House debates

Wednesday, 23 February 2011

Statements by Members

Flood Levy

1:46 pm

Photo of Rob MitchellRob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The Liberal Party have been so caught up trying to plug their leaks, it seems they have not had the time to listen to their own constituents. The member for Moncrieff in Queensland is opposing the flood levy. But it seems that his constituents, who he is elected to represent, disagree. A poll he took over the weekend asked: ‘Should the government scrap its planned tax and fund flood-related rebuilding costs through savings?’ The results: ‘unsure’, 4 per cent; ‘yes’, 29 per cent; and ‘no’, a whopping 66 per cent.

He was so unhappy that his constituents did not agree with the Liberal Party’s stance on the issue that, only days ago, he changed the wording! The new poll asks: ‘How should the government fund flood-related reconstruction?’ The results: ‘unsure’, 5 per cent; ‘budget savings’, 32 per cent; and ‘flood levy’, a whopping 62 per cent. As we can see, it did not make much of a difference. No matter which way you put it, the Australian people and the people of Moncrieff agree that we need a flood levy.

The member for Moncrieff must choose to stand up either for his community or for his leader ‘Tin-Heart’ Tony. We are calling on the opposition to stand with us and work together to help rebuild our nation. But it seems they are too busy adding their names to the One Nation email distribution list and looking through the Yellow Pages for a good plumber to plug their leaks!

However, it is good to see the opposition is being a bit more open with the Australian people now, with shadow cabinet meetings becoming public affairs. It gives us a chance to confirm what we already know—that the opposition stand for nothing but wrecking. So embarrassed is the member for Moncrieff that today—

Photo of Peter SlipperPeter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired, and the member for McEwen would be aware that his description of the Leader of the Opposition was out of order when one considers the provisions of standing order 64.