Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Hansard source

They used to be called the Country Party when they truly represented the country people. Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, you might say that they have had plenty of time to study the case law, to read the Constitution and to understand what it says and how it operates.

There are two things that should not come as a surprise to most members—I say 'most members'—in this place: there is an Australian Constitution; and, if you know your father, where he was born. These are two things that should not come as a surprise to most members of this place. Against that background, I simply make this point: we can judge the member for New England, if indeed he is entitled to bear that title, by the community standard, and the community standard I dare say is going to be a bit harsh. They're going to know that the average cost of a by-election over the last five years is $1 million. I'm quite certain that the great citizens in New England will be saying, 'If I had $1 million to spend, I probably wouldn't want to spend it helping Barnaby Joyce'—sorry, the member for New England—'get his homework right.' There are a lot better uses for $1 million throughout the towns in the electorate of New England.

So our objection to this bill, quite apart from the substance of it, is the manner in which it has been brought before the House. It is irregular. It is not on all fours. There are great doubts about the minister who moved the motion in this House—and that alone should be enough for members in this House to ask themselves: 'If the minister who moved this bill in the House didn't do sufficient homework to ensure that he's eligible to stand for election, should we be confident that the bill that he brought before the House has got all of the i's dotted and the t's crossed?' It so happens that that is not the case.

The bill has been subject to some inquiry and some scrutiny, and there are many stakeholders who are deeply concerned. They rightly point to the fact that, if we are going to spend $4 billion worth of taxpayers' money, we are going to want to ensure we have governance structures in place that give us sufficient confidence that this money is going to be well spent.

If we then turn our minds to the details of the bill, we see that the board is relatively small—relatively small for an organisation which is going to be disbursing around $4 billion. In the analysis that I have done, it is quite possible for these funds to be disbursed with the say-so of only two members of the board.

See this speech in context