Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I find it remarkable that the opposition is bold enough to suggest that the Gillard government is not governing for all Australians when one considers that the Liberal Party is focused on cynical political tactics rather than the public interest. Last week I was fortunate enough to attend the Australian Workers Union conference where the Treasurer made some important points about how we are witnessing an alarming radicalisation of the Liberal Party, which has led it to mimic the unrestrained negativity and disregard for responsible policy-making practised by the United States Tea Party movement. When a major political party, like the Liberal Party, ignores the conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, refusing to believe it is actually in opposition and moving so far from the mainstream, it loses its ability to deal constructively with Australia's challenges. This is particularly concerning for the Liberal Party stance on economic issues vital to Australia's future.

Whenever I speak to people in Tasmania many of them ask, 'Why are the Liberals so opposed to a tax on massive mining profits?' The fact that companies have reaped such huge rewards is great for Australia, but we must remember that every time the mining boom pushes the Australian dollar that little bit higher it hurts farmers and manufacturers who export products overseas, as well as tourism and foreign student education industries. It also means the cost-of-living pressures become greater for many Australians. The risk of a two-speed economy is one of the reasons the government introduced the minerals resource rent tax and resolved to cut the company tax rate, introduce tax breaks for small businesses, help all Australians make ends meet and inevitably make sure that we spread the profits of the boom.

Needless to say, the Liberal Party chose to engage in an opportunistic campaign against the tax in step with public relations efforts waged by the mining lobby. The opposition leader's decision to link the potential for sovereign risk with the MRRT was one of the most dangerous, unwise assertions made by any Australian politician in my memory. In fact, there has been some $152 billion of capital expenditure in the mining sector since the MRRT was announced—an increase of 160 per cent.

Surely the opposition leader and his shadow treasurer were advised that when they falsely raised the prospect of sovereign risk they were unnecessarily trashing the global reputation of Australia. But perhaps those opposite really do not care.

The Liberal Party's Tea Party style goes much further. There are many examples I could point to but there is one in particular I want to speak about here tonight. Recently I was pleased to announce that the further construction of the National Broadband Network will commence in South Launceston. The NBN is about preparing Australia for the future. It is about ensuring that our local communities in places like South Launceston are not left behind as the world and our local economy change. So of course it should come as no surprise that the opposition leader is opposed to this progress and has promised to eliminate the NBN if he were to assume power. Never mind that, for many years, people living in regional and remote areas in my home state of Tasmania and around Australia have had to put up with slow, unreliable internet services. Never mind that the NBN will lead to improved education and health services and greater opportunities for small businesses and agriculture. Never mind also that the NBN will allow high-quality teleworking, making it easier to work remotely. As long as he can criticise the government's NBN for being too ambitious and expensive, nothing else matters to the opposition leader.

This country needs leaders like the Prime Minister who are perceptive enough to identify not only the challenges and opportunities that Australia faces today but what we will face in the future. The opposition leader, on the other hand, cynically moves from one short-sighted day to the next never grappling with policy, only opposing it; never considering what Australia needs tomorrow, only worrying about what his political prospects require today.