Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (16:19): Well, in the immortal words of Ron Burgundy: That escalated quickly … Just 521 days after the election of the Abbott government, less than 18 months after the current Prime Minister promised a 'grown up, adult' government, the current Prime Minister made history by facing the fastest motion to spill their leadership position of any Australian PM since Federation. This flutter certainly attracted a lot of attention. It really got out of hand fast. It really jumped things up a notch. I think I even saw Wyatt Roy throw a trident at one point. Historians were particularly interested to see whether Tony Abbott would officially take the crown from William McMahon and become the worst Prime Minister in modern times. For the record, though, the Prime Minister still needs to survive another 116 days to best Billy in the worst PM stakes—in terms of tenure at least. So that is something to keep in mind for the inevitable post-budget challenge. Tony has until June to avoid ignominy. But, despite the attention on the spill, the result was a bit of a fizzer. None of the mooted saviours of the Liberal-National government put up their hands. The failed opposition leader, the failed former shadow Treasurer and the failed former managing director of Tourism Australia all kept their powder dry. As a result, when the spill eventuated, only 39 Liberal MPs were terrified enough to put their hand up and vote for 'anyone but the current PM'. 'Tick-tock' Tony lives to bungle another day! He didn't waste any time and pronounced with a beguiling lack of self-perception in a press conference that very afternoon, 'Good government starts today'. But here's the rub. Despite his admission that Australia has been subjected to a 'bad' government from this current ministry, we have seen absolutely no change in what they are serving up to the Australian public. The morning after the day before, can anyone in this place name a single policy that has changed as a result of yesterday's events? As the Bard once said, this attempted spill has been: … a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It is true that the Prime Minister is: … but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more … But, despite the PM's effective political death, there has been no rebirth of this government's connection with the Australian people. As the finance minister told the ABC on the weekend, not a single minister in this cabinet, none of the contenders in the 'Game of Tones', has complained, even privately, that the measures in this government's budget were unfair—not the $80 billion in cuts to schools and hospitals; not the attack on the pension; not the tax on the sick, the GP tax; not the $100,000 university degree debt sentence. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Member for Gellibrand will resume his seat. The Member for Lyons on a point of order. What is the point of order? Mr Hutchinson: It concerns parliamentary language. It is not appropriate to be describing the Prime Minister in such a way. There should be some modicum of respect shown for the Prime Minister of our country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lyons, I would suggest that would apply to a lot of speakers on both sides of the parliament. I think that is a timely intervention. This House should respect people on both sides of the House, whether they are the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else. I call the member for Gellibrand. Mr WATTS: I accord the current Prime Minister the dignity of his current office. The problem with this government is not their current leader; it is the values of their MPs and ministers—the values that have led every one of them to support the extreme, ideological agenda of this government, the values that led the Minister for Communications to tell Alan Jones, 'I support unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element of the budget. Every single one,' and the values that led the Minister for Foreign Affairs to declare, 'The whole cabinet has to take responsibility for the budget.' The Prime Minister might claim that 'good government starts today' but the unfair policies of his bad government remain unchanged. Even the one policy that the PM tried to change to save his bacon, his alleged backflip on the broken promise not to build Australia's next round of submarines in Adelaide, is less than meets the eye. Instead of the 'full and open tender' for the construction of these submarines promised to Senator Edwards and other South Australian MPs before the vote on his leadership, we are now told that the PM intends to run a 'competitive evaluation process'—a mystery process unknown to anyone in the Australian defence community. Perhaps the member for Bass can inform us in his upcoming contribution. In this respect, at least, the Prime Minister has helped to reconnect South Australian MPs, including the Member for Hindmarsh, with the Australian public. South Australian Liberal MPs now know exactly how the rest of the country feels after being lied to by the Prime Minister before he asked them for their vote. I am sure that South Australian Liberal MPs now wish they could hold their very own 'competitive evaluation process' of the Prime Minister's job. This government has not changed, and it will not change until the next federal election.