Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Maribyrnong proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s failure to be the Government they promised the Australian public they would be.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

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

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians, over the last eight weeks, have become very aware that the government they thought they were voting for, the one that was promised, is not materialising into the one that they have. To support this submission, I would put forward to the House and to those listening that this is a government which Australians are getting to learn about. It is a government of broken promises. It is a government that implements cuts that will hurt Australian families. It has divisions in its cabinet and it has unprecedented levels of secrecy.

Before the election, the now Prime Minister said, 'I will keep my commitments. We will do exactly what we say we will do.' But, less than eight weeks since the election, we are seeing the exact opposite. This is not the government that Australians were told they would be getting.

Let me talk about the challenge in the economy. Before the election, the Treasurer said, 'If debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer.' What do they do when they get into government? They run crazy on the government taxpayer credit card and are now seeking to almost double the debt levels. Before the election, the Prime Minister said that governments should be forced to specifically justify raising the debt ceiling and not just sweep it under the carpet. That was the coalition standard in opposition. It is a different and lower standard in government. Instead, they want to raise our debt to a historic level—$200 billion extra, the fastest and largest increase and the highest level of government debt in the history of federation. To be fair, this is not just secretive; it is sloppy.

Before the election, the coalition famously said that they would be a government of no surprises and no excuses. They said that they wanted to return to surplus as quickly as possible. But why on earth do they need to raise the debt level to $500 billion if they are planning to get into surplus by 2016-17? There is simply no case to raise the debt cap to $500 billion if you intend to get into surplus by 2016-17. If they have no plan to get into surplus, that is a different argument. But they cannot have both.

Instead of paying back the debt, they are inflating our deficit. And where do we start with their rash decisions? They have given a nearly $9 billion handout to the Reserve Bank of Australia, despite Treasury advice that it would be counterproductive. But, not content to increase the deficit by $9 billion, what do they do when they look at people with superannuation accounts of over $2 million? They give them extra tax breaks. If you are one of the 16,000 Australians who has an account of over $2 million, this government is on your side. But, if you are one of the 3.6 million Australians who earn less than $37,000, this is not the government for you.

The government want to give tax breaks to multinational companies. Indeed, they want to provide tax breaks for companies that seek to borrow to invest not—as you would think—in Australia but overseas. There we have it: in coalition-land, Australian taxpayers give tax breaks to those who do not need them, to multinationals and to companies to invest overseas. Why on earth didn't we think of that?

I will now talk about the priorities of the government. They made some simple promises before the election, ones that you would not have thought would be too hard to meet. The Prime Minister said that he would visit Indonesia in his first week. Bad luck, Indonesia: no Tony Abbott. He said that he would visit Arnhem Land in the first week. Bad luck, Arnhem Land: no Tony Abbott. Minister Ley promised to commence a Productivity Commission inquiry into child care in the first week. The poor little kids of Australia in child care have waited for eight weeks, and no Productivity Commission inquiry has started.

These serial repeat offenders in breaking promises famously said—and I like this one—that they would not have a Geneva focused foreign policy but a Jakarta focused foreign policy. I am sure that the Swiss are happy that there has been no focus on them, because what do a coalition frontbench do when they focus on you? They start abusing you. I love it: the coalition, fresh from being elected to government in Australia, have decided to try and run Indonesia. Why didn't we think of that?

Even more seriously, we have seen small businesses devastated by the bushfires. I ask the government—even if nothing I say convinces them—to please reconsider their approach to bushfire assistance to small businesses.

Whatever the problem, the Prime Minister says, 'Neck a public servant; get rid of a public servant.' But he says—and this comes from the lovely bubble-world that the coalition live in when it comes to industrial relations—that they can get rid of 20,000 public servants through natural attrition. They are going to wait for them to retire, supposedly. But instead what we are actually seeing is that they are not even keeping to that strategy. We are now seeing redundancies being offered.

And we have the famous boats promises. They were going to stop boats. Then they were going to buy boats. I bet that we never hear about the 'buy a tinny' strategy again. Now they are simply hiding the boats.

This is not the worst of it. Before the election, the coalition accused Labor of running a massive scare campaign when we said that the coalition would attack families in Australia. After eight weeks, we are seeing our claims coming true. These cuts are occurring. We know the list. Australians are learning about that list, to their disappointment. When you are in the coalition, why not cut the schoolkid's bonus? Why not take money off 1.3 million families? For a typical family, over the course of their children's schooling the coalition have put their hand in your pocket for $15,000. Only the coalition could dream of that.

Fresh from robbing the money from the kids, they moved on to people's superannuation. The government famously said that they would do nothing adverse to superannuation. Then they froze the superannuation increase. If you do not think that is adverse, go out into the real world. The coalition policy of keeping the superannuation guarantee at 9.25 per cent means that working Australians will have tens of thousands of dollars less. That is not the right way to ensure that Australians have decent retirements.

And 3.2 million small businesses get tax hikes worth $4.6 billion. Just because you say that you are the friend of small business does not make you the friend of small business. It is deeds, not words. The AI Group Chief Executive, Innes Willox, said this about the Prime Minister's tax hikes on small business: 'They will add complexity and compliance costs for eligible small businesses. It will subtract from their cash flow over the next few years at a time when many small businesses are struggling.' Do not just take our word for it; take the word of the Australian Industry Group.

We also understand that the Prime Minister's commission of audit is really a commission for cuts in drag. If we needed to be reminded or convinced of this, the chair of the Prime Minister's business advisory council went rogue on Monday—they let him out; I am sure that in the Prime Minister's office the red alarm lights went off. He is another very well off businessman proposing more crazy ideas that the coalition secretly love. Do you know what he said? He said that the minimum wage is too high. Do those opposite think that the minimum wage is too high? In fact, do those opposite even know what the minimum wage is?

They said that the NDIS is 'reckless'—thank you, very much, Maurice Newman! And we have seen the reports that the commission and the government are considering. We could not even dream up this list of scare campaigns in the election, because even we thought it was being unfair to the coalition. Why didn't we think of telling Australians that those opposite, looking to privatise HECS debt, were going to privatise Australia Post? They are going to outsource Centrelink and Medicare—and why not outsource the National Disability Insurance Scheme? So much for commitments about no surprises, so much for commitments about no honesty, so much for this government's priorities.

And we have seen the attack on experts. When you have a problem, why not blame an expert? The Prime Minister has never seen an expert that he did not want to sack. And we have seen disagreements within the government—not a promising sign. You have poor old Minister Macfarlane trying to stand up for the car industry. I love getting a lecture from the other side about the car industry! They want to rush down and just close the whole game down. What Mr Macfarlane said in the Financial Review is that if you do not subsidise the industry it will not be there. He then says, 'I accept that argument'—I am sure the Nats do, as frustrated agrarian socialists—'but I'm not sure that my colleagues do.'

Now we have seen the Treasurer, and we have seen the remarkable saga which is the difference of opinion between the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister on GrainCorp. How good is it? We have an independent Foreign Investment Review Board, but we have those in the coalition feuding like cats and dogs about the future of GrainCorp. That is not business certainty. Indeed, the communications and finance ministers—this was a classic one— (Time expired)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to respond to the statement when I say that your time has expired, and not go over time.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wasn't that an interesting insight into what Labor has learnt from its election loss? It has learnt absolutely nothing. Despite this charade of democracy, trying to find who will take over a Labor Party and a Labor movement that believes in nothing, has no ideas about the future and thinks every public outing is a branch meeting, we have just seen writ large that nothing will change under this Labor government—this Labor opposition, I should say; isn't it interesting how you can get into that habit, having listened to that kind of rant over six years and realise, 'Gee, it is a different side of the chamber, but nothing's changed.' You have seen the new opposition leader trying to scratch around for some attack points as some kind of red meat for Labor backbenchers who realise that they have a leader who believes in nothing, who got through a beauty contest to become leader for a party that has not learnt anything from the election results and can offer nothing new in terms of the future prospects for this country.

What is clear, though, is that nobody has lamented the Labor loss. People greeted the change of government with optimism and positivity. You have seen that in some of the survey results that have already been released. You have seen that in the engagement of Australian men and women in the governing of our country, the bringing forward of ideas—that you do not need to be a big union boss to get the ear of the government. This Abbott coalition government is interested in and values everybody's views, and we are keen to support all their ambitions, not just those of the union hierarchy, which still seems to be coming through from those opposite.

The opposition leader sought to make the case that somehow the government has not done what it promised to do. Isn't it interesting? Normally when he is on talkback radio he is complaining about the consistency of the government's agenda. He is trying to mock what he believes is a mantra of our election commitments that actually represent the key cornerstones of a plan to restore hope, reward and opportunity in this country; to build a prosperous economy; to see that through that prosperity opportunities are available to all, not just some; to see our economic security strengthen and to see our national security strengthened. This is what this debate is about. (Quorum formed) Isn't it interesting? Day one, MPI, it is supposed to be Labor making the killer blows at the politics of the day, and they are trying to run down the shot clock by some simple facts that this is a nonsensical motion—from a Labor movement and a Labor leader who believes in nothing, has no plans for the future and has learnt absolutely nothing from the election result. Let's have a look at their allegation—some suggestion that the government has not done what it promised. Isn't that extraordinary? It seems as if the Labor movement has not recognised the election result and the basis on which the coalition took a very positive plan about the future to the electorate.

Is it strange that the Labor Party have not picked up that we are trying to abolish the carbon tax? Can anyone remember a discussion about a carbon tax? I remember a discussion about a carbon tax. I remember very clearly the commitment made by the coalition that, if we earnt the support of the Australian public, we would get on and, as the first order of business, abolish the carbon tax—something so cruel, so punishing to too many Australian households; an impost that so many small businesses are finding is pushing them right to the edge of viability. We have done exactly what we said we were going to do. The first order of business in this parliament was to abolish the carbon tax—and we have Labor suggesting we are not doing what we said we were going to do!

Do you remember a message, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'? Wasn't that a statement made by a Labor leader prior to the election before the one just held? Isn't that a rolled-gold, world-leading example of promising to do something and then not doing it—or, in this case, as Labor did, promising not to do something and then going ahead and doing it anyway? The hide of Labor coming in here making this allegation can only be matched by the insensitivity of Labor to the reality of the election result. We have got on with abolishing the carbon tax.

What about the FBT hit on the car industry? We promised that we would knock that off, too, because that was like a dagger to the heart of the car industry. The last thing they needed was a Labor induced reason for people not to buy Australian cars. We have got on and dealt with that. What about the Clean Energy Finance Corporation? Didn't we say that that was going to be abolished? Again, we have got on with that very clear commitment. What about having a military led effort to protect our borders? I seem to recall that that has been happening as well. Has anyone noticed some discussion about that? Even those opposite recognise an awful lot of effort and enterprise has been going into that area. Establishing an Indigenous advisory council—tick, done: promised and delivered. A business advisory council is another example of where the government is getting on and implementing its commitments.

There is the engagement with Indonesia. The Prime Minister's first overseas visit—tick, another commitment delivered. There is a review into training and education programs for Indigenous people. We are looking at a genuine compensation scheme for Australian victims of terrorism. The list goes on and on. What we have seen time and time again are examples of the coalition making clear, straightforward commitments and then getting on with implementing them. A one-stop shop to streamline environmental approvals has already been endorsed through bilateral arrangements with two states—another example of getting on with our work. It is all about giving our country its best prospects to be its very best.

There is the Commission of Audit, trying to end the binge of spending that we saw under Labor. Remember that Labor election commitment that they were 'fiscal conservatives'? If you could bring in revenue for irony, there would have been an enormous budget surplus under Labor! So much for fiscal conservatives—they wouldn't know a surplus if they fell over one. Now we have to try and restore the finances of this nation so that not only are we delivering our promises, as we committed to doing; we are delivering improved opportunities for Australians—not just now but into the future. Ours is a government that is doing the hard work to put in place its plans so that our nation can be its very best.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about budget decisions. Wasn't it Labor that promised on over 500 occasions that they would deliver a surplus? They sent out newsletters to households around Australia. Isn't it a little bit rich for them to come in and say that we are not doing what we said we would? They are saying they did things they didn't do, like deliver a surplus—and then produced newsletters to that effect. They went on about the debt limit. At least there was some integrity in the former Treasurer, when Wayne Swan admitted that there was a problem but someone else would have to deal with it. That was his candid observation. And now we are getting criticised by Labor for actually dealing with it.

On natural disaster assistance for small business: is this not the height of all irony? We have acted decisively to implement our election policy. What Labor are complaining about is that we have not done in six weeks what they didn't do in six years! They did not even have a policy. But time and time again we made the simple point that small businesses can be indirectly affected by natural disasters. They may not be in the direct path of those natural disasters but they were impacted by them. We are working to implement that commitment, a commitment those opposite did not even have the wit to come up with over six years.

What you have is this vivid contrast: a careful, competent coalition government led by an outstanding Prime Minister with a terrific team, an emboldened backbench with more talent. This is an outstanding political gene pool of great people getting— (Time expired)

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government is not the one that Australians voted for. They have failed to be the government that they promised they would be. They promised, for example, that their foreign policy would be 'less Geneva and more Jakarta'. That has worked really well over the last few weeks, hasn't it!

The Leader of the Opposition and I met with a delegation from the Indonesian government this morning, and it was a very constructive meeting. It was a meeting that underlined the importance of our long and deep relationship. Indeed, the relationship was never better than it was under the previous Labor government. We handed over a relationship in fine working order. In just a matter of weeks we have seen misstep after misstep from this government. I strongly urge the government to repair this important relationship with one of our nearest neighbours.

The government also promised to be open and transparent. We saw that at work this morning, didn't we! We saw not just the government voting to gag the minister for immigration; we saw the minister for immigration voting to gag the minister for immigration! So much for openness and transparency. Since coming to office, this Prime Minister has created a culture of secrecy. It started before the election, with backbenchers banned, with candidates banned, with even frontbenchers banned, from speaking to the media. We had one candidate talking after the election about how he was banned from attending a shopping centre with the Prime Minister. He was not even allowed to walk beside the Prime Minister, the then opposition leader, through a shopping centre! Since the election, this culture of secrecy has become deeper and it has become worse. Today we were debating a set of standing orders that reduce the opportunity for debate and discussion in this House, that reduce the opportunities that private members have to raise and debate the issues that are important in their electorates, the issues that matter to their constituents.

This government is not the government that it promised it would be—not when it comes to transparency and accountability and not when it comes to being an adult government. We wasted time this morning because the Leader of the House wanted to defend his right to call people names in the House of Representatives! He wanted to defend his right to act like a schoolchild in the House of Representatives.

The people of the Blue Mountains and the people of the Hunter region who were affected by bushfires have faced perhaps the deepest and most distressing let-down by the government—perhaps the deepest and most distressing difference between what the government said before the election and what they are doing now.

The previous member spoke about the grants to small business. He was somehow intimating that this was all happening, that it was all underway. I would like him to tell the House whether any business that has been affected by bushfire has received any payment. Now is when they need it, not in six months time, not in a year's time. Has any business received any of the money they were promised? Having been Minister for Human Services during the time of the Queensland floods, I know that the criteria that are now being used to evaluate who is eligible for a $1,000 emergency relief payment for adults and a $400 emergency payment for children are different. There are people who are missing out after these bushfires who under Labor's rules would have received that modest amount of money to help them at a time of unparalleled, unprecedented needs when they have been confronted by probably the worst days of their lives, evacuated from their homes not knowing whether they will have a home to go back to and let down by this government. When did you say prior to the election that you would take money from bushfire victims? When did you say to the Australian people that bushfire victims would suffer if you were elected?

And not only that but they have failed to deal with the New South Wales government to properly deal with the asbestos clean-up in the bushfire affected areas. It means people are facing delays that they should not be facing. It means the construction effort is being hampered and hindered—because the federal government has refused to work properly with the New South Wales government in the way that happened after the Victorian bushfires and the Tasmanian bushfires. Again, they are letting down people who have been affected by bushfires in New South Wales.

They said they would improve the relationship with Indonesia; they have not. They said they would be open and transparent; they are not. They said they would be adults; they are not. And they never said they would betray bushfire victims.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would advise the member for Sydney that the use of the word 'you' is a reflection on the chair. It was common in the last parliament on both sides of the chamber. On this first sitting day it is time to remind all members that the use of the word 'you' is a reflection on the chair; it is through the chair that you are speaking. I take this opportunity to bring that to the attention of both sides of the House.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would never intend to reflect on you.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Sydney.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, congratulations on your appointment. Getting a lecture from the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about promises and trust is like getting a lecture from Eddie Obeid on ethics: it is not credible. The government has chosen to focus on this question. Frankly, I thought there was nothing more that the Labor Party could do that would shock me, but today it has again shocked me. This is from Labor, which failed to do as it promised in government. It promised it would not bring in a carbon tax, yet what it did immediately after forming government was introduce it. It promised that it would deliver a surplus, at a time when we were experiencing our highest terms of trade; it delivered not one surplus. It promised it would limit debt, yet it had to increase the debt ceiling from $75 billion to $200 billion to $300 billion. And now we are forced to deal with Labor's debt, which will mean we need to raise the debt ceiling to $500 billion. It promised that it would be responsible with taxpayer money, yet the Labor Party delivered pink batts and overpriced school halls. The Labor Party promised that, when it formed government, it would be more humane on boat arrivals, and yet, in dismantling the very successful Howard government initiatives, we saw more than 1,000 people die at sea. So I will not take a lecture from the Labor Party on trust, integrity and promises.

We on our side of politics take this very, very seriously. We said that we would restore hope, reward and opportunity for all Australians. We said we would restore dignity to this place, and we have done that. The appointment of Speaker Bishop and Deputy Speaker Scott has restored dignity to this place. We said we would have respect for the Australian taxpayer and their hard-earned dollars; indeed, we do. The very first thing we have done in this place on our first day of parliamentary business is bring forward legislation to repeal the carbon tax. It is a promise we made before the election and it is a promise we will deliver. The only way this promise will be obstructed is if those opposite do not listen to the Australian people and try and stop us from delivering this promise to get rid of a carbon tax that puts our businesses at a competitive disadvantage to those overseas and costs the average Australian household more than $550 a year. That is point No. 1: we are delivering on the carbon tax.

We are also delivering on respect for taxpayers' money. We have set up a commission of audit; it is well underway. We are going through the budget, line by line, to make sure that not one dollar of hard-earned taxpayers' money is wasted. That audit will shortly be delivering its findings. We have also said we are going to cut $1 billion of red tape and regulations. Under the previous government, we saw more than 23,000 new regulations introduced; they promised it would be one regulation in and one regulation out. We have seen an explosion in regulation. Already we have cut green tape by signing up with the states on a one-stop shop. The Queensland government is already on board, and other states are signing up as well, to make it easier for businesses to grow, for investment to occur and to employ people in jobs.

We said before the election that we would stop the boats. We have seen a very significant reduction in boat arrivals through the sweeping policies that we promised to put in place before the election, which are now in place today. The minister has been reporting week by week. In his Friday report just gone, there had been not one boat arrival for two weeks. We are a government that delivers on our promises. Those opposite simply shriek from the sidelines and try and hold us to a standard that they themselves were not prepared to deliver. They never met that standard and they do not intend to meet it now. They do not intend to listen to the Australian people now.

The Prime Minister also promised that the very first country that he would visit when he was Prime Minister was Indonesia and, again, that is something that we have done in government. We will deliver on our promises. We just ask the Labor Party not to stand in the way.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is so much to choose from when speaking on this MPI. We could talk about immigration and how this government is not what it promised to be—how they promised to turn back the boats, and buy the boats. We saw the spectacle today of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection saying that that was an operational issue, and treating this parliament with contempt. That is not how we recall him behaving when he stood at this dispatch box on this side of the House—it was a very different attitude from the member for Cook in those days. But we cannot go past the other spectacle and the other prime example of this government's breach of promise to the Australian people, and that is the management of debt and deficit—the prime example—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

of this government's hypocrisy. On 22 October the Treasurer, with equal parts chutzpah and hypocrisy, stood in the blue room and said: 'By the way'—casually, he said—'we are going to increase the debt limit to half a trillion dollars.' Around Australia, voters, even conservatives, scratched their heads and said: 'Is this the same Joe Hockey? Is this the same Joe Hockey who told us—not that debt was a challenge, not that debt was a problem, not even that debt was a crisis—that we had a budget emergency?' Well, some emergency—especially if the way to fix it is to increase the debt limit to half a trillion dollars! When this government said, 'We will pay back the debt,' did the Australian people think that that meant increasing the debt limit to half a trillion dollars? The Prime Minister stood in the chamber today and said: 'We never voted against an increase in the debt limit when we were in opposition—we might have voted against stimulus measures.' That is just plain wrong. It is misleading this parliament and misleading the Australian people. He and all his colleagues voted against increases in the debt limit. Now they are proposing the biggest one in history: a 67 per cent—$200 billion—increase in the debt limit of this country. Why? Because debt is going to increase. 'Debt going to surge, Abbott admits'—is that what the he told the Australian people before the election, Mr Deputy Speaker? Is this a headline we would have seen before September 7? Is this a headline you would have put in your election pamphlets—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for McMahon will not use props. He knows it is disorderly.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I have made my point, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't force me to make another point!

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no budget emergency to be seen after the election. And it is not just that: last year on 11 May, we heard the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, talking about debt limits. He went on radio 2GB—just for a change, to face a hard-hitting interview—and he said about the previous government's debt limit: 'The government has to justify this. Our money, our future is too important to be mortgaged like this without the government giving us the strongest possible arguments for it, because every dollar they borrow has to be repaid. Give us the strongest possible arguments for it.' Now, in office, they casually release an increase in the debt limit to half a trillion dollars, with no argument—and with no mid-year economic forecast—to justify this. And again, we saw the Prime Minister standing at that dispatch box today saying, 'We will release MYEFO in December, just like the previous government did.' That is the second misleading of the parliament in his first question time—one question time, two misleads of the parliament from the Prime Minister—because not once during the Rudd or Gillard governments was the mid-year economic forecast released in December—not once. A clear mistruth from the Prime Minister of Australia, standing at that dispatch box in question time. This is not something he told the Australian people before the election: that his government would seek an increase in the debt cap without releasing MYEFO—that is, a mini-budget. This is not something he said before the election; it is something he misleads the House about after the election, in the first question time. That is two misleads by the Prime Minister of Australia—two misleads of this parliament. That is treating the parliament with contempt. At least the member for Cook did not mislead the parliament; he just did not tell us anything! But the Prime Minister has misled this parliament twice on matters of economics.

We had the Treasurer standing at this dispatch box on 21 May 2012—you can just imagine him; he would have been in full flight, all bluff and bluster—and saying:

Now they are saying they are living within their means but are also saying, 'Just in case, please give us an increase in the credit card limit to $300 billion.' It does not sound like a lot if you say it quickly but it is a hell of a lot of money that Australians have to repay.

Three hundred billion dollars was a lot before the election; $500 billion is a mere trifle after the election—a mere bagatelle that this parliament should apparently approve without debate, in 24 hours, because the Treasurer says so in his arrogant way.

This parliament will approve a debt limit but not the one this Treasurer arrogantly calls for. (Time expired)

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and may I congratulate you on your reappointment as Deputy Chair. We have just heard from the member for McMahon, Blowin' Bowen—blowin' in the House and blowin' the budget—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but the member for McMahon just shows the hypocrisy of this government. The reality is, we are being the government that we promised to be. More than that, we are being the government that the Australian people expect us to be. A government that actually says what it means and does what it says. An adult government—a government committed to axing the carbon tax and the mining tax; a government committed to stopping the boats and securing our borders; a government committed to getting rid of the red tape in order to build this nation.

What hypocrisy we have seen in the speeches from those opposite. These were the people who said they were going to be fiscal conservatives before one election and then went in and blew the bank. They blew everything that was in the kitty—on Pink Batts, on overpriced school halls; you name it, they blew it. These are the same people that promised over and over again, hundreds of times in fact, that they were going to achieve a surplus. But where is the surplus? Debt and deficit is all we got from the last regime. And finally, these were the guys that promised, infamously, before the 2010 election that there would be no carbon tax under the government they led, and what did they do immediately after that? They brought in a carbon tax that has helped to wreck this economy. More than that, they promised just before the last election that they were going to get rid of the carbon tax—they actually said that they had gotten rid of it—but it is still here. And here they are in this chamber, these hypocrites, opposing our measures to try and repeal the carbon tax. They can't even keep their own promises. We have seen it time and time again. That is what we have come to expect from this lot. But now they are trying to stop this government, this adult government, from keeping its promises. They have the hypocrisy to come in here and talk about keeping promises and lecture us. In the last parliament 149 out of 150 members had gone to the election promising there would be no carbon tax, and Labor gave us one anyway. In this parliament, 149 out of 150 members went to the election promising again that there would be no carbon tax, and now they want to keep it.

Let us look at what the Liberal-National government promised the Australian public before the election and compare that with what is happening right now. We promised a number of important things to get this country back on track. We promised to build a strong and prosperous economy and to build a safe and secure Australia. At the election, the people agreed with our plan, giving a strong mandate to implement that plan with a resounding yes. We promised to axe the carbon tax, to end the waste, to stop the boats and to build the roads of the 21st century. Repealing the carbon tax is a key initiative in removing the roadblocks that Labor and the Greens put into our economy. We promised to remove that tax to get the monkey off the back of industry and to lower power prices for families. We told the Australian people that the carbon tax repeal would be our first order of business, and it has been, despite the efforts of those opposite to frustrate things today. We promised to scrap the mining tax, and indeed that is coming. We promised to stop the boats, and since Operation Sovereign Borders has commenced, the number of boat arrivals has fallen by 75 per cent. In contrast, these guys—Labor—dismantled the Howard government's proven border protection policies, which resulted in more than 50,000 illegal arrivals by boat on their watch, creating a blow-out of $11.6 billion.

We promised to cut red tape. Already we have commenced a commission of audit to end duplication and ensure that people get value for their tax dollars. We have already identified needless red and green tape that is choking industry. We have got agreements in place with Queensland and New South Wales to move towards a one-stop environmental assessment shop. That will create huge savings in time and money for business while enforcing environmental standards. We have already started making the tax system fairer by cleaning up the books that these guys left. Last week the government dealt with 93 tax measures that were left unlegislated and unresolved by the Labor government. We have already moved to get rid of Labor's $1.8 billion FBT hit on the car industry.

We have made these promises and we are delivering them because we want to get on with building the nation that people actually want. We are keeping the promises that we made, because they are about building a strong economy, like the one we should have. We are about being a government that we promised we would be—an adult government that is axing the taxes, stopping the boats and cutting the waste in order to build the nation. (Time expired)

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, indeed, an adult government is what was promised. Open and transparent government was the commitment before the election, but what we have in the Abbott government is a government which is characterised by secrecy. Who would have thought before the election that the way in which media would be done by this government after the election would be based on the most rigid command and control operation run by the Prime Minister's media office? Already we have got ministers being refused permission to appear on programs to say their word, and we know about it. It is the first working day of this government in this parliament and the cabinet is already bleeding.

We are seeing the culture of secrecy being applied most significantly to border protection. On 23 September the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection announced to everyone that there would be a weekly briefing about border protection in this country. What he made clear first and foremost in that briefing was not what he would say but what he would not say. He was not going to tell anybody—he would not be briefing on—anything which constituted an operational matter. Since then we have learnt that just about everything constitutes an operational matter. A boat which the whole of the country knows is already in Darwin—the fact of that—is an operational matter which could not be confirmed in this parliament today in question time. Where ministers are meant to be held to account, the minister for immigration today put himself above question time and refused to confirm the fact that there is a boat in Darwin Harbour—a fact that the whole country is aware of.

We are now in a situation where we learn more from the Jakarta Post about the circumstances of our border protection than we do from our own government. We learn more about an interception at sea—as we did last Thursday evening—from Indonesian search and rescue authorities than we do from our own government. Having promised open and transparent government before the election, what we have after the election is a government which is operating on a need to know basis. The Australian people are being given information about what this government is doing on a need to know basis.

What we are seeing from this government—having declared that the adults are now in the room, that the adults are back in charge, that there will be no bickering—is more division in its first two months than we have seen from any government in the history of federation. There is more division between the National Party and the Liberal Party today than there has been in the history of the coalition.

Let us take foreign investment as an example of that. We hear the Minister for Trade and Investment talking about the need to enter into a free trade agreement with China—a laudable objective, might I say. Hundreds of thousands of future Australian jobs are dependent upon that, but we hear everyone in the National Party demonising foreign investment in this country, running to the decks of xenophobia. There is as big an ideological division between the National Party and the Liberal Party today as we have seen since the coalition has existed. In the last few days we have seen this turn into high farce in terms of the contradictions which have occurred between the various cabinet ministers in relation to border protection.

On Monday we saw the Minister for Foreign Affairs being asked a question about a significant matter—the relationship between Australia and one of our nearest neighbours, Indonesia; that is not an unimportant bilateral relationship. What did she say? She ducked for cover; she vacated the field. Probably fairly for her, she decided that discretion was the better part of valour and she pointed directly to the immigration minister. So we go to the immigration minister, and what does he have to say about the relationship with Indonesia when it comes to asylum seekers? He says he can see no rhyme or reason for the behaviour of Indonesia when it comes to asylum seekers. The Prime Minister, having said before the election that he would not engage in megaphone diplomacy, does precisely that and starts lecturing Indonesia from Australia about its obligations to take people back. We have even seen the minister say that there is no people-swap deal on the table, and we have had the Prime Minister in question time this afternoon refusing to rule it out. The adults are not in the room; what we have on the other side is high farce.

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

Congratulations to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your position. I know that this is the first sitting week of the new parliament, but clearly the opposition may need some more time to work out how to be an effective opposition. If you look at this MPI you would not think that this was the most effective way to be an opposition. In fact, we have seen some almost hysterical contributions. After all, the election was a couple of months ago, and they have had two months to plan this first MPI. How are we going to do it really well? What is the key thing we are going to come up with to hold the government to account? What have we got?

All we have is hypocrisy—absolute hypocrisy—and nonsense from the opposition. This MPI is about the apparent failure of the government. We are what we promised the Australian people we would be. I look at what they are saying is a failure, and I look at my colleagues and I think, 'Are they referring to our attack on removing that carbon taxes?' Do you think that is what they are actually referring to when they say we are not doing what we said we would do? That was the main thing we took to the election. We said we would do it. What was the first thing that came in here today? The carbon tax! We must be doing something that we said we were going to do. Is it perhaps our promise to get rid of the mining tax? We are doing that, as well. Perhaps we are failing in our promise to reverse Labor's fringe-benefit-tax hit on the car industry. But, no; we are doing that as well. If that is failure, I would hate to see what success is.

We are doing exactly what we said we would do, and we will keep doing it. If these are the arbiters, how do they compare with what the Labor Party did in government? Just before the 2010 we had that now infamous promise that there would be no carbon tax under a government they led. However, after the election, what did the Labor government do? They introduced a carbon tax, and for three years the now Prime Minister Tony Abbott, then the Leader of the Opposition, said that the government he led would repeal the carbon tax. That is exactly what we are doing. That is our first order of business. We are doing what we said we would do. All we are seeing is sheer, unmitigated hypocrisy from Labor in this motion. It is fooling nobody; it will not be fooling anybody out there. No Australian will be fooled by this. Of course, one of the reasons Labor lost the election is that they lost the trust of the Australian people, because they did not do what they said they would do. In fact, they did the exact opposite. We are doing what we said we would do from day one of the new parliament. We have not let the Australian people down like the Labor Party did; we are doing what we said we would do. We are not going to be dragged down by this Labor opposition; we are going to keep doing what we said we will do. Not content with having trashed the standing of this parliament, Labor continues to try to trash and smear this parliament from opposition.

We will continue to uphold the values of this parliament and do what we say we will do. For six years the Australian people dealt with an amount of hypocrisy from that government. For example, for the economic conservatives we had what I would call Labor's designer label: it was not just ordinary debt and deficit, this was designer label, top of the range. This was a new design for Australia in debt and deficit, thanks to the previous Labor government. This was top of the range. We have, as I have already said, started to fill our commitments. They are commitments that the people of Australia gave us a mandate to enact, and we will get on with those commitments. It is not just the carbon tax and it is not just the mining tax, but also the fringe benefits tax on cars that we said would not proceed under our government: it will not.

On asylum seekers we have heard repeatedly there has been a 75 per cent fall in the number of people coming to this country, and that is counted by the Labor opposition as a failure. What do you define as success? The 50,000 people that you allowed to come into this country? People who put their lives at risk: is that what you would define as success? Or the massive $11 billion blow-out in the budget? (Time expired)

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I congratulate again, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the position and wish you all the best in it. It is unusual for an opposition to move an MPI like this on the first sitting day of parliament. It is unusual for us to do that, but we face some unusual circumstances. Normally, there is a bit of a honeymoon period where we start to see a government implement some of the things that it said it was going to do during the election campaign, but what we have actually seen is a government already paralysed—two months in already shutting down debate and trying to make sure there is as little information in the public domain as possible about areas that are not going too well for it. We have seen that already today with the gagging of the Minister for Immigration. In fact, the Minister for Immigration voted to gag debate on himself being able to provide information to the parliament—a mockery in question time with the Minister for Immigration believing that he does not have responsibility to answer questions in parliament or to provide information to the opposition or the Australian public.

We have seen ministers literally terrified of being the first ones to stuff up. Their tweets have stopped. They were prolific tweeters when they were in opposition, but now suddenly they are failing to engage at all in social media. The Minister for Health was one of them, but I do not think he has sent a tweet out for the last two months. They are terrified that somehow or other they are going to be the ones to stuff up first; they are going to be the ones to get the call from the Prime Minister's chief of staff. They are terrified that they are actually going to say something that may not necessarily be on message. They are not engaging in debate. That is what we are seeing. The media have been well and truly onto it. The media are sick of not being able to get answers to their questions. They are not getting their phone calls returned. They are asking us to respond on issues that normally a government would respond to—but the government is not. The media are not getting anything at all out of this government.

Even by the most modest measure, this government has failed to keep up with its own promise. It said that there would be no surprises. Let me tell you about some of the surprises that people in my own electorate and in the electorates of the new members have had. I see that the new members have not been told that they do not have to stay for the opposition speakers' MPI. It is great that your team is looking after you! I am so pleased that you are staying in here for the debate. It is great that your team is looking after you.

Let me tell you about some of the surprises that may not have necessarily made it into the media. In the area of health, we have seen the Advisory Committee on Infant Formula Marketing abolished overnight. It is the only committee that people can go to when they have a complaint about inappropriate marketing of infant formula. It is the only response Australia has to the WHO code on the marketing of infant formula. The Australian Breastfeeding Association is outraged by this decision. I am outraged by this decision. The government have not stated what they will be replacing that advisory panel with. They are not honouring what many members who are now in government who sat on a breast feeding inquiry wanted—that is, the MAF agreement strengthened. What we have seen as the first act of the Minister of Health is the abolition of the only committee which people could go to to complain about the inappropriate marketing of infant formula.

Then there is the schoolkids bonus. The Prime Minister in question time said, 'We were upfront up about that.' I do not remember any campaign literature from Liberal Party members saying: 'Yes, we're pretty proud of this decision. We're going to get rid of this schoolkids bonus. We're really going to campaign on this.' I do not remember any of you doing that in the campaign literature which you put out. You are, as I am, being inundated by emails. I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker: new members in the House are being inundated by emails from people in their constituencies—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

just you wait—who have just realised that they are not going to get the schoolkids bonus. The impact that that will have on low-income families, including families who are on the disability support pension, will be enormous. If you say you want to support families, you have to do it. You do not do it by cutting the schoolkids bonus.

Ms Henderson interjecting—

The member for Corangamite interjects. I have not seen you standing up for the millions of dollars that are being cut from the Golden Plains Shire for their important project to make sure that there are more jobs in and around Lethbridge. I have not seen you standing up to make sure that they get the money I signed off on as regional Australia minister for the Meredith community hub. I have not seen you out there, in the local media, standing up for that. There are cuts in your electorate. This is what we are seeing from this government. Shame on you. (Time expired)

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, on your appointment. I know your passion for and commitment to the processes of parliament. It is great to see you in that position. I would also like to take this opportunity, as it is my first speech in the 44th Parliament, to welcome back all the members who have been here before and the new members who have just arrived who make up the 44th Parliament.

Today in question time the Prime Minister stated that this government will carefully, steadily and methodically get down to the business of government. So this MPI is a bit of a quandary for me. Some of the statements made by members on the opposite side of the chamber are—as my friends the member for Higgins and the member for Forrest have said—quite hypocritical and sanctimonious. The arguments that they have made are not relevant to the MPI.

The Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and the member for Corio have said that there is division within the coalition executive. I just wonder whether the opposition remember what happened in the last six years in this place. We had three Prime Ministers. We had people backgrounding. We had people working against each other. There was complete division within the Labor Party. Yet the member for Corio stands up here today and says there is division within our executive, within this government. I have not seen any of that. I think the government is solid and the executive is solid as well.

The opposition, the previous government, have no record to stand on. Let us for a moment consider how the previous government lived up to its promises. In 2010 the then Prime Minister told the Australian people that there would be no carbon tax under the government that she led. The Labor Party government said that there would be a return to surplus in 2012-13, come hell or high water. They would stop the boats through a deal with East Timor. This was the Labor government that promised to be economic conservatives, to have a one-in, one-out approach—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for the discussion has expired.