Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Well, I must admit that I am growing increasingly disappointed with the Labor government and the way that it continues to back in its ministers that are failing the people of Australia. We asked today about Minister Keogh, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs—and, quite frankly, what a disgrace he's been for our veterans. We have seen a pattern from this government since the start of the year. Let me run through all the insults that they have hurled at our veteran and serving community.

First they released the Defence estate audit report, which told all the veterans and serving members in Australia that they were going to sell our key defence assets, like Victoria Barracks Sydney, which is the birthplace of the Australian Army and the heart and soul of the Australian Defence Force. They didn't do any consultations on that. They didn't do any consultations on Lancer Barracks, which is a place that people call home, a place veterans have called home for decades and decades and a place where they ask to have their ashes spread. They ask to return home to their barracks. This Labor government doesn't care. They want to sell it and put apartment blocks there. They want to sell it to the highest bidder because the Minister for Defence can't get the money he needs to pay the bills.

Then they brought the most bizarre bill to parliament about medals and the tribunal, which told veterans that they now had a time limit to get their applications in for a medal or an appeal for a medal. They had to pay for the application, and they restricted the people that could apply on their behalf. Of the 63 submissions that went in on this particular bill, 62 of them said: 'What on earth are you doing here? Why are you doing this?' There was also a clause in that bill that gave the minister the power to remove a medal from a veteran, and no-one could appeal it. Not one person could appeal that. It was a political decision. Guess what happened with that bill? They had to remove it because there was such public outcry and backlash.

Then they tried to cut funding for Invictus, which is such an important institution for our veteran family right across the world. The things it does for the mental health of our veterans—they tried to cut that, but they've withdrawn that. Then they tried to take the funding away from the Baird family who go around Australia and teach our children about our Victoria Cross recipient and his brave heroism for our country. They backflipped on that too.

Now they're trying to put caps on allied health for our veterans. We had veterans come down here just this week to tell our minister that this is not okay. He did not receive them. He did not shake their hands. All he did was roll his eyes at them. What an absolute disgrace. I say to the Labor government that the standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and you have all backed him in. It's a disgrace and it's an embarrassment. I want to say to all the veterans out there that I am truly sorry, on behalf of this government, for how they've treated you.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that was an interesting contribution from the good senator on the other side. Obviously she's got her speaking notes. Yet again they want to whip up a scare campaign when, really, we need to talk about the facts. Let's talk about the facts of what this government has done since we came into office and cleaned up the mess that those opposite left behind.

But, before I get into that, as somebody who is very proud of my family's contribution to serving this great country in the Defence Force—generation after generation—I can tell you from firsthand experience who was in government in the fifties and sixties, who neglected the veterans who came back from the Second World War and who did nothing at all to support them or their families. That's the reality of it.

Let's look at what happened while you were in government in the previous decade. What happened then? Everything was absolutely run down. You did nothing in terms of providing accommodation or giving veterans the support that they needed. I honestly don't think—well, there might be some people in that corner down there, but the majority of people in this chamber actually respect and want to honour the brave men and women who are enlisted in the three defence forces that serve this country, and every one of us should be very grateful for them. Too many of them have lost their lives in conflicts and also suffered greatly on their return. But, as to the reality of what's happening, those opposite do little when it comes to being truthful about the facts.

Since we came into government, the amount of investment that has been made by this government is in the order of more than $233 million. That's the reality of it. We have also rebuilt the Department of Veterans' Affairs because those opposite allowed it to be run down so that it was an ordeal trying to get support from the department for those very real veterans that those opposite are now trying to use for their own political advantage. Labor also has acted to simplify the complex veterans compensation scheme, and the government has progressed the reforms to harmonise and simplify the legislation, responding to the first recommendations of the royal commission. They want you to believe that there was nothing to see on that side when they were in government for 10 years and all the problems are here. I will say that at least the minister acknowledged that he made an error, unlike the former minister, who was the minister for colour coding and rorting the grants that she had responsibility for, Senator McKenzie. At no time did she ever apologise for what she did.

I'm going to run out of time, but I also want to put on record, when it comes to housing, the record of those opposite, who joined with the Greens and held up legislation dealing with the Housing Australian Future Fund for an entire week in this chamber to avoid having a vote, because they wanted to play politics with housing and homelessness in this country. What they do when it suits their political narrative is to come here and cry those crocodile tears, but, when you look at what we have done in the time that we've been in government, as opposed to those opposite, the record is very, very clear. (Time expired)

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, I will advise you to be cautious in your use of language. Some of the language you used was getting very close to an imputation.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to apologise to the veterans and their families for the fact that you have a minister for veterans affairs who is the worst minister for veterans affairs since the creation of the department in 1976. By the way, the Prime Minister has full confidence in this minister's incompetence. This is a minister who refused to take a meeting with veterans yesterday who wished to raise very important issues concerning the health treatment and the health services available to veterans. This minister refused to take the meeting. He was shamed into then taking the meeting and—I know this as a fact—he walked into the meeting and refused to shake the hands of the veterans. What a disgrace to the veterans and their families. A disgraceful minister refused to shake the hands of the veterans. He sat in this meeting, folded his arms—like this—and rolled his eyes at the veterans because he was upset that he was unable to go to a social function at Government House. He was upset that he had to give up having tea with the Governor-General. Instead, he had to do his day job, which was to meet with veterans to deal with the issues that impact their lives.

This minister is the worst minister for veterans affairs since the creation of the department. Ever since he's been sworn in as a minister, his decisions have had to be reversed. He's had to backflip on serious decisions because he has disrespected the veterans and their communities. The Prime Minister might have confidence in the minister for veterans affairs, but the opposition does not, and I can say that every veteran and every veterans group that I know—and I know quite a few—do not have confidence in this minister for veterans affairs. They know that he's not up to the job. They know that he does not understand that this country is safe because of these men and women putting their lives at risk.

I'll give you another example of this minister's incompetence. Three years ago, the defence honours tribunal brought down a decision and made a reference to the minister. This minister sat on that decision, concerning the service of the men who served in Rifle Company Butterworth in Malaysia during the Malayan emergencies. The minister has sat on the decision of this tribunal for three years. This is a classic case of delay, deny, die. This minister refuses to meet with veterans, hoping that they'll fade, that they'll go away, using bureaucratic language, because the minister's response is that it needs a whole-of-government response before he can make a decision. Well, I say to the veterans of Rifle Company Butterworth and to the veterans who were in the non-meeting earlier this week that I'm sorry that you have such a poor minister for veterans affairs. I am sorry to Australians that you have such a poor minister for veterans affairs. I am sorry for those men who have died for Australia that we have such a poor minister for veterans affairs.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Think of all the issues that the coalition would bring up in question time—and they bring up housing! These are the people that wanted to take tens of billions of dollars out of housing at the last election. These are the people that opposed the HAFF, Help to Buy and Build to Rent. Actually, it's more than that. Not only are these the people with a policy strategy to take billions of dollars—$29 billion to be exact—out of housing, the ones that starved housing for just over a decade; these are the people that turn around and think this about housing: when asked about the policy on 12 August on ABC Radio National, Liberal shadow Treasurer and spokesperson Tim Wilson said that, in some cases, people could put 'a jumper on in winter rather than spending huge amounts of money' on improving housing quality. That was in response to Senator Bragg at the National Press Club on 12 August. The Guardian said:

The opposition's housing and environment spokesperson, Andrew Bragg, said a Coalition government would cut the National Construction Code from more than 2,000 pages to 80, and strip away all requirements for new homes beyond demanding they were "basic and safe".

Well, Senator Bragg, if you did your homework, what you're suggesting is that essential structure, fire safety and health related standards will be retained. But the fact is that the fire related sections in the existing code run for more than 80 pages. So what's left—the house falls down? That's the policy they have—tens of billions of dollars out of housing and a policy to turn around and put people into hovels. And, if the hovel's too cold, wear a jumper!

Of course, you have on the flip side of the delay for the HAFF, Help to Buy and Build to Rent the Greens, because they also blocked those arrangements—a nearly 12-month delay from getting support to many, many people in need in our community. That's social housing for single parents and people seeking to escape domestic violence. One thing I do agree with the Greens on, because they agree with us too on this—in actual fact, everybody agrees on this—is that housing was not being built for social housing and affordable housing in this country during the period that the coalition was in power. I'll just say that figure again: it was $29 billion that they wanted to take out of social and affordable housing in this country, when there's such a problem for our kids, our families, our neighbours, our community.

Then they jump to the important issue of questions about rent. So now they're running a rent scare campaign! The opposition and the Greens have been running on this unity ticket for a new housing scare campaign. I say 'the opposition'—of course, that's One Nation, the Nationals and the Liberals; the coalition to the Right, coming up with these extremist views, thinking that the lowest common denominator is what they should take to the election or what they should fight for to say that they have a place in government.

The reality of what people are saying about the rent strategy is—and these are important people. These are the people who are actually involved in the rent organisations. They're the ones listening to renters. They're the ones actually turning around and saying the policies we've brought in are making a difference. Organisations which represent renters back the changes we've done on CGT. They back the changes we've done across the board in the announcements that were opposed by those opposite—delayed by those to my right. For example, Everybody's Home said rents have been surging for years, partly because investor tax breaks have been fuelling the housing crisis. The idea that we should be doing more of the same is an insult to the intelligence— (Time expired)

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a year ago today that the Economic Reform Roundtable kicked off in this building in Canberra. It feels like an eternity ago because nothing has happened since. That was the time when we had CEOs and trade union leaders and industry groups—the great and the good—file into Canberra to be geed up by the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, and the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and to be told by them that they wanted 100 flowers to bloom and they wanted to hear all ideas on the table about how to boost productivity. I was just familiarising myself with the concluding press conference that the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, gave at the end of that. He said in that press conference:

… higher living standards is the holy grail, and a more productive economy is how we deliver it.

We haven't heard much on the one year anniversary of this Economic Reform Roundtable from the Labor government. I would have thought they would be championing their achievements and highlighting the gains that have been made. Jim Chalmers, in his closing press conference, talked about 29 hours of discussions, 327 different contributions and the spirit of camaraderie and constructiveness that characterised the conversation. Here we are, one year later, and, if you look at the scorecard, things are worse on every metric. Productivity is lower. Productivity was growing at 0.8 per cent annually at the time of the Economic Reform Roundtable. It's now down to 0.3 per cent. The Reserve Bank expects productivity to actually go backwards for this calendar year by 0.5 per cent, and the Reserve Bank has downgraded its long-range or medium-term productivity forecasts for Australia to 0.7 per cent.

We've got inflation which is eating workers' nominal wage increases and inflation high at 3.8 per cent. We just got the figures from the ABS about the wage price index, and it confirmed, as Minister Watt acknowledged, that it shows real wages have gone backwards again over the past year. In fact, real wages have been underneath the level last seen in June 2022, now, throughout the life of this government. We've got government debt larger—gross government debt was $935 billion at the time of the Economic Reform Roundtable last year. It's now $985 billion. And we've got weaker economic growth weaker. We've got, in the one year since the summit that was meant to kickstart the Australian economy, get productivity moving again, we've got worse productivity. We've got higher inflation. We've got slower growth. We've got larger debt, and we've got real wages falling and declining. That is some scorecard.

I did seize upon one particular mention that was made there by the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, in his concluding press conference where he talked about some of the easy wins or the quick wins, as he described it. One of those was to 'reduce complexity and red tape in the National Construction Code'. He said:

… we've asked Clare—

that's the housing minister, Clare O'Neil—

to do that work relatively swiftly.

One year later, we just had Senator Sheldon say the Construction Code shouldn't be touched and needs to remain north of 2,000 pages. Apparently, the housing minister was instructed, tasked, at the national Economic Reform Roundtable one year ago, to simplify the National Construction Code. Nothing has happened. As my colleague Senator Hume said earlier, one of the results of that is that housing has become more expensive to build and that rents are going up.

This isn't a scare campaign. This isn't fanciful. In my own city of Sydney, rents have already gone up by $50 a week, or 6.3 per cent, since the budget was announced. The last time that negative gearing was removed for investment properties by a Labor government in the mid-1980s we saw house rental prices in Sydney go up by 43 per cent over a 27-month period. It was so bad the government had to reverse those changes. The government has changed course on its widows tax. It should change course on some of these other changes in the budget. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.