Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Abetz today, relating to the Gillard government

I am waiting with great interest under the new paradigm for Senator Conroy and Senator Carr to actually give answers to questions without reading them. I want to see the new paradigm in relation to that matter.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Conroy, you know it is disorderly to speak when you are not in your seat.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He leaves with the quotes from Senator Carr in his little satchel in case he needs them further down the track. Senator Chris Evans said, ‘We will be providing stable and effective government.’ I think Richo blew the cover on that today. He absolutely blew the cover on stable and effective government because guess how the Prime Minister got to put her ministry together? With threats from two of the cabinet ministers who said they were going to leave unless they were kept there. I do not think it is appropriate to name names except to mention—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, please do it. Come on.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, except to mention the member for Kingsford Smith and the member for Barton, otherwise there would be totally inappropriate conjecture about who those ministers might have been.

In the very brief time available to me I want to look at this new paradigm. One would have thought that a new paradigm would involve a couple of very simple things: that you would be honest with the Australian people and surely that you would keep your election promises. There is no new paradigm. In the space of a week and a half we have seen the new paradigm slip back to the old paradigm very quickly. I am sure some of my colleagues will refer to this as well.

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

I think the new paradigm has disappeared up its own fundament.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that is right. Thank you, Senator Brandis, for that description of what has happened. That is a very horrifying thought. Having said that, I want to talk about two issues: firstly, the carbon tax and, secondly, the fraud that has been perpetrated on the Australian people by this incoming Gillard government. I still think of it as the Gillard-Rudd government but I suppose that is the old paradigm and not the new one. They are going to commit exactly the same sins of the dynamic duo that we saw before the last election. We are seeing back in place immediately after the election this doubletalk driven by the spin doctors. This is not a new paradigm; this is a repetition of the dishonesty that we saw before the election.

I just want to refer to the Prime Minister’s comments in relation to the carbon tax. Everyone knows that she ruled this out before the election. Why did she move to rule this out before the election? Because she knows, everyone in this chamber knows, everyone in the other place knows and the community knows that only one outcome will flow from a carbon tax or a price on carbon—that is, increased electricity prices. That is why, to avoid the coalition and the opposition telling the Australian people what the outcomes were going to be, she made the comment in public during the campaign that there would be no tax on carbon.

We now know that to be completely and utterly untrue, because the grubby alliance between this Prime Minister and Senator Bob Brown will wreak havoc upon this community and will lead to the repetition of further broken promises. Hang on and wait until this mob get another three or four senators to have control of the Senate from next July. The only interesting dynamic about that will be whether we get the red greens running the Greens party or whether we get the green greens running the party. Hang on for the ride with that as well.

I just want to refer, in the seconds left to me, to the Prime Minister’s comment when asked by the media on 16 September whether she would rule out a carbon tax, which she had ruled out before. She said:

PM: Look, we’ve said we would work through options in good faith at the committee that I have formed involving, of course, the Greens … We want to work through options, have the discussions at that committee in good faith.

JOURNALIST: So you’re not ruling it out then?

PM: Well, look, you know, I just think the rule-in, rule-out games are a little bit silly.

She categorically ruled out a carbon tax, and the Australian community is just about to get one. (Time expired)

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

I rise to contribute to this debate to take note of the answer given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans, to the question asked by Senator Abetz. While it might be that the winter of discontent has turned into glorious summer in the House of Representatives and a new paradigm, it is clear to all and sundry that the old paradigm continues to prevail here in the Senate. There could have been no clearer demonstration of that given than today’s question time, because of course in today’s question time we have seen the coalition concert comprised of a denial of the existence of climate change, a continuing determination to raise a fear in the community of refugees and a continued determination to rail against the stimulus package. And all of that of course is wrapped up in a farrago of nonsense about breaking promises. So let me take this issue and confront it head on. I should say that in my summary of the opposition’s performance in question time I have done Senator Fifield an injustice. The sight of watching him put on Bill Shorten’s shoes and then fall over at the first hurdle was indeed a delight.

So what we have to do here today is to take a look at what this opposition attack is all about. It is a matter of fact that the Labor Party in the election campaign articulated, and articulated strongly, its position in terms of our approach on climate change. That approach is well known to this chamber and well known to those senators opposite because on two occasions we put a bill before this parliament and on two occasions those opposite rejected it. Some of you rejected it because you do not believe climate change is real; some of you rejected it because you saw it as a great political opportunity. But there are two things that we can be certain of. The first thing we can be certain of is that those opposite continue to obstruct and wreck when the government puts forward propositions to deal with climate change. The second thing we can be certain of is that those opposite now have a perfect record with respect to their agreement making, because whether it was their agreement for a new paradigm or whether it was their agreement to implement an amended CPRS, on both occasions their word was worth nothing. Despite the Leader of the Opposition insisting that we could at the very least trust his word when it was in writing, we now know that to be false as well.

What is clear to us is that at the election the Labor Party did not secure a majority in the House of Representatives. That is a cause of celebration for those opposite, and fair cop. I would certainly prefer that we had a majority and of course they are delighted that we do not have one. But in the event, of course, we have formed a minority government; and that means there is a new practical reality on the government. That new practical reality is this: in the event that we are to successfully achieve action on climate change and in the event that we are able to get legislation through the House of Representatives and the Senate we require a consensus, at least a consensus that exists amongst a majority of members in both houses. How is it that those opposite can claim and insist that we are breaking our word because we have set up an all-party committee to deal with this issue because we are resolved to, again, rebuild a community consensus on climate change? That proposition is a nonsense and a deliberate distortion of the facts.

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

Senator Abetz interjecting—

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

Senator Abetz, if you can restrain yourself for at least a moment, the facts are that we are resolved to take action on climate change just as you are equally resolved to make sure there is none. We have formed an all-party committee to work through these issues. There will be two empty seats at that committee, Senator Abetz; perhaps one of them was intended for you. But that does not change or avert the fact that it is now clearly a practical issue of getting the numbers in the House of Representatives. This is a proposition that must get a majority in the House of Representatives for it to pass.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about this place?

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

Senator Fifield, I will take that interjection. This place continues to be a challenge for the government, and I have no doubt that you will do your very best to make sure that continues to be the case, because you are not in the business of creating effective legislation in this place, you are not in the business of helping build a successful— (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 clear, after listening to Senator Feeney’s contribution, that the first broken promise of the Gillard government was that the Prime Minister would choose her ministry on merit—that she would not reward the plotters and the factional backstabbers who did Kevin Rudd in. Senator Feeney and the rest of his gang of four who trooped down to knife Kevin Rudd—Senator Farrell, Senator Arbib and Mr Shorten—have all been promoted, irrespective of their credentials or their talents and in contravention of the Prime Minister’s promise to only assess the ministry on merit.

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

Senator Feeney interjecting—

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

Senator Feeney might think I am being unkind, but if that is the best defence he can make, it is a challenge for this government for them to break their promises. Senator Feeney is the man who was the architect of a successful South Australian Labor Party election after which the Treasurer said to the opposition, ‘You don’t have the character to break your promises’ as he reneged on promise after promise after promise that was put forward during the campaign. The dirty fingerprints of the Sussex Street mob and their comrades right around Australia are at work in this government, and we have a Prime Minister who said and did anything that she was told to say and do by the faceless factional men of which Senator Feeney is one.

Unfortunately, they carried it off, but they have carried it off to the detriment of the Australian people. Now, the Australian people are going to face electricity hikes, price hikes of 50 per cent or more, because of the unholy alliance that has been created between the Greens and the left of the Labor Party. Make no mistake, the left are on the march in the Labor Party. Whilst it may be the right wing that control the numbers, the left are getting the spoils. They are having influence in the policy, because that is where Julia Gillard is taking them. It is a problem for Australia. Not only will families suffer because we have a government that does not care about families—it only cares about taxes and being able to spend taxpayers’ money flippantly—but we also know that this is a government that does not hold to high standards of ministerial accountability. If there is a truth teller in the government’s ministerial ranks—and I will not besmirch him—it is Minister Garrett. Remember, Minister Garrett, before the 2007 election, said, ‘It’s all right; we’ll change it all when we get in.’ He was the only man to tell the truth. What has his reward been for getting in and changing policies, destroying houses and placing people’s lives in jeopardy? Was there any accountability for it? No. Was there any demotion for it? No. What has actually happened? He has maintained his ministerial rank, and one can only surmise that he has greenmailed the government—just like the Greens party he has greenmailed the Prime Minister—to keep his spot in cabinet.

This is a great tragedy, because we have a government that are only interested in power for power’s sake. They are not governing for the important long-term benefits for the country. They are not governing for the restoration of some fiscal sanity into our national accounts. It is not for restoring some faith in the parliamentary process. They promised sweetness and light and transparency—operation sunlight. They promised a whole range of reforms, but they cannot deliver on any of them because they do not really want to deliver on them. The problem we have is that in their platitudes, in their soothsaying and in their prepared speech that they gave to the Governor-General yesterday—which really did not outline a national vision—they have said, ‘We’re not fair dinkum.’ They have broken their promise to the Australian people. The Prime Minister, halfway through an election campaign, ruled out a carbon tax and a few weeks later brought it back in. She said that she had changed her mind on immigration and detention policies for people coming here and for offshore processing, and yet got in and has not put serious effort into honouring her commitment. She has a part-time foreign minister representing Australia’s international interests. He is part-time because he is also working for the climate change committee of the United Nations—on a road down which he nearly sent us. This is a government that really have no idea what their intention is and where they are going. It is a great disappointment to me that this government is in power, and I know it is a great disappointment to the Australian people. It is a government that will not come clean with the Australian people. They will say and do anything to keep in power, and the Australian people will come to and recognise that.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The one promise I make at the start of this contribution is that I will not use the word ‘paradigm’ at any stage during the next five minutes—

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

You just have!

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From this point on, I will not use that word. One thing that has remained clear in the debate that we had in this place around question time and afterwards is that the major resource that seems to be used often by those on the other side continues to be the media, particularly the Australian newspaper. We heard this afternoon when Senator Ronaldson began his contribution, which I believe was supposed to be on the questions that were asked in this place, that he immediately quoted from a recent article in the Australian and went straight down that path of quoting on the issue of the day. In the following contributions we have heard so far in this debate we have had a series of attacks—attacks on individuals and on process. The one thing that has become clear and that I think has been the leitmotif of the contributions we have heard so far is that those on the other side are extremely disappointed at the result of the election. I think I can take it as a clear understanding that they are disappointed. What they have actually said is that they do not like the result. As a result of that they are throwing abuse at the people on this side, and they also keep going with this really sad personal attack on what they describe as the ‘unholy alliance’ between two parties who have made an agreement to work together in the process of forming government. It is not an ‘unholy’ alliance.

One of the very good things about the recent election is that the people of Australia actually found out about the process and what it takes to form government in the House of Representatives. I do not think anyone, apart from the parties, who understood that you need to have 76 seats, actually understood the importance of the figure of 76. Now the community knows that, and there seems to be some sense that there was something wrong and unholy about the way that a government has been formed by taking a number of votes from different areas to actually come to the number of 76. It was a process that was being gone through by both sides of the chamber. Both sides were trying to seek alliances to come to 76, and the end result is that we now have a government that will have a great deal of scrutiny—and that scrutiny is important. On the issue of the carbon tax, what has happened is that the Prime Minister has now, in terms of working in government, instituted a process which will go through the chambers of parliament. We do know that there is concern about getting the advisory committee together and it will not, at this stage, include all parliamentary contributors because there seems to be some trouble with people in the opposition taking their role in that committee.

The process will be that there will be clear debate around all the issues to do with climate change, including the issue of carbon tax, which has been in the community and in discussion. We had Senator Boswell today quoting from the business groups that put that there. We will have a process in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, and it probably would not be too far to claim that there could well be some committees on this process. We will look very closely again at all of these issues.

All of that is the way our democracy operates. We have the process, we have people contributing, we have the chance for debate and then it goes to a vote—a vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate which will determine the result which will determine the future of our policy and what will happen in our community. Then the people of Australia will have the chance at the next round of the electoral cycle to see whether they support that process or not. It is not going to be such a different process; all it will be will be allowing the democratic practices of our parliament to proceed, and that is a good thing. We might not always like the result—we have had some disappointment about the result of the election already expressed this afternoon. I expressed some disappointment at the results of some of the votes in this place at the last parliament. Nonetheless, the procedures continue and the final people who will have the say will be the community and the people of this country, because they will see how our parliamentary processes operate and how any alliance between any groups will function to benefit them. That is not such a hard concept, and we must continue to play our role in that whole process. (Time expired)

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The ever-lengthening list of broken promises from this government is nothing short of appalling, and what is really sad is that the Australian people are almost starting to become immune. They are almost immune to the seemingly almost daily broken promises from this government. I say to the Australian people—every single person across this country who is listening right now—do not let that happen. Stop the immunity, start paying attention and start noticing every single time this government breaks a promise, because it is going to keep happening.

This is a government that should be called the BP government, because they are slick as oil when it comes to breaking their promises. They have form. Forget about all the things that are happening at the moment; let’s have a quick walk down memory lane to the last term of government. What did they say before the last election? ‘We will fix hospitals. If there hasn’t been an improvement by the middle of 2009, we will move to take over the hospital system.’ Guess what, colleagues? As you all well know, nothing has happened. We still walk into our hospitals in our regional areas and know that there has been absolutely no improvement.

And the list of broken promises goes on. Remember computers to every secondary school student in years nine to 12? Those are gone—completely gone. What is it now—every second child and only if all the parents in the schools are actually going to pay for all the associated costs? Remember GroceryWatch and Fuelwatch? They promised to put downward pressure on grocery and fuel prices. That is another broken promise. I particularly like this next one. What about retaining the private health insurance rebates? They promised they would retain them. What do we see now? A government that is planning to do exactly the opposite. It is appalling. The Australian people deserve better than this. They deserve better than a government that is going to break its promise at every turn.

But isn’t it interesting now? We have seen over the last term those broken promises throughout the term. Now we have a situation where the Prime Minister is telling us before she even breaks them that she is going to break her promises. Maybe that is just to harden up the electorate so that when they all come, as inevitably they will, the electorate is a little bit more immune to the broken promises from the government. What is it that she said? The Age on 17 September said:

JULIA Gillard has declared that climate change and some other election promises will not be kept to the letter by her minority government - and “people are going to have to get used to it'”.

I think that if she could not form a government that was going to allow her to deliver on her election promises then she probably should not have formed that government at all, because those people across this country who voted for her on her promises deserve to believe that those promises will be honoured, and they simply are not.

One of the worst broken promises, of course, is on the carbon tax—and isn’t that a beauty? Let’s have a look at a couple of those quotes from the government—prior to the election, mind you. On Meet the Press of 15 August, Wayne Swan said:

… what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax …

He also said:

We have made our position very clear. We have ruled it out.

Julia Gillard claimed ‘There will be no carbon tax—’

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

Order! You must refer to the Prime Minister by her proper title.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do apologise. The Prime Minister again claimed:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

How can the Australian people believe anything at all that this government says? We know that this government now wants a carbon tax, and there are two very simple things that the Australian people need to understand. This is going to be a massive new tax that is going to hurt Australian people from one coast to the other. It is going to increase the cost of electricity; all of the costs that are going to be incurred are going to be passed on down to you, the Australian people, and guess what? If the rest of the world is not on board, it is not going to make the slightest bit of difference to the climate. So here we go again on this merry-go-round—down this fairyland path—the same way we did with the ETS: with the government trying to convince people it is going to change the climate. As my very good colleague in front of me, Senator Joyce, says: if taxes were going to cool the climate, this place would be freezing. It is not going to do what the government says it is going to do. The best climate change we have seen recently—the coolest the planet was—was probably in the office on the other side of this place when they had a change of leadership in the Labor Party. This government will not stop breaking their promises, and the Australian people need to know it.

Question agreed to.