Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is important that leave of absence be granted to members for the next seven weeks in order to give the government that is crumbling before our very eyes the opportunity, should the Prime Minister be replaced or even if the Prime Minister is not replaced, to start regrouping and focusing on what matters to Australians today: cost-of-living pressures, job security, the protection of our borders, economic management. What we have seen in the last four days, what we have seen for the last 2½ years, is not the kind of government that this country deserves. We are a great people let down by a very bad government, and what we are seeing today is the final Brutus act of Simon Crean, the former minister for regional Australia, driving his knife into the back of the Prime Minister and supporting Kevin Rudd—the final act in what has been a tragicomic play. Unfortunately, the losers from this play have been the Australian people.

The opposition stands ready to form a government whenever an election is called. The Leader of the Opposition's team has worked for the last 2½ years to prepare this side of the House for government. At least one side of the House has been focusing on the kind of important policy work that will be necessary to get the country moving again should the government change whenever an election is held. On the other side of the House we have seen a revolving door of leaders. We have had more prime ministers in the last 2½ or three years than in the first 10 years of Federation, when our country first began.

It is not good enough—it is not good enough for the Australian parliament, for the 13th largest economy in the world—to be led by a government which is internally focused, inwardly focused. In order for leave of absence to mean anything, whoever emerges from the leadership battle this afternoon at half past four must refocus the government on what matters to the Australian people. How will the member for Griffith overcome the statement he made to the Labor Party caucus after he was defeated in February last year, when he said that he pledged his undying loyalty to Julia Gillard as leader of the Labor Party? He not only said that he would never challenge the Prime Minister of Australia in this term; he also said that if anybody else did, they would have to go through him first—that he would be the first person standing in line to defend the Prime Minister.

Today, the member for Hotham has called on the member for Griffith to stand for the leadership—but the member for Griffith is crippled from the beginning. If he challenges the Prime Minister this afternoon, he is breaking his first promise to the Labor caucus and to the Australian people—that not only would he not challenge Julia Gillard as Prime Minister but also he would be standing first in line to defend the Prime Minister. That is why leave of absence should be granted to members of the Australian parliament assembled today—so that the government can get its act together; so that finally it can start putting job security first, it can start putting cost of living first, as well as protecting our borders and good economic management. If it becomes apparent that those opposite cannot do that, they should call the election the Australian people so desperately desire so they can put adults in charge of the executive wing rather than those squabbling children; those knife-fighting, cage-fighting people who pass for the modern day Labor Party.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have just witnessed a vote where the majority of the members present in the chamber supported suspension of the standing and sessional orders to bring on a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney will address the motion before the chair.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It all comes back to leave of absence. These people need leave of absence not for seven weeks but for 10 years—and the rest. No government has been more incompetent, no government has been more dishevelled, no government has failed more at the basic delivery of policy, than the Gillard Labor government.

Now we have the shenanigans of the parliamentary Labor Party outside this place trying to work out who is going to be the Prime Minister of Australia. It is the Australian people who deserve the chance to determine who is the Prime Minister of Australia, not the parliamentary Labor Party; not the faceless men. I understand today is the 50th anniversary of that famous event when the faceless men determined the future of the Labor Party. It was a different generation but the symbolism endures today.

As of right now the chief protagonists are out there campaigning. It is not just the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, who has himself taken leave of absence from his ministry—he has been sacked, I understand—but Richard Marles, a parliamentary secretary, was on TV just before question time saying he is going to support Kevin Rudd. He is urging the member for Griffith to run for leader of the Labor Party. It is open warfare in the Labor Party, and who gets lost in all of this? The people of Australia. They are the ones left behind, along with their concerns about costs of living, their concerns about raising their families and their concerns about law and order. They are the forgotten people—the 23 million of them.

I would urge everyone to support a motion that gives the entire Labor Party leave of absence for a decade or more because they are the ones who have forgotten everyday Australians. For forgetting the interests of everyday Australians and putting their own interests first, they do not deserve to govern. They do not deserve to occupy the Treasury bench.

Over the last few weeks it has become patently clear that, whilst the government has focused on its own interests, on its own jobs, the budget has completely collapsed—not just for this year; there are now reports that the budget over the next five years is in complete disarray, with ongoing deficits. What we have witnessed in the last few months alone is a government that has been completely besotted by its own self-interest and a government that has forgotten the national interest. It has forgotten the interests of Australians; it has forgotten how to govern—not that, arguably, it ever knew. The member for Griffith wants to be dragged kicking and screaming to the Lodge. He is a reluctant participant in this entire play. The member for Griffith: 'Please, beg me to be Prime Minister; beg me to lead your party for I am the chosen one—only I, Kevin Rudd, can lead you out of the dark valley of your destiny and only I can take you to the promised land, the promised land where I happen to be.' He is the saviour.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney might relate this to the motion before the chair.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course it is only through leave of absence that the member for Griffith has come to understand that he is truly the chosen one. It is only through leave of absence, spending an extended period of over three years on the back bench—oh sorry, he was travelling the world. I am doing him an injustice because he was the world's best foreign minister for the period that he was there just as he was the world's best Prime Minister for the period he was there. He is the world's best member for Griffith and now he is the world's best would-be Prime Minister. If only his colleagues would overwhelmingly get on their knees and beg him to take over the leadership of the Labor Party. Of course, he will not accept the simple majority that most people would take. He wants every one of the members of the caucus to vote for him because the chosen one must have unanimous and complete support. The chosen one may choose not to be the chosen one but that is the right of the chosen one: to choose not to be chosen.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is very Monty Python-esque.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the member for Fadden and the member for North Sydney that we are getting to the stage of Monty Python-esque. I would refer some dignity to the parliament and refer to the motion before the chair.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would love dignity in the parliament, Madam Speaker, as my colleagues would. The only way we are going to get dignity in this parliament is to have a general election. The only way we are going to get dignity in this parliament is to give permanent leave of absence to the Labor Party. And the only way we are going to get dignity in this parliament is to have a government for the people, by the people, with the people on behalf of the people.

The Labor Party is a rabble. They need a permanent leave of absence and only the Australian people can deliver that.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly the government need a leave of absence. They need more than the leave of absence as proposed in this motion. They need, as the shadow Treasurer just said, a permanent leave of absence. Indeed, it ought not to be leave. It ought to be imposed upon them by the Australian people for having failed in government, for having failed to deliver on the commitments to the Australian people and for having let this nation down.

This is a government that has failed to meet its commitments to the Australian people. The current Prime Minister acceded to office with three major policy announcements. She said the three major policy failures of the Rudd era, when she knifed him in 2010, were the mining tax, asylum seekers and climate change. All three are now bigger problems than when she came to office. She has made them worse. We have got a carbon tax that she promised we would never have.

If today is to be her last day then enshrined on the tomb of her prime ministership will be the words: there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead. I think the government needs a leave of absence to go out and prepare the tombstone. So the first of the three major problems that she had to fix up she made worse by giving us the world's biggest carbon tax, one that is costing thousands of Australian jobs. It is making us uncompetitive as a nation. It is encouraging people to invest in other parts of the world while doing absolutely nothing to give us a better environment.

The second big problem we were going to have fixed was the mining tax. Well she has fixed it good and proper. It was supposed to raise $2 billion; it has raised net $40 million. This was the tax that was going to share the boom. Firstly, it has reduced the size of the boom. Secondly, this $40 million will go nowhere towards giving us a National Disability Insurance Scheme or Gonski reforms or any of the other things that she spoke about. I think that Labor needs time and leave of absence to help get their policies right and to make sure that they address the issues they promised. Thirdly, what about fixing the asylum seeker problem? There have been over 30,000 more asylum seekers and absolutely no end in sight to this human traffic. The reality is this government has failed dismally.

As was earlier mentioned, the Labor Party has no plan for the future. We do have a plan for the future. We do have a way forward. This is Labor's plan: Mr Crean and the faceless men. This is our plan: carefully prepared principles of policy that will make a real difference to ordinary Australians. We have a way of bringing our country forward. This government is lost and needs time. It certainly needs time on leave of absence to find its way once again.

I notice they are in quite a contest at the present time and need a leave of absence to sort out who is going to be leader. Who is going to be the head of this new government? I thought the qualifications for each of the candidates have been well and truly espoused by the Labor Party itself. I am interested that the member for Hotham is reputedly the man who will be Deputy Prime Minister under the new administration with somebody else as Prime Minister. The one he wants to be Prime Minister is Kevin Rudd. It was not very long ago, 31 January 2012, that Mr Crean had this to say about Kevin Rudd:

He can’t be prime minister again. He’s got to accept that.

Only a year ago, he could not be Prime Minister—now he is asking his colleagues to vote for him and make him the next leader of our country. This is Labor's way of doing things: they have been doing it this way for 50 years—it is no different today. This is a party that need time in the wilderness, that need leave of absence so they can get their organisational affairs in practice. If you can't govern yourself, you can't govern the country—and this government have certainly shown that they cannot do that.

There is a better way forward. There is a way that we can have a leave of absence that makes a difference to the Australian people: let's have an election! Let the people decide how long this leave of absence should be—should it be just for seven weeks, should it be for seven years or should it be for seven decades. The longer the better, as far as I am concerned. This is a government that has lost its way, has no idea where it should head and is in fact testing the patience of Australian people beyond belief.

Look around and try and find an Australian who thinks they are better off under this government. Look around and try and find an Australian who thinks this government has done anything to ease their cost of living or to make their lifestyle better. The answer is that they are simply not there.

Let us take the leave of absence period to wander around Australia and search out people who feel that this government has done a good job. It will take longer than seven weeks; it will take a lifetime. This is a government that has lost its way, has lost its soul, has lost its direction, has lost its leadership and does not know where to tread. This is a motion that perhaps even ought to be amended, to give this parliament a permanent leave of absence until there is a better government that can do a better job.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support this motion for a leave of absence for members—particularly those on the government side, to go and speak to their communities and reflect on the record of failure that this government has imposed upon the people of Australia. It is necessary for them to do that.

This afternoon the Labor caucus will go into the panic room, a room that this government have been operating from for some years, and they will make a decision: are they going to pick the Prime Minister who started the boats or are they going to pick the Prime Minister who cannot stop the boats? That is the choice they have, because whoever is running the business of the Labor Party at the end of today, the people-smugglers will still be in business—because the Labor Party will be in government. That has been the experience of the people-smugglers under this government from day one.

It was Prime Minister Rudd who started the boats. It was Prime Minister Rudd who did what the member for Kingsford Smith told radio host Steve Price all those years ago, on that lounge before the 2007 election: 'You know what? We're going to change it all.' And he was right: this government did change it all. They removed every single brick in the wall of border protection that John Howard built—brick after brick after brick, Prime Minister Rudd removed, followed by Prime Minister Gillard. And what have we seen as a result of that? Cost, chaos and tragedy.

That is why I support this motion for leave of absence: because members on that side of the House should go away and reflect on the consequences of the decisions that Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard together imposed upon this country and on our borders. It has been said today that if you can't govern yourself, you can't govern the country. Well, if you can't govern your borders, you can't govern the country either—and that is what this government is guilty of.

This government have changed it all. It was Prime Minister Rudd who abolished the Pacific Solution. It was Prime Minister Rudd who said, before the 2007 election, he was going to turn boats back. He abolished that policy when he came into government. It was Prime Minister Rudd who got rid of temporary protection visas, and since that happened there have been 34,373 people illegally turn up on 588 boats. But Prime Minister Gillard exceeded the performance of Prime Minister Rudd in this regard because, since she became Prime Minister, there have been 449 boats and 27,821 people. And during that time detention centres have burnt down, people have broken out and people have been just let out under this government and their failures on border protection, which those members opposite can go and reflect on when they are given this leave of absence.

All of these measures—the abolition of the quarantine on appeal to the courts of appeal that was in place under the Howard government; the excision policies, totally abolished by this government; the abolition of mandatory detention, effectively implemented by this government, not because they believed it was the wrong policy, not because they were struck by some noble sense of compassion, but because the detention centres were full and some of them had burnt down so the government decided to just let people out, without any guidelines or protocols or any form of structure to govern how people would live in the community.

I find it amazing that this week the Prime Minister thought it was a good idea that she control the behaviour of the media but she does not think it is a good thing to have protocols in place to control the behaviour of those who would otherwise be in detention.

This is what this government have been doing for 5½ years. It has been a seamless transition from one failed Prime Minister to another failed Prime Minister. And now this government will get together this afternoon will get together in the panic room and decide which failure they will pick. One or the other, the result will be the same: just more failure.

It was this Prime Minister who promised the East Timor solution, which turned into the East Timor farce. It was this Prime Minister who had the Malaysian disaster, in terms of not only how the policy but then how they sought to implement it. It was this Prime Minister, after being encouraged by those on this side of the House for years, was dragged kicking and screaming to restore the Pacific Solution—and, since they have, they have just shown their usual incompetence in how they implement and administer any policy.

Whatever happens today, as members go on their leave, one way or the other, as this motion supports, they will reflect on a period of time in government, as they move forward to a budget and an election, knowing one thing—that is, they cannot campaign on their record. What an indictment. What a contrast to the opportunity the people of Western Australia recently had, where they could re-elect a government on its record and do so in the way that they did, with some enthusiasm, and do so in a way that they could look at a Premier in Western Australia and say, 'You've done a great job—we're going to give you four more years.' This government cannot go to the people on that basis. There are two failed prime ministers—I suspect there could be a third one over there, but they are not putting their hand up, so they will have to return to the first failed one. That is the choice they have in the panic room this afternoon.

There is a better way forward, as the Leader of the National Party said. There is a much better way forward. That involves, on our borders, restoring the measures that worked. It is not rocket science. It just takes resolve. It takes a commitment. It takes policies that you believe in. If you believe in strong border protection then you put in strong border protection policies. If you do not, you resist it, you make excuses for it and then you only implement them if you are dragged kicking and screaming. And that is what the government have done. They do not think they have a problem on the borders; they think they have a political problem, and that is how they have dealt with this issue for the many years that they have been in government. And the Australian people know it.

The Australian people know that, whoever is running this sorry show on the government side of the House by the end of the day, it will still be a sorry show. It will still be an absolute carnival and a circus. The Australian people have grown very tired of watching this circus and they are looking for stable, responsible government—something those on that side of the House have demonstrated, by their own hand, on our borders that they are incapable of delivering.

A coalition government, if elected, will decide, on behalf of the Australian people, who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come. That will be our policy; that will be our resolve. You will never get that from those on that side of the House regardless of who is leading the Labor Party at the end of today.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the motion. Let me start by saying that the reason this parliament needs to break and to visit the Australian people and to work with them is that, after today, we will face the results of a choice between the Prime Minister who gave us the pink batts program or the Prime Minister who gave us the carbon tax program. Let us look at what these two choices have given us and understand why we have to go to the Australian people, why we need to face the Australian people. And we should be facing them with an election immediately, whoever is finally given the poison chalice of the Labor leadership and the revolving door at 4.30 pm today.

There are 20 great failures which we have identified, which need to be discussed with the Australian people, in the climate and environment portfolio alone. The amazing thing is that, when you look at that list of 20 failures from this current government, 10 are from the member for Griffith and 10 are from the member for Lalor. They are equally bad. It does not matter who gets the conch, it does not matter who gets the nod, they are two failed prime ministers with a failed history in their own areas.

Let me run through 20 failures. Firstly, the carbon tax broken promise—that is a Gillard breach of faith. Let me remind the House of what the Prime Minister said before the last election. The day before the last election she said, 'I rule out a carbon tax.' Six days before the last election she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'—one of the more infamous statements in Australian parliamentary history. The carbon tax under the government she leads, which was voted for by every member of the current government, is a $36 billion tax. It is an electricity tax which was responsible for Australian families facing a 10 per cent average increase in electricity costs, after the GST is included, and for Australian manufacturers facing a 14½ per cent average increase in electricity costs. It was a tax created through a breach of faith and brought in in a way which damages the livelihoods of Australian families, Australian pensioners, Australian farmers, Australian small business owners and Australian manufacturers. That is the act of breach. That is the faith which has been broken and that is why, amongst many other reasons, we need this break from the parliament to take this matter to the Australian people.

I would also say that the grand irony of this broken promise is that Australia’s emissions go up, not down. Under the government’s own modelling, our emissions go up from 560 million tonnes to 637 million tonnes. What does that mean? It means it is all of the pain for no gain—not under our modelling, not as a consequence of our say so, but on the basis of the government’s own Treasury modelling. It was a broken promise, it causes pain and it does not even do its job. That is the first of the items.

The second of course is the home insulation program. It was linked to four tragedies. It was responsible for 224 house fires. It has seen 70,000 repairs. It cost more than $2.1 billion, of which more than half a billion dollars was to fix the roofs. That was the program that was delivered in defiance of 21 warnings by the now bidding-to-be-Prime Minister, the member for Griffith. When he was Prime Minister, there were 21 warnings—whether they were from the electrical and communications association, from the union itself, from state governments, from authorities—and I seek to table those 21 warnings to the government.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted to table the documents?

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is not granted.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, Harry! That was Mr Rudd’s contribution.

The Green Loans program was a Rudd government program, and we know that the Green Loans program wasted $100 million and retrofitted just over 1,000 houses. The Citizens Assembly program was scrapped before commencement. That was from the current Prime Minister and not the previous one. The Solar Homes and Communities plan had a $500 million cost overrun—the member for Griffith. Then there was the Solar Flagships Program, for which, after some years, there is not a cracker, not a watt of energy, not a thing built. That was a grand member for Griffith announcement. All promise, no delivery. Cash for Clunkers. We know who that was. That was the current Prime Minister. The Green Car Innovation Fund. That was the previous Prime Minister. The Low Emissions Plan for Renters. That collapsed. That was the previous Prime Minister. The Solar Hot Water Rebate. That was the previous Prime Minister. The Clean Technology Grants, which were stopped and started and stopped and have now been started again, after the MYEFO came out. That is the current Prime Minister. The Connecting Renewables Initiative, which was folded. That is the current Prime Minister. The Renewable Energy Future Fund. Squandered. That was the previous Prime Minister. The Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, which delivered more in lavish dinners and conferences than progress on carbon capture. That was a Rudd initiative. The Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships Program. That has stalled. That was the previous Prime Minister. The Green Buildings for Tax Breaks Program, which was scrapped before commencement. That was the current Prime Minister. Phantom credits, which was scrapped two and a half years early, was the current Prime Minister's. Carbon tax advertising: $70 million wasted and a new program started this week—the current Prime Minister. The Green Start Program, which was scrapped before commencement. That was the current Prime Minister. And the Contracts for Closure Program, which was scrapped before commencement.

Twenty programs, 20 failures—10 failures for the previous Prime Minister and 10 failures for the current Prime Minister. Neither can govern and neither deserves to govern. The Australian people deserve an election. That is why we need to support this motion.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that I have been given plenty of advice, as one of the few members of the government who has been sitting here through this, I thought I might share with those opposite what I will be doing during the break. We just need to get a bit of balance. What I would like to say is that in a perverse way some of the comments have been very helpful for current actions that will take place at 4.30 in this place.

I will be talking about the job creation of this government. I will be asking people to consider whether they have actually heard anything from the opposition that would give them any confidence that this would continue. I will be reminding the people of my electorate that we have a strong economy, no matter what those opposite say. We have an economy that is the envy of the world. It was very instructive that in a major debate like we saw today the Leader of the Opposition would actually get around to stating that he understood the pressures of global and international circumstances that were on the Australian economy at the moment. Because his actions until today have been as if nothing really happened: the global financial crisis turning into a global economic crisis did not happen; and the sort of things that we confront as an economy are not happening.

But when I am out enjoying my leave of absence from this place, and taking my duties as a local member seriously, I will be asking the people of Scullin to think about interest rates and the way they have been contained under this government, despite those opposite who ran around like henny penny, saying the sky will fall in and that interest rates will go up. Let us have a look at the record. Let us consider that on an average mortgage there is a saving of something like $5,000 a year compared with the interest rates paid when those opposite were last in power. During the break I will remind them of the tax cuts that have been delivered by this government. I will remind them of the help for families and the Schoolkids Bonus—1.3 million families and $410 a year for a primary school child and $820 a year for a high school child. I will remind those in my electorate who are part of the 230,000 families Australia wide who are benefiting from up to 18 weeks leave under Labor's paid parental leave scheme. I will be reminding them to contrast that with the policy the opposition will go to the election with, which is that this should be a different scheme actually funded by a new tax.

I will be reminding the pensioners in Scullin of the increases that have been achieved during these difficult economic times. I will be reminding them of those who receive a $210 supplementary allowance for singles and $350 for couples to help them with essential living costs, because when this government instituted its price on carbon it understood that the effect on people would be dependent upon their means, and that they needed assistance.

Contrast that to when the imposition of the GST occurred. I remind honourable members, and I will be reminding my constituents during the break, that in the case of the GST those opposite did not go down the road that had been exemplified by the New Zealand Labour government when they instituted a GST VAT tax. They instituted and made sure that the compensation package was real and continuing.

I will go to the people in South Morang, who are already users of the NBN. I will talk to the likes of the person who has actually moved from Balwyn North to South Morang on the basis that he would be hooked up to the network of the NBN and he could then create a successful at-home business, because those are the things that an NBN can create. On that, I will use the break to remind people that sometimes vision and the national interest go beyond the business case, because, if we look at the way this country and other Western democracies have developed, if everything had been decided on a strict business-case basis without factoring in the public good, a lot of things that are important would not have happened.

I will proudly go to those improvements in the health services that have occurred under the governments led firstly by Kevin Rudd and now by Julia Gillard. We will open the South Morang GP Super Clinic. As a person who represents a safe Labor seat, I simply say to people that this government has ensured that when it has put out things that are provided under our programs they have been on the basis of need. I get a little disturbed when the suggestion is made—perhaps because the opposition knows that that was what motivated them—that these things are to do with pork-barrelling.

And let us not underestimate the difficulties of the federation. I would invite honourable members opposite to use the break to do that—to think of the way in which they can have influence on their colleagues in state and territory governments that are governed by coalition parties, and to really think about how difficult it is for a Commonwealth government under our Constitution and our federation to ensure that, when we have a national program, it is instituted and put in place.

I will proudly talk about the way in which we have looked at neglected sectors of the community, such as those who need mental health services. I will say that we have committed the $2.2 billion for the mental health package so that we can deliver additional services and have a greater focus not only on the treatment but also, importantly, on prevention and early intervention.

I will also ensure that people absolutely understand what a historic step it has been to get the NDIS legislation through the parliament—to have a concept such as disability care that people can look at. Regrettably, in retrospect, I did not enter the debate on the NDIS legislation. But if I had I would have said, and I will use the time that we have as leave of absence to remind people, that, yes, it is only a first step—and that was about the only argument I heard from those opposite that I could have some agreement with—but it is an important first step.

May I also use this debate to remind people—because I do remind people, when I speak to them about these important steps as I will be during the leave of absence—that this was a long time coming. On this occasion I want to pay absolute tribute to the former leader of the parliamentary Labor Party Kim Beazley, because it was back during the dark days of opposition, when it was a hard slog—and I think that those opposite just want to assume that it is not a hard slog—that Kim Beazley decided, after listening to those who had come forward on behalf of the disabled of Australia, and said that it was time that we redressed and tackled the difficulties that they were confronted with. Kim Beazley appointed a shadow minister for disabilities, and so we had a person of the ilk of Annette Ellis, who was that person, going around and talking to groups.

So often the glimmer of a positive policy takes a long time to become a shining light. The work that was done during the years of opposition led to the way in which, during the first period of government, under Minister Shorten, we saw that we could bring things that had been suggested by the Productivity Commission study to fruition. We saw in this parliament yesterday the legislation that will enable us to go forward, to build on this idea, and to ensure that we have the states and territories going forward with us on this so that it can come to fruition.

Whilst I talked about some of the criticism that came from the opposition during the debate on the NDIS legislation, I am pleased that they are committed to the idea of disability care and that they are committed to ensuring that they will be involved in continuing the work. I hope that during the break they are able to prevail upon their colleagues who find themselves in decision-making positions in coalition-led state and territory governments to react positively.

So I am happy to enter this debate. Perhaps it is because it is the last time I will need this type of leave of absence in the run-up before a budget session, but I welcome the debate. I welcome the debate because it shows that, no matter what happens around this place, the opposition continues to be in a negative vein because, for all the problems that they want to talk about here, I rarely hear solutions. And, based on their track record when in government on many of the things that confront us, not only do I not see a suggestion that they know the solutions; I am concerned that they do not have an understanding and they do not really know the questions that should be asked. I support the motion that was moved by the Leader of the House, and wish everybody a fruitful break.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this motion because we are at a critical time in this parliament's life, at a critical time in our democracy, at a critical time for the Labor Party—one of the two major parties; an integral part of a diverse and thriving democracy. Yet it is sick; it is sick at its core. And you do not have to take my word for it. Let us just see what the Labor Party has said about itself.

They need this time during the break to reflect further on the deep, entrenched, structural problems and cultural problems within the Labor Party that have brought a once-great party to its knees. And it was a former senior powerbroker and minister in the New South Wales government, Mr Della Bosca, who referred to 'the detested cast of ruthless, robotic machine men' who run Labor's campaigns. That was back in 2010. What has happened to those ruthless, robotic machine men? They still run the numbers. Nothing seems to have changed much from 50 years ago, when the faceless men decided what the Labor Party policies should be and who should be the leader.

John Faulkner, in his wisdom, said in early 2010 that 'all the political cunning in the world cannot substitute for courage, for leadership'. Let us not forget that having the courage of your convictions requires not only courage but conviction. And what we have seen from this Prime Minister and the current Labor Party is a lack of conviction. We have had their desperate, cynical attempt to try to appease the 24-hour media cycle and get a bit of a positive splash in the media. What have we seen in the term of this government? We have seen a desperate, minority government and a Prime Minister who is 'so tough, so feisty', but did not have the guts or the backbone to stand up to the Greens and say, 'No, I'm not going to break my promise not to introduce a carbon tax.' She caved in to the Greens, but all she had to do was throw them a few carrots; they were always going to support her. So a once great party has ended up being dictated to by a party on the fringes of political debate in this country. It is searching to find out what it believes in and what it stands for. As John Faulkner said on 9 June 2011 'the party has now become so reliant on focus groups that it listens more to those who do not belong to it than those who do. This makes membership a sacrifice of activism, not a part of it.' And the commentary goes on.

The reason I rise with such great vigour to support this motion is that it seems the Labor Party has not learnt from previous introspective investigation of what is so wrong with its structure, its membership base and its parliamentary representation. Only last year, Chris Bowen said: 'What is quite clear is that the government has considerable challenges. We have had for a considerable period of time now a low primary vote. I think the caucus needs to take a realistic look at what has caused that and I don't think the blame game of trying to blame one individual for all the government's challenges is a sustainable way forward.' What a great starting point!

Instead of focusing on the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps the Labor Party should try to focus on why it has absolved itself of the fundamental responsibility of good policy development and good legislation to take this nation forward in order for us to fulfil our potential and grow our economy. Remember that it was that great powerbroker and former Senator Graham Richardson who said 'whatever it takes'. Unfortunately, that is what has defined the action and the direction of the current Labor Party—at any cost.

And this Prime Minister, more than anyone else, embodies that. At any cost, she will sacrifice good policy. At any cost, she will sacrifice the nation's economy. At any cost, she will protect her vanity, her so-called legacy—and what a joke that will end up being. At any cost it is this Prime Minister's vanity, and her legacy, above the good of the nation.

And those in the Labor Party who have gone along with it because it has been too hard to confront the problems in the Labor Party have absolved themselves of a fundamental responsibility. But they cannot wash their hands of the problems that are absolutely suffocating the Labor Party at the moment. They need a leave of absence to reflect on how they have got to the position that they are in. They need a lead of absence to start the restoration of the Labor Party. They need a leave of absence to start to rebuild the grassroots of their membership.

What we have seen is that the faceless men of 50 years ago and those who have continued that tradition are the ones who decide who comes into parliament. They are the ones who inflate the union membership records so that they can increase their power at Labor Party conferences and preselections. So it is dodgied from the word go. We have got fudged up figures on how many members belong to particular unions, so we have got fudged up figures on their voting numbers for preselections into this parliament. When you begin from such a morally corroded base, how can you go on to be a trustworthy representative and a democratic and open government? You cannot, because the foundation is so rotten, the foundation is so bad. That detested cast of ruthless, robotic machine men need to be shown the door, and this leave of absence is an important period in which the Labor Party can start what they have failed to do in the past.

And I recall some very embarrassing moments for a former leader of the Labor Party, Mr Crean. I remember when he was fighting to hold onto his own preselection. This is a man who is part of Labor Party royalty. There he was—father, former minister, long-serving member that he has been. He needed to take an interpreter to speak to preselectors in one of his previous preselections because of the ridiculous stacking that takes place. How can you build a political party, how can you build a frontbench that is going to make the right decisions for this nation, when all the members on that side fear making one decision or voting a particular way because the union bosses—those faceless men who decide whether they can be preselected to put their hand up and run as a Labor candidate in a particular seat—could have them disendorsed with one decision, in a closed room behind closed doors?

And they all blame each other. They say Kevin Rudd has been putting his own self-interest in front of the broader Labor movement. They have said all sorts of things which I am sure would have to classify this period as the most unedifying, most embarrassing period in Australian political history—because at any cost, doing whatever it takes, this Prime Minister and those who have supported her have ignored any principles of good government and good policy and have descended to depths that I have never seen and that I did not think this parliament would ever see. We saw them try to confect a class war—in this country, a country that has been the beacon of freedom and opportunity for so many people around the world. But they need to try to find those hateful things that wedge us, not the things that bring us together. Having failed in their class war, they then confected a race war, straight out of the Prime Minister's office, last year on Australia Day—and they were exposed for it. How pitiful, how embarrassing, how utterly unacceptable, that the Prime Minister of this nation should have her office involved in a fraudulent attempt to claim that the Leader of the Opposition said something he did not, only to incite racial violence. And then of course we had the mother of all wars: the gender wars. What a hypocritical attempt that was; what a sad, pathetic attempt by the Prime Minister to deflect from the problems facing this nation, from the problems facing her leadership, from the problems that she should have been focused on. Again, it was another cynical attempt, at any cost, to save her own job, her own vanity, her own legacy.

And what has this done? This has caused great harm in the Australian economy. We see it in the area of manufacturing. Figures released today show that, in the last quarter, 30,800 manufacturing jobs were lost, bringing the total during the last five years of Labor to over 840,000. That means that, for the last five years, every 19 minutes we have lost a manufacturing job—when there are developed economies in the Western world, like Germany and America, that are experiencing a growth in manufacturing, who are steaming ahead with manufacturing innovation. This government is determined to slug a very important sector of the economy with additional costs during very challenging economic times, making them less competitive. We have seen closure after closure after closure. For many of them, the carbon tax has been the last straw. And what does this Prime Minister do? In her stubbornness, to try to whitewash reality, to try to rewrite history, she pretends—and her ministers pretend—that it has not happened. They pretend it is all to do with the dollar. Any economist knows that in order to remain competitive you need to keep your costs down. And when bad government decisions are made that deliberately slug your business with more costs, like higher electricity costs—and manufacturing businesses invariably use more electricity than other businesses—then that is going to put them at a competitive disadvantage against the imports that do not have a carbon tax imposed upon them.

We saw only today—again—a report provided by Brickworks to the ASX that the first-half result incorporated an increase of $4.7 million in energy costs, including the carbon tax. Why does this have to be so? It is because the Prime Minister, in her poor judgement—a creature of inward-looking factionalism—decided to betray the Australian people after her promise not to introduce a carbon tax, to give in to the Greens and give them the carbon tax that they had asked for.

We need a longer leave of absence, because this is a sick parliament with a very, very sick government at the helm that is doing this great nation a disservice. We have had deception after deception after deception, a mile of broken promises. We have had them break $1.4 billion worth of promises to the auto sector, we have had them break the carbon tax promise. On 300 separate occasions we have had them pledge a surplus, only to have that promise broken. We have had the betrayal of Andrew Wilkie, and the betrayal of each other—even amongst the Labor Party family. We have had the unedifying episode of the Craig Thomson affair, and the Peter Slipper affair. We have had the Prime Minister betray the Speaker she never really wanted. We have had so many betrayals, so much disappointment, so much embarrassment, so much damage to one of the greatest democracies that this world has ever seen. (Time expired)

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the leave of absence motion in the hope that, in the period reflected in this leave of absence, the government realise there are people out in our community struggling under their policies. The small-business community, whom I represent, feel that the government abandoned them long ago and that they vacated their interests and any effort to understand the pressures the small-business community are facing. The government granted themselves a leave of absence long ago to show no interest whatsoever in the small-business community of Australia.

People watch this parliament and I am sure they must think it is some kind of political equivalent of Midsomer Murders. There is a death every episode, whether it is the political death of a leader, death of allegiances, death of promises, death of integrity, death of undertaking, death of policy, death of good speakers as an act of convenience, death of parliamentary process when it is convenient for the government or death of agreements with Independents when they do not matter anymore. We just wonder what is going to happen next.

In recent days, I met His Excellency the ambassador—I will not say which one—from a nation that invests heavily in our country, who was lamenting the mood in his capital about how investors in Australia with significant contributions to economic opportunity and employment are left shaking their heads. They are just wondering what is going to happen next. They are wondering whether there are any adults in charge. They wonder whether government can manage to lift its head above the huddles of people working out who is going to do over whom and who might run.

According to Twitter, right now there are at least 20 Labor MPs in Kevin Rudd's office just begging him to run. The rose petals are out and everyone who has ever said anything bad about Kevin Rudd is now thinking about voting for him after absolute character vilification 12 months ago. They are signing a blood oath that they will never say anything nasty about him again. We are inching towards 4.30, when we will learn whether Kevin Rudd is resurrected in yet another episode of Midsomer Murders.

I ask this parliament to think about what we can do well over the coming weeks. It is a respite for people from seeing this circus, this dysfunctional and divided parliament, overseen by a Prime Minister seemingly completely preoccupied with her own job and her own survival and with not a jot of interest in the success and survival of small-business people and the jobs that they depend upon and provide for this economy.

Let us have a quick look at what is going on. The recent National Australia Bank quarterly SME survey found that small-business confidence, conditions, profitability, cash flow and employment levels were all in negative territory. You then look at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry small-business survey, where business conditions continue to deteriorate, quarter after quarter. They are falling again and have been tracking in a downward trajectory for every quarter over the last three years. There was a survey conducted by Sensis in its business index with small- and medium-sized enterprises. It asked a fairly simple question: how many of you think the Gillard government policies are actually supporting what you do? The result was that only six per cent of Australian small businesses think government policies are supportive of them—and I think I have found who that six per cent are.

In my travels around the country, I get asked, 'Who is the small-business minister today?' because there have been four small-business ministers in the last 15 months. All of them have had impressive union careers and would not know a small business unless during a threatening exchange over a cold pie. This is the concern. Depending on how today goes, we could end up with the fifth small-business minister in 15 months. Is there any wonder that there seems to be no interest in or commitment to small business? The portfolio is passed around like some kind of plaything at a kids party or, worse still, is dangled like a pinata—bright and shiny; 'Look at that'—and then everybody hops into it with a baseball bat. It seems that this is a passing interest that only gets a look in when an election is in the air. All of a sudden Labor decides it has to be more middle of the road in its policies and it realises that the most committed middle-of-the-road community we generally have are the small-business men and women. They are so embedded in our nation and our communities and see, day to day, the real-life experiences of their customers, their staff and the communities they operate in. Labor will think, 'We might need to talk about small business again.'

Let me make a couple of predictions. The last time, 12 months ago, when Kevin Rudd had a crack at becoming the Prime Minister again, all of a sudden he was saying where the Gillard government had lost its way. Which group featured prominently? He said, 'We really haven't done enough for small business, have we?' The retort I heard was, 'You've done plenty to small business, none of it good and, thank you, we don't want any more of that.' My sense is, if there is a resurrection of Rudd in the next hour or so, you will hear this all over again. After the punishment that has been meted out to the small-business community and family enterprises across Australia, there will be this flurry of interest that we have not seen since 2007, when Kevin Rudd was out there recognising that, when Labor politicians talk about the economy and seem to think it is only employees working for employers, there are millions of Australians who are not in that relationship; they are self-employed. They are independent contractors. They are courageous men and women who mortgage their houses to take a chance and apply their entrepreneurship and enterprise, not only in the hope that they will get ahead themselves but hoping to provide opportunities for people right across the country.

My prediction is that talking about small business will become the new black for Labor. They will see these harsh statistics that show that people feel that Labor have no interest in small business. Sadly, the evidence is backing that up quite clearly. I also predict that in maybe June we will have some sort of spectacle of small-business interest. Will it be a small-business statement? Will it be a small-business focus day? It will be some totemic thing that the Labor Party hope will get them some cheap headlines and that small business will think, 'All is forgiven.'

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A people's convention?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A small-business people's convention perhaps, because there was not one at Rooty Hill, was there? In that jaunt out to Western Sydney it was almost like the small-business person was kryptonite and Super Prime Minister could not go near them for fear of any injury or illness. I think the tacticians in the Prime Minister's office knew that it would be pretty hard finding a small-business person with much positive to say, so why risk that? That is my prediction. Whatever happens, you will see some festival of interest that will last about two newspaper cycles, then the show will move on as Labor tries to resurrect itself in the eyes of the electorate.

I talked about the harm. I do not think many people realise that since Labor was elected the number of people who derive their employment out of small business has declined by a quarter of a million. There are 243,000 fewer Australians employed in small business now than there was five years ago. Yet we hear that there is population growth. The world's greatest Treasurer tells us we have an economy that is booming along: 'Everything is peachy and humming along! We are at trend growth, or thereabouts, and isn't everything just great?' But in that narrative there is a complete disinterest in and ignorance of what is happening to the engine room of the economy which, under Labor, has had a cylinder or two taken out of it.

The number of people who are employed in small businesses has also declined by more than 10,000. The share that small business provides in terms of private sector workforce has contracted quite remarkably—from over 51 per cent, when Labor was elected, to 45.7 per cent. Yet there is no recognition of that within the government. In fact, the opposite has happened. I listened intently to see whether this consistent stream of research and advice, telling people how tough things are in the small-business sector, would register in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. I paid great interest to that document. I went from cover to cover to see whether there was any positive announcement about small business in that publication. And I found one!

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did find one. It surprised me that I found one. I read it and then I realised why it was there. It was in a chapter that said China might slow down and that that might have problems for our economy. But good news: the Chinese government has taken action to support small business in China, to try and keep its economic growth going! So the Chinese have set the example about how crucial small business is.

But I read on, and there was nothing at all in that document about the challenges small businesses were facing. The only positive statement was about what the Chinese government was doing. But then I read on further and found that there was another $380 million being allocated to the Taxation Office to continue its jihad against small business—to try and get every last dollar—and even where the dollar is not justified, to go after small business with the weight, the power and the resources of the tax office. According to the Inspector-General of Taxation the enforcement program of the ATO that targeted small businesses was going to be extended and enhanced by $380 million, and that 5,800 small businesses simply paid default tax assessments because they could not afford to fight or correct them.

That is the kind of message we hear as we travel around. It is a message of failure. Small-business owners talk to me and say, 'Bruce, it'd be nice if they left us alone. It'd be great if they were our allies and our advocates but if that can't be managed at least let there be ambivalence that has no harm attached to it.' Instead, Australian small businesses see, in this Gillard-Rudd government and whatever follows, an adversary—someone who is not on their side. This is a crucial part of our community that does not know quite what the government is doing to help them. They are just wondering what is going to be done to them next.

So, in this leave-of-absence period that we are debating, and which the coalition is supporting, I hope government ministers, whomever they might be—including, possibly, small business minister possibly No. 5 in 15 months, whoever that might be—might spend some time with the small businesses in their communities and realise that the courage and the risk, the efforts and the application, that small-business people apply to create opportunities and wealth, is understood and recognised by the government.

Last time Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister he went on that pre-election charm offensive, but nothing much came of it. We had Grocery Choice that was supposed to help consumers, but it did not. FuelWatch was supposed to help with cost-of-living pressures, but it did not work. We had a petrol commissioner, who wore that shingle around his neck, but had no new tools or powers to do anything about it. We had failed environmental programs like the pink batts and solar hot-water programs. They were unilaterally stopped while small businesses around the country were left with stock and financial obligations that no-one in the cabinet seemed to understand. We had a promise of 'one in, one out' as an approach to regulation, yet we have seen more than 20,000 new or amended regulations introduced by this government over a period where 105 have been repealed. That is hardly one in, one out.

There was a commitment to implement BAS Easy, but that just drained away. There was a broken promise about providing unfair contract protections for small business. That disappeared as well. We then saw a promise not to introduce a carbon tax, yet here we have one. It is a tax that, at his heart and in its design, has no greater victim in mind than the small businesses of Australia. Small businesses got none of the carve-outs, none of the compensation, and none of the hush money that was thrown around. They were told to either suck it up or pass it on. Suck it up! It was another cost so that margins got squeezed. That will be okay! Won't that work for a long time!

Small businesses are already struggling in this difficult economic climate where customers are cost conscious. Small businesses have upward cost pressures and overseas competitors who do not have the burdens that the Australian owners have to contend with. 'Just suck it up,' is the advice of the government, 'or pass it on to the consumers.' Then, after providing the advice to pass it on to the consumers, the government sent out the ACCC as a carbon cop, with small businesses that were contending with the carbon tax as their primary target.

This is a dismal record. You would remember that small business was promised a company tax. I remember the member for Deakin shot out a newsletter—a number of others did too—to small businesses in his electorate saying that it had been delivered. It has not been delivered. It has not even made it to this parliament—yet another broken promise.

And the government talk about instant asset write-offs as if that is some tax cut when it is simply a rephasing of tax obligations. And small business is smart enough to know they are not getting much from that. Contrast that with our plan and real solutions. Do you know what the centrefold of this document is? It is our plan for small business. I think it is the best couple of pages in this document. It is our plan for real solutions for Australia, helping small businesses grow stronger—

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member is aware that he is not allowed to use props.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I thought this was evidence. My apologies. I thought it was not a prop but evidence. I will put it down, because the evidence is clear. It is part of our practical, considered plan to give small businesses the support they need. There are many measures in there that I think are what small businesses are looking for. I hope that, over the six weeks, Labor members think about that. I do hope that the Australian public get the chance— (Time expired)

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are here to speak on a very important motion on a day that will be historic in its significance. It will be a day of shame for the Labor Party because this is a party that over the next seven weeks will have the ability to hang their head in shame when they go before the Australian public. It is a very sad occasion indeed for a party steeped in such history that they would find themselves in this position today. It is not just bad for the party but bad for the Australian public.

I am often accused of being old-fashioned in many ways, but I believe very strongly that the Australian government's first charge is to protect its people; to protect our borders; to make sure that we defend our citizens; to make sure that we provide for them and their families; to make sure that we have a bright future for generations to come. Yet, when I move not just around my electorate but around hospitals and surgeries and chemists around the country, when I talk to people in the streets and at airports, when I talk to those people who are doing it tough, they do not share the optimism that should be there for the Australian people in the 21st century. This government was elected five years ago to deliver basic provisions to the Australian people. They gave commitments, not just in the area of border protection, which they have been a complete failure on, but also in relation to the area that I have the most interest in in this parliament, and that is the issue of health.

The government's second charge after protecting its people is to make sure that they have a healthy environment in which to live, that is, that they have access to services, doctors, public hospitals,—particularly in cases of urgent emergent need for medical attention—that they can see a dentist, that they can receive medicines on a timely basis. Yet if we look at the last five years, and the last two years in particular, this government has nothing—nothing at all—that it can say to the Australian people in relation to health that it has delivered on. Is it any wonder that the government finds itself in this position and that we are contributing to this debate in relation to what not just the next couple of hours but the next seven weeks will provide for the government.

This government had the opportunity, it built up goodwill in 2007 and 2008, to do a lot for the Australian people in relation to the provision of health services in this country. Yet what have we seen? We have seen the same approach by Labor to health as we saw by state Labor, and that is a priority of bureaucrats over patients. A building of bureaucratic structures which has starved the government of the opportunity to provide health services to those most in need. Is it any wonder, when this government, over the course of the last 12 months, spends $1 billion on bureaucrats, that there is no money left for patients.

This government have failed on those first two basic fronts. That is why the Australian public is completely disillusioned with where the Labor Party is headed today, and people do not even know at this hour, just after four o'clock, with less than 30 minutes to go before a leadership ballot, whether or not Kevin Rudd is actually going to stick his hand up for this ballot. They are not saying to the Australian people that they want a leader who is going to lead this country forward. They are not able to say to the Australian public that they want Kevin Rudd because they think he is the best person for the future of this country. This government are saying to the Australian people that they want the member for Griffith not for those reasons which are in the best interests of our country, to protect our borders and to provide for the health of our nation. They are saying they despise this man and yet they want him because they think he can save a couple of their seats.

Is it any wonder that Australians of every political persuasion hang their head in shame at this government at this point in our history. Whether the Labor Party revert to Kevin Rudd, whether they go to Bill Shorten, whether Simon Crean comes in, whether Wayne Swan remains as Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer or whether they stick with the current Prime Minister, it matters not, because they cannot deliver on the basic outcomes that the Australian people require for themselves and for their families. In relation to these basic requirements, particularly in relation to health, not only have this government been able to create great big new bureaucratic structures, which is where they completely corrupted the public hospital network at a state level, they have been able to set in train a series of policies which have set us back in the health cause in this country. This government have wasted $650 million on a so-called GP superclinic program which put GP superclinics into marginal seats across the country, not in areas of need. What it did was it pitched capital of taxpayers—taxpayer provided funds—to set up these great big clinics in competition with existing clinics. So the doctors and nurses and proprietors who had set up these superclinics already, their own enterprise, had competition that was sponsored by the government on the diagonal clinic. What did it do? It did not result in more doctors coming to a particular area. It resulted in the cannibalising of the existing service, the doctors leaving the existing practice and going across to the new one. Why? Because, with $5 million gifted to them by the taxpayers of this country through this incompetent government, the new superclinic was able to offer lower overheads and therefore higher wages to the doctors from the clinic across the road. Did that provide any further services to the Australian people? No, it did not.

But the government did not stop there, and that is why they find themselves in this turmoil today and that is why we have built up to this position of crisis today. The government attacked private health insurance. There are 10½ million Australians with private health insurance, half the population have private health insurance in this country, and the fact is that if we do not provide support to those who are privately insured in this country we will collapse the public system. The system that was in place under John Howard, and that will be in place under Tony Abbott if we win the election, is to provide good balance between the public and private systems. We want to make sure that we can retain those people who are privately insured, because we do not want people to leave private health insurance. We do not want those who can afford private health insurance lining up and putting extra pressure into our already overburdened public hospitals. We do not want people who can afford to have private health insurance making it harder for pensioners and people of low income waiting months and in some cases years for hips or for knees.

If this coalition is elected at the next election I want us to be judged on the number of services and interventions that we can provide to the sick people of our country, because that is a basic charge of a government in the 21st century in a developed nation like ours. I do not want to be judged, as a health minister in this country, if the coalition wins the next election, on how many bureaucrats we employ in Canberra or in other structures around the country. I want us to be judged by the number of doctors and nurses that we can provide financial support to to deliver those health outcomes to the sickest in our country. That is what a responsible government should deliver for its people. This government continue to be distracted from those most basic services, and that is why they find themselves in this dilemma today.

It does not stop at their attack on general practice, it does not stop at their attack of 10½ million Australians who have private health insurance; it goes further. The government have ripped a billion dollars out of dental health care in this country. I believe the Australian public want to see a greater investment in dental health care. I believe strongly that the Australian public want to see the government deliver outcomes for those who are suffering dental pain, particularly children. The coalition will deliver such a plan to the Australian public. That is the commitment that we have provided. Again, that is in stark contrast to a government that has been distracted from the main game.

Not only will we address the issue in relation to providing more support for those who are privately insured and restore integrity to the dental system but we will also provide record funding to our public hospitals. The coalition, when we were last in government, when Tony Abbott was the health minister, increased funding to public hospitals. That is a fact that we are particularly proud of.

Over the course of the last six weeks, when this government have been distracted by their internal machinations, they announced a rip-out of $1.6 billion from public hospitals. It was bad enough that they announced that they were going to cut back money from public hospitals over the coming years, because they have wasted billions, but they announced that they were going to cut funding out of public hospitals in this financial year. Hospital administrators around the country who are managing hospitals and employing doctors and nurses do not wake up in the morning and say, 'We'll decide to do X number of hips'—or knees or backs, whatever elective surgery requirements they have for that day. It takes months of planning. They have to employ extra doctors, and commission extra staff, services and wards. All of that has to be provisioned for. Yet the government said to hospital administrators around the country, 'Here is your budget for this financial year,' and that is what those hospital administrators had budgeted for, so that they could provide for the people who were coming through emergency departments in need of urgent care. But, halfway through the financial year, in November—and bear in mind that services had already been delivered from July through to November—the government announced, with no prior warning, that they were going to cut back on funding in this financial year. In effect, it has a double impact: by cutting a million dollars out of a public hospital in a rural or remote community halfway through a financial year, you are effectively saying to that hospital, 'We need you to find $2 million in the second half of the year because you have already spent that proportion in the first half of the year.' Patients are the ones who suffer. That was unprecedented in this country, and it was done by a very bad government getting worse.

My honest belief is that, whether the government stick with Julia Gillard, switch to Kevin Rudd, get themselves into a position to go to Bill Shorten, or Simon Crean sticks his hand up in time, it will make no difference to the outcomes that this government are able to provide. If Kevin Rudd wins today, he will go out there with a speech similar to that which people have heard over the course of the last five or six years, but, believe me, we have watched this government in close proximity for the last five years. There are many decent people in the Labor Party, on the backbench in particular, but those people are as aggrieved and frustrated as we in the Liberal Party are, and as the general public is, that they are being let down by a bad government. You cannot thrust this country into record debt, fail to protect its borders and fail to provide basic health services and then say to the Australian people that you deserve to govern.

That is why I think this government needs to go directly to the Governor-General to deal with this matter and ask the Australian people who they believe is best able to govern this country over the years to come. If we do that we will restore integrity to our borders, we will deliver economic certainty for Australian small businesses, we will get confidence back into the Australian economy, and we will restore funding and balance to our public and private hospital and health systems in this country. We will do it for the people who elect us to do it, and that is what good government is about.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on this motion in relation to leave of absence. I must say, I am tempted to vote against this motion because it is quiet obvious that the government needs more than seven weeks absence from this place to find its way again. Whoever emerges from the Labor Party caucus room at the other end of this building in about half an hour as the Leader of the Labor Party, what we are witnessing today, as we have witnessed over the past few weeks and months, is the death throes of this Labor government.

The Prime Minister said a few weeks ago that she was announcing an election date, 14 September, so that she could get on with governing rather than campaigning. A little more than a week or so later, she spent a whole week campaigning in Rooty Hill, and what we see today is a government which is neither governing nor campaigning; it is simply looking at its own entrails. In the meantime, what is happening to the Labor Party—as I suspect decent members of the Labor Party believe, like the member for Banks opposite—is that the brand of the Labor Party is being trashed. To the frontrunners for this position, the current Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister: consider the choice that people like the member for Banks have to make—the choice between the current Prime Minister who is totally distrusted by a great majority of the Australian people, and the former Prime Minister who is so loathed by a great number of members sitting opposite that even now they are having trouble bringing themselves to actually vote for him to put him back into the leadership.

Simon Crean, who has pulled this spill on today, has said about the previous Prime Minister, that he 'can't be Prime Minister again, so the question for him is, he's got to accept that.' He said: 'People will not elect as leaders those they don't perceive as team players.' That is what Mr Crean said about Mr Rudd, the member for Griffith, and yet they are contemplating putting him back in that position again. As I said, it is a choice between someone who is loathed by those who have worked closely with him, so much so that they got rid of him as the Prime Minister, and somebody who is so unpopular, so distrusted by the Australian people. That is the choice members of the Labor Party have to make today.

In the meantime, the people of Australia are wanting action on things like electricity prices that have gone up by 89 per cent, water and sewerage up by 64 per cent, gas up by 60 per cent, education up by 20 per cent, medical and hospital services up by 38 per cent, rents up by almost 30 per cent, utilities up by 76 per cent and insurance up by 42 per cent. The reality is that ordinary Australians are suffering the impact of the rising cost of living. Families in Australia are concerned about the rising cost of living but, rather than governing this nation and doing something about the real issues that face Australians now and into the future, we have a party which is so riven by division, by factionalism, by hatred of each other, that whatever we get after this meeting in about 15 minutes time we are still going to have a trashed brand of the Labor Party, a Labor Party that does not deserve any longer to govern this country.

Australians are pretty fair with political parties—they usually give them a second go. Here we now have a party asking for a third or fourth go, in effect, with the revolving door of leadership. They are asking the Australian people to put them back once again—the man they got rid of might be back now, yet the people did not like him in the first place because his government was so dysfunctional. The Labor Party have to make a choice and, whatever choice they make, Australia will be the worse for it.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that members support this motion.

Question agreed to.