Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I have enormous respect for the Governor-General. I think many Australians, hopefully all Australians, would agree that Her Excellency has done a very good job. I particularly enjoyed her outspokenness on some controversial issues of late. I also have great respect for the office of the Governor-General and, in fact, in 1989 I was the Army aide-de-camp to, first of all, His Excellency Sir Ninian Stephen for a short while, and then Bill Hayden in his first year. So I understand how Government House works. I understand the important work that Government House does. I make the point again that I have great respect for Her Excellency.

But I think there does need to be a greater public discussion about why, in mid-November last year, we again had the Australian representative of a foreign head of state open this parliament. It strikes me as an anachronism that the Queen of England is also the Queen of Australia and that our parliament is opened by her representative in this country. Surely we have grown up and moved on. I have fond feelings towards our mother country and what England did to settle us, help us grow and become a great nation. But, surely, now, 226 years after the First Fleet sailed into Port Jackson, it is beyond time that we had an Australian head of state and an Australian open this parliament. Moreover, I am referring not to someone who opens this parliament by reading a speech prepared by or, at least, approved by the Australian government but to someone who reads his or her own speech—a speech in which he or she is independent enough and free to say what he or she thinks that the parliament should achieve over its three years and what the government should achieve during its three years in power. Surely, it is beyond time that we have someone who when opening the parliament can stand up and tackle controversy, and lay out what is needed and what is expected during these challenging times.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen an Australian head of state open the 44th Parliament—and open the 45th Parliament—by making it clear that he or she expects the government of the day to tackle the tough issues. Let's face it, moving money around is relatively easy. Tackling policy and the tough policy challenges facing us is difficult. Wouldn't it be great if at the opening of the parliament our head of state said, 'I expect this government and this parliament to deal with the issue of problem gambling in this country.' Considering the fact that 95,000 Australian problem gamblers lose between them something like $5,000 million each year on the poker machines, wouldn't it be great for an Australian head of state to say that he or she expects the government to do something about that; that the government needs to be mindful of the fact that, for every one of those 95,000 problem gamblers, there are between five and 10 people adversely affected in some way; and that as a result of that $5,000 million lost, people are losing their jobs, they are going hungry, their kids are going hungry, they are living in houses without electricity and they are at a higher likelihood of taking their own lives.

Wouldn't it be great if an Australian head of state stood up and said at the opening of parliament, 'I expect this parliament and this government to tackle the big issues like the live animal export industry, which accounts for only eight per cent of the beef production in this country.' Wouldn't it be great if they were someone who stood up and said, 'I expect people to understand that that trade is not in Australia's economic self-interest, that it is systemically cruel and that it is not popular.' We need someone to drill down a bit and say, 'One of the reasons that beef producers are relying so much on the live animal export trade is the monopoly of Woolies and Coles.' That is why Australian beef producers are being paid no more now than they were being paid 15 years ago. Wouldn't it be good if at the opening of parliament an Australian head of state stood up and said, 'I expect the parliament and the next government to be a compassionate parliament and a compassionate government.' Wouldn't it be good if it was someone who stood up and said that the cuts to foreign aid which have now been announced—cuts of more than $100 million—are simply not acceptable; that cutting foreign aid is not the right thing to do and that it is also not in Australia's self-interest; that the way to enhance Australia's security is to build capacity in our nation and to help countries around us to be stable and to have the capacity to deal with challenges such as our changing climate? Wouldn't it be good if it was someone who stood up and said that 14 years ago the Howard government committed Australia to the millennium goal of 0.7 per cent of gross national income going to foreign aid, that we are still only at about half that or less, and that not only is our gross level of foreign aid inadequate but there are also some glaring deficiencies about where we are paying aid.

Deputy Speaker, did you know that in this financial year we are only going to give Iraq $11.3 million out of our foreign development aid budget of about $5 billion? Surely there is something wrong with that. This is a country that is anarchic, and we helped create the circumstances in which that anarchy is happening. Surely we have a moral obligation to give more than $11.3 million to that country out of a foreign aid budget of $5 billion. This financial year we will give $76.1 million to Pakistan even though Pakistan is host to 1.6 million Afghan refugees. There is something out of whack here, I suggest. We are demonising Afghan asylum seekers who are trying to come to Australia when they flee Afghanistan, another country that is an anarchic and where the central government has little or no authority outside the capital, and they are transiting through Pakistan, a developing country itself, with very limited resources and capacity. Yet not only do we demonise the Afghan asylum seekers; we only give Pakistan $76.1 million which would in part help to improve the circumstances of those Afghan refugees that are resident in that country.

I come back to my point about an independent Australian head of state tackling the tough issues and, instead of reading out a speech prepared by the government or at least approved by the government, being able to sit in the President's chair in the Senate and actually lay out what her expectations are of the new parliament and the new government, to actually say what she hopes will be achieved, to actually point out the areas which are deficient and which she expects a competent parliament and a competent government to address. I reckon he or she in those circumstances would sound a warning that Australia needs to start acting like a rich and civilised country, to start acting like a signatory to the refugee convention and to start treating people who try and make it to Australia with more compassion. As a signatory to the refugee convention, we have a legal obligation to give people protection, to hear their claims and to give them refuge if their claims are found to be accurate. Instead, what do we do? We have offshore processing. We have Manus Island and Nauru. We have basically all of Australia excised from Australia, from our migration zone—as bizarre as that would appear to be. I make the point again: what we should be doing instead of our current regime, which is supported in large part by the Labor opposition, I would add, is acting like a rich and civilised country, acting like a signatory to the refugee convention and showing a bit more compassion to those who come to our shore.

Do you know what I would imagine might also be in that speech, Deputy Speaker? A call to this parliament and to this government to have a more compassionate response to disadvantaged Australians. In this financial year, federal government outlays will be approximately $400 billion—that is, four hundred thousand million dollars. That is an enormous amount of money, and more than enough to look after those people in our community genuinely in need. But it is not happening, whether it be the person who is waiting years for a hip replacement in my own state or someone who is on Newstart.

A single person with no dependants receives $501 a fortnight on Newstart. In other words, an unemployed person in Australia, single man or woman, no children, over the early 20s, gets $250.50 a week to live on. This is in a country where just about anywhere in the country you are going to have to pay a couple of hundred dollars a week to rent a basic flat or unit or a modest house. Then we expect that person to have enough money to buy a smart set of clothes, to have a computer and an internet connection so they can research the job market and apply for jobs online, to be well fed and healthy and to be able to front up and do a good job at a job interview. It does not work. In fact, even industry groups are saying that if you want job seekers to have better prospects you have got to pay them more than $250.50 a week.

If I was writing the speech for the opening of parliament I would probably say to the parliament and to the new government: get a copy of the ACOSS Budget Priorities Statement for 2014-15 and have a read of it because it is an excellent blueprint for this parliament and for any government to follow. Do you know what I would also do, Deputy Speaker? I would refer them to a paragraph on page 3 of that statement—and excuse me if I read it, it is a longish paragraph, but I think I have time. It is very telling and I would ask in particular that members of the government who are now sitting here pay attention to this. It says:

Despite the current debates about increased social security spending, Australia's spending remains comparatively low. The real Budget problems lie elsewhere. Expenditures on social security payments in 2013 were 8.6% of … (GDP) compared with an … OECD average of 13%. Of the $28 billion of growth in social security between 2002 and 2012 (after inflation), $13 billion comprised increases in Age Pension … and $9 billion came from increases in family payment expenses (due to increases in payment rates, easing of income tests, and the introduction of the Baby Bonus and the Schoolkids Bonus).

It goes on—and this is the part I would particularly like to emphasise and bring to the attention of the government:

Expenditure on Newstart Allowance and Parenting Payment declined by $4 billion over that period—

that is between 2002 and 2012—

despite a rise (with higher unemployment) during the … (GFC). A sharp increase in the number of Newstart Allowance recipients in 2013 was mainly due to the transfer of approximately 80,000 sole parents in that year from the higher Parenting Payment to the lower Newstart Allowance. Despite claims of an inexorable rise in reliance on the Disability Support Pension, the number of recipients peaked in the mid 2000s—

That is the mid-2000 years. I could go on, but I think the point is clear that at the moment we in fact have a beat-up about what is going on with Centrelink benefits.

I am talking about what a speech at the opening of a parliament might sound like. What might it sound like if we had an Australian head of state, an independent head of state—reading a speech that was not written by the government nor approved by the government but, instead—standing up as an independent strong leadership figure in our community, telling the new parliament, telling the government, about some of the problems in our community and about where he, or she, expects the new parliament and the new government to focus their attention. I suspect in that speech the Australian head of state would also urge the new government to stand up to foreign governments. He, or she, would probably lament the fact that it took so many decades for Australia to finally take action over East Timor; and give credit, where it is due, to the Howard government that it did finally act. But why did it take so long? Why did it take so long for Australia to do the right thing?

I am sure the speech at the opening of parliament would address current problems—for example, the silence of successive Australian governments to the Indonesian occupation of West Papua. When is the last time an Australian government—or, for that matter, many people in this place—stood up and made the point that the Indonesian behaviour in West Papua has been, and continues to be, completely and utterly unacceptable and that it is no better than what they did in East Timor. Eventually we grew up; we grew a spine and we took action over East Timor. But there is a deafening silence over what the Indonesians are doing in West Papua. Since 1962, it is estimated that 100,000 West Papuans have been killed or have disappeared under the brutal military regime in place there.

The Indonesians, and maybe the Australian government, say, 'Well, there was an act of self-determination in 1969', when the Indonesians progressed their so-called 'Act of Free Choice'. But do you know how many West Papuans were allowed to vote at that referendum in 1969? One thousand and twenty-five. Only 1,025 West Papuans were allowed to vote about their future. No wonder it went down. In other words, the Indonesian presence there clearly continues to be without the support of the West Papuans and should be condemned by the Australian government.

So too with Tibet. I give credit where it is due to former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. He did take a stronger position than any other prime minister, before or since, about the Chinese occupation of Tibet. But if I was writing a speech at the opening of parliament, I would urge the new parliament and the new government to take a stronger position on Tibet and to say to the Chinese that what is going on there is unacceptable, that what they must do is preserve Tibet's unique religious, cultural and linguistic traditions, safeguard its fragile environment, and protect the human rights of the Tibetan people, including the rights of the nomads to maintain their traditional way of life.

I could go on, but I am sure by now that everyone gets the point I am trying to drive home. Not only am I saying that, 226 years after the First Fleet sailed into Port Jackson, surely enough time has passed and we should move to become a republic; I am also saying that there should be an Australian head of state who sits in the president's chair at the opening of a future parliament. He, or she, should speak for all Australians as a strong leadership figure and say to the new parliament and government, at that point in the future, that this is what he, or she, expects that parliament and that government to do. He, or she, should not read out a speech written by the Prime Minister's department or office, or approved by it. He, or she, should be a strong independent leadership figure.

In fact, I would go further and say that it would be in this country's best interests to eventually have a strong independent Australian head of state who balances the head of government, each being a check on each other—neither would have a monopoly on power. That would be a better arrangement than what we have currently. I qualify that by acknowledging that we are fortunate enough to live in one of the oldest and most successful democracies on the planet—and a great nation. Even though we still have the Union Jack at the top of the flag, we are a great independent nation. But we could be so much more. We could be so much more if we take that step toward being an independent nation with an Australia head of state.

Let's change the flag and, when we have the discussion, let us not cloud the issue with misinformation and untruths. This line that we cannot change the flag because so many Australian soldiers fought and died under the current flag is actually untrue. The fact is the blue ensign was only legislated as the official flag in the 1950s. Most Australians who have fought and died for this country have done so under the Union Jack and under the red ensign—a flag that now is not in widespread use except by the merchant navy. We need to have an honest and open discussion about this, and we need people in this place to be leadership figures to drive that debate into the future.

See this speech in context