Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I listened with interest to the member for Fisher and I agree with him: on occasions such as these people, irrespective of their political or other backgrounds, tend to unite. He made some very pertinent points. It was an interesting moment in this chamber when there was unanimity of purpose for not only Cyclone Larry but also the future of the member for Kooyong. It was interesting to see Liberal, Labor and Independent members recognising his contribution to this parliament and I do so myself.

I concur with the member for Fisher when he said that people with real skills—like General Cosgrove, whose skills can be utilised in other capacities—should not be cast out to pasture, as tends to happen in the military from time to time. I concur also with the member for Kooyong that it is not time for him to be cast out to pasture. I wish him well in the next few weeks.

Cyclone Larry has been very much in the news of late. It has been a great tragedy but, very fortunately, there has been no loss of life. I compliment, as others have done, many of the major players that have been involved—obviously the Queensland Premier, Prime Minister Howard and, particularly, local members: my Independent colleague the member for Kennedy, Bob Katter, and also the member for Leichhardt. I am told that they have put in a sterling effort in dealing with the issues on the ground and with their constituents, as local members should.

There has been a concerted effort in this matter. This has been highlighted by the appointment of General Cosgrove to this position who is highly regarded by all Australians. Even though there will be difficulties, probably some degree of social unrest from time to time and frustration as to the speed of recovery, I am sure that the presence of someone of General Cosgrove’s stature and the willingness of the state and Commonwealth parliaments and the Australian community to assist—as Australians do—will enable the community of North Queensland to weather the future storm.

There are a couple of things I would like to say with respect to this issue. In question time the other day the member for Kennedy asked the Prime Minister about the use of Newstart. This is an issue that I raised some time ago—I may well even have been a state member of parliament—when there were severe floods in the Liverpool plains area of northern New South Wales. There was a concerted effort not only to make Newstart available to people who were out of work but, in some cases, to transfer Newstart payments into small businesses so that business that could otherwise not afford to retain their employees could do so and the employees could do something required by the businesses, thereby maintaining the integrity of the workforce in that area during the reconstruction period.

For some reason the government seems to be reluctant to look at this issue. It would not cost the taxpayer any more than the current system and it has the added benefits of preserving the status of employment and fulfilling the need for people to help in the reconstruction period, particularly but not only in the farming areas. It would help to maintain the number of people within an area so that, when that area once again became prosperous, there would be people there who love that part of Australia and have the skills necessary to engage in new activities. I would encourage the Prime Minister to revisit the issue raised by the member for Kennedy.

I particularly congratulate the member for Kennedy, who is now back in his electorate. He attended parliament for only one day this week to highlight some of the issues of concern. He is now working with his people on the ground. I am sure all of us wish him and his constituents well in the coming months.

I was a bit amazed by what I read in an article written some days ago by Sydney journalist Miranda Devine. The article took a condescending view of North Queenslanders, who were obviously frustrated and upset about what had occurred and where their futures lay.  It displayed the typical anticountry media view held by some people who live in coffee shops. Those people probably do not know about country living and country people and the disasters that occur from time to time. I ask them to breathe in before criticising the people in North Queensland. If your house had been blown down the day before, you would not be acting rationally, you would be traumatised. And statements made in the heat of the moment should not be made into major events by the national media and in such a condescending fashion, denigrating those people for being ungrateful for the assistance that they are getting and are about to receive.

If someone took the time to look back over Miranda Devine’s journalistic career, I am sure they would find that she made some very sympathetic statements about the impact of the recent tsunami on the Asian region in which it occurred. Some of these people use logic that would suggest that North Queenslanders should not live there because they might get a cyclone every 100 years. One could use the same logic with the tsunami victims—that they should not live on the coast because a deep sea earthquake may occur from time to time—but I do not agree with that logic. I am sure people like Miranda Devine will not agree with that logic if global warming takes place and some of the coffee shops near Sydney’s beaches suddenly become submerged.

I want to raise another issue. I have raised it for many years now and also from time to time in this parliament. Again, we are faced with a natural disaster, and obviously these sorts of things get mentioned at such times. In my view—and I think in the view of many—there is a need to put in place a national natural disaster fund. We have spent a lot of time in recent years talking about the various disasters that have occurred—the worst drought in 100 years, the tsunami overseas, the hailstorm in Sydney, the mudslide in Wollongong some years ago, a major flood in Coffs Harbour, Cyclone Tracy, the Newcastle earthquake and many others. Australia, like many nations, is prone to extremes of climatic variation, but in the political process we tend to react to disasters in different ways depending on where they are, where they fall in the political cycle or whether the surplus is up or down in the budgetary cycle. We do not have a particular approach to a lot of these disasters. I do not mean the emergency services people—they respond incredibly well—but I do not think we have in place an adequate structure to move in and assist the people who are facing a disaster.

I saw Premier Beattie and many within the media appealing to the business community to show some largesse towards the victims of Cyclone Larry. The point I would like to make on this issue is that there are other ways of achieving this outcome, particularly in terms of the insurance industry and the way it impacts on Australia at the moment. In brief, $1 a week from every Australian raises $1 billion in a year. Since 1974 we have had one disaster in Australia that has cost more than $1 billion in a year, and that was the Newcastle earthquake. I suggest that it is time to remove the politics from drought, flood, fire and cyclones, and irrespective of where people live—whether it is in Sydney and there is a major disaster like a hailstorm—there should be immediate relief available from a properly constructed fund.

There are other ways of constructing that fund. It might be $2 a week from each Australian taxpayer. We talk about tax reform, tax refunds, tax this and tax that, but instead of having another coffee each week I am sure everybody would give a little to assist people who suffer the impact of disasters like Cyclone Tracy, Cyclone Larry, the Canberra bushfires or the Wollongong mudslide—where there is a disaster that suddenly occurs and people are impacted upon. I remember the politics that were associated with the Wollongong mudslide during that particular period when people could not gain assistance and went through great trauma to gain assistance. I am aware that another member needs a little time to speak, so I will finish my speech here.

See this speech in context