House QuestionTime 260214

8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214

1/23

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICEMinisterial Staff: Code of Conduct

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime

Minister. Given everything that the public now knows, does the Prime Minister still have full confidence in

the Assistant Minister for Health?

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah Prime Minister) (14:00): Yes.

Drought Assistance PackageMr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa Deputy Speaker) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will

the Prime Minister inform the House what the government is doing to help Australian farmers who are

suffering through crippling drought?

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah Prime Minister) (14:01): I thank the member for Maranoa for his question.

I think all members of the house for the concern that they have shown about our fellow Australians,

particularly in Western Queensland and western New South Wales, who are suffering from crippling

drought. I was pleased to be with the Minister for Agriculture about 10 days ago in the member for

Maranoa's electorate. I was also in the member for Parkes's electorate and the member for Farrer's

electorate to look at the predicament and to hear first hand what people are experiencing.

I should point out to the House that a once-in-20-year drought let alone a once-in-a-century drought,

which is what some people are experiencing is much more akin to a natural disaster than it is to an

ordinary variation in the business cycle. I want to assure country Australians, I want to assure all

Australians, that this government intends to stand by people in need. We intend to stand by people in good

times and in bad.

The package of measures which the minister and myself announced earlier today is, I believe, fair,

fiscally responsible and builds on existing programs. That is why it is able to be implemented reasonably

quickly. There are five elements to the package which the minister and I announced. The first is greater

access to income support for drought affected people who have no income and who cannot sell, cannot

leave and cannot borrow on the strength of their properties; greater access to concessional loans for

drought-hit farmers; more assistance to state governments dealing with feral animals; more assistance to

state governments to deal with water infrastructure projects; and more assistance to community groups

who are dealing with people in personal crisis.


2/23

I think the Australian people get it when it comes to drought. They understand that our cities cannot live

without a countryside to support them. That is why I am sure that Australians will welcome the package of

measures that the minister and I announced today. Obviously, what we really need is rain. I hope and pray

for rain. The government, regrettably, cannot work miracles, but we will do what we reasonably can to

stand with people in trouble. My message to country people is: we will not let you down.

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): On indulgence, on behalf of the

opposition, I welcome the announcement of a drought assistance package. We offer our strong support for

helping farmers in the face of this severe drought. We look forward to securing further details and an

indication of exactly how many farm families the package is likely to assist. We appreciate and know that

our farmers need help and they need his help now.

There are days and issues in this parliament where the opposition will not agree with the government,

but on the issue of supporting our farmers in drought, we agree. We offer a bipartisan approach to future

drought policy development. Australia's hardworking farmers deserve no less than the strong support of the

entire parliament, which they have today.

Ministerial Staff: Code of Conduct

Ms KING (Ballarat) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister'sanswer in question time on Monday, when he said Senator Nash's chief of staff:

was required to divest himself of a shareholding

in his wife's business.

I also refer to the Special Minister of State's statement in Senate estimates last night that Senator Nash's

chief of staff was not required to divest his interest in a lobbying firm. Who has misled the parliament the

Prime Minister or the Special Minister of State?

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah Prime Minister) (14:05): The short answer is: neither. I know that there is

likely to be a series of questions today from members opposite on this subject, but I can assure members

opposite that on this particular issue there is Labor smoke but there is no coalition fire there is smoke

without fire. I wish to make two essential points. The first is that every action that this good minister has

taken is eminently defensible, and within a couple of days of issues being raised the staff member in

question did the right thing and he resigned.


3/23

Drought Assistance PackageMr COULTON (Parkes The Nationals Chief Whip) (14:06): My question is to the Minister for

Agriculture. Will the minister outline what new action the government is taking to support farmers and

communities both in Parkes and other drought-affected areas across Australia?

Turn046

Mr JOYCE (New England Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:07): I

thank the member for Parkes, who allowed me into his electorate with the Prime Minister. It has been part

of the hard work he has done over such a long period of time and not only him, but also the member for

Farrer, Susan Ley, and the member for Maranoa, Bruce Scott. I also commend the Leader of the

Opposition and thank him for his support. I think issues such as this should rise above politics. It is a clear

example of the Australian people who are seeing mums and dads doing it tough and are under the pump

and who are saying, 'That for this issue we'll put politics aside, because we must concentrate on these

people, who are such a clear reflection on who we are.'

I would also like to thank the people of the Australian cities in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane

who when they are vox-popped say that they get it; they understand quite clearly that these are people who

need to be supported because they live by the vagaries of the weather. They live by the fact that for the last

18 months or two years they have had no income stream and they have no prospect of one for the next six

to eight months, in many instances. Nobody else would want to see themselves in that position, where

someone would say to you, 'Well, not only have we not paid you in the last 18 months, but we don't intend

to pay you for at least another half a year.' You could not survive.

The question clearly pointed out some of the advantages of this and how we move things forward. I

want to point out a few of them. We will be moving the assets test on what was formerly known as the

Transitional Farm Family Payment to the new settings so that it goes from 1.5 to 2.55, exempting the

farmhouse and also allowing off-farm assets that are comparable to what you would get under other social

security packages. We will also make sure that we give the capacity to the person to earn money off farm

up to the value of $80,000, providing that their interest bill is in excess of that. What you will often note,

and the member for Parkes will be aware of this, is that the money from that just goes straight to the bank.

We will also be making sure that people have access to a concessional rate of four per cent for a million


4/23

dollars or 50 per cent of their loan, whichever is the lesser, so that we keep control of that credit and we are

prudent with the finances of our nation. The advantage if someone has money at, say, eight per cent and

they can refinance down to four per cent $40,000 per million over five years that is $200,000 and that is

a real advantage.

We will also be looking at mental health and we know how important those issues are. We will be re-

investing in them. There are other issues such as wild dogs people might snigger about it but it is

important. There is no point in feeding the sheep if the sheep are getting eaten by wild dogs and other

animals. Water infrastructure is also vitally important. I commend the work that has been done by so many

and I thank the Prime Minister for his support.

Ministerial Staff: Code of ConductMs KING (Ballarat) (14:10): My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to the statement of

Minister Nash at Senate estimates this morning: 'My chief of staff has complied with all the requirements

to ensure that there was no conflict of interest.' I also refer to the Prime Minister's statement in the House

on Monday: he 'was required to divest himself of' a shareholding and 'he was dilatory in doing so'. Who

has misled the parliament the Prime Minister or the Assistant Minister for Health?

The SPEAKER: Before I call the Prime Minister there is an assumption in that question that there has been a misleading of the parliament. That is out of order. You may rephrase your question.

An opposition member interjecting

The SPEAKER: There are other forums of the House in which you can make those sorts of

allegations.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on two points of order: in the first instance, you are ruling out of order a

question, and a part of the question is identical to something that was in order only minutes ago. The

second issue with that is it has always been the practice in this parliament that if there is a belief that

someone has misled that we are allowed to ask a question about it.

The SPEAKER: I have asked the member to rephrase her question and the question will then stand.

Ms KING (Ballarat) (14:11): Would you like me to ask the entire question with the rephrase, or just the

end? I am happy to ask the whole thing again. My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the statement

of Minister Nash at Senate estimates this morning: 'My chief of staff has complied with all the


5/23

requirements to ensure that there was no conflict of interest.' I also refer to the Prime Minister's statement

in the House on Monday: he 'was required to divest himself of' a shareholding and 'he was dilatory in

doing so'. Who is right the Prime Minister or the Assistant Minister for Health?

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah Prime Minister) (14:12): Happily, Madam Speaker, both. I want to make it

absolutely crystal clear that there has been no breach of the conflict of interest rules.

United States EconomyMr PALMER (Fairfax) (14:12): I have a question for the Treasurer. The US economy leads the world

with its economic strength, growth and exports. I understand that Equatorial Guinea and Uzbekistan have

the lowest debt levels in the world. Is the government seeking to follow the US model for growth and jobs

or are we seeking to follow Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea to achieve their standard of living? When

was the last time the US had a surplus? How many surpluses has the US had in the last 50 years? Is the US

economy, with its military and economic pre-eminence, sustainable?

Honourable members interjecting

Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney The Treasurer) (14:13): I would like to thank Professor Palmer for the

question. I would to make a confession to him and to Australia: I am not very familiar with the budget

position of Equatorial Guinea or Uzbekistan. I am more familiar with the United States. The fact is that the

United States economy has been running at a substantial deficit for a number of years. The quantitative

easing in the United States has suited their times but, of course, tapering is now coming into play. As

tapering comes into play and the previous fiscal drag that was in place in the United States is no longer in

place, in this current year, the United States economy continues to grow although I must say there was

recognition at the G20 over the weekend that there had been some disappointing data that had come out of

the United States over the last month or so, which many are carefully monitoring. The fact is that we needa strong United States to have a strong global economy.

Turn047

We want the world economy to continue to improve. It is the case also that easy monetary policy, whether

it be in Australia or around the rest of the world, is not going to do the long-term heavy lifting when it

comes to growing the economy. That has to come through structural change in economies.


6/23

Australia is no different. Easy monetary policy will, at some time in the future, come to an end. The

result is that unless we have prepared our economies by having appropriate structural reform such as:

getting rid of the carbon tax; getting rid of the mining tax; having a better balance in workplace relations

by bringing back the Australian Building and Construction Commission; ensuring that the budget gets

back to a sustainable surplus and that as a nation we live within our means and if we do not do it and

other countries do not do it then the problems that have beset the world over the last few years will come

back again and we will consign a future generation around the world to a lesser quality of life than that

which we have had. There is no easy solution here. There are only hard solutions and the whole nation and

the whole world need to do the heavy lifting.

Mining TaxMr PASIN (Barker) (14:15): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the medium-

to long-term impact of the mining tax on the Australian economy?

Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney The Treasurer) (14:16): I thank the member for Barker for his question

and recognise, as he does, that the mining tax was one of the worst public policy disasters of the last six

years.

Ms Julie Bishop: That's a big call!

Mr HOCKEY: It is a big call. It is a very significant call. There has been a helluva lot of competition

for bad policy over the last six years but the mining tax was right up there. It was originally forecast to

raise $49.5 billion over 10 years, and after 18 months it raised $400 million. The problem was that Labor

committed all this new expenditure against a tax that did not raise any money. To put it in perspective, it

was like having a $75,000 yearly salary, spending all that money and more, but only getting $6,000 in

salary in that year.

So where does that leave the budget? The Labor Party is so supportive of the mining tax that they are

happy to see the budget $13 billion worse off. That means $13 billion of extra debt. The mining tax, as a

matter of principle, is harmful for the economy because, as was clearly pointed out during its bungled

introduction, it was going to have a negative impact on investor sentiment and it was going to affect the

reputation of Australia as a safe and stable place to do business.


7/23

I am glad that the new member for Perth understands this. I am glad that the new member for Perth,

previously a minister for planning and infrastructure in Western Australia, knows that the mining tax is bad

for Australia. But I would suggest to the member for Perth that she just lean over to the person on her right

and whisper into old Swanny's ear, 'What were you thinking, mate?' Go on, give it a shot just whisper.

You do not have to move your lips. Or write him a little handwritten note: 'What were you thinking of,

Swanny, introducing a mining tax that raises no money, spending all that money against that tax, leaving

Western Australia worse off and representing a threat to the sustainability of good finances?'

But the problem is that this is typical Labor. In South Australia we have just seen that Jay Weatherill,

the Premier of South Australia, has had a story leaked that identifies a $212 million hole in the budget.

That is almost Swanny-esque. Jay Weatherill, where did that go to another $212 million missing in a

Labor budget. That is the problem. Labor do not understand money and they certainly do not understand

taxes.

Ministerial Staff: Code of ConductMs KING (Ballarat) (14:19): My question is again to the Prime Minister. Senator Nash told Senate

estimates this morning that her chief of staff resigned solely because of the media interest that was causing

a distraction for the government. On Monday, the Prime Minister told the parliament that Senator Nash's

chief of staff resigned because he was dilatory in divesting a shareholding. Who is right the Prime

Minister or the Assistant Minister of Health?

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah Prime Minister) (14:19): Again, happily, both of us are. I simply say to the

member for Ballarat that she will no doubt continue to ask questions on this subject but, really, certainly

since the resignation of the gentleman in question, there is just nothing there. This is not so much a storm

in a teacup; it is not even a zephyr in a thimble; it is nothing because the conflict-of-interest rules have

been observed.

Mr Bowen interjecting

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for McMahon!

Australian Defence ForceMr NIKOLIC (Bass) (14:20): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs representing the

Minister for Defence. I remind the minister of the 56,000 Australian men and women serving our nation in


8/23

the Australian Defence Force. Will the minister please advise the House on why it is important that all

Australians respect and support the work of our military?

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:21): I thank the member for Bass for

his question and I acknowledge his distinguished service as an officer in the Australian Army and his

deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is an unwritten rule, indeed, a protocol that has been observed

for decades in this parliament and across Australian political life, that there be bipartisan support for our

military, our troops, whether at home or abroad.

Opposition members interjecting

The SPEAKER: Order! There will be silence on my left!

Ms JULIE BISHOP: That was shattered yesterday in Senate estimates by Senator Stephen Conroy

when he launched an attack, when he traduced the reputation of one of Australia's most distinguished

military commanders for serving his country.

Mr Mitchell interjecting

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for McEwen!

Ms JULIE BISHOP: Senator Conroy attacked this commander's motives and his conduct in a most

despicable slur designed to dishonour an honourable man.

Turn048

Lieutenant General Angus Campbell has served this country for 30 years: as a squadron commander of

the SAS and he commanded the 2nd Battalion group in the UN Mission in East Timor. Indeed, he was

awarded the Order of Australia for exceptional service. He commanded all Australian troops in the Middle

East and he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his outstanding leadership.

He is a man of the highest calibre; an officer who has served his country with distinction. It was because

of his outstanding skills that he was asked by the Australian government to serve his country once more.

He has headed up Operation Sovereign Borders to fix the mess that was left on our borders by the last

Labor government.


9/23

Operation Sovereign Borders was endorsed by the Australian people at the last election. It has been

designed to dismantle the criminal people-smuggling trade. It is designed to stop people taking that

dangerous journey to Australia and it is designed to save lives. It is dangerous work and it is difficult work,

and General Campbell has undertaken this task with the professionalism and diligence for which he is

renowned.

Labor can disagree with that policy. They can come up with their own policy. They can attack the

government. But they should never engage in the gross disrespect that we saw meted out to General

Campbell in Senate estimates yesterday. General Campbell himself said he took extreme offence at the

slurs.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting

Now, Senator Conroy should apologise. The member for Hunter knows that. Senator Conroy should

apologise he should have given an unqualified apology. If he does not, the Leader of the Opposition

should remove him from the role of shadow minister for Defence. He is unfit for that role.

Honourable members interjecting

The SPEAKER: Order! We will have a little more attention paid to a very serious answer as was given

by the Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ministerial Staff: Code of ConductMs KING (Ballarat) (14:24): My question is again to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware

that 66 eminent public health professors have written to all state and territory health ministers, including

Senator Nash, calling for the health star rating website to be reinstated as a matter of urgency? Why did

one junk food lobbyist employed as the minister's chief of staff determine the government's public health

policy rather than the advice of dozens of public

The SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. If the member wishes to rephrase her

question, leaving out the argument in the latter part, she may ask her question. I give the call to the

member for Ballarat.


The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business?


10/23

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I am trying to work out how describing a business

that this individual actually was part of, and admits to being part of, and has resigned because of

The SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

Mr Burke: cannot be referred to in a question?

The SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Mr Burke: The point of order is that there are no grounds for you to make the ruling you just made.

The SPEAKER: I am sorry, that is not a point of order.

Ms Plibersek: What are the grounds?

The SPEAKER: I have offered the member for Ballarat the opportunity to leave out the argument ofher question and to rephrase it.

Ms Plibersek: What is the argument?

The SPEAKER: She is an intelligent woman; she will work it out.

Ms KING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister: is the Prime Minister

aware that 66 eminent public health professors have written to all state and territory health ministers,

including Minister Nash, calling for the health star rating website to be reinstated as a matter of urgency?

Why was the minister's chief of staff allowed to determine the government's public health policy rather

than the advice of dozens of public health experts?

The SPEAKER: I will let the question stand, despite its final assertion.

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah Prime Minister) (14:26): I thank the member opposite for her question.

The premise of the question is simply wrong. It is simply wrong. People are entitled to disagree with the

position of the government, but the position of the government was determined by the government and by

the minister. It is eminently defensible.

Ms King: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the letter from the 66 eminent public health experts.

Leave not granted.


The SPEAKER: Order! There will be quiet on my left!


11/23

Australian Defence ForceMr HAWKE (Mitchell) (14:27): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Defence. I remind the

minister of this statement of the Leader of the Opposition of 23 January this year:

what I won't do is join in and start attacking our own military personnel I for one dont want to see our military being used as some sort of political football.

Minister, how does that compare with the statements made in Senate estimates by the shadow minister for

Defence yesterday, and the Leader of the Opposition's response today? And why is this matter important

with respect to the morale of the men and women of our Defence forces?

Mr ROBERT (Fadden Assistant Minister for Defence) (14:28): Let me thank the member for

Mitchell for his question, and acknowledge that as he is a former Army Reserve officer he is a man with

deep interest in the military.

It is now a matter of national attention that Senator Conroy has opened his account as Labor's Defence

spokesman with a grubby and premeditated slur against one of our most respected three-star Lieutenant

General officers, accusing him of a political cover-up no less. Six months of near total silence from the

opposition's shadow Defence minister and he decides the best way to come out and support those who

support us is to sling mud at a general's face.

Let me tell you what the military says. It says, 'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept'.

And what the nation wants to know and what this parliament wants to know, Leader of the Opposition, is

whether you accept the comments whether you

Ms Rishworth: It's a question to you!

Mr ROBERT: Madam Speaker, what the nation wants to know is whether the Leader of the

Opposition accepts the comments made by the shadow Defence spokesman. And if not, what is the Leader

of the Opposition going to do about it?

Ms Rishworth interjecting

The SPEAKER: Order! The member the Kingston will desist!

Mr ROBERT: The Leader of the Opposition was asked today, 'Do you personally think Conroy went

too far?' And the Leader of the Opposition's response? 'The senator has withdrawn his remarks, and that

speaks for itself.'


12/23

Turn049

Well, the only thing that speaks for itself is that the Leader of the Opposition's abject failure to bring into

line his own shadow defence minister is as unacceptable as the original comments themselves. Will the

Leader of the Opposition look at what former Labor defence minister, the member for Hunter, Joel

Fitzgibbon, said when asked today about his regard for Stephen Conroy? His response was, 'Stephen

Conroy is doing an excellent job as the shadow defence minister.'

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I quote a page you are familiar with. Page 555

of HOR Practice states:

As is clear from the above examples, it is not in order for Ministers to be questioned on opposition policies, forwhich they are not responsible. The Speaker has been critical of the use of phrases at the end of questions, such as arethere any threats to ..., that could be viewed as intended to allow Minist ers to canvass opposition plans

The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. There is no point of order.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker

The SPEAKER: I said there was no point of order. Do you have a second one?

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I have a second point of order. In that instance your ruling must be saying

that the minister is responsible for the issues that he is now talking about.

The SPEAKER: I did not make a ruling; I said there was no point of order. I call the Assistant

Minister for Defence.

Mr ROBERT: If that was not enough, Senator Conroy was given another chance to apologise. He

could not manage it. He could not man up and manage it. He even went so far as to say that the people who

should apologise apparently are the Australian government.

Our serving men and women deserve a lot better than this sort of grubby attack. They deserve an

opposition leader who mans up, an opposition leader who says, 'I don't condone this behaviour.' If the

opposition leader had some courage, he would demand that Senator Conroy publicly apologise for these

outrageous remarks. If the Leader of the Opposition takes no action, he reduces himself to exactly the same

level as Senator Conroy. And, let us face it, if Senator Conroy were in the Army, he would be peeling

potatoes right now.

Australian Defence Force

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong Leader of the Opposition) (14:32): My question is to the Prime

Minister. I refer to the Treasurer's statement two days before the election, 'We're not cutting health, we're


13/23

not cutting education and we're not cutting Defence.' I also refer to the decision by the government to cut

the pay of some ADF personnel by as much as $19,000. Prime Minister, why are ADF personnel paying

the price for another broken promise?

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah Prime Minister) (14:32): I do appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition

is a little embarrassed by the conduct of Senator Conroy.

Mr Dreyfus: Answer the question.

The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will desist!


The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga and the member for Sydney will desist.

Mr ABBOTT: If the Leader of the Opposition is embarrassed by Senator Conroy's conduct, he should

have a word in Senator Conroy's ear and say that it would be good for his dignity and that of the parliament

if he simply apologised to General Campbell.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was no argument in the question. It was

specific to the pay of people who are serving Australia. If anything should deserve direct relevance, it is a

question of this nature.

The SPEAKER: My recollection of the question asked


The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston is warned! The question as it was asked was reflecting on

the situation with regard to pay to ADF personnel generally and why the situation was as you have

described; therefore, the Prime Minister's answer is in line with that question.

Mr ABBOTT: Obviously anticipating this issue, members opposite have decided that this is some kind

of a riposte for the Leader of the Opposition's unwillingness to pull into line his shadow minister for

defence. The trouble with this question is that it is false utterly, absolutely and completely false. It is

typical, I regret to say, of this opposition. They never let the facts get in the way of a good smear. That is

typical of this opposition.


The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my left!


14/23

Mr ABBOTT: The truth is that the conditions of service of personnel in the Middle East have changed.

Haven't members opposite realised that we are no longer in combat in Afghanistan? Haven't they

recognised that we have concluded our combat mission in Afghanistan? Haven't they realised that? Well,

we have. We have concluded our combat mission in Afghanistan.


The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston will remove herself from the chamber under standing order

94(a).

The member for Kingston then left the chamber.

Mr ABBOTT: Has the Leader of the Opposition forgotten that he and I both went to Tarin Kot to

solemnly observe that our combat mission had ended? Because the conditions of service have changed, the

relevant allowances have changed. That decision was made quite properly by the service chiefs in response

to the changed conditions of service in Afghanistan. I can see the member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon,

sitting there squirming in embarrassment at this grubby tactic on the part of the opposition. You should be

embarrassed by Senator Conroy's behaviour

Mr Shorten: You're a puddle of grubs.

Mr ABBOTT: I am sorry, what was that?

Mr Shorten: You're a puddle of grubs.

The SPEAKER: I did not hear the interjection. If it was offensive, I ask the Leader of the Opposition

to withdraw.

Mr Shorten: I am happy to assist. I withdraw.

Mr ABBOTT: The best way to deal with this issue is for the Leader of the Opposition to ask Senator

Conroy to apologise.

Opposition members: Time! Time! Time!

The SPEAKER: There will be quiet on my left, particularly from the member for Isaacs. If there was

not so much noise on my left, I would have been looking at the clock instead of you.

Turn050


15/23

Asylum SeekersMs SCOTT (Lindsay) (14:37): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Immigration and

Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on how many days it has been since a successful

people-smuggling venture has arrived in this country? What impediments exist to the existing continuous

successful implementation of the government's strong border protection policies?

Mr MORRISON (Cook Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:37): I thank the

member for Lindsay for her question and her keen interest in these issues; I know it has always been a very

keen interest of the electors of Lindsay. It has been 69 days since there has been a successful people-

smuggling venture make it to Australia. But despite the success to date of this operation, it still faces

obstacles. And those obstacles sit on that side of the chamber, they sit amongst the Greens and they sit in

the other place as they band together. Those obstacles are there.

So miffed are those opposite about the success of this government's border protection policies, and how

that has exposed their weakness and their incompetence and their failure in government as boat after boat

arrived, as person after person arrived, as boat after boat sunk that what they seek to do is adopt the

policy of miff. They will try and make it fail. That is what they are trying to do. What they are trying to do

is make the government's policies fail. Make it fail.

The Leader of the Opposition has become the chief executive of 'wreck the joint', and not just wreck the

joint when it comes to the government's border protection policies but also wreck the joint when it comes

to the budget. As a former union official he knows exactly how to do it, he knows exactly how to wreck

the joint. He is the chief executive of 'wreck the joint' when it comes to policy in this country.

Mr Dreyfus interjecting

Mr MORRISON: 'Make it fail' is the objective of that opposition when it comes to this government's

policies.

Mr Dreyfus interjecting

The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned!

Mr Bowen interjecting

The SPEAKER: As is the member for McMahon!


16/23

Mr MORRISON: But unsatisfied with seeking to frustrate us, frustrate our policies, to deny the

obvious that our maritime operations are having success and seeking to undermine them, now they have

embarked on a new strategy that is, to attack the people who are implementing our policies. He may be a

resident of 'Conrovia' on some other distant planet, as the Minister for Communications advises us from

time to time, but it is up to this Leader of the Opposition to call into line the most disgraceful act of

Senator Conroy against Lieutenant General Campbell in the Senate last night. He accused him of a

political cover up, and this Leader of the Opposition's failure to force an apology from that senator to

Lieutenant General Campbell is an absolute disgrace.

I will say there is one member opposite who knew what was the right thing to do last night, and that is

the member for Chifley. This is what he said last night: 'I'm not going to dance around it. What he said was

wrong' referring to Senator Conroy 'it shouldn't have been said, not to a serving officer, in that way.'

Well maybe the member for Chifley should be able to step up, because this Leader of the Opposition

cannot step up when it comes to these matters of border protection.

Ministerial Staff: Code of ConductMr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong Leader of the Opposition) (14:40): Madam Speaker, my question is to

the Prime Minister. Today at Senate estimates Minister Nash explained how she managed her chief of

staff's conflicts of interest: 'I required those undertakings. It was my responsibility. I ensured that they were

done.' Given that Senator Nash failed to ensure her chief of staff had ceased his directorship and divested

his shareholding, hasn't the minister misled the parliament and failed in her responsibilities as a minister in

your government?

The SPEAKER: That question is going quite close to the wind, but I will allow it to stand.

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah Prime Minister) (14:41): There is a very simple answer; the answer is no.

Former Member for DobellMs HENDERSON (Corangamite) (14:41): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister for

Education and Leader of the House, representing the Minister for Employment. I remind the minister that

the House passed a motion yesterday apologising for the statement of the former member for Dobell, Mr

Craig Thomson, to the House on 21 May 2012. In light of bipartisan support for this motion, what further

measures could be taken to better protect members against the misuse of union funds and union power?


17/23

Mr PYNE (Sturt Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:42): I thank the member for

Corangamite for her question. I do welcome the bipartisan support that the government received yesterday

for its motion to apologise for the statement of the former member for Dobell, Mr Craig Thomson, on 21

May 2012. Admittedly it was two years too late, but better late than never.

Mr Perrett interjecting

Mr PYNE: The Leader of the Opposition at least measured up to that test and led the Labor Party into

stopping the protection racket

Mr Perrett interjecting

The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton is warned!

Mr PYNE: that had existed around the former member for Dobell. But it presents the Leader of the

Opposition with other tests that he needs to meet if he is going to prove that he is more than a union

official representing union officials, that he runs a protection racket for protection rackets. Those tests are

mounting up, like passing the Australian building and construction commission bill, passing the registered

organisations commission bill, supporting the Royal commission into union governance and union

corruption. He needs to pay back the $267,000 of HSU members' money that Labor used to elect the

former member for Dobell in 2007.

And there is a new test that has been set for him today if he is going to show that he is a real leader and

not just a union official representing union officials that is, whether he will stand up to Senator Conroy in

the Senate and make him apologise for the egregious remarks that he made yesterday to Lieutenant

General Campbell. He attacked him and used him as a political football. The Leader of the Opposition said

himself, on 23 January this year, 'I don't like seeing the Navy

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. This takes direct relevance to

an entirely new planet. There was nothing in the question that in any way relates to where the minister is

now going. The beginning of the answer was directly relevant, no argument at all, but where he is now is

completely unrelated.

The SPEAKER: The minister will return to the question.


18/23

Mr PYNE: The reason it is relevant to the question is because Senator Conroy is a well-known union

organiser from way back. He cut his teeth as a union organiser, and the question is about union power and

the misuse of it.

The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat.

Mr PYNE: And the reason why Senator Conroy remains in the position he is in today

Turn051

The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of

order he has already raised direct relevance.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order: now it is that the Leader of the House is directly

defying your ruling.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I call the Minister for Education.

Mr PYNE: Madam Speaker, it is directly relevant to the question, because the reason Senator Conroy

remains in the position he is today; the reason he was brought back from political death; the reason why

the Leader of the Opposition won't make him apologise today is because he relies on him to stay in the

position of Leader of the Opposition: Senator Conroy has the power. He is calling the tune just like every

other union leader that the Leader of the Opposition responds to, about all those policies. Whether it is the

Australian Building and Construction Commission, the Registered Organisations Commission, the royal

commission the Leader of the Opposition is a union official representing union officials. He went to the

AWU conference two years ago, and he said, 'I am union today; union tomorrow; union forever.' The point

is, he needs to rise above his background. He could start by disciplining Senator Conroy, and apologising

for the way he treated our military personnel.

Building and Construction IndustryMr BURKE (Watson Manager of Opposition Business) (14:45): My question is to the Prime

Minister. I refer to the Walton Construction company, which paid an LNP trust $430,000 and recently

collapsed, owing its employees millions of dollars in wages and entitlements. Will the Prime Minister

direct the Liberal Party to repay these payments to the workers whose entitlements are at risk?


19/23

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is not responsible for the LNP. The question is out of order. I call

the honourable member for Page.

Telecommunications

Mr HOGAN (Page) (14:46): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister for

Communications. Will the minister explain the importance of government agencies, including the NBN

Co., giving the government and the public frank, credible, factual and correct information? And what

are the consequences, Minister, of ignoring or indeed denying such information?

Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth Minister for Communications) (14:47): I thank the honourable

member for his question. Madam Speaker, yesterday was a big day in the Senate for denying and ignoring

information and truth and facts about the National Broadband Network. We had, in the morning in room

2S3, Ziggy Switkowski, the chairman of the NBN Co. one of Australia's leading businessmen laying

out the facts about the NBN rollout. And what did the shadow defence minister have to say, Senator

Conroy, appearing there in his shadow shadow role as broadband spokesman? After hours of abuse, he

then proceeded to accuse Ziggy Switkowski of lying and misleading the Senate and he refused to retract

one of our most respected businessmen! But then after being compared in this chamber with Lieutenant

Onoda, who fought on in the jungle for 28 years Senator Conroy careened into the Main Committee

room, madder than ever, and then proceeded to accuse Lieutenant-General Campbell of being none other

than Colonel Jessup and he actually said: 'We are living in a movie, and you are Colonel Jessup.' Well, of

course, that means that he obviously thought he was the incredibly handsome Daniel Kaffee, played by

Tom Cruise. We can all see the resemblance it's obvious! He can be excused for thinking that.

When it comes to denial of the facts, I think the better movie analogue is in fact Colonel Kurtz, leading

the Labor Party further and further up the Conrovian River into delusion and denial. And you know, we

remember the last scenes of that movie, as his temple fortress, his jungle fortress, is being smashed by

bombs, fire everywhere, columns falling, walls collapsing and what does he say? What does Colonel

Conroy-Colonel Kurtz say, as he is dragged from the ruins? He says, 'I had immense plans, I had immense

plans. I was on the verge of greatness!' Madam Speaker, the real summary of Colonel Conroy's

performance are of course the most famous lines in that movie: 'The horror, the horror!'

Honourable members applauding


20/23

The SPEAKER: Order! That is disorderly. We will have none of that. I call the Leader of the

Opposition.

Health

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong Leader of the Opposition) (14:49): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My

question is to the Prime Minister. Given everything that has been put to the Prime Minister, and given the

testimony at estimates this morning, how on earth can the Prime Minister or anyone have any

confidence in the Assistant Minister for Health?

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah Prime Minister) (14:50): Madam Speaker, the minister has not breached

the conflict of interest rules. In order to avoid any perception of potential conflict of interest, the staffer in

question resigned. The minister is doing a fine job. Every single decision that has been made by her in that

portfolio is eminently defensible and I back her to the hilt.

Carbon PricingMs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (14:50): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the

medium- to long-term impacts of the carbon tax on the Australian economy?

Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney The Treasurer) (14:50): I thank the honourable member for her

question. And I advise the House that, whilst the Leader of the Opposition has a horse running wild in the

top paddock, he has a Senate that is not prepared to pass one of the bills that will actually improve

economic growth in Australia and create jobs, and that is the bill that repeals the carbon tax. The fact of the

matter is that modelling commissioned not by this government; modelling commissioned by the previous

Labor government identifies that the carbon tax would actually detract from economic growth. It would

actually cost jobs. It would actually cost the economy. Now, Labor are sticking like glue to the carbon tax.

They own the carbon tax. It is their creation, and they are prepared to die defending the carbon tax. The

carbon tax

Opposition members: Hear, hear!

Mr HOCKEY: 'Hear, hear!', they say, 'Hear, hear!' They are all there defending the carbon tax, which

costs jobs, which means less economic growth, and which at the end of the day is going to cost the

Australian economy.

Turn052


21/23

The cumulative loss of output would be $22 billion by 2020 as a result of the carbon tax. What is more,

this will rise to $175 billion as a cost to the Australian economy by 2030. That is in 2012 dollars $175

billion to the Australian economy by having the carbon tax.

Yet Labor is determined to fight to the death to keep this tax. You can be sure that, if Labor are ever

elected, they will reintroduce the carbon tax. If they are so absolutely committed to the carbon tax here in

opposition after losing an election, they would not be afraid to reintroduce it. They would not be afraid to

go back and reintroduce it. They might not promise it at the election; we know they have form in that

regard. They never tell you about a carbon tax before an election but you can be as sure as the sun will rise

up in the morning that they will introduce it after the election, because the carbon tax is in the Labor

Party's DNA, even though it costs jobs.

As New South Wales Treasury said, it is going to cost 31,000 jobs in New South Wales by 2030, and

yet Labor is defending this to the death. There is the impact on wages, the impact on industry, and the

impact on the health and education sector, which is not compensated for the carbon tax. It flows right

through the economy. It flows through to every single area of production, every single area of activity. Yet

Labor is defending it to the end. The problem is that the Labor Party does not know what it stands for other

than the fact that it is prepared to hit the average Australian worker.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORSThe SPEAKER (14:53): I wish to announce that we have with us today in the gallery the Hon. Mark

Vaile AO, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and also Mr Mike Symon, the former member for

Deakin. We make you most welcome.

Honourable members : Hear, hear!

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICEAsylum Seekers

Mr MARLES (Corio) (14:54): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm

his office was told before 1 pm on Saturday that the information provided to the Minister for Immigration

and Border Protection in Tuesday's press conference about the location of Reza Berati's death was

inaccurate?

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah Prime Minister) (14:54): I can confirm that my office would have been

listening to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on Tuesday afternoon when he said that it


22/23

was unclear exactly where many of the things that had taken place on that fateful evening had in fact taken

place. I will gladly check the record, and, if there is anything to tell the parliament, I will come back and

tell the parliament. But, again, exactly what is the evil here? Exactly what is the grievous error? Exactly

what is the monument of maladministration that members opposite are trying to uncover? As soon as the

minister was aware of a problem on the Monday night he went public, on the Tuesday morning. By the

time he got to Canberra on the Tuesday afternoon he was aware that there was some possibility that more

information might come to light. He went public with that. On the Saturday, he conclusively discovered

Ms Macklin: When?

The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga will desist.

Mr ABBOTT: Maybe it was midday. Maybe it was one o'clock. Maybe it was two o'clock. It was as

soon as he was clear. What does it really matter if he delayed 15 minutes, half an hour or an hour? What

does it really matter?


The SPEAKER: Those on my left will be quiet.

Mr ABBOTT: The truth is that, as soon as he reasonably could be, after clarifying the position, he was

completely up-front with the Australian public and the Australian people.

This minister has a very difficult job, restoring border security with the legacy that this government

inherited a massively difficult job. I want to say that I deeply admire and respect the strength and the

integrity that he has brought to this job. While I can understand that members opposite would be a little

embarrassed at the way the boats are stopping now, surely they at least ought to be men and women

enough to give credit where it is due. This minister is stopping the boats. That is what counts.

Carbon PricingMr TAYLOR (Hume) (14:57): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I refer to the

information released by the Clean Energy Regulator last week that shows that the cost of the carbon tax is

a $1.1 billion impost on Australian manufacturers. Can the minister inform the House how many

businesses are paying the carbon tax?

Mr HUNT (Flinders Minister for the Environment) (14:58): I want to acknowledge the member for

Hume and a very distinguished business career in which, throughout that time, he learnt a lot about how to


23/23

manage businesses. He has always been concerned about bad bills of all kinds, whether they have been bad

electricity bills, bad carbon tax bills, bad fuel bills or just plain bad bills. He asks how many businesses are

being affected by these bad bills. The answer is not, as they would have us believe on the other side, that

500 firms have been hit by the carbon tax. It is not that 5,000 have been hit by the carbon tax. It is not even

that 50,000 have been hit by the carbon tax. According to the Australian Treasury, 75,000 firms have been

directly hit by carbon tax bills. More than that, every firm in Australia that consumes electricity or gas is

hit by the carbon tax, and every family in Australia that consumes electricity or gas is hit by the carbon tax.

The question specifically went to manufacturing. As the Clean Energy Regulator set out recently, it is

not just a multibillion dollar hit on Australian firms; specifically on manufacturing, it is a $1.1 billion hit.

Turn053

That $1.1 billion includes $596 million in the metals sector for firms such as Rio Tinto and Nyrstar. In the

chemical manufacturing sector, there is a $311 million hit for firms such as Incitec Pivot, which provides

fertilisers to farmers. In the glass and cement manufacturing sector it is a $30 million hit CSR, Adelaide

Brighton. At a time of massive global pressure, we are putting massive Australian pressure on our

manufacturing firms. In the pulp and paper sector, there is another $25 million, and, in food product

manufacturing, another $25 million. It is a $1.1 billion manufacturing hit.

The question then is: with these bills being foisted upon Australian firms, what can we do about it?

Come next Monday, when the Senate sits again, it will have been three months that the carbon tax bills

have been before the Senate. The Senate, according to this Leader of the Opposition, is on an industrial go-

slow. The opposition leader, who has a history of enforcing industrial go-slows, has his senators on a go-

slow. Three months and they are not even close to repealing the carbon tax. They are not even close to

voting on repeal of the bills. The message is: if you want to do something for Australian manufacturing

firms, get out of the way and repeal the bills.

House QuestionTime 260214

Documents

Transcript of House QuestionTime 260214