Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a great honour to speak in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and cognate bills, which are part of one of the toughest budgets that has had to be delivered in Australian history, certainly in the history of the Federation. I hear some snickering from the member for Mayo. He, of course, is part of that chorus of snickering that is taking place on the other side of the House. Looking at history, what does an opposition do? I am not asking what this opposition does; in the Westminster system what does an opposition generally do? As the name suggests, it opposes. But that is a bit of a misnomer. It really should propose rather than oppose, so I guess it should be called the proposition rather than the opposition.

But those opposite have lived up to the term ‘opposition’ because it does not matter how constructive our ideas are, how necessary the budget proposals are or what the government puts forward, the opposition just say ‘no’—’computer says no’; Malcolm Turnbull says ‘no’; the member for Mayo says ‘no’. They do not look at how times have changed. They do not look at the fact that the waves from the world recession have lapped on the shores of Australia. That requires different thinking.

It is not like 3 March 1996, when Australia had changed significantly in the previous 10, 11 or 12 years under the Hawke and Keating governments. Significant financial reform had taken place that had a significant impact in the community. It is not like workers had forgone pay rises so that there could be significant workplace reform. It was not the Australia of 2009. Back when John Howard became Prime Minister, all the heavy lifting had taken place beforehand. Hawke and Keating had made significant reforms. I have 20 minutes and it would take me that long to go through all the significant reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments.

Under the coalition, one significant reform was put forward, which I will acknowledge. It was basically an accounting readjustment: the GST. In terms of significant financial reform, when Peter Costello looks at his ledger he cannot name anything at all. I always give John Howard his due for three things. One is the fact that he got up and went for a walk every morning, even if he was busy, which is a good message to all Australians. If the Prime Minister is not too busy to go for a walk, then every Australian should be able to go for a walk, or do some exercise like riding a bike. He also brought in the firearm controls, which was quite commendable, and he did work hard for the country—so I acknowledge those three things. But the heavy lifting was done by the Hawke and Keating governments. As to significant reform in Australia, especially in the latter part of the term of the Howard government, when there were rivers of gold flowing into Australia because of the mining boom, nothing was done.

Having worked in the mining sector, I have been up to Dalrymple Bay and places like that, flown over Newcastle and seen all those infrastructure bottlenecks where the government could have stepped in and given a helping hand—a bit of guidance—which is what a good reform government does. It has an eye on the horizon rather than on election night. Maybe Howard and Costello were getting bad advice or something like that—I am not sure—but they were obviously not prepared to do the heavy lifting and instead did nothing.

The Rudd government has come into a situation in which the world’s books are a bit crook. So what do we do? We readjust to that. We look at the fact that we have to do what we can for the future. We have to do a bit of nation building. We have to have the commitment to go into places. We have to think of things like the Snowy River scheme. What is the modern day equivalent to the Snowy River scheme? It is broadband under our streets. That is why we have pumped 70 per cent of our economic stimulus into nation-building infrastructure that will improve all of our schools—

See this speech in context