Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome this opportunity in the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and related bills to debate the Howard government’s latest budget and its impact on my constituents and on the nation’s future. As with all budgets brought down by governments of all political persuasions, there are winners and losers, and this budget is no exception. With the Commonwealth literally dripping with taxation revenue in 2007 it is not surprising that in this election year the Howard government has sought to ensure that there are many winners across the political spectrum in order to prop up the parlous political position that it currently finds itself in.

I have no argument with tax cuts being made available for low-income earners and others in Geelong, given that the highest taxation and highest spending Treasurer in Australia’s history has had his hands deep in the pockets of Geelong workers and businesses to create his surplus. The very least he could do in this budget is return some of what he has taken. But there is one big loser in this budget and it is Australia’s future. Once again this very tricky but clever and arrogant Prime Minister has put his own political survival ahead of the nation’s interests.

The lot of Geelong working families over the past year has not been an easy one to bear. They have shouldered the burden of higher petrol prices because of price movements not only as a result of the market but as a result of conditions influenced by the Howard government’s war in Iraq. They have endured higher public health insurance premiums, despite assurances from the government at the previous election that they would be held in check. They have endured four interest rate rises since the last election, courtesy of the Howard government, which have put an intolerable burden on household income. They have faced increased childcare costs over the life of this government, as they have struggled to balance their work and family responsibilities, and many of them have had to bear the burden of reduced income as a direct result of the Howard government’s Work Choices legislation—the disastrous policy that the Prime Minister today dares not speak its name.

I welcome the extra funding provided in the budget for Animal Health Australia in Geelong and I hope that additional funding will flow to roads in the region, to Deakin University and the Gordon TAFE and to environmental projects such as Barwon Water’s recycling plant as the year unfolds. But it is clear that the government has well and truly failed the future test in this budget, failing to set priorities and address challenges facing Australia in the long term in the areas of fast speed broadband, early childhood education and climate change.

On the more general economic front Australia has been blessed with this new era of prosperity, ushered in by the Hawke-Keating government, which has endured in recent times, supported quite dramatically by spectacular growth in the economies of China and India and an unparalleled era of global growth. Labor’s success in breaking the back of Liberal inflation laid the foundation for the historically low interest rate regime that has fuelled the current housing boom. Labor reforms—such as floating the dollar, cutting tariffs, enterprise bargaining, deregulation of the banking system, cutting red tape and reform—restructured the Australian economy and laid a solid foundation for Australia to exploit the best terms of trade it has ever enjoyed. Yet, despite this obvious prosperity, the Howard government in this budget and previous ones has failed to capture important opportunities to secure the long-term future of the nation.

While the Treasurer lauds the government’s economic achievements, there are fundamental weaknesses in the Australian economy, and the failure of the Howard government to address them will haunt this nation for decades. Despite global growth and the rise of the Chinese and Indian economies, the productivity of the Australian economy continues to decline from an average of over three per cent in the mid-1990s, to little over two per cent at the turn of the century and it is expected to decline to 1.5 per cent in this current decade.

This is a result of a failure of the Howard government to plan and of government policy neglect, particularly in the important areas of skill development and infrastructure spending—two pillars of economic productivity. The government’s own estimates put the shortage of skilled workers by 2016 at 240,000. The failure of the Howard government in this era of prosperity to adequately invest in education and skills formation leaves the nation lagging badly behind our competition in a situation that can only get worse if is not addressed now. The building of world-class infrastructure in road, rail, ports, broadband and transport generally is absolutely necessary to underpin our future productivity, competitiveness and economic growth, yet the Business Council of Australia estimates the shortfall at $90 billion. The Howard government continues to squander billions in a useless war in Iraq, hundreds of millions in useless advertising and $600 million to finance its Work Choices fiasco.

The simple fact is that Australia’s productivity growth is lagging. Its current account deficit and trade deficit are widening. Its export performance has plummeted. Its infrastructure expenditure is deficient. Its education and skills formation expenditure is in relative decline. Its R&D expenditures are poor and not concentrated up the value-adding chain. Its households and businesses have to put up with substandard broadband connections at a critical stage of our economic development. If that is not enough, we have a Prime Minister and government that, by virtue of their intransigence in Kyoto, have written Australia out of accessing billions of dollars of new opportunities in energy renewable technologies and industrial practices. It is a sorry state when you contemplate the implications of 11 long years of benign neglect.

Let me now turn to the budget papers and the assistance provided to local government through the government budget. In 2007-08 it will be in the order of $2.3 billion, with $1.7 billion coming to local government in the form of financial assistance grants—FAGs—distributed through the states and $557 million in direct payments to local governments to fund local roads projects, water infrastructure, childcare programs and disability and other services administered by local government on the Commonwealth’s behalf. In my electorate over $15 million goes directly to the City of Greater Geelong in the form of FAGs and many more millions go to aforementioned programs and purposes. As the federal member, I have a direct interest in the governance of the city, its planning procedures and its expenditures, especially as funding for the city is raised by the Commonwealth through taxation on Geelong households and businesses.

In a speech to the House in the grievance debate last week, I canvassed the important matter that has come to be known in Geelong as the cash for councillors/Costagate affair, a matter which goes to the heart of ethics, accountability, transparency and good governance in the City of Greater Geelong and something that I think every member of this parliament would be intimately interested in. The issue was canvassed at length in that speech and I do not propose to detail it again here except to say that in the grievance address I called for an inquiry with judicial powers into the cash for councillors affair and for Premier Bracks to set up an independent corruption commission in Victoria.

The need for a further inquiry and the establishment of a corruption commission is now even more urgent in the wake of the decision by some hopelessly compromised councillors to ram through an amendment to the City of Greater Geelong’s port structure plan to accommodate Mr Frank Costa’s HomeTown development.

It is very clear that certain councillors have deliberately flouted the city’s code of conduct approved by council only two months ago on 13 March 2007. According to that document, the purpose of the code of conduct is to affirm to councillors the requirements to fulfil their statutory duty to act in accordance with section 76(b) of the Local Government Act, which states that councillors must:

a) Act honestly

…                     …                   …

c) Not make improper use of their position

To gain, or attempt to gain, directly or indirectly, an unethical advantage for themselves or for any other person, or

To cause, or attempt to cause, the Council to be held in disrespect.

Further, according to the code, councillors must:

... act in a way which enhances public confidence in the system of local government.

Given what we know up to this point about the cash for councillors affair, it is clear that some hopelessly compromised councillors have seriously violated their own code of conduct. Part 2 of the code requires that, in fulfilling their various roles, councillors will act in the best interest of the City of Greater Geelong community. Section 5.2 states:

Consultation, representation, equity, openness and accountability are the key features of the relationships between Council and the Community.

And that councillors will:

... make decisions in the best interest of the community after considering all relevant interests, arriving at balanced and sustainable decisions;

And point 5.2.9 states:

... seek to build community confidence in Council’s ability to make informed and objective decisions.

These sections of the code have certainly been violated by the council’s recent decision. The VCAT special panel report—which was commissioned by council and had regard to the city’s planning scheme, the state planning policy framework, the municipal strategy statement, local planning policy, the metropolitan strategy Melbourne 2030 and submissions and evidence of various parties—said:

The Hometown Geelong proposal fails to comply with, and or advance a raft of State and Local Planning policies.

The VCAT report considers that the Port of Geelong is a major infrastructure of state significance; that the subject land is an important strategic site which sits within a port industrial precinct and should not be rezoned lightly; that it is a strategically significant industrial site and that ‘future options for industrial or port uses should be retained for the further development of the site’. The port is a very important regional and state asset as well as an asset of great importance to the national economy. Of course, we know that in the budget there have been specific funds allocated for infrastructure works by this government to both ports and transport systems.

The panel was scathing in its criticism of the HomeTown proposal and of its failure to comply with the city’s existing development strategy. It said:

The panel concludes that the proposal does not deliver a net community benefit and recommends its abandonment.

In light of the potential adverse impacts on other Geelong retailing businesses and on the future of the port, it is the view of many that councillors have not acted in the best interests of the Geelong community.

I have also received advice that there is a prima facie case that, in making this decision, certain councillors have breached section 77A of the Victorian Local Government Act 1989 relating to disclosure of interest by failing to disclose a potential conflict of interest. Section 77A, disclosure of interests, states:

(1) ... a Councillor has an interest in a matter in which the Council is concerned and is, or is likely to be, considered or discussed at a meeting of the Council ... if subsection (2) applies.

Subsection (2) states:

This subsection applies if, were the matter to be decided on in a particular manner, the Councillor or member or a person with whom the Councillor or a member is closely associated—

(a)

would receive or have received a reasonable expectation of receiving, a direct or indirect pecuniary or non-pecuniary benefit;

…            …            …

(c)

could be reasonably perceived as—

(i)

receiving a direct or indirect pecuniary or non-pecuniary benefit.

Subsection (4) states:

If subsection (2) applies, the Councillor or the member of the special committee must disclose the interest to Council or the special committee before the matter is considered or discussed at the meeting.

Subsection (5) states:

A disclosure under subsection (4) must—

(a)

include the nature of the relevant interest; and

(b)

be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

A failure to comply with this section of the act would violate the conflict of interest provision 5.6 of the councillors code of conduct.

In making my call for a further inquiry with judicial powers into the cash for councillors affair and the establishment of an independent corruption commission in this state, I welcomed the recent statement by Mr Frank Costa, whose HomeTown proposal is at the heart of this controversy, which supports my call. But I must admit that I am confused by his public position. In response to my previous calls, Mr Costa has brushed them off, claiming they were motivated by political considerations. Yet, now, when he supports my call, his motivation—according to the Geelong Advertiser of 30 May—‘is to weed out rogue bureaucrats and elected officials and ensure those in power worked in the best interests of their communities’. My sentiments entirely. I could not agree more.

But it is only now, when the Premier has declared he will not set up an ICAC, and the minister for local government has stated that he does not intend to set up another inquiry into cash for councillors that Mr Costa feels secure in supporting calls that he is fairly confident the state government will never heed. The issues surrounding HomeTown certainly are political but, I suggest, not for the reasons that Mr Costa promotes. They are my concerns because they are matters of transparency and accountability in the governance of the region, and those are core principles that are pursued by every member in this parliament and indeed the government of the day.

My job as a federal member is to protect the public interest, be it in securing good governance or securing the long-term economic future of the port and the region, even though the port is in private hands. There are very powerful reasons why port land needs to be protected for the existing and future benefit of the region and the state. This is acknowledged in council’s own documents and by the state government and, I suggest, would be agreed to by this government as well.

As the senior Labor member in Geelong representing working people they are my concerns because the bagmen in the whole sorry cash for councillors affair, according to the Whelan report, are the ALP’s Councillor Saunderson and Mr Costa’s Mr Baylin. They are my concern because, according to the Whelan report, the cash and cash cheques for the secret fund were delivered to the office of John Eren, a Labor MP. They are my concern because a senior Liberal in Geelong has stated that he was approached by Mr Costa to stand for council and was advised to see John Eren and his electorate officer, David Saunderson, about support. He was interviewed for the position by Mr Eren and Councillor Saunderson and then, to his eternal credit, ran a mile from it because it all smelled to high heaven.

Mr Costa consistently maintains that his intention was only to support the best candidates for council. Given the web of lies and deceit from donors and councillors over the matter, one has to question Mr Costa’s judgement. Lies and deceit are not good family values, Frank. If quality were the desired outcome of the exercise, as Mr Costa has stated, then he might reflect on whether he got good value for his money in the exercise. I note in the chamber some members from Western Australia, who would understand what has transpired at the Busselton council and other councils in the state of Western Australia. Mr Costa has publicly stated that he and other wealthy businessmen ought not to be obliged to declare political donations to political candidates. I remind Mr Costa that wealthy businessmen are not above the law. There is not one law for him and another for the rest of the Geelong community. This is not Queensland in the 1980s, and on that proposition he is out of step with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Australian parliament, the community of Geelong and the rest of Australia.

It is time for Mr Costa to step up to the plate. No more retreating to the Geelong footy club when the heat is on HomeTown. No more fluffy stories about family and community values and how he cleaned up the Queen Victoria Market. It is time for Mr Costa to front up to his own responsibility for the cash for councillors mess, because it is one of his own creation. It is time we called a spade a spade on the HomeTown fiasco. Mr Costa is not fronting a local consortium in HomeTown; it is a Melbourne based consortium comprising powerful businessmen who stand to make a lot of money if it proceeds—probably at the expense of other Geelong retail businesses and the long-term future of the region.

The Geelong community wants to hear how he is going to assist in cleaning up Geelong, so I invite Mr Costa to disclose once and for all the benefits to the Geelong community, and the full list of councillors and candidates who receive funding from the $50,000 slush fund he established. His failure to make that disclosure up to this point has done enormous damage to public confidence, the governance of the city and its reputation nationwide.

I have served the electors of Corio and working people in Geelong for over 14 years in this parliament, and I am happy to tell Mr Costa and the community why I raise these matters in this place and in the public arena. I raise them for the many small retail businesses fearful of their future if HomeTown proceeds in violation of the independent VCAT panel’s recommendations that it be dumped. I raise them for a community that is angry that local government planning processes are being rorted, and feels powerless to do anything about it. I raise them for the working family whose members have had their amenity and quiet enjoyment of their property destroyed by decisions of councillors behind closed doors in contravention of the council’s own planning policies. I raise them for the businessman who has come to me with his story of losing a city contract because he refused to grease the palm of some council officers, a matter I intend referring to the police. I raise it for the community groups and individuals whose legitimate rights, interests and concerns, in their view, have been severely compromised by the actions of some councillors and who have nowhere else to go.

The simple fact is that a culture has grown up inside and outside council in which planning and other council processes have been manipulated for the benefit of a few insiders but to the detriment of other businesses and the wider Geelong community. It is time to root out the cancer that is still eating away at the heart of the Geelong community. When the going gets tough, as other members know, there is always one wag in the community who succinctly sums it all up with typical Australian humour. At the local footy some time ago, one good working-class lad urged me to keep doing my job, to stay in the ring and to clean up this mess. After moralising about it for some time, he winked and grinned and said: ‘Hell, Gav, if we had’ve known the councillors were going so cheap we would have put a couple on the Bankcard. Maybe then we would’ve got the oval watered for the preseason.’ I did not have the heart to tell him Bankcard was no longer operative. It would have been funny if it were not so sad. (Time expired)

See this speech in context