HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-03-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

UNITED KINGDOM GENERAL ELECTION

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:20): It is with pleasure that I move:

That this house congratulates:

(a) the Hon. David Cameron on becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; and

(b) the Conservative Party on winning an additional 97 seats in the recent United Kingdom general election, while the other two major parties suffered heavy losses.

It is some time since I gave notice that this motion would be moved—in fact, I think nearly a year has passed since the British election—but I think it is still opportune that we place on the record our congratulations to David Cameron.

Members will probably know that in that election the Conservative Party won 307 seats, the Labour Party won 258 seats, and the Liberal Democrats 57 seats. Since then, the Conservative government has moved into coalition with the Liberal Democrats (Nick Clegg), and they have proceeded to provide the stewardship of the United Kingdom.

The challenge for the Cameron government would be evident to many. The economic circumstances of both the United Kingdom and neighbouring countries in Europe is well known, and any members who read The Economist regularly (which I do) would be familiar with the plight of a number of those countries in the European Union. The challenge is enormous for the new Prime Minister and, joined with him, Mr Clegg.

However, I note from Mr Cameron's history that he has a lot of things on his side. In recognition of his achievement, I would like to place on the record that whilst Mr Cameron might be seen to have come from a wealthy and aristocratic pedigree—being a descendant of King William IV and having attended Eton College and Brasenose College, Oxford, from which he graduated in 1998 with a first-class degree in philosophy, politics and economics—he is unquestionably a man of intellect and academic learning. That should be recognised because of the economic plight that the United Kingdom now finds itself in and the enormous task that the Cameron government has to restore that.

I do not doubt for one minute that it is those attributes that have helped him be able to deal with the introduction of a budget for Britain within 50 days of being elected; yet our former treasurer could not introduce a new budget within months, after his government had been in power for over eight years. Mr Cameron, completely away from the levers of the financial operation, was able to do that, so unquestionably his intellect is there.

His refreshing approach to politics was, I think, something that quickly attracted attention and ensured that he was a leading member of a new generation of Conservatives—young, moderate and charismatic—and he set about modernising the party and shedding its right-wing image. He announced that economic stability and a strong Public Service were to be a priority over tax cuts in the next Conservative government. Although there has been necessary financial restraint as a result of the collapse of a number of financial aspects of the economy, clearly his intent on ensuring a strong and well-functioning Public Service, one that is supported to ensure that occurs, ensures that his intellect shines through.

Apart from those attributes, I also wish to recognise that, as a number of you will have no doubt read, he is the father of young children, and that, very sadly, his eldest child, Ivan, then aged 6, passed away on 25 February 2009 from cerebral palsy and severe epilepsy. So, while he is there representing the country, fighting to win an election, his family are suffering a tragedy of the personal loss of that child.

I want to say that here is a man who has an understanding of the importance of how politics affects people's lives, how the values instilled to support the beliefs in politics are important, that the family tradition that he has enjoyed and the support in having the education that I have referred to are all important things, but that having experienced parenthood and the tragic loss of a child, I think, makes him well-rounded to undertake that very difficult role.

I also wish to acknowledge the election of Paul Maynard MP, who became the member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys. Mr Maynard is someone who has suffered from disability from a young age, in fact he went to a special school. He suffers from cerebral palsy and he was diagnosed with epilepsy at age 22. We have enjoyed in this parliament at our last election the election of someone with a significant disability, the Hon. Ms Kelly Vincent in another place.

The important thing is that, coming into the government in London, England, at the houses of parliament, to represent all of the United Kingdom, are people with high intellect; they may have a lot of political pedigree, but they are being supplemented by, and I think positively, people who have had not only real life experience but also the vicissitudes and hardship that are faced by those who come with a disability. So, it is not only a magnificent thing that we see the achievement of those with a disability coming into parliaments, wherever they may be in the world, but when they come in at that high level then I think it is important that we recognise that, and applaud it and welcome it, to ensure that we have that diversity of representation in our parliaments.

I also note that, after the election there was a bit of a dust-up between David and Ed Miliband, who are brothers, close in age and both very senior in Labour Party ranks, and they, of course, fought it out for the leadership of the party. The younger brother, Ed, became the new leader of Britain's Labour Party. I understand that his brother maintained his absolute commitment to the regeneration of his party and I note with interest the promises of the new leader of the Labour Party that he would learn from the election loss and that they would be out there listening.

It seems to be something that the Labour Party is good at doing. Whenever it gets a big whack at an election, or even loses one, it says, 'Well, we've learned our lesson. We are going to go out and listen to the people of South Australia'—in this instance–and that it will make sure that it understands what the people it represents follow, and follow it. We saw a great example of that when we saw The Parks being slashed in the first budget after that election. The Parks facility was to be sold off, which enraged the public, and the government has now backed off. Not completely, but it has said, 'We will send Monsignor Cappo in to have a look at that to make sure that we might get any reform right and that if we are going to sell bits off that we get it right.'

I was very interested to read that Monsignor Cappo was the very person who sat on the Sustainable Budget Commission that put in recommendations, which included the sell-off of The Parks Community Centre. The government is sending in the architect of its demise as the architect of its remedy. Amazingly, yesterday, I came across a 2005 newsletter, which gets sent out to people who use services at The Parks, and it has a beautiful photograph of two members, who are now ministers, ministers Weatherill and Rau, who are saying that they represent the area around The Parks, that they want to be supportive of it and that they would be the voice of the people who use the services of The Parks. They, of course, sat in the cabinet that proposed it being axed in the last budget. Next to them is a third person, and guess who that is? Monsignor Cappo. He is standing there, saying how important it is to have The Parks. In the December 2005 issue, I think, for members who want to go and have a look at it—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bragg, while this is no doubt interesting, may I just point out that I am not quite sure how this relates to David Cameron.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will tell you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good, please do.

Ms CHAPMAN: Just like in England, after the glorious victory of the now Prime Minister Cameron and the promises of the Labour Party that they were going to listen, we see a direct example here of where they do not listen. If you want an example in the United Kingdom, has the Labour Party changed their view on the national health system? No; they centralised that. They completely mucked up the health system over there, and what do we get? We get the leftovers from the Labour administration in the health department.

They have come over here and they are now employed by our health department. I could list a few, if you like. I have referred to them in the past. They have come over: 'Our government is on the way out, so we will rush over there and premier Rann will give us a job.' So, of course, they line up and they are there. I tell you, they have their list of apparatchiks who have rushed over here with their great ideas. One of them, of course, came over and said, 'Look, we can't rebuild on the site,' even though he was there at the time that St Bartholomew's Hospital was rebuilt for a cost of £3 million in England. Then he comes over here and says, 'On behalf of the department of health'—

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened to your interjection before in relation to the commentary made by the member. I think she has strayed well away from the initial motion. She is now debating the health portfolio in South Australia and making egregious comments about fine public servants in this state.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, member for Bragg, I wrote something down which I think might be relevant to what you were saying. It is in my special book.

Mr Bignell: Is that your detention book?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it is not my detention book, but it could be if you keep on talking. Yes, here we are.

Mr Pengilly: Even though he is with your mob?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Indeed. 'Relevance of an argument may not always be perceptible.' However, in this case it does seem to be slightly imperceptible, to me at least—tenuous, some might say. So, perhaps you could wrap up these comments in the three minutes remaining to you, in relation perhaps to the Hon. David Cameron.

Ms CHAPMAN: So what has occurred is that, by virtue of his election and us having the leftovers from England—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bragg, I don't see—

Ms CHAPMAN: The very policies—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I don't see how going back to the—as you call it—'leftovers' is really congratulating Mr Cameron.

Ms CHAPMAN: So I congratulate him for ensuring that we do not have to put up with the leftovers out of England, because that is an absolute benefit to him but, unfortunately, a legacy that we have to put up with. Let me give you another example: targets. Tony Blair, beloved boy of the Labour Party in England. Of course, the cover boy; the magnificent person who won the election for the Labour Party 18 years ago.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Bragg, a point of order.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I do not recall that the—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I would say to the member that, if the member for Bragg wants to move a motion condemning Tony Blair, that is fine; if she wants to move a motion condemning the health department, that is fine. This motion is not about those matters; it is about congratulating the Hon. David Cameron.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Indeed. It should be a positive congratulatory message.

Ms CHAPMAN: I absolutely congratulate Mr David Cameron for getting rid of the Blair-Brown Labour government, because it is of great benefit to the people of the United Kingdom. One of the things that has been swept aside as a result—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bragg, order! Please sit down. Member for Bragg, I think we all know what you are trying to say. I think you have made it very clear what your views are in relation to Mr Cameron's rather stunning win, and we congratulate him on that, obviously. If you would like to say anything positive about Mr Cameron in the time that is left to you, as opposed to other things, that would be much appreciated from the chair. Otherwise, you can just stop talking.

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You, member for Bragg, could just stop. Yes, indeed, the member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker: are you telling the house that you are going to rule that we have to stick strictly to the words in the motion and not canvass a broader range of issues around that motion?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

Mr WILLIAMS: Because, if—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I have just given you the answer. Member for MacKillop, the answer is no. Thank you. Member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: One of the great positive advantages of the election of Mr David Cameron is the abolition of what I call the aspirational targets that provide a press release story and no delivery of policy. The previous administration had ruled by press release and by targets.

Interestingly, in South Australia, we have strategic plans with targets. Again, we have all of these targets and what happens with them, both there and here, is that we are still stuck with them, of course. The reason we are stuck with them is because we have an administration that insists on saying, 'I am going to have this magnificent target. I am going to increase the literacy of children. I am going to reduce the occupation of'—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order, minister Hill.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Once again, the member for Bragg is talking about politics in South Australia which is not the subject of this matter.

Mr Williams: It is so.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: It is not.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I am sure that—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, I have not finished speaking, member for Bragg. I am sure that the honourable Prime Minister David Cameron will be fascinated to read this particular contribution. The member for Bragg has one minute left.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is important is that I am confident that the Cameron administration, as they have already demonstrated in the year that has passed, is absolutely committed to getting on with the job of restoring their country and the people in it to a level of respect—within the European Union particularly, but the world more generally—having had an association with Australia as well.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:37): I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Bragg. I am somewhat concerned that the Minister for Health takes exception to some of the things that have been said. The Minister for Health uses question time to canvass all sorts of issues when asked a specific question, yet would say that the opposition cannot wander away from the specific wording of the motion before the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, I think a broad canvassing of things is all very well. Let us not fall off the canvas.

Mr WILLIAMS: Absolutely.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let us stay within the parameters of the canvas. I believe that you were going to do some congratulating.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am indeed, and I want to put into context my congratulatory remarks because I think it is very important that we address this motion in the context of South Australia. Why otherwise would we seek to address the issues raised in the motion, if it had no bearing on South Australia? We are here, of course, for the benefit of good governance of this state and we are taking the opportunity to compare and take note of what has happened in other parts of the world and to learn from some of the lessons, and more particularly, to learn from some of the mistakes.

Unfortunately, the Minister for Health in this state does not see that and that is why he keeps repeating mistakes that have been made in other parts of the world. Unfortunately, the Minister for Health chooses not to learn.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has started using this topic, which relates to the election of the Cameron government, to make reflections on me. He is entitled to move motions about me and my performance, if he chooses, but he ought not use a motion about the election of David Cameron in England to stray in debate about my performance as health minister in South Australia. This is completely off the subject.

The SPEAKER: It is a question of relevance. I have only just come in on this debate, so, member for MacKillop, I will be listening very carefully. If I think you are using this for the wrong purposes, you will be told to sit down.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am sure that, having the opportunity to listen to my comments, you will appreciate that I am not using the debate for the wrong purpose. One of the things that has caused me to rise to contribute to this debate is, at Christmas last, my children, amongst other things, presented me with two books. One was Tony Blair's latest book called A Journey and the other was John Howard's latest book, Lazarus Rising.

An honourable member: I am sure I know which one you read first.

Mr WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact, I am sure you have got it wrong because I actually—

The Hon. J.D. Hill: One is more readable than the other, I can assure you.

Mr WILLIAMS: You have read them both, have you John?

The Hon. J.D. Hill: I have read Blair; I have not finished the other one yet.

Mr WILLIAMS: I picked up the Blair book first and I have not finished it, but I have done a fair bit of reading through it. My children were rather amazed that I would take the highlighter to the book and, very regularly, I highlighted passages out of the book because I thought it was quite instructive. That is why I think it is important that we read and we discuss this motion in the context of South Australia.

I thought it was quite instructive that Tony Blair talked about his days in opposition, his transition into government and some of the things he did. We have a government here in South Australia that calls itself 'New Labor', a phrase coined by Tony Blair in England—

The Hon. J.D. Hill: That is just not true. We do not call ourselves 'New Labor'.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: You have a real problem this morning, haven't you minister, a real problem? I spend far too much of my life listening to people like this minister rabbit on about things which are totally irrelevant, and the minister might actually learn something if he would only be quiet. I accept in Tony Blair's case that he did undertake reforms in England, but most of the reforms he undertook and had great success with were reforms within the Labour Party. He changed the way the Labour Party worked in England, and one of the things he did was he buried that group within the Labour Party, the old socialist part of the Labour Party, and got rid of it.

The relevancy of South Australia is that the Labor Party in South Australia has copied Tony Blair almost to the word, and would have us believe that it has buried the old socialist left of the Labor Party. Notwithstanding that, I would contend that the reason David Cameron came to power in England is because the Blair governments, and then later the Brown government, continued to act on those deep ingrained socialist ideologies. Even know they were able to sell a different message, the way they managed the country was steeped in the long held socialist ideology, just like we have here in South Australia.

We have this mentality of centralist control. For instance, we have seen in South Australia a huge growth in the public sector: some 18,000 more public servants employed today than were employed prior to this government coming to power, a phenomenal growth in the public sector, and it is all about centralist control. For example, the portfolio of the Minister for Health—and I am sure he will take the opportunity to contribute to this debate because he seems to be very interested in it—no more have we seen that centralisation of control than in his portfolio, where he got rid of local hospital management—

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, Minister for Health.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Once again I refer you to the issue of relevance in relation to the member's contribution. He is once again referring to my running of the health department. I am happy to have a debate about it but this is not the place to have a debate about the health portfolio in South Australia.

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Yes, I cannot see the relevance of that in the standard motion of this debate. I think you need to be very careful and get back to the substance of the debate, member for MacKillop. I am sure you have some very good things to say about the Hon. David Cameron.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you for your guidance, Madam Speaker. I have just invited the minister to contribute to the debate if he has got something worthwhile to contribute, rather than just trying to stop me from speaking.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: I am not trying to stop you from speaking at all.

Mr WILLIAMS: You are, John. You are very sensitive about the mess you are making of the health system in this state.

The SPEAKER: Order! Back to the debate, please, member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: We congratulate David Cameron on his win in the recent polls in Great Britain—he and his party—and we would not take the time of the parliament to congratulate David Cameron and the Conservatives on coming to power in England if we did not reflect on why they came to power, if we did not learn the lessons of what went wrong in great Britain.

It is very relevant that we take note of what went wrong in Great Britain under the previous administration and why the people of Great Britain got tired of them, got sick of them, actually turfed them out and said, 'We want to change direction.' In South Australia, I contend that we are heading in the wrong direction. In fact, we are heading in the same direction that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were heading. We are indeed picking up some of the flotsam from that previous British administration and heading in that direction.

We should not only congratulate David Cameron and the Conservatives in Britain for their win but also learn the lessons of what happened in Great Britain and adopt the policies and principles. The member for Bragg, who brought this motion to the house, pointed out that a new government in Britain with a massive financial problem in front of it could bring down a budget within 50 days of coming to power and contrasted that with an old, tired government that was returned, unfortunately, here in South Australia and could not bring down a budget for three or four months. It is that sort of comparison that makes it worth us—

Mrs Geraghty: They just went in and slashed spending.

Mr WILLIAMS: And what did your most recent Treasurer do? He did the same thing. Go down to Keith in my electorate and talk to the people down there and tell them that nothing has been slashed. That is why I am saying that it is important that we learn the lessons that brought David Cameron to power in Great Britain because we are making the same mistakes the previous administration made in Britain. It is fantastic to see that the people of Great Britain have come to their senses and have changed their government.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:48): I also rise to support the member for Bragg's motion. It has been interesting here this morning because we have seen an attempt to block private members' time, and that says something about where we are going in this state. The Hon. David Cameron won, along with his coalition partner, an incredible victory in Great Britain. Great Britain and the United Kingdom voters were fed up to the back teeth with spin, lack of substance and a presidential style of running their country. We are seeing it personified in South Australia.

What is happening at the moment is also happening federally, and Mr Cameron has got in there and, as other members have said, within 50 days delivered a budget. We have this ridiculous situation at the moment in this nation where we have the Prime Minister on the nose and the state government on the nose. The only thing they are in front of is the Redbacks, as far as I know, and we are heading the same way.

That is why it is so important to recognise what a magnificent win Mr Cameron had. It was a magnificent win. How often do you pick up the papers now and see him plastered all over the Australian papers, whether it be TheAustralian, The Age, which circulates here, or The Advertiser? You do not. You do not see him. Why do you not see him? Because he is not concentrating on presidential-style politics.

Mrs Geraghty: Look at the chat line.

Mr PENGILLY: What are you, opening the batting for the Redbacks? The reality is that he is concentrating on running the United Kingdom as he should be. He is not out there like Tony Blair and, to a lesser extent, Gordon Brown, trying to get his photo on every second page of the newspapers around the world. He is trying to fix up an almighty mess that was left by the former British Labour government that had been there for a long time, and he is doing an outstanding job in extremely difficult circumstances.

It is also interesting to note that his coalition partner appears to have decided that being in government is somewhat superior to being in opposition and they are working together well in the best interests of the United Kingdom. It is just a pity that we were not seeing the same thing in Australia because even this week we have seen Tony Windsor—who got into bed, so to speak, with prime minister Gillard—rejecting the carbon tax, and I think it is very interesting to watch what is happening in Canberra as opposed to what is happening in the United Kingdom.

The member for Bragg, in moving this motion, has done this place a favour because it does allow us to expose what a sham the former Labour government in Britain was and what a disaster it turned into, and the fact that we ended up having a pair of brothers fight it out for leader of the Labour Party. Heavens to Betsy! We do not have that in South Australia. I do not think we have any brothers who are going to fight it out, but there are a few scraps going on about that. The reality is that the Hon. David Cameron, since being elected prime minister, has acted extremely honourably and in the best interests of the nation. I commend the motion to the house.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (12:51): I speak against this motion. I think it is a nonsense that this motion even comes before this place, and I would be speaking against this motion if it were the Labor Party moving the same motion had the Labour Party won in the United Kingdom. I believe that we set a precedent once we start congratulating any country on winning an election.

We have many people in this country from many different countries in the world and we would set a precedent where we should be expressing congratulations in relation to all elections right throughout the world whenever they happen, and I certainly do not support that. I speak against the motion. I do not speak against Mr Cameron winning the election. I congratulate him, but I do not believe that this house should be dealing with motions like this. I will be voting against the motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT