Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Lalor for her contribution to debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022. The appropriation bills are probably some of the most arcane bills to come before this chamber, and I know that most people tuning in to parliament today will probably switch off when they hear that we're debating appropriations. But these are also some of the most critical bills that we debate because at the core of the government of any state's implementation of those things that it stands for is the very important process of appropriating money. We have to ask ourselves: what is the purpose of government if not to maximise the freedom of individuals consistent with the freedom of others?

We on this side of the chamber envision a society of freedom and fairness, where people know that they can undertake their lives free from excessive coercion from government. We envision a society where fairness means that when you have a go, you get a go. Equality is not equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity, and on this side of the chamber we strive for that every day because we know that everywhere in the world equality of outcome, where it has been enforced on individuals, has only led to serfdom and slavery and imprisonment of those people who have suffered under the yoke of that government. Opportunity is something that this government works towards every single day of the week.

When we talk about compassion and care for fellow Australians, we don't mean the compassion of a bureaucrat or an overweening government. We know that care and compassion come from those who know us and love us—our friends, our family, our neighbours. Communities of care and compassion develop organically and are supported by government, not enforced by government. This requires freedom, this requires fairness and this requires equality of opportunity. When we have achieved all of those things, we will truly live in a society in which we can preserve those things that are sacred and protect those things that we have always done because we understand them to be good and part of our culture and our lives.

I come to this place with a very unusual story. My father was a migrant to this country. When he arrived he couldn't speak English. My mother's maiden name was Brittain-White. They met, they fell in love, they got married and they had children on the northern beaches of Sydney. I was born in Manly. I grew up in Belrose in a house made from fibro, which those of us who grew up in such houses know have the quality of keeping heat in during summer and making sure that it is out of the house by the time winter comes around. There were snakes in the house; my mother didn't like them, but my father always reasoned with her that the snakes in the roof kept the possums out. I don't think my mother was entirely convinced that this was a compelling reason to allow snakes to live in the roof of the house.

One of my favourite stories is that we were watching Jaws one night, and there was a lot of noise coming from the bathroom. My brother, who's a year younger than I am, was dispatched to find out what was causing all the noise. It was the shampoo bottles falling off the window shelf. He sat down and said, 'Mum, it's a snake coming in and knocking the shampoo bottles off the shelf.' A minute later, not believing his story, I went to the bathroom to have a look and found that the snake was halfway across the ceiling and looking down at me. That night I gave the screech of a warrior to let those in the house know that we were in danger. I think the snake was about four foot long, but every time I tell the story it grows a couple of inches. These are the stories of people who come to this parliament with real-life experience. We didn't inherit our money. We didn't think that driving Teslas down to the South Coast to a winery where we can recharge them is the experience of ordinary Australians.

When we come into this chamber we know that it is important that we follow the law so that, when we go to the Australian people and say that we want net zero by 2050, we have the programs and the laws in place to make that happen, and not secretly take donations from coal investors and directors of coalmines who bought their coalmine from Eddie Obeid. They have the gall to come into this chamber and lecture us about honesty. Where was the honesty when they received the $100,000 cheque and then deliberately divided it into eight separate payments so it was below the disclosure regime? Is that honest?

Where's the integrity in not facing up to the fact that your largest donor happened to be a coal baron who got his money from someone who is currently in prison for maladministration and that you received your largest donation from a person who had an adverse finding against them at the Independent Commission Against Corruption? You have spent the last six months criticising the former Premier of New South Wales. There is not a skerrick of evidence of one incident of corruption, but you have happily accused her of corruption. Where's the integrity in that? Where's the honesty in that? Why should we believe that you are possibly in any way, shape or form in favour of the climate. Maybe you are just in favour of the slogan that gets you the money and gets you the votes so you can sit in this chamber.

Australians are not fools. They know a fraud when they see one. They know a fake when they hear one. These people are funded by Climate 200 and funded by another person who inherited great wealth. They bring to these arguments no policies and no ideas. Their only campaign slogan seems to be: 'Vote for us. We're better than you because we inherited a lot of money.' Australians will see through this. I have absolutely no doubt that they will see through this, because it is experience that informs your priorities.

At the next election Australians don't want to hear how hard it is to drive your Tesla to Berry to get it recharged at your favourite winery. They want to hear about what this government or any government is going to do not just to create the jobs of the future but to invent the jobs of the future. They want to know how we are going to make housing affordable for all Australians, not just those lucky enough to inherit their wealth. They will want to know why it is that Australians under the age of 40 now have the lowest level of homeownership in the history of this nation or since 1947. We all know that when the census is updated in June this year it will probably show that it is the lowest since this nation was founded. They want to know what you're going to do about that, not about how hard it is to recharge your Tesla at a Berry winery.

They also want to know what you as a government are going to do to keep this nation safe and secure and a beacon of hope and opportunity in a tempestuous region. People are crying out for freedom and vision. They know they are being threatened by an overleaning authoritarian regime. They want to know that there are alternatives. They want to know that you have the strength to stand up not only for yourselves but for them too.

They know that slogans are great but plans are better. When it comes to climate change they will want to know what your plan is to fix it. This government has a plan—net zero by 2050. It's not a plan to drive your electric vehicle to a winery in Berry to get recharged; it's a plan to get the Australian economy to create more jobs, to invent the jobs of the future, to bring manufacturing back, to secure our fuel supply so that our nation is both safe and secure, to ensure that we can go to international fora and point with a true and honest heart to those sitting around the table and say: 'We are meeting our goals. What about you?' We can go and we can hold our heads high with net zero by 2050.

I note that Simon Holmes a Court is speaking at the National Press Club today. I know that he's scary and that he inherited a lot of money, and we know how journalists get scared of people who are wealthy. But I wonder if a single solitary journalist from the fourth estate will have the gumption to stand up to him and ask: Why is it that in September and October you said that the epitome of any government's sincerity towards climate change is signing up to net zero by 2050 but that the minute the Morrison government did that it was apparently astroturfing and greenwashing? Was it astroturfing when you were saying it, Simon, or is it just astroturfing when the politics change? A question to this very wealthy individual from Melbourne should be: are you interested in the politics, or are you interested in the policy?

See this speech in context