Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

It is my opinion, and I am putting it very strongly because this is an absolute nonsense! You are not serious. You do yourself a disservice by seeking to move this censure. It is poorly worded, it does not outline its case and it reflects a poor understanding of the role of censure motions in the parliamentary process. This is more about the Greens trying to get into the limelight in this debate because they have been noticeably absent and removed in the debate over Minister Garrett and the programs he administers. This seems to be a belated attempt to get involved.

I would be more convinced of the seriousness of the Greens on this matter if they displayed that this week. The Greens get very few questions in this place. They only get one a day, I acknowledge that, and they do not have the opportunity to ask as many questions as I am sure they would like, even though the government has facilitated above pro rata representation in question time. This week the Greens have had two opportunities to ask questions: one yesterday and one today. If they were so concerned about this matter, if they thought the government warranted censure, then Mr Deputy President you would of course assume that both questions to the government this week would have been about these matters. But they have not been. Yesterday we were asked about toxins in forests. Senator Sherry was asked about that by Senator Brown. Today Senator Ludlum asked a question about nuclear waste dumps. So these are the Greens: really serious about this issue, absolutely concerned. This is a very grave issue according to Senator Brown, but not so grave as to warrant a question in the two opportunities they have had this week. It is not as important as a question about toxins in Tasmanian forests yesterday or as important as the nuclear waste dump proposition was today.

The Greens are not serious. This is more about relevance deprivation in this debate than anything else. If they were serious they would have been pressing this argument, this case in the parliament, much more forcefully than they have. And rather than do an MPI or another debate, which probably would have been a better vehicle for them to raise whatever concerns they have, we have a censure motion to which Senator Brown spoke for 10 minutes. They are not serious; it is not a serious resolution.

Quite frankly, I would urge the Liberal Party to rethink whether or not this is a road that they ought to go down. The Liberal Party, by supporting this, are saying this is serious, that it is one of the gravest things being considered by a parliamentary party that professes to be the alternative government, and yet they have signed up to this piece of nonsense that is illogical and poorly constructed. Quite frankly, I think it has a couple of hooks in it for them. I know the Liberal Party have adopted a policy under their new leader, Mr Abbott, that they do not need policies, they just need to dirty up the government, and that they are going to oppose everything for the sake of opposition. That is what Mr Abbott stated, and this is a classic case. They have signed up to the Greens’ censure motion because they are about trying to dirty up the government. It is not because, on any analysis of the motion, they should be voting for it—and they will regret voting for it. Interestingly, it seems to me now that the Liberal Party are endorsing a call for there to be a new ministry of climate change and energy.