Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:01): That stirring address ended with a mention of ships, which of course reminds us that, during the six years of the Labor government, not one naval vessel was commissioned, not one ship. We have had to pick up that six years of neglect. The honourable member talks about the economy and he complains about the economy. Our economy is growing, as at the last quarter, at a three per cent real rate. That is higher than any of the G7 economies. It is considerably in excess of the OECD average. It is doing well in all of the circumstances, where there are real global economic headwinds. Of course, we are transitioning from a mining-construction boom led economy to one with sources of growth and job creation that are more diverse. We are transitioning much better than other similarly resource dominated economies, which of course would be Canada and Brazil. The honourable member reminds me that I have been Prime Minister for six months. He has cast his judgement, he says, on behalf the Australian people on my prime ministership. Well, I can note that consumer confidence has risen 11 per cent since mid-September, and confidence in the economic outlook has increased, with economic conditions next year estimated to be 20 per cent higher and economic conditions in the next five years 10 per cent higher than mid-September. That may be a more reliable indication of what Australian consumers and investors are thinking. The government has undertaken, in the six months since I became Prime Minister, one substantial policy commitment after another. First, we committed to an innovation and science agenda, which will bring more Australian ideas to market. It will connect our best research and developers with the business and industry contacts that they need to commercialise their investment. It will ensure that start-ups, who struggle to get access to capital— Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER: I remind the member for Jagajaga that she has been warned. Mr TURNBULL: will be able to do so, by providing real tax incentives—and there is a very marked contrast to the approach of the Labor Party, which is of course increasing capital gains tax by 50 per cent. The absolutely directly calculated inevitable consequence of that will reduce investment. Nothing is more certain. If you want people to do less of something, increase the tax. That is why the Labor Party and others advocate an increase in tax on tobacco, because they want people to smoke less. If you increase the tax on investment, you will have less investment—that is precisely what they have sought to do. We brought out the defence white paper, the first fully costed white paper since 2000. It increases defence funding by $30 billion over the next 10 years. It delivers on our election commitment to return defence spending to two per cent of GDP. What is most important about the defence white paper is that it is a statement about investment and it is a statement about innovation, and it is determined to ensure that, so far as possible, every dollar we spend on Australia's defence capabilities is invested here in Australian technology, in Australian industries, creating Australian jobs. That is our focus. We have gone to the length of establishing a defence industry collaboration centre, headquartered in Adelaide, as honourable members are aware, whose job it is to make sure that we have better connections and engagement, particularly with small businesses, which often struggle to get connected, to get engaged with the giant of the Australian defence forces. Against the Labor Party's opposition, we secured passage of the legislation, finally—Labor crumbled at the last minute—to ensure that the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement could become operative. That is an enormous achievement, and it was opposed, as we know, root and branch by the Labor Party and the union movement. For many years, perhaps not everyone—a few vested interests have opposed it—but the vast majority of people understanding the industry have said that the media ownership laws were way out of date, that they predated the internet, that they needed reform. Previous Labor governments—previous coalition governments, to be fair—have not addressed that. We have taken that on. We are reforming the media ownership laws to bring them into the 21st century. In the Senate today, we are debating some of the most important reforms to this parliament. This is the most important institution in the Australian democracy, and everybody on the other side was united not so long ago— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney has been warned. The member for Sydney will leave if she continues to interject. Mr TURNBULL: in saying that the Senate voting system was absolutely undemocratic because it enabled the gaining of group voting tickets to deliver perverse outcomes or undemocratic outcomes, where people who had received a tiny number of primary votes appeared, through elaborate use of preference swapping, to be elected as senators. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters said that that had to go, that it was undemocratic. There was wide community support for that. The member for Brand, who is not in the chamber at the moment, was perhaps the most eloquent advocate of that reform. Then, at the last minute, when my government took that reform out of the too-hard basket and sought to implement it, sought to legislate it, what did Labor do? Labor did the backflip. Talk about dysfunction and chaos. Labor were the greatest advocates of it and then they became the greatest opponents. Now, of course, it is progressing through the Senate, but that is a vital reform to the single most important institution in our country. For years there has been a diminution, a decline, in confidence in the way that consumer and competition laws operate. Small business, in particular, has felt that section 46, the misuse of market power provision, has failed. There have been many attempts, as honourable members know, to patch it up, after one disappointing court case after another. The clear choice was, as set out by Professor Harper in his review, to move to an approach that sought to protect the competitive process—competition as a whole—and sought to do so by focusing on the effects of conduct by people with substantial market power. That, of course, is consistent with the approach that is taken to protecting competition in Europe and, indeed, in the United States. Now, of course, the Labor Party—no friend to small business—absolutely opposed any reform of that kind. They said, 'No, section 46 should stay in exactly the same form as it is.' We have taken that hard problem out of the too-hard basket. We have consulted carefully and considered it carefully and we have announced our decision. That is governing. That is making hard decisions. Each of those three cases that I just mentioned—Senate reform, media law reform and section 46—are long-overdue reforms which the Labor Party would not engage with. They did not have the courage, the conviction or the policy commitment to do anything about it, and we have, on all those three fronts. That, together with our other measures, is supporting strong economic growth. The honourable member talks about tax. I have said more than enough today—I do not think I need to repeat it—about the opposition's negative gearing policy. But let me remind honourable members of this: one of the most important elements in the tax system is to ensure that taxpayers pay their tax and, above all, to ensure that multinational corporations pay their tax, because they have access to advice and structures which smaller companies—and, of course, citizens—in Australia do not have. When the Treasurer brought forward the multinational tax avoidance bill—a bill that had the consequence of dramatically shrinking the ability of multinationals to dodge tax—it was in line with the OECD's base erosion and profit shifting agenda, so it was entirely coordinated with that of the other developed economies in the OECD. Where did Labor stand on that? What was their policy? They voted against it. The Treasurer was able to negotiate the support of the Greens in the Senate to ensure that it was carried. So the Greens stood up for holding multinational taxpayers to account and the Labor Party wanted to let them off the hook. The Labor Party's hypocrisy on tax is outrageous. Their only tax proposals to date have been to let multinationals off the hook and to slug individuals who want to take a risk, want to invest and want to have a go. Labor stand there, blocking the path to entrepreneurship. (Time expired)