Senate debates
Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Bills
Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010; Second Reading
1:16 pm
Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source
It is a great pleasure to follow Senator Birmingham, who has articulated a number of the concerns around the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010. I commence my contribution to this debate with a broader issue, and that is about principle. It helps when you come to this place or to the other place—when you enter parliamentary life—if you have some guiding principles. These are the things that allow you to instantly assess the merits or otherwise of a piece of proposed legislation or to respond almost immediately to a circumstance in respect of policy, initiatives or programs that are suggested. I am talking not about the sorts of flexible ethics that a number of politicians and political parties may use in order to get themselves elected but about the core principles. It is about how you view the world and it is about the strength of framework which you bring to use your intellectual rigour to make assessments about policy.
These are the sorts of things that stop politicians from misleading, deceiving or lying to the Australian people. These are the sorts of things that would have prevented, for example, the Prime Minister saying, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' just a few days before the election and then introducing a carbon tax under a government she is leading subsequent to that election. It would be the same sort of principle that would prevent an opposition from saying, 'There are no plans for a compulsory amenities fee,' when they are in opposition and the same sort of principle that would lead a minister to say, 'There will be no compulsory amenities fee,' when they are in government.
Unfortunately, these sorts of principles that support integrity, honesty and transparency are completely missing from the government, and it is characterised in this debate. Not only did Mr Smith say that he had no plans for a compulsory amenities fee when he was in opposition in 2007 but Minister Ellis, who was perhaps not— and I will be very generous here—the most effective minister—
No comments