Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It won't shock you to find that I oppose this motion. It is a great privilege to be able to stand up and give a speech on this motion, because it seemed for a while that the opposition wasn't going to support their own motion. But truthfully, I'm glad that the member for Bruce has done so, because it gives us an opportunity to address some of the fundamental problems coming from the member for Newcastle. The member for Newcastle ended her speech by saying that the neo-liberalism bogey man experience has come to get everybody, and that there is no benefit to actually making sure that institutions can actually be run by the private sector. I was asked recently, rhetorically I might add, in an article whether there has ever been a bigger capitulation, in terms of public policy in Australia. Somebody was using a particular example. I highlighted to them that yes, there was, against ideology, and it was that the Labor Party, the party which is committed to the socialist objective, was the one that privatised Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank. Don't get me wrong: I think they got it right. But according to the member for Newcastle, they got that wrong. This is why they can no longer claim the mantle of the Hawke-Keating legacy, because they are even abandoning the idea that they think that a private bank is a good idea. Maybe they are digging former Prime Minister Chifley from the grave and trying to resurrect the idea that everything should be nationalised and banks should be taken into public hands.

An honourable member: Food production!

Exactly! My knowledgeable colleague makes the point that there are services that are so critical that they cannot possibly be run by the private sector. Food and agriculture is a classic example. But actually we know that when food is put into hands of the socialist means of production, it doesn't lead to bounty; it leads to bread lines.

An honourable member: Come on, Venezuela!

Yes, Venezuela. Their great success story in oil is one of many ways to bankrupt a country. This motion is a farce from beginning to end. In fact the motion itself almost makes me want to look up parliamentary practice and House practice to understand what the formal definition of 'misleading the parliament' is.

Here is the reality: the Commonwealth supports a number of public servants to do a job to enable the government to do its job and to assist the people of Australia. It is an entirely reasonable thing to do. Of course, you don't need to constantly increase the number of public servants in perpetuity. There are entirely reasonable, logical reasons that you would outsource activities, because skills or knowledge might sit outside the public service. Believe it or not, an all-knowing, perfect government does not exist. We might have division of labour. We might realise that there are advantages, because some skills may only be needed for a short time, or you might be able to purchase certain types of contract. The logic of the opposition is that the government should essentially do all because in the end those skills must rest within the public sector.

Instead, this government looks at taxpayers' money, makes rational, reasoned decisions about what is best value and what will enable the public service to do its jobs properly and deliver for the people of Australia. So we don't believe in the unending increase in the public service. We agree in it doing its job well and resourcing it well to deliver for the people that we are all elected to represent and serve. So we take a very pragmatic approach, but it doesn't work for the ideologues on the other side of this chamber.

Let's face it, today's modern Australian Labor Party simply does not represent working people. Today it is the party of public sector workers and organised capital, and that is the basis of everything they fight for in this chamber. You can talk about tradies these days and, frankly, the Labor Party won't say a word. Independent contractors? They're not interested. But start criticising or saying there should be some sort of constraint on the Public Service and watch the outrage. If you really want to see them angry, just ask them about industry superannuation. They will lose their nut, because, in the end, they only represent their own interests. They're only representing the people who pay for the memberships, and in Victoria today we've seen just how extensive that patronage network and their voter motivation is. (Time expired.)

See this speech in context