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

The Labor senator who has just spoken has introduced the issue of prime ministerial leadership. Well, on this side we have a leader, behind whom we are all united—unlike the Australian Labor Party, who has the hapless leader known as Mr Albanese, down whose neck Ms Plibersek, Mr Chalmers, Mr Marles and, Mr Shorten are all breathing. The simple fact is that the Australian people know where the government stands on this important issue of seeking to get a vaccine out as quickly and as effectively as possible, for the protection of the Australian community—a very coherent, well-thought-out policy. That is what actually interests the people of Australia.

Every political party has—thank goodness—people who will speak out on issues and provide an alternative point of view. Mr Kelly is doing that in relation to this issue. Do I necessarily agree with him? No. But do you know what? The Australian Labor Party has one Mr Joel Fitzgibbon, who has a very strong alternative point of view in relation to certain Labor Party policies. And, as a result of his agitation, one Mr Butler met his demise from a certain position in the shadow cabinet. I turn to the Australian Greens, and I recall the internal brawls they suffered when they rejoiced with people such as Senator Nettle and Senator Rhiannon in their midst.

That is part and parcel of the dynamics of democracy—that you will have men and women in political parties offering an alternative point of view. We in the Liberal Party are more than willing to accommodate and accept that there are people with alternative points of view who should be given, in the public space, the opportunity to give expression to those views, even if you vehemently disagree with them, whereas we are seeing more and more that within the Labor Party you have to adopt a groupthink. Nobody is allowed to have an alternative point of view or consider a different approach. We on this side are more representative of the Australian people, and I suggest that is why we sit on this side—because we are willing to accommodate and accept that different people have differing views.

If the Australian Labor Party were genuinely serious about their concern about the COVID response, then where was the good senator and the Australian Labor Party when the ABC had Dr Norman Swan, night after night, contradicting the Chief Medical Officer at the height of the pandemic? There was not a whisper out of them, with Dr Swan making these outrageous predictions of thousands of deaths. These predictions never came to pass—but oh, Dr Swan happens to be potentially of the Left, and with the ABC, so his criticism of these matters and of the government approach is to be accepted, not to be criticised! But Mr Kelly is someone we might be able to describe as being somewhat from the conservative side, and therefore he must be condemned.

It is the double standard that the Left always bring to these debates that exposes their shallowness and hollowness. If the Labor Party were consistent and would condemn Dr Norman Swan as much as they are seeking to condemn Mr Kelly, then I would say there is some integrity and consistency in their approach to this. But, no, this is pure political pointscoring—or an attempt to do so, but in doing so I daresay all they're doing is elevating Mr Kelly's profile as the member for Hughes. He is working very hard and diligently in the service of the people of Hughes, and giving expression to a point of view that, in a free democracy, people ought be allowed to give expression to.

That said, the government's policy is very clear. Later this month, or very shortly, we hope to be rolling out vaccines when and as they become available. We as a government are working hard, and the Prime Minister's leadership has been in absolute contrast to the shambles of the Australian Labor Party under the leadership of Mr Albanese.