Page 4500 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 23 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of opinion to cloud their judgments on other issues or, conversely, they would allow sycophantic behaviour to sway their judgment in the opposite direction.
This is a commentary on how Richard Mulcahy’s world works. We have seen already evidence that Mr Mulcahy is a very rank-conscious individual and some hint of insensitivity as well. It might be that what we are seeing, through this motion, is Mr Mulcahy’s projection of himself and what Richard Mulcahy in power would be like. He would be small-minded in relation to those who take issue with him; he would allow differences of opinion to cloud his judgment and to affect quite independent decisions on other matters, because that is the logic of the arguments that have been put forward today by our opposition. I am glad this matter came on today because this matter does reveal that this is you. This holds up the mirror to you.
Before this debate today, I was trying to think of people that I respected. There are no sycophants, no toadies, no people that are serially compliant and no coat tuggers in the group of people that I respect. I respect individuals who are open, honest and forthright.
I had the benefit of four years of dealing with federal ministers, with all sorts of different outcomes. The first thing you discover is that first appearances of anybody can be deceiving and are not necessarily accurate at all. Without entering into any detailed criticisms or whatever, I would say that in the vast majority of cases there have been quite free and easy relationships, despite our differences.
Some of the differences that have been referred to in today’s debate have been, at ministerial councils, the subject of banter and of good humour, as opposed to the federal ministers’ negative: “You are from the ACT. We are not talking to you because Jon Stanhope stood up to the Prime Minister.” In the majority of cases, that is not the case. You demean your federal colleagues, Mr Mulcahy, by the inferences that must be drawn from what has been said in this place today. You have belittled those people to the point of saying they are that small-minded.
It has not always been the case. A couple of tourism ministers who did no homework were offered gratuitous advice. They did not necessarily know what they were talking about, to their embarrassment. There have been occasions when there have been harsh words. But in four years, they have been very, very few and they have not continued and did not become extensions. The next event is not coloured; the next discussion is not coloured by previous discussion. As I said, you do your colleagues on the hill a great disservice if you think that is how the world operates.
You were talking about business coming to you, Mr Mulcahy, and expressing their concerns. There are people that come to me and express concerns—and I am starting to share them—that this motion is reflective of you.
I cannot say that there are not on the hill some vindictive people. I worry a little about Peter Costello. I have to say we had a very intense period of discussions with both that minister and the Prime Minister over the appointment of Graeme Samuel to the ACCC. I have a strong suspicion that that has coloured decisions that followed from that. That does not confer any great credit on the federal Treasurer, I have got to say. It is hard to deal with the guy. For all the noise he makes in public, he is a very shy and socially awkward chap. He is very hard to have a relaxed conversation with.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .