Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Ferguson today, relating to the South Australian election.

Rudd Labor backed Rann Labor in preferencing the climate sceptics in the South Australian election: this from Rudd Labor and this from the Rann Labor Party, parties which parade as environmental evangelists. Now, Rann Labor is leading the charge in coming clean. They appear to be environmental evangelists. However, in reality they are environmental change sceptics. These guys are the carbon cheer squad of Australia. Rann Labor is preferencing them in the South Australian election and Rudd Labor is backing that preferencing. And why not do so when the Australian public has learnt to be sceptical of Rudd Labor and sceptical of Rann Labor when they say they will deliver on the environment? The environmental evangelists are in reality the climate sceptics and backing the carbon cheer squad. Why wouldn’t the Australian electorate expect this from Rann Labor and Rudd Labor when on water, nationally and in South Australia, Rudd Labor and Rann Labor have failed to deliver for the environment, let alone for man. Why wouldn’t the Australian public be sceptical about Rudd Labor’s and Rann Labor’s environmental credentials when both Rann Labor and Rudd Labor have failed to deliver on the environment, and Rudd Labor fails to deliver on the environment in respect of this supposedly successful yet suspended Home Insulation Program?

Let us start with water—the No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 issue in South Australia, my home state. The environmental evangelists in Rudd Labor and Rann Labor would have the Australian electorate believe that there is a national agreement to look after the environment and the River Murray. What a mockery is that agreement! How can there be a national agreement when states have the veto? How can there be a national agreement when Rudd Labor and Rann Labor allow Brumby Labor to walk away with the Sugarloaf Pipeline; to put Melbourne on the teat—that is effectively the Murray—when Melbourne at that time was not even on the teat? How can there be a national agreement to manage the Murray and deliver for the environment when that happens? How can there be a truly national agreement to deliver for the Murray, to deliver for the environment, when what Rann Labor does—and all that Rann Labor does—is run a charade of a High Court challenge against Victoria’s trading cap on water from the Murray? That is a really genuine, working national agreement, ain’t it?

No, the Australian people are sceptical of the environmental credentials—so called—of both Rudd Labor and Rann Labor. How can there be environmental credentials from Rudd Labor when it promised to look after the infrastructure at the Menindie Lakes and to look after the environment? By looking after the infrastructure you stop some of the most inappropriate evaporation of water that is occurring in storage places across the country. Not a sod has been turned, as Senator Birmingham pointed out yesterday, on that election promise. How can there be environmental credentials of Rann Labor when Rann Labor has failed to take any of the first real steps to weaning Adelaide off the Murray? It is a city that is not even on the Murray yet it continues to be on the teat that is the Murray River.

How can there be a genuine national agreement when South Australia continues to have to beg other states for any benefits from what has effectively been the greatest wet in the north for more than 30 years? Mike Rann would have us believe that 400 billion litres—swimming pools—is going to come to South Australia. Well, big whoop, mate. Big whoop Mike! Is that a Rann-made consequence? You have to be kidding. It ain’t man-made; it is mother-nature made. There is so much water coming down from the north. It was going to happen anyway. It was going to happen without Mike, and it should happen without Mike come the election in South Australia this weekend. Mother nature knows what happens when you let the bottom silt up: the mouth of the Murray— (Time expired)

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the people of South Australia were wondering whom they should vote for on Saturday, that performance from Senator Fisher and a previous question from you, Mr Deputy President—as well as the bleatings earlier on today from Senator Birmingham about preference arrangements—would have probably consolidated in the minds of any South Australians who were in doubt that their vote should definitely go to the Rann Labor government. Their vote should go to the Rann Labor government because that government has delivered. That government is not full of weirdos, wackos, extremists and climate change deniers like we have seen here today. There was a question from you, Mr Deputy President, about preference arrangements and indeed you mentioned health care and asked why Labor was not preferencing a group—the group that purports to support the Royal Adelaide Hospital. That is because Labor in South Australia supports a health plan that includes the building of a new hospital. If you were really going to support health care in South Australia, you would most certainly support that plan. That gives me the opportunity to mention that in the last week the Rudd Labor government has made massive commitments to healthcare improvements in Australia and will be rolling those out, which of course will also benefit the people of South Australia.

Another reason why the people of South Australia should vote for the Rann Labor government is that you can trust the Rann Labor government. I like to posit here the comparison between what Mr Rann has delivered and the element of lack of trust in the federal opposition leader, Mr Abbott. Mr Abbott has a track record of backflipping and reverting to type in many areas. I mentioned health before, and, of course, he was the Minister for Health and Ageing in the former government for a period of time during which $1 billion was ripped out of the healthcare budget of Australia. Let us have a look at the statistics of what Mr Abbott did. He cut $108 million from public hospitals in 2003 and $172 million in 2004. In 2005 he cut $264 million out of Australia’s healthcare budget and a further $372 million in 2006, in what was, thankfully, his final year as health minister. We have more evidence of Mr Abbott’s untrustworthiness in the area of industrial relations. We know that he has had a conversion on the road to Damascus in a number of areas, but let us not forget that Mr Abbott and the Liberal Party and all those Liberals sitting on the opposite side of the chamber are absolute rusted-on supporters of Work Choices. If the people of South Australia want to posit what would happen if the Liberals got back in South Australia, they could be sure that the Liberals in South Australia would support a federal Liberal government—if we were to have one, God forbid—in bringing back Work Choices; that is what they are about.

Finally, I will mention another magnificent backflip on the part of Tony Abbott.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator McEwen, you must refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his proper title.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise—Mr Tony Abbott, who is, of course, a good friend of Isobel Redmond, who holds herself out to be the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia although we are not sure if she will be there after the election; we are not sure if it will be her or—what’s her name?—Vickie Chapman, the other woman that got dudded by people like you, Senator Bernardi. But let us get back to Mr Abbott’s record on paid parental leave, which has been discussed here numerous times this week. What was his original position on paid parental leave? ‘Over my dead body!’ is what he said. How can we possibly believe him now when the way he wants to attract female voters is by pretending that he supports paid parental leave, because it is electorally prudent for him to do so? But we know that in his heart he does not believe it. He is untrustworthy, and so are the Liberals in South Australia. (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How remarkable, how astounding and, indeed, how pathetic! We have just heard a Labor Party senator from South Australia who told us that we could trust the Rann Labor government and then went on to talk about Tony Abbott and the federal Liberal Party and the Howard government and absolutely everything and anything that she could possibly think of except Mike Rann or the Rann Labor government in South Australia. Why? Because she had not one good thing that she could come up with to say about them, not one achievement from eight long years of government, not one achievement from his 15 long years of leading the Labor Party, not one achievement from his 30-plus years since he proudly first climbed the steps of the South Australian Parliament House with Don Dunstan, to revolutionise the state. Not one achievement in his 30-plus year career and Mike Rann wants to take it out another four years, or so he claims. But if you want to talk about leadership, Senator McEwen, let us have a look at whether Mr Rann and his wife are perhaps about to head off to Rome after this election. Former Senator Vanstone has got a six-month extension, so I understand—a nice convenient extension of her time. I wonder why that has been granted. I wonder for whom that seat is being kept warm—for Mr Rann, I am sure, who has long harboured ambitions to head over to Rome.

If Senator McEwen wants to talk about trust in South Australian Labor—and she has now left the chamber—she has got to ask the question as to why the voters of South Australia have delivered throughout this campaign, in poll after poll after poll, their verdict that they no longer trust Mike Rann or his spin-driven breed of Labor governments. That is because they have seen him and his government in action for eight years, and they look and smell just like this lot opposite—all talk, no action; all spin, no substance. These are the problems that Rann Labor has. They are the same problems that Rudd Labor is starting to acquire. The South Australian public and the Australian public are seeing through them.

Today, Senator Wong, the climate change minister—she is the former South Australian Labor Party president and is a senior South Australian minister in the Rudd government—was asked about preference deals that remarkably see the Labor Party empowering the climate change sceptics candidates. That is right, Mr Deputy President! For all the lecturing and hectoring that we get in this place from Senator Wong and Comrade Senator Carr about climate change, they decide that they will be the ones to empower the sceptics by preferencing them in the Legislative Council election in South Australia. That is right; they are preferencing the climate change sceptics—not ahead of just the Liberal Party but ahead of the Save the RAH Party. What is the Save the RAH Party? It is a group of doctors. Those doctors are obviously such radicals that the Labor Party could not bring themselves to preference a bunch of people with whom they might disagree over the building of a hospital ahead of people with whom they apparently claim to disagree on the greatest moral challenge of our time!

How can you stand there in all credibility, Senator Wong and Senator Carr—or anybody else on that side of the chamber—and talk about the greatest moral challenge of our time and criticise the fact that some on this side of the chamber might question the science from time, and then go and empower the sceptics by delivering them your preferences?

Senator Wong, at the conclusion of her answer, accused the Liberal Party of being willing to do or say anything. Well, this is a clear act of a Labor Party that is willing to do or say anything—to do any dirty deal on preferences—to win itself seats in parliament. They will deal with any candidate—they will give a leg-up to any candidate—who is out their standing on any platform that will filter votes through to them. They have done it with the climate change sceptics. They are doing it with the Fair Land Tax Party. They are doing it across the board. They are doing it with the independent commission against corruption candidates. In all these platforms you would not expect voters to want their preference to go to the Labor Party but the Labor Party has done dirty deals to ensure that those votes filter through to them so that they can profit. That is what you call doing or saying anything. That is what you call empowering the sceptics. This is a government and a party that is morally bankrupt. And that is what we are seeing from Premier Rann in this campaign.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It comes as no surprise that those opposite want to pick on an issue like this rather than to stand up and speak about the policies which they do not have—the policies that they will not be able to deliver on in South Australia. We know that in South Australia the government has been delivering to the people. We know that South Australia is a state moving forward. The imagining, the thinking and the learning of the Rann government is something that South Australians should be proud of. In fact, we know that it has been the Rann government that has really brought South Australia into the 21st century.

Let us have a look at the state’s strategic plan, which sets out the goals of the government—its targets—and articulates the vision of the future. South Australia, under the Labor government, looks to a strong, safe, fair, healthy, smart and, in fact, green future. Let us look at just some of these things. An example of the Labor government’s imaginative, thoughtful and open style of innovative government is that of action on the environment. It surprises me that those opposite would want to touch on the environment as a means of speaking about the South Australian election. Let me tell you that the Rann government goes to the election with a proud record on the environment in South Australia. Let us just have a look at that.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Wortley has a right to be heard in silence.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor government in South Australia is determined to safeguard our fragile waterways and protect our unique biodiversity. We are seizing the opportunities inherent in renewable resource management. Let us have a look at some of that. The government in South Australia is looking at renewable energy as the way forward. In South Australia we have proactively fostered working initiatives such as hot fractured rock geothermal exploration; solar energy in schools and other public buildings including—as I stated last week in this chamber—in Parliament House; wind technology; tree planting; a plastic bag ban; feed-in tariff mechanisms; and a highly successful refund deposit plan for plastic bottles and aluminium cans.

We know, too, that the South Australian government’s geothermal regulatory and approvals framework pursuant to the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act 2000 has been extraordinary in its outcomes to date. In fact, South Australia has attracted more than 58 per cent of geothermal investment in Australia for the period 2002 to 2013. Because these projects cover diverse geological provinces, testing is occurring over a range of potential sources of energy. Major petroleum exploration and production companies are involved and the share market shows strong support.

The implications are clear: when it comes to the issue of climate change and the environment, the Rann Labor government is out there. This technology will enable us to reduce emissions, better adapt to the changing climate, and deal with the changes that the future will undoubtedly bring in terms of carbon-constrained economic settings. In fact, as I have noted, the Rann government fosters recycling and innovative waste management, has initiated wave power technology and has returned more than 500 gigalitres of water for environmental flows. And that is not talking about the additional measure that has been announced this week. Our state has a renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2014, and the energy efficiency of government buildings will be improved by one quarter over the 2000-01 levels by 2014.

The Rann Labor government in South Australia is committed to the environment but it is also committed to a healthy South Australia. I note that those opposite have raised this issue. It is continuing to work to reverse the effect of the years of neglect our health system suffered under the Liberals. (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is quite astounding: there is a Premier whose name dare not be spoken in this chamber. In 10 minutes, we have probably heard Mike Rann’s name mentioned twice or maybe three times. There is a very good reason Labor do not want to acknowledge Mike Rann. Mike Rann has been a failed premier. He is damaged goods and the Labor Party, particularly Senator Wortley and Senator McEwen, know it. It was not that long ago when their faction was having a little tete-a-tete at parliament house in South Australia. They decided then that they wanted to install Kevin Foley as Premier, because they know that Mike Rann is damaged goods and electoral poison.

What have we got? We hear today from the Labor Party all about their environmental record. I have to say I am torn. I support climate sceptics because they have got it right more often than this government has got it right. I also support the Save the Royal Adelaide Hospital campaign, because the doctors there know what the health and welfare needs are of South Australian community. But this government and the Rann government were asked to choose between health and climate change sceptics. What did they choose? They chose the climate change sceptics. This flies in the face of their constant assertions that climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time.

Let me suggest to you that when faced with a moral challenge this government has been exposed again and again and again. The South Australian election is not only about morals and the choices that the South Australian premier has made; it is about the morals and integrity of this government. I would say that Senator Wortley and her crew have been left wanting. Their sails have fallen and they are floating becalmed in a sea of guilt and failure. You know that, Senator Wortley. You know that, because the hypocrisy is clear for all to see. Not only has the leader of your government said that climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time, but even the hapless and failed and deeply unpopular—and I do not just mean at home, I mean the deeply publicly unpopular—Mike Rann has said that climate change is ‘something I am passionate about’. We can add that to the list of what Mike Rann is passionate about, because his other passions are very clear.

What we also know is that no-one in the Labor Party is passionate about him. You wanted to get rid of him, Senator Wortley, and your colleagues in South Australia wanted to get rid of him because they know that he is electoral poison. He cannot be trusted. That is why you do not want to utter his name more than once or twice. You want to go into all your diatribe and dribble, Senator Wortley, about what this government or the Rann Labor government has achieved.

The fact is they have achieved very little. Whatever you say about their commitment to the environment, their commitment to hospitals or their commitment to South Australia, it has all been undone because you were forced to make a choice. You sided against the ‘great moral issue of our time’. How can you be proud of that? I suspect it was a pretty tough ask: which one of the Labor senators was going to come in here and defend it? Senator Wong had a crack at it in question time and failed miserably, because she could not justify why she was asked to endorse the climate sceptics ahead of the campaign to save the existing hospital.

We would ask the same of you, Senator Wortley, or of Senator McEwen: why have you been asked to endorse the climate sceptics rather than Save the Royal Adelaide Hospital? You talk about a plan but you are comparing a plan with the great moral issue of our time. You are caught in a conundrum. It is a conundrum where you have been forced to make a choice and your choice has been exposed. The choice you failed to make was to replace the damaged goods, Mike Rann—that is, the passionate Mike Rann, the Mike Rann that is apparently taking South Australia forward. If that is forward we might as well get Kim Carr to take this country forward, because it is going back to the socialist fifties.

There is an appalling government in South Australia. You know that. We know that. Mike Rann is the unutterable name in the election. That is why, as you drive through the good burbs of Adelaide, you do not see pictures of Mike Rann. They are certainly not where he lives, because he lives in Norwood and his electorate is out in the working-class suburb of Playford or Elizabeth. You do not see pictures of Mike Rann, because he is electoral poison. He is the Mark Latham of the South Australian election. No-one trusts him. No-one can rely on what he says. And no-one can rely on the words or actions of the Labor Party. They have been caught—caught in their own tautology and nonsense.

Question agreed to.