Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from Senator Fierravanti-Wells proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The need for the Federal Government to intervene, by way of wasteful spending to compensate for the policy failures of the New South Wales Labor Government.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to begin by sharing with the chamber a cartoon by Moir in today’s Sydney Morning Herald. It is very illuminating. The New South Wales ALP is represented by a caricature of Premier Rees, who says, ‘Hey Kev! ... Remember me?! Your Sydney cousin ... Remember?’ A hastily moving Prime Minister is ducking into the back seat of a Commonwealth car, while saying to the chauffeur, ‘Step on it!’ Federal Labor is running a mile from their cousins in New South Wales Labor.

Recently, there was a motion of no confidence in the New South Wales parliament—why wouldn’t there be, given the soap opera that has now become the New South Wales government? The New South Wales government is kept on its feet by the New South Wales Labor Right. In his speech on that motion, the Leader of the Opposition articulated the litany of scandals and the broken promises that have been presided over by the New South Wales government. In New South Wales, we are seeing spectacle after spectacle of this government on a daily basis. Quite frankly, it is about time that New South Wales Labor put everybody in that state out of their misery and that we go to an election to enable the electors of New South Wales to change government.

State Labor in New South Wales is a catastrophe. It is so bad that it has become a gross embarrassment. It is tragic for the people of New South Wales and the people we represent in what has now become a failed state. Voters are naturally very upset about it. Of course, Kevin Rudd tries to distance himself from the New South Wales Labor Party but the Labor Party in New South Wales is the very well-organised machine which made him Prime Minister. Let us not forget that the Prime Minister is supported by the same right-wing faction in New South Wales Labor that runs the state. Minister Arbib is one of the key figures in it. Therefore, the group who is responsible for the catastrophe that is the Labor government, the train wreck, in New South Wales is the same group that put Kevin Rudd into the leadership—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Fierravanti-Wells, you must refer to the Prime Minister by his proper name.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise, Mr Deputy President—that put Prime Minister Rudd into the leadership and that is his key supporter base.

As I said, it is important to remember what this well-oiled, disciplined machine is. They put Nathan Rees in, they put Bob Carr in and they have been running New South Wales for years and mismanaging it shockingly. Look at New South Wales today and you will see what this country will become after this Labor government has finished with it. An incompetent, mismanaged, corrupt Labor Party machine that has catastrophically failed in New South Wales for more than a decade will now go and do the same thing at a federal level.

Look at the toxicity of what we have now become. Labor’s failures in New South Wales are the most spectacular but Labor failures are all around the country. The so-called stimulus package was the classic example. The schools program was the most spectacular example of classic Labor Party spin and politics. They said that they wanted to put a lot of money into the economy and give support to the construction industry and tradies. Yet we know that what is actually happening is that schools are having the Julia Gillard memorial assembly halls foisted upon them, whether they want it or not. We know that the neediest schools are missing out and we know that local tradesmen and women are not getting the jobs. They are going to the large firms chosen by the state Labor governments.

When we were in power and the coalition had the vision of re-plumbing rural Australia so that we could produce more food and fibre with less water, there was an opportunity to put money back to do all this work. Of course it would have created jobs. It would have created jobs in regional New South Wales. But that would not have afforded the Labor Party the ribbon-cutting opportunities. Senator Heffernan would very much agree with this, given his keen interest in rural New South Wales. They chose not to do it because with school halls it has really become all about politics.

The most cynical result of this is that these signs that have been forced on schools—that they have to put up and keep there until after the election—will, funnily enough, be there on polling day. This will be the so-called gentle reminder that people should vote Labor back into power. As we know, the Australian Electoral Commission has said that this is a breach of the electoral provisions, so now we are going to spend millions of more dollars to put little signs at the bottom to rectify what was clearly—and, I have to say, I think intentionally—done. But time will tell whether that was in fact the case.

When the coalition was in power we had a very successful Investing in Our Schools program where we went to the school communities and we said, ‘Okay, what is it that you most want? What is it that you actually need?’ That is not like this government, which has told them that they are going to have their Julia Gillard memorial hall. We actually asked schools what they needed the most and met those needs. I am sorry that Senator Arbib is not here because I wanted to tell him that on one occasion when I was attending with a minister from New South Wales—and I will not mention the minister’s name—she said, ‘Thank goodness for the federal government’s Investing in Our Schools program because we could not fund the inadequate facilities that we have in schools.’ For example, in the Illawarra, where my electorate office is, there are some schools that have been there for more than 50 years and are asking the state government in New South Wales to rectify their toilets and the government has not done it. Instead of getting their toilets fixed, which is so important, they are going to get the Julia Gillard memorial hall whether they like it or not.

In the end, we are borrowing all this money and we are going into debt. This debt that we are incurring is being spent and not properly targeted. Every dollar and every cent of that $350 billion—and the rest, because we are kidding ourselves if we honestly think that Labor is going to stop at $350 billion—that we are borrowing will have to be repaid. It will have to be repaid by the taxpayers of Australia. This is short-term gain—which has been spun very effectively—for long-term pain. I say to those of you sitting in the gallery that you may or may not have got moneys now but you will certainly be paying for it. And to those listening to this broadcast: get ready, because you are going to be paying for many years to come.

When we do look at New South Wales, it was once the driving force of the Australian economy—

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It still is.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Hutchins, it is desperately lagging behind other states. The latest national accounts figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that New South Wales experienced only a five per cent growth in state final demand from the March to June quarter. New South Wales experienced lower growth than even the Victorian economy, which grew by three per cent. In further embarrassment to the New South Wales economy we find that it is also growing at a slower rate than the Tasmanian, Western Australian and South Australian economies.

As a result of the reckless mismanagement of the New South Wales economy, now federal Labor has been forced to intervene in what can only be described as the politically motivated spending spree. Every day we are seeing more and more examples of how Labor’s reckless and politically motivated spending is totally and utterly out of control. In turn, this will put pressure on interest rates and result in higher taxes.

Let us look at the $550 million in so-called community infrastructure grants. Earlier, in question time, we heard Senator Arbib fluffing and carrying on and not answering the question about this program because what is actually happening here is that the federal Labor government is coming in and helping New South Wales Labor by assisting predominantly Labor electorates. One only has to look at the article in today’s Financial Review which looks at infrastructure spending and asks where the $550 million of community infrastructure grants have gone. Interestingly enough, grants have gone to the federal seat of Robertson. We won’t go there! Robertson has become very famous, or infamous, as a consequence of the antics of its local member. Then there is Bennelong, another marginal Labor seat.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig, as the patron senator for Bennelong, I keep a very close eye on what happens in that seat.

Let us look at the government’s $200 million on campaign advertising despite pledges, when in opposition, to slash federal spending on advertising. There was a story today in the Australian. And, as I mentioned, let us look at the blatant and shameless political spending on school signs, which has been exposed by the Australian Electoral Commission as politically motivated. You are not even being subtle with the signage at the schools. In the Investing in Our Schools Program, we had little plaques put in discreet places at the school. But you have to have the big sign right in front of the school, right near the entrance to the school and right near the entrance to the polling booth. If that is what you think it is going to take at the next election for people to vote Labor and if you already feel desperate enough to have to put those signs up in schools, then maybe you have a problem.

You are pursuing this political strategy. You are borrowing more and more money to spend more and more money in marginal seats, thereby imposing an absolutely huge debt burden not only on this generation but on future generations. As I said, the real concern is that this reckless spending is going to result in higher taxes and higher interest rates.

In conclusion, I will say this in relation to New South Wales: what was once the premier state in this country has now been reduced to a soap opera. Every day we have been seeing the incompetence of Labor in New South Wales, but now we are going to see the spectacle of federal Labor—those very people who were in Sussex Street when New South Wales was sent to rack and ruin and who are now sitting here—going to bail them out.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listening to Senator Fierravanti-Wells reminds me—

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So now you can pronounce my name properly?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you understand me okay? Senator Fierravanti-Wells reminds me of a book that was very popular some years ago: Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. I do not know what planet you are on, but you are not on a planet that is anywhere near the reality of this planet. You are not on a planet that is anywhere near dealing with the needs of the Australian community.

What that speech demonstrated and encapsulated is the incompetence of the coalition. Here we are in a global economic crisis, and what do we have a New South Wales senator come and talk about? She talks about signage at schools in New South Wales—that is the level. That is the competence, or should I say incompetence, of Senator Fierravanti-Wells in her understanding of the economic challenges.

That speech was all about a diversion. It was a diversion from the trials and tribulations of the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull. That is what it was about. It was about trying to look elsewhere—anywhere other than at the working of the federal government and the needs of the community of Australia—in order to try and hide the incapacity and incompetence of the Leader of the Opposition. It was a diversion from the lack of policy that the opposition display day in, day out in the Senate. It was a diversion from the lack of leadership—no leadership on any of the big issues facing the Australian public. There was no leadership for a decade and we still do not get leadership from the opposition. It was a diversion from the splits and the disunity in the coalition.

You really do not have any capacity to come here and criticise a government that recognises the issues, takes on the challenges and deals with the problems that this community is facing in a decisive and effective way. So we get these diversions and these meanderings and this nonsense from Senator Fierravanti-Wells in her contribution. This really is a diversion from the coalition’s inability to understand the economic challenges facing Australia arising from the deepest recession since the Great Depression. Why don’t we hear the coalition talk about the international economy, about the challenges facing every government around the world? I will tell you why we do not hear about it: because the coalition is a rabble. The coalition is disunited. The coalition does not have any policies. The coalition has a weak and incapable leader. The Nationals are fighting with the Liberals. The Liberals do not like the Nationals. That is what we are faced with. The public look aghast at the lack of performance from the coalition. Senator Fierravanti-Wells encapsulated the incompetence, the lack of vision, the lack of economic understanding that the coalition perpetrates in the Senate and in the House of Representatives.

What we have here is a coalition that are bitter. The coalition cannot accept that the Australian public had enough of them. The coalition are dispirited. They are squabbling with each other, fighting with each other—no vision, no plan, no strategy ever to lead this country. They are a coalition that are isolated from reality, never talking about the real issues that are affecting Australian working families and Australian communities. So the diversions flow continually. The diversions are there because you have no alternatives—no alternative leader, no alternative policies and no alternative to a decisive, effective Labor government. That is the problem that we face with the coalition in this country.

I want to go back to what I said earlier. When the coalition were in government we had a decade of lost opportunities. The money was flowing into the economy because of our terms of trade and our mineral exports. The terms of trade had never been better. It was like a government winning the biggest lotto in the world. And yet what did you do with it? You did nothing, absolutely nothing. You absolutely failed to build for the future. You absolutely failed in a range of the key economic issues that build the economy, and you left this economy ill-prepared for the biggest economic recession since the Great Depression. That decade of failure was a failure of investment. Less than two-thirds of profits ever went back into investment to provide the machinery, to provide the technology for new jobs in this country. That was your failure, a failure of investment.

It was a failure of innovation. We hear much about innovation and research and development, but where were we in the decade under the Howard government? The fourth-bottom of the OECD. That is where we were in terms of investment in research and development and innovation—1.7 per cent of GDP in research and development, the fourth-bottom of the OECD. Productivity, despite this Work Choices, despite Senator Minchin going to the HR Nicholls Society, prostrating himself and saying, ‘I’m sorry we didn’t do more; I’m sorry we didn’t take more workers’ rights away—we’ll do better next time. I really apologise to the HR Nicholls Society,’ productivity was below par in the OECD.

It was a failure of development: elaborately transformed manufactured exports declined under the Howard government. Don’t come here talking about economic credentials and bad economic decisions. It was a decade of incompetence from the Howard government. It was a failure in competitiveness: we were less competitive under the Howard government. It was a failure of balance: $30 billion went from wages to profits under the Howard government. Infrastructure development declined from six per cent of GDP to 3.9 per cent of GDP.

And the coalition failed on sustainability, the biggest challenge facing governments around the world. On dealing with global warming, dealing with climate change, they were a complete failure. The coalition continue to be a failure on climate change policy. At each others throats, divided, the deniers there do not want to do anything about global warming. They are an absolute rabble.

And that is just the decade of the Howard government. No wonder the Australian public had enough of you. No wonder the Australian public said, ‘We want better than this; we want a government that will take the decisions to take this country forward into the future.’ And that is what they got. When they elected the Rudd government the public got a government that was prepared to deal with the challenges of the global economic crisis, challenges that laid out a decline of $210 billion in taxation receipts; nine out of 10 of our trading partners in recession; the world economy contracting by 1½ per cent; advanced economies contracting by 3¾ per cent; unemployment around the world going up, to 10 per cent in some states of the USA; wealth destroyed around the world; confidence down around the world—and yet what do we get from Senator Fierravanti-Wells? ‘We don’t like the signs on the schools.’ I think the Australian public deserve better from the coalition. The sooner you change your leader, the sooner you have a leader who can actually provide some leadership, who can provide some direction for you, the better—because being an uncoordinated rabble without the capacity to develop policy leads to speeches like that of Senator Fierravanti-Wells, where you do not deal with the real issues, where you do not deal with unemployment for Australians, where you do not deal with communities facing the global economic crisis.

This is the problem; a dispirited, ineffectual, incompetent coalition. An example just wandered past me right now. This is the problem that we have, leaving this country ill-prepared for the global economic crisis. But the Labor government moved quickly and we moved decisively. What we have done is to stimulate demand to keep more than 210,000 Australians in work. What do we hear from the coalition, out there on Planet Zog somewhere, arguing about who is going to be the next leader? That is the biggest debate in the coalition: who is going to be the next leader.

Yet the ACCI came out and said basically do not withdraw the economic stimulus, that any sudden withdrawal of the stimulus would have a negative effect on the economy. The coalition do not hear this. You do not even listen to your former allies. You do not listen to business, you do not listen to the trade union movement, you do not listen to the Australian community. All you do is fight amongst yourselves, squabble and bicker. You cannot find a seat for Senator Joyce in the House of Representatives. He wants to go there. You want to fight about that. You want to fight about neo-liberalism. You want to defend neo-liberalism. You want to let the market rip, not worry about what it does to communities. Let us not learn the lessons of the global financial crisis; just let neo-liberalism rip. Do not let the government intervene in the interests of the economy. That is ready the basis of the problems with the coalition. They are a dispirited, disunited rabble with no policies, no leader, absolutely incompetent and not available to be an alternative government for this country.

What have the Labor Party done? We have looked after pensioners. We have put economic stimulus in place. We have looked at infrastructure. We will build the rail system of the future. We will build the road system of the future. We will build the schools of the future, the universities of the future, the things that a coalition government should have done during your 10 years of incompetence and inaction.

What did you say when we were facing the global financial crisis? ‘Let us wait and see what happens.’ Yet the IMF, the OECD, the Treasury, every economist of any standing was saying now is the time for government to intervene, to make sure that unemployment does not go through the roof, so that a depression does not come on, so that working families are not destroyed because of inaction of government. What did we get from the coalition? We got carping, inane criticism that has no resonance in the community. That is why the coalition will be a coalition in opposition for years to come, because you do not have any answers for the Australian public. You do not have a vision for the Australian public. You do not have any heart and you do not have any mind to deal with the problems and challenges that Australia faces. The Rudd government have delivered, the Rudd government will still deliver. We are not out of the woods yet. We have problems and we will deal with them. (Time expired)

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must comment on one of Senator Cameron’s remarks, where he talked about an ‘effective Labor government’. To me that is an oxymoron. We are talking about the New South Wales government, the ‘premier state’. That was what its title was, has been and hopefully will be after March 2011. The situation in New South Wales is that 500 people a week pack up and move out of the state. I suppose Senator Cameron is proud of the way his colleagues are running the state of New South Wales.

Prior to the last election we had 50 federal seats in New South Wales and just 28 in Queensland. Of course, one was taken off us, the seat of Gwydir. We went down to 49, and Queensland went up to 29 because people are moving out. They would not have a bar of Labor and the way they were managing the state of New South Wales. What happens now? The move keeps on and New South Wales is about to go down to 48 seats, while Queensland goes up to 30. The Rees government—and those of his predecessors, Mr Iemma and Mr Carr—have had a policy to drive people out of the state. That is a fact and the AEC can confirm that.

Let us go back to the Labor Party and Bob Carr. He will halve our elective surgery lists. Have a look at them now. He will lead the greenest government the state has ever seen. They have become the blackest government because of the way they have locked up national parks, have not managed them, have let the fuel levels increase, after lightning strikes they burn, the fire kills the trees, kills the animals and they call it conservation. I call it destruction and we are seeing more and more of it. Now it is going to continue because we have the Labor government in Canberra combined with the Labor government in New South Wales buying places like Toorale Station and locking it up for national parks—90,000 hectares, 225,000 acres. That will be the next fireball we will see in a few years time and you call it conservation.

I want to have a look at the history of what we have seen in the last 14 years of Labor in New South Wales. I mentioned Mr Carr; he knew when to jump off the ship, didn’t he? Then along came Mr Iemma. He did not change anything at all. He had been the health minister. New South Wales has had four ministers in the health portfolio in the last four years. They are just getting removed, sacked or resigning for whatever reason.

That is the way you are running your health system. It all started with the outrageous super health boards that you introduced. For 100 years local volunteers could run our health system, could run our hospitals, and then along came Mr Genius and did away with them. Look at the mess they are in now. We have just seen a situation in Gilgandra and Coonabarabran where meat could not be supplied to the hospitals because the bills were not being paid by the New South Wales Labor government. Small business finally said: ‘Enough is enough. We’re not giving you any more credit.’ I suppose some over there are proud of that management. I would be disgusted with it.

Only a couple of weeks ago I had the privilege to be with the current—hang on; I have got that wrong; I should say past—health minister, Mr John Della Bosca, when he opened the hospitals at Bingara and Warialda. He was cosying up very closely with his Independent colleagues Mr Torbay and Mr Windsor. A great coalition they are; one supports the other. Mr Torbay got given the Speaker’s position as a way of saying, ‘Thanks for the way you attack the National Party at each election.’ You notice the Independent Mr Torbay never goes after the Labor Party. He only campaigns against the National Party. But that is to be expected because he was a member of the Labor Party till 1997. He was warden of the Student Union at the University of New England, so we know what colour his politics are.

So we were standing there, opening the hospitals, and there was not a mention of John Anderson, the former member for Gwydir, who guaranteed the money to see that those hospitals were built. The situation at Warialda prior to that, 10 years ago, was that there was going to be a nine-to-five hospital. You call that running the health system? This is the Labor Party in charge of rural health. It was a disgrace. There were no thankyous to those who actually got the money for it.

So let us move along and look at the management of New South Wales. We have seen people jump ship. Mr Iemma called the troops together and said, ‘Behave yourselves or you’re gone.’ They replied, ‘Sorry, you’re gone.’ And off went Mr Iemma. Off went Reba Meagher. The next thing was that Treasurer Costa pulled up stumps and did the bolt. We could go back through the history of them all. There is a list of them. Mr Orkopoulos is looking at striped sunlight for his activities. Look at Matt Brown; he was sacked. Look at Tony Stewart—dumped from his position. On and on it goes. And these are the Labor Party people, from Sussex Street, Sydney, who are running the state of New South Wales. No doubt this will flow on through to Canberra.

We have a situation here where you are going on a spending spree of $16 billion to build buildings in schools. Who is responsible for buildings in schools? It is the state government’s responsibility. What do we have here? We have the federal government propping up the states for their failure to deliver proper infrastructure in education right throughout Australia.

In the meantime, there is one sector that has been neglected terribly, and that is aged care. Aged-care facilities are actually a federal responsibility. There is a little place at Bundarra, 40 kilometres south of Inverell, called the Grace Munro Centre. In only a few weeks time that aged-care facility will close. That is the way you are looking after aged-care facilities. What money did you put into your stimulus package to look after aged care? The answer is not a cent. It is your responsibility to look after the elderly. The Medicare rebate for the removal of cataracts is to be cut down to $300. I think a veterinary surgeon charges $2,000 to $3,000 to remove a cataract from a dog, and you expect an eye specialist to remove a human cataract for $300. It is outrageous! But this is your care for the elderly.

You go and pour the money into schools to prop up your failing states, especially New South Wales, and neglect the very thing we must address first, and that is looking after our elderly. They are the very people who gave us this nation in the condition it is in now. They are the ones who fought in the wars, the ones who worked hard. And what are we doing? Closing their facilities. Recently 8,000 beds were issued and there were only 5,000 take-ups because the providers know very well that the money they get for aged-care nursing does not cover the cost of running the facilities. This is a big part of your negligence in the Labor Party: you will not look after our elderly.

I could go on and on, but I would just like to say that the Labor government in New South Wales are a disgrace. They have neglected the people of New South Wales, especially those in regional areas. No doubt everyone in New South Wales is looking at them and saying, ‘Bring on March 2011.’ No doubt the policies will flow on to Canberra.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is indeed interesting to follow Senator Williams in this matters of public importance debate. I think his state member is currently an Independent. After the next election, probably his federal member will be an Independent. Senator Heffernan is next to speak. He is one of the champions of the Liberal Party. His state member is a National Party member and his federal member is a National Party member.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My state member happens to be Adrian Piccoli.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and he is National Party, isn’t he? That is the point I am making.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Hutchins, you will direct your comments through the chair.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will. After the next federal election, I think the National Party might be almost without representation in New South Wales, except for possibly in the Riverina, where Mr Heffernan, despite his best efforts, will still have a National Party—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! You will refer to colleagues by the correct name.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan will still have a National Party member of federal parliament representing him.

We are confronting serious times. Indeed, a number of the speeches today have outlined some difficulties that governments are experiencing. But I want to commence my remarks by talking about an event that occurred in Sydney last Friday evening. The event was held at a restaurant called Le Montage, I think, in Leichhardt. Senator Faulkner may be able to help me here. We often hold Labor Party functions at that restaurant.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which one?

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Le Montage, in Leichhardt.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The old Apia Club.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the old Apia Club. It is not a bad venue for a reception. At a reception there last Friday night there was a guest speaker for a gathering of some of the most right-wing, extremist members of the New South Wales Liberal Party—people associated with David Clarke. I do not know whether Senator Heffernan was there or not. I asked whether Senator Fierravanti-Wells attended, but she did not. I am not sure if any other federal MPs were there.

Senator Cory Bernardi was the guest speaker for this 200-plus gathering of New South Wales Liberal Party extremists. I am not sure whether there was any sort of warm-up speech before Senator Bernardi made his contribution, but I understand that the occasion was to support the preselection of the extreme right wing candidate or one of the candidates in the forthcoming Bradfield electorate by-election. When Senator Bernardi commenced his address, to the delight of the crowd, I understand, he said—and I have this from a person who I understand was at the dinner—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan may be able to correct me when he gets up to speak, because he may have been at the dinner. I am not sure whether Senator Heffernan is in the extreme right wing faction of the Liberal Party or one of the combatants, but it was definitely the David Clarke group in the New South Wales Liberal Party. This also highlights exactly what Senator Cameron was talking about earlier. This is, I understand, how Senator Bernardi commenced his remarks. He said: ‘I wandered into an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting thinking it was a Liberal Party meeting. I said, “My name is Cory Bernardi, and I haven’t had a left-wing thought for 27 years and no-one in the Labor Party has ever approached me to join it!”’ That apparently brought the house down.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The MPI we are discussing is:

The need for the Federal Government to intervene, by way of wasteful spending to compensate for the policy failures of the New South Wales Labor Government.

Even on a very liberal interpretation of relevance, I fail to see how what Senator Hutchins is saying—that is, what Senator Bernardi allegedly said to a private gathering at a restaurant in Sydney which Senator Hutchins asserts had to do with internal Liberal Party affairs—has anything whatsoever to do with the MPI, and I invite you to rule it irrelevant.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: I listened very carefully to Senator Brandis’s erudite point of order but unfortunately I believe that there is no point of order. It would have had a great deal more credibility if he had taken a similar point of order while Senator Williams was raging against the New South Wales Labor Party in his speech. You have got to be consistent in these things, just a bit of give and take. As I say, there would be a great deal more credibility about this point of order if other speakers in the debate had not strayed into these sorts of areas. From my own point of view, I am listening very closely to what Senator Hutchins is saying. I must say I am finding it extremely interesting—just as I found Senator Williams’s comments very interesting as well. So I am asking for consistency in rulings from the chair in this regard, and I look forward to your ruling, Mr Acting Deputy President.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: that would of course be relevant for you to look at if indeed there had been a point of order taken during Senator Williams’s speech. But, as Senator Brandis quite rightly indicated, you have been asked to rule on the matters that have been referred to by Senator Hutchins—and, quite frankly, what Senator Williams said is old news.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am willing to make a ruling. Prior to you standing to take a point of order, Senator Brandis, I was reading the wording of the matter of public importance, which does say, and I repeat it for the sake of the Senate:

The need for the Federal Government to intervene, by way of wasteful spending to compensate for the policy failures of the New South Wales Labor Government.

I listened intently to Senator Williams and believe that his comments were in order. I draw Senator Hutchins’s attention to the motion. Matters of public importance are dealt with in a liberal manner, and I will continue with that convention for the time being, but I draw your attention to the fact that I will be listening intently to your comments, Senator Hutchins.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I appreciate your comments. I do want to go back to what I was saying, which was the alleged statement by Senator Bernardi which apparently brought the house down—that is, 200-plus extreme right wingers all gathered to basically ‘burn’ the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malcolm Turnbull. That is what it was all about. You do not need to be a Rhodes scholar to work out that Senator Bernardi was referring to Mr Turnbull’s previous acquaintance with maybe the Left of politics, his previous desire to be a member of the Labor Party, his association with us—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I repeat my point of order on relevance. This is now a commentary on the prior political career or history of Mr Turnbull. It cannot possibly be even indirectly relevant to the topic.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Hutchins, I draw your attention to the wording of the matter of public importance and ask you to relate your comments in some way to that reference.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will get to the point in a moment, unless I am prevented from doing so by being interrupted. As I was saying, this was a light-hearted attack, at a gathering of 200 extremists of the Liberal Party in New South Wales, on their federal leader. He was never going to be a federal Labor leader, George!

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! You will refer to senators in this place by their correct titles. Senator Hutchins, you referred to Senator Brandis—

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Brandis.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It could have been any ‘George’!

The Acting Deputy President:

Please refer to Senator Brandis in the correct manner.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will. Senator Brandis, he never was going to end up being our leader, I can tell you. As Senator Cameron said—without interruption—this demonstrates again the lack of policy, the lack of direction and the lack of leadership of the coalition currently. We have seen the twists and turns they have done over the last 12 months. They are finding it very difficult to be an opposition. As I said, you only have to look at their twists and turns.

I want to go further with what Senator Bernardi said at this gathering of extremists: ‘The Liberal Party will ultimately rediscover the success it seeks through a return to the Menzies inspiration, while remaining mindful of the difference between short-term public opinion and long-term public interest.’ That is what he said in his address to that dinner in inner Western Sydney.

One of the things that has interested me and a number of my colleagues in politics has been the degree to which the coalition has opposed our stimulus package. I think you can pretty much divide non-coalition and coalition supporters on the basis of their approaches to the stimulus package. I can only put it down to one thing: for almost half a century, we in this country—with a variety of governments in power—have enjoyed prosperity and safety. We have not had the political unrest or turmoil that has occurred in Third World countries or in less-developed countries. We have not had the mass insecurity; we have not had the political and social traumas. Our generation never went through those. The coalition is at one with Gordon Gekko: greed is good. That is where they are coming from. This generation—of which I, you, Mr Deputy President, and almost everybody in this room is a member—has never known that insecurity or that lack of prosperity.

I want to go back to what Senator Bernardi said. He harked back to the Menzies era. I would like to talk about some of the achievements of the Menzies government: what it did, what it introduced and why that occurred. That occurred because the men and women of that generation understood exactly what it was for people to be on dole queues and to face starvation, civil unrest, turmoil, suicides, homelessness and the collapse of the economy. They saw it in their lifetime; they saw it from 1929 until World War II commenced. Consensus between the parties, labour and non-labour, was established in this country and almost half a century earlier on the continent in Europe.

I am in the presence of an esteemed Labor historian, Senator Faulkner, so I hope I am not taken to any tribunal for lauding some of the achievements of the Menzies government! Let me tell you what the Menzies government did and remind Senator Bernardi, who, had he reminded the extremists in Leichhardt on Friday night, might have been hanged by them. Let me tell you about the expansion of the Menzies government into education, not only into universities and science labs but also into funding non-government schools. Let me tell you about the maintenance of the Snowy Mountains scheme and the millions of pounds—at that stage—that would have been poured into the construction of that mighty scheme initiated by Labor. It was the Menzies government that created at the CSIRO; it was the Menzies government that expanded the government’s role in social services; it was the Menzies government that expanded the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; it was the Menzies government that expanded pharmaceutical and pensioner medical services; it was the Menzies government that believed in the compulsory conciliation and arbitration system; and it was the Menzies government that expanded significantly the role of the federal government in the provision of services in this country. So I wonder whether Senator Bernardi’s right-wing extremist mates on Friday night knew exactly how much the Menzies government did by consensus to expand the role of government in developing what the Australian economy needed at that time. Did Senator Bernardi’s mates know?

We might call this a stimulus package from 1949 onwards. We might have to call it that, because the government at that time knew exactly what they were confronted with: they were confronted with the images that they had seen for themselves in the Great Depression. A number of them would have seen for themselves the depressions that occurred from the beginning of the 20th century. They were never going to see those things happen again while they could do something about it, and that is equally so where the Rudd government is concerned. We are not going to see dole queues and we are not going to see the unrest or the turmoil that has occurred as a result of the inaction of governments when action is required. This government has decided to intervene because we are not going to forget like the coalition has forgotten. We cannot forget those periods in our own past; we cannot forget that these things occurred, and they are never going to occur again. That is what I cannot understand when people invoke the name of Menzies—they do not necessarily understand the complete contribution by that government in the expansion of the federal role in the provision of services in this country.

I do not think that goes down well with the coalition side, because they do not know their history. Again—and this is one of the terrible things that has been occurring—people have forgotten the past; they have forgotten that turbulence. They have indeed forgotten it, but we have not forgotten it. We know exactly what would happen. We know that our unemployment rate is not anything like what it is in the United States or Britain or continental Europe. We know that we have got people at work. We know that retail sales are going up. We know that, if the coalition did get away with it and was able to block our stimulus package, we would be heading towards 10 per cent unemployment at the moment. We know all these things. Indeed, we have been approved by international bodies. Let me tell you what the IMF said when it welcomed the design and implementation of our stimulus package:

We welcome the quick implementation of targeted and temporary fiscal stimulus. The stimulus provides a sizable boost to domestic demand in 2009 and 2010 that will cushion the impact of global recession.

Well, isn’t that marvellous! That is great if you are one of those people who is actually at work because of the government’s intervention in the economy. It further says:

... the Government’s commitment to return to surpluses and achieve a positive budget balance on average over the medium-term is commendable ... few other advanced economies have adopted such a clear commitment.

That is what we are doing. That is what we have decided to do.

We have been opposed every step of the way by this coalition. They have sat on their hands and they have come up with no alternative policy in this regard. If we had their strategy we believe that there would be an additional 210,000 Australians out of work today. We could not let that happen because we are not going to forget that period from 1929 onwards when there was hopelessness and turmoil. It is not in our make-up and we will ensure that this stimulus package is continued so that men and women in this country are protected from the worst excesses of the global recession.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the great tests in public life, I think the most important, is not to get trapped by other people’s trappings and not to have a price. I have to say that I do not have a price and I do not like crooks. I notice that the terms for this matter of public importance are:

The need for the Federal Government to intervene, by way of wasteful spending to compensate for the policy failures of the New South Wales Labor Government.

I notice that the Labor Party have not actually mentioned New South Wales because it is a constitutional flaw that you cannot get rid of a government that has completely failed and lost its intellectual base. I have to say that there are probably six or eight people in New South Wales parliament, in government, who should be in jail.

Let me give you an instance of the waste by the Commonwealth that is occurring. I have spoken to the government about some of these issues. There is a school in Sydney that is getting a seven core library, costing the Commonwealth $727,000. It is on a flat site. This building was already in the program under the state scheme and was costed out in February under the state building program for $285,000. The state was going to do it for $285,000. Switch the responsibility to the Commonwealth and the cost is $727,000!

Some of that money could have gone, for instance, to Westmead Cancer Care Centre, where I spent three hours last week. The Westmead Cancer Care Centre does some wonderful work right from the laboratory to the patient. I talked to some of the patients who were having their last chance treatment and are facing a pretty grim circumstance. We do not have money for Westmead but we have money to treble the price for a school building somewhere simply because we have transferred it to the Commonwealth. Westmead Hospital does some wonderful work and I plead for people to understand that they have a wonderful resource out there. It is the best in the southern hemisphere and it badly needs resources.

By the way, the key researchers out there are almost on weekly contracts because the hospital cannot guarantee them beyond a few months’ work because they do not have the budget. These are key researchers who look after people’s lives. They have now identified the melanoma gene, and that work is going to save a lot of people. The biggest killer of men between 25 and 45 is melanoma. So that is the waste.

I did notice in the Australian that Paul Kelly said in November 2008 that the decay of New South Wales was reflected in the open antagonism towards the government by Paul Keating and people like John Robertson and the fact that the government in New South Wales has been handed back to the New South Wales trade union movement.

There is a cost in not having a price. Last Thursday I got a death threat. I rang the AFP. They did not have enough people to put anyone on the case. I have had a $1 million bribe offer. I do not know how many people in this room have had a $1 million bribe offer, but I have. This was from people who are wanting to develop things in Sydney. I said to the guy, ‘Hang on a minute. I actually do this for nothing.’ But unfortunately in New South Wales there are a lot of people who say, ‘Yeah, let’s go and have a cup of coffee and get down to business.’ What is going on in New South Wales is a dear and expensive way to learn a lesson. I know a lot of the people involved and I know that some of those people expect a return on their money. It is pretty sad that a lot of people do have a price.

I take you to something that is more ‘touch and feel’, and that is the fact that in New South Wales historically in a few weeks time—and I cannot think of another time when this has happened—they are going to put a bank across the Lachlan River below Condobolin and cut the river off. Where is the Green movement? Bob, where is your mob? They are about to cut the Lachlan River off. We have just restocked it with fish—30 inches they are; my man caught a couple the other day. Without any consultation with the community, without even knowing how many people are going to be affected, they have taken a decision to put a block in the Lachlan River. Everyone downstream from Condobolin has been told, ‘Make your own arrangements.’

Not only is the department in New South Wales at fault but I would have thought that the landowners themselves are at fault. I would have thought the management committee of the river is at fault. I asked them: how many people are going to be affected? They did not know. I asked them: how many stock are going to be affected? They did not know. These properties rely on the river for stock and domestic water and, as Senator Fisher would say, for ‘critical human needs water’, but we have taken a decision to block it.

We have the Cadia mine—a big enterprise—looking to further develop the mine. They want to take more water out of the subcatchment of the Lachlan River. I have the plan here and I will table it. It is a project application and statement of objection to the project by the Belubula Landholders Association. This mine wants to take more water from the system. There is no understanding of the connection between groundwater and the river. The Upper Lachlan landowners, Mr Moxey and his mob, actually control the committee that controls the management of the river. They are not restricted in how much groundwater they can take out of the ground in the Upper Lachlan aquifer—whereas the blokes down at Hillston have been controlled, and they should have been controlled because what they were taking was excessive. But the excessive extraction from the aquifer at the top of the river is not controlled. The only reason they are allowed to do it is that the New South Wales government has not got around to doing the management plan for that aquifer. As we know, there is a lot of connectivity between groundwater and rivers. Up to 40 per cent of the river water is actually groundwater flowing into the river. But, no, in New South Wales it does not matter.

Historically I cannot remember a time when the government took a decision to put a block in the river and let everyone downstream, including the fish and livestock, make their own arrangements. I cannot think of a better example of an incompetent godforsaken government. It is an absolute and utter disgrace. It is a constitutional flaw. The mob over here do not care. There is not one person in this government in this parliament who lives and/or makes their living in the bush. They do not care and they do not know.

It is time that Australia’s farmers marched on this place and had a meeting out the front. Go to Tasmania and talk to the dairy farmers. You would be familiar with this, Mr Acting Deputy President Barnett. The dairy farmers have just been told they will get 26c a litre for milk.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Your time has expired. Were you seeking leave to table a document?

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I seek leave to table the Belubula Landowners Association statement of rejection to the further expansion of the Cadia mine.

The Acting Deputy President:

Is leave granted?

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At this stage leave is not granted, because the usual courtesy of providing a copy of the document has not been adhered to. It has just been thrown at me by Senator Heffernan. I will have a look at it. If it is alright, at a later stage it can be tabled. There are normal courtesies involved. Thank you for throwing it at me. I will now have a look at it.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I am very happy to put the Belubula landowners document on the record, because that is how it should be, but the form is for the senator to provide that to other members of the house first. I might also add that, if Senator Heffernan wishes to take some action about the blocking of the Lachlan River, which sounds to me to be full of incredible problems, then let him take action because actions speak louder than words. The Greens will certainly be there taking consideration of that action in this Senate.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have glanced quickly at this document, but that will not necessarily solve the problem because Senator Bob Brown has not had an opportunity to sight it. Senator Heffernan, I do not want you anywhere near me, thank you. You have to retain your sense of humour in this place. Did you actually mean for the email to be tabled?

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not the email; just the white papers. I was in a hurry.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were in a hurry. What about the covering email?

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

None of that; just the submission.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So there are two documents you do not want tabled that you have passed on. You are not very careful with documents, Senator Heffernan. Anyway, I am happy, on behalf of the government, to give leave for the Belubula Landowners Association document, given to me discourteously by Senator Heffernan, to be tabled. This is subject to the views of other senators in the chamber, of course.

Leave granted.