Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) 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 the excellent question without notice asked by Senator Brandis today, relating to mining.

There is no doubt that this government is in a hopeless mess. From pink batts, to green loans, to Building the Education Revolution to border protection we have a government that is in a mess. As Labor’s Senator Cameron so perceptively acknowledged, it is as though the Labor Party has had a lobotomy. We on this side have known that for a long time. The surprise to us is that the Labor Party have finally realised it themselves.

If anyone needed an example of a lobotomised Labor Party, all they needed to do was have the same misfortune as I had last night in witnessing the most appalling prime ministerial address to the Australian Industry Group. Last year’s PowerPoint presentation by Prime Minister Rudd achieved a new low, but it was still way, way ahead of Prime Minister Gillard’s performance last night. Ms Gillard, in a shrill and strained presentation last night claimed, ‘A deal is a deal.’

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

A knife is a knife!

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

That is news from Mr Rudd, coming from Ms Gillard. As Senator Brandis said, a knife is a knife. But they made a deal that she would not challenge for the leadership and 15 minutes later she was back in his office saying, ‘I am going to challenge.’ So, clothed with all that moral authority and integrity, she addresses the Australian Industry Group last night and says, ‘A deal is a deal.’

And of course, on the mining tax mess that we are facing, Ms Gillard is claiming that a deal is a deal and things should be honoured. Well, the deal that she struck was renounced on 2 July. She said this in a media conference:

Last night we sat down to settle the final agreement, and I can now announce we’ve reached agreement on the basic structure of minerals taxation for the future.

Then, in an answer to a question on notice to the inquiry into fuel and energy, so ably led by a coalition senator, we were provided with a copy of the heads of agreement, part of which said:

All—

A-L-L—

state and territory royalties will be creditable against the resources tax liability …

Now, all of a sudden, having promised that there would be no cap, there is a cap, and yet, hand on heart, last night in a very shrill and—

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stop saying ‘shrill’.

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

Well, I am sorry; it was shrill—

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s a sexist comment.

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

It is not a sexist comment; it is an indication of how she came across, which is indicative, of course, of a government struggling to get out of its self-inflicted mess. They are starting to sink in their own mire of self-created mess.

And here she was, trying to justify herself as the great economic reformer—the one that opposed every single Howard-Costello government reform—all of a sudden remade. All that she could talk about last night was the Hawke-Keating reform era. She then airbrushed out the Howard-Costello era—she just could not bring herself to that—which of course went down like a lead balloon in the audience that she was addressing.

But what we have now is a government that nobody trusts. Mr Rudd does not trust her because she has form. The mining industry no longer trusts her—the mining industry which is so important and vital to the economic, and thus the social, fabric of our country. They do not trust her anymore. And of course the Australian people cannot trust her any more, given that, on the very day before the election, she made a solemn promise that there would be no carbon tax—absolutely no carbon tax—and yet, straight after the election, she is now entertaining a carbon tax. She will be seeking to implement a carbon tax, and she said so last night. So to this audience where she says, ‘A deal is a deal,’ she was in fact announcing that she was breaking her very own deal, her solemn promise to the Australian people. This is a Labor government in a mess, and what we need— (Time expired)

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am proud to be part of a Labor government that is prepared to take on the hard tasks and the difficult agendas. We sat on that side of the Senate for 11½ years and watched those opportunities simply trickle through the coalition government’s fingers. The big, hard questions that we have had the temerity and the fortitude to tackle are things like really trying to start working to ensure that we have a health system in this nation that will deliver for people who need it; and an education system that works across the country, a single curriculum where constituents who by nature of their job are very transient are able to move their children around the country and get a quality education. I am proud to be part of a government that did tackle sensibly, decisively and with great success the global financial crisis. We have tackled the issue of Indigenous aspiration, something that is never going to be delivered in a short period of time. But at least we have started. We have started dealing with the questions of health, housing, education and, in particular, employment for Indigenous Australians.

It is terrific to be part of a government now working with people on the crossbenches and the Greens to deal with the questions of rural, remote and regional Australia. It is terrific to be part of that. And, yes, we are going to tackle one of the hardest pieces of public policy—that is, dealing with the Murray-Darling Basin. What do we get, though, from those sitting over there? We get name-calling, nastiness, pettiness and base political point-scoring. Last night I was there when the Prime Minister expressed some astonishment at the comments we have had over the last couple of days from Messrs Hockey and Robb. It is quite extraordinary that here we are in 2010 and we have two opposition frontbenchers—two would-be ministers, minister of finance and Treasurer—are pulling back the economic reforms that I thought, and I think our Prime Minister thought, that for the past nearly 20 years were agreed on: that we needed to have a more open market economy and deregulation of the banks, and that the way that interest rates are set in this nation by an independent entity is the right thing to do. So why are we revisiting economic arguments that were won and agreed to more than 20 years ago? I will tell you why. Because it is easy politics; it is lazy politics as well. It is simply appealing to those who want to find a simple answer rather than taking the hard way, the difficult way—the way that I know that many of you who sit over there in fact agree with.

I thought the Prime Minister’s comments last night were very, very apt and important to inform the community debate around what we are really talking about. Let us not let the economic debate in Australia fall so low that we get to questions around—and I do recall it—‘Why don’t we print some more money?’ That is another line that a former member of the House of Representatives, who I think the Prime Minister was alluding to last night, suggested was a reasonable economic strategy. Be careful. I urge caution. We are in this place to lead the debate and not to fall to the lowest common denominator. I encourage leadership; I encourage good, common sense.

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

But we are in opposition.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And that is all you do—simply oppose. If you sit there opposing forever, you will stay there. (Time expired)

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

I am not entirely sure where Senator McLucas was last night, but I know where she wasn’t. She most certainly was not at the AiG dinner, because she could not possibly have come out of that dinner and made the comments that she has now made. Indeed, it was a shrill commentary. It lacked any depth at all. It did not attempt to address in any way the big issues that are expected of the Prime Minister. Indeed, look at some of the commentary. I am looking at the Canberra Times headline. “ALP becoming ‘party of zombies’”, ‘Internal Rumblings’. There is a picture of Senator Doug Cameron. It looks as if he is doing 30 with a minimum of 20. I do not think the photo does him any justice at all, but his comments most certainly do.

Effectively, Senator Cameron, one of the strongest members of the parliamentary Labor Party, has—within the space of nine weeks since the last election—accused his own party of treating members like zombies and giving members political lobotomies. The comments of Senator Cameron are quite instructive. He said: ‘We are not allowed to stand up for the people that we represent. You can’t talk about things. You’re not allowed to talk about things. And, really, you know, we don’t want zombie politicians.’

The most remarkable thing that we have seen today is the Newspoll. Nine weeks after the election of a new government, the Labor Party is behind in the Newspoll. There is only one reason for this. It is because the Labor Party have already broken the so-called deal that they went to the election with. They have broken the deals in relation to health, economic management and illegal immigration. They have broken deal after deal of the deals that you allegedly made with the Australian people.

The arrangement that they have made with the Australian Greens is clear evidence of the depths that they have reached. Labor are a party beholden to a group of people who in the main—certainly in this chamber—they do not share the philosophical beliefs of. There are some in the chamber today—and I will not identify them—who do not share the philosophical beliefs of the Australian Greens. They do not share the philosophical beliefs of some of the Independents. Labor has done a grubby deal to retain power. The Australian people have seen through the grubby deal. The Australian people know that Labor do not believe in what the Greens believe in. But they know that Labor have done a deal simply to hold government.

The Australian people would look at the performance of the Prime Minister last night and say to themselves: ‘What have we done? What have we let this country in for for a maximum of three years? What can we trust about this political party?’ As the Leader of the Opposition has said quite clearly, ‘This is a government which simply can’t keep its word.’ There is no more damning indictment of a political party, and particularly of a Prime Minister, than being accused of not keeping their word. The Australian people know what is going on. The Australian people can see through the Australian Labor Party and this new government. The Australian people have made a decision in nine short weeks that they do not believe you, that everything that you touch is a mess and that your word cannot be trusted. The great tragedy is that there is another potential three years left of the sort of mistruths and policy inaction that we have seen from this government already. Senator Cameron is absolutely right. This is a political party in which there is no debate. This is a political party that is micromanaged more than it was under the Prime Minister that you unceremoniously dumped. (Time expired)

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me commence my contribution by addressing the central focus of Senator Ronaldson’s comments late in his contribution: that this government had broken its word and is not consistent in the application of its policy and that, after a miserable mere nine weeks, should forfeit its position. Let us talk about the five things that Senator Ronaldson listed. They were health reform, asylum seeker and migratory reform, carbon tax reform, mining tax reform and reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. Those are the five issues. Each of those five issues has received considerable prominence and press of late. Why is that? Because the government of Australia, through its relevant cabinet ministers, is in each instance seeking to resolve issues that were determined some nine weeks ago.

This government was given a clear mandate to go ahead with reform in each of these areas. On each of these issues, the relevant minister is engaged in consultation and negotiation. They are holding meetings and forums. They are part-way through that process. No-one on god’s earth believes that after nine weeks in government and after only some four or five weeks since the parliament first convened that each of those issues should have been resolved. The process is underway and will undoubtedly bear fruit in due course.

In contributions by opposition senators, snide references were made to the delivery of a speech last night by the Prime Minister. I must have been the only person in the Great Hall who sat and paid attention to that excellent speech by the Prime Minister, because the appropriate adjectives to use to describe it are ‘reasoned’, ‘calm’, ‘balanced’, ‘logical’, ‘forthright’, ‘deliberate’ and ‘authoritative’. They are the seven adjectives that any sensible person would use to describe both the content and the delivery of that speech.

We are also accused, as I understand it, of being somewhat inconsistent in the process of discussion and negotiation concerning the mining resources rental tax. I would suggest in response that the position that we adopted in July and that we put to the people in late August is the same position that is now being negotiated by Minister Ferguson and his officials and Mr Argus from the National Australia Bank. It is the same position that will come out when that committee of inquiry delivers its report to the government later on this year sometime around about December. Those negotiations on the mining tax have been a model of consistency. The mining tax, as we all know, has particular application in Western Australia and Queensland.

What do we have to say about the proposal that was the subject of questioning by Senator Brandis? Yes, there was an agreement entered into back in late June or early July of this year. Yes, there was a mining tax agreement entered into with the three largest mining companies in this country. Yes, it was made public. There is no disagreement on those basic propositions. We also made it quite clear under the administration of Mr Rudd and the continuing administration of Ms Gillard that we—the government; the Australian Labor Party—are absolutely insistent that there be a fairer return for the use of non-renewable resources in this country. We will continue that discussion and consultation process right across Australia. We have been quite forthright about that process.

The basics will not change. The basics were outlined in the heads of agreement that was negotiated in late June or early July. That heads of agreement was made public. That document made it quite clear that the Australian government was insistent that the Australian people—on behalf of whom it was negotiating—would, through appropriate taxation mechanisms, receive a fair return for allowing mining companies to exploit non-renewable resources in this country in the greatest boom this country has seen in terms of commodities and the extraction of resources. That is what is going on now. The committee is moving around Australia. It is particularly active in Queensland and Western Australia. It is having negotiations at both ends of the—(Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last night I attended a dinner in the Great Hall with the captains of Australian industry and I heard there a very calm, thoughtful, balanced, intelligent speech by the chairman of the Australian Industry Group. He then introduced the only other speaker for the night, and what we heard then was an absolute embarrassment to the people of Australia—a shrill, ignorant speech that really embarrassed us. I went around to the Great Hall this morning and had a look at the floor. I thought there must have been something unusual about the floor because there was a point in the Prime Minister’s speech last night when suddenly for about 30 seconds everyone was looking at the floor. It was an embarrassment at the table I was at and it was an embarrassment at all of the tables that I could see around me. People were embarrassed that this was Australia’s Prime Minister, with such a shrill speech at that sort of event. The issues that the chairman of the Australian Industry Group raised very sensibly in his introduction were not addressed at all by the Prime Minister.

As Senator Brandis indicated in his very thoughtful question at the beginning of question time today, this government simply cannot be trusted. The Labor Party under Kevin Rudd were in free fall a couple of months out from the election and one of the reasons was that they were trying to tax Australia’s resource industries out of existence. All the mine workers, particularly in states like Western Australia and Queensland, could see that their jobs were being put at risk by this mining tax. After the brutal stabbing by Ms Gillard of the then Prime Minister Rudd, Ms Gillard had to do something to try and reverse the electoral defeat that was staring the Labor Party in the face, and the easiest thing to do was to gather up the three biggest mining companies and make a deal with them.

One should perhaps be a little sorry for BHP, Rio and Xstrata today, now that they realise they have been treated with treachery by the Prime Minister. I cannot really bring myself to have sympathy for those three companies because they were so keen to climb into bed with Ms Gillard in the period before the election and save the Labor Party from ultimate annihilation at the election. I do hope that those three companies reflect upon the part they played by crawling into bed with Ms Gillard and its impact on the election held in August.

Unfortunately those companies, whilst they deal with a handshake with billions of dollars around the world, were fooled by a politician of Ms Gillard’s standard. She made a deal with them which, she led them to understand, contained certain arrangements. Yet she knew at the time, I suspect—and certainly it has since become clear—that she had no intention whatsoever of complying with and honouring the deal that she had made. She got through the election—admittedly Labor were almost defeated, but they were saved by some other deal, with a couple of Independents and the Greens, which I am sure will also go the way of the deal with the mining companies—but she has broken that deal this week. This should be a salutary lesson to anyone who would deal with this government that this is a government that simply cannot be trusted. It is an embarrassment to me as an Australian to have a Prime Minister and a government that cannot be trusted. Three of the world’s biggest companies now understand that they cannot deal with the Australian government. We saw last night a Prime Minister who simply cannot be trusted. In her delivery of that speech, with her pettiness, childishness and immaturity, she showed that this government is an embarrassment to all Australians. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.