Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (15:52): In rising today to take note of the responses that we've had from government ministers to questions from the opposition during question time, I must say: this is just another example of this Labor opposition demonstrating that they have no plan and no policy agenda which they can talk about. They've taken up hours of this chamber's time today talking about something that is not part of any positive or even consistent, coherent plan for what they might do for Australia. After all, isn't that what we are here for in this place—to debate policy and enact a plan which delivers for Australians on the things that matter to them? But that's not what Labor do in this parliament, because they don't have a plan and they can't agree on their policy agenda. That's certainly the evidence that we have seen here today. In relation to this issue that Labor is trying to push regarding the member for Chisholm, it has been pointed out today that Labor's own shadow health minister has travelled to China on a delegation paid for by the Chinese Communist Party. If Labor thinks that it is worth the Senate's time to make these sorts of assertions, then why not focus on the member for McMahon? I'm not saying necessarily that we should; I think that there are far more important things for this place to be debating. All I'm saying is that perhaps our friends on the other side should consider a little bit of consistency and consider whether they have been consistent in raising this issue today—or even focus on their own candidate for the seat of Chisholm. Again, it's an issue of consistency that we are talking about here. Their own candidate for Chisholm, I understand, was a member of at least two of the organisations that the current member for Chisholm has been a member of. So, again, we see absolute inconsistency from the opposition on this point. I think there are many better things that the Senate could be discussing today, like the Morrison coalition government's plan to create jobs and grow the economy. In fact, I could settle for something less than that. I could settle for Labor putting forward their own alternative to that—because at least we could then have an appropriate contest of ideas in this place about how we think this country should be run. The Morrison government has our plan. The opposition, unfortunately, are yet to come up with any consistent or coherent narrative about how they see this country progressing. As Minister Cormann said today, it's because they are spiralling through the many stages of grief as a result of their loss at the election on 18 May, an election they thought they were going to win. In contrast, this government took to the election a plan that was resoundingly endorsed by the Australian people on 18 May and is steadfastly getting on with the job of implementing that plan. That's why I'm so disappointed that we have spent today not focused on these issues that matter to the people of Australia and to the people in my own state of Tasmania, who might be listening in today and wondering what on earth the Senate is doing with its time. The best thing you can say about the Labor Party at the moment is that, if you don't agree with their position on one issue today, they might change their mind tomorrow. Tomorrow they might have something to say in complete contradiction to what they have been saying today. So perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that there are inconsistencies around their rhetoric today in terms of the member for Chisholm in comparison with members of their own party. If they can't be consistent on this issue, we can't trust them to come up with any sort of consistent agenda for how they think this country should progress. It is more of the 'same old, same old' from the opposition.