Senator CAMERON (5:35 PM) —I am pleased to participate in this matter of public importance and certainly I want to address some of the issues that have been raised by Senator Cormann, Senator Macdonald and Senator Bernardi. Senator Macdonald argued that it was a normal function of government to deal with national disasters. He argued that there should be no levy because there was no levy when Darwin was hit. He argued that it was the natural service of government to deal with these disasters. But Senator Cormann then really undermined the whole argument from the coalition when he said that a government that has their finances under control does not need a tax or a levy.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Senator CAMERON —There he goes, the apologist for West Australian big business is in there again, intervening in the debate. I think the public are not interested in the position that you are adopting. The public want Queensland rebuilt, they want northern New South Wales rebuilt, they want Victoria rebuilt—they want recovery from these disasters—and they want Western Australia rebuilt from the fires that are in that state. As Senator Cormann has said, a government that has its finances under control does not need a levy. Let me have a look at some of the levies that the Howard government put on.

The stevedoring levy: obviously no finances were under control by the Howard government when the stevedoring levy went on in 1998. The dairy levy: obviously you did not have your finances under control when you implemented the dairy levy in 2001. You had a surplus of $3.9 billion in 1998-99 when you put a levy on. You had a surplus in 2001 when you put a levy on. No wonder, Senator Cormann, you are walking out of the Senate, because you cannot accept that the reality of what you have just said exposes the nonsense that you have been putting forward in relation to your arguments. You put on an airport levy at a time when there was a surplus of $5.9 billion. You put on a sugar levy when there was a surplus of $7.4 billion. Peter Costello was lying back in his hammock, rocking away watching the money flooding in and John Howard was thrown out every budget on bribes to the public—that is the nature of the so-called fiscal responsibility of the Howard government.

Senator Cormann leaves the chamber because he just does not want to hear the reality of what the Howard government did. They had a superannuation surcharge levy, a gun buyback levy, a stevedoring levy, a milk levy, a sugar levy, an Ansett Airlines levy. They were proposing an East Timor levy. They were proposing a cleaner fuels levy. Yet they have got the gall to come in here and argue with us when we are proposing a one-off 12-month levy to rebuild this country after one of the biggest natural disasters we have ever seen. What a performance it has been from Senators Macdonald, Cormann and Bernardi. What a performance! Senator Macdonald in his usual petty, narrow minded, bitter way was trying to turn a natural disaster into an attack on a government that is determined to rebuild Queensland.

Senator Cormann, as I have said, is the Senate apologist for big business, the Senate apologist for big mining and the Senate apologist for big health. He was in here saying that we should not put a levy on—a modest levy to rebuild this country, to rebuild Queensland, northern New South Wales and Victoria. You see, Senator Cormann has been clear in his position. As long as Western Australia is doing all right, it does not matter about anywhere else. He is simply focused on Western Australia and on sucking up to the big mining lobby in Western Australia so that the Liberal Party of Western Australia can still maintain the money coming in so that it can maintain control within the Liberal Party of Australia. That is what Senator Cormann is about. Let’s not make any bones about what he is about. He is about big business and he is about the Liberal Party—the same as the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator Cormann —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Cameron is impugning improper motive and I ask you to call him to order. I think his contribution right now is well out of order.

Senator Arbib —Madam Acting Deputy President, on the point of order, we have just witnessed a number of speeches from coalition senators which have impugned the Labor Party and its economic response to the floods. I think Senator Cormann should be a bit more resilient than to complain about something in a robust debate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Pratt)—There is no point of order. I will listen closely to the debate further.

Senator Cormann —Madam Acting Deputy President, on the point of order, you clearly were not listening to the debate that was going on. Senator Cameron made the imputation that somehow the policy position I took in relation to the mining tax was driven by procuring a benefit for the Liberal Party in Western Australia. That is impugning—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Cormann, you do not have the call. I made a statement as to how I would proceed. Senator Cameron.

Senator CAMERON —I always find Senator Cormann really interesting—full of bluff, full of bluster and, when it really comes down to it, not much ticker, not much ticker at all. Screaming for the help of the chair in a debate like this—what a sook. It is just awful. You really have to get a bit of gumption, you really have to get a bit of guts and you really have to get a bit of backbone, Senator Cormann. It is all right when you are running around muscling up on your fellow Western Australian Liberals, but you will not get away with it with me, let me tell you. You will not get away with it.

Senator Back —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I ask that you direct Senator Cameron to direct his comments through the chair.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Cameron, I call you to order. Please direct your comments through the chair.

Senator CAMERON —Senator Cormann is a big sook. He is so weak, so full of bluster and bluff, yet when it comes down to it he has to get the chair to help him in a debate in this Senate. What a pathetic performance. When the public have listened to those three Liberal senators, they will wonder what they are on about. The reality is that the priority for any government—it should be for any opposition—is to get the recovery of this nation underway. Yet what we see the Liberal Party doing is looking at this recovery on the basis of saying, ‘Well, we can actually get some benefit out of this. Let’s put a release out and say, “Give us some money to oppose the levy.”’ When everyone else in the country is putting money in to support Queensland, northern New South Wales, Victoria and now Western Australia, what does the Leader of the Opposition do? The Leader of the Opposition is out there saying, ‘Don’t worry about the levy; don’t worry about putting money in to support the people of Australia that are in trouble—just think about giving more money to the Liberal Party.’

Talk about impugning your motives! I think you have demonstrated quite clearly what your motives are. You are a pathetic rabble. What is happening at the moment is that Tony Abbott’s pasting-over of the differences between the Liberal Party and the National Party is coming apart. We all know that the Liberal Party detests the National Party. We know that the National Party detests the Liberal Party. And we know that those in the Liberal Party detest each other. That is what is driving the response to what should be the most important matter facing any political party in this country, and that is getting the recovery of this nation underway. That is the important thing—the recovery of this nation.

What has been clearly demonstrated by the contributions from the three previous senators is that all they want to do is try to score narrow, meaningless political points when our government is setting about in a decisive manner to repair the damage to this nation and to look after Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia and Victoria. That is what we will do. We will not be diverted by your petty political points. We will get on with building this nation. We are a government that are always turned to when there is a problem. We handled the financial crisis; we will handle this crisis.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for this debate has expired.