Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Hansard source

I notice those opposite reserve for this parliament the same lack of courtesy that they do for senior public servants—the same lack of regard that they reserved for our significant prudential institutions like the Reserve Bank when they lined up to appoint their own donors as members. It is why they turn around and attack the Secretary to the Treasury this week. It is why they turn around and attack the Reserve Bank itself. It is why those opposite impugn the integrity of public servants and prudential regulators, most of whom they appointed. It is why they feel no twinge of conscience as they set about doing damage, because the damage to our banking system will, those members opposite hope, deliver a vote dividend. It will lift their profile. Damage the banks, win votes is the equation. Who cares about the damage? Damage to whom? To the very people those opposite would seek to represent. They also seek to damage the very character of the Secretary to the Treasury. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition call upon the government to sack the Secretary to the Treasury for doing his job. This is the very same Secretary to the Treasury who has served multiple federal governments. He served the Hawke government and the Keating government. He served the Howard government with great distinction. One might wonder why they so hate the Secretary to the Treasury. I wondered that myself. Could it be his work ethic—he has one; they don’t? Could it be his ethics—he has them; they don’t? Could it be his character—he has one; they don’t? Could it be that he understands that they do not understand the issues that they drag around our parliament and community like a dead rat?

I found the answer to my question by going back through newspaper clippings. I found why the Leader of the Opposition, who has not fronted in this debate at all, dislikes the Secretary to the Treasury so much. I will put it on the public record again today. Those opposite will remember that parliamentary secretary Turnbull, as he then was, had responsibility for water policy. I will read from a story published in the Australian last year:

ON Friday, November 3, John Howard gathered a small group of bureaucrats and advisers in his parliamentary suite.

I wonder why he would have done that. The key federal departments, including Treasury, Finance and Environment, had been cut out of a process to determine whether or not $10 billion would be spent on the Murray-Darling system. It is fascinating because the key figure in the room at the time was Malcolm Turnbull. As these newspaper articles, which I am happy to table, demonstrate, what happened subsequently was that the details were kept secret. Senior public servants found the lack of scrutiny, the lack of diligence, the lack of documentation, the lack of consideration, the lack of discussion and the lack of process deeply alarming, so they rang a bell. The Secretary to the Treasury made clear that Treasury had not been consulted in the matter of the $10 billion water policy. For that reason the hatred of those opposite has festered since. (Time expired)

See this speech in context