Senator BOYCE (Queensland) (16:28): I hate to disappoint Senator Pratt, but I would like to point out that, in fact, our policies and costings are not going to be released so that they can be a template for this government to try to worm its way out of the image it has as being wasteful, mismanaging and profligate. I am afraid there is no opportunity for you to fix your terrible mismanagement reputation on the back of our policies. It was late last year when the current Prime Minister caused a great deal of derision amongst the Australian public by her wonderful line to the Labor Party conference saying, 'We are us.' The general reaction I have had is that she actually meant to say, 'We are useless.' That would have been quite true. They are useless, they are wasteful, they mismanage, they are profligate. If you look at Labor's record to date—and I would like to thank Senator Mason and others for the information he has given us—not only have they never, ever left a surplus in the bank when they have been thrown out of office but also they have not handed down a surplus since they won office in 2007. They have accumulated $167 billion of budget deficits in less than five years. It will take the coalition government, when we are re-elected, up to a decade once again to pay off their debt. Let us look, though, at what this wasteful and mismanaging profligate government actually means for people in the streets. When it undertook the review of the Fair Work Act, it forgot to include productivity in the terms of reference. It is no wonder it forgot. Every retail outlet and manufacturer in Australia could tell the government that productivity was the way forward. It was interesting that Senator Pratt used a number of social welfare policies as examples of what the government has done. Yes, social welfare policies are necessary and good, but hope, reward and opportunity do not come out of government handouts; they come out of government policies that give people in manufacturing, industry and small business the chance to develop their own businesses. That is where you get genuine hope, reward and opportunity—from the innovation, the entrepreneurialism of Australians—and not from government handouts. Of course, the troglodytes on the other side did not include productivity in their terms of reference for the Fair Work review. We discovered one of the reasons in an academic survey that has recently been released that shows that the success rate for employees undertaking unfair dismissal claims against Labor's Fair Work Act is running at 51 per cent. More than half of the unfair dismissal cases succeed. That is more than 17,000 a year. The troglodytes on the other side of the house would perhaps like to suggest that this means that small business have been lousy employers. Senator Ludwig: Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order in that Senator Boyce did reflect upon members in the other chamber quite adversely. I am not going to use the phrase that she did, but I ask you to look at the word and ask for it to be withdrawn. Senator Brandis: Madam Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: with respect, you should rule against that point of order for this reason: it appears to be an attempt to invoke standing order 193. Subrule (3) says: A senator shall not use offensive words against either House of Parliament— the senator was not using offensive words against the House of Representatives— or of a House of a state or territory parliament— which obviously is inapplicable here— or any member of such House … Then it goes on to refer to other things as well. That standing order, as I am sure the Clerk will advise you, has always been understood to prohibit reflections on individual named or identifiable members of the House of Representatives or of other parliaments. If, for example, I were to say the Australian Labor Party is full of scoundrels that would not be unparliamentary, but if I were to say a particular Labor member of the House of Representatives was a scoundrel that would be. Senator Boyce was referring in general categories to members of the House of Representatives in aggregate, not identifiable members of the House of Representatives. Therefore, the standing order does not apply to her. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fisher ): Thank you, Senator Brandis. I am advised by the Clerk that the standing order is not as clear as Senator Brandis would have it be. That said, it is able to be interpreted as explained by Senator Brandis. Senator Boyce, perhaps you would care to reflect on your language and continue. Senator BOYCE: I will not use that particular term again, although it does not change my view that members on the other side in both houses of the parliament do not have a clear view of how to build a proper and productive economy. I will continue to suggest that they certainly are not living in the real world or in the real commercial world, that they are behind the times in understanding what drivers are needed to make the Australian economy strong and to make Australian businesses, services and industry strong. They just do not get it. I was talking about the lack of concern by this government to productivity and the massive increase in the number of successful unfair dismissal claims by employees since this government put its Fair Work Act through. As I said, some of the less sophisticated people on the other side of the House might want to suggest that this is simply because small business unfairly dismisses staff at a great rate of knots. I am sorry, but Senator Pratt cannot have it both ways. She cannot have a wonderful employment rate and suggest that people are being unfairly dismissed all the time by their employers. What is happening is that a minority of employees are finding a little treasure trove that takes us back to the sorts of institutionalised misbehaviours that went on before the Howard-Costello government came to office, when employers often paid do-not-come-back money to employees simply to save themselves the cost and the time involved in going to court. There is an example in today's Financial Review of a Wagga Wagga businessman, Martyn Tapfield, who has had two cases taken out by employees against him—both of which he has won. But he points out that, with the time and the stress involved, if it happens again he is likely to close his business. How productive is that for Australia! How much would anyone on the other side of the house know or care about that sort of waste, mismanagement and profligacy? I would like to turn to one of the most unproductive aspects of this government's behaviour over the last 4½ years—in tandem with that of the Bligh Labor government in Queensland, which has managed to end up with a downgrade on its credit rating despite record earnings from royalties from the mining industry. In terms of waste, mismanagement and profligacy the two of them deserve to be in the same bucket. Let us look at the Bruce Highway, which is the main highway running through Queensland—the main source of productive distribution of products within Queensland—and what has happened to it as a result of the many floods and cyclones we have had recently. If it were a one-in-100-year flood or cyclone, fine; you would expect problems with the highway. But that is not how it is in Queensland with the Bruce Highway. Earlier this month, the Bruce Highway was cut in three places south of Gympie. For those who do not understand Queensland geography, this is close to the major heartland of distribution throughout Queensland. From south-east Queensland to Townsville and through Gympie is one of the major traffic areas in Queensland for distributing items of transport. I was driving from Cairns to Innisfail earlier this year. It had not rained. In fact, people were pleased that it had not rained and that a cyclone was not on the cards. But there were the flashing signs on the Bruce Highway telling you where the closures were going to be—where the road, the national highway between Brisbane and Cairns, was going to be down to a single lane. If you travelled it three or four months after the cyclones— Senator Faulkner: They should have been on the Hume Highway last night, like I was. At Marulan there was an 18-kilometre traffic jam. Senator BOYCE: I will take that interjection. An 18-kilometre traffic jam might be preferable to 20 or 30 road closures with the highway being reduced to a single lane, which increased the time for a truck to travel from Brisbane to Cairns by more than 30 per cent. This is not just a one-off problem; this is an ongoing problem. Once again, this government just does not get what it is that will create hope, reward and opportunity.