David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this debate to take note of the answer given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans, to the question asked by Senator Abetz. While it might be that the winter of discontent has turned into glorious summer in the House of Representatives and a new paradigm, it is clear to all and sundry that the old paradigm continues to prevail here in the Senate. There could have been no clearer demonstration of that given than today’s question time, because of course in today’s question time we have seen the coalition concert comprised of a denial of the existence of climate change, a continuing determination to raise a fear in the community of refugees and a continued determination to rail against the stimulus package. And all of that of course is wrapped up in a farrago of nonsense about breaking promises. So let me take this issue and confront it head on. I should say that in my summary of the opposition’s performance in question time I have done Senator Fifield an injustice. The sight of watching him put on Bill Shorten’s shoes and then fall over at the first hurdle was indeed a delight.

So what we have to do here today is to take a look at what this opposition attack is all about. It is a matter of fact that the Labor Party in the election campaign articulated, and articulated strongly, its position in terms of our approach on climate change. That approach is well known to this chamber and well known to those senators opposite because on two occasions we put a bill before this parliament and on two occasions those opposite rejected it. Some of you rejected it because you do not believe climate change is real; some of you rejected it because you saw it as a great political opportunity. But there are two things that we can be certain of. The first thing we can be certain of is that those opposite continue to obstruct and wreck when the government puts forward propositions to deal with climate change. The second thing we can be certain of is that those opposite now have a perfect record with respect to their agreement making, because whether it was their agreement for a new paradigm or whether it was their agreement to implement an amended CPRS, on both occasions their word was worth nothing. Despite the Leader of the Opposition insisting that we could at the very least trust his word when it was in writing, we now know that to be false as well.

What is clear to us is that at the election the Labor Party did not secure a majority in the House of Representatives. That is a cause of celebration for those opposite, and fair cop. I would certainly prefer that we had a majority and of course they are delighted that we do not have one. But in the event, of course, we have formed a minority government; and that means there is a new practical reality on the government. That new practical reality is this: in the event that we are to successfully achieve action on climate change and in the event that we are able to get legislation through the House of Representatives and the Senate we require a consensus, at least a consensus that exists amongst a majority of members in both houses. How is it that those opposite can claim and insist that we are breaking our word because we have set up an all-party committee to deal with this issue because we are resolved to, again, rebuild a community consensus on climate change? That proposition is a nonsense and a deliberate distortion of the facts.