David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We would certainly name you, Senator Bernardi. We watched aghast at the end of last year as coalition senators not only sought to obstruct the government but sought to obstruct their very own leader and shadow cabinet. They sought to obstruct the resolutions of their very own caucus. So this is not a group of senators who know any bounds. This is not a group of senators who will accept convention, but rather it is a group of senators who not only seek to obstruct the policies of this government and the people of Australia but indeed will do all they can to sabotage the policies of their own party when it suits them.

The slide from scrutiny to sabotage is one they seem to engage in very quickly indeed. I noticed in Senator Abetz’s remarks at the start of this debate that, while his speech began talking about scrutiny and the proper role of this Senate, it very quickly and seamlessly moved to the justification for sheer obstructionism. Senator Brandis’s earlier enthusiasm for debating the question of a double dissolution election points to the fact that those opposite are interested in crises and the failure of our Constitution rather than making this place work as it was originally conceived to do so. They have prevented Australia putting in place a policy to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. That is simply a matter of fact. They have prevented us from ending a situation in which Australians on low and middle incomes subsidise the private health insurance of millionaires. They did their best to prevent us passing our economic stimulus packages, measures which clearly can now be demonstrated to have saved this country from recession and saved hundreds of thousands of Australians from the spectre of unemployment.

I hate to think what the Australian economy would look like today if those opposite had had their way and our stimulus legislation had been rejected by the Senate in February last year, as they fought so persistently for. Fortunately for Australia, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding saw their way clear, finally, to vote for our stimulus legislation. But that does not let the Liberal and National parties off the hook. They voted against the legislation at every stage and they must take responsibility for their reckless obstructionism at that time. As every responsible economist says, as every senior figure in Australian business knows and as every international economic organisation reports, if the Liberal and National parties had had their way, this country would now be deep in a recession, as is most of the developed world. We would be in the second year of the Abbott-Hockey recession. We would have 10 per cent unemployment, or even worse. We would have tens of thousands of small business failures. We would have Australian farmers forced off their land, Australian investors losing their money. We would have a collapse in Australian government finances as tax revenues plunged and unemployment benefit payments soared. That is what the behaviour of the Liberal and National parties in this Senate would have inflicted on Australia. That would have been the fruit of your obstructionism.

That is an example of unsuccessful opposition obstructionism. Australia was rescued from the consequences of the reckless folly of those opposite thanks to the resolve of Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding, eventually, to support our stimulus legislation. Unfortunately, there are many examples of successful obstructionism by the Liberal and National parties in the Senate. Let me list some of the bills, this list of shame, that those opposite have successfully blocked in the Senate—demonstrable proof of their continuing resolve to obstruct the work of this government in this place: A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Customs) Amendment Bill 2008, the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008, the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008, the Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009, the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008, the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy Surcharge Thresholds) Bill 2008 and the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2009. This is only a small sample, but it serves as testament to the persistent opportunism and obstructionism of the Liberal and National parties in the Senate.

I have not mentioned, of course, the most spectacular of irresponsible Senate obstructionism that we have seen in the life of this parliament. That was the repeated rejection of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills—rejected in July and then again in December 2009. It is true, of course, that the Greens, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding also opposed those bills, which is why they were ultimately defeated. But there is a major difference between the votes of those senators and the votes of the opposition. The Greens, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding voted in accordance with their longstanding and professed views on the subject matter of the bills—the issue of climate change, action on climate change and what to do about it. Senator Fielding does not believe in climate change at all. The Greens and Senator Xenophon think we should have brought in some other kind of bill. I think they are mistaken, but I respect the consistency of their positions. But none of that applies to those opposite. The Liberal and National parties behaved with a complete lack of integrity. They actually voted in opposition to their own party policy and their own stated views.

Mr Turnbull, as Minister for Environment and Water Resources, prior to the last election said he would bring in an emissions trading scheme. They went to the 2007 election pledged to bring in an ETS. Dr Nelson and Mr Turnbull, as successive opposition leaders, stood by that policy and the senators opposite were all pledged to the policy arising out of that election. Last year, Mr Turnbull and Mr Macfarlane negotiated in good faith with Senator Wong representing the government. They came to an agreement on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme which was acceptable to both sides and which was ratified by cabinet, the Labor party room, the coalition shadow cabinet and the coalition party room.