Article Listings

I support the amendment moved by the shadow minister and the position which she outlined in her remarks. I have some serious concerns about the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Bill 2007 and cognate legislation, notwithstanding the proper and necessary decision that we, as an opposition, have made to support it—hopefully with some amendments. But in the realistic knowledge that the government will never accept amendments we reluctantly support the bill as it is.

Click here to read Kevin Rudd's speech to the Lowy Institute

I want to raise a series of issues this evening concerning a growing trend in the Howard government’s failure to distinguish between the national interest and the Liberal Party’s interests, between public purposes and private purposes and a trend towards confusing public assets and private assets. We have seen it recently with advertising. We have seen it recently with polling. We have seen it recently with fundraising. We are seeing serious allegations raised now with regard to the overlap between the Liberal Party, the government and what was previously seen as being, quite properly, a legitimate business campaign. We are starting to see the first glimpses of it with regard to taxpayer funded dirt units. In the time available, I want to talk mainly about that.

I want to talk this evening about some matters relating to the Public Service. Firstly, and most importantly, I want to talk about politicisation of the Public Service. I have a serious concern that after 11 years we have a government which takes the benefits of office as a right. We have seen it in highly publicised ways in, for example, the outrageous advertising campaigns robbing the taxpayers to fund what should be funded by the Liberal Party. But I want to proceed from that, which I now take as a given fact, to some serious matters concerning the Public Service.

The debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills gives me an opportunity tonight to speak on three matters of my shadow portfolio: firstly, my constituents in the ACT; secondly, federal-state relations; and, thirdly, international development assistance.

The recent Budget speech by the Treasurer and the Budget Reply by Kevin Rudd illustrated the contrast in approach to Federal/State relations which is at the heart of the philosophical and policy division in this area in the lead-up to the 2007 election. The Treasurer made only one reference to the states and territories in his Budget speech – that was to blame the states for the inadequacy of current dental services to the poor and disadvantaged, not withstanding that his own government had cut $100 million from the programs which states run. By contrast, Kevin Rudd’s two principal initiatives of his Budget Reply were predicated on a cooperative, Federal/State approach.

In 2007 Australia not only faces what looks like a very tight election; it also faces a once in a generation opportunity to transform our federation.

We won’t be able to make more substantial progress without leadership from a federal government which actually believes in co-operative federalism.

So if the essential task of federation reform is going to be done, it will have to be done by a Rudd Labor Government.

Everyone in this parliament knows that in 2007 we are facing what looks like a very tight election. I am not going to talk about that. We are also going to face a once in a generation opportunity to transform our federation. The question I want to deal with tonight is: will the Prime Minister use this crucial 18-month period during which no state or territory election is due to fundamentally reform the operations of the federation to save the $9 billion which the Business Council of Australia says the current mismanagement of federal-state relations is costing the economy each year?

We live in the South East Asian region, and it's here the issue of human trafficking, bond of labour, and other forms of contemporary slavery flourish. We are not responsible for that, other than in small part where it takes place here, but we are responsible to be part of a solution.

Last year I made a speech in this House outlining my critique of the manner in which the published opinion polls were being reported. I believe subsequent events have borne out the validity of that analysis. This afternoon I want to add a further chapter to the ongoing debate about what the polls tell us. This is not to comment on the recent boost in support for the opposition in the polls—that is much too recent to give any confidence as the basis of analysis. All those polls tell us is that the next election is likely to be close and that the opposition has a chance. Rather, I want to look at an apparently unnoticed long-term trend which has developed over the full 2½ years of this term.

Australia in 2007 not only faces what looks like a very tight election; it also faces a once in a generation opportunity to transform our federation.

The recognition that reform of federal/state relations is the key to the new round of economic and social reform we need over the next decade is spreading.

After all, how often do you see a common viewpoint on such an important issue from the Business Council of Australia, Steve Bracks, a Liberal dominated parliamentary committee; Professor Ross Garnaut, the Productivity Commission, Nick Greiner and the Leader of the Opposition.

It’s not surprising that all these individuals and groups have come to that recognition. The need is more obvious every week, every month, every year.

I rise to support the amendment to the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006 moved by my colleague the member for Perth. When the Leader of the Opposition took that job, he gave high priority to the task of ending the blame game and getting rid of the attempts by one level of government to explain away their failure by blaming the activity on the other. Australians are sick and tired of the blame game and, if the speech by the member for Mitchell had been broadcast, they would understand why. I have never heard a more old-fashioned, tired exposition of the blame game than that which we just heard. There was not one step forward in what he had to say. It was a straight 1990s exposition of the modern Liberal Party. In the 1970s, he would have been kicked out of the Liberal Party for saying all that, but these days it is the modern Liberal Party version and it is sad.

The Energy Efficiency Opportunities Amendment Bill 2006 is mainly technical in nature and will enhance the operation of the existing arrangements in a manner that is necessary and desirable. It is not of itself in that way a very important bill, but it is a bill about a very important subject and, together with the second reading amendment, gives us an opportunity to discuss some important issues relating to this matter.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this conscience vote on the private member’s bill presented by the member for Moore, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. It is not possible for every matter that comes before the parliament to be considered as a conscience vote.

I rise more in sorrow than in anger to speak in this debate. As a former minister for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I have very high regard for many of the officials in that department and they were put in a terrible position as a result of the circumstances that developed.

I was in the United Kingdom when Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death. The first response from outside Iraq that I saw was Tony Blair expressing his opposition to the death penalty in the following terms:
We’re against the death penalty, whether it is Saddam or anyone else.

Then I heard reports of the EU calling on Iraq not to execute Saddam.

So, imagine my disappointment when I found the Australian government’s position was:
He [Prime Minister Howard] said that while he opposed the use of the death penalty in Australia or against Australians, ‘what other countries do with the death penalty is other countries’ business’.

I regard this position as morally flawed, politically manipulative and against the long term interests of Australia and Australians.

The Howard government’s relationships with our Pacific neighbours have reflected a continuing pattern of inattention and failure interspersed with occasional bursts of belated and sometimes unsuccessful frenetic activity. We hear the Minister for Foreign Affairs trying to reshape the question to say that our criticism of the way he has handled the matter equals support for the actions of people overseas—that we are supporting the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea against Australia. Our concern is not that the Australian government has acted, but that it has acted incompetently. Our concern is not that the Australian government has spoken up about matters, but that it has spoken up in a manner that has been counterproductive.

On 30 November 2005, an impressive cross-section of Australians gathered on the lawns in front of Parliament House to call for leniency for convicted drug smuggler Van Nguyen, not because any of us there sympathised with his crime but because we were and remain genuinely opposed to the death sentence. It was particularly moving to hear the speech of Brian Deegan, whose son died in the Sari Club blast. He repeated his earlier eloquent opposition to the death penalty, including for Amrozi, who has been convicted for his involvement in that terrible massacre. It is by that standard that those who claim to be opposed to the death penalty should be judged.

I have pleasure in entering this debate to support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005, extremely disappointing as it is, and the second reading amendment moved by the member for Grayndler. I listened with interest to the member for O’Connor. I always try in these speeches to start by finding something in what the member opposite says that I agree with. I was battling right until the end when the member for O’Connor said that this bill will not do very much. I certainly agree with that, but I do not think much of anything else that he said.

This is a very important debate. It is important in itself because it is a debate about legislation, the passage of which has had significant impact on the framework of civil liberties in this country, as the Law Reform Commission makes clear. It is also important for what it says about the state of our rights and our democracy after 10 years of a government that has grown increasingly intolerant and arrogant.

There is no doubt you have to have a special sort of nerve, a particular level of temerity, to come in here as a representative of the Howard government and complain about the level of taxation, because you are a representative of what is now universally accepted as the highest taxing government in Australia’s history. I made that claim first some four or five years ago and it was disputed. We had a debate for about six months as to whether it was correct or not depending upon certain definitional issues. But that debate is over. Everybody knows that the Howard government is the highest taxing government in Australian history.

The issue I wish to raise in today’s grievance debate is the manner in which the media in Australia cover opinion polls on voting intentions and related issues. I raise it not for its short-term significance to the Labor Party at a federal level—it may or may not have some; that is not clear and it is not something on which there would be unanimous views—but for the long-term perspective, as one of a number of issues raising concerns for me and others about the nature and health of our democratic processes. We find ourselves in September 2006 in a position where objective evidence and public perception are miles apart. On a sustained basis, this cannot be a healthy thing.

I rise to support the amendments moved by the member for Hunter, particularly insofar as they relate to the issues of abuse of market power and unconscionable conduct. These are amendments of general application. It is particularly appropriate in the immediate case that they apply to the area of petrol, and that is why the amendments are being initiated here. I welcome that and support that but, in the years in which I have been dealing with this matter, it has become more and more evident that section 46 is the gap in the trade practices regime of this country. It is the gap in the competition regulation of this country.

It is interesting to follow the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I thought the first half of his speech was a very interesting definition of the comprehensive nature of the problem. I do not agree with everything he said but it was broadly and in sweeping terms an outline of the fundamental international characteristics of the problem. But what it inevitably meant was that the second half of his speech showed how inadequate the response is to the problem he defined.

I rise with my colleagues to oppose the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. This legislation, notwithstanding some attempts to ameliorate it, cannot be saved. It shows clearly that the government never really believed in the reforms they proposed in 2005 to seek to accommodate the rebels in their midst.

I join with others in regretting the fact that the time available for all of us to speak on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 has been cut so short. I will not waste any of my limited time railing against that—I will allow people to make judgments for themselves. One of the things that strike me about this bill is that it illustrates an emerging feature of the Howard government: the Howard government hates agreement about issues that it might be able to exploit as wedge issues.

I want to refer tonight, and seek a response, to what I see as a continuing scandal in Public Service employment as it relates to the employment of people with disabilities.

I rise, as other opposition members have, not to oppose the Australian Trade Commission Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 but to express my strong reservations about some of the changes that it is making. In the course of that I want to talk broadly about what I think it is a serious trade problem for Australia.

Every weekday morning in my electorate, only a kilometre from here, breakfast is served to the homeless. This particular service has only been operating for a year and has grown from serving breakfast to a handful of people to regularly serving more than 70. Their clients are homeless and, in this weather, many of them are still sleeping rough—sometimes in tents provided by the service in lieu of affordable housing. They stay on after breakfast for counselling and referral. Many of them have complex issues which will need much time and help to resolve. After homelessness, one of the biggest problems seen at this centre is poor dental health—a problem for many other Australians too.

I rise to support the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 and the second reading amendment. It was interesting to hear the remarks by the member for Riverina. They would have led one to believe that the Export Market Development Grants Scheme was a great coalition initiative rather than one which the coalition butchered when it came to office. It slashed it and abolished all the accompanying programs in the biggest cut to assistance to exporters in Australian history.

I want to use this opportunity to raise once again my concerns about the treatment of David Hicks and about the continuing operation of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre. It is humiliating to Australia that one of our citizens has had to seek to exercise a right to British citizenship to get a shot at justice.

It was my intention to speak today in the adjournment debate on the issue of discrimination against same-sex couples, based on the experience of a couple in my electorate who also happen to be friends of mine. I hope still to get the opportunity to do that, but I want to speak today about my sense of outrage, as a member of the Australian parliament, as a citizen of Canberra and as an Australian, on hearing that the Attorney-General, Mr Ruddock, is contemplating overriding the ACT civil unions legislation.

I know the Artist’s Resale Rights Bill 2006 will not pass through parliament. It does not have the government’s support and they will not allow it to pass. So why am I moving it? In the first instance, obviously I am moving it because I passionately believe that visual artists in Australia should share in the wealth they generate through their creative efforts. But this bill is also deliberately designed to be a challenge to the Howard government

I support the amendment moved by the member for Wills to the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005. In this debate I want to refer to a slightly different matter in addition to those matters raised by the member for Wills which I just heard so ably outlined by the member for Gorton. What I want to refer to more is the monumental double standard reflected in this bill whereby the government is applying one rule for itself and one rule for others in Australia.

A Bill for an Act to amend the Copyright Act 1968 to provide for royalties for visual artists.

It is well established that gender equality is very important in development assistance debates for two reasons: one, which is clearly obvious, is that gender equality is a fundamental right; another is that there is clear evidence that gender equality is essential for successful economic and social development.

It is very interesting to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006 on the day after the Treasurer has put out his ritual annual tough budget warning. I refer to yesterday’s Australian Financial Review, with the headline ‘Treasurer warns of tight budget’. I am sure that all the people who follow these things thought, ‘It must be mid-February again!’

It is perhaps a little earlier this year because of the Commonwealth Games, but essentially it is the Treasurer’s standard game—and I do not just mean this Treasurer. It is the standard game of ‘treasurers’, plural, and, in some ways, a proper and appropriate thing for them to do even in years when they do not mean it.

I wish to make it clear from the outset that I will be supporting the Therapeutic Goods
Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of RU486) Bill 2005 introduced by the member for Moore. I congratulate him and all those associated with bringing it forward. Coincidentally, I am the first male from our side of the parliament to speak. This is significant only because the Senate vote showed a dramatic gender divide in support for this legislation. It reflects a history of male domination breaking down in our country. On most issues this makes no difference. There has been a lot of rhetoric about how much change it would make, and in most issues it is absolutely irrelevant. But this is one example where the breakdown of the male domination of Australian politics is leading to a change in outcomes, and I welcome it.

In all these matters, for publicly elected officials the key question comes back to that which was posed in the Nixon impeachment hearings of 1974: what did you know and when did you know it? We now find out that the minister’s argument is that he never knew anything. That is not what I would call a great advocacy of ministerial responsibility and success because, as has been detailed on many occasions—and I will go back to some of them—on very many occasions the minister should and, by any credible explanation, must have known.

Like the member for Chisholm, I support the second reading amendment moved by the member for Melbourne to the Future Fund Bill 2005. I also support the idea of a future fund. In fact, I supported the idea when the Treasurer did not. With the member for Hotham, I was advocating what we were calling the ‘intergenerational fund’ when the Treasurer was mocking the idea.

I welcome the opportunity to launch this valuable monograph by Dr Angela Pratt. It is in my opinion a first class piece of work and a first class example of the strengths and value of the Parliamentary Fellowship program.

This is the text of a lecture given by Bob McMullan about the need to start addressing indigenous disadvantage.

The current $20 million advertising campaign in support of the Howard Government's IR proposals is just another example of the gradual corrosive corruption of our political culture. What is so concerning is that so many people who should know better appear unconcerned about this trend.

Global poverty is one of the four great challenges confronting the international community in the early part of the 21st century. And it should be the one most readily addressed.

This is the text of a speech given by Bob to the 2nd Committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It focuses on international trade and finance.

This is the text of a lecture given by Bob McMullan. The lecture tracks Australia's decline in productivity, and argues that a wider and better informed debate on fiscal policy is needed if we are to reverse this trend.

I want to use tonight’s debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2004-2005 and cognate bills to deal with two issues. First, I want to deal with a local issue, an issue important in my local community: the unnecessary, wasteful and frustrating duplication of planning processes here in the ACT. Second, I want to rebut some allegations that the Deputy Prime Minister has repeated— misleading assertions he has made concerning my views and my activities in the past concerning the use of ethanol in petrol.

The Howard government justifies its cuts to Indigenous programs on the grounds that it is eager to support Indigenous Australians to help themselves. I want to outline tonight an opportunity for the Howard government to put its money where its mouth is.

Speech given to the House of Representatives covering the topics of the Public Service efficiency dividend, the future of the Australian National University, and the Charter of Budget Honesty.

Speech given to the House of Representatives covering the topics of the Public Service efficiency dividend, the future of the Australian National University, and the Charter of Budget Honesty.