George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

Ms Gillard, the Prime Minister, after she stabbed her predecessor, Mr Kevin Rudd, in the back on 23 June 2010, went to the 2010 election and said: 'There's one thing we stand for, and that is offshore processing'—a complete 180-degree policy turnaround—'but, nevertheless, the one thing we can promise you is we will only ever send refugees to offshore processing in a country which is a party to the UN refugee convention.' So in 2007 it had to be onshore processing, in 2010 it had to be UN refugee convention compliant offshore processing, and now what is the basis of this government's immigration policy? The basis of this government's immigration policy is to say: 'The one thing we stand firmly for is sending refugees to Malaysia,' a country which is not a party to the UN refugee convention. You, Senator Conroy, and your party have had every position under the sun on this issue and you still cannot get it right, because you are hopeless.

But all of this pales into insignificance by comparison with the grossest betrayal of all of the Australian people, and that is the carbon tax. It cannot be said often enough and we will not stop saying it, reminding people that six days before the 2010 election Ms Gillard, the Prime Minister, stared into a television camera and said in a considered, careful, modulated fashion: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' It could not have been a more solemn, more deliberate pledge. It was not an off-the-cuff remark. It was not a thought bubble. It was not a piece of flimsy rhetoric. It was a solemn pledge. And everyone in this chamber knows that, if Ms Gillard had not made that solemn undertaking to the Australian people, she would not have won the 2010 election. She did not quite win the 2010 election, of course, as we know, but she put herself in a position to secure the agreement of the Australian Greens to form a devil's alliance in order to maintain her dreadful government in office. If she had not made that statement—

Senator Di Natale interjecting—

Keep doing it, Senator Di Natale. If she had not made that commitment, she would not be in office today.

One of the most unappetising sights I think we have ever seen in Australian politics was the morning in the House of Representatives when the carbon tax went through the chamber. Labor ministers were high-fiving one another, slapping each other on the back, kissing each other and jumping around like kindergarten children in glee because they had succeeded in betraying the people. One does not usually, in a democracy, celebrate betraying the people, but that is what you did. You will never be forgotten for it and you will never be forgiven for it. No matter how far away the next election is, on the slippery slope to the next federal election, you will be reminded every waking hour that your government was elected on a lie and sustained by a betrayal.

The litany goes on. Commonly, in the pubs, clubs and supermarkets of Australia, people shake their heads in bewilderment and say, 'This must be the worst Australian government we have ever seen.' One of the reasons it is such a bad government is that it lacks integrity. It has no vision for the future. It has no policy integrity. It has no policy courage. It is a government based on fixes and the media cycle.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

And you, Senator Conroy, are one of the worst examples of it because, Senator Conroy, you are hopeless. I am sorry to say this. And you are now proudly presiding over the introduction of the greatest white elephant in Australia's public policy, the NBN.

Get out of Canberra, get out of your white cars, get out of your union meetings, get out of the political class and mix with and speak to everyday Australians, and you will see their despair. I really do not think you get it. The Australian public are not just critical of you. They are not just scathing about you. They hang their heads in despair and wonderment and say: 'How can a government make so many wrong calls? How can a government get so many key policy decisions wrong? How can a government be so shameless and flagrant in breaking solemn promises?'