Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am going to start by referring to my great friend the member for Charlton. He said of the previous speaker, 'You have been in power for two years.' I have to disagree with him. What the evidence shows us—and it is the irony at the heart of this debate—is that the member for Fisher and many of the other conservative members of the parties opposite have been in charge for about two days. That goes to the heart of this matter of public importance: the craven capitulation of Australia's Prime Minister on matters he held out as matters of deep conviction because of his overweening ambition for this high office. It raises another question, and that is this: when did the coalition's climate policy descend into farce, as the member for Wentworth described Direct Action? Those were the words of our now Prime Minister. This is a really important question and there is a couple of options. Was it at the time the now Prime Minister described the position of the former Prime Minister or is it now when he lauds that same position albeit very unconvincingly? I say this to the Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth: I like your old stuff better than the new stuff. Australia feels much the same way and Australia needs it urgently. As I am sure you are aware, Acting Deputy Speaker Whitely, the song, I like your old stuff better than your new stuff was by the band Regurgitator and that adds another layer of irony to this debate because what we have in the Prime Minister, far from a conviction politician, is someone who is simply regurgitating the thoughts of others, heedless of his views and heedless of the consequence. The worst part is the Prime Minister knows this but his ambition has conquered all. This is a tragedy and it is also a farce.

The Prime Minister says he will respect the intelligence of the electorate. Well, this debate shows that there is very little evidence of that approach from his government so far. He could, of course, in the climate debate make a good start and use the authority his party room has given him. He could choose to follow the advice of the scientists. He could choose to follow the advice of the economists. He could choose the side of the future, the side of our children and our grandchildren. But no, he chooses himself over all these things. He also chooses to take the views of reactionaries. I think of the extraordinary comments Senator Macdonald made yesterday about children being brainwashed to believe that climate change is being caused in part by human activity. Not a controversial contribution, you would think. It is the sort of thing the 'old' member for Wentworth would have jumped on. Instead, silence—and that is the measure of the man that he has become.

See this speech in context