Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (09:45): When Senator Wong starts to lecture the Senate on ministerial integrity and ministerial consistency, you know that something has gone terribly wrong or that we are living in a parallel universe—she who trumpeted with her then leader that climate change was the greatest moral challenge of our time. Remember that? And they dumped it like a used tissue as soon as it became politically opportunistic for them to do so. These are the standards from those who claimed that no carbon tax would guide their government and then introduced a carbon tax. They have the audacity to come into this place and talk to us about consistency and integrity in government. I will tell you what consistency and integrity in government is all about, and it is simply this. All of us, from time to time, may engage in a degree of hyperbole in the heat of question time and the heat of debate which we may then, on due consideration and reflection, regret. What is the decent and proper thing to do when, on mature reflection, you have re-read that which you said in the heat of the moment? It is to come into this place as soon as practical and say, 'I recant and, if I've caused offence, I apologise.' Senator Conroy: He didn't! He didn't apologise! Senator ABETZ: Senator Conroy comes in right on time—right on cue. Let us look at the behaviour of the shadow defence minister, who personally attacked a man in uniform under parliamentary privilege in a manner for which Senator Conroy has never apologised. Senator Wong, where was your righteous indignation then? Nowhere to be seen. There was stony silence when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this place and shadow defence minister accused Lieutenant General Campbell, and I quote from page 94 of the Senate Hansard of 25 February 2014, just earlier this year: That's called a political cover-up. Conroy again: You are engaged in a political cover-up. When it was indicated by the chair that this was offensive, Senator Conroy repeated it: It is time to call a spade a spade. Lieutenant General Campbell said: Senator, I would like to put on the public record— And there he is, pretending tears in relation to Lieutenant General Campbell, a man in uniform. The general is a man who has served his country extremely well, a lot better than Senator Conroy ever will, who has the audacity to pretend that Lieutenant General Campbell was not offended—and what did Senator Conroy do? He simply said— Senator Conroy: I withdrew. Senator ABETZ: You said: It is time to call a spade a spade. You did not withdraw—stop misleading the Senate. The PRESIDENT: Address your remarks to the chair. Senator ABETZ: That is the truth. Then the chair— Senator Conroy interjecting— Senator ABETZ: I will take that interjection from Senator Conroy. Later on page 94: CHAIR: I require you to apologise, Senator Conroy. Senator CONROY: You can require anything you want. General, can you please provide a copy— CHAIR: Senator Conroy, I am ruling that if you do not apologise I will not call you anymore. Senator CONROY: Well, we will see on the floor of the Senate. And that is an apology! What duplicity, what hypocrisy, what an absolute double standard by this man who would be the defence minister if this motley crew opposite were ever to be elected. Mr President, this is a motion to take note by the most failed finance minister in Australian history, a minister who went to the last election saying that there was an $18 billion deficit in the budget, and when the budget papers were checked, it was not an $18 billion deficit, it was a $48 billion deficit. Just a mere mistake of $30 billion, and she has the audacity to come in here and say that we need to take note of a circumstance where, as we all do from time to time, overstate the case in relation to a matter in a heated debated and then, on mature reflection, withdraw and make the appropriate amends. Senator Bilyk interjecting— Senator ABETZ: We have the good Senator Bilyk interjecting. Can I ask Senator Bilyk: where was she when her deputy leader in this place so ruthlessly attacked a man in uniform at Senate estimates? Nowhere to be heard. It is a classic of when the Labor Party does something— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Pause the clock. Order! Senator Conroy. Senator Cameron. Senator O'Sullivan, it is disorderly to interject and certainly when not in your own seat. Senator Bilyk. A little bit more decorum please. Senator Abetz. Senator ABETZ: Thank you, Mr President. The Australian Labor Party always dislikes it when you point out to them the hypocrisy of their position. They attack men in uniform, and when it is drawn to their attention, indeed, as a headline shows, 'Stephen Conroy refuses to apologise', that is what the media told every Australian yet, somehow, Senator Conroy interjects that he did apologise. No, he did not. That is why the media was so highly critical of him. In relation to Senator Johnston, he is a man that has been faced with an absolute debacle in defence. That is why he said in his statement that he regrettably allowed the frustration to get the better of him. In circumstances where everybody knows the importance of a submarine capacity and capability for our nation he came into office as the new Minister for Defence and found that all the planning that the Labor Party had done in relation to a new generation of submarine could be found on any blank sheet of paper anywhere in the nation. In other words, there was no work done whatsoever. Indeed, in relation to Senator Conroy, who disgraced himself at estimates with Lieutenant General Campbell, we know what the men and women in uniform think of you, Senator Conroy. If I were you I would remain stony silent. Let us listen to what another Labor defence minister said: Without having confidence in our capacity to sustain our current fleet of submarines … I wonder who might have said that? Labor Minister Stephen Smith. So, when Labor Defence Minister Stephen Smith says: Without having confidence in our capacity to sustain our current fleet of submarines … —it is a matter of great regret. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Pause the clock. Senator Conroy. On my left. Senators Kerr and Conroy, your leader is on her feet. Senator Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong: Thank you, Mr President, my point of order is relevance. It is all very interesting, but we are actually debating the statement of the Defence Minister. That is what the Senate is taking note of. I am not sure that the minister has actually mentioned that. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, the minister is directly relevant to the topic before the chair. Minister. Senator ABETZ: If ever you needed to see writ large the incompetence of the Leader of the Opposition in this place, you just had it then from the point of order, because the quote that I was quoting was directly out of the minister's statement. How more relevant could I be than quoting out of the minister's own statement, of which she wanted us to take note? When I quote from the minister's statement, when it is hurting the Labor Party, she gets up on a point of order to say it is not being relevant. And I am actually quoting word for word from the statement! Oh, incompetence, I wonder what one's name is. I think it might start with W. But back to this important quote which is found in the minister's statement. It is from one of his predecessors in this area, as Minister for Defence: Without having confidence in our capacity to sustain our current fleet of submarines— And it was when I had finished saying that part that Senator Wong jumped to her feet trying to stop the flow of the speech, trying to stop and interrupt that which is so damaging to the Australian Labor Party. They know their own defence minister Mr Smith had real issues about the submarine capacity within Australia. He went on to say: … it is very difficult to fully commence, other than through initial planning, the acquisition program for our future submarine. That was in 2011. Two years later, when Senator Johnston took over, do you know what he found as part of this initial planning? A blank piece of paper. Not a single scrap of work had been done. So is the minister right to be frustrated? Absolutely right. Indeed, the Australian people have every right to be frustrated that, for six years of incompetent government, not only did the Labor Party run up the biggest deficits in our nation's history, not only did they leave us with the biggest debt in our nation's history, not only did they have the pink batts debacle, which saw four people lose their lives, not only did they have the Building the Education Revolution debacle, not only did they have the cash-splash debacle but also, in the most important part of any government's responsibility to a people, the defence of the people, the defence of the nation—that is the first priority of a government, and the submarine capacity is so vital in that area—what do we find? The Labor Party did nothing. Not only did they do nothing in the submarine space; they stripped $16 billion out of the defence budget. And here they are pretending in this place that they are somehow committed to the defence of our nation. Not only did they run up big deficits but they stripped billions of dollars, thousands of millions of dollars, year after year, out of the defence budget. Can I simply say to colleagues and anybody that might be listening in to this debate: we are all human. We are all fraught. From time to time, we might overstate a case. The proper and decent thing to do is exactly what Senator Johnston did, and that is to come into this place and recognise that fact. But, in circumstances where you have had a Labor government that said, 'No carbon tax,' and then introduced one and never apologised for it, a government that stripped $16 billion out of defence and never apologised for it, a government that saw the deaths of four Australians in roof cavities because of the pink batts debacle and never apologised for it—and so the list goes on—they have the audacity to seek to move a motion that a man who has recognised and made a statement and is willing to acknowledge it is somehow to be condemned. That is in comparison to their list, to their legions, of deliberate errors, deliberate misleads of the Australian people. Then, when their noses are rubbed in it, they still refuse to acknowledge that which everybody knows. We therefore had within this chamber—very conveniently, if I might say—Senator Johnston, who, in the heat of the moment, overstated a situation— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! Senator ABETZ: and has come back in to the chamber as soon as possible, and then you have the disgraceful performance of the shadow minister for Defence, deliberately attacking a public servant—a public servant in uniform; a man who I think had about a 30-year career within our Defence Force, in the Navy—absolutely attacking him, under parliamentary privilege. Then, when the media suggests to him after the event that it might be time to apologise, and when the chair invites him to apologise, and he says, 'Take it to the floor of the Senate'—indicative of the contempt of the shadow minister for Defence for our men and women in uniform—there is no apology, and no commentary from Senator Wong. Indeed, I wish she would have turned her back on Senator Conroy rather than me in relation to this matter, because it shows the difference in standards. Mr President, can I simply say to those opposite: your record and your actions have spoken much louder than your words in this debate. We, on this side— Senator Conroy interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Conroy! Senator ABETZ: Mr President, Senator Conroy continually interjects, as he does throughout question time— Senator Conroy interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Conroy! Senator ABETZ: as does his leader, as does Senator Carr. They have contempt not only for the processes of this place but for the men and women in uniform, as witnessed by Senator Conroy's attack on Lieutenant General Campbell—a disgraceful attack. And where was Senator Wong moving her motion about that? She was nowhere to be seen; nowhere to be heard. She must have got writer's cramp, one suspects; she could not quite get the motion out. In talking about our submarines, we are talking about the largest acquisition other than the debacle of the NBN—once again, presided over by: Senator Conroy! One of these days I am sure the dictionary will give as a synonym for 'debacle', 'Conroy'. This is another 'Conroy'—an absolute debacle, like Senator Conroy's NBN, with an acquisition— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! Senator ABETZ: albeit that was in the communications area. Now, clothed with that great expertise, and clothed with that great record on the NBN, he pretends he is an expert on submarine acquisition, in circumstances where— Senator Conroy: Come on—only three minutes to go! The PRESIDENT: Senator Conroy! Senator ABETZ: the immaturity of the man is showing yet again, and I hope the Hansard shows it. Senators Conroy and Carr can continue to interject as they like, but people in the manufacturing sector know that because of their support for the carbon tax they destroyed jobs in the manufacturing sector. They know that, as a result of their lack of planning— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! Senator ABETZ: for six years, the totality of that Labor-Green government, nothing was done to plan for the need for a new Australian submarine capacity. That is something that Senator Johnston now has to pick up, six or seven years after the event, and he had a blank sheet of paper to start off with. That is the Labor Party legacy. Is Senator Johnston frustrated because of Labor's criminal neglect of this very important capacity? Of course he is. And, as the man he is, he stood up and recognised his overstatement—unlike Senator Conroy. Wouldn't it be refreshing if he were to get up and, in his first comment in this debate, say, 'I unreservedly apologise to Lieutenant General Campbell'? Wouldn't that be interesting? And that will be the test of character on which the Australian people can decide between the honourable Senator Johnston, the Minister for Defence, who is willing to say it as it is about himself, in juxtaposition to that which the opposition provides us in Senator Conroy. The submarine capacity in this nation is vitally important. Labor left it in neglect for six years. Senator Kim Carr interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Carr! Order! Senator ABETZ: You hear all the interjections from the other side. Do you know where Labor were taking the submarine program? Nowhere—absolutely nowhere. If people are talking about Japan, Germany, France or Scandinavia, at least we are taking the program somewhere, whereas Labor had a policy of taking it absolutely nowhere, promising, promising, promising, without any money allocated and without any plans, as, indeed, Labor minister Stephen Smith himself had to acknowledge in his statement on 19 July 2011. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: On my right! Senator ABETZ: Senator Johnston has done the right thing by the right standards of the Westminster system. He has done that which every honourable member of parliament should do and has done in the past, unlike the person who I suspect will be speaking next in this debate. That is the great juxtaposition between those of us on this side and those on that side. We can recognise when things need to be fixed. Regrettably, the Australian Labor Party are devoid of that capacity, and that is the big difference. Having said that, Senator Johnston is doing a fantastic job in Defence, and I, for one, am appreciative of his efforts. (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! And my left! Senator Wright, do you have a point of order? Senator Wright interjecting— The PRESIDENT: I will be calling Senator Conroy next, Senator Wright. Senator Wright: With respect, Mr President— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wright, it is my decision and I will be calling Senator Conroy next. Before I call Senator Conroy, the noise in the chamber from all quarters and all sides has been terrible. I expect the interjections to cease and the debate to continue with less interruption. It does not behove the Senate to have a debate the way we are having it, with the constant interjection from both sides.