Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Well, aren't we the Teletubbies of Australian politics! With less than an hour to go—go to bed Laa-Laa, go to bed Po; get back down your holes! An MPI brought on on a Thursday by the Cosmo Kramer of Australian politics, the member for Whitlam, means you're not very serious about this issue. With an MPI brought on on a Thursday, when many have already left—I would say some are on the sauce and some are on the sleep—it is KwaZulu that this is an absolute and utter afterthought. An MPI that is brought on on a Thursday, last thing before everybody goes to sleep, about a program that was on Sunday, means you're not really serious about this at all. It's called a tick-a-box MPI: 'Somebody had better say something about this. Otherwise, they'll think we're up to our necks in something similar!' That's what an MPI on Thursday means. I mean, look at it—hardly anybody's here! They've all gone. They've left. They're in their black-and-white Comcars and they're out at the airport, or they're going home or going for a quick round of golf or booking in early to a restaurant. You don't take this seriously at all! And of course you wouldn't. I mean, this is the same crowd, the Australian Labor Party, that has made 10 referrals to the AFP on spurious grounds.

This is the concern. If we go back to the actual subject matter, these things can be used as a mechanism to exalt the bureaucracy over the rights of the parliament and over the rights of the minister. The reason we have a parliament is that the Australian people, for better or worse, put faith in their politicians and the representatives of executive governments, as noted by cabinet ministers, to do the job that they have been voted in and appointed to do. Of course the people who love excessive ICACs and integrity commissions are bureaucrats, who never want their decisions doubted, and minor parties, who can use this as a mechanism of leverage to drive agendas that are at odds with the elected body. And we know the people who are going to be referred to this. They're going to be ministers, because they dare to differ from the bureaucracy; therefore, they must be, obviously, corrupt!

So don't create a rod for your own back. You will be the government.

Dr Leigh interjecting—

I hear the interjections, Member for Fenner. Well, let's just go through a little list. What do these people have in common: Eddie Obeid, Mr Macdonald, Mr Somyurek, Mr Tripodi, Mr Dastyari, Mr Theophanous, Craig Thomson, Milton Orkopoulos? Then let me go to a union official: John Setka. And I'll finish with this one: John Curtin. Member for Fenner, as a good reader of history, you will know why I mention John Curtin, won't you? You'll know why, because you're an intelligent feller. Why would I mention John Curtin? You don't even know the history of your own party. It's because John Curtin had a criminal conviction against him, before he came to parliament. John Curtin, you see, refused to have the compulsory medical required for conscription. He was the first Prime Minister who came to parliament with a criminal conviction. So what would you say? Would you remove John Curtin? Would you get rid of him? I'd put him down as one of the greatest Prime Ministers this nation has had. So be careful what you create. I would also say to the member for Fenner: you're not as smart as you look, mate. Go do some reading. So we would see this is as, basically, a mechanism that would be a rod for your own back.

See this speech in context