David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Climate Change and Water (Senator Wong) and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) to questions without notice asked by Senators Bushby and Cormann today relating to the carbon pollution reduction scheme and to the Council of Australian Governments.

I am absolutely astounded at the answer provided by Senator Wong to my question regarding Nyrstar in Hobart. No admission was provided by her that she agrees with the member for Denison, Mr Duncan Kerr, that the Hobart zinc works is an important industry, nor any acknowledgement of the company’s concerns about the devastating impact that the proposed CPRS will have on their business in Tasmania. All she provided to us were the same old glib comments about consultation.

I think it is worth taking a look at the government’s record on consultation and its approach in the last 12 months. Consultation is not something that the Labor government is particularly good at, despite its efforts to portray itself as otherwise. In fact, I think it is patently apparent that the government needs to check the definition of ‘consultation’. It makes a lot of noise that it is always listening and widely consulting as part of the careful image it likes to spin. But does it ever listen?  To me, and I suspect to most Australians, ‘consultation’ means listening to concerns and ideas—and here is the rub: actually considering the value of the concerns and ideas that are put to it and giving them due weight as part of its decision-making process. But this government clearly thinks that by merely holding some form of formal meeting—it calls it ‘consultation’—that it has fully discharged its responsibilities and its promises to consult.

What is raised or is said at such meetings is totally irrelevant, because from that time on the government will always have the absolute defence that it consulted. ‘What more can we do? We consulted.’ I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in hearings of this chamber’s economics committee over the past year and heard stakeholders recount over and over again how they have been consulted, how they have relayed clearly and accurately their real and valid concerns and how this Labor government ignored everything that they said and ploughed on with its original plans regardless. But the Australian public is awakening to the government’s tactics of trying to fool them. The more it consults, and subsequently the more it ignores the matters raised by those it consults with, the more that Australians realise the government is trying to pull a swift one on them.

But you do not need to be awake to their tactics to be shocked by the astounding decision of the Labor member for Denison, Mr Duncan Kerr—and, incidentally, Denison is the electorate in which I live—to hold a roundtable meeting in Canberra today to discuss issues raised by Nyrstar. It is almost beyond belief that the federal member for an electorate which contains an operation employing so many people would organise a meeting with the federal minister responsible for a policy threatening all of those jobs and not even invite the company running that operation. To bastardise a quote from the comperes of the Australian Top Gear show, ‘What was he thinking?’

It is worth looking at who the member for Denison did invite. There was the Mayor of Glenorchy—the suburban city in which the Nyrstar operation is located—a card-carrying member of the Labor Party. Also, there was the federal Labor member for Franklin, Julie Collins, and Tasmanian Labor senators Senator Carol Brown and Senator Polley, who is here today. So far, it sounds like a Labor Party branch meeting.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But not that big!

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be a good size for a Labor Party branch meeting. It also sounds like a collection of people very unlikely to strongly object to what is decided in the Labor Party caucus, even if they make some appropriate noises of concern. Was there anyone else invited? Yes, there was. There were also representatives of—and wait for it—the AWU and the AMWU. But was the company involved present at this meeting? No.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Were they invited?

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was my next question: were they invited? No. Would that company have come if it had been asked? The answer would have been a resounding yes.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would they have been listened to?

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a good point, Senator Cash. Here we have a roundtable meeting to address the issues raised by Nyrstar in respect of the threat to its Australian operations presented by the government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme—operations, which I remind the Senate, employ around 3½ thousand people in Port Pirie and about half of that number in Hobart. But no-one was invited from Nyrstar who could explain how the threat to its operations would actually materialise.

We have heard from the minister that her department has met with Nyrstar four times, but she has never met with Nyrstar. This meeting today would have presented an ideal opportunity for her to sit down with representatives from Nyrstar and to actually listen to their concerns and take them into account. No-one was present at the roundtable meeting who could meaningfully respond to the platitudes and diversions that would no doubt be put forward by the minister. (Time expired)

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Wong and Senator Evans in question time today. I can understand that these are very challenging and difficult times indeed for the other side. I can only imagine that, when they were trying to work out this morning what they would talk about today, they ran through the list: ‘Fair Work; no, we can’t talk about that. Broadband; no, we have a dreadful record there, too. What is another national issue of importance? Water. Well, we have completely failed on water. The global financial crisis? We have nothing to contribute there, either.’

These are the great issues of the day and those opposite remain mute. Perhaps in their despair they called their loyal friends in the country auxiliary from the ‘Notional Party’. But coming up with deep questions on matters of public policy is not the forte of our furry friends in the ‘Notional Party’, so no doubt they let them down too. So what do we have at the end of this potpourri? We have a question about the Labor Party’s track record on consultation—and let me say what a fine and upstanding issue it is! When it comes to consultation or, more accurately, the complete lack of it, the other side are virtuosos. What is their track record on consultation? In recent times we have seen that wonderful and enlightening series The Howard Years, which gave us some wonderful insights into how seriously the other side take consultation. I particularly remember one poignant moment when the then Treasurer of the land, Peter Costello, and his loyal sidekick in finance, John Fahey, complained that no-one consulted with them about the announcement that there would be a GST. So consultation begins at home, brothers and sisters of the opposition, and you have a track record of delivering absolutely none. This party was led for 11 years by a man who deigned not to even consult his cabinet, let alone the community at large.

But, hang on, who else might we look at for your models of consultation? I dare say that if you had extended some of your consultation to your branch membership it would have been a magnificent improvement on the status quo. With whom did you consult when you were introducing the GST? With whom did you consult when you were considering Work Choices? I dare say that you exposed yourself to some critical thought when you were developing Work Choices. Those opposite have in recent times turned hypocrisy into a fine art. We have had questions on broadband—when these guys were responsible for 11 years of magnificent failure. We have had questions on IR—when, of course, it was those opposite who in government had a record that was second to none in its crushing effect on ordinary people. What else can we point to? Climate change—and that brings me to the issue at hand. Your side never needed to engage in consultation with respect to climate change. Why did they not need to consult with anyone? Because they knew it did not exist. Their policy was to pull the doona up that little bit higher over the dear heads of the policy geniuses of the Liberal Party!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who introduced the first greenhouse office in the world?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I dare say that it was not you, Senator Abetz, because climate change—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Resume your seat, Senator Feeney. Senator Feeney, I remind you that you are addressing the chair. Interjections are disorderly and you are not to respond directly to them. You may continue.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I will henceforth ignore the interjections as best I can.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash interjecting—

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is flouting your authority, Mr Deputy President. I am shocked and appalled!

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I can handle myself, Senator Feeney!

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very good. Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Getting back to this critical question of consultation: what are you decrying our side for doing? You are decrying our side for speaking to local government figures and people from employee organisations. In fact, you are decrying us for talking to the community. All I can say in response is that I would encourage you, when developing policy, to in the first instance consult with your shadow cabinet colleagues. (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Consultation is not about being able to talk underwater with a mouthful of marbles, as we have just seen from Senator Feeney. Consultation is not what we heard at the beginning of this week from former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, who acknowledged that the current Prime Minister—your Prime Minister, Senator Feeney—could be described as a control freak. Control freaks are hardly renowned for their consultation—far from it. This is a government that is very clearly demonstrating that it is a one-man show and nobody else gets a word in. Those who might wish to talk to the government do not get the opportunity to get a word in either. It is a closed shop on the other side—that is, of course, what they would like to reintroduce in industrial relations and it is what they are operating in their own government. As Senator Bushby said so clearly before, we had these meetings happening today, which the Minister for Climate Change and Water was happy to undertake, which, in the true Labor tradition, were closed shops. ‘No ticket, no entry’ is obviously the approach the Labor Party is taking to its so-called consultation.

That is not good enough when Australian jobs are on the line—and they are very clearly on the line at present. We have had international reports overnight that that there will be 200,000 Australian jobs at risk over the next year. These jobs are at risk partly because of the global financial crisis and partly because they depend on this government’s management. And, from what we have seen of this government’s management of the global financial crisis so far, there can be little doubt that those 200,000 or more Australians who are worried about their jobs have every reason to continue to be concerned.

Amongst those who are worried about their jobs are the people at Nyrstar—the workers, the contractors, the families and the communities who rely on Nyrstar and many other companies like it around Australia for their employment and support. There are hundreds of jobs at stake.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thousands.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thousands.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thousands indeed. In Tasmania, the home state of Senator Bushby and Senator Abetz, 521 full-time employees, plus another 91 contractors and many others are dependent on the Nyrstar plant. In Port Pirie, in my home state and your home state, Mr Deputy President, Nyrstar has some 670 full-time employees as well as 110 contractors. We both know and appreciate well and truly just how reliant Port Pirie is on the jobs and support that a company like Nyrstar provides. Without that support, that town is in significant strife. That is why we need clear advice and consultation from the government and why companies like Nyrstar need some clear direction.

We saw the South Australian Premier, Mike Rann, after this issue flared up decide that he had to make a—no doubt politically motivated—mercy dash to Port Pirie the other week. Off he dashed to meet briefly with the executives. At least that was one step better than what we have seen from Minister Wong. He did set foot on the ground of Port Pirie, which I note is in Minister Wong’s home electorate as well. Perhaps rather than expecting them to come to Canberra she could go and consult with them in her own electorate.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s a novel idea for her!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That would be a novel idea, wouldn’t it, Senator Abetz? She could kill two birds with one stone, consulting with her own electorate and her portfolio constituency. I would have thought that would be effective use of the minister’s time. But far be it from us to try to give her advice on ending the closed shop of Labor consultation practices.

Mr Rann went up there and he said that the South Australian government had made submissions to the federal government and they were hopeful there would be a positive response. We hope there will be a positive response too, but we hope it will be a more positive response than there was when Anthony Albanese, the then shadow minister, promised that Labor in government would give Nyrstar’s Port Pirie water-recycling program urgent attention. Here we are, more than 12 months later, and there has been none of the urgent attention that was promised more than a year ago by the Labor Party to Nyrstar’s desire to help end lead problems and deliver water recycling in Port Pirie. In more than 12 months, zero urgent attention—so how can we have any faith that this time around the Labor Party will give any sort of attention to the concerns of the people of Port Pirie and Tasmania about their jobs? (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the three years that I have been here, every single day I have learned something new. Unfortunately, my Tasmanian colleagues still have not learnt the lesson from the last election—that is, that people do want to be consulted. This government has a record of consulting. We have a record of delivering on our election promises.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bushby interjecting—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps we should visit the fact that Senator Bushby obviously has a real interest in my diary. I do note that, yes, you are correct, Senator Bushby; I was at that meeting this morning to make representation on behalf of the Tasmanian community, in particular the workers and the operators of Nyrstar. I think it is my responsibility as a Tasmanian senator to lobby where there are areas of concern.

Those opposite never believed that we had an issue with climate change, until they suddenly discovered it, just as they have discovered the issue of workers. I assume that the reason Senator Bushby raised the issue was not really about consultation; I would hope that he has a concern about the workers at Nyrstar, a concern that I share. It is just a shame that his colleagues on the other side of the chamber never had the fortitude to stand up for Tasmanian workers, and for all Australian workers and families, when Work Choices was introduced.

A delegation met with the minister. I might add that the minister’s department has met with Nyrstar on at least four occasions that I am aware of. A green paper was produced in July. The government is delivering on an election commitment to address climate change, to act and lead globally. As I said, the minister has released a green paper and there is now a period of consultation. I would have thought that those opposite would have learnt by now that consultation is a two-way street. You talk to the relevant people who have the concern, like the company, and you listen to organisations like the unions—in this case the AWU—who represent and stand up for the workers. The same people, I might add, that you are condemning, Senator Bushby, for meeting with the minister this morning are the same people you attacked with Work Choices—the workers. You cannot have it both ways.

We are about delivering. It was the Rudd Labor government that recognised and implemented changes to address climate change. We went to the election with the commitment on an emissions trading scheme and we are going to deliver on that. There is still further work to be done in this area.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bushby interjecting—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Give Senator Polley a go, please.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Obviously it is a touchy subject. When it comes to addressing concerns like climate change, some of the sceptics on that side have decided, yes, they will do so. It is like the Fair Work legislation—some people in the coalition do not realise they are in opposition; they actually got defeated on Work Choices.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Arrogance! Arrogance, already!

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the interjection from Senator Abetz: if he wants to talk about arrogance, the person that has the most experience in that would have to be my Tasmanian colleague.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you should address the subject, Senator Polley.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is unfortunate that even the media has caught up with the fact that Senator Abetz no longer has any influence in the opposition ranks. It is time to move on. It is time to accept that part of the changes that this country and the globe have to address in terms of climate change will be the costs involved. The Australian community elected the Rudd Labor government, which had very clear election commitments. We are delivering on those commitments in health, in education and in ripping up Work Choices and bringing fairness back into the Australian workplace. We are intent on delivering on our commitments. We are intent on leading the world when it comes to climate change. In some circumstances there are going to be difficulties for companies. That is why you consult. As I said, the department has met on four occasions— (Time Expired)

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there was any further proof required, today we got conclusive evidence that cooperative federalism is nothing more than a political slogan—there is no substance to it; there is no commitment to it—when you listened to the partisan political response by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and he essentially attacked the Treasurer of the state of Western Australia. I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate today whether there had been any discussions or any representations to the Commonwealth in preparation for the COAG meeting on Saturday as a result of the pre-COAG strategy meeting of Labor state and territory treasurers. The answer he gave me was, ‘Of course; I don’t really understand the question—that is what normally happens.’ And when I asked him, ‘What is the Commonwealth’s view? Does the Commonwealth believe that it was appropriate that the Treasurer of Western Australia was excluded just because he is a Liberal?’, what did the minister say? The minister said, ‘He probably wasn’t excluded because he was a Liberal,’ and in not so many words—I know we are going to get a ruling from the President—the minister essentially said that the Treasurer of Western Australia was excluded not because he is a Liberal but because he is a bad bloke. I happen to think Troy Buswell is a good bloke, but that is not why he should be invited to a pre-COAG strategy meeting. Troy Buswell is the duly elected member for Vasse in Western Australia. He is the duly appointed Treasurer of the state of Western Australia. If there was any substance to ‘the spirit of cooperative federalism’, if the Prime Minister was serious in his commitment to cooperative federalism, he would discipline and reprimand his minister in this chamber for the statements he has made today.

This is what Kevin Rudd said shortly after the election on 6 September:

The dream of cooperative federalism will not be diminished when Liberal leader Colin Barnett is sworn in as Western Australia’s new Premier.

…            …            …

Fixing a federation goes well beyond party politics and therefore I’m looking forward to working with the new WA premier and his government …

That was a good start, but a month later all of the state and territory Labor treasurers met for a secret little meeting. The Treasurer of Victoria, John Lenders, gave Troy Buswell a call and said, ‘By the way, we are having this meeting, but don’t you dare turn up, because you are not welcome.’ The state of Western Australia, the people of Western Australia, are not allowed to be part of a meeting that is going to essentially set the scene, organise strategies and plan for what is going to be discussed at the COAG meeting this Saturday. Is that the new spirit of cooperative federalism? Is cooperative federalism only applicable if you are part of the Labor Party? Is it cooperative federalism as long as the people across various jurisdictions do not dare to elect a Liberal-National Party government? I am sure that is not what the people of Australia understood before the election about how the Prime Minister would proceed. Quite frankly, I would urge the Prime Minister to have a very close look at, firstly, what the minister said in this chamber today in trying to justify why the Treasurer of Western Australia has not been invited to this meeting—trying to justify the unjustifiable, quite frankly—and, secondly, the reflection by this minister on the Treasurer of the state of Western Australia.

Look at the way the Commonwealth has approached its relations with states and territories over the last 12 months. We had the episode of the Medicare levy surcharge, putting huge pressure on state and territory budgets and not even consulting with the states and territories. We had the issue of the government saying, ‘We want to take over public hospitals if the states don’t perform, but we won’t tell the states and territories the targets that they have to meet’—even though the deadline that the Prime Minister put out there is only six months away. Do senators remember before the last election, when Kevin Rudd had this love-in with all the state and territory premiers, who were then all Labor. When commissioning the Garnaut climate change review, he said:

Federal Labor and the states and territories have today commissioned the Garnaut Climate Change Review—

That review was funded by state and territory governments. Taxpayers across Australia funded what was essentially a party political exercise at the time.

We had a committee inquiry hearing in Perth last week, and what did Treasury in Western Australia tell us? They now want to get access to Treasury modelling to be able to reach some conclusions about the impact of the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on the state of Western Australia, but no access has been provided beyond what is publicly available.

To sum up, this slogan of cooperative federalism has been exposed again and again as nothing more than a political exercise before the last election. It was there to minimise and manage the risk of wall-to-wall Labor in terms of how it was going to be perceived by the people across Australia.

Question agreed to.