Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate notes the Prime Minister’s continued unprincipled attacks upon the Senate.

The Labor Party’s continued unprincipled attacks on the Senate are regrettable. The Senate is a vital part of Australia’s parliamentary democratic framework, which is in fact the envy of the world. Some would say the Senate should be thankful for small mercies because we have not been spoken about in the same way as the Chinese officials in Copenhagen. But when a Prime Minister speaks to demean the Senate in the way this Labor Prime Minister has and this Labor government has, the Australian people need to simply ask a one-word question: why? The answer is that the Prime Minister and his government are desperately thrashing around, drowning in a self-made quagmire of incompetence and duplicity. So as the Prime Minister and his government’s collective head is sinking beneath the surface, they thrash around desperately thinking that unprincipled attacks on the institutions of this parliament, namely the Senate, will somehow provide them with an electoral lifebuoy by distracting the Australian people from their self-made fiascos. I have a message for Labor: attacking the Senate will not be a lifebuoy, but working with us could in fact have been a lifebuoy. Let us have a look at what the Prime Minister has been saying. Just this week he has said about the Senate:

So we have a very simple message for the Senate, which is get out of the road, guys, just get on with it.

The following day he said about the Senate:

No delays, no stuffing around, get on with it.

Mr Albanese was trotted out as well to say:

… the Senate is being so obstructionist …

They are the lines. It is a wonder that Labor have not in fact been reflecting and saying, ‘Isn’t it a pity that we haven’t in fact listened to the Senate more.’ If Labor would have listened to the coalition in this place, they would not have wasted the $78 million they did on that cash splash by sending it overseas. The Building the Education Revolution would not be wasting billions and billions of dollars on overpriced buildings. We would not have the $850 million blow-out on solar panels. We would not have the Green Loans debacle. And we would not be having house fire after house fire all around Australia courtesy of the pink batts debacle. Indeed, if Mr Rudd would have reflected more seriously, he would have realised that the Senate, and in particular the coalition, had saved him from the debacle that Fuelwatch would have been. Do Labor still seriously say Fuelwatch is part of their policy agenda. No, they do not talk about that at all anymore. And I am sure that privately they say, ‘Thank goodness for the coalition for knocking off that debacle.’

I am sure they say exactly the same thing about GROCERYchoice. Remember that wonderful scheme where consumers would be able to compare prices. In my home state of Tasmania the state was divided into various sections and you could compare the price of groceries in Strahan in the one region with Swansea. One is firmly placed on the west coast of Tasmania, namely Strahan, and Swansea is firmly placed on the east coast of Tasmania.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very convenient.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A very helpful guide for consumers, Senator Fifield. You would have to have driven for about four or five hours and the $5 you might have been able to save on your grocery bill would have been more than spent on increasing your carbon footprint and on petrol. Talking about the carbon footprint, I am sure the Prime Minister is now breathing a very heavy sigh of relief that the Senate did not pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, because it would have caused so much damage to the Australian economy and in fact to the world environment. We all know why I say the world environment: because there would have been carbon leakage to other countries courtesy of that badly thought-out proposal.

So what we have got is a government drowning in its self-made sea of incompetency but still telling the Senate in a most arrogant manner to get out of the way. The arrogance of Mr Rudd and Labor can be likened to a drunk going up a one-way street the wrong way and saying to all the traffic coming the other way, ‘Get out of my way, get out of my way,’ and then, when finally crashing to a halt, blaming the law-abiding drivers. Let us have a look at the facts about the Senate’s role. In all of Mr Rudd’s lifetime, the Senate has never sat for lesser periods than it has during the Rudd government.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Neither has the parliament.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us have a look at the trifecta of promises, Senator Brandis, just made in relation to the parliament. Remember when Mr Rudd won? The first promise was, ‘We will sit the parliament before Christmas, because we’re rolling up our sleeves.’ Did that ever happen? No—broken promise. He then said he would sit on Fridays. Did that happen? No—another broken promise. Then he said he would sit the parliament and make it work harder. Did that happen? No. They have deliberately constricted the number of weeks that the Senate sits to avoid scrutiny. But, if they had had the scrutiny that they so desperately seek to avoid, they would not have to send hapless backbenchers in here in this debate to try to justify the pink batt debacle.

So what we have here is the fact that the Rudd Labor government has presided over the lowest number of Senate sitting days in a non-election year since 1952. That is in the totality of Mr Rudd’s life and more. The Senate is sitting a full week less each year than it did under the Howard government. And do you remember the Labor Party complaining about how the coalition was allegedly reducing the role of the Senate in the Australian parliament? Well, if we were bad, what does an extra week or a week less mean? What it means is that Mr Rudd, as he did with so many other things, made the big statement—the grand statement and the grand promise—and then, of course, was unable to deliver.

This is the arrogant government—this ‘say anything’ government—that says to us in the Senate, ‘Get out of the way.’ But it was this government which was left with a very, very rich legacy. This was a government that was left with the coffers overflowing and Christmas Island empty. In three short—or, indeed, long—years, Labor, through all its cleverness, its ‘programmatic specificity’ and its crafty policy expertise, has been able to turn around the overflowing coffers and the empty Christmas Island to empty coffers and an overflowing Christmas Island because of its incompetency and its refusal to listen to the coalition in the Senate.

Every other area of government endeavour—between the coffers, Treasury and immigration and border protection—that Mr Rudd and Labor have touched has turned to disaster. Indeed, they seem to have the opposite of the Midas touch: everything they touch, be it Fuelwatch, GROCERYchoice, border protection, pink batts or solar panels—and the list goes on—does not turn to gold; it turns to dust. It is an absolutely terrible reflection. Yet they continue with this arrogance: ‘Get out of our way. We know what we’re doing. The fact that we’re going up a one-way street the wrong way is beside the point. Give us our head. We know. We have a vision for the future.’

I never thought that I would be placed in a position where I would say in this place that the Whitlam government was not the worst government this nation has ever seen. I have said it a number of times previously, but I must say that, on reflection, one thing that Mr Rudd can claim No. 1 first place on is being the worst government that this country has ever had. To outdo the Whitlam government, I must say, requires more than just ‘programmatic specificity’: what it requires is an arrogance and an incompetence unparalleled in our nation’s history.

That is why it is so important that our founding fathers saw and thought about the importance of a house of review, a place where legislation could be considered in detail. Indeed, today in the Australian we had an article saying that paid parental leave was being deliberately delayed in the Senate by the coalition.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What rubbish!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolute rubbish, Senator Fifield; you are right. Why? Because the government were forced to bring their legislation not only to the other place but to the Senate as well, they themselves got mugged by the reality that they had to move amendments to their own legislation. But, deceptively, the Labor spin doctors go to the press gallery and tell them it is all the coalition’s fault. They do not say: ‘By the way, we introduced amendments without warning to the coalition, and do you know what the irresponsible coalition did, especially that irresponsible Senator Fifield, who had carriage of the matter on behalf of the coalition? He was so irresponsible as to say, “I actually want to read the amendments before I ask my colleagues to vote for them; I want to consider the impact of these amendments on the whole legislative scheme.”’ Did the Labor spin doctors say that? Of course they did not. This is yet another example of this government that will say anything, irrespective of its robustness. So what we have is a very important role that this house, the Senate, plays in Australian democracy, where the Labor government itself took the opportunity of review of this legislation to amend its own legislation but then, when it was delayed because of that, blamed the coalition.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not on!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fifield, you are right: it is not on. That is why we as a coalition have moved this motion today: that the Senate take note of the unprincipled attacks—because they are unprincipled. When you sit the Senate for the shortest time in over half a century and then demand that it hurry up, it is tantamount to deception of the Australian people.

The government simply seem to have no restriction on who or what to blame in relation to their failures, and I think that, after all these years of listening to Mr Rudd, the Australian people will not accept this nonsense that is now being peddled by Labor in relation to the Senate somehow being obstructionist. The Senate has a role—and a vital role. Let us not forget that up until just a few decades ago—not that long ago—the Labor Party still had in their platform the desire to abolish the Senate. They knew it was politically unsaleable and unpalatable to the Australian people, so they said, ‘Yes, we’ve got rid of that from our platform’. But everything else about their actions in this place tells us that, if they could have their way, they would abolish the Senate. They do not want us to examine legislation.

Indeed, this morning, on the airwaves, Mr Albanese was saying that the Senate was trying to scrutinise the legislation too much. Oh, that Labor themselves had scrutinised the pink batts debacle! Four more Australians would be alive, one person would not have severe deformities as a result of injuries and 174 house fires would not have occurred. That is the legacy of not scrutinising programs properly, trying to bypass the Senate and the proper way of doing things. If the Labor Party had considered the impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme more carefully, they would have realised what a bad scheme it was. And it was courtesy of further review in this place that a lot of the faults became exposed.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt interjecting—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And—and I hear a Labor senator interjecting—if it is still the greatest moral challenge of our time, take the parliament to a double dissolution on it.

Of course, what this shows us again is that the Labor Party will say and do anything to win votes. In 2007 the CPRS was the greatest moral challenge of our time, but when focus groups started telling them that the Australian people did not believe it, the greatest moral challenge of our time was discarded like a used tissue by the Labor Party. Where is the morality in that? Where is the integrity in that? There is nil—absolutely none. We in the coalition said that there were problems and it would make good sense to wait until there was international agreement. That was such a morally bankrupt position to hold before Copenhagen, yet now all of a sudden it makes very good sense to have this position until not only after Copenhagen and the next election but the one after that as well. We will not be getting a scheme now under Labor until 2013.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where is your climate change policy? Come on!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a very good interjection from Senator Brandis. We have a direct plan on climate change. Labor have no plan. But that is what happens when you use the capacity of Senate committees to explore and examine issues—things come to light. And Labor have been saying, day after day, this week that they do not want that sort of scrutiny.

Labor would have taken this country down the path of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme costing thousands of Australian jobs and, indeed, having a worse outcome for the world in relation to pollution. This is exactly the same attitude that they took in relation to the resource profits tax, the RSPT. Who did they consult on that? The RSPT was in fact the brainchild of the RSGT: Rudd, Swan, Gillard and Tanner. They did not even ask Mr Ferguson, the Minister for Resources and Energy, about it. And we know what he thinks about this, because he has been busily leaking and backgrounding to say, ‘Don’t blame me. I knew nothing about this.’ Nor did Senator Hutchins, Parliamentary Secretary Gary Gray and others. That is what happens, I say to the Labor Party, when you do not consult.

The Labor Party still have the audacity—with the experiences of the pink batts, the green loans with solar panels, Fuelwatch and Grocery Choice; a list as long as your arm of their own experiences in 2½ years, making them the most incompetent government in Australian history—to this week still be saying to the Australian people, ‘This is such a good government that we do not need the scrutiny of the Senate in relation to our legislation.’ I say to the Australian people: we in the coalition believe in the role of the Senate. It is a vital role and it is a vital part of our democratic process. The Senate saved Australia from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. A number of years ago, it saved Australia from Labor’s Australia Card, if you remember. That was because these things were scrutinised. We believe in the role of the Senate and oppose the Prime Minister’s demeaning of the Senate. (Time expired)

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion before us this afternoon implies, quite ridiculously, that the Prime Minister is not even entitled to have a view about the Senate’s approach to government legislation. This is an entirely unreasonable proposition. As we are all very much aware, this government, unlike its immediate predecessor, does not have a majority in this chamber. As such, the Senate clearly has the capacity to impact on the government’s ability to implement its legislative program. As a consequence, what takes place in this chamber has a direct influence on the government’s ability to action policies in the national interest and to fulfil its promises to the Australian people.

If a party in government has made a promise to the Australian people, whether during an election or in any other context, and delivering on that promise proves difficult or impossible the Australian people are entitled to know why. Is it because circumstances have changed? Is it because new information has come to light that makes the proposal less compelling than it once appeared? Or is it because, despite the government’s best efforts, this chamber has either rejected the proposition, refused to consider it, delayed it, obstructed it or amended it beyond recognition? Does the government believe that the proposal is still good policy, still in the national interest, or does it not? Is it abandoning or delaying the proposal for some reason to do with the merits of the proposal itself or is it doing so because the chances of the proposal passing this chamber in a recognisable form appear remote? These are all legitimate questions.

Equally, if the government fails to deliver on a proposal within a given time frame, the public is entitled to know why. Is it because of unforeseen developments outside this place or is it because this chamber in its wisdom has gone out of its way to delay the implementation of a measure? These are matters of great public interest, matters where the public has a right to know. In fact, there are a number of very significant issues that I have been lobbied on where people have asked why the government has not done this or that or not done more. I have had to tell them it was not the government; it was the Senate. People have asked me why this nation has not taken action on climate change, why the government’s mandate from the last election has not been acted on. The government took action, but the Senate blocked this action.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you explain why you won’t have a double dissolution?

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

Kevin won’t allow them to.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Can we have less yelling—thank you.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate chose to leave this country without the laws that would have provided a framework for reducing emissions. I have to say that personally I am constantly surprised by the number of people—even people who are active in the broader environmental movement and who supported the scheme—who believe that if the Greens had voted in support of the CPRS it still would not have got up.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting President, I direct your attention to the standing order which prohibits a senator from reflecting upon a vote of this chamber, which is what Senator Pratt has just done. When she resumes her address, might she also care to explain to the Australian people why the government will not call a double dissolution election?

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Brandis, I do not believe there is a valid point of order.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People were horrified to learn that because of the honourable actions of two senators opposite the CPRS would have got up were it not for the decision of the Greens to put their ideological position before reform on carbon pollution. It is important to recognise that the Greens did choose to block the Carbon Pollution—

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

Why don’t you have a double dissolution?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why don’t you shut up and let her speak?

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! We need to hear Senator Pratt over the interjections from both sides, please.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is important and pertinent to this debate to recognise that this chamber blocked the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Rudd Labor government has had to cop this chamber’s decision at the expense of the environment and at the expense of getting our economy on the right footing for a carbon constrained future, and the public are entitled to know how this came about. They are entitled to know just who was responsible for this lost opportunity and who was not. It is legitimate to express our frustration and anger at this decision and others taken by this chamber. It is legitimate to remind the Australian people why it is that we are without the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a scheme that after the last election Australian people believed and had a right to expect would be implemented.

I have also been asked by students who were expecting access to much-needed student income support why it languished in this place for so long. I have had to explain to them that the Senate left them in limbo over the summer period and, alarmingly, right into the first semester of this year. So it is stating the obvious that the Prime Minister’s view on these questions may not always accord with those opposite. It is surely no surprise to any of us.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, the level of interjection and noise coming from those opposite has gone well beyond what is reasonable and tolerated in this chamber. Senator Abetz was listened to in almost total silence, but Senator Brandis and others are continuing a barrage of interjections. Not only is it unparliamentary and rude, it is also against the standing orders, and I would ask you to bring the chamber to some level of order.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, the interjections have been coming from the government as well as from the opposition. You and I both heard Senator Sherry, as duty minister in the chamber, a few moments ago repeatedly yelling at Senator Bernardi, ‘Shut up’. I do not think that that phrase is parliamentary. It is not something that Senator Sherry was pulled up on—he should have been. If you are to make a ruling on interjections, might I invite you to ask Senator Sherry to withdraw his unparliamentary language?

The Acting Deputy President:

Thank you. I do not believe there is a point of order, but I remind both sides that all interjections are disorderly, particularly if we cannot hear the senator who has the call.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The public has a right to know, to hear both sides of the story and to judge for itself the merits of the case. To argue otherwise is to set this chamber up as some kind of judge, jury and executioner combined in the court of public opinion. It is one thing for this chamber to say that it does not agree with the Prime Minister’s view of its actions. It is quite another to say that his expression of those views is an unprincipled thing to do. The public is more than capable of deciding for itself which view of reality to accept: the Prime Minister’s or that of senators opposite.

I very much doubt that the public wants the Senate to take on the role of censoring the Prime Minister for expressing an opinion on this or any other matter. Are those opposite really suggesting that the Prime Minister, if he believes that this chamber is thwarting, undermining, obstructing or delaying the policy intentions of this government, should not be allowed to say so—that he has no right to express his views? It is an absurd proposition. What do those opposite suggest the Prime Minister do in such a situation? Do they want him to lie and concoct a reason other than the real one, or do they want the prime minister to say, ‘I’m sorry; I can’t tell you why this measure has been delayed, deferred or defeated, because if I did the Senate might be offended?’ It is patently ridiculous.

We hear a lot in this chamber about the need for our own standing orders to be interpreted with sufficient latitude so as to allow robust debate. All kinds of liberties are taken in this chamber and in the other place on this basis, and I for one am quite glad of it, because the last thing we want to be part of is quashing the very to-and-fro of ideas and arguments that allow the public to hear all sides and make up their own minds about issues of importance. Whether or not the Senate is thwarting the government’s legislative program or budget, either in whole or in part, is surely a matter of public importance. It is surely within our fine traditions of robust debate, both within the parliament and within the media, for the Prime Minister to express his views forcefully, whether in the other place, to the public directly or to the media. To describe such an action as an unprincipled attack on the chamber is simply ridiculous.

I will give those opposite the benefit of the doubt. I will assume that what they actually meant to say was something like: ‘The Senate believes that the Prime Minister’s description of its actions in relation to the government’s legislative program is inaccurate.’ Let us say that is the proposition. That might be a legitimate matter for debate. It is a debate that I am more than happy to have, a debate I will address today, for I am very much convinced that the Prime Minister’s description of this chamber’s attitude and actions is in fact all too accurate. That is not to say that I do not take the role of this place very seriously. I do. I take very seriously the role of this place in reviewing and amending legislation, as does the government, but I also share the government’s frustration. Too often the delays and knock-backs have not been about expressing legitimate views of senators but of political posturing. This has been, I believe, at the nation’s expense.

We came to government with a big agenda, after 12 years of coalition neglect, and it is right that we are keen to prosecute this agenda. But it is a plain fact that the numbers in this place have made that a hard job to do. Opposition senators have crossed the floor to vote with the government and yet the legislation concerned has still been defeated. The government does not have this luxury. A single government senator crossing the floor would guarantee the defeat of any government bill. The fact is that this chamber has a small number of senators with a narrow support base that holds the balance of power. Furthermore, while the opposition requires the support of just one of those senators to frustrate the government’s program, the government requires the support of all seven crossbench senators, a group that is comprised of individuals with very divergent views on many critical issues confronting this country. The opposition, on the other hand, picks and choose its supporters on the crossbench, depending on the issue—and it is not a luxury that the government has. The Liberal opposition have exploited this for all it has been worth. It might have been in their political interest to do that, but I do not think it has been in the national interest—and we are entitled to say so.

The Prime Minister is quite justified in drawing the nation’s attention to this and in expressing his frustration. There are no fewer than 37 bills that this place has either rejected or passed with amendments unacceptable to the House. These bills include the Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill and associated bill; the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill; the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill (No. 2); the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill; the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill and associated bills; the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill (No. 2); the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill; the Horse Diseases Response Levy Bill 2008; the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill—and I could go on.

None of these measures were purely trivial or technical. These measures concerned issues that were of great concern to the general public or of particular concern to specific communities and specific issues. There were important issues like the effectiveness of this nation’s response to climate change, the need to ensure a sustainable health and aged care system in the face of an ageing population, the viability of student services and representative organisations on our student campuses, and the ongoing struggle to ensure that political donations enhance the dynamism of our political culture without undermining its integrity. None of these issues are trivial—far from it. They are all important issues—issues that impact on our democratic traditions and our ability to confront issues in the national interest. Many of the measures frustrated by the opposition sought to deliver on Labor’s election commitments. And at least one measure, the CPRS, which was defeated not once but twice, sought to deliver on a promise that was also supported in principle by both the Greens and the coalition—namely, swift action to put a price on carbon emissions

Other measures which were frustrated by the opposition sought to address critical issues, because changing circumstances or review and public consultation had established a strong case for action and yet you did not act. These included measures to make private health insurance fairer and more sustainable for the future, to allow for more dental services to be delivered to hundreds of thousands of needy Australians, and to establish Australia’s first ever preventative health agency.

On top of all of this, the opposition has also delayed government legislation for measures to make the Medicare levy surcharge fairer on middle-income Australians and measures to deliver an economic stimulus to Australian businesses and households.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis interjecting—

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

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! I am sorry, Senator Pratt, I cannot hear you because of continual interjections that have gone for about the last 15 minutes.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are the measures that you opposed to bring benefits to thousands of schools around the country. There are many thousands of schools that have had enormous benefit from the Building the Education Revolution stimulus package. You have to stand up and say, ‘We didn’t want to support your local school community.’

Measures that delivered economic stimulus to Australians to keep them working during the global financial crisis were opposed by you in this place. Fortunately, we did have the numbers on that issue. These are measures that everyone except the opposition now accepts were urgently needed to protect Australia from the worst of the recent global economic crisis.

We have seen repeated action from the opposition and the Greens to use up this chamber’s time on exercises that distract and divert the Senate from the important issues. It engages us in debate that changes and achieves nothing —meaningless gestures. This afternoon’s motion is yet another example of this kind of time wasting.

This parliament and this chamber does its job best when governments have to argue and negotiate their position through this place effectively. This chamber has a vital role in creating a strong and open democracy. Strong checks and balances are indeed required, but we need a Senate that provides proper and fair legislative scrutiny and good legislative outcomes.

The government and the opposition will be held to account for their actions at the next election—and all the senators in this place who are up for election will be held to account. We will not stand idly by as the government’s agenda is frustrated and obstructed by the actions of this chamber. The Australian people are watching us closely in the lead-up to the next election.

When reform has been promised and is expected and does not eventuate or is compromised severely because of the actions of this chamber—not the government—it is of vital importance that people know. Our Prime Minister has a right to express his views and his frustration. It is entirely fair that our Prime Minister and the Rudd government put its case on these issues to the Australian people. The Australian people in the lead-up to the next election are watching. Australians will make their own decision and hold members and senators of both chambers to account.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly, Senator Pratt has lost her copy of the Constitution. I am very happy to lend mine to you, Senator Pratt, and I will even flag section 57 for you, bright yellow, big writing, so you can read it perhaps for the first time.

I rise today to support the motion of Senator Abetz about the Prime Minister’s disgraceful complaining about the scrutiny by this chamber. All this huffing and puffing hides the inadequacy of his government and the fact that the wheels are really starting to fall off the Prime Minister’s bandwagon. We have a mess over pink batts, a mess over the Julia Gillard memorial halls and a mess on the ETS. The ETS would have cost the Illawarra 12,000 jobs had it been passed. Thanks to this Senate not passing it, those jobs have been saved. We have a mess with the resources tax and again this has an impact on the Illawarra.

Now, of course, the much trumpeted great, grand plan for hospitals is falling apart. I think today we are really seeing the fraud that is this so-called health reform. It is vital that this chamber has the ability to scrutinise these sorts of misleading and deceptive actions. Indeed, it has been the role of the Senate that has helped to unravel this process. There is today’s spectacular backflip by the Prime Minister. Interestingly enough, Minister Roxon did not even know about it. Little wonder she is not very happy about the release of the document; that was very clear at the press conference this morning. She is a little bit touchy about the fact that the document was released by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. She did not know about it and of course then had the audacity to blame the opposition and the media for aiding and abetting what she calls ‘a beat up’—touchy.

I go briefly to the National Health and Hospitals Network agreement that was signed between all the states and territories except Western Australia and the Commonwealth. There it is in black and white. It says, ‘The Commonwealth will establish a national funding authority to oversee a National Health and Hospitals Network Fund and the distribution of Commonwealth funding contribution through this fund in line with other sections and other mechanisms dotted throughout this agreement.’ Indeed the funding authority is so fundamental to this agreement that references to it are littered throughout this document.

Let’s have a look at the reasons that this government wanted the funding authority in place. Let’s have a look at the red book; this is the book that came out after COAG, and there it is, on page 49: ‘Reforming funding arrangements for public hospitals.’ I have to put this on the record. This is the reason the government thought it was so imperative to set up this authority:

States have also agreed to be transparent about their funding contribution for each public hospital service, by making payments on an activity basis through Funding Authorities. There will be no scope to divert these funds for other uses, and no scope for health departments to use the money for bureaucracy. This will give hospitals more funding certainty …

Et cetera.

Transparent funding arrangements will also support transparent performance reporting and drive continuous improvement within each public hospital.

That is why it was so important that this funding authority be in place; it was supposed to underpin the transparency and the accountability of this grand plan.

Three weeks ago, when we sat in estimates we were told, ‘Yes, this authority is alive and well—

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The motion that we are debating today is on the alleged claims that the Prime Minister has somehow made attacks against the Senate. The Senator opposite is debating the health reforms, and has clearly strayed from the notice of motion that we are debating in the chamber this afternoon. I ask you to draw the Senator back to the notice of motion.

The Acting Deputy President:

My understanding is that the topic of debate can range pretty broadly in these sorts of motions. I will allow the Senator to continue.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nice try, Senator, but it did not quite work. The Prime Minister does not want to be scrutinised by this Senate, and that is precisely what we have done in relation to this—

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The Senator should address the chair, not point her finger and talk across the chamber at another senator. If this behaviour continues I am sure it will invite further points of order.

The Acting Deputy President:

I do not believe this is a point of order but I just remind Senator Fierravanti-Wells to address her remarks through the chair.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Three weeks ago, when Senate estimates scrutinised this process we were told that the authority was alive and well, and yet yesterday—miraculously—it was dumped in the answer to a question we received. Of course, we were not told at the COAG inquiry last week that there was an intention to dump this authority, or that there had been any indication given that the centrepiece of transparency and accountability was to be dumped. Again I ask: why was the COAG inquiry, in scrutinising the government’s measures, not told about this intention? I cannot wait to see the rest of the answers which were promised by 10 June so this Senate can deliver its report by 21 June. As at today, we still do not have the majority of answers that are required by our committee to properly scrutinise this process. We will just wait with bated breath.

I would like to come to the timing of this agreement. What now is the status of the agreement? Was it only useful for the photo opportunity that the Prime Minister needed to have? He desperately wanted to show the public in Australia that he was the only one who could achieve health reform and that he was going to end the blame game with the states—or was this really a sham process to deceive, mislead and give the deceptive and misleading impression that this was supposed, somehow, to be real reform when really it was just to show some agreement so that the Prime Minister could walk away?

There are the get out of jail clauses in this agreement, and I think that is what has happened here. This was another decision of the kitchen cabinet, and not only did the Financial Review tell us that the hospital health package was a decision of the kitchen cabinet but now we have had it confirmed in answers to questions on notice, which are a little bit different to what we were told at estimates.

I now come to this whole process. I asked a question specifically about the process that led up to this agreement, and the answer was very interesting. It lends credence to what I think has been this perception that the premiers were out there, beating their chests and saying things. But really, behind the scenes it was a different process. I came across this really interesting photograph about ‘behind the scenes’. Here is a lovely photograph of the Prime Minister. For the benefit of senators, it says, ‘The Prime Minister’s Army’—

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The Senate knows full well that in this chamber it is improper and inappropriate to refer to documentation unless it is tabled.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President: I want to speak to the point of order. It is a complete nonsense. There is no standing order or practice that prevents a senator referring to a document in a speech. What the Senator was doing was referring to a newspaper article. She is perfectly entitled to do that.

The Acting Deputy President:

It is my understanding that it is quite frequent practice to refer to documents without tabling them, so I will allow Senator Fierravanti-Wells to continue.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would happily refer you to it; it is in the Age of 31 March, page 4 of the late edition. It is a lovely photo: ‘The Prime Minister’s Army’. From left, ‘The federal police officer, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Deputy Secretary, Ben Rimmer, Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister’s policy adviser, a random jogger, the health minister and her chief of staff.’

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Was the policy adviser a random jogger?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And a random jogger! But the beauty of this is that the before photograph is of the Prime Minister’s army and the after photograph is of the Prime Minister with a jar of plum jam from Mr Brumby’s wife. It is a great photograph.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s like The Truman Show.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is, absolutely. It is just like The Truman Show.

Let us look behind the scenes. I would like to examine this answer that was given. It was interesting. It said that, apparently, the first formal negotiations in relation to the National Health and Hospitals Network commenced in February 2010 with the establishment of the COAG health reform working group. This working group comprised Commonwealth and state and territory officials from first ministers’ departments. Of course the first ministers are actually premiers. We know that from later in the answer. So here we have these meetings that have been undertaken with the premiers, the health departments and the treasuries. The working group met on four days—5 February, 5 March, 19 March and 29 March. It begs the question: why did we have this public sham outrage by the premiers?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Affected outrage.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was affected outrage, as Senator Brandis says, by the premiers. They were beating their chests and saying all sorts of things. Meanwhile, they were squirrelled away in meetings working it all out. Not only did the premiers meet and the health departments meet; they had three subgroups.

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

Hollowmen.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, hollowmen. These subgroups again comprised Commonwealth and state and territory officials from the premiers’ departments, the health departments and the treasuries. These all met regularly by teleconference. Then we had the heads of treasuries and their deputies forum meeting parallel with the COAG health reform working group.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s like something out of Franz Kafka.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Then following the final COAG health reform working group meeting the COAG senior officials groups and their deputies forum comprising Commonwealth and state and territory officials from the premiers’ departments again met on several occasions to finalise the agreement and the related material. So the states signed up to an agreement barely three weeks ago. The ink is not dry yet and the centrepiece of this agreement has now been dumped. Did they intend to dump it all along? That is my question. Was this just—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wasn’t this one of the great moral challenges of our time?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it was the second greatest moral challenge of our time.

There is more. Finally, in the lead-up to the April COAG meeting there was a series of bilateral meetings, and teleconferences were held as required. These meetings again involved the Prime Minister himself and ministers, premiers et cetera. Then of course there were the face-to-face meetings. My point is this: they obviously knew very well everything that went into this agreement. So I can only draw the conclusion that either this was a sham—

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

The Hitler Diaries of our time.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

or this was a big hoax that this Prime Minister wanted to foist onto the Australian public.

It is interesting that the crucial hook that was supposed to stop the states from siphoning money from hospitals—those billions of dollars which the states extracted from the Prime Minister—has now been conveniently dropped. As part of that process we had confected letters of outrage, like the one from Premier Keneally. All her ministers, departmental officials and everybody was meeting and all of a sudden she wrote to the Prime Minister in a tone that really makes me wonder whether she reads anything that is put before her.

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

He was not talking to her at the time.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, he was not talking to her at the time. You look at the nature of this letter and you wonder what this whole thing was really about.

One of the issues that are very pertinent is the fact that in New South Wales we currently have eight area health services, each with its own structure and its own employees—particularly in rural and regional areas. I know that Senator Williams is particularly interested in this issue. All of a sudden at the COAG hearing last week we had the secretary of the department telling us that the area health services in New South Wales are going to be abolished. I think that is news to the officials in New South Wales. It is probably news, Senator Williams, to all those thousands of people who are working in those bureaucracies.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Cabinet have to read about decisions on the front page of the newspaper.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely, Senator Brandis. I would like in the time available to me to focus on two aspects. The first is the local hospital networks. What a deception that has been. It is very, very clear from this agreement and it also clearly emerged from the inquiry that we had last week that all this talk about federal funding run locally is waffle and drivel. That is all it is—drivel. It is unadulterated drivel. The states and the Commonwealth signed up to this clause. It says that the local hospital networks will be appointed by the states. The states are in control. There is nothing federal about this. In the governing council which is supposed to run these local hospital networks the clinical expertise—that is, the doctors in these local hospital networks—will be ‘external to the local hospital network wherever practical’. What does that mean? That means that all the doctors who had been assured that they were going to be involved in running them locally are not going to be running the local hospital networks. Again, this is just spin.

I say to all the health professionals who made submissions and who keep telling us in briefings, ‘We are going to be involved’: that is not what is written in the agreement; that is not what the documents actually say. After many years of involvement in law, the written agreement that has been signed off is what I follow, not whatever comes out of the mouth of the Prime Minister, full of spin and lack of substance.

The other point that we want to make here is about the policy process that was undertaken. The whole thing about this reform is that it really does look—like the mining tax and like a whole lot of other things that this government has done—cobbled together. It is very clear that this was driven out of the Prime Minister’s office. In fact, it is very clear from the evidence that was given by Mr Rimmer and other officials from Prime Minister and Cabinet at estimates that this whole health agenda has been driven out of the Prime Minister’s office and approved by the kitchen cabinet.

It is not surprising that Minister Roxon today feels aggrieved and a bit touchy about the fact that she needed to read the newspaper to know that the centrepiece of this agreement had suddenly been dumped. She said in a press conference, ‘Go and ask Prime Minister and Cabinet, because I know nothing about the timing of this decision.’

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She and Mr Garrett must feel very sorry for one another.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely. The centrepiece was supposed to be improved transparency and accountability, but of course it is business as usual with states. This funding authority was at the heart of what the government were doing, and this is a massive backflip on health. A month ago the Prime Minister was talking about their big belief in what they were doing, but this man does not believe anything. How can anybody believe what this man says?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They don’t.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brandis—people are believing him less and less. We do not know what this man stands for anymore. We do not know what his government stand for. Today’s backflip, on what is supposed to be one of the most important things that the government are driving, is a sign of an increasingly desperate government. They cannot get health right, and today’s backflip is just indicative of the utter, total disarray that the government are in.

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

I welcome this debate concerning Senate obstructionism. I noticed, having listened to the last speaker, that she in no way felt constrained by the topic of this debate. It is customary in this place to at least make a gesture in one’s speech towards the topic, but there was no danger of Senator Fierravanti-Wells even drifting onto the right subject today.

The subject that is at the heart of this motion is a subject that Labor is happy to debate at length. As I said in my very first speech in this place, I am a believer in bicameralism. I believe that the Senate does, should and can play a useful and important role in the process of government as a house of review and that it is a house in which senators represent the interests of their states within the practical context of their party loyalties. I also made some remarks in that first speech about how the Senate should not become a house of obstructionism, a house from which the opposition can behave as though it were a government in exile. I said in that speech that the Australian people did not want to see the opposition stage a rerun of 1975 in this Senate. Sadly, that is what the opposition has done persistently ever since the 2007 election. That is, unfortunately, conduct which is continuing undiminished today.

Having now been a member of this Senate for nearly two years, I still hold the view that I held when I first came here. I believe that the parliament passes better legislation when governments have to negotiate and argue their case in this place. We have a stronger democracy when legislation is properly scrutinised by the parliament and when the power of the executive government is held to scrutiny by a strong upper house, including the very strong committee structure of which the Senate can boast, a Senate committee structure which does very good work scrutinising both legislation and the actions of the executive. These are all good and proper processes and structures, and they all do credit to this house.

I must say that I have my doubts about whether those opposite in fact hold any of those values, whether they believe in effective bicameralism. Unfortunately, that is a pronouncement I can make on the basis of evidence. In the last parliament, when the Liberal and National parties had a majority in the Senate, they treated this place as a rubber stamp. From 2005 to 2007 the Howard government enjoyed a majority on virtually all Senate committees and processes and used that majority to control every Senate process through which bills were scrutinised. Work Choices was legislation for which the government had no mandate; nonetheless, it was legislation that was rammed through this Senate with minimal scrutiny. When the rubber hits the road, that is the commitment to effective bicameralism of those opposite—none. Objections from the opposition and also from the crossbenchers were completely ignored during that period when those opposite had the numbers.

The Howard government’s cavalier attitude to Senate scrutiny undermined the role of the Senate as a house of review. To think otherwise is to fail to understand the lessons of history. Rebuilding the reputation of this place as a proper house of review, as a proper place for scrutiny, is a task that only again commenced in 2008, when the new Senate finally met. It is of course a task in which we must sadly reflect on the fact that those opposite have done their dead level best to continue to destroy the reputation of this Senate. Senator Abetz, Senator Brandis, Senator Macdonald, Senator Scullion, Senator Mason—they were all members of that government. Their attitude to the Senate during that period was a far cry from the position and pronouncements they are putting forward today.

It seems that for the Liberal and National parties there are two standards for Senate behaviour. When they are in government, and particularly when they have a majority in the Senate, the Senate is a rubber stamp and bills are to be pushed through the processes of the Senate as quickly as possible. The opposition is an irrelevant nuisance which should sit still and be quiet. But, when Labor is in office, the Senate suddenly becomes the great bulwark of democracy for those opposite. It must subject every bill to the most minute scrutiny and months of repetitive committee hearings. Even then, even after all of the filibustering and delaying tactics, the coalition reserves the right to reject legislation for which the government has a clear electoral mandate. Those are the two different standards that one political party opposite offers in this debate.

This motion reflects the desire of the coalition parties to retain control of government policy, despite having been rejected by the Australian people at the 2007 election. The Liberal and National parties have never accepted the outcome of that election. They still think they are born to rule or, in the case of the Nationals, born to extract more largesse for their local regions. That old slogan springs to mind: socialise the losses and privatise the profits. They still think they can dictate from the Senate which policies will be enacted and which will not be enacted. Mr Abbott seems to think that he can make himself Prime Minister just by wishing it to be so and that he does not actually have to win an election first, that obstructionism in this place will simply deliver it to him. In fact, he seems to think he is Prime Minister already and that the parliament should enact his half-baked, uncosted, irresponsible policies just because he says so—policies that have not been through the shadow cabinet process, I hasten to add, given the 20-minute diatribe we have just received.

This is what the Liberal and National parties always do when they are in opposition. During the Whitlam government, they threatened to block the 1974 budget, forcing that government to call a double dissolution election. In the following year, 1975, they pulled the same stunt again, blocking the budget and bringing on the 1975 constitutional crisis. During the Hawke and Keating governments, although they never had outright control in the Senate, the coalition nevertheless obstructed the government wherever and whenever they could, and of course the 1987 double dissolution election is testament to that fact. Mr Abbott and senators opposite seem to think that they can obstruct government legislation and insist on their own partisan views and policies, whatever those policies happen to be on any given day—and Lord only knows they do seem to change—just as they like. They think they can dictate our climate policy. They think they can dictate our health policy. They believe they can dictate the economic policy of this nation. They seek to dictate our trade policy and our foreign policy.

I think the Australian people will reject this arrogant notion that senators opposite have developed. The Australian people gave the Rudd government a mandate in 2007. They expect us to carry out that mandate and we have been trying to do so, but we are having to do so in the face of constant obstructionism from the unholy alliance of senators opposite. That alliance is a shifting composition. Sometimes the Greens vote with the opposition and sometimes they vote with the government. Sometimes Senator Xenophon votes with the opposition and sometimes he votes with the government. Sometimes Senator Fielding votes with the opposition—perhaps I should say usually—and sometimes, very occasionally, he votes with the government. But one thing never changes: the persistent and stubborn opposition and obstructionism of the Liberal and National parties.

I think it is useful to reflect at this moment that the attitude of coalition senators does not simply pertain to the policy of this government. They will obstruct, hinder and destroy the policy of their own parties when it does not meet with their approval. Of course, we watched aghast—

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

Especially you, Cory.

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

Name me! Name me!

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

We would certainly name you, Senator Bernardi. We watched aghast at the end of last year as coalition senators not only sought to obstruct the government but sought to obstruct their very own leader and shadow cabinet. They sought to obstruct the resolutions of their very own caucus. So this is not a group of senators who know any bounds. This is not a group of senators who will accept convention, but rather it is a group of senators who not only seek to obstruct the policies of this government and the people of Australia but indeed will do all they can to sabotage the policies of their own party when it suits them.

The slide from scrutiny to sabotage is one they seem to engage in very quickly indeed. I noticed in Senator Abetz’s remarks at the start of this debate that, while his speech began talking about scrutiny and the proper role of this Senate, it very quickly and seamlessly moved to the justification for sheer obstructionism. Senator Brandis’s earlier enthusiasm for debating the question of a double dissolution election points to the fact that those opposite are interested in crises and the failure of our Constitution rather than making this place work as it was originally conceived to do so. They have prevented Australia putting in place a policy to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. That is simply a matter of fact. They have prevented us from ending a situation in which Australians on low and middle incomes subsidise the private health insurance of millionaires. They did their best to prevent us passing our economic stimulus packages, measures which clearly can now be demonstrated to have saved this country from recession and saved hundreds of thousands of Australians from the spectre of unemployment.

I hate to think what the Australian economy would look like today if those opposite had had their way and our stimulus legislation had been rejected by the Senate in February last year, as they fought so persistently for. Fortunately for Australia, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding saw their way clear, finally, to vote for our stimulus legislation. But that does not let the Liberal and National parties off the hook. They voted against the legislation at every stage and they must take responsibility for their reckless obstructionism at that time. As every responsible economist says, as every senior figure in Australian business knows and as every international economic organisation reports, if the Liberal and National parties had had their way, this country would now be deep in a recession, as is most of the developed world. We would be in the second year of the Abbott-Hockey recession. We would have 10 per cent unemployment, or even worse. We would have tens of thousands of small business failures. We would have Australian farmers forced off their land, Australian investors losing their money. We would have a collapse in Australian government finances as tax revenues plunged and unemployment benefit payments soared. That is what the behaviour of the Liberal and National parties in this Senate would have inflicted on Australia. That would have been the fruit of your obstructionism.

That is an example of unsuccessful opposition obstructionism. Australia was rescued from the consequences of the reckless folly of those opposite thanks to the resolve of Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding, eventually, to support our stimulus legislation. Unfortunately, there are many examples of successful obstructionism by the Liberal and National parties in the Senate. Let me list some of the bills, this list of shame, that those opposite have successfully blocked in the Senate—demonstrable proof of their continuing resolve to obstruct the work of this government in this place: A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Customs) Amendment Bill 2008, the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008, the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008, the Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009, the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008, the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy Surcharge Thresholds) Bill 2008 and the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2009. This is only a small sample, but it serves as testament to the persistent opportunism and obstructionism of the Liberal and National parties in the Senate.

I have not mentioned, of course, the most spectacular of irresponsible Senate obstructionism that we have seen in the life of this parliament. That was the repeated rejection of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills—rejected in July and then again in December 2009. It is true, of course, that the Greens, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding also opposed those bills, which is why they were ultimately defeated. But there is a major difference between the votes of those senators and the votes of the opposition. The Greens, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding voted in accordance with their longstanding and professed views on the subject matter of the bills—the issue of climate change, action on climate change and what to do about it. Senator Fielding does not believe in climate change at all. The Greens and Senator Xenophon think we should have brought in some other kind of bill. I think they are mistaken, but I respect the consistency of their positions. But none of that applies to those opposite. The Liberal and National parties behaved with a complete lack of integrity. They actually voted in opposition to their own party policy and their own stated views.

Mr Turnbull, as Minister for Environment and Water Resources, prior to the last election said he would bring in an emissions trading scheme. They went to the 2007 election pledged to bring in an ETS. Dr Nelson and Mr Turnbull, as successive opposition leaders, stood by that policy and the senators opposite were all pledged to the policy arising out of that election. Last year, Mr Turnbull and Mr Macfarlane negotiated in good faith with Senator Wong representing the government. They came to an agreement on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme which was acceptable to both sides and which was ratified by cabinet, the Labor party room, the coalition shadow cabinet and the coalition party room.

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

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

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

We all know what happened next. Senator Minchin and Senator Abetz, with Senator Bernardi cheering them on, led a revolt of the science deniers against their own leader, Mr Turnbull. After inflicting mayhem upon their own party and in this place, they replaced him with Tony Abbott, a man who thinks that climate science is ‘crap’. Mr Abbott then reneged on the agreement which had been reached between the government and the opposition, and the CPRS legislation was defeated. The upshot was that the opposition, having wasted their own four terms in government by doing absolutely nothing about climate change, succeeded in also wasting the first term of this government in not delivering action on climate change. They did that through their politically motivated obstructionism in this Senate.

Senator Abetz in his earlier remarks tried to cite the passage of the CPRS as an example of the Senate process working. He could not be more wrong. Every time those bills were sent off to committee it was not so that those opposite could indulge in another round of scrutiny and consideration but rather to spare them from dealing with those political questions themselves.

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

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

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

It was filibustering to spare you from having to make a decision, Senator Bernardi. It was filibustering to spare the coalition from having to grapple with a real political issue. It does not stand as testament to how this place can work when it is scrutinising legislation. Rather, it stands as continuing evidence of the policy confusion of those opposite.

It is not just through obstructing government legislation that the opposition have sought to frustrate this government and to waste the time of the Senate. The opposition claim that there are not enough sitting days, but then they constantly use up the time of the Senate on exercises that distract and divert the Senate from the main issues of the day—exercises that change nothing and that are basically devices to frustrate a government which does not have a Senate majority. One might say this debate is a prime example of that fact. These include pointless censure motions and long lists of speakers on second reading debates, often when positions on bills are clear and bills have already had ample debate. The opposition and the crossbenches have the right to move their motions and to speak on bills as much as they like, but if they choose to do this as a deliberate time-wasting tactic, as deliberate filibustering, then they cannot complain when we run out of time at the end of sittings. We know from the experience of the last parliament that, when they are in government and when they have a Senate majority, the Liberal and National parties do not stand for those tactics. In the last parliament, they used the guillotine ruthlessly to push through their flagship legislation such as the Work Choices bill—that Orwellian named legislation, a bill for which they had no mandate from the people and a bill which ultimately wrecked their government.

I do not blame the Prime Minister and government ministers, such as Mr Albanese, for becoming impatient with the tactics of the opposition in the Senate. The Labor Party has seen it all before. This is an irresponsible and destructive opposition. It has no interest in good policy outcomes. It regards Senate committees as an opportunity to delay public policy debate rather than to enhance it.

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

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

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

Its sole concern is to frustrate and undermine the Labor government, hoping that this will be to its electoral advantage, and what underpins that whole strategy is a grand deceit.

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

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I would appreciate it if you, Senator Bernardi, made a decision to cease interjecting. Senator Feeney has the call.

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

A grand deceit. That grand deceit is this: obstruct, oppose and destroy the government’s agenda in this place and then cruise through the suburbs and regions of this country proclaiming that this is a government that has not kept its promises. That is the grand deceit upon which those opposite seek to run an election campaign. We hope that the people of Australia can see through this grand deceit. We hope that they can see through the lack of substance that characterises the paper-thin public policy offerings of those opposite. That is true of the Fuelwatch scheme, for example. Once again, we saw a Labor promise frustrated in this place and now those opposite roll around in mirth at their own cunning plan to destroy a Labor promise in this place and then make hay out of it in the electorate. But most dramatically it is true on climate change policy, where, after having successfully sabotaged—and there is no other word for it— (Time expired)

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Feeney, your time has expired.

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

I trust that Senator Parry will be moving an extension of time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Parry) adjourned.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am not moving for an extension of time, Senator Feeney. I move:

That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.

Question agreed to.