Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In the spirit of the occasion, I first apologise to the Governor-General. I apologise to the Governor-General on behalf of the government for giving her such a poor speech to deliver on this occasion—one that is so shallow, one that is lacking in any real direction and one that shows that the government is without a substantial plan for the future.

I thought as I read this speech that it was particularly germane because the first matter that the Governor-General comments on is the outcome of the election. I must say it is quite fascinating for me to read an address-in-reply where the Governor-General comments on the outcome of an election. She goes on to say on behalf of the government:

Nowhere has the robust nature of our democracy been more evident than in the election held on 21 August 2010.

Through this result, the Australian people have placed upon their elected leaders the responsibility of forming a minority government, something not seen in our Commonwealth for seven decades.

In that I agree. She went on to make this very interesting observation:

It is a tribute to every senator and member gathered here today that this process unfolded with patience and civility and has yielded a parliament committed to greater transparency and accord.

I thought to myself, ‘Where is the evidence for this greater transparency and accord?’ I know that the speech covered a number of areas, which I will go to, but among the issues that I found particularly fascinating were the issues in relation to the National Broadband Network. I was particularly focusing today on some comments in the Sydney Morning Herald written by Ross Gittins, not a person who I normally see lauding the opposition but one who makes, when I read his remarks, often quite perspicacious comments. He made this observation today:

I am starting to get a really bad feeling about Labor’s plan for a national broadband network. The more it resists subjecting the plan to scrutiny, the more you suspect it has something to hide.

He goes on:

The obvious way to start that process would have been to accede to calls for the Productivity Commission to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. The determination of governments to keep their schemes away from the commission is always prima facie evidence they know the scheme’s dodgy.

I must say that I thought these were particularly perspicacious comments about what is said to be one of the major centre points of this government’s program for the next parliament.

When I also read about greater transparency and accord, I also want to take this opportunity—in relation to the way in which the government was made, on which the Governor-General has seen fit to comment—to record something of the observations made recently by the member for New England. What I was fascinated by was that the member for New England, in relation to a matter which in the overall scheme of things is important to some but for most people largely irrelevant—that is, the question of same-sex marriage—said, of course, that this was the most important issue, about which every member should consult with their constituents to form a view as to how they might respond. I might say that I have already spoken in another debate on that matter, and I mean no ill will to people who are in same-sex partnerships, but I think it is germane that in relation to the major question facing the people of Australia, the formation of a government after this recent election, the member for New England did not think it was necessary to consult with his electors about whom he should support in the formation of that government. I found that quite fascinating: on same-sex relations it should happen, but in relation to the formation of the government for the next three years in Australia it was not necessary. I must say that I have greater respect for the member for Denison, who, in relation to the judgment he formed that he, having consulted with his constituents and fairly obviously having formed a view about where their loyalty would be if he were not there as an Independent—that is, with the government—decided that he should support the government. I am surprised the member for New England did not go through the same process.

I want to take the opportunity of addressing the first major question that the government raised in this address-in-reply, and that is a stronger economy. The first point I want to make is how ungracious I think this government has shown itself to be. It goes on to make this observation through the words of the Governor-General:

Having emerged from the global financial crisis with some of the best economic outcomes of any advanced nation, the government will implement measures to ensure Australia’s economy remains flexible and strong.

I thought how ungracious it was not to acknowledge that the underlying strength of the Australian economy, which saw us through that crisis, was something that they inherited: a strong economy—not obtained, I might say, with ease but obtained because people were prepared to take tough decisions over a long period of time to produce surpluses.

When I look back over the way in which some other leaders of Australia have responded from time to time, they have been prepared to acknowledge the efforts of their predecessors if they have been significant in the outcomes that are being obtained. In relation to the global financial crisis, the record of the Howard government and the strength of the economy that was bequeathed to Labor should always have been acknowledged quickly and generously, and I think it diminishes those who fail to make that acknowledgement. But I was also impressed with these observations:

Foremost among those challenges—

that is, in relation to a stronger economy—

is the need to build a high-productivity, high-participation, high-skill economy that delivers sustainable growth for all Australians.

The speech goes on to identify a number of ways in which it is believed that that is possible.

As one who is strongly of the view that we should be transparent in relation to these matters, and fair and just in the way in which we deal with these issues, I am prepared to acknowledge that it is important to have expenditure by the Commonwealth in improved infrastructure. It needs to be improvement in infrastructure where it is actually needed rather than where it is politically opportune, and it is in that context that I wish to comment about the commitment to invest in transport infrastructure over the next six-year period and the decisions taken by this government in relation to the community that I represent.

I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker—and you may not be familiar with it—that Sydney is a quite fascinating city. It is a city that is often seen to be divided, not just by a river but in the way in which people are dealt with, and certain assumptions are made that if you live in some parts of Sydney you are a little better off than others and you may have fewer needs. When you form your judgments on the basis of addressing expenditure where you assume there may be greater needs and you ignore others, you can sometimes have quite perverse effects. The most significant and perverse effect in Sydney is the extent to which significant transport links which are necessary between our major capitals have been disadvantaged because of very deliberate decisions to ignore some parts of our great city of Sydney.

I often tell people—and I am sure my colleague the member for Macarthur would know—that a new freeway has been built in the western suburbs of Sydney. It is called the M7, state-of-the-art infrastructure which ends on another freeway called the M2, which in fact goes to Sydney rather than anywhere north of Sydney. There is another highway called the Cumberland Highway, which stretches through the southern part of Sydney. I will tell you where it ends in a moment. There is another highway called Woodville Road and another highway called Silverwater Road—and, Madam Deputy Speaker, where do you think they all end? They all end on one road called Pennant Hills Road at West Pennant Hills, where, with a mass of traffic generated locally, with a lot of traffic lights and with a very considerable number of dangerous sites where quite significant accidents could occur, you have major interstate transport vehicles, B-doubles and the like, mixed with schoolchildren in vehicles on a three-lane road, said to be a highway, which services a local community and no other way, essentially, to bypass it if you want to go from Melbourne to Brisbane. It is the major choke point in effectively linking those three cities, and yet no expenditure occurs on that road, ostensibly, I think, because people think: ‘These are Liberal electorates. They don’t deserve to have expenditure of this sort given to them.’

It is said at times that the freight issues might be able to be dealt with by putting freight railway lines in. You certainly cannot do it on the existing line or you would have to raise the level of every overpass carrying traffic between Sydney and Brisbane, but no substantial expenditure or effort has been made to provide an effective freight network on that rail link. I think that this is the most significant decision that has impacted upon any community, in a most deleterious way. Unless the government is prepared to make a substantial effort to convince New South Wales that it should prioritise this road link, we will go on with the farce that Infrastructure Australia will not advise the spending of any money to address that issue, by a genuine western orbital, by a tunnel or by whatever other route is properly advised. It will not happen unless the preliminary work and planning has been undertaken.

When you go to the link and ask the question: ‘What work has been done to prepare the plans so it can be job ready?’ none has been undertaken. In one way or another Labor is responsible, whether it is federally or in the state of New South Wales. I think these decisions are deliberately neglected because they are of no priority to the government. I have to say that I hope a time will come when it can be detached from the political arguments and people will recognise that there is a very large community of people here who are entitled to proper services—a north-west rail link, an effective orbital road network that will separate out the interstate trucks from local communities. Until that happens the people of north-west Sydney are entitled, and justly, to complain and to complain loudly. There is nothing in this speech that would suggest that there is an approach to deal with this question.

I found one other issue that was of interest to me. Having been an Attorney-General and interested in economic reform that one could undertake, it always seemed to me that harmonisation of laws between the states of Australia and the territories of Australia is a very significant way of reducing costs to industry and making Australia a more productive society. Yet I find in this speech the only example where this government is working in relation to that important issue is the one area in which two Labor governments now cannot see eye to eye. The speech says this:

During this term, the government will also pursue its reform agenda to break down barriers for businesses operating across state and territory borders, in particular, a national regime for occupational health and safety regulation.

I think that regime is absolutely necessary, but I find it preposterous that New South Wales should be walking away from it and that a Labor government in Canberra cannot convince a Labor government in New South Wales to cooperate on a measure that they say is important. What disappoints me even more is that beyond that no other areas of reform have been effectively identified.

There is little in this speech that one can comment on in a generous way, because it is so shallow. There is a lot that I wanted to comment on, and time will prevent me, but I do need to talk about another area adjacent to my electorate where my electors have been particularly short changed. The government has a statement in this speech that it:

… will implement its landmark structural reforms to improve access to health and hospital services for all Australians and sustain the financial viability of the health system.

I have to say in northern Sydney we are only serviced well by our private hospital system. The major public hospitals, which have been community hospitals supported by the local community, have been savagely neglected. It is not the staff or the people who work there that are to blame. It is a government that has deliberately ignored the needs of north-western Sydney and particularly those of the Hornsby and District Hospital.

When people are taken into hospital premises and they find that males and females are using the same toilet facility because people have been mixed together when they have come out of surgery—and I had a local resident complain to me about a situation in which, while he was on a toilet, a woman came into the premises to have a shower—you have to ask yourself how that can happen. While he was in the hospital, the roof was leaking because no effective maintenance had been undertaken. When the hospital said it would try to do something about it, it erected a temporary roof over the top and maybe next week it would bring some tarpaulins in. It is an absolute disgrace that you can leave a community served in that way and not give it priority. Yet the arguments that are given are that these people are in some way privileged.

I think this government will be very severely judged in time because it has no substantial proposals. This speech is bereft, in my view, of any significant outline or plan of achievement for which the government can be effectively held accountable. It is full of cliches and there is very little on commitment, particularly to my constituents, who are entitled to be very concerned.

There are many other issues I would like to discuss, but before I finish my speech I will focus on one other issue I find quite fascinating which is likely to be of importance to my electorate in time and that is the rollout of the National Broadband Network. I was certainly unaware that, in order to implement the National Broadband Network, states might be asked to legislate to give the providers of that service the right to enter onto private property, often without consent, to ensure that connectivity can be achieved. The fact that Tasmania has legislated in this way needs to be clarified now by all the other Australian states. I noticed a headline in the Hobart Mercury ‘Gardens at Risk’. I think all Australians are entitled to know whether the National Broadband Network is going to lead to intrusive activity in their homes without their consent.

See this speech in context