David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I find incredibly curious Senator Carr's suggestion that the Register of Senators' Interests requires you to detail your past actions or past holdings. The Clerk of the Senate is in the chamber; she may care to clarify that later on. My understanding is that the obligation is to detail any current interest that might impact on decisions made in this place, not those interests that one may have held prior to coming into the Senate. I suspect that there are many senators on the other side who would be quite concerned if that were the standard.

Mr Deputy President, I do not think you would be surprised that the opposition in this place continues to focus on slur and innuendo when, as you would be aware, there are many policy matters of great significance to Australians that it continues to ignore. These include issues such as the carbon tax and the impacts that is having on industry right across Australia. We heard last week from the CEO of Virgin, who highlighted the fact that the single biggest thing we could do to help the airline industry in Australia is get rid of the carbon tax. Where were the questions about the carbon tax and how we can assist industry in Australia? Where were the questions about Labor's legacy of rising unemployment and the rising debt that the nation faces? There were no questions on those. Where were the questions about the airlines? Labor has chosen even to ignore asking questions about Qantas, which would be highly relevant this week to members opposite, I would have thought. Where were the questions about the impact of Labor's decisions on the challenges that Qantas now faces? Internationally, there is one major, significant world issue, the current uncertainty in the Ukraine. It was up to us to ask a question about that. Where were the questions from Labor concerning world developments that could impact on Australia? There were no questions on that at all. Instead, they chose to spend almost all of question time, almost all of the questions they had available to them, casting further slur and innuendo.

We are taking note of answers to questions asked about the Assistant Treasurer, but today is not the first opportunity we have had to look at this. The opposition asked questions about the Assistant Treasurer and his holdings in Australian Water Holdings last year. What changed today? What changed is the fact that they have spent the last two or three weeks chasing another minister. That chase has come to nought. They thought they had something; they thought they could smell blood. They have chased it hard but it has come to nothing. They spent all of one day last week in an estimates hearing asking questions, banging their head against a wall, trying to get a ministerial scalp. The reality is that it came to nothing. What are they doing now? They have changed tack and are chasing another minister. That is typical of Labor. They are far more interested in a fight. They are far more interested in chasing the prey and playing the politics than in arguing about what might be the best policy for Australians, about what might be in the best interests of Australians. Those opposite think they can smell blood and, like frenzied hounds, they are going in for the kill. But is there any blood? Days of questions in this place and also in estimates to Senator Nash have revealed none. That is because there is none. They were asking questions of the Assistant Treasurer today. They have asked questions about this matter previously. There is no blood, because there is nothing to find, nothing to discover. Now, having failed dismally with the first minister, they have moved onto a second.

They should be doing what any aspiring government should—that is, closely examining the issues, policies and initiatives to ensure that the desired effect is delivered. In their case, they do not show any interest in the outcomes of the policies that they look at. They are only interested in the media spin that they can get out of it. When they were in government they were far more interested in the media impact of their announcements rather than the actual outcomes that might be delivered from the things that they were announcing. I suspect that there was an awful lot of asking going on in the then Prime Minister's office: 'What can we announce tonight to fill this hole in the media spin cycle?'