Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today.

It is very hard to believe that Prime Minister Rudd promised the Australian people that his ministry would be appointed solely on the basis of merit. The performance we witnessed today shows that, clearly, many other factors were at play other than just merit. In particular, I want to focus on Senator Carr’s performance today which was both pitiful and arrogant but, more importantly, obfuscating. His Prime Minister’s own Standards of Ministerial Ethics say in part, at paragraph 4.4:

Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account of their exercise of public office ... in response to any ... enquiry by a member of the Parliament ...

The first question asked of Minister Carr saw him breach this much-vaunted new standard. It was a simple question: would he rule out the appointment of former Labor Premier Bracks—and he was unwilling to do so. He will make the announcement tomorrow. He knows who is going to comprise the commission of inquiry—whether it is going to be the Productivity Commission or his mate Steve Bracks. He was unwilling to rule it out. All that he was willing to rule out was that Steve Bracks would be paid $2,000 a day. But then, when asked how much he would be paid, Minister Carr arrogantly refused to answer the question. He is unable to deny that his department suggested a Productivity Commission inquiry instead of the Bracks gravy train. So, confronted with that difficulty, he resorted to the old Labor tactic of raising the decibels to avoid the answer. He resorted to the blame game as well, which Prime Minister Rudd said would not be part of this government’s approach. He resorted to the blame game and he foolishly resorted to his old opposition tactic of trying to blame the difficulties in the automotive industry on the previous government.

Can I remind him that, when he was confronted with the Mitsubishi closure, he very sensibly said: ‘I am not going to pretend that you can wave a magic wand and have this problem go away.’ I agree with him and that is why I make no criticism of him. But yet, when confronted with some hard issues, he reverted to his silly opposition tactic. Of course, what he did that for was to try to obfuscate the fact that undoubtedly Mr Bracks has been lined up for this inquiry.

I hope that as a result of today’s exposure Mr Bracks will no longer be appointed and that the Productivity Commission will deal with the issue, because those that are involved in the automotive industry deserve nothing less. They need a highly professional Productivity Commission inquiry, not something led by a defunct Labor premier, union hacks and a few other mates from the automotive industry.

By Mr Rudd’s own standards we have seen the appointment, in a jobs-for-the-boys situation, of Mr Bracks; we have seen indecent fees; and we have seen the rejection of departmental advice—all in the first decision of this minister, and all enunciated in answer to the very first question that this minister was asked. The Prime Minister would have us believe that Senator Carr was appointed on the basis of merit. If you look through the ministerial list you will see that there is a doctor of economics, Dr Craig Emerson, as Senator Carr’s junior minister. Are we really saying that the hapless Senator Carr is more skilled and competent than Dr Craig Emerson? I think we know the explanation for what occurred: Senator Carr is the spear carrier for the Left in Western Australia. By that virtue alone he had to be appointed to cabinet and people like Dr Craig Emerson had to be avoided.

Coming back to the issue here, we have had on this very first day a refusal to deny a jobs-for-the-boys appointment with an indecent fee and a refusal to acknowledge that departmental advice was rejected. All those factors suggest that something is at play. I hope the government changes its mind.