Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I spent 10 years in the New South Wales parliament. When I have been asked by people over the last four years to compare the two parliaments, I have spoken of this parliament in complimentary terms in respect of the committee processes and the capacity for Independent members to speak on many issues—although from time to time I have been gagged. By comparison I would have to say that, in the four years that I have been here, this has been a better parliament in respect of scrutiny and committee processes than the New South Wales parliament was in the 10 years I was there—which included four years of a hung parliament when, quite obviously, the various systems changed and scrutiny was much closer and better.

What we have seen in recent weeks—and I think the member for Calare hinted at this as well—should serve as a warning to the Prime Minister and to some of the executives within the government. There is no need to go down this road. This parliament does not have to continue down the path it seems to be taking. In the last few weeks the Prime Minister initiated debate on nuclear energy and renewable energy resources, and I applaud him for that. He then brought into this place important pieces of legislation on renewable energy and a whole gamut of issues. On two occasions he used the guillotine to gag debate. There is no need for this parliament to do that. Although the Labor Party did it some years ago, it should not be an excuse for this Prime Minister and the executive to follow suit. Although the numbers provide the capacity to do these sorts of things, it does not mean that they should be done—for example, to guillotine debate and to rearrange Senate committees so they are more favourable to the government of the day.

In my view, one of the great strengths of this parliament compared with the New South Wales parliament is that, under the current government—and I compliment them—there has been scrutiny. No doubt people would say that numbers in the Senate have changed and therefore the government has the capacity to make changes and to stick it into the Labor Party—that the government can stick it into the Labor Party because Bob Hawke or whomever, as the member for Fadden mentioned, did it to them.

I have just spent some time with the William Cowper school—a very good school from my electorate—where I talked about the parliamentary processes. I did not mention the capacity for the government to use the numbers to stick it into the opposition because I do not think the general public, and particularly the children, want this parliament to do that. Just because it happened in the past, I do not think they think it should happen in the future. The mandate that this Prime Minister has been given provides an enormous opportunity to send a different message to the public, for which he would be rewarded at the ballot box. However, if he maintains this path he will not be rewarded at the ballot box. The member for Calare and other members have made some important points. There are messages out there. People are searching for alternatives, and they will eventually find them. It is a great shame that the opposition is not up to the game and that it is allowing the government to pursue this course. But the penny turns—the wheel turns—and there is an opportunity for the government to maintain a degree of integrity by allowing the committee processes to work in such a way that they are not blatantly political, which they were in the New South Wales parliament to the extent that it was just a waste of time being on them.

This place should not go down that path of creating an institution where everybody who goes to a meeting knows the outcome before they go through the door; otherwise the participation in the processes becomes degraded and that flows into the general public arena. So there are warning signs for the government. I would suggest to the government that it does not have to go down this path. Two wrongs do not necessarily make a right. It is no wonder that others in the community are looking at various voting options. If this parliament goes down this path, I will do my level best to assist people in the Senate next time.

The government has been given a great opportunity in the Senate. I was involved in a very small way back in the early eighties, when Malcolm Fraser came in and controlled both houses of parliament. That provided a lot of opportunities—some of which did not happen and some did. Here is an opportunity for the government to do good things. It should not develop a wedge agenda to stick into the opposition. There is a real opportunity to do some good things for this nation. Do not waste that time with the stupidity that is going on in this place at the moment. Prime Minister, if you want an energy debate, let us have one. Do not play wedge politics out there in the public arena by saying, ‘It’s all about Kim Beazley and three mines’ and then not allowing the issue to be debated in the parliament. You have that opportunity in the Senate to set up committees to really look at the energy needs of this country.

Just in the last weeks we have had the absurd reaction of the Treasurer talking in this place about the mandating of ethanol and how that will cause the price of petrol to increase. Then the leader of the National Party, Mark Vaile, went to a conference on the coast and said, ‘We’re in there arguing for ethanol and it will lead to a decrease in the price of fuel.’ We are having all these mixed messages. Let us have a debate about energy—one that has some meaningful purpose for the people of Australia.

The other act of dishonesty that occurred in recent months was by the Prime Minister and the then Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, saying to water users that there will be a compensation arrangement made for them to adjust their water entitlements to a sustainable level for the environmental, long-term good of the nation. I applauded them for doing that; it is something that I had argued for many years. But now we find that income tax will be placed upon those compensation arrangements.

In conclusion, there will be a test for the Senate as to whether or not the changes have been appropriate. Currently, the Australian Electoral Commissioner is investigating Tamworth businessman Gregory Maguire because of some issues he has with the Electoral Commission, and those findings will be referred to the Senate for determination. I ask members of the media, many of whom are gathered in the gallery today, to examine this issue when it is referred to the Senate to see whether the government uses its numbers to cover up the issue or whether the reconstituted Senate committee uses the appropriate means at its disposal to examine the issue.

My final words are to the Prime Minister. There is no need, Prime Minister, to go down this road; you can do it differently. You do not have to do it the old way because they had the numbers; you do not have to stick it into the opposition. The people of Australia want you to do it differently. If you do, you will be rewarded; if you do not, in my view, you will be punished and you will deserve to be punished.

See this speech in context