Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The French king Louis XV ruled from 1715 to 1774. I doubt that there is anyone in this parliament in this day and age likely to enjoy similar political longevity. It is he who is credited with the expression ‘apres moi le deluge’—‘after me, the flood’. I think it is time that former Prime Minister John Howard put on the wig and donned the silk stockings of Louis XV because his attitude to government was exactly that: ‘apres moi le deluge’—‘after me, the flood’. It is that attitude which has bequeathed to us the economy we have now, the economy that the opposition describes in the matter of public importance before the House as ‘worse off since the election of the government’.

‘After me, the flood’ was John Howard’s attitude to the Liberal succession. We can see it in the absolute paralysis of members opposite while they wait for the member for Higgins to make up his mind: will he stay or will he go? Just last week the member for Higgins said he would not be challenging the Leader of the Opposition for the Liberal Party leadership. He has made a political career out of not challenging for the leadership. In the early 1990s he was not challenging John Hewson for the leadership and then he was not challenging Alexander Downer. He spent the last decade not challenging John Howard and now he is not challenging Dr Nelson. I told a young Labor audience last Friday, ‘If you want to get on in this country, just tell everyone you’re not challenging the leader.’ The Liberal Party’s present leadership vacuum nightmare is absolutely a result of John Howard’s refusal to plan for an orderly Liberal Party leadership succession, his selfish refusal to worry about anything other than the morning’s headlines and anything other than the next election.

‘After me, the flood’ was also the attitude which former Prime Minister Howard took to the economy. He preferred election bribes to long-term spending on education, skills and infrastructure. John Howard’s failure to produce a stronger budget surplus led to 10 successive increases in interest rates. After 12 years of John Howard, what did we inherit? Inflation at a 16-year high and 10 interest rate rises in a row, which gave Australia the second highest level of interest rates in the developed world.

The ‘after me, the flood’ attitude was even more apparent in former Prime Minister Howard’s attitude to climate change and sustainability. The present economic challenge facing Australia is in no small measure due to rising food prices and rising petrol prices, and the Liberal government failed utterly to tackle these issues. It should have been transitioning motorists out of petrol and into alternative fuels like LPG and LNG. It did no such thing. Rising food prices are a direct consequence of falling production and increasing demand.

We have seen the sad fate of the Murray-Darling. What has happened to the Murray lower lakes and to the world-quality wetlands of the Coorong is nothing short of a national disgrace. The Murray-Darling, our nation’s food bowl, is struggling because of a lack of water. That lack of water is a result of two things: reduced water in, caused by drought and exacerbated by global warming; and too much water extracted for irrigation, too much water out. Right through its term, the Howard government sat on its hands instead of taking action to protect the Murray-Darling, and its National Party members actively ran interference on any measures to reduce water from the Murray-Darling. They are still at it; I heard the member for Calare, Shadow Minister Cobb, warning just a few weeks ago against knee-jerk reactions to the plight of the Coorong—knee-jerk! For over 20 years, scientists have been warning about the need for action to protect the Murray-Darling, and while the goose which laid the golden egg has been slowly but irrevocably strangled the member for Calare has said we should not have ‘knee-jerk reactions’. Members opposite still do not get it.

Higher food prices are being driven by climate change and global warming. I have said this to the House before: global warming is the great challenge of our time. It is one of those ‘what did you do during the war?’ types of questions which our children and grandchildren will ask of us. Those opposite, having put the nation behind the eight ball on climate change and having sat on their hands while the Murray-Darling was trashed, are still at it. They sneak around this debate looking for the angle, looking for the hold like some ageing sumo wrestler, looking for the political advantage. You can hear their siren song: jobs will be lost, industries will go offshore and prices will go up. What they do not tell you is that jobs are being lost now and prices are going up now as a consequence of inaction on global warming. They refuse to face up to the conclusion of World Bank economist Nicholas Stern that the cost of inaction on climate change will be greater than the cost of action.

Having left us this legacy, the Liberal Party is no better in opposition. The shadow cabinet has said that the opposition in the Senate will oppose major elements of the government’s 2008 budget. It intends to block Labor’s budget announcements concerning condensate gas, alcopops and the Medicare levy surcharge threshold. It says that Labor did not announce these matters prior to the election and that therefore we do not have a mandate for these measures. But what is their mandate: to be economically irresponsible? Because this is precisely what they are up to in the Senate. They are trying to blow a hole in Labor’s surplus. They are trying to blow a multibillion dollar hole in Labor’s budget. If they succeed, this will put upward pressure on interest rates. The cost of this will be felt by every Australian household with a mortgage and every Australian small business with an overdraft. It is a breathtaking piece of economic vandalism.

The opposition’s attitude to Labor’s measures to tackle teenage binge drinking and our reduction of the tax slug on middle-income earners of the Medicare surcharge, which hits those earning as little as $50,000 a year, is truly remarkable. There is a strong element of personal responsibility for health care inherent in both of these measures: people who look after their own health should not be required to pay and pay and pay for people who do not. We all know that there is a problem with teenage binge drinking. The government is to be commended for seeking to tackle it. What is the Liberal alternative? They talk about a need for education and, yes, there is. But surely there comes a point at which taxpayers who do not binge-drink should not have to pay for the costs incurred by those who do and consequent upon their doing so.

You would think that those in the Liberal Party, which claims to be a party of personal responsibility, which claims to be a party of individual responsibility, would applaud these initiatives. But no, they are beholden to the private health insurance industry. They are beholden to the liquor industry. They are prepared to put sectional interest and corporate interest ahead of the public interest in better health outcomes and ahead of the national interest in a strong surplus and downward pressure on interest rates. Not only are they prepared to engage in economic vandalism, using their numbers in the Senate, but also they put forward no alternative at all. This is nothing short of economic sabotage. I remember something similar going on when I first entered the Victorian parliament. The Liberal-controlled Legislative Council refused to pass any of Labor’s measures to raise revenue, then attacked the Labor government for failing to balance the budget. They interfered in Labor’s attempt to balance the books through asset sales. A community body sprang up opposing asset sales. I assumed at the time that it was a left-of-centre group. After 1992, Jeff Kennett came to office and engaged in asset sales which absolutely dwarfed those of the previous government. I looked around for this community group in vain. It had melted into the night, disappeared without trace. It was just a Liberal Party front, aimed at ringbarking the Victorian economy.

That is what is happening now. Those in the Liberal Party are seeking to sabotage our economic strategy in the Senate. Revealingly, tellingly, the matter of public importance before the House says nothing about what the alleged sins of the Rudd Labor government are; it simply refers to outcomes. Did they produce an alternative in their budget reply? No, they did not. Have they produced an alternative since? No, they have not. It was entertaining to hear the opposition calling for Labor to make an economic statement. We have—it is called the budget. The opposition should pass our measures. Until it does, it will stand condemned by the Australian people for the naked, insincere, cynical opportunism it is showing in this parliament. This matter of public importance should be dismissed for the naked, insincere, cynical opportunism that it is.

See this speech in context