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

What we're witnessing this afternoon is Labor's attempt at a tawdry reinvention of Hillary Clinton's 'deplorables'—a comment which divided United States society and saw the person who was going to be elected as the President of the United States defeated by the people because of their repulsion at this sort of politics that Hillary Clinton failed to execute and that, I predict, Labor will fail to execute with this tawdry motion. Isn't it amazing that this motion is put forward by a Queensland senator? The Queensland state Labor government was the government that sought to scare people from the AstraZeneca vaccine. Oh, there's no mention of that in the contributions—no mention whatsoever.

In the motion, if you read it in detail, you will see that these gentlemen are being condemned for even standing alongside certain people. Well, the acting leader of the opposition in this place got caught out recently, didn't she, standing alongside operatives of the Communist Party of China, that brutal dictatorship? She was standing alongside such an operative. Does the Labor Party condemn her for that? There's stony silence. Indeed, the acting leader of the Labor Party in this place—I would suggest possibly unwittingly—appointed people that have now served jail terms to her ministry and the Labor Party while she was Premier of New South Wales. How did they defend the criminally convicted Craig Thomson when he was sitting in the House of Representatives? The list of Labor debacles in this space goes on and on. One wonders how this Labor motion even saw the light of day. The lack of self-awareness in this motion is genuinely and truly concerning.

In this debate, sure, there is a narrative at the moment as to the best way to deal with COVID. Let's remind ourselves that Denmark, Sweden and Norway are not in the dark recesses of far-Right clutches but they have just determined to remove all barriers whatsoever in relation to COVID—no more mandates, no more mask wearing and no more limits on crowd numbers—based on their medical advice. 'Listen to the science' is often used as a mantra to shut others down, to cancel them. There are alternative points of view held by men and women skilled in science. Often they are quoted by my colleagues. Do we agree with them? That's not the issue. The issue is: do they have the right to put those views to the public? They do.

I'll just remind people in this place that men and women of good faith and who are highly intelligent can actually come to differing conclusions on exactly the same matters. I refer to the High Court: seven men and women who are sworn into office, who are of a high intellect and who are capable lawyers. They hear the same evidence and apply the same law, and then these seven men and women sometimes come to a 4-3 decision. Are they somehow in the clutches of some conspiratorial force? No, they are not. They are men and women of good faith who have exercised a judgement in relation to a certain matter. If High Court judges can be so divided on these matters, why can't Australian citizens be divided in relation to mandates, mask wearing or whether or not they want to have a vaccine?

That is why I have consistently been against the concept of mandates. I don't want to see a divided society. I don't want to see a two-tiered society based on those that are vaccinated and those that are not vaccinated. Those men and women who make a choice are entitled to their jobs. We are, as we speak, seeing university students in Tasmania being told, 'You cannot continue with your studies if you are not vaccinated,' as a result of which their dreams are shattered, the public is denied their expertise and, halfway through, they have a HECS debt that they were expecting to pay off after graduation. They're now being denied that opportunity but are still being left with a debt. The same applies to TAFE in my home state of Tasmania. It's completely unacceptable that apprentices should be denied the opportunity. We have a shortage of tradesmen. We have a shortage of nurses, doctors and surgeons, and they're now being denied the right to practise and be of service to the community. I happen to be pro-vaccination but antimandates, and that is a right and proper position to hold, and I will defend it most vehemently with those who have an alternative view to mine in relation to vaccination. My view has always been that in this debate we should seek to educate and not discriminate. We should seek to convince and not coerce. That is the way a civilised society and community seeks to go about a discussion. And, yes, what I would say to colleagues and others is: if you are so convinced of your position, you should have no fear of an opposite view being put to you. If anything, your counter to that view will show that your initial view is in fact correct, whereas, if you cannot counter it properly, what it informs you to do is to nuance your position to accept that that which has been countering your view has some merit to it, and you need to adjust your position.

What is most disappointing about this debate is not only Labor's hypocrisy in putting forward this motion but the relentless negativity of Labor and their failure to put forward an alternative point of view and an alternative platform. Where are they in this debate? Their big criticism is for three members of the coalition. You know what? The average Australian is not concerned about two senators and a House of Representatives member; they're concerned about the fundamentals of Australian government. Allow me to read the following list. It's why the Australian Labor Party don't want to talk real policy. We have had 1.1 million jobs created since the pandemic hit. How about a motion of congratulations in relation to that? Deathly silence from Labor. To continue: 11.5 million Australians are benefiting from tax relief, 700,000 jobs were saved through JobKeeper, 71.3 per cent of trade and exports are now covered by free trade agreements, there were 815,600 female business operators in Australia as of August 2021, 220,000 trade apprentices is a record high, there has been a 20 per cent reduction in emissions since 2005, and electricity bills are down eight per cent in the past two years. They're the sorts of things people talk about: apprenticeships for their sons and daughters and their electricity bill and how can they afford to pay it. These are the real issues, and they are what the Labor Party formerly discussed on a regular basis. But today—no, no, no. Those cost-of-living issues, those things that are actually discussed under the corrugated iron roofs of our suburbs, are no longer the matters that excite the interest of the Australian Labor Party. What excites them are political stunts and their attempts to divide our society. If anybody disagrees with their elitist view of the world, they need to be shut down.

In the moments left, how about 1,213 major transport projects supporting 100,000 jobs and over 99 per cent of homes and businesses with NBN access? Despite COVID, the Morrison government has done a fantastic job, and all that Labor can point to is some illusory view about three coalition backbenchers.