Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A letter has been received from Senator Fifield:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The Gillard Government's relentless negativity and failure to develop real solutions for all Australians.

Is the proposal supported?

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

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some remarks in relation to today's matter of public importance: the Gillard government's relentless negativity and failure to develop real solutions for all Australians. Isn't it extraordinary, colleagues, that we on this side of the chamber continually get charged with being negative and that it is the coalition that is negative? At the outset I will say that, if this were not such a bad government—if this were not such an appalling government giving us such atrocious policy—then those of us in the coalition sitting on this side of the chamber would not have to be so negative. Every time that the Prime Minister complains that the Leader of the Opposition is being negative, she should realise that it is simply because this is quite possibly the worst Labor government that this nation has ever seen.

It is also interesting, colleagues, that the Prime Minister is very quick to cry foul when anybody criticises her performances. If we criticise her performance, or indeed anybody from out there in the community does, we are supposedly being negative. No. We are doing so because the Prime Minister is doing an extremely bad job of running the country. That is the reason that we are being negative. But we are told that we are picking on the Prime Minister because she is a woman. The negativity towards the Prime Minister has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. We are negative towards her because she is doing such a bad job running this country.

This is a government that has absolutely no solutions, particularly for regional Australia. This government has consistently been negative towards regional Australia, turning their back particularly in the areas of education and agriculture. People out there in the regions have simply had enough of this appalling Labor government. Isn't it extraordinary that here we are discussing the fact that this government has no real solutions for all Australians, regardless of whether they are in regional Australia or anywhere else, when they have had years and years to prove to the Australian people that they have a plan and have some solutions. But they do not.

The very first area that I will be discussing today is access to education by students from regional Australia and how the this government has no solutions to this. Equity of access for regional students should be a priority. This government should find some solutions and give those regional students equity of access to education. At the ALP campaign launch on 16 August back in 2010, Prime Minister Gillard said: 'I believe we can build a nation where every child from every family, no matter where they are born in this country, no matter the circumstances of their birth, can get a great education and the opportunity to have their life transformed by it.' The Prime Minister should put her money where her mouth is because that statement has not resulted in any way, shape or forth to this government providing solutions to regional students when it comes to equity of access to education.

What this government has never got its head around—what this government has never understood—is that regional students face costs that city students simply do not face. Many of our regional students simply have no choice but to relocate to attend university or further education. They are at a huge disadvantage financially because it costs around $20,000 a year—and, indeed, the recent figures indicate that it is even more than that—for a regional family to send a student off to further their tertiary education. That is simply not good enough.

Independent youth allowance is the only measure that a lot of regional students have had over the years through which they could get any sort of financial assistance to help them go on to tertiary education. But this government made it harder for regional students in 2010. It took the coalition and, I have to say, particularly my regional colleagues, who understood this issue extremely well, 18 months of belting the government over the head—figuratively—to get them to change their minds and realise that they were treating regional students unfairly. That is simply not good enough. There are no solutions from this government. And it is not just that: the government make things worse, particularly for regional students.

Regarding independent youth allowance, the government has put in place a $150,000 parental income test cap for students who want to access it. That is simply illogical, wrong and stupid. Bear in mind that that is before income tax for both parents. We could effectively be talking about a police officer and a school teacher. Their children would be precluded from accessing independent youth allowance simply because their parents earn that amount. They would not be able to get any financial assistance. It is my view and National Party policy that we should have some assistance in place for regional students that would recognise the fact that there are huge relocation costs, without the requirement that they do a gap year. I will continue to push this. I know that my regional Liberal colleagues understand this issue very well. This is an issue of equity of access for regional students. It will help them get that education and put them on an equal level with their city cousins. That is only fair, right and proper. This government has no idea how to find any kind of solution to this problem and give those regional students some equity.

Indeed, this is the case even when we look at the bigger picture. In last year's MYEFO, the government cut $3.9 billion out of education. As I said, it is not only that this government has no real solutions; the government is effectively making things worse for this nation.

We only have to look at the debt and the economic mismanagement from this government to know that every single day this government is making it worse for people right across the country. When it comes to agriculture this government, again, has no real solutions and indeed is making it worse. Just recently the Prime Minister made some comments about dairy—that under the carbon tax the dairy industry not only would survive but would thrive. How ridiculous is that?

Senator Williams interjecting—

I will take that interjection, Senator Williams—that very interesting laugh. There is no understanding from this Prime Minister whatsoever about rural Australia. If the Prime Minister seriously thinks putting a carbon tax onto input costs right across the board for farmers—whether it be on electricity, fuel, transport or fertilisers—when the farmer is at the bottom of the food chain and has absolutely nowhere to pass that on, and if she seriously thinks that is going to result in a dairy industry that will thrive, then she simply does not have a clue.

It is no wonder this government cannot find any solutions, particularly for regional Australia, when every single one of the 21 around the cabinet table is from a city. The Prime Minister has not bothered to put one person from a region at her cabinet table. That is absolutely appalling. To someone from a regional area—I am a farmer from the central west of New South Wales—for the Prime Minister to continually be so dismissive of regional Australia is absolutely breathtaking. And we saw no more breathtaking action from the Prime Minister than the banning of the live export trade.

Rather than find a solution the Prime Minister bowed to what was seen to be pressure from the cities, coming through the emails from people who had no understanding of the industry. Yet what did the Prime Minister say? She said there had to be some 'short-term disruption'. The Prime Minister turned people's lives upside down in the northern part of this country and she calls it short-term disruption. That is appalling, and the Prime Minister should be embarrassed that she thinks that way about turning the lives of all those hardworking Australians upside down, many of them without an income and many of them having absolutely no idea—as I know my good colleague Senator Scullion understands probably better than anybody else. And the Prime Minister calls it short-term disruption. That is absolutely appalling.

This is a government with absolutely no solutions for the future of this country. And it is not just us on this side saying it; this Labor government has a proven track record of having no solutions. It does not matter where we turn, whether it be education, agriculture or right across the board. Particularly in regional Australia, where I am from, people have absolutely had enough. They want a government that is going to lead this nation properly, that is going to provide those solutions, and it is the coalition that will do that for them.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to contribute to the debate on this MPI motion. I really find it quite stark in hypocrisy that those opposite can accuse this government of relentless negativity and of not developing real solutions. We need only look at our track record, at what we have achieved since we came into government; it is an excellent record. I know Senator Williams will join me in commending us on our record! If he gets an opportunity he might make a contribution about how good our policies are, as well as many aspects of what we have done while we have been in government.

But what we get from the other side, particularly from Tony Abbott, is the position of 'no'. You wonder whether he has any other words to add to his vocabulary. It is just 'no'. It is very limited. I know he does not read a lot. I know he has not read his climate change policy. He fails to read things and then comes along with these statements and makes all these trip-ups along the way when he is travelling around the countryside. Maybe that has something to do with this literacy standard; I do not know. But when he comes up with a policy of just saying no all the time, it is no wonder that the people in our communities are wondering where he is coming from.

So, that is where we sit—that is the difference between the government and the opposition. I am pleased Senator Nash spoke about climate change, and I want to talk about that for a moment. We put a price on carbon, and we saw the need to make a difference to reduce our emissions so that our future generations—like my granddaughter Xavia—can enjoy the environment of clean air and clean water that we enjoy today. That is what we have done for our future. The coalition said no. In fact, their leader said climate change was 'absolute crap'. That is on record; we know the opposition leader has indicated that. So, when it comes to their direct action policy, we understand without a doubt what it stands for as well.

Just recently we had Mr Hockey admitting that the repeal would trigger compensation claims from companies that have made investments and business decisions based on a price on carbon. I wonder what compensation costs would be added to the $48 billion to $100 billion that independent experts have estimated that direct action will cost, further increasing the coalition's budget black hole. Just today we had one of the Liberal candidates—the candidate for the seat of Hume, Angus Taylor—describing the key element of the direct action policy as 'bizarre'. He is describing the LNP's policy on direct action as bizarre. No wonder people out there are really wondering what they stand for.

Then we have the likes of Senator Joyce, one of my fellow colleagues from Queensland, claiming that a roast will cost you $100. Where do they get these statements from? A roast costing you $100: it must be an awfully big roast.

Senator Scullion interjecting—

I agree, Senator Scullion. It must be like some of those buffaloes you have up in the Territory, to cost $100. But, in general, if you go to the supermarket and you go to the meat section you will find a roast costing, on average, what it has cost you for quite a number of years. The price has not increased as a result of the carbon price.

In the Canberra Times Senator Joyce claimed the carbon price would increase abattoir costs leading to an increase on the cost of meat. He inferred there would be a time where:

… abattoirs would have to pay $575,000 for a single beast. So it is costing you vastly more than a $100 roast, that one.

I do not see that in the supermarkets I do my shopping at.

Minister Greg Combet actually hit back at this ludicrous claim, indicating:

Abattoirs emit methane, one of the most harmful of the greenhouse gases, from biological waste. Where they emit more than 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gases a year they will be liable for the carbon price.

Treasury modelling shows the impact of this liability on meat prices is just 0.4 per cent, which has been factored into the government's household assistance. Furthermore, abattoirs can reduce emissions and carbon price liability through measures such as covering their waste settlement ponds and flaring the methane or using it to generate electricity. In these cases the liability may be reduced to zero, meaning the carbon price is doing exactly what it was intended to do.

One thing I never hear from the opposition is the success with which we handled the global financial crisis. I know that a couple of the senators on the other side attend the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, of which I am a member. They know that over the last several years we have been fortunate enough to have a number of ambassadors from a variety of different areas—the US, Europe and other location around the globe—commending what our government did during the global financial crisis.

I know that you, Acting Deputy President Marshall, as chair of the education committee you sit on, were privileged to hear a lot of evidence about what we did in our schools and what we did for schools right across the nation to give them, overwhelmingly, funding that they have never seen in their lifetime. The funding provided things like halls, science centres and libraries. I think I went to in excess of 140 openings over that short period of time. I was overwhelmed by the number of principals, student body members and parents of children coming up to me and saying, 'Thank you for the Gillard government. Thank you to the federal Labor government for providing this funding to build these beautiful halls that we would normally never see in our lifetime.'

It is unfortunate that those opposite criticise those sorts of outcomes and those entitlements that we have been able to provide. They try to break down the situation to show it as being unsuccessful, but that is not the case. It has been a marvellous success. You need to get out there and talk to the people in the schools. I know some opposite do, those who may be a little naive or fresh or want the photo opportunity. They come along and you see them up there on the stage smiling and grinning away. Then, all of a sudden, they are standing next to you. These are the people who opposed the response to the global financial crisis and opposed the Building the Education Revolution funding. Yet here they are just about putting their arms around you wanting to get into a photo opportunity to get onto the front page of the paper regarding the opening of a hall, a science centre or a library. How hypocritical some of those people in the LNP are. They say one thing, they talk the talk, but then when it comes to getting it out into the communities they are doing something other than that. It shows how hypocritical they are.

The other thing we need to remember is that when we came into government we put that sort of investment not only into the BER but into building our communities and our infrastructure programs, and that of course has generated over 840,000 jobs in our community. You never hear the opposition saying how successful that has been, because we know they do not stand for jobs in our community. They know that the Labor Party stands for jobs, employment and assisting people in times of need. There is the example of unemployment, which is around 5.4 per cent. Compare that with a rate of 7.9 per cent in the United States. That is another example of how we have delivered to make sure that our unemployment rate is so low.

We have always been the party that represents people. We believe in fairness and equity and that is why currently our taxes are at 22.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 24.2 per cent in 2004-05 and 2005-06. The Howard government was the highest taxing government ever in history. That demonstrates how we have been able to make sure that people in our communities are taken care of.

Look at the low interest rates of today—currently on three per cent—compared to 6.75 per cent when we came into office. That is helping people by making sure their mortgages are met and their needs are accommodated for.

I am so proud of the fact the government has been able to introduce policies like the Schoolkids Bonus, making sure that kids can go to school with all their needs, whether it be pencils, bags or payments for excursions. This is what a forward-thinking Labor government does and that is why we will not stand here and listen to this MPI based on— (Time expired)

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Furner, your time has well and truly expired. Sorry, I was somewhat distracted and I apologise to the Senate. I call Senator Sinodinos.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts! That is what I say. May I begin my remarks by saying that the reason we today are debating the issue of the relentless negativity by the Gillard government is that it is a government of knockers. They knock any positive policy proposal put up by the opposition. In recent times when we released—admittedly by a circuitous route—our Northern Australia policy, our draft discussion paper on Northern Australia, what did we get from the government?

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did you do?

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure what the Greens thought, although Senator Ludlum seems to suggest he did not think much of it. The government knocked it instead of engaging in a positive debate about the future of Australia, something that the public out there want us politicians to do, as a class. It is the one thing they really want from us. This was where the Prime Minister began the year. By nominating the election date the Prime Minister was saying, 'Let's have a debate about policies and positive matters and we can have the politicking towards the end of that time, in the run up to 14 September.' So we get this relentless knocking of our views for developing Northern Australia.

What is wrong with having a vision about how we develop this country, particularly those parts of this country which are relatively less populous and have a potential to be developed? Admittedly, elements of the environment there are fragile, but that is why you get the best brains in the country thinking about how we develop regions like that. Also, following the northern Australia policy, we had the dams and water policy, again released as a draft discussion paper, which went to our policy around water and water storage across the country. All these are very positive ideas that Mr Robb in the other House and others have been formulating for some time, but what did we hear from the government? Relentless negativity. Whenever an idea comes from another side of politics, they just knock it. They do not want to have a fair dinkum policy debate.

It goes to the heart of how this government sees itself. This government puts its faith in government. Kevin Rudd talks about putting government at the centre of the economy—it was in his maiden speech. At the height of the global financial crisis, which Senator Furner talked about, to Kevin Rudd that was an opportunity to put government at the centre of the economy. The coalition puts workers, entrepreneurs and investors at the centre of the economy. They are the ones who take the risks and do the work and they should be incentivised to work, to save and to invest. That is a very positive outlook. That is positive faith in your fellow man—that, given responsibility and given incentivisation, individuals, communities and businesses will thrive. No-one is truly free unless they are able to exercise choice and personal responsibility. That is a positive vision. The idea that you have to have government looking over your shoulder the whole time, telling you what to do, is the nanny state—that is paternalism; that is a relentlessly negative view of human nature. You have to be optimistic about the human condition and the capacity of people to do the right thing if you put your faith in them. I see Senator Ludlam nodding at that.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Marriage equality, for example. Let's start with that one.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can get to that in a minute, if you like, Senator Ludlam, but the faith we put in our fellow man is to be optimistic. This coalition is optimistic about the human condition and puts its faith in people.

We see the government's relentless negativity in its focus on class warfare, pitting one Australian against another. In his maiden speech—maiden speeches are always very interesting—Wayne Swan talked about the bosses and workers, and recently the Treasurer, Mr Swan, returned to the theme of class warfare, pitting one Australian against another. He talks almost as if the economy is a zero-sum game, where my gain is at your expense. No, you put your faith in individuals, they grow the pie and we are all better off. That is not trickle-down economics; that is fundamental market based economics.

This class warfare focuses on promoting a now mythical working class—I say 'mythical' because most working Australians today are aspirational, and the Labor Party has left them behind. That is what has happened. The former Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Paul Keating, laments to this day the way in which the Labor Party has failed to embrace the aspirational classes that he claims were to some extent created by the Hawke-Keating economic reforms, carried on by the Howard-Costello government. He is right. Too often Labor speaks in class terms and not in aspirational terms. It does not seek to embrace those who are trying to do better.

You see this in the budget policies, which try and knock the tall poppies off. Labor tries to introduce more and more means testing into the system, and often these means tests are not at really high levels. We are talking about means tests which are now cutting in at increasingly lower levels. That stops people from working more hours. It disincentivises people. That is relentlessly negative. We talk about the need to raise revenue in this country. The government talks about tax as the solution—we need to tax more. That is relentlessly negative, because more tax means more disincentives. That is why we need to look at reducing spending and reducing the obligations that future generations inherit on our behalf.

We talk about a future economic growth scenario for the country. I contrast Australia with the United States, where, by hook or by crook, perhaps through a mixture of good luck and good management, they have developed a more competitive economic structure off the back of recent discoveries of oil, gas, shale and all the rest of it. I mention that not to particularly praise one energy source but to make the point that they are finding new drivers of competitiveness. We are going in the opposite direction. Our costs are going up relative to the rest of the world. It is not just the high dollar; our costs are going up across the board. The United States are finding ways to reduce their costs and are now driving manufacturing onshore when it used to be offshore. Parts of the United States are actually getting manufacturing back, and they do not need an industry plan from Washington to do that; it is happening because the market is dictating through these competitiveness changes that more manufacturing comes back onshore. And, of course, the American market is famously very flexible, including the labour market.

But where is the competitiveness agenda here, in this country, under this government? The manufacturing and innovation statement released the other day was a relentlessly negative document for two reasons. First of all, a so-called $1 billion spend is a net spend of possibly $600 million or less. In other words, about half of it appears to be spending which will not actually happen but will be diverted to funding other budget measures. In other words, the net new spending is $600 million or thereabouts; the $1 billion package as such does not exist. The main savings proposal is to reduce the access of large Australian companies and multinationals to the R&D tax incentive. It applies to companies above a certain threshold. According to advice that has been tendered in the newspapers, the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and, I think, the tax office have warned that these large companies may rearrange their operations in order to fall below the threshold and, therefore, retain their eligibility for the R&D tax incentive. That means that saving may not be there. How relentlessly negative is that? The $1 billion spend is not what they said it would be and the main savings measure may not make the savings that are being claimed. Why is that relentlessly negative? Again, here is another set of policy proposals which will actually increase the call on public resources and on borrowings.

We have already seen it with the mining resource rent tax—$126 million raised this year. There is one more instalment to go. It will get nowhere near the two or three billion dollars it was meant to raise. We have seen the carbon tax which, if Labor is re-elected, will leave a black hole of potentially $4 billion by 2015—because when we link with the European market there is no way the Europeans will inflict a $29 a tonne carbon price on themselves by 2015 in order to please the Australian Treasury.

If only we had that power in the world, so that we could say to the Europeans, 'Fix the carbon price at $29 a tonne in 2015.' We could say to the United States, 'Do this or that for us.' We could say to the Middle East, 'Peace is around the corner. We ordain peace.' We cannot do any of that. We cannot rely on the Europeans to provide us with a carbon price which protects the revenue built into the budget. It will be a very interesting budget in May, where the government will have to front up about the potential revenue from a carbon tax in 2015-16. So, again, both the mining tax and the carbon tax are spending linked, and that spending will have to be paid for by borrowings.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to be able to debate this motion this afternoon and indeed to highlight the government's commitment to governing in the best interests of all Australians. The failure of those opposite to sustain significant policy debate, I think, is doing this nation a great disservice. But I am somewhat heartened by Senator Sinodinos's contribution this afternoon because you can see within that the true ideological divide in the very policy measures that we are talking about. The motion itself says absolutely nothing. It is a debate about a motion about negative politics, creating yet another run of negative politics driven by the opposition. I am quite happy to debate members in this chamber about the policy issues that are critical to the direction of this nation. But what we need to do is to get on with governing and governing in the best interests of all Australians.

There is nothing wrong with means testing. We are not a country of tall-poppy activists in this country. It is simply good public policy to make those who can afford it pay and to make those who cannot afford it pay less. These are the underpinnings of a stronger, fairer, smarter, modern Australia. It means we need to be committed to the right policies that are targeted to the needs of Australians and setting out their details and costings, and making sure they are fully funded. These are the things to which the Labor government is committed.

What we get from those opposite are slogans, sound bites and uncosted policies, tailored to suit whatever audience of the day they are trying to reach. The motion that we are debating today is just another sound bite—no policy critique; no vision of their own. Certainly no policies targeted at the best interests of all Australians are coming from the coalition. You can see this very starkly in the agenda in political debate that has emerged in just the last fortnight.

I give my wholehearted support to Labor's Aussie job $1 billion plan for manufacturing. From a Western Australian point of view, whether you are wearing a state hat or a federal hat, when you look at the Labor Party's policies compared to the National-Liberal Party's policies you will see there are clear ideological divides—clear divides in the way we would like to plan to give industry a leg-up and a boost in this country. It is Labor's plan that I think best serves this country in terms of jobs, growth and future opportunities.

We know that Western Australia has had a massive boom in mining investment. The effects of this have been felt right around the country and in Western Australia. But it has not been good news for everyone. Surely every person in this place can accede to that. For some it has actually made life much more difficult—the high dollar and intense competition. It has hit manufacturing, it has hit tourism, it has hit agriculture and it has hit other sectors of the economy. But what we have is a plan that federal Labor has put forward, and it is remarkably similar to one put forward by state Labor, which represents a shift in industry policy. They are plans which put the needs of workers first and are focused on converting the massive pipeline of investment into jobs. We have got, still, a $268 billion pipeline of investment in this country, and we need to make sure that we maximise the dividend from that investment into Australian jobs.

We have been focused on working with business, industry, unions, government, researchers, and the education and training sector so that we can have a plan for what to do. We have a significant plan, the first principle of which is to back local industry to win more of this work. What we are asking—in fact, requiring—of our big corporations and our big projects, whether they be government projects or industry projects, is to map out plans for local industry participation. We are doing that through our Australian Industry Participation Authority and the proposed Australian Jobs Act. We will also be focused on local industry precincts, and you can see this through Labor's commitment to establishing some innovation and industry precincts.

In contrast, how are those opposite responding to this situation? They do not have a plan. They voted against Labor's Skilled Jobs (Benefits from the Boom) Bill in the state parliament in WA. And Sophie Mirabella has committed the opposition to opposing our jobs plan. You can see the ideological divide here. Labor wants to make sure that Australians and local companies doing local work here in Australia have the opportunity to tap into this massive pipeline of investment. Those opposite want a far more laissez faire approach to this where corporations can just contract out at any cost to businesses overseas, and you can drive a truck through the industry participation plans as they currently exist.

So where is the coalition in standing up for ordinary Australians? Where is the coalition when it comes to standing up for Aussie jobs? I know that the resources we are digging out of the ground are finite. They can only be used once. What we need in this country is a plan to develop a skilled workforce that can create new industries and new jobs for the future. This has to be achieved long, long after the construction and mining boom has gone.

We need a government that is prepared to stand up for all ordinary Australians, just as the Gillard Labor government is committed to doing.

What else are we doing to govern in the broad interest of all Australians? There are important things like making sure that families can make ends meet. We have our Schoolkids Bonus. We are preparing Australia for the future and delivering on Labor values that are inclusive of the needs of all Australians such as reforming aged care, introducing the National Disability Insurance Scheme, committing to changing education funding in this country through Gonski, planning for dental care, planning for skills training, and planning for infrastructure. As the government we know that we are going to have to make some difficult and tough economic choices in order to deliver these priorities. When you talk about needing to govern for all Australians—and you cast out those who do not get the care and support that they need when they are in aged care, who do not get the care and support they need when they have a disability, who were in impoverished schools that are not getting the targeted funding they need, who are locked out of education skills and training, who are living in communities without adequate community infrastructure—you know that these are all national priorities that we will not solve overnight. You can only solve them with a plan. You can only solve them with a commitment. You can only solve them as part of a national agenda where you are prepared to work with the states and, at times, be tough with them.

If, as a country, we are going to solve these significant problems we cannot just leave the states to figure it all out for themselves. These are national problems and require national support to help resolve them. I have respect for the role of the states. I am a former state MP and I have been involved in state politics. We are a country that desperately needs to tackle some of these issues at a national level such as things like disability funding, the inequities in our education system, the fact that dental care has been missing from the health system as if it does not exist, and the need for a national infrastructure plan. We know that we will need to make tough choices to deliver on policies that truly deliver to all Australians. We will need to understand the people's priorities, the nation's priorities, to deliver on things like Gonski and the NDIS, and to deliver on job creation.

From those opposite we have relentless negativity that is aggressive and destructive. I would like to stand up an optimistic Australia— (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the coalition, it is a pleasure to stand here and counter some of the claims made by Senator Pratt. It is extraordinary that Senator Pratt must take the Australian electorate for granted. She must think that the people listening to this have the attention span of goldfish and that they are, somehow, going to forget about all the negativity and all the failures of the last five years in the hope that they are going to paint some promises for the next five years should they be re-elected. Let me concede, Senator Pratt, that there is an ideological divide between us. There is a gulf that is so big and so stark to the Australian people. It is a gulf between competence on this side of the chamber and incompetence on your side of the chamber. It is a gulf between honesty on this side of the chamber and blatant dishonesty on your side of the chamber. It is about accountability and history in government that is over here versus excuses—and pathetic excuses at that—over the other side. It is about solutions to the problems that you have created on your side of the chamber. They are your problems that the Australian people are desperate to have solved, Senator Pratt. How can you come in here and be proud of your record? It says something about the very low bar that you set for yourself and for your colleagues. It is about hope on this side of the chamber versus hopeless over there. It is a sweeping generalisation about hopelessness. It is about stability here.

Senator Polley interjecting—

Senator Pratt interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just one moment, Senator Bernardi.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just getting started.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know, and I hate to interrupt you in midstream like that, but the chamber is getting too rowdy. I would ask for order. Order! Senator Polley. Senator Bernardi, you have the call.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is, as I said, a difference between hope for the Australian people from a coalition government versus hopeless on that side of the chamber. It is about the stability of a sensible government run by adults rather than the childish recklessness by those of the Labor Party. It is about the strength of our nation versus the weakness that Labor has plunged us into.

Senator Pratt interjecting—

Yes, indeed, Senator Pratt, there is an ideological divide.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Bernardi, just pause there for a minute. Senators, this has been a little bit of a rowdy debate through the course of this whole discussion. However, enough is enough, and people need to tone it down considerably. Senator Bernardi.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you again, Mr Acting Deputy President. It may illustrate my point that there is a stark gulf between us about the courtesy in which we have observed and heard the others in silence versus the wilful interruption and the disrespect that is shown from the other side. That only pales into insignificance with the disrespect that they have shown to the Australian people. This government has not demonstrated a positive vision for the future of this country.

All that the faceless men and their acolytes are consumed with is clinging to power. So they scramble and they struggle. They introduce these ad hoc policies, which, as we know, have more and more spin attached to them, just to keep their heads above water. But they are drowning and the Australian people are drowning with them. And, contrary to what those on that side of the chamber might say, it is not due to climate change and rising sea levels. It is due to your incompetence. You are unable to swim in the big ocean that requires navigating as this government.

Labor cannot competently run the country and that is why their greatest skill, their only skill, is to take anything positive, any ounce of initiative—the spirit, the kernel of entrepreneurship that has governed this country, run it and seen strength and positiveness build up in it—and stifle it by running their bludgeon hands and their big government poetry over it. They will always attack those with hope and optimism for the future. And they do that because their leader, the Prime Minister, has demonstrated many, many times that negativity is their modus operandi. She is more concerned about calling the opposition leader names than coming out with practical solutions to improve our nation. You know instinctively and the Australian people know that there is something desperately wrong with that approach from a national leader.

Ask yourself: what is this Prime Minister most famous for? It is hard to make a choice, but she gave this famous speech in which she labelled the Leader of the Opposition a misogynist, simply because he happened to disagree with her policy approach to things which have demonstrably failed in so many areas. She is of course famous for promising the Australian people that there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads. We now have the world's biggest carbon tax. It is an extraordinary admission of failure, to make that promise at an election, to then inflict it upon the Australian people and to then have the puppet masters behind the Prime Minister, people such as Paul Howes from the AWU—who hangs out with billionaires in his private time—saying on the public record that there is no carbon tax in this country. You cannot believe the sense of delusion and detachment from the reality that is confronting the Australian people more so than that from Mr Paul Howes and his union comrades.

But the Prime Minister is also famous for stabbing her colleague, the former, duly-elected Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, in the back and taking over the leadership of the Labor Party at the command of the faceless men. None of these are good stories. We know that; they are part of history. But the problem is that Labor have been so consumed with their guilt and how to atone for their sins over the last five years that they have no vision for the future. The only thing they can say to the Australian people is: 'Please, forget about the past; we've got these great plans that we are going to instigate in the future when the budget returns to surplus.'

Let me draw upon the words of my colleague Senator Brandis yesterday: 'This government will go down as the first government in nigh on 100 years never to have delivered a budget surplus,' because Mr Swan and Ms Gillard, who promised repeatedly that there would be a budget surplus because it would be in the interests of the country, have not been competent in managing Australian taxpayers' dollars.

Senator Furner earlier in his contribution talked about low government expenditure as a proportion of GDP. What Labor conveniently ignore is the $50 billion, or thereabouts, every single year—that is, almost $1 billion a week—that they borrow from overseas to prop up their extravagant and wasteful spending. It beggars belief that Senator Furner can talk about how proud he is of these beautiful school halls that only cost twice as much as they would have under any competent building program. It is extraordinary that they wasted $8 billion. He must be equally proud of the pink batts in all the houses, which cost another $1 billion to remove because they resulted in deaths and houses being burnt down. He must be equally proud of the taxes that are going up and up and up and are making it very tough for the Australian people to make ends meet. What is Labor's answer to that? 'We'll just hand out some more borrowed money to you.' It is not sustainable and the Australian people understand that.

The Australian people are looking for optimism and a vision for the future. That is why the Australian people welcome plans that come out about expanding our use of dams for perhaps generating power or storage of water or about tax reform and abolishing some of the pernicious taxes that have been inflicted upon the Australian people. They want more flexibility in their workplace relations laws so that they can employ more people and small business can get on with doing what it does best: generating wealth for the owners, the workers and the community. They want the government to get out of their lives. They do not want the heavy fist of this Labor socialist Greens alliance that is just creeping into every aspect of day-to-day life. This is the negativity that has been sown over five years in this country. I would ask the Australian people to cast their mind back to that bountiful and golden time of the Howard years, even as recently as 2007, when people thought running the economy was easy, that anyone could do it—'We'll even give Kevin Rudd a go.' That was when, apparently, Kevin Rudd was a conservative.

The result is stark. Unless you are committed to a true course of action that is consistent and ideologically sound, rather than adopting this haphazard approach of throwing up policies, cooking them up in a plane on the back of an envelope, like the NBN and other fiascos—unless you are diligent, committed and understand where you want to go in government, as in life, you will end up somewhere other than where you want to be. Even the Labor Party, even their fiercest acolytes, have to acknowledge that not one person in the government wants to see us in the position that we are in today, compared to where we were six years ago.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. This afternoon the Senate is witnessing the political theatre of the absurd, exemplified by that contribution—and I am being generous—by Senator Bernardi. The opposition, the most negative in Australian political history, has itself initiated a debate on negativity.

That same opposition, incredibly, accuses the government of negativity. Does the opposition have any capacity at all for self-assessment? Does the opposition have any understanding at all of its own shortcomings? Does it have no insight, no shame to initiate such a debate?

This is the pot calling the kettle black, Senate style. I am reminded of a poem from Maxwell's Elementary GrammarWilliam Henry Maxwell's indispensable guide to English grammar published early last century. We always hear from Senator Brandis how erudite he is—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

We do, and of course you are. So I thought I would share this poem with Senator Brandis and the Senate. It goes like this:

'Oho!' said the pot to the kettle;

'You are dirty and ugly and black!

Sure no one would think you were metal,

Except when you're given a crack.'

'Not so! not so!' kettle said to the pot;

'Tis your own dirty image you see;

For I am so clean—without blemish or blot—

That your blackness is mirrored in me.'

Of course, all the hard-bitten people around this building would say that there is no purity in politics. But there are no political points to be gained for hypocrisy either, and this MPI absolutely takes the cake for political hypocrisy, because we have seen an orgy of negativity from those opposite. The Liberal Party, led by Mr Abbott, have turned negativity into an art form. It is so mindless, so knee-jerk, so Pavlovian.

We all remember that the opposition said no to economic stimulus and safeguarding Australian jobs during the darkest days of the global financial crisis. We all know that the opposition says no to taxing big miners and no to an increase in superannuation contributions for Australian workers. The opposition says no to making big polluters pay for carbon emissions, no to a cleaner and healthier environment for future generations of Australians, no to the National Broadband Network and no to giving Australians faster and more efficient access to the worldwide web and the digital economy. The opposition says no to health reform, no to the Schoolkids Bonus, no to increased family payments, no to increased payments for pensioners and no to increased payments for students. But of course they do not stop there. The modern Liberal Party—Senator Brandis's lot—also say no to putting out any policies before the election. They say no to publishing any costings and no to telling us where their $70 billion in cuts over four years will come from to fill their infamous budget black hole. So yes, there is a pattern here: mindless, carping negativity about the government. But about their own intentions we have nothing but deliberate obfuscation and deception.

Simply put, the allegation in this matter of public importance—of government negativity—is preposterous. It just does not stand up. On the other hand, the government does have a positive agenda. The government continues to do what is necessary to keep Australia's economy strong, to look to the future, to provide opportunity to all, to have the determination to do what is right—even at the cost of short-term popularity. Our economy is healthy, strong and growing. Our books are the envy of the world's advanced economies. We avoided recession and not only saved hundreds of thousands of jobs but created jobs. Our economy is nearly 13 per cent bigger than when Labor came to office in 2007. Australia is now the 12th largest economy in the world. Since Labor came to office we have moved up three places in the rankings—passing South Korea, Mexico and Spain. For the first time in our history, Australia has a AAA credit rating from all three ratings agencies.

This was never achieved during the Howard years, and we are currently one of only seven—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. As Senator Faulkner surely knows, during the Howard government Australia had a AAA credit rating from all international ratings agencies.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a debating point, Senator Brandis. Resume your seat. There is no point of order.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not only is Senator Brandis overwhelmingly negative, he does not know the standing orders of the Senate. I suggest he goes and learns them. It will do him good for the future as those long years in opposition roll on.

We now have a low unemployment rate, too—just 5.2 per cent, compared to 11.7 per cent in Europe. Over 840,000 jobs have been created since Labor came to office in 2007. Inflation is contained within the RBA's target band, giving the RBA the flexibility it needs to keep interest rates low, taking the pressure off mortgagees. Interest rates are currently lower than they were at any point during the period of the last Liberal government. And we have low net debt: as a percentage of GDP it is around one-tenth of the rate across major advanced economies.

It was the American writer Mark Twain—I believe previously quoted by some opposition senators—who said in his 1889 novel A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court:

… one mustn't criticise other people on grounds where he can't stand perpendicular himself.

Mr Abbott and his Liberal liegemen in the Senate here could well take account of Mark Twain's advice.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for this debate has now expired.