber and defend. The trucking industry will be imperilled as a result of a ban on live sheep exports. They're regional communities that you quite rightly come to this place to stand up for, argue for and barrack for. I'll give you credit for that, but you can't have it both ways. You can't come here and say you barrack for these people and then sit idly by when the government continues with a ban that will decimate rural and regional communities across our state.

Just to add to that, the changes to the industrial relations system have been said by the peak people in Western Australian business to make it harder for Australian companies to succeed and grow in Western Australia. Think about that for a moment. The 120,000 Western Australian workers who work in our resources industry and the families that are supported by them are all being imperilled by the industrial relations policy being pursued by this government. Just add to that the $10 million decision to fund the EDO, which is like a wrecking ball across Western Australia's resources industry. That resources industry doesn't just make Western Australians wealthy; it improves the living standards of every Australian. This afternoon is not the time to talk about the GST debate, but no doubt when we come back during the budget session GST matters will be top of mind.

When Tasmanians go to the polls on Saturday, they don't have to look too far to see the risk and peril of electing a Tasmanian Labor government, who I hear is hand in glove with the Greens. They don't have to look too far to see the evidence that Labor is bad news for Tasmania in the same way that it's been bad news for Western Australia and bad news for Australia.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't believe how lucky I am today, because I just want to correct the record. Senator Smith is a long-time, proud Western Australian, is a long-time activist and employee in the road transport industry and has been self-employed. I do love it when you talk about the transport industry in Western Australia, but I couldn't wait to tell my mates in WA that Senator Smith, Senator Cash and all the Western Aussies could not wait to vote down the transport reform that we voted on here two weeks ago. I do love the way you talk about how, all of a sudden, you've had a road-to-Damascus moment and that you love the trucking industry. I just wish it was here when the truckies needed you—when you, led by Senator Cash, tipped a bucket of bile on the transport industry when you stood up for the mining industry. Let me get this really clear for people. The transport industry throughout Australia was absolutely united for transport reform. There was not one blowout. Not one organisation went to the papers and made adverse commentary. But you kicked them in the guts with the Minerals Council of Australia. These poor devils, the miners! God help us if they have to pay the same pay for the same job. Isn't that right, Senator Sheldon? We should never impose that on the miners. Everyone else can pay but why should the poor miners?

The Minerals Council of Australia, led by Ms Tania Constable, hand-in-hand with the National Farmers Federation—and I won't waste too much oxygen on them—the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and COSBOA, put $24 million of their members' money was into a campaign to deny the Australian trucking industry reform. God help them if Australia's transport industry could be paid on time, could be respected, could be safe and could be sustainable and viable. They won't forget that. I will never forget that and I will keep reminding those opposite about it.

It is a shame we have lost Senator Smith. He obviously has something else he has to go to. I understand that; we all have those issues around here. But I am now going to make a heartfelt offer here from the bottom of my heart. I did 16 years as a furniture removalist with Ansett Wridgways before I moved on from that. I still have a bit of experience. I can still lump a bit of furniture. I can actually walk into your kitchen and pack all your valuables. I can walk into your lounge room or your bedroom; I can do the whole lot. I'll get the cartons because I've got mates in the removal industry—not a problem. I'll get all the wine cartons. I'll get the port-a-robes for your clothes. I'll even pull the tape out and gnash it with my teeth to set the cartons up.

Hell, you know what, Senator Smith? I might even give up a weekend to come around and do all the loading for you for free. I'll have a word to my mates in the trucking industry and I'll happily pack up your home, pack you and your partner up, and get you over to Tassie. If that is where you want to be, Senator Smith, sing out. I've been known to be a very generous person with my old skills in the removal industry. If Western Australia is that bad a place to live, go. We're not holding you there. I'm not holding you there. I'm proud to say that I've been in Western Australia since 1960. I am not leaving the best part of Australia.

This nonsense to carry on about how hard-done-by Western Australians are. For crying out loud, we had the best leadership through the pandemic; we had the best premier; we had the best system. Not one Western Australian in this place could whinge, because we didn't suffer the lockdowns that were witnessed around Australia; we didn't suffer all these days of not being able to see family. In fact, in WA, if I remember rightly, we had two lockdowns. The first one was a couple of weeks, I think. But then under that brilliant leadership of the Labor government—Mark McGowan and the health minister at the time Roger Cook, who is now our Premier and a damn good Premier—we enjoyed life as normal.

There were a few constraints upon us. We couldn't go into remote Aboriginal communities or nursing homes unless we had been isolating for two weeks. We still went out, we still went to pubs and we still went to restaurants. Yes, we had to socially distance and all that sort of stuff. But I have to tell you, any Western Australian who sits in here and reckons Western Australia is that bad, go and talk to your Victorian mates about some of the pressures they had. As I said, Senator Smith, from the bottom of my heart, and I have been known to be very generous, I'm very happy to come and pack you up, talk to my removalist mates and get you out of Western Australia if that is what you so desire. And, if you want to go to Tassie, I can organise that, too.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was reassured to hear the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong, affirm that the United States' relationship is so important to Australia's security and describe the United States as our closest ally and potential strategic partner, because this issue has been a little confused over the last few days, after Senator Farrell, the trade minister, remarked that he wouldn't describe the United States as necessarily our closest ally.

I'm very fond of New Zealand. We have a close relationship, a close economic relationship—a number of economic and trade ties and people-to-people ties. But, undoubtedly and overwhelmingly, the United States has always been our most important security, defence, strategic and intelligence partner, and that relationship is incredibly valuable to Australia. It is a force multiplier. It allows us a reach an insight and set of capabilities that would simply not be accessible to us given the size we are and given the amount of the national budget that we spend on defence. When it comes to these issues, words matter, and unity of purpose and messaging matters. That's why the comments from Senator Farrell earlier in the week, which were not in response to the question that was being asked, were an unnecessary distraction, and I'm glad they've been cleared up. I would say that they fit a pattern of a sense of growing division with our partner, the United States.

We've seen in recent days, for instance, the government make the decision to restore funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency. This is the UN agency which has been entrusted, in part, with providing humanitarian assistance to the displaced Palestinian population since 1948, but which was credibly involved with and complicit in the Hamas terrorist attacks of 7 October. Bear in mind that, within hours of UNRWA receiving allegations that 12 of their employees were directly involved in these attacks, they had dismissed nine of them. It was not after some sort of judicial inquiry or due process. They dismissed them immediately, which suggest these allegations were credible. Of course, these allegations were so serious that the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services has been tasked with conducting an investigation, and a former French foreign minister has been appointed to lead their own inquiry. Neither of these investigations or inquiries has concluded yet. It cannot be said that UNRWA has been given a clean bill of health. We have made the decision, in advance of the United States, to restore our funding to UNRWA, seemingly without having any independent evidence, assurance or confirmation that UNRWA has dealt with this issue of their complicity in the 7 October terrorist attacks and seemingly without any sort of assurances or commitments that steps, measures or safeguards have been put in place to prevent such an instance from happening again.

We also saw division with the United States in our voting on the ceasefire resolution in Gaza. Members here would recall that, when that resolution was initially put before the general assembly, Australia abstained. But, on 13 December, when a resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire—the implication of which would be to leave Hamas in power—was put to the general assembly, Australia voted in favour of that resolution, whilst the United States voted against that resolution. So we have been seeing an increasing divergence of our position from the United States on important issues of international security—the funding to UN bodies and the current conflict in the Middle East. That is why the comments of Senator Farrell were so concerning.

I did also wish to take note of Senator Wong's response to Senator Paterson's questions about the composition of the National Security Committee of cabinet. Let me just say that, in these sorts of issues, it is incredibly important that the people with the most expertise, the most intimate knowledge of our security and intelligence relationships and the access to the most information—our liaison and dialogue partners with our Five Eyes intelligence partners, the director-general of ASIO and the directors-general of ASIS—have a seat at the decision-making table, have their voices heard, are not added in ad hoc and are not only consulted when it's convenient but are always present for these discussions. That was always the practice under past coalition governments, and I very much hope that that remains the practice under this current government.

Question agreed to.