Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In October last year I had the good fortune to be part of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Denmark and Sweden. The report of this visit was tabled in the Senate during the last parliamentary sitting on 11 May. At the outset, the report rightly notes that Australia has enjoyed good relations with these Scandinavian countries in the area of trade and tourism. However, parliamentary contacts have not progressed to the same extent. No longer is this the case. In the past two years, stronger relations between our parliaments have developed as a result of a parliamentary delegation visit from Finland and the parliamentary delegation visit to Denmark and Sweden. Later this year, the Australian parliament will host a return visit from Denmark and an Australian delegation will visit Norway.

I cannot stress enough the importance of such visits. Apart from the warm hospitality delegate members enjoy, new perspectives on key issues are gained. Certainly, more regular ministerial visits are recommended as the knowledge acquired is vital for informing policy debates in our Australian government. Take the case of industrial relations. The coalition government’s recent industrial relations changes would have been far better designed had they been informed by the labour market regulations in Denmark and Sweden. Instead, endless propaganda was trotted out about selected comparisons with the United Kingdom, the United States and New Zealand. Time and again the Democrats recommended they look also at the Scandinavian countries. Why? Because those countries are actually out-performing the UK, the US and New Zealand. They are better at creating jobs, are more productive and are wealthier than we are. The World Economic Forum’s 2005 global competitiveness rankings attest to this. It shows Australia ranked as the 10th most competitive country behind Finland ranked first, Sweden ranked third, Denmark ranked fourth, Iceland ranked seventh and Norway ranked ninth. These are not backward countries. Had the government done the objective comparative work, it would have discovered, as the parliamentary delegation report notes about Denmark, that, ‘The Danish people are among the most positive in Europe about globalisation.’

Another aspect where those countries are leaders is in parliamentary independence. I note the benefits that come from both parliaments setting their own budgets. Delegate members were most impressed by this practice. In the case of Denmark, the report notes:

This is considered important in maintaining the independence of the parliament, particularly in its role of keeping the government accountable.

In the case of Sweden, the report notes:

Symbolically and in a practical way this asserts the independence of the parliament.

It is the role of parliaments to approve the raising and spending of tax moneys. The executive sets the budget for the administration and the parliament approves it. In Australia, what is odd is that the executive also sets the budget for the parliament, with the nod of the government’s own Presiding Officers, and the parliament approves it. What a wonderful democratic development it would be for Australia if our federal parliament set its own budget through a cross-party committee. This could not be abused. Since the executive by definition has the numbers in the House of Representatives, it is evident that it will have the ability or check to stop parliament running away with itself.

The Australian Democrats believe that a strong, well resourced, properly funded and fully effective parliament is only possible with true financial independence from the executive. Parliament is funded by the government of the day. This is despite parliament’s theoretical position as the supreme arm of our system of democracy. The Western Australian commission into government warned that this financial tie blunts the capacity of parliament to perform its watchdog role over the government. Parliament must be properly equipped to fulfil its accountability responsibilities in a manner consistent with its constitutional and sovereign independence. Parliamentary financial independence is important, because a financially hamstrung parliament cannot adequately scrutinise the actions of the executive and, where the executive has acted inappropriately, it can use its financial control to hamper the parliament from exposing that activity, for instance, through limiting funds to committees.

Whilst the federal parliament has its own separate appropriation bill, the executive does maintain a tight rein over the amounts included within it. The Democrats believe that there should be a joint standing committee of both houses of the federal parliament responsible for planning the budget of the parliament and that the government should not be able to hold a majority on that committee. The government should be obliged to accept the recommendations of the committee with respect to funding, unless there are pressing reasons in the national interest that they be rejected. In that case, the government should publish full reasons as to why the budget recommendations should not be accepted. This places political constraints on the government without removing from them their ultimate powers. Where the recommendations are accepted, the government should not be politically answerable for the amounts appropriated. Parliament must be audited and fully subjected to the Auditor-General’s normal accountability measures.

Another and associated point of interest for the delegation was the strength of parliamentary committees in both Denmark and Sweden. They play a vital role in the budget approval process. Draft budgets are first considered by committees and then approved by the full legislatures. Both parliaments have unicameral systems but, instead of the executive bulldozing the parliament as a result, politicians from all parties jealously guard their independence and much of the consultation and negotiation occurs through committees. Accordingly, they assume an active role and are very influential in administrative and policy issues. Some of those Australian politicians who are exemplars of cowardly obeisance to the executive could learn a thing or two from them. Additionally, national environment objectives are regularly reviewed by committees such as the environment committee. In our meeting with the parliamentary environment committee in Sweden, we learnt how climate change is one of the major concerns, as is the protection of the Baltic Sea.

While on the subject of parliamentary matters, it was pleasing to learn that the Swedish parliament operates a child-care centre. Child-care staff are employees of the parliament, and currently around 35 members of parliament use the facility. Without doubt, such a service would be welcome here in our parliament. In Denmark, as a large percentage of women return to work after having children and as the percentage of female participation in the workforce is almost as high as males, child care is rightly given considerable attention. Significant investment is being made over four years to increase the quality of day care centres there. This includes improving the services available to disadvantaged children. I have been startled at how so many Australians view child care, like aged care, as a low-wage, low-skill occupation. It should be regarded as a high-wage, high-skill area. Who can possibly be more important than our child or our granny?

A recent article by Catherine Fox in the Australian Financial Review on 16 May this year argues that it is time to take a look at the Swedish model. If only we would. Instead, we seem to continually defer to and try to copy the United States. Fox tells of how Sweden has maternity leave and the United States does not; how Sweden allows for a six-hour working day for parents until children are eight years old and the United States does not; how parents in Sweden are allowed 60 paid days leave care for sick children and parents in the United States are not; how child care is more affordable in Sweden than in the United States and how child-care workers in Sweden are paid four times more than equivalent workers in the United States. The costs of these provisions are partly offset through payroll taxes and social security, but the Swedish economy has not been damaged by these caring policies—quite the opposite. The upshot of all this is that these measures have, in Fox’s words:

... made a significant difference to the fertility rate, women’s participation in paid work and overall economic productivity.

We have much to learn from the family friendly provisions and public subsidies Sweden offers. They make for more happy workers, more harmonious workplaces and higher productivity. In some areas the Swedes have much more to boast about than Australians. They have at least nine companies that are genuine world multinationals; we have none. Their research and development programs, scientific endeavours and higher education commitment are astonishing. And there is nowhere more competitively engaged with world trade. They are a high-wage, high-skill, high-standard, caring country that we can learn from.

There are many contrasts I could pick on, but our miserable new unfair and un-Australian Work Choices act is indicative of a mean and nasty general sense of negative ideology that is not mirrored in the Swedish system. The Democrats have consistently urged this government to be more rigorous when making overseas comparisons. After this parliamentary delegation visit I am even more convinced that the policies of the Scandinavian countries should not be ignored and that some of them should certainly be copied.