Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a matter of public interest concerning the disintegration of the Liberal Party. The barbarians are at the gate of the Liberal Party. That is how we describe an event where the victims are watching things unfold but can do nothing to help themselves. The origin of the expression lies in the fall of Rome. The victims in this case are the moderates in the Liberal Party who are powerless to prevent their party being overrun by the barbarians at their gates.

Who are these barbarians? They are the extremists. They are the Tea Party imitators. They are the remnants of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. They are the radio and newspaper bullies whose ignorance is in direct proportion to their pay packet. If you get close enough, you can smell the fear of the Liberal Party moderates as Mr Abbott leads them down to the dry well of fear and ignorance.

The Liberal extremists are a far cry from the party of Robert Menzies, who warned them against taking the path they tread today. In a radio broadcast on 24 July 1942, Menzies had this to say of his liberal creed:

Nothing could be worse for democracy than to adopt the practice of permitting knowledge to be overthrown by ignorance. If I have honestly and thoughtfully arrived at a certain conclusion on a public question and my electors disagree with me, my first duty is to endeavour to persuade them that my view is right. If I fail in this, my second duty will be to accept the electoral consequences and not to run away from them. Fear can never be a proper or useful ingredient in those mutual relations of respect and good-will which ought to exist between the elector and the elected.

And so, as we think about it we shall find more and more how disfiguring a thing fear is in our own political and social life.

“Men fear the unknown as children fear the dark.” It is that kind of fear which too often restrains experiment and keeps us from innovations which might benefit us enormously. It is the fear of knowledge which prevents so many of us from really using our minds, and which makes so many of us ready slaves to cheap and silly slogans and catch-cries. It is the fear of life and its problems which makes so many of us yearn for nothing so much as some safe billet from which risk and its twin brother enterprise are alike abolished.

The essence of Menzies’ words in 1942 is the virtue of principled political leadership. Many of today’s Liberals must yearn for a leader like Robert Menzies. Today they have an unprincipled leader, who shamelessly peddles fear and ignorance. Nowhere is this clearer than in his fearmongering and vacillation on climate change. He described himself to the former Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, as ‘a weathervane on climate change’. On 18 December 2008, Mr Abbott supported an ETS. On 10 July 2009, he supported a carbon tax. Just over a fortnight later he was back supporting an ETS. Then in December 2010 he was against both an ETS and a carbon tax. On the same day, in July 2009, when he indicated support for an ETS he said he was unconvinced by climate science. Six months later, suddenly: ‘Humans do cause climate change.’ A year later, human activity is still contributing. But a week later, on 14 March, he is back to undermining climate science. Then the very next day he slipped back from the side of ignorance to the side of knowledge. Mr Abbott is not so much a weathervane; he is more a catherine wheel. Mr Abbott simply cannot be believed. He has a clayton’s climate change policy. The truth is: he does not believe the science. He is anti-science and he is deliberately misleading. He is a peddler of fear and ignorance. He is an unprincipled man who will do and say anything in pursuit of his personal ambitions.

It is not just on climate change that Mr Abbott is utterly unprincipled and a slave to silly slogans and catchcries. On the subject of race, asylum seekers and religious tolerance, Mr Abbott substitutes Menzies’ notions of leadership with appeals to fear and bigotry. When the shadow immigration minister, Mr Morrison, made his disgusting remarks about the appropriateness of helping the relatives of dead asylum seekers to attend the funerals of their loved ones in Sydney, it was not Mr Abbott who repudiated him. That job was left to the shadow Treasurer, and I commend him for doing so. Mr Abbott was deliberately mute. Presumably, Mr Morrison took his cue from shock jock Chris Smith, on radio 2GB, who runs a so-called quiz ‘Smithy’s Mystery.’ The day before the funerals, Smith introduced his puerile quiz this way: ‘Ah, it’s good,’ Smith said of the prizes—‘a great book, a great movie and a great DVD.’ He went on:

… how many asylum-seekers killed in the December tragedy will be buried in Sydney this week?

Smith ran a fanfare of applause when he announced the winner. It was a despicable bit of radio. Why Macquarie Radio allows him on air is beyond me. And he is outside parliament today, peddling lies and disinformation, pretending he is leading Tony Abbott’s ‘peoples’ revolt’ against a carbon price. He is one of the barbarians at the Liberal Party’s gates. He should go home—his village is missing its idiot. Does Mr Abbott ever rebuke these people? No, because they are central to his repudiation of Menzies and his embrace of the politics of fear and ignorance. When Senator Bernardi engaged in his divisive, sectarian nastiness, by claiming:

… Islam is a totalitarian, political and religious ideology—

was he repudiated by Mr Abbott? No, he was not. And, when the shadow immigration minister took a proposal to shadow cabinet to exploit fear and ignorance in the community about Islam, did Mr Abbott repudiate him? No, he did not. And, even on the occasion of the Christchurch earthquake, Mr Abbott just could not help himself. He just had to use the occasion as an opportunity to have a blow on the dog whistle. The House of Representatives Hansard of 23 February records Mr Abbott as saying:

As the Prime Minister has said, New Zealanders are family; they are not foreigners, and that is why this disaster has especially touched the hearts of every Australian.

While the Prime Minister did describe New Zealanders as family, only Mr Abbott saw the need to point out that they are not foreigners. Mr Abbott is the most self-indulgent of populists. His brand of populism poisons the well of tolerance, compassion and reason in public debate. He is intolerant of alternatives; he views them as ideas that only fools could favour.

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

On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. We have been very forbearing, because we know a rabblerousing speech when we hear one. With respect, the President has ruled, as recently as this morning, that it is out of order to refer to a member of another parliament or another chamber as impertinent. If it is out of order to refer to someone as impertinent, surely it is out of order to refer to a member of another chamber in the abusive terms which Senator Cameron is using—to refer to them as intolerant, as poisoning the well of reason and the other rhetorical excesses which have dripped like venom from Senator Cameron’s lips. If you cannot call somebody impertinent, you certainly cannot abuse a senior member of the House of Representatives in the terms in which Senator Cameron is doing now.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on the point of order, if it is in fact correct, as Senator Brandis states, that the use of the word ‘impertinent’ has been ruled out of order by the President, I am not aware of that. But the senator in his speech did not use the word ‘impertinent’; he used some other descriptors that I think, in the context of debates in this chamber, are relatively modest compared to what I have heard over my many years in this place. He did not use the word ‘impertinent’.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I am with Senator Sherry on this. I entirely agree that robust language is perfectly appropriate in this forum, but unfortunately we are all bound now by the President’s ruling that the word ‘impertinent’ is so offensive that it may not be used against a member of another house. If such a mild criticism is unparliamentary, then necessarily, if you are to be faithful to the President’s ruling, Madam Acting Deputy President, the much more seriously abusive language that has fallen from Senator Cameron must equally—indeed, even more so—be ruled out of order.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, I must say I had some difficulty following Senator Cameron because of the loud conversation and interjection on my left. I will listen more carefully in future. Senator Cameron.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will continue. Mr Abbott is intolerant of alternatives. He views them as ideas only fools could favour. He promotes suspicion—

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. If ‘impertinent’ is unparliamentary, certainly ‘intolerant’ must be. You would have heard that, and therefore I ask that you rule that that is unparliamentary or at least undertake to refer it—sorry, is this a point of order on my point of order, or are you just standing up for the fun of it?

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Macdonald, you will not address another senator across the chamber. Please finish your point of order.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, is he trying to interrupt me? Should I sit down, or is he just wandering around?

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Macdonald, you have the call. Finish your point of order.

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

At the very least, can you undertake to refer this to the President because, as I say, if the word ‘impertinent’ is unparliamentary then certainly that word just used by Senator Cameron, which I will not repeat, must be determined to be the same.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I would suggest that is a highly impertinent point of order and in fact you should refer—

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, a point of order.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am on a point of order. How can a point of order be taken in the middle of a point of order?

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Sherry has the call on a point of order.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The interruptions that the senator opposite offers the chamber are totally impertinent. As I pointed out, that was a very impertinent point of order from Senator Macdonald. It is drawing a very long bow indeed to make this argument about the descriptions Senator Cameron is using. He has not mentioned that word ‘impertinent’; he has not used it once.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did I hear that? I certainly heard a word thrown across the chamber then that was clearly out of order.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Heffernan, you will cease interjecting. I am trying to listen to this point of order.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would suggest that you rule Senator Macdonald’s very impertinent point of order out of order.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, Senator Sherry obviously very deliberately, by repeating in a studied manner the unparliamentary word ‘impertinent’, is openly defying President Hogg’s ruling and is challenging you and defying your authority as the chair to enforce President Hogg’s ruling. So when you have disposed of the substance of Senator Sherry’s point of order, I ask you, consistently with President Hogg’s ruling, to require Senator Sherry to withdraw the word ‘impertinent’. That word was the subject of an explicit ruling by the President this morning.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Brandis, I do not accept that, in the context of the ruling this morning, Senator Sherry was out of order, and I would ask Senator Cameron to continue his remarks.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not come here to praise Tony Abbott. He is intolerant of alternatives. He views them as ideas only fools could favour. He promotes suspicion and rejection of science, industry and expertise; he draws a sharp line between those he sees as being in and those he sees as being out. In Mr Abbott’s world, foreigners are out. The ugly result of Mr Abbott’s politics is that hostility to reason increases. This is especially so when media demagogues, who have long abandoned any pretence that their role is to report and inform, are happy to fill his sails with the putrid winds of intolerance. For them, it is all about the ratings, and our democracy dies a little every time their ratings tick upwards.

It will surprise many that, having already reflected favourably on the words of Bob Menzies once today, I should conclude with more of his words. In his inaugural Sir Robert Menzies lecture in 1970, he said this of the Liberal Party:

A political party must never be a party which chronically says “No”. If it never loses sight of its own ideas, it will be positive and creative. It must constantly formulate and fight for its own ideas, and never let either the people or its opponents remain ignorant of what those ideas are.

In brief, Australian Liberalism must present itself as the party of action, and the party of the future. We are not the ANTI party, but the PRO party. We must have a continuing faith, and such a belief in it that we become its constant crusaders.

Today’s Liberal Party has abandoned its roots. It is led by a man with no moral compass and no appreciation of his party’s origins.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I ask you: ‘a man with no moral compass’! Does anyone seriously suggest that that is not an offence of reflection in breach of standing order 193?

The Acting Deputy President:

I do not believe it is, Senator Brandis. Senator Heffernan, do you have a point of order?

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I am about to revisit on Senator Cameron some of his words and his days as a trade unionist, which would fit what he is describing to us. I think he has got haggis poisoning.

The Acting Deputy President:

There is no point of order.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tony Abbott is a man who, for the basest motives, merely apes what he believes people want to see in him. He is the barbarian at the Liberals’ gate. By contrast, today’s Labor Party stands, as it always has, for a just and good society, a society that is unafraid of life and its problems, one that does not just curl up in a ball and seek refuge in silly slogans and catchcries—a society that embraces experiment, innovation and industry for the benefit of all, a society that values and nurtures knowledge, science and expertise and, above all, a society that leaves no-one behind, a society that is inclusive of everyone, paying no regard to their race, their creed or their religion.

Gerard Henderson wrote a history of the Liberal Party as part of the party’s 50th birthday celebration in 1994. It is entitled Menzies’ Child. Who would have thought that ‘Menzies’ child’ would be sacrificed on the altar of fear, intolerance and extremism.