Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Parramatta had a bit of pep in his step when he delivered his speech today. He seemed very happy today; I'm not sure why, but he was extremely happy. What was interesting was the subtlety of what he spoke about. In his five minutes, the member for Parramatta had a choice—to spend that five minutes defending the Treasurer, defending the Treasurer's decisions or attacking the opposition. Interestingly he didn't use that five minutes to defend the Treasurer; he spent it talking about the opposition, and it's not surprising. One thing that was interesting about the member for Parramatta's contribution is that he mentioned nuclear. If the reports are true, he could be in the cabinet soon and able to really shape policy. If not, he has the option, as we now know, to cross the floor because in a past life the member for Parramatta was a strong advocate for nuclear energy.

I'm going to quote the member for Parramatta from a previous role—Quarterly Essay 44, Man-Made World: 'A single thousand-megawatt reactor produces the same power as 770 square kilometres of wind turbines. Nuclear power can also be scaled up. France added 48 gigawatts of nuclear capacity roughly equivalent to the entire capacity of Australia's electricity system in just over a decade. France now produces nearly 80 per cent of its power through nuclear reactors and has among the lowest emissions in the industrialised world'. I continue to quote: 'Nuclear power is, on many criteria, also better for the environment than currently available renewable technology. Massive volumes of concrete, steel, glass and rare elements will need to be mined and manufactured to produce solar panels and wind turbines if renewable energy facilities are rolled out at scale. Vast natural areas also need to be used as locations for solar facilities and wind farms. For this reason, some members of the green movement are starting to question the environmental costs of such projects.' Well, I look forward to the member Parramatta arguing for nuclear in the caucus, or, if he doesn't get that promotion over the break, he might cross the floor; he can join us. Let's see if he continues to hold that position. He said that many years ago; we know that's what he really thinks. Now he's got to follow the party line.

To what we saw today: no wonder the Treasurer was quite angry in question time; he got rolled by the Prime Minister, as Phil Coorey reported today. He's got the member for Parramatta breathing down his neck, so it's no wonder he was a little bit angry and had to get warned a few times by the Speaker.

We also saw today a prime minister that does not understand how the real world works. He does not understand anything about how it works in the real world. He was talking about the grocery code, and he made the statement—it was incredulous, and I have spent over a decade working in the grocery code—that 'If you sell a Woolworths, it will have to be replaced by Coles.' Guess what, Prime Minister? Maybe if you left the inner-city and you and went to a regional or rural area, you would hear about these amazing things called IGAs or Foodlands—independent supermarkets run by a great organisation called Metcash. They're small and family owned businesses. They would love the opportunity to buy a site that has been landbanked by Woolworths and Coles. There's also a another great company called Aldi. CHOICE recently showed that they're providing cheaper groceries—a different model to Woolworths and Coles, but I'm sure they would love some of those locations as well. We had the example about five or six years ago where a German company called Lidl was looking to launch in the Australian market. They spent a significant amount of time investigating launching and had staff on the ground, and they decided not to. One of the reasons why was they couldn't get appropriate locations.

The Prime Minister saying that Woolworths and Coles are the only grocery channels of supermarkets that exist shows how out of touch he is with the Australian people. When he criticises this policy, it's because of ideology. He doesn't understand the pressure that Australian food manufacturers are under. I understand it because I've seen it and I've lived it. He doesn't understand the pressure that farmers are under. I understand it because my family have been in farming since the 50s. He has taken an ideological position. He has taken a position that will not reduce food and grocery prices. He is supporting big business at the expense of small business and Australian farmers, and every time he stands at that despatch box and talks about the economy, he shows how out of touch he is. He shows that he really just does not get it.

See this speech in context