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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. I refer the minister to the fact that cost-of-living pressures have never been more severe; the fact that business and consumer confidence is at a 25-year low; the fact that, according to a recent Morgan poll, a record number of Australians, 61 per cent, think the country is heading in the wrong direction; and the fact that unemployment is on the rise and that Australians are feeling less secure in their jobs. I also refer the minister to the IMF's recent assessment in light of the European debt crisis that:

The global economy is in a dangerous new phase.

Can the minister explain why the government believes now is the right time to introduce the world's biggest carbon tax? Won't this only make a bad situation much worse?

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

I take issue with the assumptions in the question asked by Senator Brandis. It shows, actually, the negativity and the oppositionist nature of everything they do. For instance, there are cost-of-living pressures on people and families, but it is also the case that they are aware that this government has done a lot to try to relieve that pressure, be it tax cuts, the childcare tax rebate, paid parental leave or the huge increase in pensions that we delivered to Australia's pensioners. So the government is very much aware of those cost-of-living pressures and has been very active in trying to assist families.

But, as always, the spin from the Liberal opposition is how bad things are—how negative things are. Senator Brandis refers to our unemployment situation. He does not mention America being at nine per cent. He does not mention the eurozone being around 10 per cent. He does not mention those countries that have 15 per cent. We have a fantastic employment record in this country. We have the lowest unemployment rate among comparable countries, but for Senator Brandis somehow we are doom and gloom and the world is going to end. There are cost-of-living pressures on Australians, but the Australian economy is in much better shape than most comparable nations. Senator Brandis, you failed to recognise that the IMF, in their report, also went on to review Australia's performance as being 'enviable'. They actually commented on how strong our economy was and what a good job the government had done in surviving the global financial crisis with very good results in terms of employment and stimulus packages that we implemented. So I suggest that Senator Brandis actually take a bit of a broader view and move out of this terrible oppositionist and negative mindset. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that Ms Gillard said to the House of Representatives on 10 May 2005:

… the Labor Party is the party of truth telling. When we go out into the electorate and make promises, do you know what we would do in government: we would keep them. When we say them, we mean them.

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

What a zinger!

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

In light of the Prime Minister's statement on 16 August last year, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' is it not the case that the Labor Party is no longer the party of telling the truth?

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

I thought Senator Brandis spent his time plotting the downfall of his current leader; I did not know he spent his time searching back through the Hansard of 2005. He has been hard at it, finding a quote from the Prime Minister in 2005. Senator, brilliant research. Your own manager called it a real zinger. Well, if that is the best zing the opposition have, they are in a sorrier state than I thought.

This government has brought before the Parliament of Australia the clean energy package to try and put a price on carbon and transition our economy. The opposition have an opportunity to participate in that debate and to offer something constructive to that debate, but I suspect that, as we saw in the House of Representatives over the last few days, we will get more of that 'no, no, no', oppositionist, negative mentality and no contribution to public policy debate in this country.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I note the minister's failure to affirm to the Senate that the Labor Party any longer believes in telling the truth, if it ever did. With the government increasingly paralysed by disunity over leadership, why should the Australian people have any confidence in Julia Gillard protecting their jobs rather than protecting her own from those who sit behind the minister?

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

I have to give Senator Brandis this: he is consistent. He called his own Prime Minister a liar and now he is calling our Prime Minister a liar. I think 'lying rodent' was his description of John Howard. So he is consistent: he seems to have this view about all prime ministers. So I congratulate him for that.

But what this question shows up again is the total absence of any contribution to public policy from the opposition in this country. This is the first question of question time. This is the best they can do: to ask the same question they have been asking for months, which is that old student politician, nitpicking, 'nah-nah-nah-nah-nah' sort of approach to politics. They have nothing to contribute to public policy—just opposition for opposition's sake. They have nothing to contribute to the very serious public policy debates in this country and nothing to contribute to the challenge of climate change. They are an opposition with no policies and no contribution to make.