Senator Andrew Bartlett
Portfolio: Electoral Matters & Public Administration
| Dated: 28 Sep 2004
Location: National Press Club
|
Telstra National Press Club Address - Senator Andrew Bartlett |
I acknowledge the Ngunnawal people, the traditional owners of the land on which we are meeting.
Good afternoon ABC viewers, Press gallery members, Democrat members and supporters here. A particular welcome to Democrat MLA, Roslyn Dundas, who has the challenge of conducting another election campaign here in the ACT. Three years ago, Ros became the youngest woman ever elected to an Australian Parliament. Three years on, she is also the most effective worker on the cross bench, responsibly exercising her balance of power for the people of Ginninderra. I also welcome Rachael Jacobs, the Democrats Lead Senate candidate for the ACT in the federal election.
I start with an election prediction. After polling day, the Prime Minister will be Mark Latham or John Howard. This is far from ideal, but it is what Australia is faced with.
However, there is another aspect to this election that has had little attention, but which could have a greater impact on Australia's future, than who is the Prime Minister.
It is the big, overarching issue of this election bigger than economic management, security, health, education or trust. It is an issue that subsumes all of the others.
What is the election issue? It's the Senate, stupid!
At least as important as the choice of Mark Latham or John Howard is people's second vote on polling day their vote for the Senate.
Australia faces the prospect of one of the major parties having effective control of the Senate for the first time in over two decades. The Senate could become a rubber stamp, with no way to hold the Government to account or to independently scrutinise the hundreds of pieces of legislation and policies. Or it may become a brick wall, returning to the days of 1975 where not only did a Liberal controlled Senate block supply leading to the dismissal of a democratically elected Government, it blocked over one quarter of all pieces of Government legislation.
Currently less than 3% of legislation is rejected outright in the Senate and this Liberal Government squeals 'obstruction'.
While the Democrats are independent of both Labor and Liberal, we will try to work with whoever Australians elect to Government, however much we may disagree with their policies. Since our formation, the Democrats have said we will not block ordinary supply to Government. Support for blocking supply is the only policy issue where the Green senators voted with the Liberals, against Labor and the Democrats, in the entire life of the last Parliament.
The record of all parties over the past three years, reinforced by the preference decisions in this campaign, shows that the Democrats are the only option for keeping the Senate strong and independent.
The three most likely outcomes in the Senate election are:
1. the Democrats maintaining our seats and keeping the balance of power in the hands of a party that is independent of both Labor and Liberal;
2. The Liberal Coalition having a blocking majority in their own right, or
3. The Labor Party relying on their Green Party allies to deliver them a majority.
No Prime Minister has controlled the Senate since Malcolm Fraser over two decades ago. Since then Australian voters have supported the Democrats in the Senate to moderate the policy and ideological extremes of Labor and Liberal and to hold them to account.
The fate of the Senate at this election is inextricably tied with the fate of the Democrats. A decline in Democrat seats will mean a decline in the strength and independence of the Senate.
When the major parties disagree - on industrial relations, superannuation, the future of Medicare, selling Telstra - or just whether or not the Government has lied, it is the balance of power party in the Senate who decides what laws are passed and ensures issues cannot be swept under the carpet.
In the last Parliament, over 450 separate pieces of legislation were considered by the Senate. On nearly 50 occasions, the two major parties disagreed. On virtually every occasion, the Green senators voted with Labor.
Whatever you think of the Howard Government and I personally think they are the most dishonest and divisive in our history do you really believe that on every initiative, the Coalition was wrong and the Labor Party was right?
By contrast, the Democrats judged each piece of legislation on its merits in accordance with our principles often negotiating improvements, always consulting with the public and considering all of the options in an effort to get the best results for the people affected. Few people could name more than a handful of those 450 bills, but they affected people's lives in one way or another. Our job is to make sure the effect is a positive one.
The inquiries into the deceptive claims on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Children Overboard lies would never have occurred if the Howard Government controlled the Senate. The Democrats also ensured that the Senate investigated many other issues directly affecting people's lives, such as health and school funding, and other serious and neglected matters such as the suffering of children abused in institutions.
Democrats work with and represent the interests of a wide range of Australian society. We engage with unions, big and small business, community and environmental groups but are captive to none.
Above everything else, the Democrats stand for democracy. For allowing the maximum number of people to be heard in deciding what direction our country is going.
That is why the Democrats' record in the Senate stands in stark contrast to that of our minor party competitors, the Green Party. Opposing everything the Government puts forward is easy. But doing the hard work in negotiations and finding better solutions, is what makes the positive difference to people's lives.
The Democrats deliver good policy and prevent bad laws not just for Democrat supporters but for all Australians. As an example we have worked hard over years to advance the rights of war veterans. Now, I expect not a lot of veterans vote for the Democrats, but on our record they should in the Senate. Not only have the two Green Senators in this Parliament not contributed to debate, or inquiries on veterans issues, the Green Party does not even have a veterans policy.
The Democrats are always seeking to improve legislation even when there is no votes in it for us. Our willingness to negotiate means we are frequently criticised, sometimes by the Labor Party, sometimes by the Coalition, but particularly by the Green Party.
Negotiating with others and exploring all the options, rather taking an ideologically pre-determined stance, is more difficult and the final position will never please everyone. It is hard work and you have to make hard judgement calls. It can sometimes be like the umpire at the footy half the crowd will disapprove regardless of what you do. But I am more than happy to compare our record of solid achievements for Australians and for our environment against that of any competitor.
Just a few of our achievements in the last Parliament include:
winning major welfare concessions that reduced social security breach penalties for unemployed jobseekers and sole parents;
allowing people in interdependent relationships including same sex couples to have greater equality in their superannuation arrangements; and
Negotiating an extra $10 million in assistance for low income earners as part of new Telstra pricing regulations.
There are dozens of other examples.
The Democrats have had more success in protecting the environment and strengthening environmental laws than any other party. We dont just work to save the forests but also on less high profile issues such as water use, healthy cities, cleaner energy and fuels and protecting Australia from imported pests and diseases.
No party has done more than the Democrats in the Senate on a broad range of issues from corporate responsibility to animal welfare.
Last year we were more successful in amending and improving legislation in the Senate than any other Party, including the ALP.
The Democrats were not only successful in defending Medicare against many of the attacks although we couldn't stop others helping Mr Abbott making moves toward a two tier system but we also negotiated more funds towards many areas of need. We have put forward further, fully-costed plans to improve bulk billing rates, reduce costs for specialists and to include dental care, nurses and other services not provided by a GP. We will protect the existing safety nets from removal by a future Labor Government unless they are replaced with other measures that more effectively address high out of pocket health costs.
The Democrats believe investment in education, in schools, TAFEs and universities, is an investment in Australia's future. We opposed the Government's increasing of University fees. Asking students to pay over $100,000 for a science degree is just dumb. This hike in the cost of higher education shows what can happen when the balance of power in the Senate gets in the hands of those who don't get the hard decisions right. The Democrats pledge that, if Labor is elected to Government, we will do everything we can to ensure they keep their promise to reverse the recent hikes in University fees.
On National Security, the Democrats stand for the defence of Australia, putting more effort into our regional responsibilities and rebuilding the focus on global disarmament and foreign aid. We have introduced legislation that would mean any future decision to go to war can only be made by the Parliament, not the Prime Minister. He did it before, and he could do it again.
At the start of this campaign, NSW Senator Aden Ridgeway and I went to the centre of Australia to talk about an issue which is central to the future of Australia reconciliation and the disadvantage endured by Indigenous Australians. We challenged the other parties to give priority to fixing this disgraceful situation. Sadly, they have failed to take up that challenge.
The 2nd platform we released was on children. The Democrats have a strong commitment to providing better environments for children and doing all we can to protect them from abuse. We have been part of a trilogy of landmark inquiries into the stolen generation, migrant children, and children in institutional care. We continue to call for a Royal Commission into Child Abuse and to push for all policies from taxation to welfare, to be focused on reducing the number of children being raised in poverty and emotional neglect.
Our starting point was our platform on political honesty and accountability. The Democrats' record is unmatched in lifting the bar for all parties on political accountability. We retain and reaffirm that commitment, as clearly there is an urgent need for further improvement.
The Prime Minister brazenly declared the fundamental issue of this election campaign was trust.
I believe the Prime Minister has knowingly lied to Australians on a number of issues, including issues directly related to the defence and security of the nation.
I also believe a lot of Australians, whilst concerned about this, are just as worried quite understandably about the day to day and future needs of their families. Whether they can get and keep a job, get quick access to a bulk billing doctor, whether their mortgage repayments will rise, and what sort of education they can provide for their children.
Economic issues like regulating corporate behaviour, getting a fairer tax mix, superannuation, trade practices, fair competition policy and workplace relations, may not seem very interesting but they have a huge impact on our country's prosperity and on individual's lives, and they constitute the majority of balance of power issues.
Over the last few months, weve seen the tax priorities of the major parties.
In the last Budget the Liberals, with Labors help in the Senate, gave the wealthiest a tax cut of nearly $15 billion, while four out of five tax payers got nothing.
In this election campaign Labor, after their giving the wealthiest a $42 a week tax cut, offered other taxpayers an $8 a week cut next year.
The Green Party has consistently opposed all income tax relief even for the poorest Australians. The Democrats do support tax cuts, as long as they are fair and simple.
One of the key tasks of the Senate after the election will be sorting through all the massive pre-election vote buying pledges in the cold light of day to make sure they meet real needs. In many cases that will be determined by the balance of power party. It raises the real question - who do you want balancing the books in the Senate? The Democrats or the Green party?
The Democrats are committed to and have helped deliver a strong Australian economy but we also want prosperity shared more fairly. Under the Howard Government the gap between the rich and the poor has grown.
All the taxation and social security schemes are still letting millions of Australians fall through the social safety net.
One in nine Australians lives below the poverty line. One in five children is raised in a family where no one has a full time job. More than four in ten Australian households living in poverty are the working poor holding down jobs but still under the poverty line.
Australians trying to move from welfare to work sometimes pay effective marginal tax rates of more than 100 per cent. After paying tax and childcare they are worse off than they were. Those are real barriers that keep people out of work and trapped in poverty.
With every new pledge and counter pledge from the major parties, our tax system is becoming more and more complex, with people continuing to fall through the gaps.
Mr Latham fiddled with the tax system and would leave many single parents more than $200 a year worse off.
Howard Government policies help married parents stay at home while their children are young, but single parents who receive parenting payment are being pushed out of the home.
There are two and a half million carers in Australia looking after family members who are frail, mentally ill or disabled. Most are women, many are living on the poverty line, unable to do paid work and unable to save for their retirement.
We need more help for people who are frail, have a disability or a mental illness. We need more doctors overall and more who bulk bill. We need better access to nurses and other health professionals. And we need to help the family and friends who are providing care in the home. Half of all carers earn less than $200 per week, many live in poverty and isolation, unable to access respite and emergency care.
Recently the Democrats moved amendments to make carer allowance fairer, but none of the other parties supported this. The Green senators did not attend the debate.
The Democrats are proposing a few simple measures that will make our tax system simpler and fairer and reduce the distortions and dishonesty of pre-election vote buying sprees.
The Democrats believe that the best way to provide the fairest tax cuts is firstly to increase the tax-free threshold.
Why should people living below the poverty line, pay large amounts of income tax?
The Democrats aim to increase the tax-free threshold from $6,000 to $10,000.
What is the sense in asking people to pay tax as soon as they earn more than $6,000 a year?
This policy helps to reduce the poverty traps that prevent so many low income earners moving from welfare to work. Shifting a disadvantaged family off welfare into the working poor is not lifting them out of poverty.
If you've been unemployed and you finally get a low paying job, you will probably lose your health care card and rent assistance. You pay more tax on what you earn to make up for the dole you received. You might lose a chunk of family tax benefit because you didnt predict your income correctly, and end up with a debt of thousands of dollars.
The Democrats tax policy would provide a $13 a week tax cut to all taxpayers not $42 for the wealthy, and $8 for everyone else. This will give every Australian the benefits of economic growth, with particular assistance to low and middle income Australians.
We also want a tax system that is not only fairer and simpler but that keeps up with inflation.
In addition to raising the tax free threshold, the Democrats believe we need to get rid of the creep bracket creep by indexing tax brackets to keep up with price rises. As things stand average Australians will pay more tax over the next few years because of inflation and bracket creep.
Mark Latham says 'ease the squeeze', the Democrats say 'cut the creep'.
Every time Peter Costello tells Australians that he is giving them tax cuts, its a lie. Hes only giving them back the extra bit of inflation.
The Democrats are tired of tax cut lies. We want the tax brackets indexed. If we cut the creep we know when future Treasurers are honestly giving tax cuts.
The third element of the Democrats tax policy involves giving Australians the option to tear up the Tax Pack. For an average wage earner the Tax Pack is over 120 pages and contains 110 separate boxes, and it is just not necessary. Its government bureaucracy and red tape gone mad.
Many Australians spend a lot of time and money on their tax forms, for no sizeable return. And they are jack of the tax pack.
This initiative would give around 4 million Australians the option to not do a tax return. Australians who dont own share portfolios, dont own investment properties, who have a simple income arrangement would automatically get a $100 refund upon signing a declaration to say that their income has already been taxed. Its fair and its easy.
Granted it means a bit less work for accountants but I dont think they will mind.
Australia is one of the few countries in the world that makes every tax payer do a tax return.
There are a few balance of power issues that have emerged during the campaign which I will touch on today.
One area is the low income superannuation co-contribution scheme that Labor wants to destroy. This is a so-called 'saving' Labor is proposing to make of around $3 billion dollars. The Democrats in the Senate are not going to support them removing this help for lower income earners unless they replace it with something better.
The Democrats forced the Government to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to low income earners superannuation. The Democrats also enabled workers to choose for themselves where their superannuation funds are invested. Its a boost for ethical investment, gives people more control over their superannuation funds and ensures a bigger nest egg for lower income earners.
But Labor wants to fund their $8 a week tax cut by robbing the future retirement income of poorer Australians. The Democrats in the Senate will not support Labor taking it out of the retirement savings of lower income Australians.
This is a balance of power issue its an issue on which Labor and the Liberals disagree.
What will the Green senators do if they have the balance of power? They will do what they always do in that situation and side with Labor. They will turn their back on low income earners and get rid of the super co-contribution. After all, they opposed it being introduced in the first place.
I believe thats a concern but even more of a concern is how the Greens would go with the most common balance of power issue industrial relations.
I predict industrial relations will feature strongly during the rest of this campaign. When all of the major parties' policies are announced, the Democrats will release our full position on all of the likely balance of power issues. It is a responsible and honest thing for a potential balance of power party to do prior to polling day and we challenge all other minor parties to do the same.
On industrial relations, the Liberals on one side, and Labor and the Green Party on the other, are clearly driven by their own outdated ideologies rather than reality.
The Coalition's record and rhetoric show they are clearly anti-union. That's dangerous for the protection of workers' rights and conditions and is why the Democrats have put so much effort in the Senate into ensuring those rights are not reduced.
Union influence on Labor's internal governance is strong, deep and long- standing, with huge donations and control over many pre-selections. Yet the Green Party attacks the ALP for not being pro-union enough. And while the Green Party won't take donations from corporations they certainly do take political donations from unions.
Between the Coalition representing bosses and the ALP representing union officials, the Democrats are there representing the interests of the Australian people. We are not beholden to big business or the unions, so we judge legislation on its merits.
There has been a real problem with corruption in sections of the Building and Construction industry. The Democrats negotiated and passed stronger evidence gathering powers for the Building Industry Taskforce, while building in substantial protection against misuse of those powers. It meant we got a few nasty phone calls, but it was the right thing to do and we knew Labor wouldn't do it.
The Democrats have negotiated changes to the Workplace Relations Act to make it fairer to employees, but also to increase flexibility.
Australia now has lower unemployment, lower interest rates, higher productivity, higher real wages growth and lower levels of industrial disputation than in the past. Since the Hawke era we have seen the number of strikes, and days lost to strikes, reduced by more than 65 per cent. That greater prosperity has meant more money available for social services and for the environment.
The Democrats do not want industrial relations to again become a battleground in this country or in the Senate. We have ensured the Senate takes a responsible middle ground between the ideological extremes of the major parties and the results show we have been successful.
To keep the Senate strong, it must be as independent as possible of either major party and as free as possible from the constraints of ideological straightjackets.
The Democrats work within a consistent philosophical framework of fairness and justice but having pre-determined positions on every issue, based on a rigid ideology is a sure fire way to strangle not just the power of the Senate, but also to stifle the vitality of democracy.
Most Australians do not fit neatly into political ideology boxes and neither should our most representative and important house of Parliament, the Senate.
If Australians want a Senate that is weaker, that is less independent, they are free to choose it. That is the ultimate privilege of our democracy, and it is the integrity of democracy that the Democrats value above all else. All we are seeking is for the Australian people to take the time to think separately about their Senate vote, distinct from their vote in the House of Representatives.
The Democrats in the Senate are what stands between the ruling party and what they want most absolute power.
The Democrats Senate role and record is our biggest strength and the electorate's best protection.
Whoever you vote for in the House of Representatives think twice about whether you also want to keep a strong and independent Senate.
If you do, you will vote Democrat in the Senate.
Questions from National Press Club speech
Senator Andrew Bartlett 28 September 2004
Journalists: James Riley (The Australian), Ian McPhedran (News Limited), Orietta Guerrera (The Age), Mike Seccombe (Sydney Morning Herald), Danielle Cronin (The Canberra Times), Laurie Wilson (Director of the National Press Club), Ken Randall
Riley:
You talked about the importance of people's Senate vote. Polling suggests that your representation in the Senate may well be reduced from 7 to 4, but the Democrats may continue to hold the balance of power there. Given that would represent a rout pretty much, what right do you consider you have to dictate as a balance of power party in the Senate?
Bartlett:
Firstly if you're elected to the Senate you not only have a right, you have a responsibility to work on the issues that you committed to work on when you put yourself up for election. Secondly with the balance of power, it's an interesting phrase. I noticed when Bob Brown was here at his press club speech and questions, he basically indicated that he was prepared to take his balance of power and go home if the Liberals won government. Despite Bob Brown predicting the Greens could win up to seven extra Senators and end up with nine Senators somehow or other he still thought the Democrats would end up in the balance of power if the Liberals won office.
What that shows is that he is not interested in working with the Government that the Australian people choose. He would take his balance of power and go home. The Democrats have been as critical as anyone of the Howard Government but if the public choose to re-elect that Government we've got a responsibility to work in the Senate with the Government the people choose. If other people choose not to do so, well that's for them to answer to. If the people elect the Democrats we'll do our job.
McPhedron:
Ian McPhedron from News Limited. Senator, I've got a couple of questions. How then do you explain the rise of the Greens, and does that simply indicate that you've just failed to sell your message to the electorate? Secondly, if the choice was between, and it was a stark choice between Pauline Hanson and a Green, which would you choose? And thirdly, are you still off the booze.
Bartlett:
I'll start at the end eh? My name's Andrew Bartlett and it's over nine months, and I think about two weeks, since I've had a drink. I think it's about one day since I've seen a journalist write about it as though it's still current and important. But you know, you get that and I'll just focus on the job that I've got to do and our party's got to do, which is to improve people's lives and let others worry about the other stuff.
It's pretty clear who we'd prefer over Pauline Hanson and the Greens because people can look at our preference allocation that we lodged in Senate in Queensland, and we put Pauline Hanson dead last, so we'd prefer everybody above that. That's coming from Queensland, and having defeated Pauline Hanson last time, I'm very conscious of the dangers that she presents, and some of the real divisiveness that she could unleash, that she already has unleashed. And I'd like to actually acknowledge the presence here today of a local Canberra resident Mr Keani (ph.sp) who is somebody whose directly been very very very... had their lives affected in a very very big way by some of the very negative attitudes that our Government has adopted from Pauline Hanson towards refugees and migrants. People's lives get destroyed by that stuff. That's why we put Pauline Hanson last.
We have our differences with the Greens, we have our differences with a whole range of other minor parties, but what we said quite openly at the start and we've done this openly, we're not hiding what we're doing with our preferences, is that we preferenced a whole range of smaller parties, wherever they're even remotely acceptable as an alterative to having any greater control of the major parties in the Senate. And that is why we've preferenced parties like the Green party despite their continuing attacks on us.
That is why we preference groups like the Veterans Party, the Progressive Alliance... if you're talking Queensland, people like Hetty Johnson, the child protection campaigner, groups like Family First. Because we believe that all of those people would be a better option than having more power to the Liberals or Labor in the Senate.
And as I said at the start, there is a real risk in this election of the Liberals getting defacto control of the Senate. By contrast the Greens have actually put the Liberals ahead of groups like Family First and the Veterans Party, and they've even put Pauline Hanson ahead of them.
I find that extraordinary, but that's for them to justify, for them to think it's better to give an extra chance for the Liberals to have control of the Senate, for Pauline Hanson to get elected. Coming from Queensland in particular, I'm quite offended by that.
But I'm more interested in focussing on promoting the Democrats as the best option for the Senate, and the flaws of the major parties I don't particularly want to get into criticisms of any of the other minor, but I'm not going sit back and have the Democrats smeared by the Greens and attacked by the Greens without responding.
Guerrera:
Senator Bartlett, just a number of questions. You mentioned your preference deals with a few of the minor parties. There are reports that there are divisions between the Democrats on your decision to give preferences to the Family First Party. What do you say to supporters to justify that position, given the clear clash in a number of your policies with their policies? And also on the weekend, you predicted that the Democrats would win between zero and five seats in the Senate. Would you give up your leadership if you were to win... fail to win any seats in the Senate?
Bartlett:
Yeah, I'm into making those tough predictions. Going out on a limb. The... the leadership of the Democrats is thrown open to our members after every election automatically. The future... I think there's a clich or a slogan saying that the past is a foreign country, well the future's a foreign country as well. I haven't been there yet, and frankly I don't have much of an idea what it looks like, certainly the post-election future, so I'll wait 'til I get there and consult with members, and they'll certainly have a say on all of those things.
The issue of our preference arrangements, as I said, we've been quite open and upfront about those. I gave a rationale at the start. We preferenced a whole range of smaller parties. I held a press conference... a joint press conference with Bob Brown about our rationale for doing that with the Greens and with a whole range of other parties, to make... absolutely minimise the chances of the major parties getting any greater control in the Senate.
And that... obviously each of those parties will have some policies you disagree with but they'll also have policies that you agree with. I think some of the absolutely extreme over-the-top exaggerated attacks on Family First have been quite extraordinary from the Greens. I'm less surprised now about why Bob Brown didn't like our Lie Detectors slogan, because I think he didn't like the concept of people actually calling him up on some of his dishonesty.
Clearly, Family First are a conservative party, but to say they're the extreme right Christian Talaban is just ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as John Howard saying that the Greens are a bunch of watermelons, or they're a bunch of kooky left-wing extremists.
We have areas of common ground. The Democrats prefer to work with people across the board. That's how we prefer to work in the Senate, across all parties. That's why we've managed to achieve so much even with a Liberal government who is far more extreme on issues that destroy people's lives than... than any other party is likely to be.
So that's the approach we want to take. That's the approach we prefer. If the Greens want to take an approach of divisiveness, of attack and smear, well that's their business, but I don't think that makes for a better political debate, and I don't think it makes for a more effective Senate.
If you think there's any... I mean I totally reject the reports there's any significant problem within the Democrat membership. If you want to do some equivalent reporting, how about you go and interview every single Green party candidate around the country, ask them how they feel about their party preferencing Pauline Hanson ahead of Family First, how they feel about their party preferencing parties like the Non-Custodial Parent Party which support abolishing the Family Court, and abolishing child support. And preferencing a party like The Great Australians which support removing people... migrants from Australia if they haven't learnt English within two years. Ask them if they think that's a good think for those parties to be ahead of the Democrats, and then come back and talk to us.
(applause)
Cronin:
Good afternoon Senator Bartlett. I just wanted to get your personal and frank assessment of the two men running for the top job and who you think would be better for the country.
Bartlett:
Well, as you know, I've contributed a track to the best-selling Rock Against Howard double-CD, only $25 at your nearest record story, some fabulous music, and supported those musicians who are campaigning to remove John Howard so I don't think it's much of a secret that I believe it would be best for Australia if John Howard was not Prime Minister. Based... not with any great faith in Mark Latham, but on the basis that I don't think he could possibly be worse, the destruction that John Howard's done, his attacks on refugees, his undermining of the rule of law, his continual politicisation of our defence forces, his lying about issues of defence and security, they are fundamental things.
But, as I've said, and we make the point all along, we haven't been to keen on him in the last few years either, but we still work with whoever the people choose. And we not only work with the Government of the day, we still achieve things.
I mean, who could believe that with someone of John Howard's records and statements and makeup, that the Democrats could have successfully negotiated getting equal treatment for same sex couples in superannuation. But we did. I couldn't believe it. I thought that was one area we would never succeed, and we'd just have to keep raising it and raising it.
It took us eight years to get fair treatment for veterans in terms of treatment of some of their disability pensions from when they were first promised when Howard came in in '96 to this year. There's still more to be done. We'll work with whoever people put in Government because that's your responsibility in the Senate, and that's what makes democracy work best, if you look for areas where you can find agreement regardless of how severe your disagreements in other areas.
But, you know, as for my judging of the two men, I think... you know, at the end of it all, it's obviously... I only get the one vote, pretty clear how I'll vote but.... I'll vote Democrat, in case you were wondering (laughter)... but I'd like to call on all on those people that are thinking about to how to vote for Mr Howard or Mr Latham to remember that that is as equally as important question as how they vote in the Senate.
I don't think anybody'd be as worse as John Howard. So, obviously Latham's a better option in that respect, but either way, if we get a major party in control of the Senate, I mean that's... that's far worse an outcome than... that who might be Prime Minister.
Seccombe:
Yeah, Mike Seccombe from the Sydney Morning Herald Senator. On the left you have the Greens growing rapidly, on the right you have the likes of Family First growing rapidly. Seems like there's sort of a polarisation happening, and in the middle we've got the Democrats who are sort of the... the party of informed altruism, I suppose you'd call yourself. Would that be a fair description of you?
Bartlett:
Quite a nice description.
Seccombe:
I'm glad you accept it. That being the case, why are people tending towards these more extremely polarised parties? Are they... are they less informed, or less altruistic? What's the... what's the reason for it?
Bartlett:
Well, I'll let you guys do the commentary. I think I've heard someone else say that a few times. I'm just focussing on the difference the Democrats make. There is a clear distinction between the way the Democrats do politics, and the responsibility that we take with our Senate role compared to anybody else. And I think it is absolutely crucial. That's why that key issue is the Senate stupid, because of the danger of losing control of the Senate, or the Senate becoming less effective and less independent.
It's the only protection we've got left, if you look at how more... how many over months and months and years and years, government's becoming more and more powerful, giving themselves more and more power, more and more things, greater and greater armies of spin doctors and advertising dollars. It's the only protection people have got in some areas. Even the courts are ruled out in some areas nowadays.
So the Senate is absolutely fundamental. And it is only the Democrats that are giving that focus on the Senate, and do it in a way that is not just... seeing ourselves as a just a miniature carbon copy of the major parties. We're not just coming along and saying we've got our bunch of fabulous policies, elect us, we'll implement them and everything will be fine. We don't have all the magic answers, and we're honest enough to say so.
Where a lot of the answer are are out in the community, and if the community wasn't so locked out of the democratic process and they had more opportunity to contribute their ideas, we'd all be a hell of a lot better, regardless who was in government.
So it's a key distinction between the Democrats and any other party. Now, as to who's left and who's right, and all those things, you know, I think a lot of those descriptions are, whilst necessary shorthand, sometimes very misleading. That's why you often find surprise alliances around key issues. That's why, you know, people like Family First, that Bob Brown might think are the Christian Taliban, but they've actually done more on child protection in the South Australian Parliament along with the Democrats than the Green MP there has.
So, you know, if we can get better protection for children we'll take it. And you know, if we've got to cop some abuse from... from you know, Bob on the side, well that's the price you pay.
So I think a lot of the time those distinctions are exaggerated. Parties feel the need to exaggerate them to try and define themselves better. Family First are being just as extreme about the Greens by the sound of it, and saying that they're a bunch of, you know, out there on the edge types.
Our key difference is that, you know, we try and keep more reason in the debate, rather than just rhetoric. I don't k know if it's a positive or a negative in a political sense. Again, I'll leave that to you to consider.
Wilson:
Laurie Wilson, I'm the Director of the National Press Club Senator Bartlett. I've got two questions. We'll take them one at a time. I'll just quote from your speech. You said "whatever you think of the Howard Government, and I personally think they are the most dishonest and divisive in our history." I just want to reflect on that for a minute because the Democrats war cry traditionally has been, the Don Chipp cry's been keeping the bastards honest, and I'm wondering what that says about your success in having done that if indeed they do fall into that category of being the most divisive and dishonest in our history? And I'm wondering how important you think that role is in terms of the electorate these days? Do they think it is important that a party such as yours plays that role, and have they marked you down if the... if the polls in terms of your... your achievements, if the polls are any reflection? And I'll come back for a second question.
Bartlett:
Look I've openly said a few times that I think we've failed a few times in keeping the honest. We must have because they're incredibly dishonest and a few of them are pretty big bastards, but you've still gotta keep at the job. It doesn't mean you give up on it, and we're the only ones continuing to emphasis that. I guess the fact that we've stepped it up another notch in using our slogan 'the lie detectors' was a way of trying to emphasis that.
But it's not just an attack on the government, or Mr Howard. It's an acknowledgement that our political debate more broadly, from all political parties and indeed those outside the political parties. Our political debate more broadly, I think, has become less honest in a whole range of ways. And that's a challenge for all of us, you know, the Democrats included.
I think unless we... I mean, we saw the... the letter that was signed by I think it was 43 eminent Australians, some of whom would never have put their name to a document like that before, they were partly concerned about Mr Howard, but they were more broadly concerned about the decay in our democracy from the general decline in honesty. And that is serious stuff. And just trying to get that message through that it is serious stuff.
But there is a bit of a... an implication some times when there's commentary on this that, you know, because some Australians think Howard might be a liar, but it doesn't matter. You know, I just want to know if I can get more in the hip pocket. And so that's a sort of a criticism of people. I actually totally understand that. If you're worried about whether or not you're going to keep your job, if you're worried about whether you can get a doctor for your kid, if you think someone can deliver that for you better, you're likely to overlook some of those things. That doesn't mean people don't care about honesty. Means they care about their kids, and there's nothing wrong with that.
So I think the suggestion that it's an either or is part of the problems. And the suggestion that, you know, because people are worried about their family or their future, therefore they don't care about honesty. They do care, but you've got to weigh all these things up and I guess that's what the Democrats try and emphasise in that Senate role.
Regardless who you end up going with, the Senate... you need the Senate there as strong as possible, you need a party there that would cover the full range of issues. We don't just cover the small number that will get us headlines, that might get us votes. We don't just cover a few boutique issues that we're committed about. We cover the full range, because there's a lot of people in the community who are forgotten.
That's why we tried to emphasise indigenous people, completely forgotten group in the community. How can we have a campaign barely mentioning Aboriginal Australians when the level of disadvantage they're suffering is an absolute scandal.
People might remember at the very start of this election, we had the oddity of the Senate actually sitting a day. One... two things happened on that day. The Senate established another examination into some of the claims about the children overboard dishonesty.
We also tabled a report which was quite appropriately called The Forgotten Australians. Some of you might remember that footage of a room full of people, people in their 50s and 60s some of them, cheering about a Senate Committee Report. A few of my staff cheer about their Senate Committee Reports when they come down, you know, tax adviser goes whoo, report into tax, great! But, you know, he's a bit weird.... (laughter).
It's pretty rare you'll get a whole room full of people cheering a Senate Committee Report, the impact that made on their lives. They were forgotten Australians, and forgotten issues. And that's part of what the Senate does, the value that the Senate has done, and we saw yesterday, I think it was, the Uniting Church of Australia, apologising to those thousands of children who were abused so appallingly over so many years and forgotten about. It's those sorts of things that the Senate does, and that the Democrats specialise in. And it's those sorts of things that will be lost if the Senate's weakened.
Wilson: Second question. You've been out there campaigning now, well, for some considerable time but certainly for the last month and a bit. What do you sense the mood of the electorate is? In other words, who do you sense is actually edging ahead as the most likely winner come October 9?
Bartlett:
Depends which part of the electorate you're in as to what the mood is. I think Brisbane's probably still trying to recover from the tragedy of not winning the grand final on the weekend. But, you know, we'll get over it, we're strong.
So, I ... and I do think more seriously that with the football finals finally winding up that there's a group of people who are only now starting to really think about it and engage with the issue. Doing the sort of taxi driver test that you do when you're catching cabs around the place and asking them. And quite a few of them are saying that a lot of people aren't really that connected with it yet, not paying that much attention.
So I think that's certainly something that I'd agree with. I do think it's there to win or lose for both of them. Probably the greater pressure on Mark Latham because he's the unknown, but you know, beyond that I'm focussing on the Senate. I won't call you stupid, but it is the Senate that is equally important. And that's what the message we've got to get through to the public by the time they get to the polling booth. A lot of people are only just starting to think about how they'll vote in the House of Reps.
I'm sure plenty of them haven't really thought much at all about how they'll vote in the Senate.
I should emphasis there has been one Senate poll that's come out during this campaign. And that did have us at 6 to 7 per cent which is a stark difference from all the other polls, does confirm our continual comment that we always poll higher in the Senate than the Reps, but the big unknown is how much higher. And I guess particularly when we've run a campaign that has probably been more unashamedly Senate focussed in its message than... than ever before it's very hard to predict that.
But all we can say, returning to my fearless prediction of winning between zero and five Senate seats, is that we're in the contest in all of those states and that last seat or two in each state is literally in the balance, and with that being in the balance, the whole future of the Senate is in the balance.
It's very hard to predict because of all the different preference flows, some of them less predictable than you'd expect. So, you know, the only way to cut out the danger of all those preference flows of micro parties, is to vote for a solid safe choice, which is why we're promoting the Democrats.
Riley:
Senator on industrial relations, the Democrats have a history of working with the government on sheparding some of the bills through the Senate. I wonder, given they announced some policies this morning that will allow for some separate industrial relations framework for small business, I wonder whether you will be supporting that through the Senate, should they be elected? If Labor's elected, would you equally work with them on strengthening the industrial commission?
Bartlett:
What we will do before polling day is release a comprehensive industrial relations package, because of all of the different bits and pieces that have got out there during the campaign and before it because it is a key issue. If you wanted to look at where the balance of power in the Senate is most continually, consistently and regularly exercised, it's on industrial relations issues. Because it's the one area where those old divide between Labor and Liberal still exist, sometimes I think just 'cause they think they have to, but it's still there.
So we're inevitably in a balance of power position in the legislation. And we clearly did not give the government what they wanted in a whole range of areas. I think they had four bills that ended up as double dissolution triggers 'cause we wouldn't give them what they wanted. And we significantly amended a lot of other areas, in our view, significantly improved.
So it is a key area, and that's why I think it's important, not just for the Democrats but for any other party that... that purports to be suitable for the balance of power to indicate what they would do in this area and any other balance of power area.
Can I just have a general caveat of saying that, as is appropriate, particularly in this area, we'd always look at the legislation first and send it off to a Senate Committee because we're not the font of all wisdom. We've got a fair bit of wisdom, but we're not the font of all of it, and we do get a lot of value out of the input from people who actually engage with this on a daily basis. To cut through some... in committees you actually cut through some of the rhetoric and get down to the facts a bit better.
We... we've always been strong supporters of a strong industrial relations commission. We have always been apprehensive about giving separate rights to different.... or lesser rights to different people based on who they work for. That's one of the main reasons why we haven't supported the government's continual attempts to try and exempt small business from unfair dismissals because we don't believe people's rights... basics rights at law should depend on whether they work for a large company or a small company. So that would be a continuing principle for us.
We've already spoken a bit about our lack of enthusiasm for Labor's proposals to abolish AWAs, and similarly for some of their talk about expending allowable award matters. There's a range of different matters there. But I think if you look at our record, that's the key part. Because it's not just a matter of, you know, the nice words people say in election campaigns, all the changes they make to their websites a week out from the election campaign to try to cover up all the bits they think people will be scared about.
You look at the record over the years, and our record's pretty clear on all of these issues. It's very consistent, as I might say is the record of the Greens, which is to oppose everything the Government has put up and to criticise Labor for not being even stronger in support of the unions.
McPhedran:
Senator, I'll have another go. I don't think you quite answered this before, but given the shortcomings of the Green Party, which you've outlined here today, how do you explain their rise in popularity? And secondly, John Howard's been cuddling up to Meg Lees quite a bit, both literally and openly lately. Do you expect her to turn up as a member of the Liberal Party any time soon?
(laughter)
Bartlett:
No, I don't... no. No, no no.... Look, I think again on the first one, I think you know, I'll leave that to all the political scientists and commentators to analyse and assess. There's a range of factors that are probably relevant that I .... you know, I think it's understandable. I think... I'm sure you'll understand if I say that I'm really focussed very much on the Democrats and the uniqueness and importance of our message and the unique and central role we play in the Senate, and the real risk of the Senate being weaker if the Democrats' representation is weaker. So I suppose in that sense I really don't care, so I haven't thought about it a lot.
I care about the Democrats keeping the Senate strong, and we'll see what happens on election day, and you know, people can do some of their assessments after that.
But I do think it's important to emphasis that the Democrats are different from all the other parties. We clearly have some overlap with the Greens in their commitment to their environment, in their commitment to human rights principles. I believe the record clearly shows we're stronger than them and have achieved more than them in those areas, but we work with them on those areas. But we are also more economically responsible. We also do the work on a wider range of issues, and we also have an approach that tries to work with people rather than a polarising approach and a divisive approach that they do currently.
So it's a distinct, very distinct approach we bring, particularly in the context of the Senate contest, have to keep reinforcing that we do poll higher in the Senate than in the House of Reps which no other party has consistently done over the years.
So I suppose the other aspect in responding to your question is the Senate context of that whole analysis is something that is still an unknown because we don't know what the Senate result will be. Once we do, I think it will become clearer and I might even give you a more precise targeted comment in return to a question like that.
Randall:
Senator, could I just ask you a final question for today, and it... it sort of stems from that. What you're trying to do in your message about the Senate is... is reflected on the other side of the election campaign by some of the economic arguments. We've got rafts of economists and economic editors around the country saying that what the government's claiming about the Labor Party is quite baseless, that no government sets interest rates, no... you know, there's all sorts of arguments about who does what about economic policy, but... but the perception of which party is better for one thing is so rusted on that it's very hard to shake.
Does the same thing apply to the Senate? And is it as hard to budge as that perception of traditional roles of the parties?
Bartlett:
Well, perceptions of the electorate are always something that evolve over time and can take quite a while to shift. The clear... you know, part of what the Democrats try to do is to bring more reason into the debate to try and cut through some of the incorrect perceptions or unfounded perceptions. So we try and correct perceptions that are not based in fact rather than add to the uninformed perceptions which seems to be an approach that a lot of others take.
And similarly in the Senate Committee process when you actually cut through all the political jargon and position making and the... the cloak people wrap themselves in, and get to the facts, you can get a very different picture. You can get a picture that is much closer to reality, and you can find that there's a lot more common ground that you expected there would be, but you've got to make the effort to get to that stage in the first place.
I actually think an extra reason for people thinking separately about the Senate and voting separately about the Senate is to give greater credibility to the Senate because we're seeing continual and quite appropriate commentary during this campaign about just the spendathon that's going on, money being focussed towards where people think it's going to buy votes rather than how effectively it's going to address the need.
When it comes to after the election and the Senate's actually faced with the options of passing legislation that might reflect those promises but is actually bad legislation that's not going to meet the needs that it says it's going to do, or it's going to increase upward pressure on interest rates or all of those things, then the more credibility the Senate has as an independent house of review, independent of the government, the more authority it has to force governments to be more responsible.
So people want more responsible government, not just in greater honesty, but in more economic responsibility, then they actually need a stronger Senate that's more independent of those governments. I think that's an important emphasis that we need to try and get through to people when they think about how they vote separately in the Senate.
There is no doubt that the economic situation Australia is in currently is a positive one. I quite unashamedly on behalf of the Democrats claim significant credit for that because the Senate has operated responsibly. I've talked about our industrial relations approach, our approach on a whole range of other measures. There's occasional times when we'll block a budget measures the government didn't like, like their attempt to throw a lot of people off a disability pension. They say, that's terrible, that's going to throw our budget out of whack because it'll cost us a few hundred million dollars. It's always a bit hard to take those claims seriously when they can throw around tens of billions of dollars themselves leading up to an election.
So it's an important role to try to keep the economy running well, and quite honesty I say in many respects, we do it better than the major parties as well.
(applause).
<ends>
|
|
