Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Senator Carr) to a question without notice asked by Senator Johnston today relating to the cost of oil and the Jeddah Energy Meeting in Saudi Arabia.

We have seen an astounding thing today: once again, we have had a very clear confirmation that the Rudd government are entirely without substance. They will say and do anything to get a headline but, when it comes to delivering, they fail at every single turn. Most recently, we have had Mr Ferguson, as the emissary of Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, going over to turn the blowtorch on the OPEC producers. What did that blowtorch become? Senator Johnston today—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Please resume your seat for a moment, Senator Bernardi. There is too much noise around the chamber. Those not participating in the debate or not wanting to listen to the debate, please move out of the chamber.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note they are all staying, Mr Deputy President, which means that they want to listen to what I have got to say today. This is an example of just how weak the government are. They have gone over there with a promise to turn the blowtorch on OPEC and they have tried to light a box of damp matches—and they have failed, too.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Damp or soggy?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a damp and soggy government. It is a government that is completely without the trust of the Australian people. It was Francis Bacon who said: ‘Trust not servants who mislead or misinform you.’ That is why the Australian people cannot trust the Rudd government. As was the case with all of us here, Mr Rudd was elected with the faith of the Australian people as a servant of the Australian people. He promised that a central focus for him in government would be examining ways of reducing financial pressures on Australian families in relation to the rising costs of groceries, petrol and child care. Well, he has failed. Groceries have risen by 25 per cent or more in some cases thanks to Mr Rudd. Bread has gone from $3.07 a loaf in December last year to $3.89 today at Coles in Welland. We have seen cheese up 25 per cent to $6.88 for 500 grams. Basic mince meat—the staple of so many Australian families—has gone up nearly 10 per cent in that six-month period. Mr Rudd and his band of merry men and women are simply watching prices rise, watching prices cripple Australian families.

In relation to oil and petrol, Mr Rudd made a promise to the Australian people, who entrusted him to reduce the price at the bowser. What have we seen? The price of fuel at the pump was $1.37 when Mr Rudd came to power and today in metropolitan South Australia it is $1.71. It is crippling Australian families. And when Mr Rudd sends one of his ministers over to apply the blowtorch, what happens? He cannot even get a spark. He squibbed it at the very first turn. But, of course, Mr Ferguson does not see it like that. He says:

But when you go to the issue of increasing production, it also goes to questions of demand ...

Well, that is an enlightened comment! He continues:

We also argued that countries have to look at the issue of subsidies which is propping up demand at the moment, which goes to increasing the supply of oil in the global community.

More tautology from a government interested only in spin, rather than actual substance.

Some unkind people would say that the government are in fact a bubble—a bubble in search of a thought—because the best thing they can do is come up with ways to review, watch and look at prices rise and put them on websites. If you wanted to encapsulate the government’s approach to prices and reducing the pressure on Australian families, you would have to describe them as economic voyeurs—because they like to watch prices rise. They do nothing; they are the voyeurs of the economic system. It is simply: ‘Let’s have another review and another inquiry and then we’ll wash our hands of it and say that we cannot do anything about it.’ They are not reducing the pressure on Australian families; they are increasing it through complete inaction. They make promises to fit in with a news cycle—and they have failed. You have failed with regard to grocery prices and you have all failed with regard to fuel prices, and you know it. You should hang your heads in shame. The Australian people paid heed to your very clear promises—and what have you done? You have done absolutely nothing. You have had seven months of treading water.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is your policy?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Right now the Australian people are drowning in the problems of your making. It is an absolute shame. (Time expired)

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind senators on my right that, if they wish to participate in the debate, they can put their name on the list of speakers and I will willingly call them. Otherwise, speakers should be heard in silence.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think that I can match that performance by Senator Bernardi—that bit of confected anger—but, to continue his allegory, if I am one of the merry men and ladies here of Kevin Rudd, let me just say that we are feared by the bad and loved by the good.

Over the last weekend our Minister for Resources and Energy went to Saudi Arabia to work out a global solution to this difficulty with other major producers, suppliers and consumers. Let me contrast this with the coalition’s position. What is the coalition’s position? At this point, there are six things on offer from the coalition. The first is, as we know, from the interim opposition leader, Brendan Nelson: to cut the fuel excise by—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should give him his proper title.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said ‘opposition leader’. The first, from Dr Nelson, is 5c a litre. Then we have Mr Costello, the member for Higgins. His campaign director, Mr Pearce, is demanding that they go even further—to 10c. I understand the National Party leader, Mr Truss, is now offering 15c. I also understand that the shadow Treasurer, Mr Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, has not expressed a view at all—so I gather he may actually be supporting our position. I understand that the member for Lyne, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Vaile, has said that it should go up to 20c a litre. And then I understand that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Ms Bishop, has said that it should be at least 5c.

So, of six situations that we are faced with from the opposition, there are six solutions that they want us to look at—one going up to at least 5c a litre and one going up to 20c a litre. I want to contrast that with what we are doing. This is not a time for politicking by their side. We have a serious crisis confronting not only our nation but the rest of the world. This is probably the third major oil crisis in our history, and the first since the 1970s, and consumers, producers and suppliers have come together in Jeddah to try to work out a solution. What were some of the solutions that they spoke about and committed to? They worked out that there are problems and difficulties in the supply chain, problems in production and problems in investment and technology. These were all discussed at a conference of all nations in Jeddah over the weekend—and we were there. We came back and we are looking for solutions—not only Australia but also all those other nations who are critically involved in all those aspects of production, supply and consumption of oil products.

We are all aware that there are difficulties and unrest all over the world as a result of these increased prices. And what is the coalition’s solution? They have six solutions. On any one day there could be another one from any major figure—not only from a backbencher like Mr Pearce but also from the leader of a major party, like Mr Truss, or from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. And the shadow Treasurer stands back and says nothing.

We have been dealing with this for some time, in contrast to the inaction of the opposition. We are working at alternative fuel strategies. We have a national energy strategy. We have boosted our investment in public transport through the massive investment and infusion of infrastructure funds in the last budget. We have also, as was highlighted, been pushing forward with fuel efficient cars. This is in contrast to what the opposition are up to. They have no solutions; they were not there at the table. They could well have been there over the past 11 years, when they had the opportunity to participate. But what were their solutions? We have already heard of their solutions in opposition—to go with six different policies over six different days. We have four more days of parliament left; there may well be four more positions being proposed by the opposition over that time. We know what we are up to and we are investing in the future. (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Cost of living pressures—fuel, groceries, utilities, rent—are always a challenge, particularly for pensioners. It is the more vulnerable, those on low incomes, who feel not only large movements in price but smaller movements in price as well. The government took advantage of these people at the last election, and they rode into office on the back of rhetoric deliberately designed to mislead and to leave the impression that they would do something about price pressures, about cost of living pressures.

I must be fair—Labor do have a plan; they have a series of plans in relation to the cost of living. They have a plan for grocery prices, and that plan is—surprise, surprise!—an inquiry. They have a plan for fuel, which is to watch it. Mr Deputy President Hogg, I am not sure if you are a fan of Peter Sellers’s movies or a fan of the Peter Sellers character Chauncey Gardiner in the movie Being There. Labor really are taking the Chauncey Gardiner approach. Chauncey liked to watch, and that is what Labor like to do too. The plan for utilities that Labor have is to make them more expensive by introducing an emissions trading system. None of the elements of Labor’s plan will do a thing to lower the price of goods.

It is in the area of fuel that Labor’s approach is absolute and pure folly. Firstly, Labor cannot decide if they want fuel prices to go up or if they want fuel prices to go down. Labor say that they want cheaper fuel but they cannot decide if they want fuel included in an emissions trading scheme. When the member for Flinders in the other place asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts the question, ‘Does the minister want petrol prices in Australia to go up or go down?’ Mr Garrett responded:

... in relation to the matters that any government would want to bring forward to deal with the question of petrol prices, this government has delivered.

So, in the view of Mr Garrett, this is as good as it will get. Secondly, Labor’s Fuelwatch scheme is not even supported by Minister Ferguson, who wrote to Minister Bowen saying:

Your assertion that Fuel Watch will be pro-competitive is unsubstantiated and ignored the very substantial evidence that it is anti-competitive.

He went on to say:

I note that ... the biggest beneficiaries would be the least price-sensitive motorists and the smallest beneficiaries would be the most price-sensitive—working families in places like western Sydney.

So, the Fuelwatch scheme is actually going to do harm to the very people it is designed to protect, and it is not supported by Minister Ferguson. But also the scheme is not supported by the four senior economic departments with responsibility for providing policy advice in this area. We have seen the cabinet coordination comments, courtesy of Mr Oakes, that those four departments do not support the Fuelwatch scheme. Mr Swan dismissed those four departments as being a bit academic. As for the bureaucratic advice which Labor, in opposition, said that they wanted to receive—they said that they wanted bureaucratic advice given to them without fear or favour—when it comes in against what they are proposing they dismiss it as being a bit academic.

The Prime Minister cannot even deliver on his own rhetoric. We know that the Prime Minister said that he was going to apply the blowtorch to the OPEC organisation. The Prime Minister was essentially saying that the government was going to do a bit of a Gordon Ramsay in relation to OPEC—that OPEC would be left in absolutely no doubt what this government’s view was of their limiting supply. But what do we have? Nothing; not a single word. On ABC Radio this morning, Ben Knight asked Mr Ferguson, ‘How damaging was that blowtorch comment when you don’t even ask for an increase in oil production?’ I will not bother reading out what Mr Ferguson said, because it is incomprehensible. I will not torment you by reading his comments because that would just not be fair. In contrast, the opposition have a clear plan: a cut of 5c a litre. It is a plan which this government should adopt. We have a clear plan—5c a litre—that would deliver real and immediate benefit for Australian motorists and is more than rhetoric. (Time expired)

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No amount of rhetoric or references to Gordon Ramsay, Chauncey Gardiner, Robin Hood or bubbles will conceal the fact that this opposition remains in denial. Eleven years of government did we have from this now opposition in denial about how to deal with fuel prices—and not only fuel prices; now we have analogies with other areas of social policy. Senator Bernardi referred to food costs and childcare costs but I have not yet heard anything of substance on this issue from any speaker taking note today. I sat back and I listened to: ‘Yes, we are dealing with OPEC,’ and I thought, ‘Great, we’ll hear a substantive response to the Prime Minister’s comments today in question time.’ And what have I heard? Nothing.

The closest we got was Senator Fifield referring to the opposition’s 5c cut in fuel tax—uncosted, as we all know, in the budget reply and it remains uncosted. On top of that, we have heard the suggestion from everyone else in the opposition about what it should or might be, ranging from a minimum of 5c, as Senator Hutchins pointed out, up to a 20c cut. So what is the opposition’s plan? I still have heard nothing. What I did hear today, though, when listening to the House of Representatives and the Prime Minister referring to OPEC and the Jeddah summit, was a plan that included some significant detail about supply and demand side initiatives that are being progressed.

Let me go to a few of the conference outcomes, because these have not been covered in the debate today. The conference outcomes included an agreement to work towards greater stability of global oil markets; a recognition of the need for more investment, both upstream and downstream, to ensure that the markets are supplied in a timely and adequate manner; a call to improve the transparency and regulation of financial markets; a commitment to improving the quality, completeness and timeliness of oil data submitted through the monthly Joint Oil Data Initiative to help improve market transparency and stability; and a commitment to providing assistance to alleviate the consequences of higher oil prices on the least developed countries.

What we are talking about here is a complex global problem. If I were someone in the Australian general public listening to this debate today, I would be appalled at the other side’s lack of understanding of the problem and its contribution on how to deal with it. Most Australians are aware of the Howard government’s record on fuel prices—they have been paying at the pump for many, many years—and they do not attribute to the Rudd government the state of play as it stands today. But what we can say, and what Mr Rudd said in the other place today quite clearly and quite effectively, is that we are now dealing with the problem. We have a suite of supply and demand side initiatives that take a long-term approach to these problems. These initiatives include improving energy efficiency on the demand side and dealing with inefficient extraction on the supply side. The Rudd Labor government is seeking to ensure in the longer term that Australians are not paying more at the pump than they need to.

Let us look at other areas of policy, as Senator Bernardi did, such as childcare costs and food costs. Let us look at the blatant hypocrisy that comes from the other side on these issues. I recall recently the shadow minister for ageing saying, ‘Yes, we’ll talk about increasing the age pension.’ I think that lasted one day. This opposition cannot get its act together in terms of its policies. It is offering nothing significant to people on age pensions, and the Australian public will understand that.

This opposition presided over unknown increases in the cost of childcare services. When we introduced legislation to deal with those issues, the shadow minister responsible for the policy area managed a few glib comments in his second reading contribution in the Senate, and that was all. But then he used it as an example in relation to fuel pricing. Well, I am sorry but a little more substance will be required of the opposition, whether it be on fuel prices, aged care policies or childcare costs. (Time expired)

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a shame that the new senator, who replaces Robert Ray, has certainly not lived up to the standard of the former godfather of the Labor Party. We all read on the weekend exactly what we already knew in this parliament—and what was made public in the media, page after page and in current affairs shows over the weekend. It was made public finally, and thank goodness. After only six months in government, this government is in chaos from the top down. We know that every decision is logjammed in the Prime Minister’s office and that the Prime Minister is making all the errors that he made when he was chief of staff to the former Premier of Queensland, Mr Goss. The Prime Minister has learned nothing and he has brought all those errors to the prime ministership. We learned over the weekend that the government is being run from the top, from an inner sanctum of two junior staffers—two inexperienced staffers who have been given senior positions—who are dictating to the ministers across here and in the House the policies, announcements and decisions of this government. Within six months, the government has reached the point of utter chaos. This sort of leadership cannot last. We were in government for 11½ years. Take it from us that it cannot be sustained, nor can a government be sustained when every decision is logjammed in the Prime Minister’s office.

I daresay the more experienced of those on the other side—like Senator Sherry, who has experienced government in the past—know that only too well that the Prime Minister cannot sustain this style of leadership. In fact, over the weekend, senior commentators were discussing the possibility that, at this rate and unless it changes, this will be a one-term government. This is a Prime Minister who is not going to change; this we know. So they are now talking about a one-term government.

The story is told that one of the few one-term presidents in the United States, Jimmy Carter—the great disaster—ran his White House in exactly the same way, to the point where apparently he was also running the White House tennis rosters. What stage is this Prime Minister going to reach? I would not be surprised if he were running the tennis rosters.

You are a bunch of cowards. Senator Conroy: how tough was he in opposition? Now that he has come into government he is kowtowing and making all his decisions through the Prime Minister’s office.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which party are you in? It’s the visionary!

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President—soon to be President, I hope—no government has come into power with a greater inheritance. No government has squandered the inheritance—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The visionary!

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are calling Mr Rudd a visionary, are you?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you’re the visionary.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that compliment. From whence it came and why I will never know. No government has come to power with such an inheritance: a strong economy and government finances in order. The government today knows what it received: absolutely no debt. It is one of the few governments in the world—you could count them on one hand—with no debt. With a surplus budget, a near-full employment rate and a goal of full employment left to it by the previous government, no government has come to power with a greater inheritance of finances that are in order; yet within six months it has all been squandered. It has all been squandered on the basis of the leadership and how they have run the government and made their budgetary decisions—how they have come to the absurdities of the commissions and the committees of inquiry that they have set up. This is a government internally in chaos.

It is a disappointment that, for all the rhetoric and promises that they entered government with—they lifted the hopes of the Australian people—they have crashed. It has not come through in the polls as yet, as we know, but they are hurtling to earth. They will crash to earth. They cannot sustain this sort of leadership, this sort of disappointment. We already see it in the 15-year lows in the consumer confidence index. The business confidence index has slumped, and future investment possibilities have slumped. This is a government that, within six months, is in chaos. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.