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

Thank you, Mr President. It is good to see the government catching up to the opposition. My question is to Senator Evans, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer the minister to remarks made by the Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, when she said:

Bob Brown—

and I ask this question in his absence—

is pretty much the most calculating politician in Canberra. He’s not an archangel of moral force. He’s a bloke who wakes up every day and says ‘how can I chisel a bit of political advantage today?’

and to the Prime Minister’s further statement on the weekend:

I’m not in any way resiling from one word in that statement—not one word.

Does the minister agree with the Prime Minister and would the minister care to offer any examples of where the Greens have chiselled political advantage in the Labor-Greens alliance?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I think those listening to the broadcast would be a bit surprised that at a time of the fighting in Libya, the earthquake in Japan, the earthquake in Christchurch and the many serious economic and social issues confronting Australia the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate chooses to ask a question about what the Prime Minister said about Bob Brown. Talk about an opposition that has lost its way! This is not what is concerning the Australian public, I can assure Senator Abetz of that. It really does indicate just how out of touch the opposition are. But I might say that, while ‘calculating’ is sometimes used as a term of derision against individuals more generally, ‘calculating’ for a politician is largely regarded as a compliment, I suspect, by many because it indicates—

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

Mr President, I raise a point of order on relevance. We have now had the minister speaking for over a minute, for more than half of his time, and all he has done is lecture the questioner on the standard of the question. He has not even attempted to answer the question. Mr President, it makes a mockery of question time if you are going to let ministers give a commentary on the nature of the question, and the way the question is framed and asked, without even attempting to address the substance of the question.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, can I say at the outset that, on taking this point of order, what we have is a question which proffers, firstly, whether the minister agrees and, secondly, whether or not he wants to add any additional comments to those the opposition has made. The question taken by Senator Evans was a political question, fair and simple. Senator Evans is answering the question, which can be described in no other way than as a political question, as best he can. We have the ridiculous circumstance where the opposition have raised a point of order in relation to what can only be described as a very broad-ranging question to Senator Evans and they are now asking the minister to be directly relevant to that question, which Senator Evans is broadly answering.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. Senator Evans, there are 56 seconds remaining for you to answer the question.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, this reflects poorly on the opposition. It is fair to say that the Labor Party regards the Greens as a political party in this country that seeks to maximise its support in the same way that the Liberal Party and the coalition more generally do and that the Labor Party is doing. I have never accepted the mantra from the Greens that somehow they are different or special; I have made that clear on numerous occasions. The fact that Senator Brown is a very experienced and effective politician is, I think, widely recognised. But I do not think, and I have never thought, that they operate in a way that is any different to any other political party seeking to maximise their advantage. I am not sure— (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I remind the minister that the Prime Minister herself actually raised these matters yesterday. I ask a supplementary question. I refer the minister to the statement by the Prime Minister in her speech to the Don Dunstan Foundation that the Greens are an extreme political party. Does the minister agree with the Prime Minister? If so, why did she form an alliance with this extreme party?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a party of the mainstream, as the government of this nation, we certainly regard many of the views of the Greens as extreme and we will argue with them, as we have in the past, about those views. But it is perfectly appropriate for them to put those views, because they go before the people of Australia and seek election, as we all do, and they get elected to this place on the basis of how the Australian public perceives them and the level of support they have, which is what is called the democratic process. When they come into this parliament they have the right to exercise their votes as they see fit, and the coalition and the Labor Party work with them to try to gain majority support for propositions in this parliament, as is the expectation of the Australian public. So, yes, I do support the Prime Minister’s views and I do think that people ought to focus on the big issues confronting Australia rather than on this petty political point-scoring.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Did the Prime Minister not know that the Greens were extreme when just before the election, given the prospect that they would gain the balance of power in the Senate, she promised that there would be no carbon tax under a government led by her? What excuse can there be for the Prime Minister now breaking her promise of no carbon tax and adopting the extreme Greens policy?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the Senate that the Labor government has a consistent policy on the issue of the threat of carbon pollution in this country. For the past five years we have argued that carbon pollution has arisen as a result of a contribution by human activity. We have argued that we need a response that allows the economy to move to a carbon reduced future. We have argued for that in this parliament as a government throughout the last term. We had three goes at establishing a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Liberal Party abandoned the bipartisanship and the leadership on that issue prior to the last election, but this government will continue to argue for a proper response to the threat of carbon pollution and an effort to price carbon, transform our economy and meet the huge challenge that this increased carbon pollution presents to our economy and to our society.