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

I rise to respond to the remarks that have been made by those opposite on this suspension motion. What we have had from those opposite, and particularly from the Leader of the Opposition, is ‘full gospel’ Tony Abbott in full flight—or was it? He said that this is a debate about trust. Let us go back to a core principle that has been put on the public record by the Leader of the Opposition only recently in an interview conducted on The 7.30 Report. He said, ‘Unless I put my remarks in writing, these should not be regarded as considered remarks and should therefore not be believed.’ If you want, therefore, a full gospel truth version from Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, he said—and these are his own words—‘to get it in writing’.

That means that three-quarters of everything that he has said since he became Leader of the Opposition should as a matter of discipline and process be disregarded—absolutely disregarded. What, therefore, is his ultimate position on climate change? What is his position on the economy? What is his position on housing and homelessness? What are his positions across the whole gamut of things that he has debated in the lead-up to the debate in this parliament today? None of us know, because ‘full gospel’ Tony has said, ‘It is only if I, the Leader of the Opposition, put something in writing that you should believe it.’

Those opposite have come to the despatch box and said that this is a debate about truth, this is a debate about trust and this is a debate about reliability. I say to those opposite that they should look very carefully at the words used by the Leader of the Opposition in that seminal interview that he had on Kerry O’Brien’s show. They should look carefully at everything that is said between now and the next election. The bottom line is what the Leader of the Opposition said, which is this: ‘No-one should trust a single thing I say.’ He said that the only thing that people could trust were things that he wrote down and considered.

We can go through Battlelines and look at those things which the Leader of the Opposition wrote down and considered. Look, for example, at the provisions within Battlelines on the taxation treatment of superannuation. In Battlelinessomething which he wrote down and which is his considered view of the world—he said that the role of taxation concessions for superannuation was, frankly, not valid, not to be supported and not relevant. Is that therefore a considered doctrine, a considered manifesto and a considered document presenting what the Leader of the Opposition believes? Can I apply the Kerry O’Brien question to this? Is this the full gospel truth? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition stands for or has that been rendered redundant as well?

‘Full gospel’ Tony Abbott has been on copious display in the six months that he has occupied the position of Leader of the Opposition, as one undertaking after another has simply gotten knocked over in the breeze. As the Minister for Finance and Deregulation documented recently as he went through the various commitments made by the Leader of the Opposition, one after the other has fallen down in the breeze as he was forced to have an encounter with reality.

This suspension motion is essentially about two things, tax reform and a public advertising campaign concerning tax reform. The ultimate proposition of those opposite is this: somehow, there was something secretive about what the government has done. If it was secretive, why was it in the budget? Why was the full amount to be dedicated to this campaign outlined in the budget papers? The precise amount was articulated in the budget papers. Why was this therefore not a matter for public debate in budget week? We were here for three days in budget week: Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Last week we were here, as well on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Not a single question was asked. I am not sure what, if anything, was asked in estimates. I ask the Leader of the Opposition this: if this was such a dreadful secret, why was it that in the space of those two sitting weeks not a single question was raised—not one?

I suggest that the reason why this question has been raised today is that those opposite are day by day hauling up the white flag on the actual prosecution of the tax reform debate. If you look at question time last week, by the time we got to Thursday they were back to old faithful, the issue of asylum seekers. They decided to go down that road instead. We notice that the member for Wentworth has had a few things to say about that on the way through. Suddenly, having exited the tax policy debate at the end of last week, they decided to re-enter it today. But they have not really re-entered the tax policy debate. They are instead trying to have a debate about the transparency of the government’s budget allocation for a public advertising campaign to underpin this reform for the future.

Those opposite have hauled up the white flag on the issue of why we need a profits based tax as opposed to a tax which is based on production. They have entirely absented the debate because, uniquely, the Leader of the Opposition has stood in this place and said that mining companies are paying too much. That is his policy: mining companies are paying too much. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he is absolutely wrong. They are not paying too much. Not a single person in this chamber other than him believes that mining companies are paying too much. It seems that so much have you become beholden to the likes of Clive Palmer of the LNP that you are now prepared to mouth anything that is put to you, such as that the mining companies are paying too much.

We on this side of the House stand for a fundamentally different principle of economic reform. That principle of economic reform is as follows: if you bring about a better taxation regime for the mining industry you can then engineer decent tax reforms for the entire Australian economy. That is what we stand for. We stand for better super for working families; you stand for ripping it away from working families. We on this side of the House stand for tax cuts for small business; you stand for taking away those tax cuts from small business. We stand for bringing down the company rate by two percentage points; you stand for raising it two percentage points. We stand for funding the future of this country’s infrastructure needs; you stand for blaming the states and territories on the assumption that money grows on trees and infrastructure can be funded elsewhere.

The policy priorities of the Leader of the Opposition in this debate are clear. He has those priorities because of one core reason: those opposite have effectively been bought by representatives of various elements of the mining industry. We see no evidence of independent research. We see no evidence of independent policy analysis. What we see instead is a Leader of the Opposition who simply reflects the interests of certain elements of the mining industry.

We go to their new favourite pin-up boy, Clive Palmer, of the Liberal National Party, who on various occasions has accused the Treasurer of being a communist and me a socialist. I have been called many things in the Labor Party, but never a socialist! I say to those opposite: Clive Palmer, the pin-up boy of the Liberal National Party, when asked the core question ‘Why are you engaged in this debate,’ goes out there as bold as brass and says, ‘Because I’m a member of the Liberal National Party.’ There is no independence of voice there whatsoever. We looked at the records for electoral donations. Those opposite received in the state of Queensland something approaching $1 million in campaign donations from an individual, Clive Palmer, whose position on mining tax they now mouth in this place. Talk about public policy for purchase! That is what has happened in this debate.

I notice also Clive Palmer, the pin-up boy of the mining industry—or parts of the mining industry—and the pin-up boy also of the Liberal National Party, does have a sense of balance: nearly $1 million to the LNP in campaign donations, $25,000 to the WA branch of the ALP. That is what I call his definition of balance. What we have seen in this place is the Liberal National Party in Queensland, through the agency of Clive Palmer, dictating a policy position to those opposite.

The Leader of the Opposition has sought to be particularly righteous on the question of public advertising. Mr Speaker, I have gone through in question time already what they have done in relation to Work Choices and what they have done in funding the GST campaign. Do we all remember ‘rock solid, ironclad’ guarantee? We remember that one on the Medicare safety net. Who authorised that $36 million campaign prior to the 2004 election, guaranteeing the Australian people that they would of course obtain higher Medicare rebates? The Leader of the Opposition. He was challenged on it before the election, he went ahead and advertised, at a $30 million-plus expense to the Australia taxpayer, and then in a train wreck with reality, subsequent to that election, walked away from that rock solid, ironclad guarantee. The reason he did that, notwithstanding the fact it cost the taxpayer $36 million? I presume it was because the journalist in question never got it in writing. It was not gospel Tony; it was the Tony in whom this House has no trust! (Time expired)

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Abbott’s) be agreed to.

See this speech in context