Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Let us make no bones about it: this motion is completely about Saturday and not about the future of Western Australia. But, in the end, whatever is said or whatever is proposed by those opposite with regard to this motion will not change the facts that on Saturday the people of Canning will have a very clear distinction in who they want to represent them. There are two choices. On the other side, there is the typical Labor lawyer who could not wait to move out of the area and move up to fashionable Mount Lawley, or wherever he goes. He could not wait to say, 'I don't want to be part of you any longer,' could not wait to move away from his roots. His first instinct was to turn his back on the Canning district. Now he turns back to the people of Canning when he sees that there is something in it for him. This is a history of self-service, and the people of Canning should keep that in mind on Saturday.

In contrast, there is our candidate, Andrew Hastie, a former SAS commissioned officer with a track record of determined service to his nation. This is a man that will pursue the interests of the people of Canning, and he will do so in the same selfless manner in which he fought and looked after his troops. I can see Andrew Hastie bringing the same approach, the same determined focus, as the great Don Randall brought to his representation of the people of Canning. As I said, the contrast could not be more obvious and clear. It is no wonder that Labor has promised multimillions of dollars around Canning trying to distract the people of Canning from the key issue of: who do you want as your elected member—someone who is more interested in themselves, or Andrew Hastie, a man with a distinguished record of putting others before himself and in the most difficult of circumstances?

But I am talking to this motion. Given that Western Australia is a state strong with commodities, I will speak first about the absolute deceit that this motion is all about. Let us talk about the classic Labor line about squandering the mining boom, which appears in the motion. I do not know how they can even say this with a straight face. There was a mining boom while they were in office. They may choose to forget that there was an election in 2007 that they won and that their reign lasted for six years. In 2007 they were left a surplus and assets in the bank. All of that was gone by 2013. Massive debt and deficit are the legacy of Labor in government. On this allegation of squandering the mining boom, how about those iron ore prices and therefore the reflected tax and royalty revenues during Labor's six years of wasteful spending? In November 2007 the cost of iron ore was $40 per tonne. By January 2008 it had gone up to $70. By March 2010 it was up to $190 per tonne. So when they talk in this place about squandering the mining boom, the Labor Party should really look in the mirror. The Howard government ran surpluses and, when possible, returned money to the people. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government spent everything and then could not even balance the books when the iron ore prices were almost five times what they were for the Howard government. So Labor knows how to spend and waste. That is the legacy of Labor. Apart from the massive differences between our candidate, Andrew Hastie, and others, the people of Canning should remember what Labor did with the iron ore revenues and the strong budgetary position that they were left in 2007.

It is interesting that the deception this motion tries to advance on employment is put forward by the Labor Party. I have already mentioned iron ore prices and what Labor did to the economy when those prices were at historical highs. But let me explain to those who would rather advance a political argument than a factual argument. We know that so many jobs were generated out of the construction side of mining projects. Investment in such projects is driven by returns based on commodity prices. When prices come down due to issues in China and elsewhere, further projects are no longer so attractive; therefore they do not go ahead. As existing construction projects finish and go to production, more construction does not occur, due to the investment environment. Our getting rid of the mining tax and the carbon tax has helped but it does not restore record commodity prices. The investment reality has an impact on jobs. When those opposite say here that they can change that, they are being utterly deceptive. I welcome the recent drop in unemployment. But what this country needs is the free trade agreement with China and the opening of or better access to a billion-person market. That is what Western Australia and Australia need. I note that the Labor Party hate free trade. They are always talking against this FTA—not the great reformers of Labor past, of course, but the wholly owned subsidiaries of the trade union movement who are the economic isolationists currently on the opposition benches. A better future for this country can be achieved through the diversification that the FTA offers and that those opposite oppose so strongly. For the best representation for Canning, the choice is clear. Andrew Hastie brings service and dedication to Canning. I urge the people of Canning to support him on Saturday.

See this speech in context