David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion to take note of answer relating to carbon pricing. It has been absolutely fascinating today to hear the government members trying to justify and defend the indefensible. There is absolutely no doubt that prior to the election the Prime Minister made ironclad guarantees that no government of which she was the leader would introduce a carbon tax. Within three weeks of the election we saw her backing away from that, and last week we saw her blatantly breaching that undertaking she gave, hand on heart, to the Australian people.

Senator O’Brien made a few comments. In his attempt to defend the indefensible he raised some historic facts that he said were somehow a parallel to what the Prime Minister is currently doing. He referred to former Prime Minister John Howard’s ‘never, ever’ statement about the GST. He said that meant not this election, nor the one after that, nor even the one after that. He said that a lie is a lie is a lie, from my recollection. The reality is that no-one on this side has suggested that things do not change. At times we do need to revise the policy positions, move on and look at how they need to be updated or even completely changed, depending on changes in circumstances. That is what John Howard did. He realised that there was a need to move from the position he was in. What he did not do was deceive the Australian people when that position changed. He went back to them and asked for a mandate to do something completely different to what he earlier said he was going to do. He would not have done it unless he had the people’s mandate. We have not seen anything like that from the Prime Minister on this particular issue. Mr Abbott has asked her to take it to the people and seek a mandate, but there is no indication whatsoever that she will. The reality is that in all likelihood she was successful in August of last year because of the fact that she, hand on heart, stood in front of the Australian people and said, ‘We will not introduce a carbon tax.’

Senator O’Brien also raised the issue of Abbott and health funding. The fact is that the health agreement he was referring to was put in place under a different minister, Senator Patterson. When Abbott, facing a need to address funding issues, chose to increase real funding in health by something like $7 billion instead of the increase of $8 billion that had been agreed with Senator Patterson, it was not a backflip on his position; it was a change in the overall circumstances, which led to a need to make some changes. Instead of providing an additional $8 billion, he provided an additional $7 billion. So there was certainly no reduction in funding.

Moving on to the actual issue at hand, the answers to the questions: as I said, prior to the election the Labor Party, and more particularly the Prime Minister, repeatedly pledged that they would oppose a carbon tax. A carbon tax would not be introduced under Prime Minister Julia Gillard. This was an issue in the days leading up to the 2010 election. Make no mistake. It is not drawing a long bow to say that there were people who made their decision on how to vote on election day of 2010 based on the Prime Minister’s ironclad guarantee that she would not introduce a carbon tax. We have heard it many times today but I think it is worth hearing again: on the Friday before the election, the Prime Minister stated categorically, ‘I rule out a carbon tax.’ She also claimed on Channel 10: ‘There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.’ It was not just the Prime Minister making those statements. The Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, said: ‘What we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax.’ Was it really hysterical? Quite clearly not, given that we found out last week that not only are they moving towards a carbon tax but they are going to try to deliver one.

Almost immediately after the election the Prime Minister broke the guarantee that she and other members of her cabinet had provided to the Australian people. Do not believe her when she says that it was for some higher cause—to save the planet or some similar aim. Her comment that it was because of the changing dynamics in the parliament is much closer to the truth—that is, she was only too happy to see that election promise broken in order to hold on to power. That is the real reason she has broken this promise: so that Labor can hang on to control, hang on to power and hang on to the Treasury bench. She did so by seeking to curry favour from the Independents and, more importantly, the Greens. It is a grubby but certain reality that, once again, Labor is more interested in looking after itself than the interests of the nation.