Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to speak on the motion on the Australian Greens policy costings that was moved by the member for Mayo. This is a motion that has both exposed hypocrisy and demonstrated contortions. It has exposed hypocrisy from the member for Melbourne and contortions from those opposite, who oscillate between their public dichotomy of hating the Greens and loving the Greens and between attacking the Greens and being in coalition with the Greens, while having to rely on the Greens to form government.

Mr Lyons interjecting—

I say at the outset, in anticipation of mindless interjections from the mindless interjector opposite, who is on mindless interjection duty, that the more you interject the more you will confirm your complete embarrassment and lack of anything sensible to say on this issue.

The previous speaker, the member for Fraser, can talk. He can talk a lot. You would agree with me, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Symon. He can talk on any subject, but the fact that the one thing even he could not bring himself to do in 10 minutes was defend the fact that the Greens and the Labor Party are concealing the Greens policies says it all. He spoke about Bert Kelly, he spoke about Queensland, he spoke about everything under the sun. I thought he would read the whole book at one point. He would prefer to read that than defend the concealment that he would be embarrassed by and that his government is a party to.

This is the show-me-the-money motion. One cannot help but think about that immortal line from that great film Jerry Maguire in relation to this motion. I include you among those who watch great films, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I do not include the member for Fraser because he might not know what I am talking about. The Australian people should be shown the money of the Greens policy costings.

As was outlined in great detail by the member for Mayo, the genesis of this motion is in a recent Treasury decision to reject an FOI request for documents that would provide a window into what the Greens policies would cost the Australian taxpayer. As the member for Mayo and the member for North Sydney pointed out, it was claimed by Treasury that to release the documents 'would allow a direct inference to be drawn about subsequent cabinet deliberations', because 'they contained "material prepared to inform deliberations of government"'. Those quotes say it all. At first blush it is hard to believe that we are talking about the cabinet, of which the Greens are not officially members, but that justification for rejecting the FOI request says it all. The rationale used by Treasury bells the cat that is the relationship at a policy level and confirms who is wagging the dog on this issue.

The response by the Greens to the Treasury decision has been quite bizarre in its own right. In a statement to the Australian, the leader of the Greens, Senator Christine Milne, expressed her wholehearted support for the Treasury's decision to keep the party's costing under wraps. As the member for Mayo and the member for North Sydney pointed out, this is the party that is part of the new paradigm that was going to let the sunlight in. It was all for transparency. But when it comes to its own transparency—surprise, surprise—it has a different view. Earlier this year, Senator Milne cited a lack of transparency as the source of her misgivings about the proposed trans-Pacific partnership free trade agreement. But there is no misgiving when it comes to the Greens' own policies. In fact, the member for Melbourne issued a clarion call to mandate increased accountability on private sector executive remuneration, but there is no accountability when it comes to their policies. Perhaps most remarkably, Greens Senator Rhiannon also weighed in in favour of new FOI laws. But the piece de resistance is of course the Australian Greens-Labor Party agreement, which stated among its principles—it is principle No. 2.1(a)—that of 'greater transparency and accountable government'. (Time expired)

See this speech in context