Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to contribute to the debate on the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2009 [No. 2] and the related bill. The history of politics in Australia tells us many things. One of the things that it tells us is that a government will only remain in office as long as it faithfully retains the public’s trust and confidence. At times, however, and rather unfortunately, we have a government that attempts to manipulate the trust and confidence of the people of Australia by making very specific promises to them in the run-up to an election while, at the same time, having a secret political agenda whereby it never has any intention of actually delivering on those promises. The Rudd government was very big on making promises in the run-up to the 2007 election—and it never had any intention of delivering on those promises. The Rudd government, many times over now, has clearly shown to the people of Australia that, when making a pre-election commitment, it will do anything, it will say anything and it will promise anything, but it has absolutely no intention of ever carrying out those policy commitments.

We on this side of this chamber have often described the way that the Labor Party manipulates the voting public of Australia as ‘spin over substance’. We see that spin every single day in his chamber as ministers stand up and provide sham or non-answers to questions related directly to their portfolios, and then we go home and we see the spin again on the TV at night as ministers and Mr Rudd make their shallow political excuses. Senator Conroy, in his portfolio, is a direct example of someone who makes very shallow political excuses in relation to Labor’s repeated failures to carry out their policy commitments.

It is also accepted that a political party may make a promise that it genuinely believes will be in the national interest. It makes that promise based on the best advice that it is given at the time, and then the political party may find out later that due to circumstances that are so radically changed it would actually be irresponsible to put that promise into effect. The global financial crisis was not such an excuse. I think it is also fair to say, and indeed fair to acknowledge, that in the run-up to an election, in the heat of an election battle, a future prime minister, a party leader, a minister or a shadow minister may overreact in a given situation and, in promising a remedy to an issue, may actually overreach themselves and their good intentions. However, there is a clear difference between overreaching or overreacting as part of election fervour and blatant lying by a political party as part of its party platform. In the case of Labor the record is very, very clear. The Labor Party gave a commitment to the people of Australia that it would not change the existing private health rebate system should it be elected into office. That is the promise that Mr Rudd made to the people of Australia. The next election will be all about trust and confidence, and Mr Rudd, by his repeated actions, has destroyed the trust and confidence that the Australian people had in his government.

Before I deal with the specific issues surrounding this legislation, I would like to just remind the Senate of some other promises that Mr Rudd made in the lead-up to the election that yet again he never had any intention of delivering on. Perhaps the most famous one was when the now Prime Minister uttered the words: ‘I am an economic conservative, and as an economic conservative I believe in budget surpluses.’ Mr Rudd told the people of Australia that he was an economic conservative, because he had worked out that was the faith and the confidence that the people of Australia had put in former Prime Minister John Howard. There was a true economic conservative. Mr Rudd realised that, if he could hang off the shirt tails of Mr Howard, if he could portray himself as being an economic conservative, that would do well in the lead-up to the election. So the voters, based on the promises made by Mr Rudd, based on the words that were uttered by him, placed that faith in him. What we now see, though, is that, with the record debt levels that this country is in, Mr Rudd would have trouble even spelling the word ‘surplus’ let alone delivering one as part of a budget to the people of Australia.

Mr Rudd also told the people of Australia that he would keep our borders safe. Who can remember these famous words on 15 August 2007 by Arch Bevis, the then homeland security spokesman for Labor? He made this promise to the Australian people: ‘Labor places the highest priority on national security, both defence and homeland security.’ I see Senator Humphries, our now shadow parliamentary secretary, here smiling. Yes, you are right, Senator Humphries: that was once again merely a promise that they never had any intention of delivering on. What are we up to now? Eighty-one, 82, it could be 83—I have not checked the news in the last hour—but I understand there were 82 boats at the last count since the Labor Party relaxed the coalition’s strong border protection policy in 2008.