With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in accordance with informal arrangements agreed by the whips.

I move:

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

In particular, I want to address the answers that were given to the questions put by Senator Cash concerning the treatment of our veterans and the decision of the Labor Party to place a cap on allied health services. This morning, I was at the front of Parliament House along with Michael McCormack, the shadow veterans' affairs minister, Senator Collins and Senator Blyth. We were there on behalf of the coalition to meet with veterans who had come to parliament to raise their concerns about the cap being placed on allied health services—an arbitrary cap.

These men and women laid down their medals at the front of Parliament House. Now, these medals are not something you find in a packet of rice bubbles or when you get an ooshie from Woolies; these medals are for honour, they're for service and they're for bravery. There were no Labor Party politicians at the front of Parliament House to meet with the coalition of veterans groups. It was coalition MPs and senators, because we understand the service that these men and women have given to this country. It is very sad, and it is pathetic. The responses given by ministers in this place in relation to questions put to them by coalition senators, particularly the questions that were put by Senator Cash this week and in the previous sitting week, were answers returned in the form of a word salad, talking about engagement. It was the type of language you would hear from a management consultant rather than from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister.

We have a Prime Minister in this country who cheerfully breaks his promises. He cheerfully, at election time, will say one thing and, as soon as the voters have finished voting, will then change his mind. And we have a Minister for Veterans' Affairs—the worst Minister for Veterans' Affairs since the department was created in the mid 1970s—who clearly does not want to be the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who clearly does not like veterans, who clearly does not like meeting with veterans or veterans groups. We only have to look at how he treated the veterans in the previous sitting fortnight, when he sat there rolling his eyes, refusing to shake their hands, folding his arms. He was very annoyed that he was missing out on having coffee at Government House. We have a Minister for Veterans' Affairs who prioritises social engagements over dealing with the fundamental issues that impact veterans and their families. That is what we have with this veterans minister, with his decision to place a cap on allied health services.

And we're talking about health services to help the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this country. We're talking about providing health services to veterans. But with this government, 'Computer says no.' This government has no empathy towards these veterans. It comes at them with malice. It comes at them with the demonic look of accountants who are concerned about saving money rather than saving lives. And I say, shame on this minister. He should resign or be sacked. (Time expired)

I rise to take note on a couple of questions that were put today, if I have time, but first I want to talk about illicit tobacco. And I want to clarify, for the record, that I was a smoker in my previous life. If I hadn't had my three packets of cigarettes a day between Perth and Darwin and back, there was something wrong. Thankfully I don't partake anymore. But I want to talk in layman's terms about driving through the suburbs in the best part of Australia—where you and I are from, Deputy President Brockman—and every fifth or sixth shop is a tobacco shop. And I see, like every other senator travelling through this great country, in Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane, tobacco shops everywhere. And I think to myself that it doesn't matter who you talk to—if you're on a plane, if you're in the airport, if you're at the train station or if you're at the footy—everyone relates these tobacco shops to the underworld, to the crooks, to the thieves, to the worst of the worst of society and the trash that is left in the distribution of illicit tobacco.

Yet—and this might get me into a few pickles with some of my own, but I really don't care—as a hardworking taxpayer and Aussie for 50-odd years in this nation, I can tell you, if I broke the law in my previous employment as a truck driver and I happened to go past a policeman in my truck and I was doing a little bit more than five kay over, I got pulled over and I copped a fine; I got a good whack. And trust me, I got quite a few good whacks on my way home. And I can say this to every hard worker in Australia: it gets a little bit hard to accept that these crooks under everyone's noses can keep getting away with it.

But I will defend this spend from the government. I've got to do that, because there is a good spend. But for crying out loud, is it that hard to go in and shut it down? Is it that hard to go and get these crooks? The ABF are doing a magnificent job on our borders, and good on the ABF, and I see some of the figures here. There's a kilotonne of illegal tobacco. In my world, you got paid by the tonne or by the cubic metre. Think about a thousand tonnes of tobacco. If a kilo of tobacco fell on your head as you walked past a building site, it wouldn't hurt. But if a kilo of bricks fell on your head as you passed a building site, it damn well would hurt. So start thinking about the volume of a thousand tonnes of leaf, let alone the 3½ million vapes and all that sort of stuff. The ABF have cut these crooks off at the borders, and good on the ABF, as I said before.

But for crying out loud. I listened to Minister Wong's response, and it's a very encouraging response. But as she said quite clearly, it can't be done just by us in federal Labor. This is about the states. From my hard work in industry, where I come from, if you made a mistake in your logbook—and I'm not going to hang the regulator out to dry here; they just enforce crap laws—you're going to get a good fine. If you make a spelling mistake in your logbook, a poor old truckie on your way to work or on your way home, you're going to cop a damn good fine, too—around 800 bucks, for a spelling mistake.

We can't get this trash off the streets. We can't get around to these illegal shops. I'll tell you what: Why don't we do something different in this nation? Why don't we actually put some laws in place and send the mongrels off to jail? Give them a damn good kick in the backside. That's the way to penalise the underworld—lock them all up. I've had an absolute gutful that hardworking decent Aussies always get targeted—the easy ones. It's so easy just to go out there and get the lowest common denominator, the low-hanging fruit. For God's sake, grow some, and put some laws in this nation that locks these mongrels up and get this crap off the streets. And as for reducing the excise, you people are on another planet. You're on drugs. (Time expired)

Well, in the least surprising news of anything this week, it appears that an all-expenses-paid trip to Fiji with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change, Minister Bowen, is not all that enticing to world leaders all over the region and the planet. I think there have been invites put out to all of—

Senator Antic, we do need to be relevant to the questions that were asked by the coalition.

The economy, yes.

It's relevant to the economy.

He's just getting started.

It is relevant though. Deputy President, I appreciate your diligence and knowledge of the rules, but I have just started.

It seemed to be a fair way off, but I will listen with interest.

Well, of course, the point of the exercise is that, in order to facilitate it, there has been the proposed expenditure of $20 million of Australian taxpayer money. You would think, when it came to legitimate spends in our economy, that would be not the highest priority for this government right now. It is $20 million at a time when Australians can't pay their mortgages, can't pay their rent. Some can't turn on their lights because of the energy costs in this country—the $275 rebate that never was. But of course, what it does remind us of is that, despite this incredible spending, we're talking about spending something like a trillion dollars in the coming years over transmission lines.

We heard news this week that Australian marine scientists are releasing their annual audit of the Great Barrier Reef, which shows that, in actual fact, despite all that spend in an economy which can't afford it, the coral reef is steadily growing across the system. In fact, in the last 40 years, despite the incredible spending that this government has put into this area, the last five years have been the best five years for the reef. So what is this government talking about when it comes to spending money on going to Fiji for an all-expenses-paid trip? Let's just repeat that, by the way: the last five years of the Great Barrier Reef have been the best five years in terms of the growth of the Great Barrier Reef. It's like the scientists measured it, nature shrugged and the apocalypse failed its performance review. Models in 2012 predicted that the coral would vanish by 2022, and here we are. Newspapers wrote the obituaries. Governments wrote the cheques. Magazines declared the reef officially deceased after 25 billion years. Cue the sad violin music, cue the spending spree from government, but none of it is eventuating. The coral apparently hasn't subscribed to the right journals over the last few years. It went on a growth spurt. Now, you can hear the government saying, 'Well, you know, that may be true. It may be true that the coral is growing. It may be true that we've got more coral than ever. But the outlook looks very poor notwithstanding that, so let's pack ourselves off to Fiji.' It'll probably be just the three of them by the time they get there. 'Let's put $20 million worth of taxpayers' money into the back pocket, and let's take ourselves over there.'

Governments all across the world have spent billions of dollars over the last few years on this area of so-called climate change. It's almost like it's gone silent, though, as a result of the intervention of the AI data centre theme.It's like the memo hasn't been picked up by Minister Bowen, who still thinks that this is a way he can write a cheque for himself and his friends to turn up in Fiji in Hawaiian shirts and take the taxpayer largesse as if it were his own money and as if he were writing his own cheque. So let's check back next August and see how the coral's going. The planet's funeral keeps getting delayed because, of course, climate change is the real conspiracy theory. (Time expired)

I will just remind all senators that we do need to be relevant to the questions asked and answered. We do allow wide-ranging debates, but they need to be linked to the questions.

One of the questions that was asked this afternoon in question time here in the place where we're supposed to be focusing on the Australian people and what's really happening for the Australian people was a question about the economy. I just want to take note of an interjection that was made. I don't know if it was recorded by Hansard or not. As Senator Wong stood to make her contribution with regard to the fact that it is a difficult economic environment and that Australians are under some pressure, the comment from Senator McKenzie across the chamber was, 'Oh, empathy—tick!' as if she's got some sort of a checklist about the performative nature of what goes on here, because that is the only currency that that senator understands. I won't tarnish all of the senators in this place with that, but the behaviour we see day in and day out from Senator McKenzie was absolutely on display in an insulting way to every single Australian who is doing it tough, with smart-alecry, as if what we do doesn't matter.

The reality is this government is hearing the challenges that face Australians. We do know that there have been difficult times, and we delivered tax reform that is about delivering tax cuts for workers, giving a fair go to first home buyers and better aligning the treatment of work with income earned in other ways. So far, rather than just a 'tick for empathy', we deserve an awful lot more acknowledgement for the changes that have actually happened in a positive way for Australians in their lives. It doesn't mean that everything's been fixed; that would be a foolish statement to make. But the fact is, as we stand here and we speak to this matter of the economy and the Australian people, this government has reduced the tax burden on 13 million Australians.

If we're doing it tough today, we would have been doing it a lot tougher if those opposite had got their way, because they have resisted every single reform. That is the party over there, asking the questions about the economy, who wanted to go to the last election with a higher-tax agenda. That would not have been good for Australians. Labor policy understands how tough it is to get into a house, and that's why we're supporting 75,000 more Australians to get into the housing market. And all you hear from the other side is the whingeing, the moaning, the smart-alecry and the cynicism.

I know cynicism is very fashionable. I know it gets eyeballs. I know it sells papers. I know it makes you look like you're smart and clever. But do you know what? Cynicism, in my life—I've never seen it build a single thing. I've never seen smart-alecry deliver one good thing for someone in need—never. Cynicism is a crime. Cynicism builds nothing and destroys everything, including hope and including the unity that this country needs. The knives being thrown at unity in this parliament through the types of questions that are asked and in the language that is performed, not just on the back benches but on the front benches, are pitting one Australian against another.

The standard we see here day in and day out is a disgrace and inflicts further pain. It inflicts further pain on ordinary Australians who need their government to stand up and help them with practical things like those this government is delivering—tax cuts, higher wages, Medicare. (Time expired)

I agree with Senator O'Neill that there is an issue of cynicism, and, as Oscar Wilde said, the cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. I accept that. But I also think, when you bring about such fundamental changes to the taxation system as we saw through the Labor budget, the responsible thing to do—for those who are closest to the impact of those changes and those who are seeing the impact on the property market and consumer confidence on the ground—is to listen. That's not cynicism. That's actually listening to the people who know most about what's happening.

I want to quote from the Property Council of Australia chief executive Mike Zorbas as quoted in the Australian Financial Review. He's urged the Labor Prime Minister and state and territory leaders to 'take urgent steps to revive confidence and ensure the continued delivery of housing'. He refers to it as a 'falling knife' market where 'buyers are wary of investment risks', and he goes on to say that 'buyer confidence is at all-time lows and new housing supply is dropping off a cliff'.

We want new housing supply, but the consequence flowing from the Labor Party's budget has been that new housing supply is falling off a cliff. The Labor government should listen very carefully to those who are most connected with what is happening on the ground in terms of the property market.

Some veterans attended parliament today, and I compliment Senator Cash on her question in relation to the action the veterans took. In doing so, I want to remind everyone of a few fundamental facts. There are 25,000 veterans each year who exceed the $5,000 allied health care cap—25,000. The biggest question I'd raise is: how are you going to process 25,000 applications by veterans who go over that $5,000 cap?

The discussion paper that's been released—and I've printed out a copy of it—has a proposed model for additional services. It's got six steps here, and it asks the veterans how the process should work for veterans with complex or ongoing health needs. The department's asking the veterans: 'Tell us how the system that you don't want should be implemented.' All I see in this discussion paper is bureaucracy and the potential for delays and the potential for veterans to lose out on the health care they need. The Labor government should reconsider this $5,000 cap. I don't think it's going to work in practice. I think you've made a rod for your own backs, and I think you should strategically withdraw and say that this was a mistake. I don't think it's going to work in practice.

In relation to excise, I compliment the sentiments of Senator Sterle. When I drive home from my office, I see—and we're all seeing—this extremely large increase in the number of tobacconist shops that are opening everywhere. It's in fact impossible for law enforcement to keep on top of it. That's the reality. Organised crime is earning between $4 billion and $7 billion a year from this illegal trade because excise has gone up too high and everyday Australians can't afford to buy cigarettes unless they go to the illegal providers. The system needs to change. The system's broken and the excise system needs to change— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.