house questiontime 260214
TRANSCRIPT
-
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.
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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.
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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.
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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.
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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.
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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.
Opposition members interjecting
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business?
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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.
Opposition members interjecting
The SPEAKER: Order! There will be quiet on my left!
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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.'
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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!
Opposition members interjecting
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
Ms Rishworth interjecting
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.
Opposition members interjecting
The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my left!
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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.
Ms Rishworth interjecting
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
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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!
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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?
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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.
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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?
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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?
Opposition members interjecting
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
-
8/12/2019 House QuestionTime 260214
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.