Mr RUDD (Prime Minister) (4:01 PM) —I was taken during question time by the blue, which referred to the text of the MPI. I was taken in particular by its reference to the term ‘dismal performance’. I thought this might provoke a useful discussion and debate in the House today about dismal performances because, as I gazed upon the benches opposite, not only did we see something dismal but we saw something terminally divided as well. The performance of those opposite today, throughout this year and during the Leader of the Opposition’s period in office has been dismal with a capital D. We are having a debate in the parliament now about the industrial relations system of Australia. What is dismal is that the alternative government have no single position on industrial relations. That is dismal with a capital D.

What is dismal with a capital D is that, in the other debate we have been having this week on asylum seekers, we are told that their party room meeting on Tuesday went ‘berserk’ on the question of asylum seekers. On industrial relations, Alby told us that it was ‘bonkers’ to support the position that was embraced by the Leader of the Opposition. They are bonkers one day, berserk the next! On something as sensitive and as important as asylum seekers, you would think that a so-called credible political party like the Liberal Party would actually come up with a uniform, united position—but no. Of course, during the week it has been not just industrial relations or asylum seekers but also climate change and water. They are a broad church, the Leader of the Opposition tell us—that is, they were a broad church until he sacked a shadow parliamentary secretary for having a different view of what the broad church might mean!

The opposition’s performance has been dismal in terms of the absolute disarray that we find in the Leader of the Opposition’s language on the temporary deficit question. I draw honourable members’ attention to this question: why has that d-word disappeared from their language all week? We have underway at the moment the old Malcolm Turnbull crab walk. Earlier this week we had the Leader of the Opposition in full flight, decrying anything which approached a temporary deficit as an absolute abandonment of economic management. Then we go to the critical interview that he had on ABC radio a couple of mornings ago, where on three to four separate occasions he was asked directly: would the opposition rule out a temporary deficit under any circumstances? And on three to four occasions what we saw was the Malcolm Turnbull crab walk. It was not completed until we had an interview—I think it was on Adelaide radio yesterday—where finally the crab walk reached its destination: in fact, a temporary deficit could be embraced if that was the last resort. He went from the position that a temporary deficit was a complete abandonment of economic management principles, through the crab walk of saying, ‘Can’t answer that question; it’s all economic theory,’ to yesterday’s position—which I thought was a beaut—that a temporary deficit could be embraced as a last resort.

Is it any wonder those opposite feel as if they are in disarray? That is what has been reflected in their shifting position on something so crucial to the current debate. But it goes beyond that. The whole debate on the economy comes about as a consequence of the global financial crisis—a global financial crisis which on one day is described as overhyped and on the next is described as the worst since the Depression. Is it any wonder no-one can find a consistent thread up the middle of what the opposition have been talking about in this chamber all year?

Then we go to the rest of the disarray within the Liberal Party on things as basic as interest rates. The Leader of the Opposition said that a rise in interest rates—the seventh rise, in fact, out of their 10 interest rate rises in a row—was being overdramatised. Then he turned himself into Captain Courageous, attacking the banks—interesting, given where the Leader of the Opposition comes from—for their posture on interest rates. Then we have the extraordinary posture he adopted in recent days which is, as reflected in his opinion piece in the Australian that we mentioned in an earlier debate today: ‘Go for the full lot, the whole bottle. Don’t worry about it. Don’t hold back. Profits are king.’ Is it any wonder that people cannot thread together the consistency of the Leader of the Opposition? And it goes on and on.

The Leader of the Opposition claims to be the author of fiscal rectitude on the one hand and then, on the other, launches into an unbridled and unprecedented political attack on the Secretary to the Treasury, authorising his leading henchperson up the back to engage in a simultaneous attack on the Governor of the Reserve Bank, accusing the Governor of the Reserve Bank, in orchestrated tactics from the office of the Leader of the Opposition, of engaging in, in effect, partisan behaviour in support of the Australian Labor Party. And it goes on and on and on. The fuel excise—one day he is against it, the next day he is for it and the third day he is against it again, and I still do not see what the final and formal position is.

If you want the epitome of disarray, I could say: look at each element of these policies, whether it goes to the global financial crisis, interest rates, the temporary deficit, asylum seekers or the rest. But it all reaches its crescendo in the person of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Julie has had a very good week—so good a week, in fact, that according to the West Australian we have the Leader of the Opposition now telling his colleagues that he has to do two jobs: his and the shadow Treasurer’s. I have not seen the Leader of the Opposition stand up to say that that report in the West Australian newspaper was wrong.

Mr Turnbull —Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: that statement was denied in the very article the Prime Minister has in his hand.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.

Mr RUDD —In truthfulness, could the Leader of the Opposition say that there is not a battle royal going on within the frontbench of the Liberal Party as to whether the member for Dickson, the member for North Sydney or the member for Goldstein—anyone other than the member for Curtin, it seems—is going to be the shadow Treasurer of the Liberal Party? What is remarkable is that here they have launched a couple of weeks of attack on the economic credibility of the Australian Labor government and at the same time they cannot resolve who the Treasury spokesman of the Liberal Party is going to be. This actually speaks volumes.

But what is the common thread through all of this, apart from the Leader of the Opposition himself? It is this: there is not a single thread of consistency in any of these positions all the way through, and that goes to a fundamental truth. This government, dealing with difficult circumstances around the world—the global financial crisis—has been acting in the national interest. People may disagree with one policy or another—that is fair enough; it is a democracy and there is a debate. But what we see time after time with the shifting positions of the Leader of the Opposition on interest rates, the global financial crisis and temporary deficits—you name it—is a political leader in this country who has abandoned leadership and is instead engaged in short-term political opportunism. What we have had on one issue after the other is not the national interest being served but the political self-interest of the Leader of the Opposition.

This comes to its absolute apex in the important legislation before this House today—that is, the Fair Work Bill. This Leader of the Opposition, in the past, has gone on the public record not just defending Work Choices but shouting from the rooftops about how important Work Choices is to the future reform of the country. In fact, on 2 November 2005—the day, I am told, of one of his 27 votes in support of Work Choices legislation—he said:

The problem, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition through you, Madam Deputy Chair, is that in this business of politics, which is a rough and tumble business, you actually have to stick with your principles. The former Leader of the Opposition who sits up the back there, Brendan Nelson—

Mr Keenan —You are so full of it.

Mr RUDD —I know you do not like this, but the former Leader of the Opposition up there, Brendan Nelson, the member for Bradfield, sticks to his guns. He has always been out there saying that they supported Work Choices and supported AWAs. This guy is a principled conservative. The Leader of the Opposition is an unprincipled opportunist. That is the difference, and that applies all the way through the policy debates that we have been having in the several months that the Leader of the Opposition has been in charge of the ramshackle, divided party—once the party of Menzies and now a ramshackle, divided lot. This characterises each and every one of the significant policy debates, because in each of them the Leader of the Opposition just changes his position, depending on the day, depending on the weather and depending on the tactical opportunity, but always casting to one side anything approaching consistency of principle. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: that begins to sort you out as an alternative leader of the country. You have to stand for something and stick with it. The member for Bradfield has done that. We do not see any of that evident in the performance of the member for Wentworth—the Leader of the Opposition as he currently is.

I say ‘currently is’ because we have now heard rumblings about what Higgins is up to. Yond Higgins has a lean and hungry look. Yond Goldstein has a lean and hungry look as well, but he always looks lean and hungry. Higgins, it seems, is back in the circle. I wonder whether yond Bradfield is helping yond Higgins in his return. The rumblings out of Higgins these days are getting interesting, including statements among the local Liberal FEC that in fact the member for Higgins may still be for this world, may not be departing this world and may not be shuffling off. Given the deep affection which the member for Higgins holds for the member for Wentworth, we may have him back sooner than we all think—but I am sure the member for Wentworth has that under control in his party, which is characterised by the singular political unity that we have seen so much on display this year!

Throughout this year the Liberal Party, preoccupied with its own political divisions, has been on about its own political self-interest. The government, by contrast, has been faced with three major challenges for Australia: (1) honouring the implementation of our pre-election commitments, (2) getting on with the business of mapping out a long-term reform agenda for the nation and (3) wrestling with the global financial crisis, which impacts on the real Australian economy. On our commitments to the Australian people, whether our commitment to bring in $44 billion worth of tax cuts for working families or our commitment to bring about an education revolution, what we have undertaken to the Australian people we have then proceeded to implement. We promised $44 billion worth of tax cuts; in the budget brought down by the Treasurer we implemented $44 billion worth of tax cuts. We promised prior to the election that we would ratify the Kyoto protocol; we have ratified the Kyoto protocol. Prior to the election we promised that we would deliver an apology to Indigenous Australians, and we have honoured that commitment to the Australian people. Prior to the last election we undertook to provide to each school in this country funding sufficient to provide a one to one ratio for computers for years 9, 10, 11 and 12 across the nation, a longstanding reform; we are proud of it and we are honouring that commitment. We undertook to provide across all secondary schools in this country funding of $2.5 billion over time to create trades training centres in the secondary schools of this nation—each of the 2,700-plus of them—and we are honouring that commitment. We are honouring each and every one of these commitments. We promised to the Australian people that we would act to establish a national curriculum for English, for history, for maths and for science, because the working people of this nation, as they travel across this country, are crying out for that; we are honouring that commitment. We said prior to the election that we would bring in an election tax refund; the Treasurer, in his budget and in subsequent legislation, has honoured that commitment, and first payments will flow from 1 July next year. Prior to the last election we said we would implement an increase in the childcare tax rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, and we are honouring that commitment as well.

We take seriously our commitments to the Australian people. Beyond that, we have sought to map out a long-term program of reform dealing with the long-term challenges of reforming the Federation, dealing with the long-term challenges of providing proper funding with proper incentives for better performance in the nation’s health and hospital system and wrestling to the ground the great challenges of climate change and water. These are enduring challenges for the nation; they do not disappear overnight. They do not disappear because there is a political bunfight in a party room over X, Y and Z or A, B and C. They are there and the nation expects us to act on them.

At COAG on Saturday we acted on the long-term reform of the federation. We acted on the challenge of providing proper funding for the public hospital system of this nation with $60 billion worth of long-term investment, and an annual indexation factor of 7.3 per cent, adding into it national partnership payments which bring up the overall increase to the states of something in excess of 10 per cent a year. That is dealing with what the mums and dads of this country want: a better performing public hospital system. We are undertaking that reform.

Beyond that, on climate change and water, we undertook to implement an emissions trading scheme. Our Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is being drafted. It has achieved much more progress in 12 months than our predecessors ever dreamt of in 12 years. And for the first time this government has committed to and has executed the buyback of water entitlements to save the much threatened Murray-Darling Basin system. That is action in the long-term reform interests of the nation. We, the government, have got on with the business of implementing our pre-election commitments and implementing our long-term reform program. We have done all of this in the context of a global financial crisis where we have had to guarantee bank deposits and inject stimulus into the economy in order to provide sustenance for growth and jobs into what will be a difficult year in 2009.

This is a solid agenda for a government. It is a solid agenda of leadership for a government. It represents a consistency of principle. I would say to those who are engaged in this debate today to reflect on it as they contrast with it the dismal and divided performance of those who pretend to be the alternative government of Australia. (Time expired)