Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate Senator Pratt on being chosen by her colleagues to move the address-in-reply. Her Excellency’s address to this place yesterday highlighted the ongoing deficiencies of this ongoing Labor government—a government that failed when it had an absolute majority in the House of Representatives and is already continuing to fail without a majority. In the speech yesterday there was no mention of what the government was going to do for the thousands of Australians who still have electrified roofs and are living in danger of their houses burning down because of Labor’s bungled pink batt and insulation scheme. It has been simply airbrushed out of the pages of history. That is what Labor thought. But it is not so, because we as a coalition will continue to make the government accountable.

Similarly, there was no mention in the speech about the green loans scandal. It has been simply airbrushed out. But no way: we will put it back onto the agenda. Similarly with the waste we saw with Building the Education Revolution. On the ‘quality buildings’ that Senator Pratt referred to, I recall campaigning in the seat of Riverina during the election campaign and seeing one of these quality structures absolutely and utterly collapsed. It was an absolute debacle. But, according to Labor, this is a quality building of which they stand proud. I wonder which Labor minister is going to be opening that one!

The speech provided to Her Excellency by the government was full of spin, not substance. Indeed, at the very beginning we were told:

... the remarkable circumstance of our nation having its first female Governor-General and first female Prime Minister.

This historic conjunction should be an inspiration not only to the women and girls of our nation but to all Australians.

Great words, great inspirational stuff, but what did Ms Gillard do as soon as she left this chamber? She went to the House of Representatives with a deliberate ploy to sack the female Labor Deputy Speaker in favour of a male coalition Deputy Speaker. There you have it: absolute gender equality with the Labor Party! Why did they do this? Because it was worth a political stunt. As a result, by a deliberate decision of Ms Gillard and Labor to remove the existing female Labor Deputy Speaker from her position, the three speakers in the House of Representatives are all male. Where is Ms Kirner, where is EMILY’S List, where is the Women’s Electoral Lobby—indeed, where is Senator Kate Lundy—on this issue? They are deathly silent because, when it comes to Labor Party political stunts or looking after women in the Australian parliament, it will always be Labor Party political stunts that come first. Very early on in the Governor-General’s speech we had an indication that this Labor government is just a continuation from Mr Rudd: all spin and no substance. When the acid test is applied are they going to live up to being an inspiration to the young women and girls of this country? What they will have to point to is one very, very disappointed Ms Anna Burke, who yesterday, with virtually no notice—in fact, some would say an unfair dismissal claim could be lodged here—was dumped as Labor’s Deputy Speaker. So we had spin above substance.

Then we were told about transparency, a new paradigm, and that everything would be open for the Australian people to examine. Well, Ms Gillard has another test today. As I understand it, Graham Richardson—no friend of the coalition—has indicated that two ministers refused to be sacked by Ms Gillard. Ms Gillard says that she chooses her own ministers. But, according to Mr Richardson, one minister said to her: ‘Dare to sack me! If you do, we’ll resign from the parliament and we’ll create by-elections for you, which you might lose, and as a result deliver government to the coalition. So you’ve got no choice but to reappoint us.’ I make this claim today. The chances are that it might have been the Attorney-General and the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. But I fully accept I might be wrong.