Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Very rarely do I agree with Senator O’Brien, whether we are in opposition or government. However, I agree with some of his comments relating to voting and how you intend to vote. Obviously I would like to see people in Tasmania vote Liberal but certainly not Green—and maybe preference Labor above Green, which is probably where we are heading.

I want to touch on some of the allusions of Senator O’Brien, who indicated earlier in his contribution to the adjournment debate that the Senate chamber was being used for the purposes of the Tasmanian election. I noticed that you spoke about Tasmania for about nine of the 11 minutes, Senator O’Brien, so you are probably correct if you include your side today. I think you indicated that question time may have been used for that purpose. The two questions asked by two Tasmanian senators today ostensibly related to announcements by the Prime Minister yesterday, so I think that was quite topical and quite relevant and I would defend their right to ask those questions. It was not as obvious as the dorothy dixer set up by your side today from Senator McEwen to Senator Conroy on the National Broadband Network. That was certainly aimed at Tasmania. In fact, Senator Conroy used Tasmania 16 times in his answer, which is not bad considering he does not normally mention the same thing twice.

I need to defend my good friend and colleague from Tasmania Senator Barnett. He did not ask a question; that is correct. That was because of the interjections from the government side today, which indicated that Senator Barnett needed to defend himself, and the non-compliance with an answer by the minister. The minister should have been directly relevant. There was a point of order taken. The minister was not directly relevant, so Senator Barnett clearly set out his case whilst addressing a question and obviously the time expired with the new rules in the Senate on 30-second questions. I defend Senator Barnett in the way he clearly articulated that the government had not responded to the question and unfortunately time expired. That is not really any fault of Senator Barnett.

I agree with Senator O’Brien’s comments that it is fraught with danger to vote for the Greens in Tasmania. It would just give us a destabilised parliamentary system again. I also would like to place on record now that I think the Tasmanian parliament is far too small. Reducing the Tasmanian parliament from 35 to 25 members was ridiculous. That is now a comment that the Labor Party are coming to grips with. Certainly the Liberals and the Greens in Tasmania agree that the parliament is too small. It is unworkable when you have a cabinet of 10 in a government of 14. You have a speaker and a deputy speaker and two backbenchers. That is ridiculous in this day and age.

If you are a minister for agriculture in this country, for example, you deal with the same issues whether you are a state minister or a federal minister. From state to state, you have the same meetings, the same problems, the same community organisations and the same bodies that are representative of their industries. The only difference is the number of cows or the number of sheep. It does not alter the perspective or the complexities of what a minister of the Crown does. To be restricted and to not have a talent pool to draw upon by having such a small number of people who form government is probably a travesty of justice. That then enables bureaucracies and the public service to potentially run the state by bombardment with data. When a minister in Tasmania has a multitude of portfolios to look after and you have an opposition of seven trying to shadow the entire cabinet, let alone the issues of the day, it is just an unworkable situation. I think there is a realisation that the Tasmanian parliament is too small and is unworkable. I hope that will change as time moves forward. Having a smaller parliament has led to an increased bureaucracy, and I think the evidence now indicates it is costing the Tasmanian public more to have a smaller parliament. So the cost savings certainly did not equate. I agree with Senator O’Brien that we should not be voting for the Greens; we should be voting for a major party, and that should be the Liberal Party.