Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I also offer my congratulations on her elevation to Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer the minister to the deliberations within the government last year concerning the sale of Telstra. Does the minister agree that the fact that all government senators supported the sale bill is proof that there is no longer any real distinguishing policy or philosophical difference between The Nationals and the Liberal Party? And, given the minister’s experience in convincing National Party senators to sell out the bush for the sale of Telstra, does she agree with the recently expressed view that, for National Party senators, the role of representing country people would most effectively be carried out as a member of the Liberal Party?

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to Senator Conroy for the question. I am not entirely sure how it really relates to any of my portfolio responsibilities, but in any event it is a fatuous question at best because there is no doubt that we have operated effectively as a coalition now for the past 10 years. The Liberal Party and the National Party have operated as an effective coalition for the past 10 years. What that means is that each party in the coalition brings to deliberations in this place, brings to the development of policy and brings to representation of the people of Australia, different perspectives.

The National Party, as well as the Liberal Party—which has, of course, many members and locally based senators throughout this country—look after the interests of rural and regional Australia, and that has been done very effectively in the arrangements that ran up to the approval of the full sale of Telstra. It has been very clear to this government, and very clear to those who were making representations to the government prior to the vote on the Telstra sale bill, that the interests of rural and regional Australia were absolutely critical to the passage of that bill.

I am very proud that this government has put in place a package worth over $3 billion to look after the interests of rural and regional Australia. That was achieved through the joint and mutual efforts of people on this side of the Senate and, of course, on the coalition side of the House of Representatives. It ill behoves the Labor Party—who have never spent a cent on the bush, who do not care about rural and regional Australia, who abandoned the bush without a single dollar for services—to criticise this government for a $3 billion package. It is a fatuous question. It deserves no further attention.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister name one telecommunications policy issue where the National Party has a different position to the Liberal Party? Given her rural background, will the minister be using her new role as deputy leader of the government in this place to recruit more National Party senators to the Liberal Party?

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the supplementary question. I can understand that the Labor Party, which is absolutely bereft of any policy on telecommunications, is always desperate to know how we so successfully develop policies for rural and regional Australia, but the policy development process is not something I am going to share with either Senator Conroy or those on the other side. The important point is that this party sticks up for the bush and it will continue to do so.