Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is only Thursday, and groundhog day continues with this obsession on the other side of what is happening in our caucus. We had questions put to Minister Arbib from Senator Brandis about his desire to move on. Senator Arbib has legitimate reasons: he is a family man. I have seen his two young daughters and they are legitimate concerns and legitimate reasons for him to consider his resignation.

Without casting aspersions on the other side, let us have a close look at what happens in their caucus room. Just yesterday—as you know, Deputy President Parry, because you were there—they were crying over spilt milk, or was it a glass of cheap milk? No doubt there were other members who leapt to the defence of the particular senator who was under attack by those from other factions when their group—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Why don't you pop your Alzheimer's pills, Senator Macdonald? I am not directing that at you; I do not think you take any pills. You seem a fit and healthy senator.

Then it was Senator Boyce's turn. She wanted to talk about the Rolls-Royce parental leave scheme that Mr Tony Abbott has proposed that will harm big businesses and jobs. There is no surprise in that, about harming jobs, because we know their record when it comes to jobs. When we on this side implemented the national stimulus package, we protected jobs in our communities. Up to 200,000 jobs were protected from the global financial crisis. And what did those opposite want to do? They wanted to oppose it, and they did oppose it in this chamber and in the other place to stop people being employed, to stop people having opportunities to sustain their employment out in the community. That is just a small snapshot of what happens in the opposition caucus: spilt milk and Alzheimer's pills. Put them together and what sort of concoction will you get? Who knows.

Let us talk about some of the other questions that were put to senators on this side in question time today, particularly on climate change. Once again we heard the climate change coalition sceptics complaining about what we are doing for the environment. If I reflect back a couple of years ago, some senators who are here—Senator Cameron and Senator Pratt—were on a climate change inquiry with me. We heard cold, hard facts and evidence from the likes of the CSIRO, from NASA and from over 1,000 top scientists globally about why we need to act on climate change. Senator Cameron was well informed, along with the rest of us, including the now Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, Senator David Feeney, about why we need to act on climate change. Yet those opposite, the climate sceptics, buried their heads in the sand, like they always do, and denied it. What does Mr Abbott say about climate change? Doesn't he call it 'absolute crap'? It is fitting to use that sort of language, given the language that was used in the coalition's caucus yesterday, with some senator being called an 'f-wit'. This is the type of opposition that wants to gain government at some stage in the future. Let us hope that never occurs, because that is their style.

When it comes to the opposition's style, we know their position on policy and legislation in this place. It is a vacuum of empty cupboards. There is one word they are consistent with, though, and that is no: 'No, no, no'. They are consistently putting that position forward to present their case on how they wish to look after our great nation. But we are going to look after our nation. This government will make sure that at least nine out of 10 citizens will be assisted. Households will have permanent assistance as a result of pension rises of $338 a year and singles up to $510 a year. And that will be indexed as well.

I want to spend a little bit of time on the issue of what the coalition is going to do, conversely. They want to take back $1,300 a year from families as a result of what their policy will provide. In doing that, they will have their $70 billion black hole and they are going to have to run into severe deficit for a number of years. Where are they going to get that money from? Are they going to get it from pensioners? Are they going to rip it out of other areas where people need it the most? Are they going to rip it away from single mums and single householders that need that money the most? Surely that is the position they will come to. (Time expired)