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

I agree with the final comments that the member for Hinkler made. I do think we demean this place when these games are played. But there is a great deal of hypocrisy in the current motion before the House. If anybody was a victim under the previous government of the very things that the member for Sturt is talking about, it was me—and there were many others. I find it extraordinary to use the example of Investing in Our Schools, because it was a great and very fair program that the school system responded to well. The only problem that ever occurred with that particular program, in my view, was when it was used for political advantage at these ridiculous openings, when orders and instructions were given that various members of the parliament were not to be invited or encouraged to attend.

This is embarrassing, as the member for Hinkler said, to the schools. It does reflect badly on the process. In fact, when these things are politicised, what happens is that the reaction in the community is the opposite of what was intended. I would encourage the minister, and other ministers, to view this as a stupid practice. It backfires every time that it is carried out. I remember one occasion when it was particularly embarrassing to a school in my electorate. The previous government had been invited to officiate, and no-one would attend. So the principal wrote to me as the local member and asked if I would officiate. I said that I was more than happy to. When the government heard that I was going to do the opening, Mr Farmer suddenly appeared on the scene. I am not suggesting that Mr Farmer was sitting there with some sort of insidious program—I think he was being ordered by others on what he should be doing in certain seats—but it was terribly embarrassing for that school community.

The member for Hinkler is right: this place ought to sit down together on this. It is not the government’s money; it is the public’s money. In various electorates the people elect people of different persuasions, and they should be able to attend the various functions that occur. The opposition have come in here very high-handedly on this particular issue, but when they were in government they perpetrated this against me. I remember when the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Deputy Prime Minister in the former government said to the people at a meeting concerning aircraft in my electorate that if I attended the meeting he would not say anything. He said that if the member representing the community on a federal issue that reflected on that community attended a meeting with the minister responsible for that issue, he would not say anything. Numerous examples of that activity occurred under the previous regime.

Does everybody remember the flagpole issue? I think that, every time one of these missives went out in my electorate, my vote went up. These absurd directives, with the minister of the day ordering a community into certain protocols for a political advantage—thinking that that would advantage the party concerned—are just a nonsense. The member for Hinkler is quite right: a reverse reaction occurs. I would encourage anybody who is thinking of playing the blame game: please do it in my electorate, because it is very good for votes. People are not dumb. They see the cynicism of political manipulation of programs, particularly the Investing in Our Schools Program. It did not need to be ‘glossified’ politically, because it was a good program in its own right, and people respected that. When it was politicised, people started to disrespect the people who were pushing the politicisation. So the reverse occurs in terms of what these politicised processes are intended to do.

I think the member for Sturt is recognising a few points that really do need to be fleshed out, because there are some missives and directives out there in the community that might be encouraging. If there is a grey area then kill it, because it is not worth having. It achieves nothing. In fact, when people of various political persuasions do attend these functions, the community respect the policy and the program far more than when there is some sort of politicised process or when someone whom no-one knows travels in from outside the electorate to read a speech from the minister and then flies out again.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Pyne’s) be agreed to.

See this speech in context