Senate debates
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
Questions without Notice
Australian Greens
2:10 pm
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. I refer the minister to his answer in question time yesterday when, agreeing with Prime Minister Gillard, he said, ‘We certainly regard many of the views of the Greens as extreme.’ I also refer the minister to Prime Minister Gillard’s speech ‘Moving forward together on Climate Change’, delivered on 23 July 2010, perhaps better known as her citizens assembly speech, in which the Prime Minister said, ‘I will not allow our country to be held to ransom by a few people with extreme views that will never be changed.’ Why, then, did the Prime Minister not only break her promise that there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads but, in so doing, also break her promise not to allow our country to be held to ransom by a few people with extreme views?
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
When the sensitivities have died down we will proceed. It does not help either side to be interjecting or responding to interjections.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Again I am surprised that the opposition have got nothing to contribute to policy debate in this country and are making themselves increasingly irrelevant. It is the case that there are sometimes extreme views, or views that I regard as extreme, held in politics. There are many on the opposition benches whom I regard as holding extreme views. I find the Liberal Party’s industrial relations policy to be an extremist policy—one that seeks to attack workers in this country. At the moment Senator Abetz has been put on the leash and told to say nothing. I understand why you might keep him under wraps, particularly if you are trying to lift your vote. We still know extremists run the Liberal Party’s industrial relations policy. If you want to debate climate change and extremists, we are happy to debate that at any time, because we see Senator Bernardi, still on the front bench of the Liberal Party, who represents some of the most extreme views in Australian politics—not just, I might say, on climate change, but on issues of race and religion as well.
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
A point of order on relevance, Mr President: the question related to the government’s alliance with the Greens. To the best of my knowledge, the government is not in alliance with the opposition.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That is a debating point; it is not a point of order.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I was directly addressing Senator Fifield’s comments about extremes and the question of the climate change debate. We have seen the right-wing extremists of the Liberal Party take over. They do not market Malcolm Turnbull, largely because of the right-wing control in the Senate. The Senate Liberal Party has been taken over by extreme right wingers who are responsible—
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Name them!
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am happy to name them, Senator, but it would take a long time because you are over-represented here—there are no moderates left. There are no liberals left in the Senate Liberal Party. So when we have a debate about climate change we debate with you: the extremists. We are happy to talk about extremist views, because the Liberal Party has abandoned serious public policy debate in an attempt to appeal to extremist views. (Time expired)
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
When there is silence on both sides we will proceed. Senator Fifield is entitled to be heard in silence.
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I again refer the minister to Prime Minister Gillard’s promise to ‘not allow our country to be held to ransom by a few people with extreme views’ and also to the views of Fiona Byrne who, as Greens Mayor of Marrickville, has signed up to a ban on commercial, cultural and sporting contacts with Israel and who, as the Greens candidate for Marrickville in the upcoming state election, has advocated a New South Wales trade boycott and sanctions against Israel. Does the minister agree that Ms Byrne’s views on Israel are yet another example of extreme Greens views?
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The minister can answer only those parts of the question which apply to the portfolio. I invite the minister to answer those parts.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Clearly the question has no relevance—asking me what a Greens mayor has to say. The Labor Party always supports religious freedom and does not believe that any racial group or religious group ought to be vilified on the basis of their views. It is something I encourage the Liberal Party to return to in their policy. I encourage them to call to heel many of their members, like Senator Bernardi, and not to encourage those sorts of politics in Australia. We sought bipartisan support in this parliament for a climate change response. We worked hard throughout the last parliament to get bipartisan support. What we have now—
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The original question was about climate change.
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Fifield interjecting—
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That is the most irrelevant question on the planet. How can you possibly say—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Conroy, I do not need your help.
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I rise on a point of order as to relevance. The question related to Israel and to a boycott on the state of Israel. I fail to see how views on climate change or policies to address that have any relevance at all.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On the point of order, Mr President, I ask you how a question about the state of Israel could have followed from the primary question which was about a carbon price, a statement by the Prime Minister and the Greens’ views in this parliament. The opposition continues to abuse parliament and question time with these silly little political games. I am happy to answer any question that comes my way but to take a point of order about relevance after that pitiful performance and then to ask a supplementary question that has nothing to do with the original question really turns question time into a farce. The opposition ought to examine its performance.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Briefly, on the point of order, Mr President, I understand the Leader of the Government’s difficulties but there can be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the preliminary question was about the extreme views of a certain political party. Senator Fifield referred to extreme views twice in his preliminary question.
Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I do not need guidance from a zombie. I do not need guidance from the leader of the zombies.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, on the point of order, Senator Fifield made it very clear in his preliminary question that he was talking about extreme views as enunciated by the Prime Minister. It was a matter that she deemed appropriate to talk about in her role as Prime Minister. It is therefore quite disingenuous of the Leader of the Government to suggest that it is not relevant to her portfolio responsibilities when she in fact addressed those very issues as the Prime Minister of the country. As a result, the minister should be brought back to the question and asked to be directly relevant, as required by sessional orders.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Before you start Senator Ludwig, I remind senators that points of order are to be just that and are not a time for debating the issue. I will listen to points of order and then I will give the appropriate ruling on the points raised.
Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you Mr President. On the point of order, there are two points to the point of order: the first, dealing with Senator Abetz’s point of order, is that there is no point of order by Senator Abetz. Senator Abetz was in fact debating the point that was raised. Senator Evans raised in his point of order that the supplementary question did not flow from the primary question. That point was made and the transcript will demonstrate that. He tried to demonstrate that it did. The second matter—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
If people want to discuss and debate this, the end of question time is the time to do it. As I said, I am prepared to listen to the points of order but when people debate them across the chamber and people intervene in the point of order being taken by someone from either side, it develops into nothing more than a debate across the chamber and completely defeats the purpose of the point of order.
Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On the second point, that the minister, Senator Evans, was being relevant—directly relevant to the question that was raised—the question was raised in such a wide political context, talking about extreme views of political parties, that Senator Evans could remain very closely and easily within the gamut of that question by the answer that he gave. If the opposition is going to continue to ask such broad political questions which cover extreme views, covering a wide range of matters within the question, then Senator Evans is entitled to answer that part of the question that he can, trying to be directly relevant to the question asked.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
At the outset of the supplementary question, after it had been finished and before I called Senator Evans, I did point out to Senator Evans that he needed to address those parts of the question that were relevant to the portfolio. On this occasion I believe there is no point of order. Minister, you have 16 seconds remaining to continue the answer.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As I was making clear, the government reject extremism in Australian politics. We condemn a range of statements that have been made, including those from some on the opposition frontbench on race and religion. (Time expired)
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I refer to the fact that Senator Brown, the leader of Labor’s alliance partner, the Greens, has repeatedly campaigned for and talked up Ms Byrne and has failed to condemn her extreme views on Israel. Will the minister join with the coalition in condemning Senator Brown’s failure of leadership and repudiate—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! I am going to hear the question in silence, whether you like the question or not. Senator Fifield, start again, I would like to hear the question.
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I refer to the fact that Senator Brown, the leader of Labor’s alliance partner, the Greens, has repeatedly campaigned for and talked up Ms Byrne and has failed to condemn her extreme views on Israel. Will the minister join with the coalition in condemning Senator Brown’s failure of leadership and repudiate these views on Israel?
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Again, I invite the minister to answer that part of the question that is within the standing orders.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I am going to ask you to have a look at the relevance of these questions. The suggestion that I ought to be commenting on what Senator Brown did or did not do with a member of his party is way out of line in terms of my responsibilities in representing the Prime Minister. The Labor Party’s position on the state of Israel, the support for its right to exist and its support for religious freedom in this country has been longstanding and remains. We have always condemned extremist views and those include views that encourage anti-Semitism. That has always been our position; it remains our position. It has always been my personal position. I think all members of the parliament ought to think about the contributions they make to questions of race and religion in this country. Some leadership from all sides of politics would be helpful for the nation’s politics. (Time expired)