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

It is with pleasure that I speak on the address-in-reply to the Governor-General’s speech. There are a number of things I would like to raise in this debate. Firstly, I would like to recognise the time of the new parliament since the election. Obviously I was involved in the process of the determination of the government. Since that determination occurred, there has been a settling-in period, which you have been a part of, Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper. A number of changes have been made in procedures and processes. I am pleased to say that I think things are starting to settle down, and the nature of this particular parliament has been a positive experience so far. Some people with various political agendas may find that difficult to handle, but there have been some positive indications that some of the substantive issues that the Australian people want addressed can be addressed in this particular parliament.

One of the very attractive things about this particular parliament—and I am not speaking just as an Independent; it is not just about vested interest; I think the Australian people are looking very closely at this—is that the executive does not have total power, as is normally the case. It is quite a different parliament to previous ones. As time goes on, I think members from both sides of the parliament will recognise that there are very real opportunities in the nature of this particular parliament which will give all backbenchers, all members of parliament, a degree of freedom that they have not experienced in the past. There was a dictatorial nature of previous parliaments, where the executive, the ministry, the cabinet and the inner cabinet dictated to the backbench how they would think and how they would vote. This parliament is going to be substantively different.

I have just left the other chamber and there is a debate going on down there about the suspension of standing orders, for instance. That debate is based on the logic rather than the politics of argument. I think it is refreshing to see people arguing and putting their case before their fellow parliamentarians within the parliament and then having it adjudicated by those fellow parliamentarians. In a technical and theoretical sense that is what our House of Representatives was supposed to be about. It was supposed to be about representatives from the various electorates coming together and debating various issues on the floor of the chamber, making decisions as to whether the arguments had been cogently put, whether they had been convincing and whether they had logic, and then the decisions being made.

I think the Australian people are starting to see that this parliament is significantly different from other parliaments they have had. Some would argue that, in a hung parliament, nothing will happen. Some people in the media and some people in the political process have argued that reform will not occur in this particular parliament because of the nature of it.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

As I was saying before the interruption, due to a division having been called, I was talking about the reform process. Some people have suggested that, because of the nature of this particular parliament, reform of a significant nature will not occur. I would argue to the contrary. For instance, as we speak today, I think the passage of the National Broadband Network, in my view, is a very good example of a very-much needed reform, which essentially has been neglected in the politics of telecommunications for the last decade. It is no secret that I am a fan of the fibre-optic arrangements under the National Broadband Network and I am very pleased to see that reform proceeding, as I am to see the structural separation of Telstra. I think the two things are very significant in terms of the way forward, particularly for regional Australia where anybody with any sense would understand that the possibility of developing two or more wholesale networks in regional Australia is just nonsense. It may happen in some major urban areas but, obviously, not in country areas.

We had that debate some time ago when the third tranche of Telstra was sold. The then Prime Minister, John Howard, and the National Party’s Senator Joyce, who had the balance of power in the Senate, argued that competition would deliver to country communities. Obviously, that has not occurred. As part of the agreement with Senator Joyce and the then President of the National Farmers Federation, Peter Corish, on the passage of the legislation to sell the third tranche of Telstra they said they had it in writing and that it would be entrenched in legislation that there would be equity of access to broadband and telephone services, including price, for country constituents. And we all know that that did not occur. So one of the things that I am very pleased about is that, in our negotiations on the formation of this government, there was support not only for the National Broadband Network and the rollout in regional Australia but also for obtaining an equalised wholesale price. So, as I said, I am very supportive of that piece of reform.

There are other areas where I think the nature of this parliament can achieve significant reform. I am pleased to see the member for Riverina here. He has very big shoes to fill. Even though he is taller than the previous occupant, they are big shoes to fill. I pay my regards to his predecessor Kay Hull, who was an excellent member of parliament. The member for Riverina is also involved in the House of Representatives committee that is looking at the Murray-Darling issue. That is the Standing Committee on Regional Australia, and I congratulate Minister Crean for setting up that committee. Also part of the discussions we had in the formation of government was that a regional development committee should be part of the committee processes within this parliament. It has not been in the past but I think that has now been remedied.

The significant issue of the Murray-Darling system, which has been politicised and played with for many years, with very little happening, is now coming to a head and the regional Australia committee will look at that issue. As I have said on a few occasions before, the nature of this particular parliament—and it can fail, as other parliaments have—could utilise the hung parliament to obtain a solution to the ongoing problems of both the socioeconomic impacts of water reform and the environmental concerns that many people do have in parts of the system—at the top end, at the bottom end and, obviously, in the middle. So that is another area of reform where this parliament could proceed and make meaningful gains. Some people have suggested that this will be a stagnant parliament because the executive does not have control. As I said before the break, I think it is a great thing that the executive does not have control. I think that in his next book John Howard may well agree, because when the executive had total control of the parliament the wheels started to fall off that particular government. I know that, if you are into power, that is what you want, but the people do have their say as well.

There are other areas of reform. I am involved in a multiparty committee that is looking at climate change. In the previous parliament, I was on another committee that was looking at the impact of climate change on agriculture, and there are a number of issues that I will be raising in this committee as well. I think that is an area that we need to look at. That might be in terms of direct action, as the Leader of the Opposition has talked about from time to time. I have spoken about a number of issues there in terms of soil carbon and various technologies that not only assist in the sequestering of carbon but also improve drought readiness for various farming and grazing activities. That is a very significant issue that potentially will be addressed by this parliament.

There are many other issues that I think will be debated, and the Governor-General mentioned some of those in her address, but I do not think there is any that intersects and interconnects a lot of those issues that is greater in importance than broadband. Not only does it have the capacity to negate distances—a disadvantage of being a resident in the country; it has the capacity to enhance productivity in a number of ways. I note that Malcolm Turnbull has been talking about the Productivity Commission, and I have discussed that with Malcolm on a whole range of occasions.

One of the reasons that I did not agree with the arguments of the member for Wentworth about the Productivity Commission was that it is very hard for a body such as the Productivity Commission to factor in technologies and services that we do not even know exist yet. One of the things that I raised with a number of economists on that issue is: for instance, how would you design it as a benefit in, say, 10 years time if 300,000 aged people who would normally enter the aged-care institutional sector were able to be kept in their homes for an extended period with the interactive arrangements that broadband would offer? What would be the savings to the aged-care budget? What would be the capital savings in facilities that will need to be built if the baby boomer group head, as they are heading—and there is a representative of them here today, Paul Neville—into that age group where they will have to go into an aged-care facility?

See this speech in context