Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In which case I will withdraw it and move on to those days after the election when the now Prime Minister argued, bantered and bartered and got to be the Prime Minister. It would be best defined as power without glory. One should reflect for a few moments on the qualities of leadership—the creation of a vision, inspiring loyalty, focusing on what is good for the organisation but not the individual, open to change in changing circumstances, seeking a mandate for change, promoting honesty and integrity, seeking the truth, concern for what is right and not always being right, and focusing on leading people rather than preserving one’s own leadership position. I think what the Prime Minister will find when she reviews the elements of leadership is that what she has sewn she will reap. It is not necessary for me to go back and look at those characteristics of leadership except perhaps for one, and that is to reflect on the fact that when there is a need for change leaders foresee that. Leaders will recognise changing economic circumstances and, in the case of a company, they will go back to their board or shareholders if they believe there is a cause for change. After stating there would be no carbon tax, a leader of government in our country should go back to the people and seek a mandate to introduce that. We have certainly not seen that.

In the time available to me it will take too long to record the waste of this government: the $2 billion of pink batts; the billions wasted on the BER, a lost opportunity for education; two out of 31 GP superclinics built; one out of 2,650 trade training centres built—and the list goes on. As we have heard from Senator Ronaldson, there are even cutbacks now to the War Memorial in this city such that it may not be able to operate every day of the week. We can reflect on the debt of this government. Sitting and listening to Senator Cameron talking about the responsibility and the economic management of the Howard-Costello government when he overlooks conveniently the fact that that government inherited a $96 billion debt from the previous Labor government and paid it back by 2007, including $5 billion a year of interest, one is blown away. We all know that this government was left with a surplus of $22 billion, no net debt, historically high employment and the best economic circumstances this country had ever been in.

We talk about the need for stimulus spending. Let me contrast the wasted $1,400 in 2009 to keep Q2 out of recession and the $900 given out in March of 2010 to save us from recession in Q3. Certainly Senator Johnston and Senator Eggleston will relate to this analogy. In the 1890s when the colony of Western Australia was on its knees the then Premier John Forrest, in the face of tremendous economic straits, decided to put a water pipeline through to Kalgoorlie. In so doing he opened up not only Kalgoorlie and the mining areas of our state but the wheat belt as well. That is what an economic stimulus package is. That is what the Rudd government could have done. We can see the benefit to the state, the people of WA and the people of Australia. Imagine if John Forrest had wandered around Western Australia giving out £5 or £7—what benefit would there have been?

This government is absolutely bereft of policy. It is bereft of honesty. Time really does not permit me to reflect on what the impact of such a carbon tax would be. Why would you tax your manufacturers and your exporters to make it more economic and more competitive for the high-carbon competitors overseas to take away our business, our trade, our terms of trade and the benefits that 150 to 200 years have yielded for this country?