Liberal Party

This is about the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023.

"Only the Liberal Party will protect the amenity and character of our neighbourhoods and rural hinterland," says Russell Joseph, Liberal Candidate for Nepean. We don't often publish statements from the major parties, but this is the first one we know of that looks at protecting the Mornington Peninsula. The Peninsula is an incredibly biodiverse part of South-Eastern Australia, hardly explored to date in terms of paleontology, rapidly losing its native fauna and flora. The undeniable fact that governments since Jeff Kennett have promoted destructive population growth here makes any policy to protect it extremely important. We will publish statements from any other political party that has a plan to protect the Mornington Peninsula from overpopulation.

"In 2014 the Liberal government introduced the Mornington Peninsula Localised Planning Statement to help protect our unique coastal, rural and conservation areas of the Mornington Peninsula townships and hinterland. However under Labor our General Residential Zone has been ruined and will now become a location for 3-storey apartment-style developments regardless of the established character of our neighbourhoods," he states.

Joseph describes the Andrews Labor government as having, without any consultation with local residents, communities or council, "replaced existing 9 metre height limits with an 11 metre limit and ‘as of right’ approval for three storey development."

He adds his opinion that,

"Labor’s changes affect over 24,000 house lots across the Mornington Peninsula and this comes with further increases in traffic congestion and unsustainable pressure on an already stressed public transport system."

Joseph claims that a Liberal government will fix these planning changes and fund improved bus connections to the Mornington Peninsula, including service route changes and frequency improvements to both the 788 (Portsea) and 783 (Flinders) services. He says that a Liberal government will protect the Mornington Peninsula and reject the Labor-Greens ‘solution’ to Melbourne’s chronic urban congestion by pushing the population down to us.

He concludes,

"Make no mistake, Labor and the Greens see their own ‘Brunswick-by-the-Bay’ down here, but only a Liberal government will protect what we love about our Peninsula."

Joseph's statements about the Labor Party Government's planning and population decisions for the Peninsular are unfortunately correct. Our files on ALP population and planning go back years - /taxonomy/term/1054 and /taxonomy/term/7452. Of course the Liberals, the last time they were in government, continued, like Labor, to advertise for more and more immigrants at the Vic Gov site of "Live in Victoria," now changed to Live in Melbourne. All state governments in Australia run similar sites, promising to sponsor immigrants and dishonestly promoting their cities as very 'livable', just as mass immigration is making them more and more 'unlivable'. Matthew Guy, as the then Minister for Planning, made disastrous changes to Melbourne Planning too. It is a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee, but maybe some of them are beginning to read the writing on the wall. Let us hope.

In his favour, Mr Joseph also asked me some time ago to provide a white paper from my submission about management of biodiversity in the Mornington Peninsula Green Wedges. This paper noted the problem of overpopulation and overdevelopment. Unfortunately illness prevented me from doing so, although the paper itself is available.

Student activist Joe Hockey protesting the imposition of student fees in 1987

(Article includes 2 versions of the Youtube video of different lengths.) Recommend watching the video footage linked to below. Apologies if you have already seen it. It shows our eminent treasurer leading student protests in 1987 against the imposition of an annual fee upon tertiary students that was quite small relative to the burden being proposed in the current budget.

John Dawkins 1 the then Labor Minister for education who first imposed tertiary student fees

It shows our eminent treasurer leading student protests in 1987 against the imposition of an annual fee upon tertiary students that was quite small relative to the burden being proposed in the current budget.

Joe is proud of his 'up from the bootstraps' personal success, rising to where he has from very modest socio-ecomomic beginnings. Very evidently this success was built on the foundation of a free public education system.

Now wealthy and powerful, Joe is smoking cigars and dancing in celebration as he acts purposefully and directly within his budget to destroy all remnant of the affordable tertiary system that enabled him to rise and flourish. His efforts to end the so-called 'age of entitlement' are a cruel and savage ambition in the context of this background. Words simply cannot capture the essence of such profound and enormous selfishness at work. As many people as possible should see this blatant hypocrisy to be made fully aware of the nature of the fraud that is being perpetrated.

You really would not want to be caught adrift in a lifeboat with this bloke and his running mates. They'd eat your liver while you slept, and then probably whinge that they had no fine wine to wash it down with.

Editor's comment: If the link doesn't work, look for another. It seems that this video is a moving target for being taken off you-tube, but people keep putting it back up. :-)

Here is another version, with more footage of multiple students:

Hypocrite or opportunist? Politician, at any rate.

Footnote[s]

#fnHockey1" id="fnHockey1">1. #txtHockey1">↑ I originally posted then Senator Susan Ryan's photo into this story, mistakenly believing that she had introduced HECS. The Wikipedia article about Susan Ryan explains:

When the Hawke Labor Government was elected in March 1983, Ryan was appointed Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. She was Minister for Education in the second Hawke Ministry and opposed the re-introduction of fees for tertiary education despite strong support in Cabinet for the user-pays principle. She lost the education portfolio in the third Hawke Ministry and was instead given a much reduced role as Special Minister of State. Subsequently the Higher Education Contribution Scheme was introduced to partially fund higher education. Ryan resigned from the Senate on 16 December 1987.

My apologies for that mistake. - Ed

#F5ECCE;line-height:120%;">

It’s been a saga with revolving doors,
First Kevin 07 with all his flaws
Then out as PM in election 2013
But there was another PM in between!

Here’s how it played out: what does it mean?

was it real ?

has it really been?

Kev said he wanted “Big Australia”

Put wool in ceilings and all that paraphernalia

The polls went down,

He wore a frown,

We survived the fallout from the USA property bubble

But it seemed our government was in trouble

To most of us it was as a bolt

The day that Gillard called a “Halt”!

A tap on the shoulder “It’s all over”

A ballot for leader? No. It would be a walkover.

A tight election barely suited

A minority government with help recruited

That's how a woman first came to power,

She had no reason to shrink and cower

But her reign was fraught;

with fashionistas she fought ,

Gillard was not the media’s darling,

Unmarried, atheistic but in reality charming

The press despised her

Were very unkind to her

every slip exposed,

she was goaded, teased

and soapie parodied

Every victory, achievement excluded,

Hard work covered, and buried,

By a press hell bent on virtual asphyxiation.

The deposed PM in retaliation,

treating parliament a bit like recreation

danced and twirled, a constant distraction

bathing in the press reaction

When the media king said “off with her head”

from that point on her leadership was dead,

Rudd who stuck just like molasses

was back to perform for the receptive masses,

The result of this absurd confection

Was for Kev to lead Labor to another election !

BUT Alas for Labor, Kev’s not Rupert’s favorite,

And Abbot’s recipe goes down like chocolate

He’s the new PM, the one we expected,

an ex- priest, a catholic he’s so well connected !

The Federal Parliament of Australia, a country which, in the 1960's participated in the devastating war against Vietnam and in the illegal wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003 and which is now participating in the ongoing war against Afghanistan, yesterday passed legislation to undermine international laws to eradicate cluster bombs. The Governing Labor Party and the Opposition Liberal/National Coalition united to support the bill. This was a betrayal of Australian international obligations, Australian Greens spokesperson Assisting on Defence Senator Scott Ludlam said yesterday after the Government's cluster munitions bill passed the Senate.

This article has been adapted from a media release by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam. See also: Australia poised to pass dubious law to implement cluster bomb ban in stopclustermunitions.org, Australian responsibility: cluster bomb carnage in Iraq of 3 March 2011 by Chris Doran in Online Opinion, Senate considers new cluster bomb laws in the SMH of 20 August 2012, Senate passes ban on cluster munitions (a misleading title) in The Australian of 21 August 2012.

This article has been adapted from a media release by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam.See also: Australia poised to pass dubious law to implement cluster bomb ban in stopclustermunitions.org, Australian responsibility: cluster bomb carnage in Iraq of 3 March 2011 by Chris Doran in Online Opinion, Senate considers new cluster bomb laws in the SMH of 20 August 2012, Senate passes ban on cluster munitions (a misleading title) in The Australian of 21 August 2012.

The Federal Parliament of Australia, a country which, in the 1960's participated in the devastating war against Vietnam and in the illegal wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003 and which is now participating in the ongoing war against Afghanistan, yesterday passed legislation to undermine international laws to eradicate cluster bombs.

The Governing Labor Party and the Opposition Liberal/National Coalition united to support the bill. This was a betrayal of Australian international obligations, Australian Greens spokesperson Assisting on Defence Senator Scott Ludlam said yesterday after the Government's cluster munitions bill passed the Senate.

Survivor Soraj Ghulam Habib outside the Australian
Senate in Canberra last year. Photo credit: CMC

Greens spokesperson assisting on Defence Senator Scott Ludlam said the bill "ignores the urgent pleadings of the medical and humanitarian communities and completely fails to meet our obligations under the international Convention outlawing cluster bombs".

"Sub-munitions from cluster bombs that do not explode on impact remain a threat for decades - 98% of the victims of these are civilians. These monstrous weapons have no legitimate role to play under any circumstances.

Vietnamese cluster bomb victims
Nguyen Thi Cuc	Li Van Thang Ho Van Ly

"This law allows Australian forces to store, transport, and assist in the use of cluster bombs. Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic said this law could 'allow Australian military personnel to load and aim the gun, so long as they did not pull the trigger'. It also fails to outlaw indirect investment in companies producing cluster munitions.

"The Government advised me in the Senate last night that storing and transporting cluster munitions for other countries is not their policy. If it's not their policy, why is it allowed by the legislation? Why not close the loophole?"

Senator Ludlam tabled leaked diplomatic cables - published by WikiLeaks and used in Fairfax media reports in May 2011 - showing the Government, at the behest of the United States, lobbied to undermine the Convention to allow the very same flaws now entrenched in Australian domestic law.

"Despite the denials, leaks revealed that the Government lobbied countries to water-down the Convention on eradicating cluster munitions. That shameful misadventure failed, and as a result our country is a signatory to an unequivocal agreement aimed at eliminating cluster munitions from the face of the Earth: There is no grey area and there are no excuses - yet tonight the Government and the Opposition have shown no backbone and no honour."

Media Contact: Giovanni Torre - 0417 174 302

Opposition Treasurer Joe Hockey, on Lateline, warned the public that the Coalition would be looking closely at ''the whole range of entitlements'' - that is, welfare benefits. Hockey said, ''We need to compare ourselves with our Asian neighbours where entitlements programs of the state are far less than they are in Australia.''
Is the "Asian Century" is about downgrading our lifestyles to those of the third-world standards of their teaming and overpopulated cities?

Image: two boys on a concrete wall, overlooking rubbish in Dharavi.
Original description: Inside Dharavi, Asia's largest slum of over one million dwellers. From producing clay pots to recycling plastic, this slum is also home to hundreds of businesses and defying the many myths of poverty.The sum of these small enterprises have an annual turnover of $665 million!

Opposition Treasurer Joe Hockey, on Lateline, warned the public that the Coalition would be looking closely at ''the whole range of entitlements'' - that is, welfare benefits.

Despite Tony Abbot's efforts to manage what messages the opposition sent to the media, Hockey delivered a provocative speech in London and then mismanaged the interview afterwards.

Hockey's thesis was that Western democracies have been spending more than they could afford on ''entitlements''. ''Government spending on a range of social programs including education, health, housing, subsidised transport, social safety nets and retirement benefits has reached extraordinary levels as a percentage of GDP,'' he stated.

Praising Hong Kong in particular, but also the wider region, he said: ''The Age - The concept of filial piety, from the Confucian classic Xiao Jing, is thriving today right across Asia”.   (extended families would be responsible for welfare).

According to the Classic of Filial Piety , Confucius once said: "In serving his parents, a filial son reveres them in daily life; he makes them happy while he nourishes them; he takes anxious care of them in sickness; he shows great sorrow over their death; and he sacrifices to them with solomnity". It is this single principle that holds the families together, thereby binding the society to hold itself, and ultimately protecting the whole race and the nation. At the moment it allows SE Asian economies a degree of advantage over Western economies in terms of avoiding long-term costs.

On Lateline, Hockey said, ''We need to compare ourselves with our Asian neighbours where entitlements programs of the state are far less than they are in Australia.''

According to an article in The Australian, 21/4/2012, Joe Hockey's "age of entitlement" speech to the Institute of Economic Affairs in London this week deserves a standing ovation. The Asian Century demands that the West adjust its economic lens to stay (and in some cases become) competitive in an era it is losing control of.

The Asian Century

Is the  "Asian Century" is about downgrading our lifestyles to those of the third-world standards of their teaming and overpopulated cities? 

The Age, 16/3/98, reported this statement by Phillip Ruthven, Chairman of IBIS Business Information:
"By 2025 Australia was likely to have ceded some sovereignty over population and some financial and legal matters to a grouping based on our closer neighbours in the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) countries".

Graeme Campbell former MHR, founder of the Australia First Party, stated on 26/1/96 that Barry Jones (MHR) has said that Australians must decide whether they want more growth, more migrants, or retain their standard of living - they simply can't have both.

The Weekend Australian, 9-10/5/98 reported that governments  will face increasing pressure to erode both wages and welfare in line with global economic trends. Note, not just wages, but welfare, such as medical treatment, hospitals, pensions.

In the interests of the good of humanity as a whole, and for the benefit of our GDP, will Australia become a third world, polluted, over-crowded, Asian country, living in poverty?

The "Lucky Country" sold overseas and eroded

In 1995 Australia was the richest country on earth (World Bank survey, reported in the Australian, 18/9/95).  Australia used to be the "Lucky Country", but it's been exploited by attracting the overseas market for property investment, and mass immigration.  Decades of poor leadership and lack of patriotism is dragging us down to falling living standards and poverty. 

Industries have closed down, farmers have been driven off the land and our foreign debt continues to sky-rocket.  We have massive unemployment, poverty and appalling social problems. 

Our economy, our GDP, is mean to serve the people of Australia, and a system to pay for benefits such as pensions, infrastructure, public services etc.  However, the Economy has become a purpose, an  end in itself, and is being forced to bite the hand of those who have fed it!

Australia's wealth of ineffective politicians

The first target should be a reduction of politicians.  We are over-governed and burdened by expensive and ineffective politicians.  The three tiers should be scrapped to a Federal and local administration, and parliamentary privileges slashed.  The expensive and generous parliamentary retirement packages should go.  They belong to an age of privilege and of the gentry, something  that doesn't belong now. 

Good policies sacrificed for a bigger GDP

GDP is the value at market prices of all goods and services produced in the economy.  It depends on natural resources.  Just as there are limits to growth in the natural world, there are some physical limits to economic growth.

Governments  are facing increasing pressure to erode both wages and welfare in line with global economic trends.

There's an assumption is that a higher GDP growth rate will translate to a better quality of life and greater prosperity for the people.  Conventional economic thinking assumes that raw materials are unlimited and economic growth can continue indefinitely.

Steady-State economy- the better alternative

19th century John Stuart Mill, pioneer of economics and gifted philosopher, recognised that capitalism and the pursuit of wealth had to be restrained and regulated lest the desire relentless growth over-tipped  the capacity of a system to renew and sustain itself.

Under a steady-state economic model the GDP is fixed, with stable energy and a stable population.  However, it’s a growth in GDP by the standard measure that economists use to define GDP.

There are “tipping points” for economic growth, and once they are reached, growth becomes negative in impact.

Herman Daly, one of the founders of the field of ecological economics and a leading critic of neoclassical growth theory, defines a steady state economy as:
An economy with constant stocks of people and artifacts, maintained at some desired, sufficient levels by low rates of maintenance ‘throughput’, that is, by the lowest feasible flows of matter and energy from the first stage of production to the last stage of consumption.
Daly, Herman. 1991. Steady-State Economics, 2nd edition. Island Press, Washington, DC. p.17.

Image: two boys on a concrete wall, overlooking rubbish in Dharavi.
Original description: Inside Dharavi, Asia's largest slum of over one million dwellers. From producing clay pots to recycling plastic, this slum is also home to hundreds of businesses and defying the many myths of poverty.The sum of these small enterprises have an annual turnover of $665 million!

"An Age/Neilsen Poll taken last week has confirmed most Australians do not share Kevin Rudd’s grand ‘big Australia’ vision.

Treasury Secretary Ken Henry recently predicted Australia’s long term projected population has increased from 28.5 million in 2047 to over 35 million by 2049.

Only thirty percent of those surveyed believed growth at this level was acceptable.

Australia’s rebuke of Mr Rudd’s ‘big Australia’ comes on the back of comments made earlier this year by former NSW Premier Bob Carr likening population growth of this enormity without an environmental impact assessment, to playing ‘Russian roulette with water security.’

While Mr Rudd and the Labor government might be excited about a ‘big Australia’, this poll shows Australians are seriously concerned of the demands this population explosion will place on our infrastructure, environment, economy, social systems and quality of life.

Mr Rudd has arrogantly failed to provide any coherent strategy or detailed plan to accommodate this projected population explosion in a sustainable way.

The Prime Minister’s ‘big Australia’ ambitions and lack of any credible policies to deal with the forecast ‘population explosion’ should set off alarm bells about the problems our cities and environment will face.

Mr Rudd should set aside his ego and self interest in spruiking a ‘big Australia’, simply to make himself a ‘bigger diplomatic deal’ and focus on the national interest of tackling the challenges presented by a population explosion on settling and supporting an extra 13 million people in the coming decades in a sustainable way.

MEDIA RELEASE
The Hon. Bruce Billson MP
(in Victoria, encompassing Frankston among other suburbs)
Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities
10 November 2009
Poll shows Australians do not share Rudd’s vision for ‘Big Australia’

Planning Minister, Mr Madden, ALP.

Justin Madden needs to answer questions

Shadow Minister for Planning Matthew Guy has issued a press release declaring that he will today ask the Parliament’s all-powerful Finance and Public Administration Committee to call the Planning Minister, Mr Madden, and the Growth Areas Authority (GAA) to appear before it to urgently explain the proposed Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution (GAIC) that will have damaging effects on Victorian families."

Matthew Guy says he will ask why taxes not imposed on developers rather than land-owners.

In the press release it says that the Committee has the power to subpoena any Upper House minister or government agency, and that Mr Guy has said the Minister and the GAA should provide full and frank evidence explaining why this tax is being aimed at landholders on the outskirts of Melbourne, and not at those who sought to develop the land.

“The Minister’s public comments to date have been woefully inadequate and have left residents, councils and industry in the dark about this new tax,” committee member Mr Guy said today.

“The only way to make the Minister and the Growth Areas Authority answer in full is to haul them before this Committee and to seek answers under oath,” Mr Guy said.

After eight months, the GAIC is supposedly still in the drafting phase, yet Labor has announced several ‘amendments’ to the tax despite refusing to release any details beyond a handful of information sheets.

“Labor’s failure to keep Victorians informed about this new growth areas tax is atrocious,” Mr Guy said.

“This tax will reap more than $2 billion for the government from residents and the construction industry, yet the government still refuses to tell us the details.

“The GAIC proposal is destroying people’s lives and is creating huge uncertainty in the community.

“The only way to end the uncertainty is to have the Minister and the GAA answer questions in a full public hearing of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and it must be done as soon as possible.”

To observers it looks like the Victorian government, beleagered by financial problems and massive unpopularity due to its undemocratic, unfair and socially and ecologically harmful land-use planning policies, may be in its last throes and thus susceptible to restraint. But bogeymen often come back just when you least expect it, so let's not hold our breath.

Candobetter Ed. We just hope that Mr Guy and the Liberal Party will join in spirit Federal ALP Member, Mr Thompson, in roundly condemning the growthist population policy which has led to these tragic circumstances and menaces all of Victoria's remaining wildlife habitat in the Green Wedges as well as agricultural land there. It would be very disappointing, to say the least, if the Liberal Party were merely to broker some other carve-up of Melbourne's lungs and wildlife corridors, to keep the ravenous and unsustainable growth lobby supplied.

A report in Melbourne's "The Age" newspaper August 25th 2008 tells how Mr Ted Baillieu the rather affable, reasonable sounding leader of the Opposition in Victoria howled down members from his Sandringham branch of his party who voiced a concern about Melbourne's massive population growth - about 1,500 people per week The Age quotes Mr. Baillieu as saying to a meeting of 700 . "Be very careful when you discuss these things. Don't allow anyone to say we are opposed to population growth, or that we are going to point fingers at migration. If we put out the stop sign then we are sending the wrong messages, and this economy will suffer long-term." He went on to say that Melbourne's problems with train services and the lack of water resources was due to lack of planning by the current state government. of greater Melbourne." (Melbourne's dams are are at a lower level than were this time last year despite recent rain and of course we have about 60,000 more people!)

According to The Age - the amended resolution, that council "recognises a deteriorating quality of life inherent in the ongoing increase in the population" was then passed. Mr Baillieu accused the Premier of poor planning and scapegoating immigrants after Mr Brumby this month warned of the stresses on services caused by Melbourne's high rate of population growth.

The following letter by me was published in The Age on the 26th August:

It's about people, not politics, Mr Baillieu

HOW disappointing to read the Victorian Opposition Leader, Ted Baillieu's, reaction to sensible policy proposals from the Sandringham branch of the Liberal Party and also to a recent responsible warning from Premier John Brumby regarding the high rate of Victoria's population growth ("Blame it on Labor, not migration: Baillieu", The Age, 25/8). Mr Baillieu seems to carry a child-like belief that correct planning can cope with any level of population growth.

Just as some sanity is emerging in his own party and from our Labor Premier, the Liberal leader panics and silences his party members, who are pointing out that the emperor has no clothes - we cannot keep growing at this rate and maintain our quality of life. It seems Ted scolded the naughty children and silenced their well-founded concerns.

In fact, Victoria's population cannot keep growing at any rate and be compatible with long-term survival - but I was not at the Liberal Party meeting and I'm not sure if anyone pointed this out.

See also: Blame it on Labor, not migration: Baillieu by Paul Austin in the Melbourne Age of 25 Aug 08, City of 8 million 'unliveable' by Cameron Houston and Royce Millar in the Age of 5 Sep 08

#speech" id="speech">Upper House Liberal leader Michael Gallacher's speech against electricity privatisation

See also: comment #EditorsComment">below and #speech2">Duncan Gay's speech

The following speech has been copied from the NSW Legislative Council Hansard of 27 August 2007.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [12.44 p.m.]: The Government has had 13 years to get the important issue of this State's future power generation right and, as members will shortly hear, it has got it wrong. The New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Coalition will not support the Iemma Government's Electricity Industry Restructuring (Response to Auditor-General Report) Bill and the associated cognate bill. The Liberal-Nationals Coalition does not take this decision likely. There are three key reasons for our dissatisfaction with this proposed electricity industry restructuring: the continued uncertainty surrounding the Commonwealth Government's emission trading scheme; the current state of capital markets is not conducive for the sale of such a valuable asset; and the Iemma Government's history of financial and infrastructure delivery mismanagement and incompetence. Underpinning all three reasons is the fundamental issue of trust. The community does not believe that the Government can be trusted to get this privatisation right. The community does not believe that the Iemma Government can be trusted to spend the proceeds of the sale in a transparent and honest manner. The community also does not believe that the Iemma Government can be trusted to put public interest ahead of the Labor Party's re-election plans.

The community's concerns are well founded. The 2007 State election did not deliver the Iemma Government a mandate to embark upon the sale of this State's electricity assets. In fact, the Iemma Government issued emphatic denials that any such sale would take place. The arrogant dismissal of concerns held by the Government's own members and its party, whilst contemptible, is not surprising. The Government's failure to put the question to the people of New South Wales demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt that this is a Government out of control, out of step and out of options. Mr Iemma betrayed the trust when he refused to reveal his true plan about the future of electricity prior to the 2007 State election. By opposing this legislation the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Coalition will ensure that the people of the State are not betrayed.

The Treasurer's ever-shifting position on the privatisation of electricity portrays him as a political opportunist. As an executive member of the Labor Council he opposed the privatisation of electricity. On 12 February 1998 as Acting Secretary of the council he moved the following executive recommendation:

That …the Labor Council reaffirms its opposition to the Egan Electricity Privatisation Proposal.

At a Labor Council meeting on 21 October 1999, in his position as Secretary of that council, he moved the following executive recommendation:

That …the Labor Council continue its campaign against contracting out of Government employees' work and jobs.

As well as opposing electricity privatisation the Treasurer has also spoken of the need to put social concerns above market fundamentalism. In his inaugural speech to this House in September 2001 he spoke of what he imagined as a better world:

While it is true that I respect the power of the market mechanism, I reject market fundamentalism, which places all market outcomes above social concerns … Societies structured on markets that do not deliver social outcomes supported by the majority of the community are doomed to failure.

Perhaps the Treasurer should have considered his own advice before bringing this legislation to the Parliament. In addition to those sentiments in his inaugural speech, he said:

Barrie Unsworth advised me that this inaugural speech was an important speech because it provides a public benchmark to judge one's contribution to public life. I hope that at the end of my time in this House I will be judged as having contributed to prosperity, opportunity and fairness.

As I said earlier, the Treasurer is a recent public convert to the "privatisation at all costs" agenda. As late as before the last State election—in this House on 23 November 2006—the Treasurer said:

There is no energy crisis in New South Wales … In fact, New South Wales has surplus energy.

A month out from the State election, on 20 February 2007, he was reported in the Australian Financial Review as saying:

There are no plans to sell our retail electricity businesses.

Yet here we are in an extraordinary sitting of this Parliament, having been recalled at great expense to the taxpayer, to pass legislation to privatise the electricity assets.

That I stand shoulder to shoulder with my Coalition colleagues, the Nationals, and accuse the Government of betrayal is not political rhetoric. The Government's Ministers pledged that they would not sell our State's power in any restructure, but not 12 months later, in a backflip, they and announced that they would. That is a betrayal. The Treasurer does not have a monopoly on opportunism when it comes to electricity privatisation. In the other place on 9 May 2007 the Premier said, when referring to the Owen review:

The Government goes into this review with an open mind, and only two things will be ruled out. The first is nuclear power. As I have stated previously, there will be no consideration whatsoever of nuclear energy for New South Wales. Second, there will be no sale of electricity generation, transmission or distribution. On all other matters I am yet to be convinced and will await Professor Owen's expert advice.

The Premier even has been accused of lying to Unions NSW. In a Sydney Morning Herald article dated 25 May 2007 he was reported as stating in a letter to Unions NSW:

The privatisation of the State Government-owned energy companies is not on our agenda. In fact, the NSW Government's commitment to this sector is stronger than ever … with record investment in new and upgraded electricity infrastructure.

I reiterate: This represents a betrayal of trust. It is a lack of trust that underpins the Coalition's opposition to these bills. While such significant uncertainty surrounds the creation of the proposed emissions trading scheme, New South Wales's taxpayers cannot be confident they are receiving full value for their assets. My colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this House, the Hon. Duncan Gay, will further outline our concerns regarding the Federal Government's emissions trading scheme.

The great disappointment in all of this is that rather than engage in a constructive conversation with the Rudd Government, Michael Costa has wasted time threatening Labor rank and file and berating the Opposition. When the bills are rejected by this House, responsibility will fall squarely at the feet of the Treasurer. From the outset he misled the community, isolated his colleagues and politicised the process. The Treasurer has failed to show leadership. Leadership is about engaging the community in open dialogue, leadership is about asking the hard questions, and leadership is about inspiration and bringing people along on a journey toward a desired outcome. At no point has the Government engaged the New South Wales public in anything resembling leadership consultation. Conversely, it has betrayed and engaged in spin, and in this House it will pay a hefty price for its hubris.

The proposal to privatise electricity does not meet the public interest test. In so many ways Australia's capital market conditions are not conducive to a positive outcome for the people of New South Wales. Since the release of the Owen report in 2007, Australian stock markets have fallen significantly. The Australian All Ordinaries fell almost 20 per cent, and the Australian utilities sector index fell almost 30 per cent. The impact of falling markets is clearly evident in the Hon. Michael Costa's consistent downward revision of the value of the assets. In December 2007 the Treasurer described a $15 billion price tag as conservative. In June 2008, he estimated the price at "around $10 billion". If a public company mysteriously lost $5 billion off the value of an asset in the space of six months, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission would declare an immediate audit. I point out that $5 billion is equivalent to the cost of 5,000 hospital beds or 130 new schools.

Importantly, the negative impact of capital markets will not be limited to initial public offerings; it will also affect trade sales. Market multiples will be used as a part of any basic valuation for a trade sale. Furthermore the global credit crunch makes it more difficult for companies to secure debt funding. My colleague in the other place the member for Manly estimates that the cost of underwriting $10 billion in current market conditions is $400 million more than at the same time last year.

The Iemma Government has spent the last week trying to make the future of its electricity plans all about the Opposition. The Treasurer has made numerous claims about why the Opposition should support the legislation—claims that simply do not stand up to scrutiny—and says that the Owen report found that $15 billion needs to be spent on electricity infrastructure. However, he is yet to explain why spending on electricity assets has been so neglected and why allegedly we need to come up with $15 billion by 2013. We reiterate that even as late as before the 2007 State election on 23 November 2006 the Treasurer stated in this House, "There is no energy crisis in New South Wales … In fact, New South Wales has surplus energy."

Responsible government is about planning for the future and anticipating the need for the replacement and ongoing maintenance of assets, particularly major assets such as power stations, hospitals, schools and police stations. The Treasurer claims that the details of the Commonwealth's emissions trading scheme will be clear by the end of the year, but what he does not point out is that, just as the New South Wales Government does not control its upper House, the Rudd Labor Government does not have control of the Senate. There is no way the Treasurer can be assured that legislation for the emissions trading scheme will be in place by the end of the year or that that legislation, even if it is amended or passed, will operate as intended.

The Treasurer also believes that financial market conditions, now or indeed at the end of the year, will be conducive to the sale of our State's electricity assets. Nobody, not even the Treasurer, knows what the market conditions will be at the end of the year. What we know now is that since the release of the Owen report in September 2007, the Australian stock market has fallen significantly. As I have said, the Australian All Ordinaries fell by almost 20 per cent and the Australian utilities sector index fell by almost 30 per cent. International rating agency, Fitch Ratings, stated:

The final valuation of NSW's coal-fired generation assets will be affected by the details of (the) carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS) due to be introduced in 2010. Uncertainty over how the CPRS will affect the electricity generator's cashflows and of the present state of credit markets are likely to affect the value of proceeds.

It should never ever be forgotten that the only reason the Government faces defeat is that it has failed to secure the votes of its own caucus members. This predicament is entirely of the Government's own making. The Coalition's approach to electricity privatisation was never about ticking boxes or meeting deadlines. It has always been about what is in the best interests of the New South Wales community. Our approach to this legislation has not been about the father-knows-best politics of the Australian Labor Party. From the outset, it has been about doing what the people expect of us.

My colleagues in the other place each represent more than 40,000 voters in their respective electorates. The Leaders of the New South Wales Liberals-Nationals involved each and every one of those 40,00 voters in formulating the Coalition's final position. The Hon. Michael Costa and his leader cannot say the same. The Auditor-General's Report and the Rural Community Impact Statement have played an important role in our decision. We also considered a range of factors, including external economic conditions and the current state of flux in the energy sector. The process has involved wide consultation with groups ranging from business interests to energy sector employees and of course the general community.

Ultimately the Coalition decided that the Government cannot be trusted with the privatisation of electricity. Let me echo the words of the State's Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, who confirmed this morning that the New South Wales Liberals-Nationals will have an energy policy to put to the people of New South Wales before the next election. Our policy will include the principle of private sector involvement where it meets the public interest. It will consider the broadest range of methods that deliver to the public the best outcomes in electricity. What our electricity policy will not be is the singular agenda of an individual member of Parliament who is intent on rushing through a fire sale of the State's most valuable asset.

Much has been said in the press concerning the effect that this decision will have on the Coalition's relationship with the business community. Irrespective of what some business groups might think about the role of private enterprise in electricity generation, most members of the business community would agree that the Government cannot be trusted with even the most basic economic endeavours, let alone something as substantial as electricity privatisation.

Ultimately, the key stakeholders in the proposed sale of the State's electricity assets do not sit in New South Wales boardrooms; they sit in lounge rooms. They open a power bill every three months. They will watch as market forces, both external and internal, affect the retail price of power generation. Some of them will be renters, some will pay mortgages, some will have children, and some will live on a pension.

While the Iemma Government decides how to divide the spoils of its sale across marginal constituencies, these people will decide what to cut from the family budget as the cost of living in New South Wales continues to increase. It should never be forgotten that if this legislation fails today it will be because the Labor Party has split. Two parties with conflicting agendas now run the New South Wales Government. I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with my Coalition colleagues The Nationals in condemnation of these bills and the manner in which they have been introduced. Today we oppose legislation that puts Morris Iemma and Michael Costa's interests and quick-fix financial gains above the interests of the people of New South Wales. The Opposition opposes this legislation.

#EditorsComment">Editor's comment on speech #speech">above

Although I am elsewhere highly critical of many other Liberal Party politicians, I found this speech by NSW Upper House Opposition Leader Michael Gallacher to be brilliantly incisive and informative. Thanks to Sheila Newman for having drawn my attention to it. Site visitors should also take the opportunity to read Treasurer Michael Costa's speech in support of the Electricity Privatisation bill in order to form their own judgement. It can be found on the Parliamentary web site. We intend to publish it here when time permits.

Readers should also contrast the damning case against Treasurer Costa and his Government presented here with the craven pro-NSW-Government coverage of electricity privatisation by virtually all the mainstream press, including that given by the supposedly independent ABC.

Why is it that newspapers, such as Rupert Murdoch's Australian which postures incessantly about its struggle to supposedly defend Your Right to Know so rarely report to the Australian public important basic facts about issues - like that of electricity privatisation - which can be readily found in the Parliamentary Hansards of almost every sitting day of the year?

The NSW's State Opposition's stance against privatisation is, unfortunately, not absolute. Ironically though, the NSW public and NSW unionists owe Michael Gallacher, Peter Debnam, Barry O'Farrell, Andrew Stoner and the whole NSW state opposition an enormous debt of gratitude. This is because the state opposition informed the NSW public of the truth about privatisation and the Labor Government record. The opposition then put its words into action. Of course, credit also rightly belongs to the Greens, the minor party and independent members, and those Labor members who defied the unprincipled stance of the Labor Caucus majority to vote against privatisation. Also credit is due to the trade unionists and community grass roots activists who campaigned so hard against privatisation. - James Sinnamon

#speech2" id="speech2">Uppper House Nationals Leader Duncan Gay's speech against electricity privatisation

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [1.16 p.m.]: Today we have witnessed the contrast between two leaders: one leader who divided the party and another leader who brought two parties together. Never before have we seen greater contrast in this State. We have a political party that wants to hide in the back rooms of this State and not take decisions to the people. Its members do not want to walk up the front path to the front door of a house, knock on that door and say to the constituents in that house, "This is what we want to do." That party has defied the people's house of New South Wales and has not gone into the Legislative Assembly where the elected members of this Parliament represent the electorates of New South Wales.

We have seen vicarious cowardice on the part of the Premier and his tyrant Treasurer, who is probably already out there with the failed Babcock and Brown hunting for a job. Never before in this Parliament have we seen a greater contrast between those who are willing to listen to the people of New South Wales and act in the community's interest and a group who refuses to do so. That particular group unwisely spent taxpayers' money to recall the Parliament to debate a flawed scheme. The Parliament was offered one option, a flawed option that does not add up with the trading schemes yet to go before the Australian senate.

<8>

The balance of power in the Senate will be held by a small group of Independents, including the newly elected South Australia Senator, Nick Xenophon, the Family First party and the Greens. Who knows what cost that will put on power generation in New South Wales? The Treasurer, in a rare bout of honesty in this House, indicated that cost could be as much as $3 billion. No-one knows what that cost will be out of Canberra. No-one knows what the competing cost will be out of the current fire sale at Babcock and Brown, as it divulges similar interests into the markets in this country.

What has the Government been doing for the past 13 years? Why is it suddenly Barry O'Farrell's fault? For 13 years the Government has had a chance to fix this problem. For 13 years former Treasurer Michael Egan and Treasurer Michael Costa have told Parliament that the New South Wales taxpayers have had a surplus through the good financial management of the Labor Party.

The Government promised to fix the roads, it promised to lower hospital waiting lists and it promised to provide extra police, but it has not delivered on one of those promises. Not one Government promise has been fulfilled. The electricity legislation that was introduced today is dead in the water, because the Government did not consult with the people of New South Wales and it gave a flawed plan. The Government has reaped its own revenge. The Government has lost, and it deserved to lose. The contrast is stark—we will go to the people with a proper plan. [Time expired.]

See also: Open letter to NSW state Opposition members urging a vote against electricity privatisation of 28 Aug 08, Open letter to NSW Labor parliamentary caucus members to urging a vote against electricity privatisation of 27 Aug 08