Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (15:14): I rise to take note of answers as referred to by the previous speaker. It is terrific to see Senator Cormann back on his feet and again unleashed into the economic debate. We were all very fearful in recent days when he was for superannuation, then against superannuation, then for superannuation and then against superannuation—we were all very fearful that the opposition leadership had plucked him out of the fray of the financial debate. It is good to see him back. This is a nice timely moment for us, as the parliamentary year draws to a conclusion, to consider the questions that were debated today and perhaps have a fresh look at how the edifice of Liberal Party policymaking is going. I am afraid the scorecard is very bleak. As we see the Liberal Party moving around Australia in these final months of the year, we see on the one hand that they are advocating austerity and fiscal restraint. We saw that when the coalition opposed the measures the government took to save our economy from the global financial crisis—this continuing, harping view that austerity and fiscal restraint are the appropriate way forward. But then—completely contradictory—we also find the opposition moving through the community talking about and committing themselves to unfunded spending in a whole series of areas. I am very keen to put the spotlight on some of these areas. Climate change is a wonderful place to start. The great truth of the climate change debate in this country is that, while Labor has a policy of abating carbon to the tune of 160 million tonnes by 2020, the remarkable and little-known fact is: so do they. So do the coalition—the same target. You would not know it if you were listening to the debates in which they denounce the science of climate change, but the fact of the matter is that the coalition have the same target. The secret difference is that where we have a fixed price permit system, moving to an emissions trading scheme, they have looked to the successful models of Romania, North Korea and various other command economies around the world and they have struck upon the solution of coming up with a giant government program, a giant taxpayer funded program, to abate carbon. More on that later. In other events of recent days, we have seen the Work Choices debate unleash itself—one of Senator Abetz's favourite old debates—and we have seen the Liberal Party rushing to the defence of the wildcat lockouts launched by extremist and militant employers in our economy. Even in an area such as coal seam gas, we have in recent days seen the Liberal Party marching in one direction and the National Party marching in another, as the National Party seeks to write policy from meeting to meeting. Senator Abetz: Like you and Gavin. Senator FEENEY: Senator Abetz is describing a cerebral and publicly conducted debate. I am describing a scenario where National Party spokespeople roam the country unsupervised and are brought back to heel in the coalition party room here. I am describing a situation where Senator Eggleston and even Senator Macdonald rose in the coalition party room to try to bring to heel these errant National Party spokespeople roaming the suburbs and towns unsupervised. At the heart of this Leaning Tower of Pisa that is the Liberal Party's policy position, we have a $70 billion black hole. We have $70 billion that has to be funded over four years. Senator Abetz: Nonsense! You know that is untrue. Senator FEENEY: Complain all you will, Senator Abetz, but Andrew Robb is clear that it is $70 billion, we are clear that it is $70 billion and the commentariat is clear that it is $70 billion. Given your longstanding record in ignoring science, I do not doubt that you will give it a go here too. But $70 billion over four years is your challenge and, when we look behind the veil at that $70 billion, what do we find? We find that it is going to cost you over $27 billion to meet your commitment to scrap our carbon price. We find that $3.2 billion will have to be found to fund your direct action plan. Your direct action plan, borrowed from the ideologues of North Korea, East Germany, Romania and the Soviet Union at its finest, actually aspires to meet the same target as ours. But you have done away with old-fashioned notions such as market forces and demand and supply. You have moved forward into a magnificent five-year plan from Chairman Abbott. Above and beyond that, you have to come up with $24 billion to refund big polluters for carbon permits. Refund polluters for carbon permits—one might think that was— (Time expired) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Before I call the next speaker, I remind senators to address members of the other place by their correct title and to direct their remarks to the chair and not across the chamber.