Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Debates such as this one on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2006-2007 allow us, under the standing orders, to discuss public affairs. Today I wish to discuss the way in which the government puts in place its public policy statements. This week we had a discussion on a matter of great importance—our continued involvement in Iraq. In fact, we have had a ‘discussion’ about matters to do with Iraq in general, but what we have not had is a debate.

Often, I regret to say, members of the government have suggested that in some way, because this government has what it believes to be a more virtuous outlook on question time, that question time can replace proper debate. That is not the case because, as I have said before, if one reads the standing orders, question time is not a level playing field. I am not picking on Minister Hockey, but I give his performance in question time today as an example. If the opposition had asked a question that mentioned an individual’s name and in any way went on to make derogatory remarks about that person, it would have been ruled out of order. Today Minister Hockey, at the end of his answer to a dorothy dix question provided by a member of the government, took to an academic—with vague relevance but sufficient to have it ruled as relevant—who has very little opportunity for rebuttal.

I see that two distinguished members of the Procedure Committee—the member for McPherson and the member for Banks—are in the chamber. They, along with members of other committees, have thought that citizens should have a better right of rebuttal when comments are made about them in the chamber. In this case, the academic was named and his motives for putting a position were derided because of his past associations, including singing in the Trades Hall choir or whatever it was. I only raise this because it is about parliamentary standards; it is about the way in which we project ourselves to the rest of the world.

Last week, on the day that the state and territory heads of government were to meet with the Prime Minister about his $10 billion water plan, the Prime Minister was asked quite rightly and legitimately in question time, before that meeting, to provide the House with some detail about the plan—which had been out in the public ether for about four or five days by Thursday. What was his answer? He said that it would be inappropriate for him to explain the detail to the House before he explained it to the territory chief ministers and state premiers.

I am sorry, but if we are going to have fair dinkum debates about important issues like water, some of the action should occur in a parliamentary democracy—in the houses of the parliament. In fact, a week later, we find that there is a lot to question about this proposal. It would appear that this proposal was run out of the Prime Minister’s office—Australia’s equivalent to the Oval Office—without too much process through cabinet. I have never had to stand here and actually protect the rights of executive government before but, in this case, even that was bypassed. We have had the bypassing of the full executive government and we have had no discussion of this proposal in the parliament, and then this is portrayed in the community as the levels of government and the parties not cooperating on an important issue.

Of course we want to cooperate, because it is a serious problem. But we need a fuller discussion about this type of thing, when this goes to a criticism about the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, which was set up by a piece of legislation, amended as recently as late last year, and which has been a successful body where all tiers of government have been able to come to the table. All the states involved in the Murray-Darling Basin finally came to the table. We can remember a time when those who looked after the headwaters, the Queensland state government, were not involved. But they were all involved. We have not really had explained why there is a need for a new mechanism where the Commonwealth decide, in their version of new federalism, that they will take over holus-bolus without explaining to the public or to the leaders of the state governments in what way the powers will be divvied up.

I notice that it appears—and it is reported in the paper—that at least one member of the coalition parties, the honourable member for Mallee, has raised his concerns. How demeaning, last week, to get him to ask the dorothy dix question that went to matters that he has championed ever since he first came into this place. It is not as if he is somebody new to this question. He then gets, in the answer back from the Prime Minister, all the things that he has been promoting. Now, a week after that incident, he finds when he starts to study the detail that in fact there are a whole host of questions. So not even the processes of the coalition parties have apparently been followed with regard to this important piece of public policy.

Often people say, ‘Look, this is not about processes; this is about outcomes.’ But I can assure you, for those who should have faith in the way we put in place a parliamentary democracy in Australia: it is fairly important what happens here. And the cooperation that you can get across parties is fairly important.

Mr Deputy Speaker Haase, without drawing you into the debate, you as a contributing member to a variety of parliamentary committees know that that is the case. You know that we can achieve a lot of things, in the case of the House of Representatives, through bipartisan action. That is important. And it is a very important thing to do with the future development of Australia in a sustainable way.

One of the words that we do not hear enough about is sustainability. Sustainability cuts across all notions of public policy, whether they be economic, environmental or social. They are the pillars that we should be talking about. In the past, they have been pillars that have been hidden behind: ‘We can’t solve this or that environmental policy because of the economic damage that might go on.’ I think we have moved on from that, and we can have a sensible debate about things like the River Murray, but that is best done in a way that is inclusive and that understands that people expect a bit better out of their elected representatives in a parliament.

There is another aspect about this besides the lack of detail that goes to question time, for which I have given examples such as water policy and the attitude to answering questions about Iraq. I am on the record where I decried the fact that, especially in the early years of our involvement in Iraq, there was so little debate in the parliament. There were two longwinded debates before the troops were sent in, and then there was silence—because, of course, two or three months after hostilities commenced, we had that great scene on 1 May 2003 where George Bush, in the copilot seat of the fighter, made the landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln, then got up and made the speech with the banner behind him: ‘Mission accomplished’.

Tell that to the families of the thousands of US defence personnel who have been killed, the families of the over 100 UK personnel who have been killed and the families of the at least 60,000 Iraqi civilians who have been killed. When we want to have a discussion about this, the only discussion that the parliament will have is in question time—which, of course, as I have said before, is very much not a level playing field.

I am on the record as saying that I did not think we should have gone in when we went in. I sure think that we should be out of there as soon as it can be appropriately arranged. Of course we understand that there is a need, in strategic terms, to look at that and do it in an orderly fashion. But, if the Prime Minister thinks that there is only one case that can be argued about the effect of Australian troops or the whole of the coalition of the willing leaving Iraq, he is wrong. What he does not consider is that their presence in Iraq is an impediment to the continuing developmental progress of a new form of leadership and control in Iraq. There is a good case for saying that. There is a good case for saying that the American personnel especially have been perceived—and I am not making any comment about their actions; I am talking about perceptions—as a catalyst for the civilian civil war occurring in Iraq at the moment. I think anything that we can do by way of other measures that can be taken to assist the continued development of a new Iraqi regime should be looked at.

The Australian Labor Party, Her Majesty’s opposition, are on the record as saying that we believe that the continued involvement in armed action is not the way. If we really want to be helpful, we should be looking at reconstruction. There are plenty of credible American commentators who are now saying that the situation has been going downhill since the time George Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln and claimed mission accomplished. Something that could have been perceived as a victory has gone downhill. But, if America decides to involve itself in the peaceful development of infrastructure and in the training and skilling up of the Iraqi population, it will get a great deal more credit and there is likely to be a better outcome.

They are the sorts of things that I believe that a parliament like ours can be involved in. At the moment we are having a very vigorous discussion about matters to do with climate change. Slowly but surely the Prime Minister is seeing the light. Slowly but surely he is understanding the problems that confront the globe because of carbon emissions leading to climate change. I think that most people now accept that there is a problem that has to be dealt with. In the past even I have admitted that there may have been a view that this was incorrect. But I have always said that that was not a reason for not doing anything, because we could not afford to wait to take action before things were verified in a scientific way.

One of the aspects we have not considered in our response to climate change is that we need to be looking at sustainable solutions and sustainable action. Therefore we should not have this false debate where the dog whistle is whistled, where we say, ‘All right, this is between having a coal industry and jobs and an alternative that has something to do with improving our chances of surviving climate change.’ Both can go hand in hand, and most thinking people understand that.

One of the things about hydrocarbon fuels is that, at the end of the day, the one that will remain in abundance is coal, and the world will have to look at cleaner ways of using coal. I say that in the context that we should look at a whole range of alternatives. We need to break through and say, ‘Why is it that people claim that solar is not economical? Why is it?’ ‘Why do we have these disagreements about the placement of wind farms?’ Those things by themselves are not the solution, but there are plenty of other solutions that we can come to.

Whilst I have not been able to visit that part of your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Haase, I have listened to not only you but also the member for O’Connor, who has championed tidal power. I had to admit that, at one stage, I was getting a little worried about myself, because he is starting to make even more sense. He is developing a case for tidal power as an alternative source of energy, but he is also looking at ways in which it could be used economically. He is looking at how it could potentially help not only the north-west but also down towards Perth along the western coast. It is that sort of thing that I admire. It may be that, at the end of the day, he is wrong. But the point is: if he is willing to put forward ideas like that in the Australian parliament, that is where we should debate them. It has got to be an attractive source of energy, because it is there to be used. It can provide a sort of baseload that other alternative methods may not be able to provide. That should not necessarily be the argument that tosses things out.

With respect to climate change we should be looking at other methods of providing sustainability. We should look not only at the individual level, the household level, and the way in which we use resources. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources might be dismissive of what people are doing to reduce their water use, but it is important because it tells us that people are thinking about the issue and there is a cultural change about their expectations of what decision makers should do. We should be looking at ways to reduce water use at family level, at household level, at community level and at city level.

In thumbing its nose at parliamentary practices, the government has not responded to the sustainable cities inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage. What we members of that committee say is that we have to take the holistic approach, because if we want to have sustainable communities it is about the use of resources, it is about the ecological footprint and it is about the environment—but it is also about the economy and about the social networks within our communities. That is what we really should be on about—instead of nitpicking about schooling and blaming teachers for everything that is going wrong. I wish the Prime Minister and other ministers who make comments like that would come and visit some of the schools in my electorate and see the job that they do in teaching the kids of the outer northern suburbs of Melbourne. They should judge those teachers based on the way in which they progress those kids—not based on a comparison with other schools in suburbs where there is less disadvantage. What a nonsense! There should be a cooperative effort between families, parents and teachers. It is not just about national curricula. Of course there is also a case for national curricula, but that is not the be-all and end-all. There is great strength in the diversity of Australia. If we do not have a regional outlook on many things, we will lose that strength. We will be a very mundane society and community as a collective.

So we should acknowledge that through our schools. We should celebrate our schools, the important role they have and the successes they have. We should not have schools, such as the ones in the electorate of Scullin in the government system, being decried because when they are compared to expensive private schools their statistics are not the same. The outcomes that they provide to the students that they are working with are very positive and families are appreciative of that. Families want to be involved in the education of their children and they know that, when they devolve responsibility for that during the daylight hours to educational institutions and school communities, those people are doing a good job.

I finish where I started. I would appreciate the Howard government really acting out—not just saying in words but acting out in deed—taking the parliament seriously and bringing on the big debates, not being scared of diverse opinion and taking that on board. Slowly but surely we will understand that there are other ways of improving Australia as a nation. (Time expired)

See this speech in context