Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

What a fine speech by the Leader of the Democrats here today. I am a little cynical about censure motions, and I have expressed that cynicism before. I have seen really good censure motions in this chamber, with unimpeachable evidence, and then the political vote comes in and the motion goes down. On other occasions I have seen very shaky cases mounted in this chamber and the censure motion has carried. We have always said that it is not really the end result of the censure motion but the process that counts. Anyone listening to Senator Campbell’s defence of his actions today, both at question time and in this censure motion debate, has cause to worry. How could someone become a minister in cabinet yet perform in this chamber so incompetently and so abysmally? It is really scary. It frightens me. I like to see politicians be professional. It is not true that we always like to see them humiliated. But humiliated is what we have seen today.

When did all this begin? I can tell you precisely when this issue began. It began the day the Australian Electoral Commission handed down the new and final boundaries of McMillan that turned it from a 53 per cent Labor seat to a 52 per cent Liberal seat. That is the genesis of this decision: when it became a marginal Liberal seat. If you want to see how political this issue is, go back to the grubby correspondence that Senator Campbell had distributed in the electorate of McMillan back in October last year. This is on a letterhead; this has got the coat of arms on it. Under that it says, ‘Senator the Hon. Ian Campbell, Minister for the Environment and Heritage’. It is then signed at the bottom, ‘Senator Ian Campbell, Minister for the Environment and Heritage’. We know this was not paid for by the Commonwealth, because if it had been he would be in breach of proper accounting and legal processes. This was paid for by the Liberal Party. This is a political letter, and as grubby a political letter as I have ever read. Let me just quote one part of it:

If Christian Zahra really cared about his community, about you, he would have protested the issue with his Victorian Labor mates. If he was serious about protecting the visual amenity of the region that elected him, he would have moved an amendment to the renewable energy legislation when it came before the parliament in 2002. If he really wanted to stop inappropriate wind developments he would be fighting Mark Latham on this issue instead of jockeying for a position on the front bench.

It was all about politics. It was never about the national interest and never about the right thing to do. It was all about politics—not surprising when you consider Senator Campbell’s background in Western Australian politics. He was in the Crichton-Browne machine and then denied them and set up his own operation in Western Australia.

Look at the actual decision making: Senator Campbell went through 450 days on this particular project. Others are decided in half a minute and flicked off. But what he did, very clearly, was not only to ignore his departmental advice, which is his right; but I bet he never confounded that advice. He simply argued for more and more reports until finally a sliver of hope arrived and he ticked it off to meet his political requirement.

I pointed out in question time today the analogy of the Wonthaggi decision about a wind farm 20 minutes drive away. I do drive pretty fast, but I think for anyone it is 20 minutes from Bald Hills. So it is not far away. In that decision that Dr David Kemp had to make, there were orange-bellied parrots sighted near the Wonthaggi site. But, when that minister granted approval to go ahead, no conditions whatsoever were put on. Compare that with Bald Hills, where they have never sighted an orange-bellied parrot and one will probably never go near it. So why the difference in decision making? Is it true that Dr Kemp was an incompetent environment minister not attuned to protecting endangered species? I have not always been a fan of Dr Kemp, but I tell you what: as he is the smarter brother of the two, I would always rate him well and truly ahead of the political Senator Ian Campbell. You could not get a clearer contrast in decision making than what occurred then.

This really begs the question: who in this country is really serious about alternative power sources? Coming from Victoria, I can tell you that the Victorian government has been very serious about them. The Victorian government is leading the way in Australia in terms of solar development. Some new and exciting projects are under way in Victoria that are cutting edge world wide. The Labor Party have led the way—and we do not apologise for it—in endorsing wind power. Senator Ian Campbell comes into this chamber and says, ‘If you vote Labor, you will get five wind farms for every two the Liberals will approve.’ That is right, and we are proud of it. We are proud of the fact that we will support alternative power. We are also at the cutting edge of changing the technology from the use of brown coal in Victoria. By far the heaviest polluter Australia wide is brown coal electricity production. We are at the cutting edge of technology that could cut the output of pollutants by up to 40 per cent in that particular area. The Victorian government has been serious about this.

This also raises the economic development issue. How often have we heard Senator Minchin come into this chamber and say, ‘Labor is anti-development. Labor does not support economic growth’? I will tell you what: we do not sell out a $220 million project just for a few political reasons—to prop up someone in a marginal seat because a minor sector of that seat may change their vote on it. That is real weak politics.

I heard Senator Ian Campbell say today, ‘Why did the company approach me to remit the decision, to think about it again? Surely that shows that the company thinks I am a fair person.’ Can’t you just imagine going in to see Senator Campbell and saying, ‘We want to withdraw from the court case,’ and the first thing that Senator Campbell says is: ‘We’ll pay your expenses’! What a ridiculous proposition to put to this chamber.

I was rather amazed at the editorial in the Australian on Monday. The Australian is hardly a red rag; it is not noted for its Labor leanings and it is not a closet socialist publication. I do not have time to read the entire editorial, but let me read the last paragraph. It says:

It adds up to a confused message from the federal Government when it comes to wind power and a shambolic regulatory environment that can only discourage investment in renewable energy. As a first measure towards restoring confidence in the federal Government’s policy on renewable energy technology, John Howard should sack Senator Campbell as Environment Minister.

Hear, hear! It continues:

In his mishandling of the Bald Hills affair, Senator Ian Campbell has shown not only that he is inept when it comes to decision making but that he is willing to allow political considerations to influence his ministerial judgment. After dealing with Senator Campbell, Mr Howard must appoint in his place a minister who is committed to upholding a transparent process for assessing the environmental impact of development projects—whatever their nature—with the best interests of all Australians in mind.

Come on down, Senator Colbeck! Time for you to move up! Time for you to become a minister! At least we would know that the national interest would be protected, not just the petty political interests of the Liberal Party.

If you want to have a look at this political theme today, I ask you: did Senator Ian Campbell try to address any of the serious questions put to him? No, he did not. He spent most of question time and most of his defence on the censure motion talking about Christian Zahra—a Labor member who has lost his seat. It is as though Senator Campbell is excused from any misbehaviour whatsoever if that Labor member had a particular view. There is a massive difference between the behaviour of backbenchers who are trying to protect their own political interests and the national interest. One of the first things you learn in politics is: always put the national interest first—not out of principle, although that would be good, but out of self-interest—because putting the national interest first is what protects a ministerial career.

A lot of us on this side of the chamber wondered why Senator Ian Campbell was a parliamentary secretary for six years. We wondered why so many others came off the back bench—like Senator Ellison and others who are more advanced in their political careers—ahead of Senator Campbell. Now we know. We now know that the Prime Minister was highly suspicious as to how well Senator Ian Campbell would perform as a minister. His insight was, for once, very accurate. We in this chamber have all known that Senator Ian Campbell is a person who is subject to temper tantrums, to immature political behaviour and to the absolute bottom end of puerile approaches to politics. We all hoped that he would make the step up and that, having been given a ministry, he would actually mature and leave the political never-never land that he was in and that he would actually become a proper political and ministerial performer in this chamber. He has failed the test and he has failed it absolutely.

You have got to ask yourself: where is the pastoral care in the Liberal Party that allows this behaviour to occur? Where is the guidance and leadership that should be guiding this minister down a proper path? It does not appear to exist. Apparently, you are just thrown into the deep end and you either swim or drown. This is not really just Senator Ian Campbell’s responsibility; it is the responsibility of Senator Minchin and the Prime Minister to give him some guidance in order for him to perform properly.

What this issue is all about is a minister behaving like a third-rate ward heeler, totally ignoring advice from his own department, manufacturing advice and misinterpreting it for political purposes—and we have to put a stop to it. But I will make one last prediction: I will bet anyone in this chamber that Senator Ian Campbell reverses his decision in the next few weeks. It does not take much courage to say, ‘You heard it here first’. He will change this decision because, if he does not change this decision, he will change portfolio in very quick order. I have this advice for the Prime Minister: make him change the decision and then remove him from the portfolio. I am not sure which one he is capable of handling, but it is certainly not the environment. We need an environment minister who is committed to the national interest, who will be fair and reasonable and who will put the best interests of Australia and its biological diversity well ahead of his own political interests.