Milton Dick (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:

This Government's incompetence and mishandling of the issues facing Australia.

I call upon those honourable 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—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, for the entire Australian population today, we've seen this government, this Prime Minister, on display, for all to get a better understanding of what this government, what this Prime Minister, is about. It is a lack of transparency, as the Manager of Opposition Business just pointed out. It is an incompetence that is now creeping into many portfolios and is becoming more obvious to all Australians. It's not just in relation to Indigenous affairs that you can point to a gross level of incompetence on the front bench of the Labor Party. I'll go through some other areas where at the moment that is having a consequential negative impact on the Australian public, none of which was spoken about before the last election.

The Prime Minister of this country, when he was Leader of the Opposition, went to the Australian people with a promise to reduce power prices by $275. It wasn't an off-the-cuff remark. It wasn't some passing comment that was picked up by a microphone. He promised it on 97 occasions. Was there any sincerity to it? Well, the Australian public believed there was at the time. People thought that they were listening to a man of integrity and of his word and that he would follow through on what he had promised them, on the undertaking he'd given.

The government have now presided over two budgets. They have taken economic decisions in those two budgets through legislation that they've introduced into this chamber. In all of that debate, in all of the public contributions from the Prime Minister in this place and around the country, bearing in mind that he mentioned it 97 times before he was elected, how many times do you think he's mentioned that figure of $275 since then?

An opposition member: At least 97!

Someone is saying, 'At least 97'; no, it's less than 97, I can say.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could it be 75?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Seventy-five,' one of my generous colleagues says, but it's much less than 75.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Was it 50?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it's lower than 50.

An opposition member: Twenty-five?

The generosity continues! It's less than 25.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ten? It can't be less than 10!

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not 10 either, I regret to inform my colleagues.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One!

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'One,' my colleague the member for New England says. You're a generous man, because it is none. None, Deputy Speaker—not once. I don't believe that the Prime Minister has amnesia. I don't believe that the Prime Minister has forgotten his commitments. I don't believe that the Prime Minister doesn't recall looking into the barrel of the camera, repeatedly making a commitment to the Australian public. I don't believe that he's forgotten about that, but I do believe that he's made decisions that have resulted in Australians paying more for their electricity bills, not less, and if he had the decency that Australians thought in May 2022 he might have, he'd apologise to the Australian public. I think he'd say, 'Look, I thought that I could deliver this for you. I thought that I could make decisions that could reduce your electricity and gas bills not just by $275 once off but by $275 a year,' but he's made no mention of that. He hasn't provided any apology.

The incompetence continues to this very day. We've seen it in relation to a number of areas. On child care, one of the key commitments this Prime Minister made to the Australian public is that the Labor Party would reduce the cost of child care in this country. The fact is that the cost of child care is now up 9½ per cent on the last 12 months. Families with young children in child care would have voted for the Prime Minister based on that promise alone. Instead, now, after the Prime Minister has been in government for just over 15 months, they're paying almost 10 per cent more for child care every day when they drop their kids off.

This government made a huge promise around increasing real wages. There are millions of workers across the country that listened to the rhetoric of the Prime Minister and the now Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. But do we have real wage growth in this country? We certainly do not. The minister is up here trumpeting the fact that people have a pay rise that doesn't keep up with the cost-of-living pressures created by this government. This government is spending an extra $185 billion. What does that do to inflation in our country? It drives it up. If inflation goes up, people pay more for their mortgages. And it's not just their mortgages: small businesses are now paying double-digit interest rates for their overdrafts.

If you speak to people around the country, as we do, in cafes, in restaurants, in other small businesses employing Australians—maybe one or two or five or 25 Australians—there's a common theme across the country: they are completely and utterly disillusioned with this Prime Minister. They thought they could take him at his word. They thought that the management that the coalition provided when we were in government to manage the economy through good times and bad would continue. But under this government it is clear they have not, and families are suffering, small businesses are suffering, and this government predicts that unemployment will go up over the course of the next 12 months—that is, that tens or hundreds of thousands of Australians will lose their jobs as a result of decisions taken by this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister made no mention of that before he was elected.

The one thing he did say, though—and I'll give him credit for this—the one thing he did commit to on the night of the election in May 2022 was that he would deliver a Canberra based voice to the Australian people. He nominated it as his highest priority. He said to the Australian public that he would dedicate himself, which he's done over the course of the last 15 months or so, to his proposal around the Canberra Voice. I think it's been, as many Australians now understand, to the disadvantage of the vast majority of Australians because the Prime Minister and his cabinet have been focused on this issue of the Voice. They've been completely and utterly distracted from the core business of managing the economy, and Australians are picking up that bill.

Have we had a coherent plan from the Prime Minister? They've had 15 months to formulate the plan in relation to the Voice. You saw on display again today, and countless question times have demonstrated this, the Minister for Indigenous Australians could not answer a single question in relation to the Voice. When asked to recall a detail about a publicly reported comment she made in 2019, she read from a pre-prepared script—yet again. It had no relevance to the question being asked, and somehow the Australian public is being prepared for 14 October, when you will be asked to place your faith blindly in that minister and this Prime Minister, but there is no transparency. There is deliberately no detail. When we say to the Prime Minister or to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, as we asked yesterday: 'When you say that the Voice is going to be restricted to only Indigenous health or Indigenous education, how can you say that? On what legal basis can you say that?' We asked the question: what policies don't apply to Indigenous Australians?

The wording that's before the Australian public is so broad that it will give rise to an opportunity for a voice made up of people of the quality of Marcia Langton and of people like Mr Mayo, a committed communist. These will be the people with the loudest voice in the country. It will divide our country. That's what the Prime Minister is proposing. In his own words, he has said that he will preside over a voice, and he will be afraid to reject their advice to him. He said it would be a very brave Prime Minister to reject the advice of the Voice. Somehow on one day, in one part of the country, the Prime Minister is saying to Australians that this is just a meek and mild opportunity to say yes—and we saw it repeated here today—but instead this is the most significant change proposed to our nation's rule book in our country's history. And it's without precedent. No leader in our country's history, Liberal or Labor, has ever gone to a referendum seeking to mislead the Australian people, seeking to deceive them, seeking to starve them of the opportunity to have their own minds made up by reading what it is the government's proposing. I think it is a shocking act from a prime minister who should be about uniting this country. He should be about providing the practical outcomes for Indigenous Australians, instead of investing a significant amount of power in people like Marcia Langton, who suggests that a quarter of the country is somehow racist or stupid. There are millions of Australians who will vote no. Good on them, because they're standing up to a very weak prime minister.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday morning I had the privilege of welcoming in to Canberra Michael Long, as part of his second long walk from Melbourne to Canberra. We met at Mulligans Flat, in Forde, where traditional owners told us some of the local Ngunnawal stories. We were joined by the member for Solomon; the Chief Minister of the ACT, Andrew Barr; and Sally McManus, Secretary of the ACTU.

Australians know Michael Long through his 190 games for Essendon, his two premierships, his Norm Smith Medal. But I want to remind the House about what an extraordinary man Michael Long is. In his biography of Michael Long, The Short Long Book, Martin Flanagan tells the story of Michael's dad, Jack Long, who once fought off a crocodile. He tells the story of Michael Long's mother, Agnes, who was taken away from her mother as an infant and who had never seen the sea. She was put on a boat and shipped from Darwin to the Catholic mission on Melville Island. Agnes Long was given the name Agnes Brock because she was taken from her mother beside Brock Creek.

As Martin Flanagan writes of Michael Long: 'Longie had a jiggling, bounding run like he'd briefly tapped into some special energy source. All his parts were loose and there was no way of knowing what each limb was going to do next.' He helped to shape the AFL's code of conduct on race in 1995. And then, having gone to one too many Aboriginal funerals, he decided, on 21 November 2004, to start walking from Melbourne to Canberra. Somewhere around Albury, then Prime Minister John Howard agreed to meet him. That's how the first walk happened. Today Michael Long walked with the Prime Minister the final steps to Parliament House on his second Long Walk.

Michael Long is an extraordinary Indigenous Australian, one of many Indigenous Australians who have helped to shape Australia's reconciliation journey—a journey that goes back to the Indigenous cricket team that toured England in 1868 up to Cathy Freeman's extraordinary 400-metre run in the Sydney Olympics, Johnathan Thurston captaining the Cowboys to their first NRL premiership and Ash Barty winning Wimbledon. Evonne Goolagong Cawley swelled Australians hearts. And Adam Goodes showing his extraordinary sense of grace. In that moment when a spectator called him an ape, he said he had never been more hurt. But then when the 13-year-old girl who had racially abused him phoned to apologise, he was gracious. These words still make me choke. He said:

"She's 13 years old, still so innocent, I don't put any blame on her … Unfortunately it's what she hears and the environment that she's grown up in has made her think that it's OK to call people names."

Adam Goodes showed us how lucky we are to share this nation with a peoples whose history goes back 65,000 years, to a period well before ancient Greece and ancient Rome.

For my own part, sportspeople like Charlie Maher have inspired me to run as a supporter of the Indigenous Marathon Foundation in dozens of marathons, ultramarathons and triathlons. Every time I put on that singlet I feel how fortunate I am to be a supporter of First Nations people.

The Leader of the Opposition referred disparagingly to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. It is important that the House realises what an extraordinary person the Minister for Indigenous Australians is. She doesn't much tell her own story, but it's a remarkable one. She was born in 1957 and raised not by her birth parents, but by her great aunt and uncle—a spinster brother and sister who were born in the 1890s. I don't think there's anyone else in the House raised by people born before Federation. She lived in a house with people who had experienced the Depression, in which they made their own soap and milked a cow.

She is somebody who has suffered a great deal through her life. The Minister for Indigenous Australians suffered domestic violence at the hands of her first partner, the father of her children. In 2006 she lost Rick Farley, who she described as the love of her life. Rick Farley was an extraordinary Australian, the head of the National Farmers Federation, who brought farmers along with him through the passage of the native title legislation. The Minister for Indigenous Australians has said, 'He was a complex, wonderful man that I miss every single day.' In 2017, she lost her son. She has every reason to be angry, but instead she epitomises grace. Instead, she epitomises courage. She epitomises the philosophy that all of us on this side of the House carry when we advocate a 'yes' vote.

The Minister for Indigenous Australians was the first Indigenous graduate of Mitchell CAE, the first Indigenous person to serve in the New South Wales parliament and the first Indigenous woman in the House of Representatives. She helped to spearhead the reconciliation walk across the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 2000. She deserves the respect of every Australian, including the Leader of the Opposition.

Other extraordinary Indigenous leaders have argued for a First Nations Voice to Parliament. Noel Pearson has made the case that the work of recognition involves the recognition of first languages, and he has emphasised the need for schools teaching First Australians to incorporate language into what they do. In my own case, I've benefited from speaking with Ngunnawal man Tyronne Bell, who's shown me the Indigenous stories in the Canberra bush and given me the honour of teaching me to speak an Indigenous acknowledgement of country.

We often refer to the 65,000 years of Indigenous history in Australia, but it's important to recognise how many souls that represents. According to demographer Len Smith, there are around a billion First Nations people who have walked on these soils, compared to 40 million non-Indigenous Australians. While non-Indigenous Australians outnumber First Nations people by 33 to 1 right now, if we look at the broad sweep of history, if we look at all those who've ever walked on these lands, 25 out of 26 are First Nations people. GK Chesterton once said, 'Tradition means giving a vote to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead.' Traditionalists should understand that recognition of First Nations people is recognition of the billion First Nations people who have walked on these lands.

It is not only a matter of recognition; it is also a matter of consultation. Consultation has a practical benefit. It produces better policies. Good governments consult. Right now, Treasury is consulting with economists and businesses on a legislated definition of superannuation, unfair trading practices, the Consumer Data Right and the Franchising Code of Conduct. The Department of Health and Aged Care is consulting on trans fats in processed food and pandemic preparedness. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet is consulting on gender equity in the workplace, and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources is consulting on expanding the RNA sector. By listening, we produce better policies. It's extraordinary to me that those opposite aren't arguing we should stop consulting with business. They aren't arguing that we should stop consultation on workplace relations, clean energy or business support. They seem to think consultation is a good thing everywhere except if it's enshrined in the Constitution that we will consult with First Nations people.

Aunty Violet Sheridan was also with us to meet Michael Long. She's somebody who walked across the Harbour Bridge in 2000. She said:

And I started to cry because it made me so happy that black and white were coming together and walking into the future for reconciliation.

This campaign is a campaign for yes which will meet hate and disinformation with love and confidence. It will meet attempts to blur with clarity, hope and a passion for a better future, epitomised by Michael Long, Charlie Maher and Linda Burney.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

TLEPROUD (—) (): In just 15 months, all the Albanese government has managed to do is drive up everyone's cost of living and divide this country. The proposition in managing the Voice is not a new one. It's a proposition we've had before in this country. We've had a representative body; it was called ATSIC. For those that live in rural and remote Australia we live with the scars of that today. The Nationals took a very principled decision in November last year—that repeating the mistakes of the past would not help in closing the gap. The Nationals are committed to a proper process around constitutional recognition, not just where one cohort of the population get to go to Uluru and decide about what the make-up of our Constitution should look like but where there is proper process of a constitutional convention where every Australian should have a say about the intent, the change of the Constitution and the question that is put to the Australian people. That's been denied by them, this government, in ignorantly listening to Australians about their concerns about how this should be done in uniting our country through constitutional recognition instead of conflating it with the Voice.

But their mishandling has gone well beyond that. If you go to regional and rural Australia, we bear those scars today. It took them literally less than a month after the Jobs and Skills Summit to scrap the ag visa, a summit that the Nationals took a pragmatic stance on and went to, to be constructive, and where the government were told, apparently, after listening to those that went, by the NFF and COSBOA that they were 172,000 workers short to get food from a paddock to a plate. Yet the only thing they could do was scrap an ag visa and rely on a PALM scheme that we'd already put in place and that, at best, could bring in 42,000 workers. Since that Jobs and Skills Summit a year ago, nearly to the day, they've only brought in 16,000 workers, less than 10 per cent, and they have changed the PALM scheme to make it unviable for our horticulturalists to be able to use in any meaningful way.

The cost-of-living pressures that you are feeling at the moment across this country are a direct result of the unions riding high up in the stirrups, running this government and making sure that they have the direction of this government, and you are paying that bill. That goes to your energy bill as well—a reckless race to 82 per cent renewables by 2030 that demonises the firming power that's required to drive down energy costs. Inflation remains high because of fixed costs. Discretionary spend has already reduced. The Treasurer talks about inflation dropping, and that's because Australians are hurting and their discretionary spend has dropped. But what is still there is their fixed cost, and their fixed cost is their energy bill and their food bill. Our food processors are paying sometimes three or four times what they were 12 months ago because we are taking away supply, and when you take away supply you lift prices, and that is what they've done with their reckless energy policy.

But it gets worse for regional Australia, with one of the most callous and nasty pieces of legislation: to reopen the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. In 2012, we sat here—well, I didn't, but those that were here, in a bipartisan way, supported a Murray-Darling Basin Plan to recover 2,750 gigalitres to put back to the environment. Regional communities have bore that pain of over 2,100 gigalitres already recovered. That's 2,100 of the 2,750 recovered; they bore that and they accepted that. We put in place practical measures to ensure that we got away from the blunt instrument of buybacks because recovering water through buybacks doesn't hurt farmers; it hurts the small communities that are left behind: the machinery dealer, the irrigation shop—right down to the cafe owner and the hairdresser. They take away the tools of farmers to produce your food and fibre, they take away jobs and they diminish regional communities.

And what is the most callous and nastiest piece of legislation that they are going to amend? Their piece of legislation, for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, has now asked for another 450 gigalitres to be taken away from agriculture, without any protection for the economic viability of these communities—a mechanism that they put in place themselves. What sort of government does that to their fellow Australians?

Every Australian will feel the price of that at the checkout because if you don't give the farmers the tools they need to produce your food and fibre—they have borne the price of giving water back to the environment, and now the government are asking for more—then that means you pay more. This is about ideology not meeting the practical reality of what is being bled out of Australians' wallets every day. This government is out of touch with reality and out of touch with Australia.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an absolute privilege to have an opportunity to speak about the competency of this government—those of us who sit on this side of the House and do the things we said we'd do. It's been not much more than a year, and in that time the Albanese government has delivered on so many of the things we committed to. I'm not going to be able to touch on all of them during this short speech, but I just want those opposite to think about how different the world is, how different Australia is and how different the opportunity is for people because we've been able to competently deliver things like fee-free TAFE places. We set a target of 180,000 places. We've already exceeded that target, and 214,000 enrolments have taken place. That's 214,000 people who have an opportunity for a totally different career and life. We've created opportunities. We've delivered more university places along with more TAFE places.

We've also made life easier for a whole group of people who have chronic illnesses. We've delivered cheaper medicines in multiple tranches, including the most recent where people can get two lots of their script in one go. That might not seem a lot for those opposite, but, for people who have a long-term ongoing chronic illness and require sometimes multiple medications, that's a huge saving. We've also delivered funds to support GPs. In my electorate, there are 14 GPs who have received additional support to be able to expand and build up their practices, but I'll have more to say about that in coming days.

Really significantly, we have delivered action on climate change. Have we fixed it? Well, no. The sorts of things those opposite want to see are instant fixes. They were too scared to even try. They had no belief in the need for transition. We know that the journey is not necessarily going to be smooth every step of the way, but we are acting and starting to deliver those changes. I think the action that we're taking on climate change has given many people a huge sense of relief that Australia is not back in the Dark Ages but part of a world that recognises how urgent and necessary action on climate change is.

We've also delivered aged-care reforms that were recommended to the previous government, which they failed to even contemplate. They were the incompetent ones, the ones unable to look at an issue, determine the problems and move forward with solutions. But we've been able to deliver a whole raft of aged-care changes, like 24/7 nurses, which are operating in almost every aged-care facility now; extra minutes of care for each resident of aged care; and a pay rise for aged-care workers. There's an incredible difference between before we were elected and now, a bit more than a year on.

Today, of course, we delivered on a commitment to more housing. The legislation that we passed through this place today will have a tangible benefit to Macquarie, where there will be more accommodation for women fleeing domestic violence. At a local level, we're a government that's delivering on improvements to mental health, like the headspace and the Head to Health that will open in my electorate before the end of the year. It took those opposite nine years to do what? Absolutely nothing to improve mental health access for people in the Hawkesbury. We've also made improvements to and delivered on disaster assistance and preparation. I'm very proud to say that, at the start of what could be a very challenging fire season, I go into that knowing that, at a federal level, we have listened and we have taken action to be better prepared.

I want finish by talking about why we hope that on 14 October we will see the Australian people support recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution and a voice to parliament. It's because what no parliament has done is deliver on closing the gap—not effectively. The gaps are still too wide. There are too many people experiencing disadvantage, shorter life expectancy and poorer educational outcomes. What 14 October gives us is an opportunity to change that trajectory. It's an opportunity to say yes.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the mishandling by the government of a few issues. I want to start with the mishandling they've done of the Voice. I get up very humbly to speak about this. I don't get up to yell about this. I don't get up to be overly loud about this. I'm happy to explain in a little while why I am voting no. I have some very real concerns about the constitutional impacts of the Voice being recognised in the Constitution, and I'll get to that in a minute. But what I'm really sad about is—and I really don't see how the minister or anyone opposite can argue against this—that we are going to be, for the next four weeks, and on the morning of the result of the Voice referendum, a divided nation. We are being divided on an issue that we didn't have to be divided on. The referendum question didn't have to be worded like this. It has been ill worded and it has been ill conceived. I think we can all talk from personal experience of conversations that we've had with colleagues, friends and family members, and it has divided us. I think that is an exceptionally sad place for us to be. I think it's dividing us, too, on an issue that is really unfortunate, as we continue our story of reconciliation and we continue our story of closing the gap. It's been a great mishandling by the Prime Minister. He's had a tin ear about the thing the whole way.

I will just touch on what my concerns are. I'm not going to yell them in a derogatory way. I have real concerns that the power of the Voice will be decided by the High Court, not the parliament. I have real concerns about that.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's rubbish, absolute rubbish!

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can disagree with that, and I understand that the member opposite disagrees with that, and I respect that, but that is my concern.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Talk to Julian Leeser!

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've spoken to people who share that concern who are very learned as well. Even when I'm trying to say this in a very considered way, people can't see that some people might have that real concern. That's where we are. We're certainly divided here. Families are divided over this. Friendships have been broken over this. This is a very sad place that the Prime Minister has put us in.

I will go now to the issue that is of major consequence to the families in Australia, the major issue that people talk to me about. In the past, if I went to people and said, 'What has been your major issue?' it was usually not health, education or anything else—it was always local roads actually, in any survey I did. But about four or five months ago, for the first time, it changed, and the major concern for families and people in Australia now is cost of living. The Leader of the Opposition got up earlier and spoke about power prices, so I won't repeat that, but I will reiterate that the now Prime Minister said before the election that it was the most modelled policy that an opposition had ever done in the history of Federation. So it was the most modelled one, and he hasn't mentioned it since the election.

We've spoken about power prices, but we know that there are also increasing interest rates—10 or 11 interest rate increases by the RBA—grocery prices and the whole supply chain being fuelled by the truckie tax that this government has put on and other things. Now we're seeing some industrial relations legislation being brought in too. I can tell you right now what that will mean. The unions are back in town. The factions don't always agree, but what we can all agree on is: they've all been funded and they're all here because of a union. The unions are back in town. What is that going to mean for cost of living?

Government members interjecting—

That gets them going. They're a bit sensitive about that one. What does that mean? That means, with the new industrial relations legislation, the one thing you can bet on is that the cost of living for Australian families is going up, thank you to the union members over there.

The last one I want to mention is the whole infrastructure debacle by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. When they were in opposition, they'd say we were pork-barrellers, giving money where it was not warranted. Now they're in government they say we didn't do anything. There is not quite a connection there. But the minister's handling of infrastructure and the Qatar decision by this government, and its damage to the tourism industry and exporters, is atrocious handling by a very incompetent government.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Dickson for raising this matter and I will speak against his motion. The member raises the question of the issues that concern Australians. What are the issues that concern Australians? Perhaps they include the cost of living, the Voice to Parliament, closing the gap, robodebt, the needs of veterans and their families, aged care and housing. Moreover, the issue that I believe concerns Australians more than any other, which was severely lacking under the previous government and which we are now delivering, is serious leadership.

On the issue of cost-of-living challenges that face Australians today partly due to global issues and partly due to nine years of Liberal and National torpor, this government has acted. We are making child care and medicines cheaper. We created over half-a-million new jobs in our first 13 months and have more than 224,000 people enrolled in TAFE training. We are strengthening the Medicare system, making it more affordable for the young and the old to see a GP. We are strengthening the social safety net, increasing JobSeeker and rent assistance and providing energy bill relief on top of capping gas prices to reel in the cost-of-living challenges that started to run away under the former government. The government's actions, as has been recognised, have been effectual in starting to bring inflation down. We are also getting wages moving, supporting the Fair Work Commission's minimum wage rise, fixing a broken bargaining system and closing the loopholes used by unscrupulous employers that undermine and undercut wages and conditions.

The Liberal and National parties voted against cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, cheaper energy and more housing. They even opposed pay rises. They voted against all of these things. If the opposition leader wants to know who is failing to deal with the issues facing Australians, he can look to his left and to his right and over his shoulder, which he should start doing more often, and then he can go and find a mirror.

On the issue of the referendum, perhaps the Voice to Parliament means little else to some of those opposite than a way to divide, but for many people around this country, including many people with a real interest in closing the gap and making a real difference across health, education and justice for Indigenous Australians, the invitation of the Uluru statement is a real chance to make a difference. I look forward to voting 'yes' on 14 October, and I will be proud if Western Australia also votes 'yes'.

On the issue of government treating ordinary Australians with respect, the report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme is an indictment of the former government. Perhaps 'indictment' is a too strong a word, but perhaps it isn't.

On the issue of the needs of veterans and their families, our changes mean that finally they can access the services and support that they deserve in a timely way.

On the many issues we inherited from the previous government in aged care, this government has been implementing the recommendations of the aged-care royal commission and has supported aged-care workers with significant pay increases.

On the issue of housing, today every member can be proud that the government's program and common sense has at last prevailed under the steady hand of the Minister for Housing with the passing of the legislation for the Housing Australia Future Fund, which I believe will become a legacy program.

But the issue that Australians care about above all others is simply leadership. We now have a stable government led by a respected Prime Minister. We once again are a serious country that is taken seriously around the world. There is hardly any issue, portfolio or area of government where the performance of the Albanese government over the short span of less than 18 months has not already eclipsed that of the coalition over its many unfulfilled years.

The issue of climate change, for example, for some of those opposite is one to avoided, to be ducked around, to be met with nothing but mealy-mouthed words and a nod and a wink to other climate deniers. I'm sorry to those opposite who can read science news and do accept it, but they know the problem they have over there. The Australian public are simply unable to depend on climate action from those opposite and there are decades of evidence of that, lost decades that we can't get back.

This strange, indefinite motion sits firmly in the shade cast by the ministers of this worthy government whose work I have reflected on here and very much in the shade of this Prime Minister. I thank the opposition leader for the chance to reflect on many of the achievements of the Albanese government. I oppose this tragic motion.

Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I first came into this parliament, I asked, 'Well, what's the purpose of the matters of public performance, MPIs?' It was put to me that question time is a chance for government to come in and tell the nation how great they are, and MPIs are a chance for the opposition and crossbench to say, 'Not so fast, not so fast.' This MPI is about competence, and it is about competence in a wide variety of areas. I would like to focus on the next four weeks, and I have a plea for the Prime Minister to show competence in one of the most important areas he is responsible for, which is keeping our nation together. I see here in the chamber my good friend the member for Robertson. I know that you have been on the receiving end of some awful things that have been said to you, and that should not happen. I know that recently Senator Jacinta Price received death threats, and that should never happen. People shared her personal private number. That may be funny to some because of the way that the campaign is being conducted, but we only need to look to what happened in other democracies, in the United States and in England, to know that this is really serious stuff.

People who've been here much longer than me have all said they have never seen passion so heightened on either side than they have on this issue. We do this for a living. It is a calling, a profession and a great honour, and we come in here and know there is some theatre to it. But when we go out of this building, people don't see that we politicians play sport together, we laugh together, we have dinner together. That is what we do, but that is not obvious to everyone in this debate because we are not practised in referendums. More than half of this nation have never had one before. And so when we stoke the fires on either side of the debate, there are consequences to that. Passionate, decent, good people of good character can disagree on this question, and they can still be passionate, good, decent people and come together. That includes people within families, within sporting groups, within businesses and within our electorates. You all would have received communications showing great passions from both sides, all of you.

There are things we can agree on—even if you have a view on 'yes' or 'no', there are a few things we can agree on. Decent, reasonable people can agree that we have great pride in our ancient Indigenous heritage, that we acknowledge gaps in poverty, education and health, and that we acknowledge historical and present-day injustices. But we must also all agree that in four weeks—today is 14 September, but on 14 October we must all agree—that the Australian people will get it right. On 14 October there will be wall-to-wall coverage on every channel and there will be panels trying to dissect what this referendum means for the leaders. But we must all agree that the Australian people got it right. We have seen examples of other nations where that doesn't occur, including our great friend the United States. We saw what happens when doesn't occur; it damages democracy.

It is not just on the night of 14 October that this is relevant, not just on that night. It is also relevant to how we conduct ourselves in the next four weeks. The Prime Minister is a passionate advocate for 'yes'—that is clear, and I understand that. But there are ways you can delegitimise the vote. Too many have used the words 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' like it is a cute line. It is another way of saying fake news or propaganda, another way of saying, 'I'm not listening,' another way of saying, 'Talk to the hand.' But the effect of that is to delegitimise the vote. You are doing it in advance, and we can't do that. We can't fix that on election night. If you have set the conditions up for Australian people to vote 'no'—and we will see what they do—and if you have said that that is the bar on misinformation or disinformation, you have undermined our democracy. I caution against that in the next four weeks.

When the Prime Minister passionately says a hand has been outreached, what will he say if the majority of Australians vote 'no'? Have they hit that hand away? That is a terrible thing to say about the majority of Australian people, a terrible thing. We should never say things like that. It's a serious constitutional amendment, a new chapter with real powers. It wasn't a modest proposal; it has real powers. That's the question. It's not about manners. It should never be put in that way. So, in the next four weeks, I plead with the Prime Minister to set the conditions for us all to agree on referendum night that the Australian people got it right, whatever that view is. We can and should all agree on that.

Gordon Reid (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I begin, I thank the member for Menzies for his kind words just a little bit earlier. Debate is high at the moment. It is high throughout the community. It's definitely high in this chamber, and we must remain respectful, but we must remain informed when we have that debate. The issue of competence was brought up. It was brought up by the member for Menzies and a few others just prior. Competence is about delivering and about doing what you say you will do. On election night, the now Prime Minister, Prime Minister Albanese, said that we would implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart and progress a referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country's Constitution through a voice, and that is what we are doing. We are putting a referendum to the Australian people on 14 October.

What I would encourage people to do—in my home electorate of Robertson, throughout the country and, in particular, in this chamber—is to make sure that they are informed and that they are educating themselves about what this referendum means and what this referendum is asking. That is, and I say it again, to constitutionally recognise our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters right across this country through the establishment of a voice, an independent advisory body that will be able to make representations to government and executive government about the issues that affect us—a seat at the table.

As has been said many times, as an Aboriginal adult male you are more likely to go to jail than you are to go to university. Your grandson or your granddaughter is more likely to be caused harm or to die during birth, and your daughter is more likely to die during childbirth. We see rampant rates of cardiovascular disease—like rheumatic heart disease, affecting the valves of the heart—affecting our Indigenous youth, our First Nations youth. One day, they are there, living their lives; the next, it is silence. So we need to really, really understand what this is asking.

Some of the comments today from the opposition—some of the comments—have been not just disappointing but quite myopic. There have been short-sighted. All the questions that have been asked and all the comments that have been made in this chamber have really firmed up my position that, first, the opposition have not read the Uluru Statement from the Heart—that one-page document, that gracious offering that has been extended to all Australians and will be extended to all Australians on 14 October. Second, I don't believe the opposition understand the difference between constitutional change and legislative change, which leads me to my third point, which is that they haven't read the new chapter that would be inserted into the Constitution and, to be specific, the third part of that chapter. It says:

the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to … to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including—

and this is the important part—

its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

The primacy of the parliament is preserved. The Constitution is there to guide legislation, as it always has been, and the parliament then forms the legislation. To talk very briefly on the power of listening—and I've said this before and as the health minister has said during question time—listening to our patients and listening to people is so powerful because not only can it reduce harm but it also can save a life. That's the power of listening to one person at one moment. Imagine what we can do if we listen to our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters on 14 October.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The next time that we come together as a parliament, this referendum will have been held, and we will have the results and the message from the people of Australia as to their view on this proposal that the Labor government are putting to them. We won't just have the results of the national vote or the results from the states; we'll have the results from every electorate, from every booth, and we will know exactly what our communities' view is—whether our electorates have voted for this or against it. I quite genuinely commend members of the government who are in here right now absolutely doubling down on the fact that this is the most important thing that the government that they are a member of is doing or will do, and that the fortunes of their government and a judgement about their government will be made by the people of this country on 14 October. When we're back here, we can have another discussion about the view of the communities, the view of the electorates of everyone here—what our electorates have said to us about this proposal—and whether or not our electorates support the position that we've taken or the position that other people have taken.

A year ago, when we started talking about moving towards holding this referendum, I was hopeful that something could occur that would see some unity around recognition of Indigenous people in the Constitution. Regrettably, I came to form the view, through all of my observations of the behaviour of those opposite from the Prime Minister down, that the Prime Minister wanted two things: to have the referendum that we're now having and to divide and destroy the opposition in the process. He wanted to put us in a position where he would put something through to us that we could never possibly support. Indeed, he followed through on that. I suspect his judgement at the time was that he was going to win this referendum and split the coalition, and achieve two famous victories in one fell swoop. That is obviously completely out the window now.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You'll hear from your community in four weeks time. Your communities will tell you what they think of your proposal. You'll find out, and when we're back together I look forward to talking about what your communities have said to you and what my community has said to me about this proposal. I'm not frightened of the people of this country. I hold no fear of the voters of my electorate, and you should take the message from the voters of your electorate—what they've got to say about the proposition that you're putting forward. You're going to find out, and I look forward to being back here and talking about that.

We could have made this a moment of national unity. Regardless of the result—and the result is looking pretty clear—what we are going to have is a divided nation because of this debate that the Prime Minister has put to the Australian people. That is on the Prime Minister's head. The people that will hold him to account for that will not be just the people in this chamber. It will the people of this country, because they will send a very clear message, and we will all get that message. It will be unambiguous and unequivocal. That message will need to be reflected on very deeply by the Prime Minister.

When David Cameron put a vote to the people of the United Kingdom about leaving the European Union, he went out and campaigned on it, and said, 'We need to stay in the European Union.' He put his judgement and his view to the people of the United Kingdom. When they rejected it, he resigned the next morning. That was something of dignity—to put such a totemic proposition forward. It would be an act of absolute cowardice for the Prime Minister to put such a divisive proposition to the people of this country, to divide us like never before, have that proposition rejected and continue on as Prime Minister of the nation, with the people having given him that verdict. He should reflect on that. It wouldn't be good for the interests of the referendum to put the Prime Minister's future on the line, because that will only increase the 'no' vote. But he should reflect very carefully on what he does. If he has taken his proposal, his model and his timing to the people—and made sure that it was a divisive question—and if the people don't support his position but reject it, he should do the honourable and dignified thing and resign as Prime Minister of Australia.

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

If those across from me wish to discuss incompetence and mishandling, we can certainly have that discussion. The title of the matter of public importance is:

This Government's incompetence and mishandling of the issues facing Australia.

But I'm going to talk about what took place in this place over the last nine or 10 years. Let's not forget that, firstly, the former Prime Minister secretly assumed five different ministries, including Treasury and Home Affairs. How can you forget that? This was done without any public knowledge or even the acknowledgement of his own members of parliament; his own cabinet had no idea. If you want to talk about incompetence, that gets the big tick for incompetence.

But it's not just that. Those on the other side are experts at mishandling. It's not that long ago that we were talking in this place about 435,000 Australians—you want to talk about incompetence—that were forced to pay a debt that they never had. They on the other side denied it. If you want to talk about incompetence, that is incompetence: making innocent people pay a debt they didn't have, an unjust burden totalling $1.8 billion through the robodebt scheme. That was an ordeal that no Australian should have endured. How do you strip them of the sense of security, of the very support they've earned through years of contributing themselves? Well, those across there did that, and that was incompetence. They did it with ease because they were quite capable and happy to be incompetent.

Their skill at mishandling doesn't stop there. They've perfected the art of saying no, to the detriment of this nation. They've said no to free TAFE, no to the Energy Price Relief Plan, no to a permanent pathway for temporary protection visa holders and no to startup loans and better paid jobs. They even said no to the Housing Australia Future Fund, a policy that was passed here today, which we're all proud of, and that will provide housing and a roof over the head of those that can least afford it. Meanwhile, we've upped the minimum wage, and it's no surprise that they also disagreed with that. And we funded an historic pay rise for aged care workers. Again, they didn't agree.

Let everyone be reminded that, whilst they were in power, they neglected the health of Australians. They drained a substantial $50 billion from our public health system in the time that they were in government, which is proof that they're incompetent because that was to the detriment of the Australian public. We've voted in this place to build a better Australia to ensure we have healthcare systems. But if you're incompetent you'll bring down the healthcare system, and that's what they've done. That is what they've left us with: a health system that they ran to the ground. They ran it into the ground because they were incompetent and incapable of running a system. They drained, as I said, $50 billion from the public health system whilst they were in government. Of course, they wanted to jack up the cost of medicines by $5 per script, and now they constantly oppose measures that would make medicines more affordable for Australians. They've ignored the rising cost of living. They ignored it and ignored it. They ignored environmental concerns and the pressing housing crisis.

We have created—it was announced today—half a million new jobs in just 13 months, and in my state they've had the lowest figure for unemployment that they've ever had, setting a record pace for any new government. We on this side are committed to the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, the most substantial investment in social and affordable housing in over a decade, and those on the other side continue to reject these initiatives. When they question our spending priorities, particularly in housing, you have to wonder: how can ensuring every Australian has a roof over their head ever be wrong? How can that ever be wrong?

What about a couple of weeks ago? We had legislation in this place—and I'm glad the Assistant Treasurer is here, because he'll recall it—to bring more transparency to offshore multinational accounts, giving us better ways of dealing with people who set up shelf companies offshore, and they opposed it. They absolutely opposed it, yet they were denying that robodebt existed. On one hand, they were quite happy to support their buddies and their friends with millions of dollars, but, on the other hand, when the poorest of the poor were being targeted with debts, they didn't want to know about it. That gives you an idea of where they are and what they are. Our government is a good government, and we continue to be a good government. (Time expired)

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the discussion has now concluded.