Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

So we get Bolt on Sky News. That is one side, and then on the other side we get Beattie, Keneally, Latham and all those Labor luminaries. At least on Sky there is a little bit of balance, but on the ABC it is just wall-to-wall Labor Party and lefty journalists who are renowned for their support for the ALP. If the ABC were to go out into non-Ultimo Australia, they would realise that there is a whole new world out there. The board would benefit from the views of people in other parts of Australia about the ABC and the one-sided approach they have. Someone mentioned Four Corners before. Four Cornershave done some good work at times, but usually they do not. I remember that, as minister for forestry, we had occasion to call them to order. I know that has happened a couple of times since, including that disgraceful program trying to destroy the Tasmanian salmon industry. I know Senator Bilyk would have been appalled at that. I am sure you would have complained to the ABC in your state, Senator Bilyk, because they were trying to destroy one of the major industries of Tasmania.

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

You did complain? I am sure you would have, Senator Bilyk. Thanks for confirming that. It is important that all Tasmanian senators—and I know Senator Lambie would have too, and I am sure even Senator McKim might have been able to avoid his bias—

An honourable senator interjecting—

Look, when you are dealing with the salmon industry in Tasmania, that is Tasmania. That program was so inaccurate, so vicious and so biased that even Senator McKim would have been unhappy with it. Ten or 15 years ago they did the same thing with forestry, and were forced to apologise.

Unfortunately, someone mentioned earlier that it is my birthday. Yesterday, Senator Cameron and Senator McKim referred to me 95 times in debate—my staff counted this up. I think they must like me or something.

A government senator: You are very popular.

I am only very popular with the Labor Party and the Greens, I have to say! But thanks for thinking about me and talking about me so often. I have my staff counting again today. I think today we are up to about 73, and the day is not anywhere near finished. I really find that very flattering, so thank you to the Labor Party and the Greens for your constant references to me.

Now, unlike Senator Cameron, I want to talk about the amendment before the chair. The amendment before the chair is about reverse onus of proof. Unlike members of the Labor Party, in our party we have a free voice. We are not lobotomised zombies—as some prominent Labor person referred to the ALP caucus; I do not want to mention names—when it comes to policy discussions. In our party, if we feel strongly enough about a matter we can cross the floor. We can certainly talk about it in our party room. There were a couple of issues about superannuation—I do not want to give away what is said in our party room—where I did say to the Treasurer, 'If these retrospective elements go through, you'll find me on the other side of the chamber, even if I am the only one.' And we are allowed to do that. Fortunately, it did not come to that, because there were amendments made that did away with the retrospective elements that I was concerned about. But we are allowed to do that in our party, and we do have these robust policy discussions in our party and in our backbench policy committees. We do not just sit there like lobotomised zombies and put a hand up when the Prime Minister says, 'Nod'. We do not do that in our party.

An opposition senator interjecting—

I am getting to the reverse onus of proof. When I saw this in this legislation, I was concerned. I do not like reverse onus of proof. In some matters it is essential. With some security issues, it is unavoidable.

Senator Di Natale interjecting—

Senator Di Natale, we have been in various committee hearings looking at legislation, particularly in relation to security matters, and I think you and some of your colleagues have raised these issues. But when it comes to security matters, when it comes to the safety of other Australians—

Senator Lambie interjecting—

Senator Lambie, we have to look after their safety, and in some instances you do have to impose laws that are more draconian than others. Without labouring the point, there is a time when that has to happen.

I know you were all praising Mr Castro before, so I will just divert a little bit. Senator Di Natale, you were praising Castro. There is an author in the Adelaide Advertiser called Caleb Bond. I do not know him, but he summed up Castro very well:

He was an evil, horrible man who impoverished a nation and killed many of his people.

He established concentration camps in which undesirable people were forced to work and subjected to a litany of abuses. The camps were crowded and the detainees slept on dirt.

Among the people thrown in those camps were homosexuals, who were described by the Castro government as "sick".

In fact, Castro said a homosexual could never be a proper communist because their sexuality "clashes with the concept we have of what a militant communist must be".

They were placed in camps to be "rehabilitated". Converted, in other words.

This is the guy that you said was a pretty good guy.