Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I, too, would like to provide my condolences to former senator John Stone's family and recognise the incredible service he gave to our nation both in this place and in other roles. Normally, in these condolence motions, we would look to the example of a former senator in their political life and seek to remind ourselves of how we could do better as parliamentarians, following reflection of their service. However, when I look back at Senator John Stone's career there are, perhaps, more lessons to the broader Public Service and those that support us in this role.

I do want to say that we have incredible public servants in this country, but it's hard to read John's biography and his contributions without feeling a little bit of regret that they don't really make them like John Stone anymore. It seems to me that we could have people like John—and I'm not trying to blame individuals here—but, for whatever reason, the advice we receive now and the commentary that occurs in our broader public debate always seems to be a little filtered and diluted. You couldn't call John Stone someone who diluted his opinions and contributions, and the nation, the parliament and our country are better for it. I will come to John's career as a politician, but I hope that those in the wider Public Service also take the opportunity of his passing to reflect on his career. They may not agree with everything John said and did, but I think his example is one that should be looked to more and taken as a template.

Another thing that struck me when I read through John's incredible biography is that just reading his biography gives you a very good grounding in postwar economic policy in this country. He was involved in almost every major economic debate and decision that occurred in the postwar period. It was an incredibly important and crucial period for Australia has development. I hope it doesn't get forgotten in our history, because things have moved on somewhat from that period, but there are a lot of lessons in it. I'll just mention a few things.

John was integral, perhaps, in pushing back on some of the recommendations in the Vernon report in the mid-1960s. That's something that is perhaps a bit lost to our history. I do have copies in my office if anyone would like to read them. It's very big; they don't really write reports like that anymore. Those reports effectively called for more planning and government control of the Australian economy. John, along with some others in the Treasury department, pushed back against some of what would have been the worst abuses.

John was also integral in opposing the then panic that occurred around the Club of Rome in the early 1970s. He argued strongly within Treasury—successfully, I believe—that we did not need to panic because prices would change, and that would encourage additional resource development and technology developments, and we wouldn't run out of food or other resources as the then Club of Rome were warning. He was proven absolutely right about that, and he continues to be proven right about that against the current crop of neo-Malthusians.

He was also integral throughout the seventies and early eighties in developing a 'fight inflation first' approach to a terrible problem that was afflicting Australia at the time, the stagflation of the 1970s. There was, I suppose, since the days of the Great Depression, a preference to rest back on the Keynesian policies of the Phillips curve and extra stimulus. But John was part of a broader movement across the world to say no, those economic models had broken down and there was a need for strict restraint on government spending, a tighter monetary policy than some perhaps wanted, to finally get rid of the scourge of inflation. Again, there are probably some lessons for us today.

In saying all of that, when I read a bit of John's biography and in respect of the contributions today, there's perhaps a tendency to think that John was quite strident, ideological and even dogmatic in his so-called right-wing positions, but his career also showed a practical approach to policy. It wasn't all one-sided. Despite being generally supportive of free trade, he opposed Gough Whitlam's 25 per cent overnight tariff cut—and for good reason, I think. He also opposed the floating of the dollar. As he explained later, he opposed the urgent and sudden adoption of that policy, rather than, necessarily, the direction itself. His considered but strident opinions were ones that definitely helped to shape policy in this country and are very instructive, I think, for those involved in public policy today.

As has been described, he decided to become a National Party senator despite having never voted for the National Party. As Senator Smith mentioned, I don't think he'd even lived there before. Perhaps he'd visited Queensland before he became a senator. He probably had. He was welcomed with open arms to the National Party. He contributed significantly to the development of a flat tax policy that I'm going to go back and read, now that I've read that.