Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Earlier this week the Attorney-General shocked the Australian public by stepping in to defend the rights of bigots. He backed the defence not only with statements made to the media but with a proposal to bring the full force of the law to bear on minorities and vulnerable groups in the community who might infringe on the rights of bigots. What we have heard since are rumblings not only from his own backbenchers—the member for Hasluck, the member for Reid, and even Senator Seselja—but, today, from Premier Barry O'Farrell who also criticised the federal Attorney-General's comment that people have the right to be bigoted and declared that vilification on the grounds of race or religion is 'always wrong'. One of the most senior members in the Liberal Party in this country, Premier Barry O'Farrell, has declared that there should be limits when it comes to free speech. Premier O'Farrell recognises that free speech should not be at any cost. He said today:

In commendably seeking to protect freedom of speech, we must not lower our defences against the evil of racial and religious intolerance.

He said further:

Bigotry should never be sanctioned, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Vilification on the grounds of race or religion is always wrong. There's no place for inciting hatred within our Australia society.

That shows you how much Senator Brandis is out of touch not only within the Australian community but within his own Liberal Party on this issue of changing race hate laws in this country. I call on Premier Barry O'Farrell to go further and to lobby the Prime Minister. Tell the Prime Minister how out of touch Senator Brandis is, how out of touch these proposed new racial vilification laws are. I call on Premier O'Farrell to lobby the Prime Minister to have these laws scrapped. Words are good, and his words have been good today, but what we need now are actions. Actions are what we want from Premier O'Farrell. At least Premier O'Farrell has had the good sense to see that this is actually killing the Liberal Party. This is destroying the Liberal Party. The extremism that Senator Brandis has embarked upon and that Tony Abbott has encouraged is breaking the Liberal Party apart as well as posing a greater threat, of course, to the broader Australian community.

We have now been made aware that Senator Brandis's own cabinet colleagues have leaked information against him because they are so shocked by the lengths to which he will go to appease Andrew Bolt. The one thing we do know about these racial vilification changes put forward by Senator Brandis is that they are not being put in place for the greater good. They are being put in place to appease one man, to appease one journalist. That is no way to govern for all people in this nation.

To declare that the rights of bigots are more important than the rights of minorities, minorities who suffer extreme race hate speech on a daily basis in this country, is wrong. It is unfortunate, but we do have racism in this country. That is why we have free speech, but it is not at any cost. We have good laws in this country that have worked for 20 years and have provided protections to minorities and to ethnic groups. That is why Senator Brandis has not had one ethnic group, not one community group, come out in support of these laws. He has had not one of the 150, who signed their names to a letter last year, come out in support of his proposed changes.

Now, we have one of the highest Liberal Party members in this country saying that Senator Brandis has got it wrong. I thank Premier Barry O'Farrell for coming out, for putting it right and for saying that these laws are wrong. I call on Premier O'Farrell to lobby the Prime Minister and to tell him that Senator Brandis should scrap these proposed changes.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the release of the exposure draft of the repeal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act by the Attorney-General. All week we have had this howling chorus of political correctness from this morally vain party sitting opposite me—all week without stop.

I am not a good lawyer, and do not claim to be, but I do know this: there is no right at all not to be offended. I am offended by many things in this place—in fact I am offended all the time—but I do not want to ban or criminalise those things. I am offended by the fact that the party opposite, the opposition, spent the money of our children and of our grandchildren. It was morally culpable. They did it and I am offended by it, but I do not want to ban it. I loathe the fact that they have actually brought in a debt that has become systemic, that recurrent expenditure now is well and truly over government receipts. They did that and it is morally reprehensible. They are stealing money from the next generation, and that is morally reprehensible, but I do not want to ban it.

There is also no right not to have one's feelings hurt. You know, Deputy President, that I am very sensitive! I do not like to have my feelings hurt. But there is no right not to have them hurt. The Left's first instinct is always to ban things. They do not believe in a free market economy. That also do not believe in the free market of ideas.

We do, even if we do not like some of those ideas. Do you know why?—because we believe it is better to ventilate, argue and debate than to attempt to subdue and hide. That has always been the Liberal way. If you do not believe me let me quote the Indigenous leader Dr Sue Gordon on the front page of The Australian, today. I am sure you read it, Deputy President. The article said:

Dr Gordon said the repression of free speech was damaging to race relations and she agreed with Attorney-General George Brandis that people had the right to be bigots. "I think sometimes there is too much emotion in this topic and people need to just look at it calmly," she said.

"I agree with what Brandis said. People do have a right in this country, you can't suppress everything."

That is the point that Dr Gordon was making. That is the point that the Attorney-General has been making all week. It is better to ventilate, argue and debate than to repress. It might be tough and uncomfortable. Democracy and pluralism is tough and uncomfortable, by nature.

There is a lot of political correctness going around at the moment. You may notice that it is fine to question the motives of Senator Brandis, the Attorney-General—a middle aged white man. You are always allowed to question his motives, but you are definitely not able to question the motives of anyone who identifies as an Australian Aboriginal or Indigenous person. That you cannot do. That is the mark of political correctness from those opposite.

Mr Dillon, who also identifies as being Aboriginal, was also quoted in that article on the front page of The Australian. The article went on:

"Political correctness, with regard to people who identify as Aboriginal Australians, has reached the ridiculous stage where one can be accused of being racist simply by questioning the motives of some people who identify as being Aboriginal," Mr Dillon says.

To question the motives of someone who is Indigenous or of a certain ethnicity is somehow outrageous and bigoted! It cannot be done, but it is okay to question or suborn the motives of someone who is white, middle-aged, male and happens to be the Attorney-General.

We have heard all week that somehow there is a lack of propriety or good faith on behalf of the Attorney-General. That is what is outrageous about this debate—it has become personal rather than a matter of principle. So let us hope that between now and when the parliament resumes in a few weeks time calmness and rational debate takes over. There is one certainty, and it is this: the coalition will never reject, or even compromise, the idea of freedom of speech, except in very few cases. We will not change. Questioning motives is not the way to go about this debate. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is quite interesting that my colleague from the other side talks about being offended by contributions from this side of the chamber. Today, I was offended, as would be every older Australian in this country. What a shocking, shameful performance by the minister responsible here for aged care. He could not even fulfil his time allocation to answer a question and talk about what his government plans for older Australians.

We on this side of the chamber know what they have planned. They will not deliver the $1.1 billion to support those working in aged-care facilities. The question is: will that money go into general revenue or will they put that straight to providers of aged care? We know that this government—the Abbott government—puts no value at all on older Australians or on having an aged-care minister.

I can understand why the government do not have a minister for aged care. When Abbott was part of the Howard government, when they were last in government, they did nothing for aged care. They would not take the necessary steps to ensure, after 11½ years, that we had this country on a solid footing with respect to aged care. They did not show the respect that older Australians—those who have committed and contributed to this country over a long period of time—deserve.

Do not be mistaken—when it comes to who is the best friend of older Australians and those on the aged-care pension, people in the community know that it is the Labor government. We were the ones who delivered for the aged-care community in this country. Let's look at what not having an aged-care minister is going to mean. It will probably ensure that we do not go back to kerosene baths, but it will also mean that we have no-one in the ministry or cabinet fighting for older Australians. That is what it means. We, on this side of the chamber, know the issues that are confronting the aged-care sector in this country. We know that the average aged-care worker is about five years away from retirement.

I took the opportunity to walk in the shoes of an aged-care worker. I can tell you that the people who work in that sector deserve to be remunerated to a standard—

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

But only if they are members of United Voice.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can say that, but what have you done? You are a minister. You know very well the issues that we are facing in Tasmania in the aged-care sector. What I am saying is that—

Senator Abetz interjecting—

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

Order on my right!

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you taken the opportunity to go and talk to those who work in the aged-care sector? I very much doubt anyone on that side of the chamber has. We want to see what the policy is. Are we just waiting for the Commission of Audit so that they can announce the cuts and advise us that that $1.1 billion that was set aside for the workers in the sector will go into general revenue—or will it go to the providers?

The opposition want to see those workers supported, but we also want to see that older Australians are looked after. The minister representing the minister responsible for aged care had plenty of time to outline what he has planned. Where is the future? We know that on 1 July changes will come into effect. When Mark Butler was the minister for aged care under our government, he developed a policy in consultation with the sector to ensure that older Australians had better services and were looked after. We put a plan in place to look after those in the aged-care sector. But what do we hear today? Nothing.

We had a senator on the other side just talking about being offended. Every Australian should be ashamed of having a government that refuses to outline what it has planned and what its policies are going forward. When Tony Abbott was going to the election, he said: 'There will be no cuts to health, no cuts to education and no cuts to pensions,' but that was never put in writing, so we know we cannot take Tony Abbott's word— (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, thank you for putting a stop to that ceaseless babble from Senator Polley. It was an extraordinary reinvention of six years of the worst government that we have seen in the history of this country. For some reason, Senator Polley is masquerading as the saviour of people in aged-care facilities when her government disgracefully racked up hundreds of billions of dollars worth of debt and destroyed virtually any opportunity to build this country and build upon the good management that was the legacy of the Howard administration.

It is an extraordinary burden of hypocrisy that they bear when they have to stand up and ask whether money is going back into general revenue. May I remind you and the Australian people that there is some $300 billion worth of debt that needs to be repaid and priorities have to be made. Unlike those on the opposition benches, our priorities are not going to be specifically targeted. Ten per cent of childcare workers decided to sign up to one of the unions that have been terribly, horribly and grotesquely mismanaged. May I remind honourable senators opposite that those the Health Services Union represents—some of the lowest paid workers in the country—were ripped off and had their money stolen from them to use on prostitutes, porno movies and other filth and depravity.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to call the senator to order so that he makes his comments relevant to the taking note issue, which aged care, and does not try to get back down into the gutter.

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

Senator Polley, there is no point of order. The question before the chair is that we take note of all opposition questions.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very surprised that Senator Polley—a person, I believe, of great integrity normally—is now defending Craig Thomson and his misuse of credit cards on hookers, pornos, flights for his wife and things like that. I think that is quite grubby and it is beneath you, Senator Polley. What we are talking about here is appropriate use of taxpayers' money, whether that takes place in the union movement, where you have low-paid workers who should expect more from their leaders, or in this place. The taxpayers of Australia believe they should be getting a fair go and their money should be put to good use.

The fact is that $300 billion, or thereabouts, of debt was racked up on obscure programs, like pink batts, which of course cost a billion dollars to redo and, tragically, four people died as a result of incompetent and poor administration from those on the other side. Do we remember the cheques for $900 that were sent out at random? There were $10 billion worth of cheques to people, including dead people and people overseas. I remember Senator Polley justifying that it was okay to give it to people to put into the poker machines, because what they do with their money is their business. In principle, I agree with you, Senator Polley, but this is $10 billion worth of taxpayers' money that was randomly distributed to dead people and people overseas, as well as to people in this country. So do not give me and those on this side of the chamber a lecture about how we are applying taxpayers' money, because we are trying to redress the damage done by six years of the poorest administration in the history of this country.

I know that a whole bunch of eager frontbenchers on the other side have moved down. They spent six years on the backbench defending these abhorrent programs and saying, 'It's okay. This is the Labor way,' and now they are on the front bench and they need to defend their legacy, but their legacy is horrible and will have implications for this country for perhaps decades to come, because for every bad year of government it takes four years of good government to redress it. To pay off $300 billion of debt will take decades. We are doing it for our children. Sacrifices will have to be made, but those sacrifices will not be made at the expense of those who have served our nation, which is why we have already enhanced the pension benefits for serving military personnel. It will not be at the expense of the aged and the infirm. It will not be at the expense of those suffering from disability. It will have to be a sacrifice made by those who are working today—people like us in this place; people who are committed to building a better future for their country and to ensuring that we can look after those who are unable to look after themselves.

I contrast that with the actions of those on the other side. When in government, they do not look after anyone except themselves and their union mates. We have seen union slush funds, we have seen grubby deals done, we have seen people employed without any interviews—Mr Mike Kaiser—and we have seen billions of dollars squandered without so much as a business plan. It is rank hypocrisy to hear a lecture about the management of taxpayer resources from those on the other side. They should be ashamed of their performance.

Question agreed to.