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

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

The undermining of public confidence caused by the Government promising the Australian people one thing before the election and doing the complete opposite afterwards.

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

The coalition said one thing before the election and, ever since they have been elected, they have been hell-bent on doing everything but what they said before the election.

I think this is a government who rather famously promised before the election that they would be a government of no surprises and no excuses. Indeed, Australians are learning that they are a government of nasty surprises and pathetic excuses. I think most famously in support of this proposition we remember the Treasurer, then the shadow Treasurer, saying that there was a budget emergency. The proposition in front of the House today is that, if you are ever in a real emergency, do not call 'Dr Abbott' and 'Nurse Hockey'. Imagine if you had a debt emergency. What will they say over there? What will Dr Abbott and Nurse Hockey do? What will they do when there is a debt emergency? Inject more debt into the system! Why not?

But then, of course, you have got the Greens emergency. Before the election, you could not even wear the colour green without being lambasted as part of some left-wing Marxist conspiracy. We know those famous words that the now government would say: 'Don't do tawdry deals with the Greens.' They said that the Greens were economic fringe dwellers, but this bunch of cynics opposite have never seen a promise or a statement that they would make that they would not jump over in order to pursue power.

What we see with this coalition government is the acid of coalition cynicism corroding public trust in politics. We talk about the real emergencies. A real emergency, as revealed by the international experts, is that for the last 10 years under the inadequate Howard government SES funding model we saw inequitable funding of schools. That is the emergency. We see the results going backwards. So what did Dr Abbot and Nurse Hockey—and I do not know how you would describe the Minister for Education; 'hapless' would probably be most accurate this week—instead do? When you have got an emergency which says that the system is inequitable, what on earth do you do? You inject more inequity into the system. Why on earth didn't Labor think to give money to the states and then allow the states to take their own funding out of education? What brain surgeon came up with that proposition?

But then, of course, we talk about the challenge of jobs. There can be no more important issue than jobs in Australia. I can forgive the coalition for some things. I promise in this debate not to say how relieved the Swiss are that the coalition said they are going to focus on Jakarta, not Geneva. I get that that is actually a complex issue, although I am sure the population of Switzerland is breathing a quiet sigh of relief. What I can't forgive the coalition for is that before the election they said, 'There are a million jobs—

Mr Hunt interjecting—

I hear the Minister for the Environment piping up—what a misnomer that title is! Minister for the Environment? He's never seen a green paddock he would not concrete, never seen a bit of pollution he would not reward—what a joke!

Let's get back to the important issue of jobs. There is no more important issue in Australia than making sure that Australians can have jobs. When in opposition the now coalition government said, 'We'll give you a million jobs in five years.' I suppose we should have read the fine print. Did they mean net million jobs, or just a million jobs gross and then we will see how many jobs these people lose on their watch? Today in question time we asked the government, 'How is that million jobs promise going in light of the closures at Gove, in light of the sacking of CSIRO scientific staff, in light of what's happening at Simplot and Electrolux and in light of the disastrous news today for hundreds of people at Qantas?' We asked the government what they are going to do, but we got no answer whatsoever. Their answer to a jobs emergency is to find more unemployment.

The biggest problem we have had since the election is that the cynical administration that the coalition is emerging to be actually thinks that what is good for the coalition is good for the country—and we reject and repudiate that assumption. We see opposite us a government who said they would be orderly. Then we got the chance to read Paul Kelly's insightful piece in The Australian. You would think that since they have been in government they would have been calmly planning, in that education laboratory they keep well hidden out of public eyes, policies to target inequity. But then we actually find out the truth from Paul Kelly's article. It was Sunday night, all of the coalition were wondering, 'What will we do?' 'Thank goodness,' they say, 'Foreign Minister Bishop is back in the country.'

Opposition members interjecting—

I think they said that! So they fly the foreign minister back in and the adults in the coalition grab the Minister for Education and they say, 'Don't you get it? Before the election you didn't do any work for three years, you didn't have a theory on education, and then you realised that Labor was absolutely pounding you in terms of having better education policies. In early August you slyly and trickily decide to pretend you're Labor in drag and that you can trust the coalition on education. Then what happens is you get into government and you go back to who you really are—not interested in reforming school funding.'

On the Sunday night he realised the outcry of annoyance and frustration—not from Labor but from teachers, parents and students. Any coalition member leaving parliament this week thinking they have had a victory on education lives in an alternative universe. The only people who have had anything approaching some sort of win in education have been the parents and students who are starting the process of making sure the government keeps their broken promise. We know that the coalition were dreadfully nervous about being seen to break a promise. I bet they do not mind breaking a promise on the Eye and Ear Hospital, which is a terrible judgement on them; they do not mind breaking a promise about working with the Greens, who they lambast and vilify and demonise—except, of course, if they can do a dodgy deal and get their votes—and they do not even seem to mind breaking a promise on the GST.

We did not ask the coalition in opposition to promise that they would not change the GST—they offered it. There was no gun to Joe Hockey's head. The coalition said they would not be changing the GST. But wait till they got into government—the backsliding, the position-changing: 'We didn’t really say that,' 'You didn't read my mind,' 'You didn't see that when I was standing up making the promise that I had my fingers crossed and my toes crossed and I didn't really mean it.' What consumers now face with this coalition government is the prospect that they will slap a new 10 per cent tax on online purchases.

But even if all those broken promises count for nothing, the promise which this opposition will not let the government get off the hook on is the betrayal of the promise to the schoolkids of Australia. I get that you are taking away the SchoolKids Bonus—only Charles Dickens and the coalition government could have dreamed up that Scrooge-like act—but what I cannot get is breaking the promise on education. We have an international report saying that our schools are falling behind because there is not enough equity in the funding model.

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

I am not surprised that the member for Kooyong laughs about not enough equity in the funding model—he would not know what I was talking about. Equity in funding means that you fund children according to their needs. What do the coalition do? Remember I started this story about the beginning of the week: when you have got an emergency, do you call triple-zero or do you call Dr Abbott and Nurse Hockey? What could they have done when they saw the education emergency? They could have looked at their solution before the election, where they had just promised to match Labor. Instead, what they have done is say, 'Quick, if we say that we are going to keep part of our promise from before the election, everyone will forget and we will move on to other issues.'

I will tell you another group of people who will not forget the last week of this coalition government in a hurry—other than 3.5 million schoolkids and their parents: the shareholders of GrainCorp. Imagine if Labor had been in government and we had made some knee-jerk reaction to appease part of a sectional base and wiped off 26.42 per cent of shareholder value. On 28 November, GrainCorp shares—

Government members interjecting—

I would bet the people yelling do not have GrainCorp shares, because it is self-interest that motivates them. On 28 November the price of a GrainCorp share was $11.20. Today, after Dr Abbott and Nurse Hockey running around putting the band-aids on their base, I am afraid to say that the GrainCorp shares are $8.24. Fantastic. Do you know how you get a great small business in this country? You get the coalition to be in charge of big business! Down by $2.96.

Look at those opposite. They have got the great myth of Australian politics: 'Because we are the coalition, we can just be trusted. We might have said it before the election but things happen and things change'. But it takes real going to manage to kill the price of a company's shares by 27 per cent in a matter of days. The CEO is gone. Parliament of Australia: it is our submission that it does not matter if it is debt or dealing with the Greens, schools or GrainCorp, this mob opposite are not the people they promised Australians they would be at the election.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me begin with a question, and it is a very simple question. Five days before Julia Gillard lost her job, who said:

I will support Julia Gillard. Let me just say … I have supported the Prime Minister, I continue to support the Prime Minister, I campaigned for this Prime Minister …

Who said that? It was the Leader of the Opposition, who has just scuttled out of this House like a nervous cockroach because he is afraid of his own history. In answer to the question, 'Will Julia Gillard still be Prime Minister at the end of this upcoming sitting,' who also said:

Yes, I believe so. And before anyone interprets what I mean by the verb 'believe'—

just so he is not tricky—

Yes, I support her, okay? … I appreciate your interest in the matter … and I can only be as clear as I've been. I support our Prime Minister and I support our Prime Minister because of the job she has done and is doing.

Guess who it was? It was the Leader of the Opposition, 10 days, on that occasion, before he knifed her. Who said, again just 10 days before former Prime Minister Gillard was knifed:

I categorically deny that there is canvassing going on that I'm involved—

far be it for him to be involved!—

in about the leadership. … I'm happy to repeat it because it’s an important issue. I continue to support our Prime Minister—

Prime Minister Gillard. Who could that have been? The Leader of the Opposition. But it was not just three times that he spoke before the cock crowed; there are many more examples. Who also said, only five days before the knifing of the same former Prime Minister:

I will continue to support Julia Gillard to be elected as the next Prime Minister of Australia, and will continue to campaign for Julia Gillard and Labor to form the next government of Australia.

Once again, it was the Leader of the Opposition. Then on the same day, still five days before that fateful day, the 'night of the long knives'—maybe the second time he had been involved—who said again:

… what I'm going to do in terms of the leadership debate, is be consistent. And consistently, I say that I support the Prime Minister, and I support our Prime Minister because of what she's got done in this period of the minority government.

Could it have been the Leader of the Opposition? It was. And again who said:

I will continue to support Julia Gillard to be elected as the next Prime Minister of Australia, and will continue to campaign for Julia Gillard and Labor to form the next government of Australia.

Again, it was the Leader of the Opposition. But, a few days later, who was it who said this:

… this is not an easy decision for me personally … I believe that Kevin Rudd being elected leader tonight provides the best platform for Labor to be competitive at the next election.

It was the same person who had made all of those previous eight statements only a few short days before: the magnificent, the trustworthy, the pious, the believable and now the consistent Leader of the Opposition, on 26 June.

So this is a moment of wonderful parliamentary irony. The Leader of the Opposition puts forward a matter of public importance on trust and, in particular, on 'the undermining of public confidence caused by the government promising the Australian people one thing before the election and doing the complete opposite'. This is the man who gave us the definition of saying one thing and doing the complete opposite. This is the man who not only knifed the previous Prime Minister; he knifed the Prime Minister before that. So, whenever you hear the Leader of the Opposition say that he is going to do something, say how important it is, say how consistent he is, all you have to do is remember Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd, and maybe give them a call on the phone and see whether or not they agree.

The broader point is that this comes from a party which, prior to the 2010 election, said something like, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Who said that? It was the Labor Party leader of the day. Who set out in the same week, the day before the election, 'I rule out a carbon tax'? It was the Labor Party. And who delivered a carbon tax after the election, only a few weeks afterwards, when they married the Greens? It was the Labor Party. What we have here is not just a pattern of deception; it is a pathology of deception. This is their DNA, their nature—to say one thing and do the other. Today is an exercise in grand irony, given what has gone on over the last six years.

The member for Lilley, who is not in the chamber, famously said—and I do apologise; I misquoted him yesterday. I said that he thought the idea of a carbon tax be introduced by Labor was 'hilarious'. In fact, it was worse than that. He said:

… what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax …

Unfortunately, it was not 'hysterical'; it was deadly accurate. That is what they said before an election, and we all know what they did after the election.

But it goes beyond that, if you look at some of their famous broken promises and what they said before elections and then afterwards. In August 2007, Kevin Rudd said, before they were elected to government:

Our budget orthodoxy is identical to the Government's on this … there is no slither of light between us.

He said, 'I've always said I'm an economic conservative. That means budget surpluses.' Well, let me tell you what their budget surpluses were: a deficit of $27 billion, a deficit of $54 billion, a deficit of $47 billion, a deficit of $43 billion, a deficit of $18 billion—and they left office with a notional deficit of $30 billion, but every day we open the cupboard and discover unfunded liabilities in almost each and every portfolio. So Labor had six budgets after the declaration of 'no deficits' and of their leader being a fiscal conservative, and every one was a record deficit compared with anything that Australia had ever faced.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fiscal vandals, Greg—fiscal vandals.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a perfect record of fiscal vandalism, as my friend the member for Kooyong says. In 2007 we also heard from the opposition, as it then was, led by Mr Rudd, that he promised a very hard line on the question of people-smuggling, a very tough line on the question of people-smuggling. The result was an opening of the doors to 50,000 people, and 1,100 souls, 1,100 lives, 1,100 people who would never live to see another day in what is undoubtedly not just the greatest backflip but the greatest peacetime policy failure in Australian history. So for the party on the other side in some way to talk about trust in regard to what they said before an election, as opposed to what occurs after an election, is a moment of intellectual sickness.

Then we also had this again famous promise from the then opposition, 'On many occasions for many months federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing private health insurance rebates.' What did they do? In the 2009 budget the Labor government announced that the 30 per cent rebate would be means tested, a classic broken promise on the basis of saying one thing categorically—locked in, pledged in blood, pledged before the Australian people—and then doing precisely the opposite thing after the election.

To top it off, Kevin Rudd declared before the election, 'The government will have no intention to bring in other taxes.' However, the following year in 2010 his government introduced nine new taxes. They were cutting the superannuation tax-free threshold; putting restrictions on business loans; making changes to the employee share scheme; introducing imposts with the mining tax, the ethanol taxation increase and the LPG excise increase; tightening restrictions on medical expenses before claiming them; increasing the luxury car tax—and a range of other broken promises.

Ultimately we had the Leader of the Opposition making pledges in blood before the Australian people of his undying love for Julia Gillard and how he could never challenge her. Unfortunately, something happened on the way and he did challenge her—just as every other promise was broken. This opposition can never ever be trusted while these people are in charge. (Time expired)

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

It is terrific to speak on a very important motion and wonderful to follow the Minister for the Environment. He says he is the Minister for the Environment, but so far all we have seen is someone who is a pollution apologist, who gets up every single day and talks about how great it is to pollute our environment more. Here is the very first example of where the government breaks a promise. They say they are going to have an environment minister but instead they appoint a pollution apologist.

This government said they would be a government of no surprises and no excuses; so far they have been a government of pathetic excuses and very nasty surprises. Just three sitting weeks in we have seen broken promises on health, on education, on debt and on the GST. How can Australians trust a single word that comes out of the mouth of the Prime Minister and the government? They said, for example, that they were on a 'unity ticket' with Labor on education funding. Our education funding proposal is $14.65 billion. Where is your funding program?

The Leader of the Opposition was comparing the Minister for Education to a nurse earlier—or was that 'Nurse Hockey', 'Candy-striper Pyne' or more accurately 'Annie Wilks' of the education system. 'You can vote Liberal; you can vote Labor; you will get the same amount of funding for your school.' This was a promise they knew they would never keep because they are not prepared to do what were doing: saying to the states, 'For every $2 we put in, you must put in a dollar.' They are saying, 'We'll throw you a bit of extra money just to keep you quiet because the teachers, the parents, the kids, have been successful in making their point. So yes, we'll get dragged kicking and screaming to put a little bit of extra money in,' but they are saying to all of the states and territories now that when the Commonwealth puts in money, 'feel free to cut your education budgets, feel free to cut standards, feel free to cut transparency, feel free to dud the children of Australia'.

The other day the Prime Minister gave one of the worst answers I have heard for some time: 'The student resource standard is well known.' It is not known to him because he is never going to reach it. The Minister for Education was saying, 'Nothing we're doing will undermine loadings.' They know that that is not the truth. They know that, by letting states off the hook, those loadings for disadvantage will never be met.

Foreign affairs: what to say? We had a statement before the election that their foreign policy would be less Geneva and more Jakarta, and aren't they breathing a sigh of relief in Geneva over that one! It has taken the Minister for Foreign Affairs three weeks to get to Jakarta, at a time when our relationship has been historically bad. I will tell you why they are so bad. They are so bad because before the election those opposite were saying, 'Turn back the boats, buy back the boats,' and making all sorts of unilateral claims about what they would do in Indonesia, on Indonesian soil, in Indonesian waters, without ever having discussed it with Indonesia. One of the first principles of foreign policy is to have an open dialogue with your neighbours.

Bushfires: they promised concessional loans of $100,000 for small businesses affected by disasters—not one cent paid. Louise Markus, who is not even here now, has raised not a word to defend—

Mrs Griggs interjecting—

In fact, I do not remember her seat. She is not in the Blue Mountains very much, is she? She has raised not a word in defence of her constituents. Concerning the emergency relief payments which those opposite have said are just the same as under Labor—no, they are not with the same as under Labor. People in the Blue Mountains are missing out today because those opposite, in a sneaky, underhanded, secretive way cut funding, cut payments to people affected by disasters at their time of need, when they most needed help. We have had so many examples that it is difficult to pick and choose between them, but my personal favourite is, 'The Greens are economic fringe dwellers. If debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer.' We have seen today a very nasty deal, a very nasty surprise and a number of pathetic excuses from those opposite. (Time expired)

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaking of 'nasty', Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to get the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the aspersions she cast on the member for Macquarie.

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

No, there is no—

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She is not going to withdraw?

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

No, I have not asked her to withdraw.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whatever! I think it is quite ironic that the Labor Party want to talk about promising one thing before an election and delivering something else after it—because it is the Labor Party who are good old hacks at doing this. It is ALP philosophy—it is part of Labor's DNA—to overpromise and underdeliver. Labor are the party of broken promises. You can count on them to break promises. They cannot count, they cannot manage a budget and we know they cannot handle a credit card. We can credit them, however, with the biggest election backflip of all time. Before the election, the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr Ripoll interjecting—

I beg your pardon?

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

Order! The member for Solomon will not respond to interjections across the chamber. The member for Blair will cease interjecting. The member for Solomon will be heard in silence.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In an outstanding act of deceit, the Labor Party are now blocking legislation in the Senate, legislation doing just what they promised they were going to do. They were going to get rid of the carbon tax, but here we have them blocking legislation to do just that. The Leader of the Opposition promised one thing to the Australian people before the election—he was going to get rid of the carbon tax—but now he is blocking it. They are going to keep the carbon tax. They want to keep the carbon tax. All the Leader of the Opposition and his party members do is mislead the Australian people. They did it for six years and they are continuing to do it now.

On this side of the House we are methodically going about the challenging task of cleaning up Labor's mess. We are keeping our commitments, commitments like abolishing the carbon tax. Labor's reaction to this is to stall and frustrate. The mandate of the Australian people was to get rid of the carbon tax and that is exactly what we are going to do. The people of Darwin and Palmerston voted to get rid of the carbon tax because the carbon tax was increasing their cost of living. So we are working to get rid of the carbon tax.

This was not the only promise the Labor Party have failed on. The Leader of the Opposition and his cronies promised a better deal for Northern Territory schools. They promised the people in my electorate that the Labor Party would look out for local schools in Darwin and Palmerston and give them all the support they needed. Luckily the Northern Territory government are pretty switched on. They realised that the deal the Labor Party was offering was not that good—taking from schools in my electorate and giving to schools where the kids do not even go to school. It is just ridiculous. So the Northern Territory government did not sign up to Gonski—and thank God they did not. After that, the Leader of the Opposition cut $1.2 billion from education funding, a cut that was going to affect people in my electorate.

Again, in contrast to the Labor Party, the Abbott government is keeping its commitments on school funding. We are actually delivering more funding over the next four years than was promised by the Labor Party. Territorians are going to be better off under this deal. The coalition will improve schools and educational outcomes for students in Palmerston, Darwin and the Northern Territory more generally. Our plan is focused on what we know will work—good teachers, more power for principals, more say for parents and the community and a stronger curriculum. That is what will work.

As well as honouring our pre-election commitment to match the previous Labor' government's school education funding for the next four years, Minister Pyne has addressed Labor's appalling decision to slash $1.2 billion from the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australian education budgets. As part of an additional $230 million going to those three jurisdictions in 2014, the Territory will receive an extra $67 million. So we will be able to give parents and teachers more say, create a sound national curriculum, improve the quality of teaching and generate funding certainty.

There is no doubt that the party that breaks promises—that overpromises and underdelivers—is the Labor Party. We are the party that delivers on our promises. The Australian people believe us and trust us. They know they cannot trust Labor. That is why they voted them out.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know I am a new member and that I have only been here a few months, but I am shocked. I am shocked at how quickly this government has backed away from its promises—how it has flip-flopped and backflipped since it took office. I remind the House that the Prime Minister promised, at his campaign launch, that there would be no surprises and no excuses from his government. Yet all we have seen is endless, pathetic excuses. We have also seen multiple backflips—backflips back and forth on funding. There have been so many backflips that they could almost be a gymnastics team. Perhaps we will need them to be our gymnastics team—who knows where the funding is for the Institute of Sport? Will they continue to fund it? Thank God we have a government that is able to do so many backflips so efficiently!

One of the areas very dear to my heart and very important to the people of Bendigo is education. Let us remind people what they said on education. First the Liberals said, 'Gonski is a conski'. That is right—they did not back Gonski. Then, once they realised that the people wanted it, that the state schools wanted it, that the Catholic schools wanted it and that the independent schools wanted it, they said they were on a unity ticket—that it did not matter whether you voted Labor, Liberal or National, you would get the funding. Now we have seen that they have backed away from that. They have backflipped once again—so many backflips!

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. I have a question for the member for Bendigo.

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

This is an MPI. There are no interventions allowed under the standing orders.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the election, they promised that no school would be worse off, that they would provide exactly the same funding per school. Yet they have said to the states that there are no strings attached to the funding. They have said to the states that they can do what they want, which could lead to cuts. From a school in my electorate, I have already been informed of the first of the state cuts. This is a corker. At Kyneton Secondary College the Victorian state government is dismantling buildings. It is removing the demountables, and that will happen over the holidays, but get this—although the buildings are being taken away, the school is allowed to keep the walkway in between the buildings because that is a permanent structure. They are dismantling our schools already because this government has not been on the unity ticket, and that is the commitment Labor had with the Better Schools Plan.

Before the election the coalition promised public sector workers that they would not be made redundant, yet we have already seen widespread redundancies. Hundreds of workers are losing their jobs, with those wages being withdrawn from our community and services being made weaker. In the time remaining I want to mention a few other commitments made in my electorate before and during the campaign. We have to start with the Bendigo tennis centre—a fantastic project committed to by the previous government, with $5.2 million being allocated to upgrade the facility. At the time, the Liberals supported it. In the Bendigo Advertiser of 24 August we see the Liberal Party comment that they support the upgrade of the Bendigo tennis centre. Yet here we are, the Liberals are in government and the government have backflipped—they are not going to fund the tennis centre. Let us go to university funding. Prior to the election we saw in the Bendigo Advertiser comments from the Liberal Party that they were appalled by the cuts to the Bendigo La Trobe campus. Yet, when they have the chance to stop the cuts, they do not.

This leads me to question the commitments the Liberals made to my electorate during the election campaign. I will put those on the record and ask whether they will backflip on these cuts too. Let us start with the $300,000 boost for the Castlemaine respite facility. The then shadow minister for families, Kevin Andrews, said that he was committed to the project, that it was vital for the area and that his government would put $300,000 in. There was $500,000 for the Kyneton Community Park—the shadow minister for the environment made that commitment. Will that funding go ahead or will there be another backflip? What about the $180,000 for the Bendigo RSL? You might have worked out that they thought they could win this seat, but unfortunately for them they did not. (Time expired)

Peter Hendy (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise on this matter of public importance. When my children were toddlers they had an expression they used when someone said or repeated something a bit bizarre. They would say that a person must have been hit in the head with a silly stick. That must be what has happened to opposition members today. It is either that or we have some very lame humourists on the opposition benches. For them to propose that the government is undermining confidence is absolutely bizarre. The matter of public importance submitted by the opposition today talks about an undermining of public confidence by the government. Is the opposition serious? Are we to infer from this MPI that Labor had somehow built up public confidence during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd shambles of the last six years? Do they think that confidence had reached a high point under their administration? Do they believe that?

This poses the question: why did Labor lose the election? I suggest they lost because the Australian people had lost confidence in their stewardship and their handling of major policies. For example, Gonski had become an act of faith for them but the policy specifics were a mess. The Minister for Education has had to fix up the shambles and is producing a real national model. Similarly, the National Broadband Network had become a farce. It was a fantasy. People in my electorate knew that. It was all on the never-never. People in my electorate were told by the Labor MP before the election that they would become the new Silicon Valley of Australia. But there was no NBN in sight—not one fibre-to-the-premises connection occurred in Eden-Monaro in the last six years. The Minister for Communications has put that vital major national infrastructure project back on track.

When a party promise no carbon tax and then implement one, and when you say as a party you will deliver a surplus and then fess up and say very late in the term that it is all too hard and not possible, you cannot seriously think that somehow that party had the people's confidence. Confidence was at a low point—that is why they are over there, in opposition. I am bemused by this MPI. Let me quote from a recent Roy Morgan research report:

Roy Morgan Research's Business Confidence survey in September showed that Australian business confidence rose to the highest level since January 2011 following the federal election. The rise of 14.7 points to a score of 134.3 is the biggest monthly increase in Business Confidence recorded since the survey began in December 2010.

The people of Australia can be very confident that this government is getting on with the job. We have returned certainty to all those people who were to be ripped off by the FBT on car leases—as we said before the election we would do. The people can be confident that we are implementing our border protection policies, as we said before the election we would do. We have cut illegal arrivals by over 80 per cent. We are getting rid of the destructive carbon tax, as we said before the election we would do. We are getting rid of the destructive mining tax, as we said before the election we would do. People can be confident that we are getting the debt problem under control, as we said before the election we would do. We are getting on with free trade agreements. We have heard today about the Korean free trade agreement—something we said before the election we would implement. We are re-establishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission, a vital economic reform for this country—something we said before the election we would do, and we are getting on with it.

We can be confident in one thing—that the people have no confidence in Labor. Get out of the way and let us clean up the mess. When we were in opposition we tried to stop the then government from breaking their promises, and they are now try to stop us from keeping ours. The hypocrisy is breathtaking—as is this MPI topic.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just like to quote a couple of things to the House which I think really do highlight the problem that this government has in terms of what they were up to and, now, what they are really up to. At their campaign launch, the then opposition leader, now the Prime Minister, said:

We will be a no-surprises, no-excuses government, because you are sick of nasty surprises and lame excuses from people that you have trusted with your future.

Let us go through some of the 'no-surprises' and 'no-excuses' we have had in recent times. We have had a series of positions in relation to education. Some say they are back flips. Some say it is gymnastics. Frankly, it is not far off the Kama Sutra. There is one thing for sure about it, and that is that this education minister does not know what he is doing.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that the member for Kooyong is interjecting. I am sorry that I cannot take an intervention from him on this occasion. When the Prime Minister said, 'I will keep my commitments. We will do exactly what we say we will do,' what he forgot to say is, 'But we will have to keep working out what that is on almost a daily basis,' because what we are dealing with here is a government that has definitional issues. It is a government that has difficulty being clear about what it actually means in a whole range of policy areas.

I mentioned education, and, frankly, this minister is getting one at the moment. He is getting one at the hands of the sector. He is getting one at the hands of parents. And he is getting one at the hands of his cabinet colleagues, apparently. In another reference to the commitments made by this government prior to the election, the Prime Minister talked then, as opposition leader, about orderly government—the adults were going to be back in charge. He talked about a 10-day rule for cabinet, and it has turned out to be a 10-minute rule. He talked about restoring accountability and improving transparency. Then, when we look at what we are dealing with in regard to border protection, you cannot tell us anything unless we are at the briefing—and if we are at the briefing you cannot tell us then either. That is the nature of what we are dealing with with respect to this government.

I note my friend, the member for Kooyong, on the issue of foreign policy. I have to agree with the Prime Minister on one thing. He did say that the member for Kooyong effectively knew a lot more about foreign policy than the current minister. I probably do, too—and we all know that probably ain't that much! They promised a Jakarta focus. We have got the Jakarta focus—and that is that we are trying to find it! We are trying to work out exactly where it is. Then we are waiting until we go there because we are not quite sure what we are going to say when we get there.

When you look at this government you have got a real problem, and you need to start to realise it. We can have the debates in the House. We can have the banter back and forth. The previous speaker, the member for Eden-Monaro, mentioned the issue of Roy Morgan. I will give you some Roy Morgan. This government's position has collapsed when compared to any recent new government, including the Howard government, the Rudd government and the Hawke government. The coalition's position in the public opinion polls has collapsed already. The question now is: where does it go from here? The amazing thing is that you have been able to, in a few short months, create a situation where you actually have to rebuild your support. You have got to a situation where you are in dire difficulty with the Australian community in terms of how you are being perceived. You have to start to repair that damage, otherwise you will have one hell of a problem come the next election.

As we look at these issues and as we look at the things that you have done so far, I can only say, 'Roll on the next 2½ years,' because if this is the start, it is going to be one hell of a finish. If all you have got to look at is the nature of the last few months, you had better think again, because, across so many areas of government already, what we are seeing is that this government does not understand what it is to keep commitments, to form a contract with the Australian people and to ensure that they govern on behalf of all Australians.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This place just gets weirder and weirder and weirder. It is a little bit weird to have the member for Bruce—and I like the member for Bruce—in this place talking about the Kama Sutra. He has probably spent a bit too much time with his friends from the HSU. I also noticed that the member for Bruce talked about the Howard government and the Rudd government, but he seemed to forget the period of the last few years—and it is probably a bigger proportion of my life than it is of his life. There was the period of the Gillard government. It is probably important that we remind the House about the period of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. I think it is very strange that we have 'Mr Loyalty' himself, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, coming into this place and talking about the importance of trust. It is very strange, and the member for Bruce and the entire Labor Party would do well to pick up the phone to either the former member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd, or the former member for Lalor, Julia Gillard, and talk to them about what the Leader of the Opposition actually thinks about trust and self-interest.

When we come to this place it is important that we are upfront and honest with the Australian people. The Leader of the Opposition was the person who said: 'Don't worry, Kevin. I am right behind you. I am right behind you.' And he was right behind him—with a big knife, waiting to put it into his back. The Leader of the Opposition talks about trust. He came into this place and he told the Australian people: 'Don't worry, I am right behind the Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Don't worry, I am right behind her.' And then, of course, he assassinated her as quickly as he assassinated Kevin Rudd. This motion before the House is about trust. It is incredibly important that we do uphold our commitments to the Australian people. That is exactly what this government is doing. We promised the Australian people that we would get rid of the carbon tax, a tax that costs Australian families, on average, $550 a year. We brought a bill before this House to remove that tax. That bill is now going to the Senate, and it is up to the Labor Party to decide: do they want to give relief to people in my electorate and to Australian families across the country? But we took that to an election and we are delivering on our promises.

That is very different to, and it is in stark contrast with, what those opposite did. Before the 2010 election, we saw the Labor Party come out and heard the former Prime Minister, Prime Minister Gillard, say, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Not only did she promise that there would be no carbon tax but she promised that she would set up a climate consensus or a forum to discuss these sorts of issues. To follow it up, the member for Lilley, the former Treasurer, came out and said, 'We reject any hysterical allegation that there will be any carbon tax,' and yet the last election was a referendum on a tax that the Labor Party promised never to introduce. So we are absolutely honouring our commitments to the Australian people by passing a bill through this House and sending it to the Senate to repeal a tax that the Labor Party promised to never introduce.

And then, of course, we talk about promises before an election. Kevin Rudd before the 2007 election said: 'I'm an economic conservative. You can trust me. You can trust me with your money'—because ultimately governments spend the people's money, not their own—'because I'm an economic conservative.' They promised on literally hundreds of occasions to deliver a budget surplus.

Mr Van Manen interjecting—

As the member for Forde points out, on over 500 occasions they promised to deliver a budget surplus and to be the economic conservatives that they told the Australian people they would be. Instead, the Labor Party delivered the biggest deficits we have ever seen in history. They actually turned nearly $50 billion in the bank, $50 billion that we left them, into a projected net debt well over $200 billion. Even though they promised to be economic conservatives, what they actually delivered was the fastest deterioration in debt in dollar terms and as a share of GDP in modern Australian history. That is their record. They promised the Australian people that they would be economic conservatives. They promised the Australian people that they would deliver budget surpluses. But they presided over the biggest increase in our debt that the Australian people have ever seen.

Now it is up to us, as we promised the Australian people, to clean up the mess that the Labor Party has left us, because it is future generations of Australians that will benefit from it. (Time expired)

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the election the now Prime Minister memorably said that under his government there would be no lame excuses and no surprises, but what have we seen in reality? Surprise after surprise after surprise. Before the election, the now Liberal government said that they were going to tackle debt. They said that debt was a big problem. But in government they are in the business of increasing debt, abolishing the debt ceiling and handing over money to the Reserve Bank, undoing Labor's initiative to get more tax from multinational corporations. Their new position on debt is a very big surprise.

But it is in the area of education where the surprises have been greatest. Indeed it has not been so much a surprise as shock after shock. You could hear the stakeholders, including Liberal governments, audibly gasp last week every time the Minister for Education opened his mouth, because, before the election, the education minister said:

… you can vote Liberal or Labor and you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school except you'll get $120 million more from [us] …

Before the election, the education minister said: 'We are committed to the student resource standard, of course we are. We are committed to this new school funding model.' Before the election, the education minister said:

Parents and schools need certainty in funding arrangements. They need to know that their school's funding arrangements won't be prone to sudden change.

…   …   …

I have seen first hand just how angry parents and communities get without certainty.

But after the election he announced that we would have to go back to the drawing board—surprise! Plenty of uncertainty there. After the election, he said that the school funding model that was implemented by the Howard government 'is a good starting point for a school funding model'—surprise! He was no longer committed to the Gonski school funding model. After the election, the education minister said that he would amend Labor's legislation to give all states no-strings funding deals—surprise!—walking away from the needs based loadings that the Gonski report said were crucial to our closing the education equity gap, walking away from the promise: 'You can vote Liberal or Labor; you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school.'

Last week, the education minister reminded me constantly of the actor Jim Nabors playing the sitcom character Gomer Pyle, whose catchcry was, 'Surprise, surprise, surprise!' Indeed, all you have to do is change one letter and Pyne becomes Pyle. These Gomer Pyle surprises not only appalled the Labor Party—we clearly would have fared better at the last election had the government revealed these surprises before the election—but also appalled the Liberal governments of New South Wales and Victoria and appalled government and non-government schools alike.

Kathryn Greiner, hardly a Labor stooge, a member of the Gonski panel, urged the education minister not to walk away from their recommendations and offered to meet with the minister. Radio National interviewed the education minister last Tuesday, put this offer to him and said: 'Would you sit down with the panel for a day so they can convince you of the systems benefits? Would you do that?' The education minister's reply was:

No. I've studied the Gonski model closely …

But, having disgracefully junked all that effort in this high-handed and arrogant way, the education minister next day denied that he had done it. He told the ABC in Adelaide:

I never said to anybody that I wouldn't meet with the Gonski committee.

What an incredible front—and that was not the only barefaced contradiction last week.

On ABC Radio Adelaide on Wednesday last week, the education minister said:

I've never said that we'd be reverting to the Howard model so I don't know where you've got that … from.

Well, just possibly the interviewer had got that from the minister's comments the day before, when he said:

I believe that the school funding model that was implemented by the Howard government … is a good starting point for a school funding model.

The education minister had apparently forgotten his remarks of just the day before. Bear in mind that the New South Wales education minister, a Liberal Party education minister, had said about the Howard model: 'As the Minister for Education, I can say that New South Wales will not agree to returning to the broken SES funding model.'

The people deserve better than a government whose numerous backflips have done much to undermine confidence in our education system. In order to restore confidence, the government needs to believe in the Better Schools Plan. (Time expired)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order: I did not want to interrupt the member for Wills, but he should know that the New South Wales Minister for Education is not a Liberal. He is in fact a National—the member for Murrumbidgee, Adrian Piccoli. I ask him to withdraw.

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

It is not a point of order. It is disorderly, and the parliamentary secretary should know better.

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am the last speaker for the debate and I am astonished by the arguments put up by the other side. They introduced the world's biggest carbon tax and we are one of the smallest emitters in the world. That is 100 per cent correct. How do you unscramble an egg? They have left us a big mess that this government must correct. We will start with the debt—we have gone from a credit to a big debit on the balance sheet. It is about to hit $300 billion in the next couple of days. What a disgrace! What a waste of money over the last six years. They referred to Gonski. What is Gonski? It's a Gonski all right—it has gone. Even Gonski himself has said, 'You have only taken 2½ per cent of my suggestions out of the whole Gonski report'—meaning the former Labor government. Where did all the jobs go under Labor? Over 200,000 jobs were lost in their term of government. And 50,000 people have arrived illegally on boats, putting great pressure on our budget and on our pensioners, who are saying to me and others on this side of the House: 'Why are you so free in giving away our money when it could be going to a much worthier causes, like looking after us—pensioners who have worked hard and paid their taxes and now require aged-care facilities and so on? Why have you wasted our money?'

Business confidence was the lowest it has ever been under Labor, and coming from that low benchmark it has kicked on since we gained power in September. Business is now more confident; they can see a direction that they want to follow; they can see we do not move the goalposts. As Mr Abbott has said, there is no changing of the goalposts every five minutes. Government bureaucracy peaked under the Labor administration and we say that some of these jobs in Canberra should be sent out into the rural areas, where people are needed. How do we address all these issues—these Labor follies? We are going to start by removing the carbon tax and if the opposition in the Senate does not approve its removal, they will be in oblivion for the next 30 years.

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

Order! The time for the discussion has concluded.