Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I get great satisfaction. I actually work out the numbers, Senator Xenophon. I work out who should go last. Nigel Freemarijuana was up there for a long while, because I could not quite work out what he was up to. It is all about transparency and it is about being authentic to the Australian people, because this is their greatest right. In this reflection we have to understand the nefarious imbroglio that sometimes follows at the back of elections.

I do not know whether anybody at the time of the last election believed that Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor were going to support the Labor government. If they had known that, they may not have voted for them. I have some understanding of the seat of New England, seeing that I grew up there. I have a pretty good understanding of the seat of Lyne because it was next door to me. I think people were pretty frustrated and surprised; a vital decision, a vital form of transparency, should have been delivered back to them. These members should have given a warrant saying, 'If there is a balance of power situation, we intend to cast our vote with the Labor Party.' If they had said so, then they would have been totally entitled to do that. But I strongly believe that there was a belief in the community that they were going to go with the conservative side of politics. There was a period of deliberation, after which they went with the left-hand side of politics—the socialist side of politics, the Labor side of politics—and people felt that they had been exploited. There was no transparency in that. They kept on saying it was their own personal decision, like they had some sort of personal fiefdom and they could therefore play havoc with people’s lives by letting people in New England and Lyne find out they were responsible for the delivery of a Greens-Labor Party-Independent government—the GLI club. I do not think that was fair.

Transparency is so important. After the election we had the signing of the register—that is the only thing you could call it. There was Prime Minister Gillard and Bob Brown, who had a piece of wattle in his lapel, and the guests—the bridal party—behind them. They all stood in front of that book and signed it and said that this was going to be an agreement, that this was how the country was going to be run. There were happy shots taken and off they went.

In the last week we have heard that the marriage is over—it is all finished. If it were transparent, you would say, 'That will mean there is now a dissolution of that partnership and the effect of that will be a dissolution of this parliament.' That would be the natural inclination. However, that is not the case. The Greens are still going to give them supply and there will be no votes of no confidence. So what does this mean? Both of them are revelling in this new independence, but they are living in the same house. They are both out on the town, but they are cohabitating. It makes no sense, unless you are trying to be a little bit sneaky and thinking, 'Oh well, if we both present in a form that says we are independent of one another, we will both be able to collect a larger vote.' But this is not being transparent. This is not a proper reflection back to the voters of the realities of the situation and therefore it is deceiving them, and that just mounts the frustration.

Mr Swan talks about transparency in his role as Treasurer. He says, 'We have to be transparent in our figures.' This is the person who has never been transparent in his figures. Not one figure that the Treasurer has given us has ever been right—not even close, not within a bull's roar. And we have got the deficit coming. We all know that surpluses do not pay back debts and that deficits just add to debts. We have got this massive debt and now we are going to get another massive deficit. If they were transparent—and they know the figures—they would come out and tell us. They would be factual; they would be honest. They would tell us the truth and say, 'This is the reality,' because they have known the reality for quite some time. But they have been cunning, shrewd and manipulative. With the guile of a snake they have managed to obscure from the Australian people the proper and transparent portrayal of our nation’s financial position. This is not good. This is not what a transparent government is supposed to be doing.

Then there was the other orchestrated scheme within the Labor Party. A couple of years ago the Australian people believed that the Prime Minister who was holding the reins, Mr Kevin Rudd from Nambour, from the seat of Griffith, would remain as Prime Minister. They had a reason to believe that. Of course, that was taken away from them. The voter never got the right to make that decision. It was taken away by a person who is not even in this parliament—Mr Paul Howes, amongst others. Where did he come from? Where did he pop up from? I would like to say he is obscure, but fortunately enough Paul Howes has written lots of books—about Paul Howes. He writes about one a week about himself. Mr Paul Howes, in his deliberations, decided for the Australian people that he would be part and parcel of changing the Prime Minister of this nation.

My advice to Mr Paul Howes is: if you want to be involved with politics, sign up. Come on in. Otherwise, it looks like there is some sort of nefarious proposition that people in the background, who were never, ever voted for by the Australian people, have an immense say in the direction of our nation; that someone who has never darkened the doors of this place as an elected member of parliament or as a senator has determined who our Prime Minister is going to be. And he revelled in it. He bravely wrote a book about the life of the faceless man. I wish it were the case. He has a big face. You see it all the time; he cannot get it off television. This is very peculiar.

We heard Senator Xenophon talking about alliances, allegiances and things you do not know about that happen behind scenes, about who is mates with who, who is going to dinner with who and who is going to certain parties in certain towns with certain people who are very powerful. What does this relationship mean? The trouble with Mr Howes is that we do not get disclosure on that. He does not have to fill out a senators' or members' interests statement.

So we do not quite know what is going on there, yet he has the capacity to affect the direction of this nation. That is something that truly concerns me, because that is not democracy. We are the ones who stand at the table with our hands on the Bible or the Constitution and swear an oath of office. The idea that people outside this place could have an effect on the direction of this nation is not humorous; it is totally and utterly wrong. It is contemptible. Then they openly state it. There is something that is just not right there.

So what is the point? We have the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to try and get proper representation for the Australian people: 'When you elect this person, these are the people who will hold the reins of government. This is where the influences will come from. This is the opposition. This is the treasury bench. These are the powers they have.' If that is the case then surely the greatest corruption of that is somebody who is not even on the ballot paper having power in the direction of our nation, and it is there for all to see in Mr Paul Howes. What a disgrace that is. Why are the Labor Party proud of it? How could you possibly be proud of someone corrupting the whole electoral process? There is something decidedly wrong about it.

The reason it is topical is that it is all on again. We see Mr Kevin Rudd, the member for Griffith. He pops up everywhere. Every time the Prime Minister is out at an event, up comes Mr Rudd. He says he is just getting around; he is just having a yarn to people. He is a friendly type of guy. He likes to help out. He is from Queensland, apparently. He seems to be helping out rather a lot. Some would think that possibly he is making a move to reclaim his old job. So, as is right, the fourth estate ask Mr Rudd, 'Are you intending to have a tilt at the leadership?' 'No.' He says something about cryogenic freezing—the next lot of cryogenic freezing since Walt Disney. What is this all about? He apparently says something about cryogenic freezing, and we are led to believe him. It has to be believable. 'Of course not.' Of course Kevin—the member for Griffith—is just a friendly guy helping out. Could it possibly be that he is not telling the truth? Could that possibly be the case? Could it possibly be that people are actually stacking up the numbers? Could it possibly be that we are going to see another change in government? To be honest, I would prefer that, because that would say that at least the view of the Australian people is somehow authenticated by his actions. But if it is not then we have this absolutely self-indulgent act of a sulky person running around the place throwing mud on everybody.