Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It was interesting to note the remarks made by the honourable member opposite in his speech. He is totally critical of the New Zealand regulatory regime and suggests that New Zealand has, in some way, an unsafe air system. He ought to appreciate that the government in New Zealand which presides over this air system that he deems to be unsafe is a Labour government.

I want to address the matter made by the honourable member with respect to the cost to Australia of the provisions of the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand) Bill 2005 [2006]. Obviously one always likes to see as many Australian jobs created as possible. I have to say that since the Howard government was elected in 1996 it has had an unprecedented record on the creation of jobs. In fact, people now have a very much greater opportunity to get one foot on the employment ladder as a result of the positive economic reforms of this government and as a result of the way in which it has created a situation where business is prepared to invest and grow.

Of course, the best way to create jobs is to have a vibrant economy. Most countries throughout the world hold this government and this government’s economic performance up as a paragon, as something worthy of being followed. So it is unfortunate that the member for Batman tends to overlook this government’s sterling performance with respect to job creation and tries to focus on the possibility that some Australian jobs in the civil aviation market may not continue to exist. I do not think he provided any firm evidence that the jobs in Australia were going to reduce in number. However, I take the view that this legislation is a small step forward in the harmonisation of laws between Australia and New Zealand.

I am one of those who agrees with the member for Moncrieff. I think he said that Australia and New Zealand have a common destination. My own view is that the common destination ought to be that Australia and New Zealand achieve their ultimate destiny, which is to become one nation. Were Australia and New Zealand to complete the processes that were commenced with the colonial conferences prior to the commencement of the 20th century then there would be a much greater level of harmonisation, and we would be not only having more harmonisation in the area of civil aviation but also reducing costs to business, creating a situation where bureaucracy was less and removing some of the differences which really have very little justification for existing.

I know there has been a substantial degree of harmonisation between Australia and New Zealand, but I think it really is important that we have, in this area of civil aviation, the harmonisation that is being brought about by the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand) Bill 2005 [2006]. For the record, I personally support a single currency between Australia and New Zealand. If it is possible for the very different countries of Europe to implement the euro given their histories, why is it not possible for Australia and New Zealand, with two currencies which are not really worth much different from each other, to have the benefits of a combined currency?

What is the logic in New Zealand of having extraordinarily expensive mobile phone rates? Telstra used to provide a mobile phone service in East Timor prior to East Timor’s independence, and that was able to be managed. I personally believe there should be a joint telecommunications market and there should be a joint banking market. In fact, I believe that Australia and New Zealand have a common destiny.

That is why the contribution made by the member for Batman—and I know where he is coming from ideologically—does not have a great deal of logic, bearing in mind that increasingly Australia and New Zealand will become integrated. Small steps, such as those proposed by the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand) Bill 2005 [2006], ought to be supported and encouraged.

Highlighted by a healthy rivalry in all things, from sport through to business, the people of the six states of continental Australia and New Zealand share a great relationship. This trans-Tasman competitiveness drives and pushes citizens on both sides of the Tasman to be as good as they can be, each trying to outdo the other, but in the process rising to become better, more improved individuals. Of course, the combination of those efforts on both sides of the Tasman means that Australasia as an entity becomes more effective, more competitive and more world-class. There will always be differences, such as on the rugby union field. Citizens from both our nations also share a great love of travel.

The member for Moncrieff referred to New Zealanders visiting the Gold Coast and to people from the Gold Coast visiting New Zealand. I have to say that in my electorate of Fisher on the Sunshine Coast I suspect I have the biggest New Zealand constituency in the world other than a constituency based in the islands of New Zealand. There would be more resident New Zealanders in the electorate of Fisher than probably anywhere else other than in a New Zealand electorate. I know that they share our values, I know that they pay their taxes and I know that they are very worthwhile citizens. I can understand why those citizens from New Zealand would choose to live on the Sunshine Coast whereas citizens from New Zealand choose only to visit the Gold Coast.

See this speech in context