Download Fragment

Thursday, 10 May 2012
Page: 3139

Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (15:10): I rise to take note of the answer of Senator Evans in response to questions from Senator Fifield. I guess that when this week started I was, as one can well imagine, interested to know whether the Liberal team in the Senate would be focusing on the budget, on the Speaker of the House of Representatives or perhaps focusing on the member for Dobell. Yes, there were plenty of political challenges for us to contemplate. But I have not been disappointed, because the Liberal Party have come into this place utterly focused on their mission, which was to have a fight amongst themselves over who could be the Opposition Whip. Once again the Liberal Party have completely missed the debates and opportunities of the week and have remained completely tied up in their own irrelevant and infantile fighting.

What we once referred to as 'Minchin's militia' appear to have now become 'Mitch's militia'.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Firstly, can you address remarks concerning Senator Fifield by using his name. Senator Fifield, I was going to ask Senator Feeney to come back to the matter before the chamber, but, as you are standing, do you have an additional point of order?

Senator FIFIELD: I was going to raise relevance on a point of order.

Senator FEENEY: This is the taking note debate, Mitch. Have a seat and argue it.

Senator Fifield: Traditionally there has been latitude given in taking note debates, but Senator Feeney is not straying even remotely close to discussing the government's position on an NDIS or on housing and homelessness. I ask you to draw him back to the answers Senator Evans provided.

Senator Wong: On the point of order, a habit is occurring on the opposition benches where every time a senator in the course of a debate might be critical of the opposition they jump up and take a point on relevance. It is taking sookiness to a new level. They like to dish it out but they cannot take it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Feeney, you were given a bit of latitude to stray into the debate. You did not go anywhere near the matter and I remind the chamber that the question was very specific. Sometimes the questions are wide ranging; taking note of answers of all ministers on the day. Senator Fifield rose 'To take note of the answers given by Senator Evans to the question he asked'. We can have some latitude, Senator Feeney, but not that much latitude—and Senator Payne.

Senator FEENEY: I will bring myself to the question before us: the Liberal Party's commitment to the NDIS. It was only a very short time ago that the shadow Treasurer, the thinking man's Clive Palmer, was giving a speech in London. To impress his Conservative friends, safely, so he believed, beyond the realm of political scrutiny, he gave a hairy-chested speech about ending the culture of entitlement. To be fair to Senator Fifield, he has not come into this place talking about ending the culture of entitlement. He has instead come here and talked about setting up a committee. His are the tactics of delay and dissimulation. At least he has not had the viciousness of Hockey.

This boils down to the fact the Labor Party and the Labor government have managed a budget that has not only come back into surplus but, amongst its many reforms and achievements, has delivered action on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This of course is a mighty achievement. It is a mighty achievement and it is understood to be such by all of those in the sector. Of course, confronted with this mighty achievement, the opposition have constructed not a response but a fig leaf, a stratagem—and their stratagem is to have a committee, chairs, co-chairs and presidents and vice-presidents and convenors and co-convenors, and this grand group, spanning Mitch's timeline of hundreds of years—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!

Senator FEENEY: We have Senator Fifield's 100-year plan for action on disability insurance, spanning many parliaments and many changes of government, covering the years and the aeons. His is a program which leaves Fabian gradualism looking like a revolutionary movement. No doubt the Liberal Party has sent Senator Fifield into this place to defend his fig leaf, because in the Liberal Party's ERC there are challenges which are beyond human imagination. They have not only to meet the very real contest of a Labor budget in surplus but also they are increasingly under pressure to explain how their $70 billion black hole might be brought under some kind of rein. When they contemplate the challenge of their $70 billion black hole, I can just imagine the sympathy Senator Fifield will receive from his colleagues when he suggests that the coalition needs to match the Labor government's action through the National Disability Insurance Scheme. My heart goes out to him—his task is nigh on impossible. Not only is their ERC populated by economically illiterate members of this place and elsewhere; there is poor old Senator Sinodinos trying to bring order to this madness, and Senator Fifield himself must now front up to the parliament with his own inspirational multiparty committee and generational change over the span of centuries.

This government is very proud of the fact that it has come up with a plan that is real, a plan that is embraced by the sector and a plan that means real reform—and it is a plan that is funded. It is a plan that does not involve a committee; it involves changing people's lives. It is not a plan that involves bipartisan co-convenors; it is a plan that actually means people have real transformation in their challenges, their carers, their lives—

Senator Fifield: I'll be circulating your speech, don't worry about that—

Senator Payne: Are you talking to us about bipartisan co-convenors?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!

Senator FEENEY: Mr Deputy President, I am being assailed here. You have to rescue me from these slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. I will struggle on as best I can. The simple fact of the matter is that the Liberal Party has come to this debate, to this policy contest— (Time expired)