2001-05-103918REPS2665302001-05-10—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair in the Legislative Assembly chamber of the Victorian parliament at 10.04 a.m., and read prayers.Condolences266532665310:05:0026653SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—It is my sad duty to inform the House of the death on Tuesday, 24 April of Mr Peter Edward Nugent, the member for Aston. I understand that it is the intention of the House to offer its full condolences in respect of Mr Nugent when it meets on 22 May. However, as we are in the state of Victoria and in the presence of members of the Nugent family, may I, on behalf of the House, express our sorrow at Peter's passing and reinforce all that has been said in recent days about his contribution to the parliament and to our community, especially here in Victoria.Peter was born in Chelmsford, United Kingdom, in 1938. He served in the Royal Air Force from 1953 to 1977, with postings in the United Kingdom, Malaysia, Singapore and Cyprus. He migrated to Australia in 1977 and was a marketing and sales director in the information technology industry. In 1990 he entered the federal parliament, representing the seat of Aston, and was re-elected in 1993, 1996 and 1998. Applauded for his consistent advocacy of human rights issues, Peter was shadow minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs from 1993 to 1996. He was Chairman of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and further evidenced his commitment to human rights and to improving the circumstances of the disadvantaged through his service as Chairman of the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International and his appointment to the Victorian Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. In addition to his widely acknowledged participation in assistance for underprivileged groups, he maintained his lifelong interest in foreign affairs and was an effective member and chair of the Australia-China Parliamentary Friendship Group.One of the most touching tributes paid to Peter at his funeral service was delivered by his daughter, Deirdre, who spoke of her father as a `great and honourable man' and a family man who liked nothing better than to relax at home with his children and grandchildren. To Peter's wife, Carol, and to his children, Deirdre, Greg and Barry, and to his stepchildren, Nicholas, Victoria and Sarah, we express our heartfelt sympathy. We have lost a colleague and friend, but nothing we say or do can bridge the awful chasm his passing has left in their lives. We hope that the knowledge that their grief is so widely shared will be of some comfort. As a mark of respect to the memory of Mr Nugent, I now invite honourable members to rise in their places.Honourable members having stood in their places—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the House.Distinguished Visitors2665310000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that the Hon. Alex Andrianopoulos MLA, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria, is adjacent to the chamber. With the concurrence of honourable members I propose to provide him with a seat on the floor of the House.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Speaker Andrianopoulos was seated accordingly.Miscellaneous2665310000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—In accordance with the resolution of the House of 27 February 2001, I invite the Prime Minister to move a motion to mark the centenary of the first meetings of the houses of the Commonwealth parliament.10:10:0026653Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I move:That this House:(1) celebrates the Centenary of Federation and one hundred years of achievement by our free and democratic nation; (2) honours those who had the foresight, courage and perseverance to see Australia constituted as a Federation;(3) recalls the sacrifices made by those who have defended our country, our freedom and our democratic traditions;(4) records its appreciation of those whose services to the public have contributed to our system of law and government; (5) applauds the efforts made by Australian citizens, in the cities and in the country, to make our nation productive, innovative, fair and cohesive;(6) honours Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, and their ancient and continuing cultures;(7) acknowledges the contributions made by people who have come here from all parts of the world and made Australia their home; and(8) expresses great faith and optimism in a bright and prosperous future for Australia.Those of us who sit in this parliament on this day are indeed privileged, amongst the many men and women who have been elected to the national parliament since 1901, to share this very special occasion. It is a special occasion and, whatever our backgrounds, whatever our political beliefs, whatever our views may be as to the future of our nation, it is an occasion in which we should share with some degree of quiet pride, a sense of history and a sense of great national self-belief.I am sure that the motion I have just put to the House is one that expresses the sentiments of all who come together constituting the national parliament on this day. This is an occasion that calls for a number of things. It is an occasion that calls for generosity, it is an occasion that calls for candour, and it is an occasion that calls for a sense of common unity and common purpose.We are, of course, all participants in a very combative life. We fight hard for what we believe in, we serve the causes we hold dear, and we hold tenaciously to what we believe to be the right course of action for our nation and for our respective parties. But on an occasion like this it is necessary to reach across the political divide. It is necessary to honour the contributions of people—of men and women—on both sides of the political divide for what they have done in the service of our country.This occasion will be diminished if it is devoid of that sense of generosity of spirit. Equally, this occasion will be diminished if we do not recognise that there are differences within our society about how it should be run, about what policies should be implemented. There is nothing in the Australian character, as I find it, which asks us on occasions such as this to bland away those great philosophical differences that may exist. So it is in that spirit of both generosity and recognition of shared contribution that each of us brings to national debate in this parliament here in Melbourne today on this special occasion our own fiercely held views, values and perspectives.I suspect that the Australian public, as it looks at our national institutions at the present time, does so with a mixture of emotions and attitudes. We should be foolish if we imagine that it looked upon the national parliament in a sense of undiminished satisfaction and pride. But we would also be foolish if we imagine that in that sense the attitude of Australians in 2001 is dramatically different from what it may have been in 1951 or 1931 or 1921. There has always been about the Australian character a healthy cynicism about those who wield authority. It is one of the strengths of our national life, provided it is tempered with a recognition of the genuine commitment people bring to public life when they enter parliament.In my 27 years in public life it has been my almost universal experience, with a few isolated exceptions, that most men and women who enter parliament do so believing in things, do so in a spirit of wanting to make a change for the better for our community. I do not think we should yield to the overwhelming cynicism of some in the community who seek to see it otherwise, because, for all its imperfections, this parliament remains the authentic voice of the Australian people in determining the future and in determining change. It is ultimately through this parliament, more than any other institution in the nation, that change for the better or preservation of what is valuable about our past can best be achieved.So, as we gather here, it is important that we reaffirm our faith in the contemporary strength of the parliamentary institution. It is proper on an occasion such as this that all of us who have gathered in Melbourne have honoured the traditions of the two sides of politics from which we come. As it happened, the centenary of the first meeting of the federal parliamentary Labor caucus occurred on the eve of the centenary of the first sitting of the Commonwealth parliament. I congratulate the Australian Labor Party on its 100 years of existence. I do not necessarily wish it unbounded goodwill for the future, but in that spirit of generosity—Honourable members interjecting—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Gee, this is a lot cosier, Mr Speaker. In this spirit of generosity that ought to pervade on an occasion like this, I do congratulate it on lasting 100 years. I will say no more about the future.Might I also take the opportunity to record my deep pride and admiration for the contribution made to the life of this nation by the party that I am proud to lead, the Liberal Party of Australia, founded by the great Robert Gordon Menzies, who went on to become the longest serving Prime Minister in Australia's history. I record its contribution and I record the contribution also made by the National Party of Australia and by its predecessors the National Country Party and the Country Party—essentially the same manifestation—and in that the great contribution that both of those parties have made to representing the people of rural and regional Australia.But this is an occasion not only for us to reflect upon the past strengths of our parliamentary system and for each of us in our own way to remember some of the great events of our own parliamentary experience and those that have been recorded for history in earlier years but also for us to reflect upon the responsibilities that lie in front of us, as representatives of the Australian people, in the years immediately ahead and upon some of the challenges that might be faced by those who come after us as representatives of the Australian people.It has often been said that the role of good statecraft is to preserve those things of our heritage, our history and our tradition that continue to serve our nation and our people well while at the same time to have the courage, the commitment and the energy to reform and change, in a radical fashion if necessary, those practices, attitudes and institutions which are no longer serving the long-term interests of our nation. In a sense the battle of politics in 2001 is about that divide. The differences between us are not so much about that principle as about those things that are worth preserving and those things that are in need of significant change.If I throw forward to the years ahead of this nation, I think the challenges we will face, no matter which party might occupy the treasury bench, will very much revolve around a number of very specific issues. As I said yesterday at the Exhibition Building, we have no way of knowing what this country will be like in 100 years time. We can imagine—we can dare to think about what it might be in 20 or 30 years time—and in the process of doing that we can identify, and I will seek to do it as best I can, some of those attitudes that we think will be necessary to deliver the best outcomes for our people and our society.I think we need to strengthen and praise, rather than denigrate and ridicule, the institutions of our society. For all its faults, this parliament is a great democratic institution. For all its rambunctious behaviour, it is an expression of the mood, the temper and the character of the Australian people. It is a distinctively Australian institution, and we should never be shy of saying so. It is an institution which allows for free expression of ideas—passionately held ideas. I think we have an obligation, whilst always arguing for change and improvement where necessary, to uphold its intrinsic worth and value.In the years ahead I think we also need to preserve and defend a society which, while caring for the needy and the disadvantaged, also encourages self-reliance. It is a society that says to individuals that in our society they have responsibilities as well as rights and privileges. I believe that we need to build a society which more effectively allows individuals to achieve, through hard work and effort, a proper reward for their commitment and their ability. The notion of a society that encourages personal incentive and individual effort and proper reward for that personal incentive and individual effort is, I think, intrinsic and fundamental to the future of our society.In the years ahead I think we also need to build a society that better balances than we do at the present time the competing demands of work and family responsibilities. We have come a long way in relation to that, but I still think we have a distance to travel. Society has changed in that respect very significantly over the past few decades, and there is an obligation on all of us to ensure that that balance is better achieved.I think we also have to ensure that all parts of the Australian community feel fully included in and fully part of the great Australian national life. I speak here not only of the need for reconciliation according to the different perspectives people will bring to that great value and that great concept; I speak also of the need to create a society in which those who live in the sparsely populated areas of our nation—those who live in the bush or the country or regional Australia, depending on how those in different parts of the country wish that area to be described—feel fully included. It has always been part of our understanding of the Australian identity to see the Australian bush as an intrinsic central element of that great national identity, and to ensure that people in those parts of Australia feel fully part of and fully included in it is an extraordinarily challenging proposition. So, in commending this motion to the House, can I return to what I said at the beginning—that its sentiments are ones that I am sure will be shared by all of those who gather here in Melbourne today.I express on behalf of the House our sense of debt for the hospitality and courtesies extended to us by the Victorian parliament and by the Victorian government. But, most importantly of all, I express as Prime Minister and as leader of the coalition and as leader of the Liberal Party an enormous sense of honour that it has come to be my privilege as the Prime Minister on this occasion, on this very historic commemorative sitting of the national parliament, to move a motion which I think expresses the undiminished sense of pride, joy and satisfaction—not smugness or triumphalism but satisfaction—in the scope and the scale of the Australian achievement over the last 100 years.All history in a way is something of a judgment of good against evil, of triumph versus failure; but, if you look at the balance sheet of Australian history, especially over the last 100 years, it has been one of great progress, of heroic achievement, of great democratic institutions and of a great open-hearted people who have been prepared to risk and to give all to defend what they hold dear. We have built in this nation of ours a society of which we can all be justly proud, a society to which people from all around the world have contributed, a society which is a model of cohesion, compassion and decency and one in which we should express undiminished faith and hope for the next 100 years.Honourable members—Hear, hear!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The question is that the motion moved by the Prime Minister be agreed to. I call the Leader of the Opposition to second the motion.10:28:0026656Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, I rise today to support the Prime Minister's motion. I also associate myself with the words that you uttered on behalf of us about our late colleague Peter Nugent. Could I also acknowledge the Premier of Victoria and the Speaker of the Victorian parliament and thank them for access to this chamber for this most significant occasion.I respond too to the Prime Minister's kind words about the Australian Labor Party and our centenary, and congratulate him as the leader of a great political party with great Australian traditions behind it. It has always been a passing small pleasure in the life or history of my family that the first Labor candidate to contest with a member of the modern Liberal Party was my father, upon the death of John Curtin. I also extend the same congratulations, but not Billy Hughes's sentiments, to those who are here as the successors of the Country Party, which has been part of so many governments in the course of Australian political history.What this motion says about our 100 years of achievement, about those who died to defend our country and about public service, multiculturalism and the future are sentiments that we can endorse, and we will be voting for the motion. We would, of course, have expressed our core values in a very different way. We would have paid more attention to those who suffered hardship or who merely looked on as the new nation grew to prosperity. In particular, we think of the dispossessed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, of women barred from full citizenship and from educational and employment opportunities and of those against whom the White Australia Policy was directed for so many years. I will have something more to say about those matters later. Our difference is not with what is there but with what is not there, including a real sense of urgency about the future of this country and the real purpose of this legislature as an agent of change.This has been a week for looking with fresh eyes on our history, our people and our institutions. Every so often, we need to re-examine our origins, to find out how our forebears created this peaceful haven. It has been for the most part—and with important exceptions—a beacon of decency, liberty and egalitarianism to people from so many different parts of the world.There are many layers of celebration occurring this week. As the Prime Minister mentioned, the Australian Labor Party celebrates 100 years of representation at the national level. As the leader in our centenary year, I have been able to look anew at our core values, at our commitment to equality and democracy, at the values we have shared from our earliest days with the working men and women of Australia.We celebrate 100 years since Federation—that act of courage and hope by the separate British colonies of this island to forge, through negotiation, consensus and persuasion, a new nation 100 years ago. We mark also the written expression of that Federation, our Constitution, a document whose long life and flexibility is a testament to the foresight of this nation's founders. And we mark the centenary of this parliament, the great clearing house of national tensions—an institution whose stability has ensured an unbroken democracy through a century of wars, economic upheavals and huge technological and social change. How marvellous it would be if the spirit of enthusiasm, commitment and excitement that surrounded the birth of our nation and our democracy in 1901 could be translated to our meetings here today.I love the story of William McKell, the future Premier of New South Wales, who, as a 10-year-old from the Sydney slums, watched the splendid Federation procession winding its way through the city streets to Centennial Park on 1 January 1901. One banner that he saw in the procession on that day McKell was later to say `became a part of me'. It read simply `This day a Nation is Born'.When you read the accounts of the events of 1901 around the country, there is that profound sense of being present at the creation of something special: a nation that did not have to inherit the class wars or religious hatreds of the old world; a nation that could find its own solutions, at its own pace, in this beautiful land. You find that spirit at work in the accounts of the first meetings of the parliament here in this grand Victorian building. The three major groups—the protectionists under Barton and Deakin, the free traders under George Reid, and the Labour Party under Chris Watson—swapped amiable jibes across the chamber as they discussed the pros and cons of direct taxation, the impact on the poor of a large tariff on the price of tea and cotton, and the urgency of extending the vote to women. Their enthusiasm for their mission is reflected in their willingness to air their differences openly, developing a consensus through negotiation in this very chamber, and through changing alliances.It is no secret that Labor in many parts of Australia had initial doubts about our Constitution as the blueprint for Federation and for the creation of our national institutions. Labor was particularly concerned about entrenching states rights in the upper house. Nevertheless, once the people had voted to accept the Constitution, Labor were quick to seize the opportunities to promote social change in the national parliament. Our members had already learned that without political representation the industrial strength of working men and women counted for little. Our early leaders believed that the Constitution would be an evolving blueprint for this country's institutions and political deliberations. In the event, Australians—by and large an informal, flexible and open-minded people—have proved remarkably conservative about changing their Constitution. Only eight out of 44 attempts at change have succeeded by referendum since 1901. And yet within its constraints our Constitution and its key institution, this parliament, have proved adaptable as well as stable. Within these guidelines set out in the 1890s, through persuasion, consensus and negotiation we have seen this nation grow to maturity and shed many of its early convictions and prejudices. The parliament has been able to both lead as well as move with the nation's shifting attitudes, values and ideology.Until the First World War the nation's people, by and large, clearly identified with British Empire values and aspirations. After the sacrifice of the ANZACs, the terrible bloodshed in Europe and the Middle East, and the great schisms over conscription, a much more identifiably Australian ethos was seen in our writings, our artistic expression and our national symbols. The terrible scourge of the worldwide Depression in the 1930s threw us back on our own resources even more. Values of adaptability and resourcefulness became more important. We had to reassess in a fundamental way the basis of economic activity. And we learnt from bitter experience the dangers for a small, exporting nation when big countries close their markets to others.World War II saw this nation fighting for its very survival—a country small in population, large in landmass and resources, no longer able to rely on imperial protection. John Curtin's turning to a new Pacific ally, as the country fought for its life, demonstrated again our native clear-sightedness and our undoubted courage. It was a very different nation that emerged from that war. No verity remained unchallenged. A country that had once extolled purity of race then opened itself to people of many war-torn places. We welcomed the world to our shores, and we built the sinews of a much stronger people in the process, with even more to offer the world. Ultimately and inevitably this, and our comprehension of colonial peoples striving for independence in many continents, changed our definition of what it was to be an Australian. We were proud to play a leading role in the early days of the United Nations. We wanted this international role, but it challenged us to confront the longstanding race issue in several ways. While opening ourselves to immigration, we had also to find a role for ourselves among the emerging and changing nations in our region, and we had to face the call from indigenous Australians for justice and equity.The last 20 years have seen Australia undertake even more radical changes. We have opened our markets to the world and deregulated our financial institutions. Our workplace relations have changed fundamentally, while commercial competition both within Australia and with foreign nations has become fiercer. Along with these often painful changes, we have seen some remarkable opportunities opening for women in education, work and politics. As a father of three daughters, I must applaud these openings, while continuing to see a role for governments in trying to reconcile work and family life, in trying to ease the burdens of child care and long hours on working parents.We now face another great challenge, this time a challenge for our minds and intellects, just as our hearts and our national identity were challenged in the past. A great knowledge revolution is sweeping the world, and the new communications and technological marvels go hand in hand with unprecedented global capital movements. Our people and their leaders are once again asked to face up to a new reality in which our prosperity will depend upon the investment in the minds of our people rather than in our physical resources. We will be mining our brains and thought processes, not just our countryside, in this new technological gold rush.I believe that we made the necessary changes to our economy and society only just in time over recent decades. For a country as small, as dependent on world markets and as exposed to international risk as ours, there is no room for complacency. I know that today is an occasion for focusing on positives in our past, and we are right to take sustenance from a century's achievements. But this nation was not born, nor did it grow to maturity, by its people closing their eyes to dangers and challenges. Precisely none of our achievements were the product of complacency. They were, and are, the product of courage, vision and application; they were, and are, the product of risk and daring and creative leaps of faith. And so it will be in the coming century.The history of the world we live in is not typically kind to smaller nations such as ours. History teaches us that nations, like empires, tend to fall rather than persist. This is why I have always said that we as a nation must be concerned with the terms and conditions of our national survival in the century that lies ahead. We face massive challenges—some external, some domestic. We face the prospect of ceaseless global economic change and the constant struggle for national prosperity in the face of that change. We face challenges of technologies not yet invented which will change our lives for the better or for the worse—and sometimes both—and we face the challenges of keeping our own society united, drawn as it is from so many different backgrounds, including the original owners of our land.The knowledge revolution and the global forces driving it will not wait for Australia to hop on board. If we do not harness the talent and energy of all our people, the brilliance and drive of our best academic and scientific minds and the leadership and energy of business and government, we may well face a very different century from the one we are celebrating today. We cannot put our relations with our Asian neighbours on some sort of pause button, just as we cannot afford a relaxed attitude to world affairs and international negotiations or any barriers at all to a clear-cut national defence strategy. Energetic leadership is needed more than ever in times like these—leadership to establish first-class research and development initiatives, to transform the educational and training options for all of us, to boost the abilities and morale of our teaching professionals, and to face the explosion of new ways of doing business, new products, new processes and new ways of thinking. I believe that this means we must approach this century not with complacency but with the urgency born of the great tasks that lie before us. I said yesterday and I repeat today that our starting point in this endeavour must be this: that everyone in this nation matters to this parliament and to the governments formed on the floor of this House. Nobody is dispensable in this process of change and, if we have given this impression in the past, we must never give it again. This country is too small, our challenges too big, to allow anyone to be left behind.In all these challenges, the members of this parliament, and particularly this House in which governments are made and broken, will be asked to lead. And yet we confront all of these stresses at a time when the confidence of our people in the established institutions of this nation, not least in this parliament, is perilously low. I am concerned about the way this great institution has slipped in public regard in recent decades. It should be a matter of concern to this House that politicians are not respected in the way they were in earlier days of this democracy. This House is where the nation's government, as chosen by people in a free ballot, is formed, where the government proposes laws to give effect to its policies, where it is held to account most directly and where it must stand and fall.I have no doubt that it is a good thing in a democracy for people to show healthy scepticism of political discourse. Our larrikin spirit, our convict origins and our well-known and often lamented tall poppy syndrome are probably good for this country. This attitude has stopped in his tracks many an aspiring dictator. It is hard to imagine a Hitler or a Mussolini ever surviving the dry wit of an Australian pub crowd. Nevertheless, it cannot be healthy for our democracy that there has been such a decline in regard for our major institutions. How often we hear a hostile view of the theatrical aspects of our debates. It is regularly expressed at community forums and on talkback radio in comments such as, `All they ever do is argue.'We in this place know that the life force of democracies such as ours is contention—over values, ideas and policies. Contention is the very sound of democracy in action. Nevertheless, the very way in which modern politics communicates itself, often through the seven-second sound bites seen on nightly TV news, drives elector dissatisfaction in a world of fast information flows. There is little we can do to change the way the media cover politics. In a free country, the media must have liberty. Our democratic institutions, whose origins are much older than the mass media, must and will adapt.I firmly believe that we should take one important step towards regaining the trust and respect of citizens, and that is to commit ourselves to standards of conduct against which we are prepared to be judged, and to adhere to them. Codes of conduct are an obvious and important means of accomplishing this. I do not claim they are the be-all and end-all, but they do serve to demonstrate to the electorate our awareness of their concerns and our commitment to address them. Arguably, the need for a code of conduct is greatest among those elected representatives who exercise the prerogatives of government. The high ethical standards expected of ministers and other government officials reflect the fact that they are entrusted with considerable privilege.As you know, I have been calling for an independent audit of parliamentary allowances and entitlements to address the public concern over entitlements. We believe such a position, combined with the twice-yearly tabling of expenditure of all entitlements by each senator and member, would go some way to addressing public concerns in this area. These are some of the ways we can stem the unhealthy and unhelpful hostility to politicians and the parliament. I am even more convinced that, if we can persuade the Australian people that we have a real vision for the future, we will re-establish their faith in the institution of this parliament and, in doing so, it will arm us mightily in the struggle ahead.It is the prerogative of the government of the day to write this motion. We recognise that in some parts of this motion the government has gone as far as it believes it can go. Our concern is this: the motion does not give indigenous Australians the recognition and respect they deserve at the end of a century of terrible trials and injustices for them. It does not recognise the greatest achievement of indigenous Australians this century—their victory in the battle to have their rights of original ownership of this land recognised by the parliament and the courts. We believe it is a tragedy that this House cannot today unite simply to recognise what is an undoubted fact—the prior occupation and ownership of this land by indigenous Australians.It does not surprise us, but it should be remarked upon, that this motion goes no closer to delivering the profound apology that we, as the official body responsible for governing this country, should deliver to those whose lives were so blighted by decisions and omissions in this very place. The motion does not even express a hope for the reconciliation process, but I am certainly glad that the Prime Minister did in the remarks that he made today. Indeed, the government has said—as the Prime Minister himself said today—that it is ongoing and important to this nation. These are matters for regret. All these issues must be addressed in this House, and I have faith that in time they will be. The real matter before us must be how we will spend the political capital of this great institution in the century which lies ahead.At the beginning of this second century of the Australian Commonwealth, let me state very clearly the vision of my party—this country's oldest political party—for the future. We look to a time of greater prosperity for all Australians—those who live in the cities and those who choose less travelled roads. We look to a future in which our people's health care is provided by virtue of citizenship, not their wealth. We look to a future of quality education for all, not just the privileged. We look to a future as one of the world's leading knowledge nations, harnessing the new age of progress for the benefit of all our people. We look to ennoble the soul of our nation and our people through genuine reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. We look to the necessity of repairing and protecting from harm our fragile countryside and forests, our waterways and our sunlit skies. Finally, we look to a time when we can bring our Constitution home and win agreement for a proud Australian republic with one of our own as head of state—a point made so well by young Australia through Hayley Eves yesterday. What a great future that will be, and how proud this generation will feel for having been part of it. 10:50:0026661Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I rise to give concurrence to this motion. In so doing, I join the two previous speakers in expressing my and my party's sympathy to the Nugent family in their loss.A hundred years ago, our predecessors gathered at the Exhibition Building for the opening of the first Commonwealth parliament. It was, of course, a triumphant day for our new country. It was carried out with the pomp and circumstance that the old British Empire did so well. The Duke and Duchess of York arrived in a state carriage with attendants and outriders. The stage was packed with beribboned uniforms and cocked hats. The huge crowd sang Jerusalem and Rule Britannia before departing to watch a fireworks display in the Domain.The first Commonwealth parliament then started work in this chamber and set about passing the bills to establish the machinery of a federal government. It all seems so long ago now—a time when sailing ships still carried our wheat and our timber from Sydney to London and when it took almost as long to get through customs at Albury as it now takes to fly from Sydney to Melbourne. The first parliament is worth remembering because it was led by the statesmen who had authored the Constitution and designed our federal system, and it is particularly appropriate that we are honouring them here today in the chamber where they did that work. The Prime Minister, Edmund Barton, had been a leader of the federation movement for a decade. He chaired the drafting committee at the 1897 federal convention and saved the convention, and perhaps Federation itself, when he persuaded the delegates to compromise over the powers of the Senate. That compromise is still set out in section 53 of the Constitution.The Leader of the Opposition, George Reid, has been reviled for his cautious approach to Federation. With 100 years of hindsight, however, it is clear that the changes he demanded—including assigning tariffs entirely to the federal government—measurably contributed to the success of the Constitution. During the 1897 convention, Reid argued that our constitutional pioneers had to: ... fashion a fabric of national government which shall be strong enough to withstand the shocks of time, which shall be elastic enough to overtake the mightiest possibilities of this grand new world of ours, and which will be just enough to do no wrong to any man.The 20th century saw Australia's population increase from four million to almost 20 million people. It saw the decline of great empires and rapid technological growth. The bands played as column after column of diggers boarded the troopships to fight far away.Throughout all these changes, the fabric of national government has served us well. The Constitution may not be written in soaring prose—perhaps in itself a good thing—but it has proved to be much more than a routine piece of 19th century imperial legislation. The federal parliament has become the forum for debating and resolving the great issues of Australia's history. As we look back, we can see Arthur Fadden taking over as Prime Minister in August 1941, as the war threatened to spread to the Pacific, we see Robert Menzies rising after the dinner break to announce the Petrov defection and we recall the passionate and difficult debates about native title in the 1990s.I am proud to say that the National Party have played a responsible and vital role in this parliament since our federal party was established in 1920. The party emerged from the farmers and graziers associations that started appearing in the late 19th century. They decided to run candidates for parliament because none of the existing political parties represented the interests of regional Australia. The two major political parties were protectionist. Their policies may have benefited the manufacturers of Sydney and Melbourne, but primary producers had to sell their products on the world market. Protectionism increased their costs, without any corresponding gains. The debate about the effects of globalisation was, of course, just as intense in 1901 and 1920 as it is now.The National Party's achievements for regional Australia have been incalculable. In 1923, my great predecessor Earle Page negotiated the first coalition agreement—one of the great institutions of public life in Australia today. He reformed the banking system, he established the precursor to the CSIRO and he later introduced permanent overseas marketing arrangements for primary products, a system that we have championed ever since. The National Party have a proud history of restraining the wilder enthusiasms of government. We have always been conservative. Like the people we represent, we have always been conservative. We have pressed the parliament, and when necessary our coalition partners, to look after those things that we have seen as valuable and enduring rather than pursuing political or social change for its own sake. In the first 100 years of this parliament there were 44 attempts to amend the Constitution. Some of the proposals would have had substantial and uncertain effects on our system of government. We as a party have always approached large constitutional changes cautiously because of the destabilising effects they may have on the Australian people. But we have never lost our passion for or our commitment to the great people of rural, regional and remote Australia. We will never lose our respect for the contribution they make to our nation now and that they will make in the future, both economically and socially. And our vision, at a time of undoubted change for rural and regional communities here, as indeed is the case right across the world, is that they will be able, in partnership with good policy from us, to turn the challenge of change into great opportunity.To return to broader matters, it is right for us to honour those who gave us such excellent machinery for governing Australia—machinery that I believe has delivered and can deliver all that might reasonably be asked of it by the Australian people. I believe its designers understood both the needs and the nature of human beings. I believe that they gave life to the Judaeo-Christian ethos that everyone matters, that each should therefore have their say in who runs the country and therefore where it should go. They recognised the dignity and the worth of each Australian, even if it took a little while to extend the vote to women and far too long to extend it to the Aboriginal people. They recognised that all should be equal before the law. They recognised too—and very importantly—human failings. Power can be corrupting, and no one individual or group should be allowed to gather or retain too much of it. Extensive checks and balances, divisions of power and of course—and perhaps primarily—the vote have helped to hold the line against abuses of power in this country, to the great benefit of us all.I believe our forefathers would have been deeply gratified that Australians have been prepared to fight for those values and the nation that they established upon those values so enthusiastically from Federation, through Anzac—a military disaster, of course, but a defining moment because it demonstrated that we would fight so passionately for the freedoms that our forebears had set down for us—and from then on throughout the 20th century. But they would have been amazed, too, by the extraordinary improvements in our material and physical wellbeing—improvements that have evolved under a stable and democratic system of government. We live much longer. I think the life expectancy at the time of our forebears' first meeting in this place was around 44 years for males. I would have had about four years to go. I will not comment on anyone else. Honourable members interjecting—4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—Forty-eight years; I am sorry. I think for women it was about 56 years; now it is some 86 years. Of course, we not only live longer but do so in much greater health. The comforts of our homes and in our travel are extraordinary. Our ability to communicate with one another, at least technically, would have been undreamt of by our forebears. So we are rightly proud of our great achievements in this country during the 20th century—the envy, surely, of so many throughout the rest of the world. Yet we do face major challenges. As I move around Australia, and country Australia in particular, I am often reminded of British historian Kenneth Clark's conclusion to his acclaimed Civilisation series, that society is fragile and that we can destroy ourselves with cynicism and disillusionment just as effectively as by bombs. For all that we have achieved, it is as though somehow relationships are souring. The trust and goodwill that I believe are integral to and vital to the smooth working of each and every community—from the smallest, our families, to the broadest, that between elector and elected—is somehow weakening and drifting in this nation. Too many of our young, especially, find that the security in relationships so vital to them and so wanted by them is lacking at home. Too many—most ominously, of our young in particular—hunger for hope but in the midst of plenty seem unable to find it. Our youth homelessness statistics and suicide figures demonstrate that.In this great and durable democracy, the envy of so many onlookers over the last century, our traditional healthy scepticism about politics and politicians is, in my view, tending to spill over into an unhealthy cynicism. This is all the more concerning to me when one recognises that, without in any way denying that we as members must consider our own standards and our own behaviour, the fact remains that by our very election we must and do reflect the very electors who put us where we are. Interestingly, around the plinth of Federation Pavilion in Sydney's Centennial Park we find some words from poet Bernard O'Dowd:A new demesne for Mammon to infest?Or lurks millenial Eden 'neath your face?We have found mammon in abundance; we have wealth as never before. But have we yet found Eden? We cannot live by bread alone, good though a strong economy is for all that it delivers us. If our relationships are to be satisfying and sufficiently strong to enable the proper working of our society at all levels, I believe we need to acknowledge that by our very nature we need to find the answers to those big questions: who we are—and therefore how we should value, treat and understand each other—and in what we should hope for the future.When parliament was first opened and whenever it sits, including today, we pray both the Lord's Prayer and a petition to God that we might direct our efforts as a parliament to the true welfare of the Australian people. Corporately and individually we would do well, I believe, to bend our knees, to give heartfelt thanks for all of the good things that we undoubtedly have but also to seek the grace, the wisdom and the guidance we need to ensure the best for Australians over the next century. That way our children will celebrate the bicentennial of our Federation in continuing freedom and prosperity, as we, all of us, would want for them. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.2666311:03:0026663SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Echoing sentiments already expressed, I believe it behoves us all—and I would have thought all of us do this—to be conscious of the fact that not only are we very fortunate to be here on the occasion of the centenary of the first sitting of the Commonwealth parliament but also that it is very much a matter of chance, rather than design or even talent, that has brought us here; that it is in fact the chance of a number of ballot boxes in a number of venues that has made possible our occupancy of this place. No-one is more acutely aware of that than am I.I stand here as the Speaker with mixed emotions because, as you all know, by pure chance the first member for Wakefield also became the first Speaker of the House of Representatives, and in this chamber the first Speaker of the House of Representatives collapsed—not in this chair but on the front bench—and subsequently died of a cerebral haemorrhage. This week has been for me an opportunity I had not previously had to meet some of his descendants and to meet old friends who have been part of the parliamentary process over that portion of the 100 years that those of us who are here can reflect on.That has been an experience for members on both sides of the House. For most of this week there has been an opportunity to renew former acquaintances and to meet up with people who have made possible what has happened in this parliament. It has been an opportunity for all of us to reflect on those who, because of their dominance of this parliament 100 years ago this day, made possible what is our heritage. The Bartons, the Deakins, the Forrests, the Griffiths, the Turners, the Watsons and the Reids—the list goes on of people who have been acknowledged for their role in making our great heritage possible.It struck me, my friends, that we would do well this morning to recognise that the success of these celebrations has also been the result of some very prominent people who have made possible these celebrations and in fact engineered the way we have gone about them. We should recognise the role played by Minister McGauran, the role played by Minister Delahunty and the role played by Sir Gus Nossal and Mr David Pitchford. We should also recognise the roles played by thousands of other people, whether they were the ushers, the event organisers, the security people or the drivers, who have all made possible what has happened this week. The same analogy applies to Federation. The success of Federation was not simply due to those who, because of their dominance, were seated in this chamber 100 years ago; the success of Federation was because there were Australians in all walks of life who believed in Federation and who wanted to see it happen. It was those Australians—our predecessors—who made this possible.I will refer to just one of them: William James Farrer. William James Farrer was born in 1845 in England and was a graduate of Cambridge. He came to Australia and was employed as a surveyor; he was not a politician. At 45 he acquired a property called Lambrigg on the Murrumbidgee River—in a delightful coincidence, about where Canberra now stands. There he took up the task of breeding wheat. He was not, as I said, a parliamentarian. In 1901, as a result of having crossed a `Purple Straw' variety 14A of wheat with another variety called `Yandilla', he suddenly found he had a new variety of wheat that showed real promise. So, sharing the optimism of the day that was a part of all that was happening in 1901, he called that new variety `federation'. This federation variety proved to be an early maturing wheat which was also rust resistant—though the wheat growers here will tell you it was rust resistant because it was early maturing, but let us not go into the detail—and drought resistant. The significant thing was that this wheat, created in 1901, ensured that by 1912 Australia had for the first time become a wheat exporter. Of course, it has remained a dominant wheat exporter ever since. By 1925 this was the leading variety being planted in Australia. It proved a variety of some longevity, because it was still being planted in 1938 when, even here in the state of Victoria, 10,000 acres of it were being sown. Why do I make that point? Because I think there are some parallels to be drawn between the wheat variety optimistically and appropriately named `federation', created in 1901, and all that happened in this chamber on that day and subsequently. You see, `federation' in both senses proved to be right for Australia. Whether in wheat varieties or in a parliamentary and constitutional sense, both forms of `federation' have served the nation well.Both were hybrids. We as a parliament have inherited the delightful hybrid of the British House of Commons, grafted, as it were, onto the American system, just as Farrer found an appropriate way through a hybrid to find a new variety of wheat that would make such an impact on the future of Australia's primary industry. Neither was perfect; neither was without its faults. Both the parliamentary form and the grain form fostered Australia's economic growth and independence. Both proved to be enduring. While I suspect not much federation is grown now, there is no doubt that the work done by Farrer has had a real impact on the wheat breeding and production of Australia right through to 2001. Both were changed over time, over 100 years, to meet modern conditions. Both have evolved. As the 39th Parliament, I think we need to be saying to the Australian electorate: `Much has changed in the way the parliament conducts its business.' It, too, has evolved over time and it continues to change. Have a look at the standing orders and the way they have changed. On this day 100 years ago it was the standing orders that caused the most rambunctious debate that occurred in the chamber on that day. Not only have the standing orders changed but, as other speakers have said, we have a very different parliament in that we have a parliament which is now appropriately comprised—I would freely concede not sufficiently comprised—of women, as the parliament 100 years ago was not. The parliament 100 years ago had a non-compulsory voting system. As all members have said, Aboriginals were denied a vote on that occasion and it was not until the 1967 referendum that the vote that had been offered to them was entrenched in a constitutional form. The parliament 100 years ago was eurocentric. Sixteen of the 75 members in the parliament 100 years ago were born in Scotland. Nine had names that began with `Mc' or `Mac'. The parliament today is a much more multicultural parliament, reflecting the society of the day. This parliament has evolved, recognising appropriately that it is no longer proper, and probably never was proper, for there to be the level of sectarianism that once existed in Australian society. I am pleased to say that not only does sectarianism scarcely exist in society today but the children of each of us scarcely know what the word means. This is a parliament which has evolved over time—and we ought to be prepared to acknowledge this as well—and which is now dominated by political parties so much scorned by the Australian media and frequently by the Australian people. But those same parties have given a certain stability to our political system and a capacity for the parliament to make unpopular decisions because it is much easier to make them in a corporate than in an individual sense. The parliament has also changed in recent times. We now have a second legislative stream known as the Main Committee. That second legislative stream has proved so popular that the so-called `mother parliament' in Westminster not only has come to see how it works but has invited our Clerk to Westminster to implement it as part of the Westminster tradition. We now have a greater opportunity, thanks to the role of previous Speakers and of previous procedure committees, for private members business. We now have a Parliamentary Education Office which endeavours to ensure that the lack of knowledge about the parliament and Australian history that so characterised my generation need not characterise succeeding generations. Members may be interested to know that it is the goal of the Parliamentary Education Office in this year, 2001, to ensure that 200,001 students have the opportunity to visit the parliament in a subsidised way. In 1901 our forebears sat here facing enormous problems. They were isolated from the rest of the world. They had none of the modern communication that we take for granted. This was a young country. It faced, from time to time, all sorts of epidemics, such as smallpox and bubonic plague. In the year 1901 tuberculosis claimed the lives of 3,500 Australians. Today we do not face the same health challenges. We are a country no longer isolated from the rest of the world but exposed to the rest of the world, and that brings challenges all of its own.The same underlying optimism that dominated this chamber in 1901 ought characteristically to be part of this chamber in the year 2001. All previous speakers today have referred to the deterioration of trust and goodwill and to the cynicism that seems to surround all that we do. May I suggest that it is appropriate for us to look again at the way we conduct ourselves as parliamentarians. When my predecessor, the first Speaker, was in this chair 100 years ago, he was asked what were our obligations as parliamentarians, and he responded by indicating that the Australian people had shown faith in the parliament by asking the people who were there to represent them. He called on parliamentarians to deal with each other in such a way as to generate respect. In response, Prime Minister Barton said: ... I am one of those who believe that courtesy is the first condition of dignity, without which dignity the respect of a great, free, representative assembly cannot be commanded. Much has been done by this parliament which has been too little recognised by the Australian people to ensure that we are recognised as responsible decision makers. The plea that we face today is to extend to each other just a little more courtesy. Before I adjourn the House, I wish to draw just two matters to the attention of members. First, allow me on behalf of all members to express our great appreciation to the Victorian parliament, and particularly to Speaker Andrianopoulos, for the hospitality they have extended to us. Speaker Andrianopoulos has been very generous in ensuring that whatever particular needs or concerns we had were met immediately and has been personally generous to me in making the facilities of his office and his staff available to me. To the Victorian parliamentarians and to the staff of the Victorian parliament, may I extend through you, sir, our thanks for all that has been done to allow this centenary sitting to occur. Secondly, could I invite members to remain seated following the adjournment of the House for approximately five minutes to allow a photographic opportunity to occur and to take, as is appropriate, directions from the Clerk in order to be assembled in a convenient position for that photographic opportunity. 11:18:0026666 House adjourned at 11.18 a.m until Tuesday, 22 May 2001 at 2.00 p.m. in Canberra, in accordance with the resolution of the House of 27 February 2001.Miscellaneous2666626666LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson to ask the Speaker:In approving the offer of Foxtel services to Parliament House for no charge, did he establish criteria to provide the basis on which further offers of television services to Parliament House would be considered.Notices26666The following notice was given:4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay to move:(1) That a Select Committee on Reform of the Opening of the Parliament be appointed;(2) That the Committee's report include recommendations on the:(a) procedures by which the person who had last held office as Speaker of the House could be appointed as a Deputy of the Governor-General for the purposes of the swearing in or the making of affirmations by Members of the House;(b) arrangements necessary to enable the Governor-General's opening Speech to be made in the Parliament's Great Hall; and(c) terms of a bill to alter the Constitution to require Members of the House to swear an oath or make an affirmation of allegiance to the people of Australia instead of the Queen; and(3) That the Committee be required to report on or before the last sitting of the House in September 2001.