Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

That is why they get upset. It is good to see them come out. They send their chargers in here because this is a pressure point that hurts. They know that they have crossed the line, and they are trying to play this funny little game. We will see Mr Rudd with an earnest look on his face, saying, ‘Oh, they are just so shocking back in Queensland. Hang on—that is where I come from.’ That is where Mr Rudd is from. The Queensland Labor Party? Hang on—that is Mr Rudd’s family. His party in his state brought this legislation into existence.

Let us go to more technicalities. In the Labor Party legislation, which is a complete affront to the democratic process and which reflects the culture of the Labor Party, three union delegates are appointed to the transitional committees. Most of these union delegates are not even from the same region, yet they have the right to be on the transitional committee regarding how these amalgamations go forward. Once more, it is an affront to the democratic process. It is a complete walking over of the fundamental voting liberties of people in the area. Not only do they have to deal with the insult of having their first form of democratic representation ripped out from underneath them; they then have to put up with this affront where the person who is going to deliver the remedy is appointed by the Labor Party and is from somewhere else. It verges on pathos. Everything about the Labor Party on this issue is contrived, duplicitous and a complete affront to where this nation should be.

How are we going to deal with the inherent nastiness of the Australian Labor Party? How are we going to deal with those towns that are going to be left behind in a pool of poverty because of the actions of the Labor Party? Let us say that a pensioner lives in a town. All of a sudden, the main employer leaves and the value of the pensioner’s house goes from, say, $120,000—because generally these are not rich people—down to $40,000, down to $10,000 or down to unsaleable. It represents their life savings. What are we going to say to that pensioner? How are we going to deal with that? What is the Australian Labor Party’s policy for that? What are they going to do on that issue?

What are they going to do when the doctor leaves and the chemist leaves and people do not have access to medical supplies? What are they going to do when they do not have access to a doctor and when the whole infrastructure of a town is taken up and moved away? Are they going to provide a support package so that we can get them into Ipswich? Are they going to buy them another house? Are they going to buy them another life? Or are they just going to allow this process to go forward?

Here is another example of the duplicitous and contrived nature of the Labor Party. They have said, ‘We’re going to repeal this legislation.’ They have not. It is not up for debate; it has not happened. They talked about it three weeks ago and I thought: if the Labor Party thought that it was such an affront, you would think that Mr Rudd would have the conviction to get on the phone to his colleagues in Queensland and say, ‘Look, you’d better get on with that piece of legislation. It is kind of important.’ But they do not. It is not even worth a phone call from Mr Rudd to try to move this issue on—and this is the person who aspires to lead our nation.

This is the person whose mantra was that he would be able to work with all the Labor governments under cooperative federalism. This is the first major test and he has utterly failed. The reason he has utterly failed is basically that Mr Beattie thought he was weak. Mr Beattie does not get along with him: he thinks he is weak. They are all absolutely perplexed as to how he has got into the position that he is currently in. They are happy with how the polls are running for them, but they are absolutely flummoxed as to how a person whom they see as completely lacking oomph has got into the position he is in.

But, putting all that aside, we should be dealing with this inherent nastiness and unfairness and asking the Labor Party now how they are going to deal with these towns that they are going to leave destitute. What is their program for these townspeople who are going to be left destitute? Aren’t they the party that used to believe in the people who had been left behind? But now they are inspiring the policy that will leave them behind. What are you going to do in the town of Taroom? What are you going to do in the town of Isisford? What are you going to deliver to those people? What is your program? Look at when they go down to the coast to campaign. We have got their aspiration for the coast of Queensland: it is going to look like a mini-Los Angeles and it will start north of Byron Bay and go all the way to Noosa. We will have multiple-storey high-rises festooning the beaches of Noosa so their property developer mates can chuck some money into their campaign. That is the reality, and that is why people are so abjectly frustrated, annoyed and furious over where the Labor Party has gone with us. They will fight. They are talking all of the time about how they are going to fight. They are going to pick out your federal Labor Party members in Queensland as the targets because the Labor Party brought this about.

What is going to be the cultural identity of Port Douglas when Port Douglas looks just like Cairns? What is going to be the identity of Noosa when Noosa looks just like the rest of the Sunshine Coast? Why does Redcliffe have to be part of Pine Rivers? Why does the Labor Party manifestly bring these nasty, arbitrary decisions? They come on the back of such other things as the decision on the Traveston dam. What a joke! They do not rule for all. They do not even rule for most. They rule for those in the Labor Party club. Those are the only people who get a look in. That is the quid pro quo for their having to deal with this culture of ‘you will do exactly what we tell you to do’.

This legislation is supported by all; otherwise what is their other alternative? That is the reason the Labor Party are supporting it. But the legislation is a clear indication of what is in front of Australia. It is a siren call. It is also a bell that is ringing for Australians that says: ‘Watch out! Look at who is coming to town. If this is the way they deal with their own, watch out as to how they will deal with you.’ I hope that every time people go to vote in the federal poll—and we will make sure this is known everywhere during the federal poll—they will see us holding up section 159ZY of the Queensland local government reform implementation bill. We will say: ‘This is the Labor Party. This is whom you are voting for. They say, “Dissent and we’ll send you to jail.”’ That is going to be what we will use.

I can assure you that these people are not going away. These people are well organised. These people are resourced. These people are persistent. These people are ready for the fight. I can quote the fact that even in places like Noosa we have had people come up to us and clearly say, ‘I’ve always voted Labor and I’ll never vote for them again till this issue is dealt with.’ I am clearly making a political issue out of this because it is a political problem that can only be solved with a political solution, and the political solution is this: you have to remove this process. You have to reverse it right back to where it was. Go back to the SSS process and do something decent and fair, not something arbitrary and nasty. Think about the destitution you are going to cause and deal with it, or come up with a package of how you are going to pay these people out and help them out. Have Mr Rudd propose the package that he is going to use to pay for the compensatory rights of the lives that are going to be destroyed because of the Labor Party’s policy. Let’s see some sense of fairness.

This is the issue that we must concentrate on; otherwise we are going to have this ridiculous proposition of Mr Rudd, with his earnest smile and a little bit of a cheeky grin, trying to make us swallow the fact that he has not got control of this situation. The only way that this is going to be dealt with, the only way that we can reverse this situation, is to take it to the federal election and make sure that the people of Queensland get their right to a plebiscite on this, to reflect their intentions about council amalgamations at the next poll that comes to their favour, which is the federal election. We do not have to convince them all; we just have to convince five or 10 per cent to change their minds—and you will remain on the opposition benches. That will be the game, and so there it is. We are not hiding behind it. We are going to make it a political issue. We do not have to convince them all. We only have to convince five or 10 per cent and then you will remain on the opposition benches. The only way you can resolve that is to deal with this. And if you ever come up with another amendment, do not try this ridiculous notion of tying nuclear power plants to referendums for acknowledging local government associations. Even when you brought this thing in, you said, ‘We’ve got an amendment,’ but you had not even tabled it. That is how much thought went into this. It was not even tabled when Senator Lundy was giving a speech. We have had to wait for it. Now it has turned up with ‘nuclear power plants and local government recognitions’. That is the duplicitous nature of it—and this has come from Mr Rudd’s Labor Party. There is not cross-party support for this bill. There is support from the National Party. There is support from the Liberal Party. There is support from the Democrats. There is support from the Greens. But as for the Labor Party, 59 out of 65 elected members in Queensland want this to remain the way that it is.