Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, I was explaining why these were valid amendments which the government should support. I was explaining that the government’s reaction to them was hysterical. It was based on the government’s gross insecurities about the fact that people were examining the record of this government and the hypocrisy of this government when it came to the issue of climate change and how, in the beginning of the life of this government, the government found it was popular to talk about the issue of climate change, to examine the issue of climate change itself and to even propose in this discussion paper that there be a climate change trigger. Of course at that time the government was even contemplating signing up to the Kyoto protocol. But of course there was a change of government in the United States—and this government is not a leader but a follower; this government is essentially a derivative of the more conservative elements of United States politics—so this government felt that, as a consequence of the change of government in the United States, it would change its policies as well.

Ever since, we have seen a series of global change sceptics propagate their somewhat old-fashioned views, until this year, until very recently when the opinion poll research came in, when the government of the United Kingdom produced a report which achieved some considerable public attention and when the United States elections highlighted that there was a change in attitude even within the United States government. So this government felt it had to change its position again, but not in reality; it had to change its position only in terms of the language it was using. So we heard this minister, who had been relegated to observer status on the margins of various international conferences, trying to claim before the Australian public that he was doing much more than he was. He followed a pattern, as we saw from various examples such as the orange-bellied parrot issue and other appalling acts of stupidity, as the government tried to pretend it was doing one thing when in fact it was doing something entirely different.

So, Minister, we now have the situation where I have an opportunity to explain exactly why you have been such an appalling failure and, as we run into the break, question why you should in fact stay in the job that you are currently in. As I understand the matter, it is only a question of time—and I presume you do want this legislation passed before you are moved from the portfolio—before your appalling record catches up with you in the Prime Minister’s office. Minister, you asked me the question of why it was taking so long. I answer you now: you are the problem. You have had four hours and you have chosen to provoke the situation in this manner. As a consequence, after four hours not one millimetre of progress has been made. You know exactly why that is, and you are entirely responsible.