Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We know that the Australian Labor Party's ongoing attacks on Minister Colbeck are designed for one purpose and one purpose only—that is, to distract attention from the deaths and disaster in aged care in one state, Victoria. If Senator Colbeck is to be held responsible for aged care Australia-wide, why is it that we have only had these COVID outbreaks in the state of Victoria? Could it be because of Premier Daniel Andrews and his negligence and the way that he and his government—and they can't remember who—employed these contractors and did not keep the Victorian community safe? If Minister Colbeck is to be held responsible, why didn't he muck it up in my home state of Tasmania, or New South Wales, or Queensland, or the Northern Territory, or Western Australia or South Australia? Why is it that there is only one pocket that the Australian Labor Party continually seeks to refer us to, which happens to be in the state of Victoria? We know why the outbreak has occurred in the state of Victoria. It is because of the incompetence of the state Labor government in Victoria.

So let's not have any of this nonsense that, somehow, Minister Colbeck ought to be held responsible in circumstances where every Australian knows that the tragic consequences of Premier Andrews have led to the statistics that the Australian Labor Party seeks to enjoy crowing about, very distastefully. But in circumstances when you look at the numbers, I simply ask: what are the numbers emanating from the state of Victoria, and why is it that Senator Colbeck should somehow be held responsible for Victoria? I think we all know what happened in Victoria and why it happened. It would be good and decent of the Australian Labor Party in this place, rather than trying to do Premier Andrews's dirty work, to accept the responsibility that it was state Labor's fault in Victoria.

In relation to the misquoting of the royal commission, let's be exceptionally clear. Labor purposefully, I would submit, sought to say to the Senate that somehow the government's behaviour was deplorable. The royal commission never said the government was deplorable. In fact, the only time the royal commission used the word 'deplorable' in their special COVID-19 report was on page 25, when they were referring to an alleged practice, not of the minister, but of a provider. Allow me to quote the full paragraph:

Insufficient supplies of PPE and infection control training for the aged care workforce were the subject of evidence in the form of union surveys and accounts. We heard of workers being told they could only use one glove rather than two, and a guideline at a residential aged care facility that only permitted two masks per shift. This is deplorable.

Clearly not a reference to the minister. Clearly not a reference to the government. Clearly a reference to a provider. Yet the Australian Labor Party come into this question time to so egregiously misrepresent that which the royal commission has provided to the public—might I add, a royal commission deliberately set up by this government because of its concern for aged-care residents, because of some of the stories emanating from the aged-care sector.

As a government wanting to get things right, having established the royal commission, we are adopting and implementing their recommendations. So what does Labor do? They come in here and misquote the royal commission and then most egregiously—and I don't know why—seek to defend Premier Daniel Andrews in Victoria for his neglect. I just hope that the newly implemented industrial manslaughter charges will apply to the Victorian Labor government. (Time expired)