Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

What we have today on the part of the Liberal Party is something very straightforward and very simple—two propositions: the absolute failure to stand up for the interests of Australian motorists and, secondly, the absolute capitulation of the Liberal Party to the interests of big oil. This is what it is all about. For 12 years in office, those opposite had an opportunity to stand up for the interests of Australian motorists. They had an opportunity to stand up against the interests of big oil. They had an opportunity to do something about the structure of the Australian petroleum industry. They had an opportunity to deliver a decent outcome for Australian motorists, and they have failed to do so—after 12 years. Secondly, in the course of the last six months what they have concluded is that all problems associated with oil and petrol prices in this country have uniquely arisen as a result of the last six months that we have been in office, as opposed to the 12 years they were in office.

The reality is that we are dealing, right across the world, with governments which are challenged with the problem of global oil prices. Global oil prices have risen, and risen extensively. Every government in the world is trying to deal right now with the flow-through consequences to their consumers. This is a massive challenge. We have had oil price riots in Indonesia. We have also had protests throughout the United Kingdom. We have had statements in Canada about the impact it has had on Canadian motorists. This is a factor which is occurring right across the world and, therefore, we are faced with very simple alternatives: do you deal with this responsibly and intelligently in a long-term fashion, or do you simply, in your first budget reply, reach up to the old cookie jar and say, ‘Here is a bucket of money we can pull down to buy a few cheap votes’? That is exactly what those opposite have sought to do. When you look across the country and try to find any substantive support for those opposite in their proposal through the budget reply, it is very difficult to find.

The core challenge that we have in this debate is whether you are going to take a decision on behalf of the interests of motorists or whether you are going to tap the mat and simply concede the ground to the interests of big oil. What we have had on the part of those opposite is something pretty clear. Their argument, prima facie, in this censure motion is this: every minister in the government should simply blindly follow every piece of departmental advice that they get. That is the proposition. That is the core proposition being advanced. The model of Westminster which those opposite are advancing is this: whenever a public servant comes up to you with a piece of advice, you are duty bound to implement that—lock, stock and barrel. That is the view which those opposite have. In other words, as members of the executive, as ministers of the cabinet and as members of the government, your job is simply to be here as puppets on a string—with a public servant here and, in the case of their most recent response to our policy, the big oil companies over there, pulling the other strings. In other words, there is no independent capacity for making a decision. We actually take a different view. In the Westminster model, when departments put forward, as they should, their own comments and views in terms of coordination comments, that is helpful to inform the overall public policy debate. But are those opposite who have previously been ministers or cabinet ministers saying to me that they have always responded, to the letter, to every piece of advice in the coordination comments and every piece of advice that they have received from their department?

See this speech in context