Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Order! Before I call the honourable member for Grayndler, I remind the House that this
is the honourable member's first speech and I ask the House to extend to him the usual
courtesies. The honourable member for Grayndler. I am very honoured to enter this chamber as
the representative of the Australian Labor Party for the electorate of Grayndler. I would
like to sincerely thank the electors of Grayndler for showing confidence in my ability to represent
their interests. I would also like to thank the over 1,000 party members in Grayndler
who worked so hard during the election campaign to ensure the seat remained with Labor. I
believe that my campaign team, led by the best young campaign director in the country,
Tim Gartrell, was second to none. I am proud to be here representing the seat
of Grayndler, named after a trade unionist, Ted Grayndler, of the Australian Workers Union.
I succeed one of the greatest local members and campaigners this House has known—the
first woman elected to the House of Representatives from New South Wales, my friend and comrade,
Jeannette McHugh. Jeannette has only retired from parliament, not from politics. I am sure
that she will continue to play a progressive role on issues such as uranium mining, peace
and disarmament, consumer affairs and the rights of women.
Grayndler has always returned Labor members to this House. Jeannette followed the current
Chief Opposition Whip and now member for Watson, Leo McLeay, the late Frank Stewart, Tony Whitlam
and, of course, the first member, one of the greats of the Labor movement, the late Fred
Daly. Fred's farewell at St Brigid's, Marrickville, last year was the sort of tribute that only
a Labor member could have had and a member on the other side of the House could only
dream about. My presence in this House today is the result
of a collective effort. First, I would like to thank my mother, Maryanne Albanese, who
raised me under very difficult economic circumstances. She instilled in me a strong sense of social
justice and fairness. My special thanks go to my partner and best friend, Carmel Tebbutt,
for her constant support, advice and outstanding political judgment. I have been extremely
fortunate to receive the support of many party members and trade unions. I owe a great deal
to people such as Tom Uren, with whom I worked for four years. They have, I hope, instilled
in me a sense of history and purpose to my activity in the labour movement and now as
a parliamentarian. I joined the Labor Party in 1979, while still
at school. This was a natural choice, for I come from three generations of rank and
file party members. My time as Assistant General Secretary of the New South Wales branch confirmed
my belief in the importance of fighting for genuine participatory democracy and I am proud
to have been selected through the rank and file preselection system. It is the strength
and values of rank and file members and trade unionists that make the ALP the greatest political
party in Australia and perhaps the world. There were many in the media who confidently
predicted that I would not be in this chamber today. Well-known psephologist Mr Malcolm
Mackerras wrote in the Australian on 5 October 1995:
Grayndler will go to NAN, the No Aircraft Noise Party, . . . make no mistake about the
ability of NAN to achieve its objectives. His view was supported by the former left-
wing anarchist—and now right-wing individualist—Mr Paddy McGuinness. McGuinness wrote in the Sydney
Morning Herald on 10 February 1996: There is a fair chance that the No Aircraft
Noise Party will win the seat of Grayndler in the airport- blighted inner Sydney from
a scion of the Labor left, Anthony Albanese, which will benefit the Liberals.
I am pleased to have disappointed them. The negative coalition which made up the No Aircraft
Noise Party—Tories, Trotskyists and political opportunists—were united only by their vehement
hatred of Labor. In the words of Martin Luther King: `There is no progress in hate . . . like
an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys
a man's sense of values and his objectivity.' We saw that objectivity disappear with NAN
and it has progressed only into political oblivion.
The Labor Party was written off in Grayndler due to the backlash caused by the opening
of the third runway at Kingsford Smith airport on 4 November 1994. While I believe the previous
Labor government had an outstanding record, with which I am proud to be associated, no
government is free of mistakes. The reversal of Labor's commitment to the third runway
and the prevarication on Sydney West Airport was about economics, not aviation or even
politics as some have suggested. It stands as a sad example of decision making on a short-term
accounting basis without due regard for the long-term economic and social impact on people.
Governments and commentators must look beyond the bottom line in the monthly and annual
accounts. Such an approach distorts the policy making process to the detriment of medium-
and long-term vision. It is imperative that there be a clear distinction drawn between
capital and recurrent spending in all budgets so as to facilitate effective planning. For
government business enterprises the failure to do this has led to false constraints, which
has hindered their ability to raise capital and given encouragement to those who favour
privatisation as an ideological creed. The decision to build the third runway was
the culmination of a concerted campaign by the then federal opposition, the New South
Wales Greiner government, the airline industry and the media. Of course, the new Prime Minister
(Mr Howard) was a vocal and strident longstanding supporter of the third runway. On 28 February
1989, he described Labor's opposition to the third runway as `disgraceful political featherbedding'
and `one of the most shameful exercises in political cynicism at the expense of the interests
of a great Australian city'. Mr Howard repeated this view on 21 March 1989 when he said:
I've always regarded the issue as being grossly exaggerated in terms of the impact on the
local residents. He went on to reiterate his support for the
third runway, saying: I think the case for it on general interest
grounds is absolutely overwhelming. In spite of strenuous opposition from Labor
members in New South Wales, and its near defeat in the Labor caucus, the Hawke cabinet approved
the building of the third runway on 22 March 1989. Gary Punch, the then minister for aviation,
showed great courage in putting principle before his career and resigning from the ministry.
The decision was an act of vandalism against the urban environment of inner Sydney. It
is crucial that the lessons of this monumental mistake are learned.
The third runway cost $243 million to build. As the enormity of the noise problem emerged,
noise amelioration measures became necessary. Their cost will far exceed the $270 million
already allocated. The Keating government moved to minimise the impact of the noise.
It launched a project to acquire 151 of the worst affected homes and insulate 20 schools,
21 preschools and child-care centres, 24 places of worship, eight nursing homes and 4,380
homes. In the longer term, however, the solution must be to lower the number of aircraft movements
over the inner west. It must not be forgotten that this area is the most densely populated
in Australia. Since the election we have seen the motto
of the new government in practice: let the planes fly anywhere but not over Bennelong.
The new Prime Minister clearly believes that as the residents of Hunters Hill have higher
income levels they have more rights than working class people closer to the airport. We all
know that, thanks to Labor, all Australians have access to universal health care. Therefore,
I remind the Prime Minister that there is no evidence that the rich have better, as
opposed to more sensitive, hearing. The only real solution is to provide the public infrastructure
for Sydney West Airport. This airport must be developed in such a way as to ensure that
residents throughout Sydney are protected. I do not support simply transferring the problem.
I have raised the airport issue in my first speech not only because it is the dominant
local issue in my electorate but also because the third runway continues to be a noisy reminder
of the need for vision and proper environmental assessment in the provision of public and
social infrastructure. Proper planning in areas such as transport, communications and
community facilities is vital for the living standards of future generations of Australians.
This brings me to a disturbing trend that is emerging throughout the Western world—that
is, the contraction of the public sector. In particular, cuts to infrastructure spending
are the easy option for conservative governments looking to slash budgets. For more than a
decade, governments throughout the Western world have been cutting vital spending in
order to impress financial markets with their fiscal rectitude. Ironically, this spending
would have paid for itself many times over in increased production and revenue.
There is overwhelming evidence that spending on public infrastructure has a positive impact
on private sector growth. For example, in the United States, if the level of public
infrastructure spending between 1950 and 1970 had been maintained for the next two decades,
the average rate of private sector productivity growth would have been 2.1 per cent rather
than the low figure of 1.4 per cent. This has deprived the United States of associated
income, employment and growth. Given the Howard government's commitment to outdated, right-wing
economic rationalism, Australia now runs the risk of underproviding in this important area.
Unless the government recognises this, their rhetoric about economic growth and prosperity
will remain hollow. Australia must have an interventionist economic policy that is targeted
at the specific needs of different regions and communities. Some regional areas are experiencing
negative growth as industries relocate or are supersed ed. Other urban areas are struggling
to deal with the impact of population growth and unplanned urban development.
These unique problems cannot be solved with the blunt instruments of macro-economic policy.
Governments need responsive planning that meets with the individual needs of regions
and communities. This approach was pioneered by the Whitlam government through the Department
of Urban and Regional Development. It was resumed by the Hawke government, again under
my former employer Tom Uren. This work continued in the form of the Better Cities program under
Brian Howe in the previous government. Those on this side of the House do not support
a stagnant public sector. I have always been a strong advocate for a pro-active, efficient
and dynamic public sector. The ideologically driven view that the public sector is a huge
monolith which exhausts economic and human resources must be challenged. A recent survey
by the International Monetary Fund has shown that the Australian public sector, as a percentage
of GDP, is the third smallest in the Western world after the United States and Japan. I
would much prefer Australia's current values as a society than to look to the US and Japan
as role models. I am therefore deeply concerned by the new
government's razor gang approach to the Commonwealth budget. The fudging of figures to distort
budget forecasts is nothing more than an excuse to make savage cuts to pay for unfunded election
promises and fulfil ideological obsessions. There is perverse irony in the Howard government's
plan to cut public services such as the Commonwealth Employment Service. If the government presses
ahead with its ill-advised attempt to cut up to 20,000 public sector jobs, these are
exactly the services that will be most in demand.
It appears that the new government is determined to reverse the trend established in the last
term of the Keating government which saw the creation of over 700,000 new jobs and the
target of five per cent unemployment by the year 2000 well on track. I might add that
this employment growth was achieved whilst improving real wages, improving living standards
and protecting those who need protection in our society.
There is another good reason for maintaining and increasing community services expenditure.
The community services sector is very labour intensive. As well as providing vital services
to those most in need, spending in this area has the highest employment multiplier effect
of any sector. Social policy is another area that always bears the brunt of those obsessed
with advocating smaller and smaller government. What they fail to recognise is that the legitimacy
of market economies is only maintained by the provision of a substantial and comprehensive
social security system. Rather than attacking social security recipients, I would like to
see all of Australia's wealthiest individuals and companies pay their fair share of taxation.
I would also like to see companies in Australia pay a minimum tax rate rather than the current
system which has been open to manipulation by some unscrupulous companies.
I believe one of the most outstanding reforms of the previous government was in the area
of superannuation. I might add, however, that it would be a catastrophe if the successes
of the Labor government's super policy were used to undermine the age pension in the long
run by a conservative government. We should never forget that there are many in society
who, through circumstance, never secure long-term employment or advance beyond a very low wage.
We must also remember that women's wages are still not equal to those earned by men. Their
lifetime participation in the work force remains irregular. As a result, their access to superannuation
entitlements will be less at the end of their working life.
The enormous growth in superannuation funds under the Labor government provides a real
opportunity for growth in productive investment. Currently, about six million working people
in Australia own over $240 billion in superannuation assets. These assets are growing at an impressive
rate. During the December quarter alone, superannuation assets rose by $8.7 billion. More than 93
per cent of full-time employees, 60 per cent of part-time and 59 per cent of casual employees
are now covered by superannuation. This is the first time in our history that
working people have had ownership of such volumes of capital. It is our responsibility
to ensure that they also have control of these assets. I am concerned that working people's
savings can too easily disappear in a maze of administration fees and irresponsible speculative
investment. The stock market crash of October 1987 demonstrated the insecurity of the financial
markets as a place to invest the savings of working people. We must ensure that these
savings are used to contribute to the future long-term assets and infrastructure of the
nation. The Hilmer report had much to say about the
public sector and competition. Whilst supporting a dynamic and accountable public sector, we
must ensure that in genuflecting before the god of competition we consider the social
and environmental impact of these changes. Econometric models fail to take into account
real world economic factors and, most importantly, they often fail to take into account people.
Unless people are put back into the equation, strict adherence to dry economic philosophies
will have negative social and environmental consequences.
On 2 March, the electors of Grayndler voted to preserve the best of Labor's agenda: Medicare,
multiculturalism, support for the Mabo decision and the Native Title Act, the social wage,
the sixfold increase in child-care places and the Working Nation programs.
Grayndler is very much a working class electorate. Alongside the more established families, the
1991 census showed that 46 per cent of the total population of Grayndler were born overseas.
Many of these Australians have struggled against the odds both in their country of origin and
on their arrival in Australia. They have raised families and made vital contributions to the
wealth and cultural diversity of this nation. Their special needs should be met and their
efforts acknowledged. Multiculturalism provides Australia with a
unique opportunity to be a microcosm of the world—to show that cultural diversity and
respect can lead to a more peaceful, equitable and fulfilling life for all. Of course, the
continuation of the process of reconciliation with indigenous Australians is a precondition
for this vision. Defending and extending multiculturalism and reconciliation with indigenous Australians
will be one of my primary concerns as a member of parliament.
In this context, I am deeply disturbed at the election of candidates espousing racist
views. We must never take the gains we have made for granted. When those critics of Labor's
equity programs spoke about `all of us', there was an implied imagery of a nation of Anglo-Celtic,
middle-class nuclear families. The bigots who criticise programs aimed at the special
needs of sections of our community ignore the fact that there is not equality of opportunity
across class, gender, *** preference and ethnicity.
Mr Deputy Speaker, during the 1980s a substantial redistribution of wealth from the poor to
the rich occurred throughout the Western world. Australia was not immune from this but its
impact was minimised by Labor's progressive social agenda. So I conclude by saying that
my generation has Labor governments to thank for our relative prosperity.
I grew up in public housing in inner city Sydney, the son of a pensioner. I remember
all too well how Liberal governments failed to keep pensions at pace with inflation. This
stands in stark contrast with Labor's record of increasing pensions to 25 per cent of average
weekly earnings. Indeed, my politics as a democratic socialist have been developed from
my experience in life. As the youngest Labor member of this House,
I was particularly disappointed by the overall result on 2 March. (Extension of time granted) Labor's
exciting vision of a diverse and just Australian republic for the 21st century struck a chord
with young people. However, it has to be acknowledged that Labor's embrace of change sometimes was
not accompanied by a recognition of the need to cushion people from its adverse side effects.
I have no doubt that the electorate soon will become all too aware that the previous opposition
was a wolf in sheep's clothing. I am therefore confident that the present Leader of the Opposition,
Kim Beazley, will lead Australia into the next century as the next Labor Prime Minister.
For myself, I will be satisfied if I can be remembered as someone who will stand up for
the interests of my electorate, for working class people, for the labour movement, and
for our progressive advancement as a nation into the next century. Thank you, Mr Deputy
Speaker.