Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

It is interesting that members opposite interject about what has happened in the last 15 years. I would like to know when the last time was that a Leader of the Opposition thought it was so important for them to move a censure motion that they did not remain in the chamber for the conclusion of the debate. I cannot think of any other occasion on which a Leader of the Opposition has played the most serious card that is open to them and they have known that the motion is going to be moved—but, obviously, when it does not appear on the Notice Paper, the Prime Minister does not know it is going to be moved. I would certainly hope that it had occurred to the Leader of the Opposition that he was going to move the motion, that he had decided to play the most serious card open to a Leader of the Opposition, yet for some reason could not be bothered remaining in the chamber for the duration of the debate.

What is at the core of what the opposition have said today and of the arguments that they have put forward, what is at the core of this entire debate, is whether or not it is right and proper for a government to act independently, having received advice from their departments to form a different conclusion. We know from the speech made earlier by the Leader of the House that when those opposite were in government they would frequently depart from the advice of their departments. But what were the sorts of programs for which they would do it? They would do it for some pork-barrelling exercise here or there with respect to the Regional Partnerships program. That is an example of where they thought the public policy parameters were so high. But if those opposite have so quickly changed their position that they believe the proper thing for a government to do is for ministers to just match everything that comes forward in departmental advice, I am not sure what they think the point of having cabinet meetings is.

For the millions and millions of Australians who do not get the opportunity to be public servants and who do not get the opportunity to contribute to coordination comments, surely there is some role for ministers to listen to them. But apparently not, from what those opposite say. When we hold community cabinets, when we conduct consultation and when I spend day after day going through regional Australia and listening to people on their own properties, apparently, the moment I walk into the cabinet room, I am meant to put all of that to one side and say, ‘Okay, what are the departments telling me to do?’ because that is the policy outcome I am meant to get to. That is the core of the objection from those opposite. Essentially, every argument they have wanted to run is about the concept of whether or not it is right and proper for a cabinet to ever depart from the advice that is brought to it.

We do need to consider the advice that comes from departments; we do need to consider the advice that comes from other agencies, such as the ACCC; and we certainly need to consider the rights and the interests of the millions of Australian motorists and the millions of Australians who rely on petrol and other forms of fuel—most notably diesel, certainly in my portfolio—and to look at how we can, in different ways, provide downward pressure for the difficulties that they currently face. The cost-of-living pressures are real—there is no doubt about that. As the Prime Minister has said continually, this is not a silver bullet and we have never pretended for it to be more than what it is.

See this speech in context