Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will stand corrected if the member for Moreton wants to go and research those circumstances, but in my recollection—and my memory is pretty good on these things—I read in the media that the fellow eventually resigned. There is absolutely no doubt that he was personally attacked by, I think, Michelle Roberts, the then minister—but I will stand corrected on that. But I advise anyone in this House to be very careful about denying my memory without having the written documents.

What I am saying is that this is a good scheme but we have doubts about why it is introduced at a time when GDP growth is falling to 0.3 per cent et cetera, et cetera, and there is nothing in the legislation that tells us how it is going to work. I well remember the minister responsible for Aboriginal affairs speaking in this place in opposition, and even on the assumption of government, to cast grave doubt over the concept of hypothecating people’s Centrelink payments for food for their children. When eventually convinced—I think as much by public opinion as anything else—she decided to do something about it, and what have we got? We have got a trial. I think there are three localities—in Western Australia and possibly Australia—where we are trialling the patently obvious.

But let me tell the member for Moreton one place where there is not a trial. It is a town called Narrogin, which for most of my career I represented. At the moment that town and district is in the electorate of Pearce. I received a frantic call from the district superintendent—a policeman whom I admire greatly—telling me that there is a family of seven in the area and they have one of those kids in court, as they are obliged to do, for his umpteenth break and enter. And what was his purpose? To get food and somewhere to sleep. He is one of seven children. The welfare payment to his parents exceeds $700 a week, and on a visit to the house it was found to be devoid of food. There are seven kids—and an eighth is on the way—and there was no food in the house and they receive $700 a week.

I wrote to the minister about that situation and said, ‘For goodness sake; I have the pleadings of a district superintendent to extend your scheme. He does not want to be grabbing this kid and dragging him into court; it is heartbreaking. The kid is a trained home invader—out of hunger.’ But I got the usual form letter from the minister. I did five years as a minister and I read every letter someone else wrote for me—a standing joke in the department was, ‘Never send him fewer than 50 letters at a time or he will change the lot of them’—and the first reference I ever made was to the content of the letter we received. Ministers here might tell the member for Moreton that I put my constituents first—and I do. I have been enraged in the past to see people stand up on these opposition benches and use the hardship of an individual to attack the government. As their representative, I will plead with a Labor minister for help, as I think ministers would know—without any pack drill, media releases et cetera.

There is an agricultural school run by the Catholic church in the northern sectors of my electorate. It has been there for 100 years and it takes, amongst others, a heap of Aboriginal kids who come down from as far away as Broome. The Catholic agencies want to close it—partly, I think, because they are not getting enough revenue out of the farm anymore because there has been a drought. That will be changed a lot this year, I am pleased to say. I rang the office and asked if I could speak to the minister and give a heads-up in the hope that she, bringing credit to the government, would make some announcement because some financial help was needed.

See this speech in context