Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

My father always said that there are two kinds of people in the world: those who do all the work and those who take all the credit. He said, ‘Jo, always be in the first group for there is far less competition.’ How true that will be—the opposition doing all the work and the government taking all the credit.

Mr Speaker, you have heard it all before, but guess what—I want to say it all again! I want the people of my electorate of Gilmore to hear why I object most emphatically, on a number of grounds, to the government’s proposal to have parliament sit on Fridays. First and foremost, it is now becoming apparent that this arrangement was entered into cynically to create the impression that the Rudd Labor government was putting in more time. When you do the sums, an entirely different picture emerges. Parliament will sit for an extra 14 days but, in terms of accountability, there will be two fewer question times than last year—so 14 days in parliament where the government escapes scrutiny. What next does the Prime Minister intend to excuse himself from? From every second question time, like his party’s predecessor? There is no requirement for members to hang around, because the government has decided there will be no divisions or quorums.

I want to mention that the member for Leichhardt—so the people in my electorate know—is actually a government member. He is quoted in the Australian as saying:

From what I can gather, there won’t be any question time on Friday, so we will be able to shoot through ...

That encapsulates Labor’s attitude to this parliament. This arrangement is simply specious—it is manipulation of appearances, designed to mislead the Australian public and the people of my electorate of Gilmore. What this means, if everyone took the same view as the member for Leichhardt, is that we could all leave here to go back to our electorates to do some meaningful work for our constituents and leave the House to the moths.

I have a large area to cover, as do many members of the opposition whose constituencies are largely in rural and regional areas. We have many small towns and villages to visit, as our constituents cannot come to us because the state Labor government does not provide public transport. So the distances involved are just too much. How can the government reconcile forcing members away from their electorates and into another place just to harness the creativity and intellect and ideas, as was suggested by the Leader of the House on ABC Online on 11 February? How can the government justify wasting members’ valuable time in this way without there being any accountability?

I support my colleague the Leader of Opposition Business in the House, who said in the Financial Review that Australian taxpayers deserve better. How true. If we are to sit in parliament, then parliament must sit as it is intended and not as some contrived piece of showmanship that bolsters the image of the Prime Minister but does nothing else. There has to be real meaning. Allowing mem-bers to read onto the record their grievances can be achieved without going to the misuse of resources that this proposal will create. Neither is there an opportunity for matters of public importance. How can a proper debate ensue when all that will happen is that statements will be read into the record before an empty chamber, without challenge, without scrutiny and, it seems, without the government’s listening?

If this proposal were not such an obvious stunt to make the Prime Minister look good, then I would simply label it as idiotic. The government said that the additional sitting day, as conditional as it has been made, was to promote greater accountability and scrutiny. The very conditions they impose make it quite the opposite. There is no accountability, and there is no scrutiny on the Friday. So what is the point? What does this say about Labor’s grand gesture? This is an abuse of parliamentary process. There should be no strings attached. This idea deserves to go straight to the dump bin, as does the member who dreamed it up.

A member’s responsibility is first and foremost to their constituency. To force me away from my electorate—from those who cannot travel to see me—just to embellish the Prime Minister’s image is irresponsible and unacceptable. This proposal is a waste of time, it is a waste of money and it is a waste of our democratic process. If this is how the government intends to encourage its brand of democracy, then I want my opposition to this motion recorded well and truly. I will not be manipulated.

See this speech in context