Politics with Purpose: occasional observations on public and private life

Andrea.

Bookends

The Values of Humanity

[House of Representatives first speech, 6 May 1993]

My presence in this place is naturally the outcome of contributions from a number of people, and it is with great pleasure that I place on record my appreciation for the support, loyalty, and guidance of my father, Joe Tanner; mother, Maree Stephenson; stepfather, Noel Stephenson; my wife, Nicki; and our respective families. I also express my thanks to Cindy Hogan, Senator Barney Cooney, and Gerry Hand, my predecessor; to my friend Alan Griffin, whom I now have to call in this place, very fortunately, the honourable member for Corinella and with whom I share a loyalty to Essendon Football Club; and also to a very great former member of this House, Mr Gough Whitlam, who first inspired a young bloke from a small country town in East Gippsland over twenty years ago.

I would also like to thank the officials, staff, and members of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia. I am intensely proud of my background as a trade union official and I am very grateful for the opportunity that I have had to represent office workers in the industrial arena. I give them my commitment that I certainly will not stop representing and being a voice for the interests of office workers and workers generally in my role in this place.

Office workers are the forgotten people of the Australian community. Too often, when policy is developed with respect to matters like industrial relations or training, focus is based unduly on the interests of particular groups of workers in particular industries, and many groups of workers, large in number but often weaker in voice or weaker in industrial strength, such as office workers, are neglected.

We tend to think of the typical Australian worker as a male with a hairy chest, a blue singlet, and a hard hat, but the typical Australian worker today is just as often a female with high heels and a handbag. What I am committed to in debates and issues that are relevant to this dichotomy in this House is to make sure that we keep a true balance, because in this era of enterprise bargaining it is all too easy to lose the interests of many in the work force. What is appropriate and worthwhile for large numbers of metal workers in an individual factory may not necessarily be an appropriate approach for three typists working in a small real estate agent’s office, and I am committed to making sure that government policy in these sorts of areas has balance.

I would like to thank the people of my electorate, the electorate of Melbourne, for bestowing their confidence in me, and also to thank those who have worked for me to get here. It is indeed a privilege to represent the electorate, which is rich in diversity, steeped in labour history, and overflowing with ideas, energy, and talent. It is also the site of many problems, many issues, and many injustices, and I am conscious of the fact that I will be judged in my role as the member for Melbourne in this House according to how I represent the interests of the local community. My predecessor, Mr Gerry Hand, to whom I pay tribute, has set an extremely high standard in this regard; I am very conscious of the fact that I will have to maintain that standard, and I am committed very strongly to doing so.

I would like to thank my campaign committee, my staff — Mary Day, Alex Gaspi, and Barbara Andrews — and my two lower-house state MPs and good friends, Demetri Dollis and Neil Cole. I give them my commitment that I will work as hard for the electorate as they have worked for me.

The people in my electorate are under sustained assault at the moment, like many in the state of Victoria, from the actions of the Kennett government. Ministry of Housing high-rise estate tenants have had rent increases of up to $25 per week imposed upon them. Their cleaning and maintenance services have been slashed. Schools have been closed. Industrial rights have been attacked. Community health centres have had their funding slashed by up to half, and a whole variety of social safety-net programs have been substantially reduced.

I recognise that there are significant constitutional and funding problems but, in spite of those, I give my undertaking to the people of my electorate that I will do everything within my power to put forward their interests in this House and to do everything possible to ensure that the impact of these actions of the Kennett government is minimised.

I am a socialist. I am committed to the values of humanity, tolerance, and democracy. In an era when the repressive regimes of eastern Europe have thankfully crumbled, and when socialist certainties are under challenge, I regard it as very much a daunting task to reinvigorate the socialist ideal in this country and across the world. However, there is a great deal within our country that can inspire us. There is a great deal that is worthwhile about our country, in spite of our many problems — economic and other. I refer to things such as our entrenched democratic tradition; our still defiantly egalitarian spirit; our multicultural society and our extraordinary ability to absorb people of many different races and nationalities without serious violence; our commitment to individual freedom, and our entrenched resistance and dislike of authoritarianism, pomp — although recent events might tend to suggest that I am not all that accurate in that comment — and fanaticism. We would do well to recall these very worthwhile achievements of our society when we are next wringing our hands about the latest set of economic statistics, because these are the true, great features of Australian society.

I turn now to focus on several themes, which I intend to make prominent in my contribution in this place and which, hopefully, will occur over a substantial period of time. These themes are, first, the need for greater employment and initiatives in industry policy to ensure that we have a more competitive and more vibrant manufacturing sector to deliver that employment; second, the need to develop environmentally sensitive economic decision-making processes, both within companies and also at a government decision-making level; and, third, the need to reform our structure of government. The first of these is the search for solutions to our unemployment problem, which, I believe, is going to lead us into many new areas — in particular, structural unemployment. For example, there is a need to redefine the concept of work — but that is a matter for another day.

I wish to focus, here and now, on our industry policy. Although we are taking down our tariff wall, in my view, we are still relatively unsophisticated in how we deal with industry assistance in this country. Our assistance to industry is still too indiscriminate. It is not targeted and it is insufficiently proactive. We have learnt that picking winners can be fairly dangerous, but we still give a bit of money to losers, and sometimes we give it to people who are not even in the game.

I submit that there is plenty of experience, here and overseas, to put us on the right track. We have only to look at our assistance to rural industries over many decades — through bodies such as the CSIRO, through agricultural-extension services and the like — to see how effectively interventionist industry policy can work to the benefit of the community. That assistance has been cost effective. It has been a relatively low burden on the taxpayer. It has helped to make our rural industries amongst the most efficient in the world. It has been proactive and financially sound and, when an individual farm goes down the drain, a lot of government money does not go down the drain with it. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for some industry assistance that has occurred in the past in other areas.

An analysis of countries that have been recently successful in export manufacturing reveals not only the importance of government assistance but also the importance of the nature of the government assistance. In my view, what is critical is that strategic government assistance occurs directly in areas such as research and development, market development forecasting and planning, and the development of new technology.

A couple of examples illustrate this point. The Japanese government pays half the cost of about 185 testing and research centres across the country. Small companies go to these centres, use the equipment, and get specialist consultation with specialised staff in a national network of technology extension services. The thriving Emilia-Romagna region of Italy, which is a manufacturing centre of quite extraordinary vibrancy, has similar centres that are partly government funded. They engage in forecasting, research, and development, and provide access to new technology for smaller firms that otherwise would be unable to obtain it. Even in the United States, with bodies such as the Michigan Modernisation Service and the National Institute of Standards and Technologies, the same type of thing is occurring. This sort of approach in general is supported by people such as Professor Michael Porter in his tremendous book The Competitive Advantage of Nations, and in the Global challenge: Australian manufacturing in the 1990s, the Australian Manufacturing Council report.

I suggest that this type of approach to industry policy has many advantages. It is more cost effective than indiscriminate assistance such as tax breaks. It guarantees that jobs are created in key areas such as science and technology. It ensures that large sums are not lost when an individual business fails. It allows the government to influence, but not to direct, business policy and approach. It provides enormous potential for regional development through the clustering of businesses in strategic locations. It is not indefinite: some of the overseas centres that I have referred to have, in fact, already left the government-funded area and are self-funding. It offers a method for better articulation between our research institutions and business. It offers small and medium-sized businesses access to economies of scale. It is a little more subtle than tariff walls — an issue that I think we need to keep in mind.

The issue of size and scale is critical because, since 1970 in Western economies, the long-term trend for the relative size of economic activity to increase has turned around, and more and more activity is occurring within smaller and smaller business units. Flexible production technologies are reducing the tyrannies of economies of scale. Specialised functions are being contracted out to specialised firms. In the words of Robert Howard, in the Harvard Business Review:

Increased demand for more specialised products, nonstop technological innovation and cheaper and more flexible computer-based technologies are inaugurating a decentralisation of production.

It is precisely this type of company that has led the re-invigoration of Australian manufacturing that is occurring already in the export area. We need to do a great deal more than simply provide level playing fields, tax breaks, or tariff walls for these companies. Some examples of the sort of approach occurring now are the cooperative research centres and the National Industry Extension Service, but I would like to see a fair bit more being done.

I just make a quick comment in this context about economic policy generally, because this approach sits very effectively with recent developments in economic theories that are called either ‘endogenous growth theories’ or ‘new growth theories’. Economists such as Paul Romer have demonstrated the serious inadequacies of the neo-classical model. These new models show that the market solution is not necessarily the optimal solution; that government intervention can increase the real rate of growth; and that investment in innovation and human capital is critical for generating growth. Although these theories are still being tested empirically and still being developed as models, they do confirm our commonsense, instinctive view that the neo-classical model is based on false assumptions, ignores fundamental variables, and is not well supported by empirical evidence.

This leads me to the second theme that I intend to pursue in a long-term sense in this place — on the proviso that the people of the electorate of Melbourne give me that long term, which I sincerely hope they do. These theories also relate to the inadequacies of the neo-classical model, and to the greening of economic decision-making. In spite of great progress, we still have entrenched conflict between human economic activity and the need to protect our natural environment. The key reason is that we operate by antiquated models of economic decision-making, at both the national and the corporate level. The measure of environmental damage is not incorporated into these structures. The adverse effects of economic activity upon our environment are deemed to be externalities: they do not count. ‘It is not privately owned; it is not tradeable; therefore it is not relevant’.

I am thankful to say that business is at last getting serious about these issues, even in parts of the mining industry. The old adversarial approach of saying, ‘How do we beat the greenies?’ is giving way in many areas to the much more constructive approach of saying ‘How do we solve the problems?’ However, the approach that business is taking is still relatively narrow, and it is still weighed down by the idea that growth is the answer to everything. That devalues the nature of the problem. It suggests that solving the problem is only a luxury that we can undertake if and when we get the money to do so. It also ignores the fact that if we have growth without solving those problems we will, in fact, exacerbate them.

However, I still must acknowledge that business is getting its act together, and I applaud that. Many feasibility studies for projects are now incorporating things such as environmental impact statements at an early stage, so they do not become something to be fought over at the end. My objective is to move this process of change to a higher level so that we can link economic decision-making processes to our broad environmental objectives. I define those objectives as closed-cycle production, to the maximum extent that we can get it; a reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions; a steady increase in the efficiency of our use of materials and energy; a switch to organic agriculture and renewable energy use; and a cessation of the invasion of natural environments by human economic activity, and preservation of species.

What we have to do — and it is difficult — is to link those goals with our economic indicators. National economic statistics measure our wealth creation, but they do not measure the damage we cause by creating it and by using it. Corporate decision-making indicators — company accounts and the like — do not even properly address the corporate impact of environmental damage, much less the community impact of that damage.

I do not have any instant solutions to this problem, and that is why I am suggesting that this is a long-term thing that needs to be addressed. I hope honourable members in this House will be interested in taking me up on this. We have to get the issue away from the high-profile battles, away from people lying in front of bulldozers, and into the boardrooms, into government. We have to make sure that the decisions have been made properly and in an environmentally sensitive way from the outset so that we do not get to the protest stage.

It is time that we internalised the environmental externalities. We have to integrate environmental indices into our economic decision-making structures. The company balance sheet must ultimately be linked in some way to a natural capital account of the nation so that national goals and indicators for environmental protection can be linked with the decisions that we actually make about economic activity, either in this place, in state parliaments, or in companies.

The mention of state parliaments brings me to my third and final theme: my desire to see the abolition of state governments. Like many in this chamber, I am committed to the achievement of a republic in this country by the year 2001. I have no doubt that we will traverse many other constitutional issues in our journey towards that goal. Although we may not achieve a two-tier system of government by the year 2001, it is critical that we examine these issues while attention is focused on our structure of government.

The states are as much an anachronistic relic of colonial times as are our links with the British Crown. In 1901 the states reflected genuine focuses of economic and social activity in this country; they have long since ceased to do so. They are now an impediment to good government, a fount of economic inefficiency, and a mis-allocation of scarce public funds. In this era of micro-economic reform, with interstate economic activity ever increasing, what we are getting from the states is eight different legal and regulatory systems in areas such as criminal law, environmental law, consumer law, trade and occupational qualifications, food standards, workers compensation — and so the list goes on. Business is confronted with a multiplicity of conflicting regulatory demands and overlapping planning regimes that generate inordinate delays, conflicting demands, and fragmentation of the planning process. The states compete with each other for investment, including foreign investment, at the expense of their own citizens by trading off cheaper electricity, cheaper workers’ compensation premiums, and the like. The boundaries of the states have about as much relevance and logic as the boundaries imposed on Africa by the colonial invaders in the 19th century. It is not necessary to be a genius to work out that the Murray River was adopted as a boundary in the days when no one had heard of pollution and it was thought that natural resources were unlimited.

The complexities of the distribution of powers between the states and the Commonwealth cause many anomalies and many problems that lead to an inadequate approach by government at large to issues in the community. If we want to see the ultimate absurdity of our system of government, we only have to look at recent chaos surrounding issues such as daylight saving and Australia Day. Those issues highlight the stupidity of the system. How many other countries in the world celebrate their national day on different days in different parts of the country?

Fortunately, there are a few people on the conservative side of politics who adopt a constructive approach to this debate and who do not respond with attempts to frighten small children late at night with bogey-men. Ian Macphee is an honourable example. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) was even quoted in The Australian about 18 months ago implicitly suggesting that it would be a good idea if the state structure were done away with. I suspect the honourable member might have changed his mind in recent times, but time will tell. In its publication Government in Australia in the 1990s: a business perspective, the Business Council of Australia described the existing structure of government in this country as ‘archaic, inefficient and in urgent need of reform’, and called for a two-tier system of government.

In conclusion, I ask the economic rationalists on the other side of the House — if there are any left since 13 March — to give very serious consideration to this issue. There is one at least — that is good to see. If we are to be a truly independent nation, economically vibrant and innovative, and to provide efficient and responsive government to the people of Australia into the 21st century, we must not exempt our antiquated system of government from the flood of change that is sweeping through this country. I expect to be standing here in the year 2001 representing a truly independent Australian republic, and I intend to do everything within my power to ensure that that republic is genuinely democratic, efficient, and accountable.

In the Footsteps of Giants

[House of Representatives final speech, 24 June 2010]

I rise to advise the House that I will not be contesting the forthcoming federal election. I just wish to outline some of the reasoning behind my decision. A couple of weeks ago I spoke with the then prime minister, indicating that it was my intention to not contest the coming election. He asked me to delay consideration of this decision, indeed to reconsider. He indicated that he wanted me to stay on as a minister even if I did choose to step down. I concurred with his request and we agreed that we would revisit the matter at the end of the parliamentary sitting period. In fact, we had an appointment scheduled for 9.30 this morning to consider this matter. As you all know, by one of those strange quirks of fate that tend to occur in politics, other matters intervened. So I found myself doing what I expected to do — namely, confirming my intention not to recontest the election — slightly later in the day to a different prime minister, the incoming prime minister. I am now formally advising the House of my decision. I have indicated to the incoming prime minister that I am equally happy to continue serving in my current ministerial position until the election or to step aside without demur should she choose to ask me to do so.

I want to say a number of things to the House about this decision. First, I would like to make it plain that I have no future employment organised as yet, in case anybody is suspicious that I have been bought off. I do expect that I will pursue opportunities somewhere in the business and academic worlds, but that is a matter for the future. I also wish to indicate that, once I do cease to be a minister and a member of parliament, I do not intend to play a serious or significant future role in politics. I will of course do everything within my power to ensure that the government is re-elected and that the Labor Party holds my seat of Melbourne.

Once the election is over, I expect to play very little role in the future political discourse of this nation, with one significant exception. For a number of years, I have been heavily committed to and heavily involved in seeking to advance the interests of a particular group of people in our nation — African-Australians. That is something that I am very passionate about and something that I would urge all members of the House to pay more attention to. They are a particularly disadvantaged group in our community, and I will certainly be offering my assistance to them in any way that they may find useful.

I want to stress that this decision is driven entirely and absolutely by matters of personal circumstances. There are, frankly, two little girls and two older kids who need me more than the country needs me. When I married my wife Andrea nine years ago, I said in the speech at the celebration that every day we were apart was painful. I am afraid that is still true. These are circumstances that I am sure most members of the House will understand only too well, indeed better than many in the community.

People will know from media reports that I and my wife have purchased a property just outside Melbourne. This, of course, is not unrelated to my decision. I am aware that in the current political environment — a rather unusual environment — all kinds of speculation and conspiracy theories will emerge with respect to the decision that I have taken. I want to assure the House that this decision is totally and absolutely unconnected with the events of the past 24 hours. It involves no reflection on either the previous prime minister or the incoming prime minister. It involves no reflection on the government’s policies and it involves no reflection on the prospects of Labor holding the seat of Melbourne. In fact, it is a little-known fact that my margin, or the margin that my successor as the candidate for Melbourne will inherit, is slightly better than it was between 2001 and 2004 in the wake of the Tampa election.

I would like to conclude by thanking, most obviously, my dear wife, Andrea, my four children, and my mother, who is an ex-parliamentary staffer, believe it or not. Sadly, it was for the National Party, but that is another matter. She did learn her lesson later in life, I hasten to say. I would like to thank all of my staff, past and present, ministerial and electorate, and especially my chief of staff, deputy chief of staff, media adviser, and personal adviser — that is, Anthony Baker, Angela Jackson, Nardia Dazkiw, and Mary Day — for their extraordinary commitment and dedication. I would like to thank the staff of Parliament House. I would particularly like to thank the people working in the Department of Finance and Deregulation, who in my view are the best public servants in the nation. I have found them virtually uniformly outstanding. I particularly thank the two heads that I have served with, Dr Ian Watt and David Tune.

I would like to thank all of my colleagues in the labour movement and the trade union movement, particularly those I served with in the Federated Clerks Union, which is now the Australian Services Union, state colleagues in my part of Melbourne, branch members and supporters in my electorate, and a range of very important individuals who have been critical mentors during the course of my career — Peter Redlich and Michael Schaefer from Holding Redlich; former senator Barney Cooney; my intellectual inspiration, Michael Schluter from the Relationships Foundation in the UK; and a range of close friends, who I do not wish to name at any great length, particularly people like Tony Douglas, Stephen Howells, and Martin Foley, who is now the state member for Albert Park.

I would