Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Cameron for raising this extremely trivial issue. I can't believe we're back here talking about ourselves once again. There are so many important things going on in the world and there are so many important things going on in our nation, yet those opposite once again decide to play the man, and not the ball, by talking about section 44.

Last week, it was all about Senator Nash. Not a single question during question time in this chamber was not directed to Senator Nash, yet this was at a time when we could have been talking about the military brinkmanship going on in North Korea. There was not a single question from those opposite about that. We could have spoken about the incredibly good news stories that were coming out of the economy, the green shoots that are showing through in the Australian economy—a quarter of a million new jobs—yet those opposite continued to speak about Senator Nash. We could have spoken about the genuine action that is taking place on energy prices—imposing downward pressure on energy prices and finding a solution to the energy crisis in this country going forward—yet those opposite continued to speak about Senator Nash.

The repetition is becoming not just tiresome for those of us in the government but tiresome for those in the gallery. How very dull this can be. And yet, this week, they've decided to move away from Senator Nash and to move onto Senator O'Sullivan and whether Senator O'Sullivan directly or indirectly holds a pecuniary interest in an organisation. The irony, of course, in all of this is that whatever contract there may or may not have been was definitely a contract with the Queensland government, not with the Commonwealth. Again, what we see is a significant misunderstanding of the issue by those opposite and an opportunity to play politics as opposed to dealing with issues of policy. I've got to say, at one stage I thought there was a moment there where, potentially, we could have been speaking about energy policy—energy policy which, let's face it, is possibly the most pressing issue facing this country right now. And what is it that those opposite are doing on energy policy? Well, I can't imagine—

Senator Cameron interjecting—

I've not heard a single solution, Senator Cameron; not a single solution. Now, I'm not going to go the way of Senator Scullion and start talking about Blackout Bill, because I think that saying the words Blackout Bill when referring to those opposite is disrespectful, and Senator Scullion was right to withdraw it—