In the News
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (9:30 PM) —This week the member for Melbourne moved a motion in relation to gay marriage which has received widespread coverage throughout Australia. I thought it timely to put on the record on behalf of my constituents some of my thoughts and also my early consultations in relation to this matter. I want to start by expressing that I do not hold a view that people should not be treated equally under the law and in relation to their financial arrangements or in relation to their relationship outcomes by the Commonwealth government. However, I think that there are those institutions in our society today which have formed the bedrock of our success as a nation.
My electorate of Mitchell has the highest number of couples with dependent children of any electorate in Australia today. I can tell you that it is a very successful formula to have married couples with children living in communities in a way that is for the purpose of bringing up children. It does lead to a great flavour in my suburbs for people raising their children. It is the case that the coalition believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. It sounds obvious, but it always has been. I think that these attempts to alter the definition of marriage or to implement radical change to this important construct at such a time in our national debate are ill thought out and unhelpful.
There is the idea that we need to achieve equality. We are not a society of equality. We are not a society that seeks complete equality for all of our citizens. It is not a goal that we will ever achieve and it is not a goal that I believe is worthwhile. We certainly seek equal opportunity. We certainly seek the equal opportunity for every citizen to gain what they can from our society in a free and unimpeded way. However, there are those constructs and important institutions that provide a platform for our stable society. Marriage is one of those. Indeed, while it is the case that many marriages today end in failure and an increasing rate of those marriages are not successful, it is not the case that there is a powerful or persuasive argument for radical change to such an important institution.
Marriage has been one of the foundational institutions of our society, especially for the bringing up of children. There is nothing that I have heard in this debate that has been brought forward to alter that very important view. This is not a view about financial entitlement. This is not an argument about people accessing rights that they are entitled to. This is about an institution which has always existed under a certain definition which some people are now seeking to alter and to access for their own purposes.
However, I think there is an important role for marriage to play. It is something that I want to defend. Family, I believe, is the most important institution in our society. Families take different shapes and they have different forms. Different religions and cultures have always come to the conclusion that the family is one of those bedrock institutions. Our society in Australia today is built on the institution of heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman.
That does not mean that there is not a case to be made for civil unions. It does not mean that there is not a case for other forms of partnerships or relationships to be recognised by the government. In fact, that is a worthy objective. It is something that would see the support of many members in this place in order to move with the times. However, I can say from the consultations in my electorate so far that I have received much correspondence greatly concerned about the institution of marriage and redefining it in a way that would alter its basic substance and composition and ultimately lead to it changing in a way that would have a radical effect on our society.
It is also the case in New South Wales that the government recently passed a law to allow for gay adoption. This is another unusual and radical move in the view of many when it is almost impossible for loving couples, men and women seeking to adopt children, to obtain an adoption today, which is of grave concern. By saying, ‘Now we want to allow gay adoption without having gay marriage,’ we certainly are proceeding down a path of radical change to the composition of our society without much thought and in a way that does not seem to be well supported by any evidence or any view that this will improve the quality of outcomes for children or the family unit.
In concluding I want to say to the member for Melbourne that he does not need to move a motion to tell us to consult, because the people of Australia are consulting with us. They are communicating their view and, from the electorate of Mitchell, they are saying to me that marriage is an important institution. It is a traditional institution between a man and a woman, and a radical alteration is not required at this time.
Reports that Federal Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, will not allow redirection of Federal funding from the Epping to Parramatta rail line to other Sydney projects, including a North-West rail line, is another example of the Gillard Government’s lack of commitment to the needs of Sydney, said the Federal Member for Mitchell, Alex Hawke.
“Sydney has been badly let down by the Rudd and now Gillard Government regarding transport infrastructure,” Mr Hawke said.
“Everyone in Sydney knows that the Epping to Parramatta ‘promise’ made by the Prime Minister at the last Federal Election campaign was simply pork-barrelling to try and save the seat of Bennelong for Labor. The announcement was certainly not based on what was best for transport in Sydney.”
“New South Wales Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell is right to stand up to Federal Labor’s bullying tactics and pork-barrelling on where to spend funding on critical rail infrastructure in Sydney.”
Mr Hawke also said he would be seeking the release of any information which supported the construction of an Epping to Parramatta line over the North-West rail line, or any other Sydney Infrastructure projects.
“Revelations that the New South Wales Department of Transport knew nothing of Federal Labor’s plans prior to the election announcement, highlights why Minister Albanese must release any advice he is relying on to fund the Epping to Parramatta line over the long awaited projects such as the North-West rail line.
“The Gillard Government is about to make the same mistake New South Wales Labor has made over the past sixteen years—committing to a major infrastructure project based not on sound planning criteria, but based on politics. People across Sydney are fed up with Labor’s short term decision making which has resulted in traffic chaos for commuters.
“Considering the New South Wales election is just seventy-five days away I call on Minister Albanese to immediately suspend any decision on rail infrastructure funding in Sydney until the next New South Wales Government is in place.”
“Barry O’Farrell is to be congratulated on standing up to the Federal Government’s attempts to bully New South Wales into another poor planning decision for Sydney.”
Alex Hawke MP
Federal Member for Mitchell
Transcript Sky News AM Agenda
Discussion with Ed Husic and Ashleigh Gillon
Thursday, 16 December 2010
E&OE…
ASHLEIGH GILLON: Joining me this morning on our panel of politicians the Labor MP, Ed Husic, good morning to you.
ED HUSIC: Hi.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: Good thank you. And also the Liberal MP, Alex Hawke.
ALEX HAWKE: Hi Ashleigh.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: Good morning to you. Obviously, we’ve all been watching these reports coming in from Christmas Island this morning. It is seriously tragic. Julia Gillard’s obviously has cut short her holiday to deal with this. What is the Government’s process going forward?
ED HUSIC: At this point it’s basically the search and rescue, tending to the injured. It is as you’ve described it, a tragedy and it’s horrible to see that twenty-eight people have lost their lives, forty-four accounted for. But the estimate that Mr Bowen released this morning, is between seventy to a hundred people may have been on that vessel and it’s now just a matter of, as I said before, attending to search and rescue.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: Alex obviously that is the focus now, but there is no doubt this is going to reignite the political debate about asylum seekers.
ALEX HAWKE: Look, you’re absolutely right Ashleigh and the focus today is on the victims of this tragedy and of course our service personnel, still in the field are working very hard, putting their lives on the line as they do every day to ensure the safety of people and their fellow human beings. All these questions and all this debate is unhelpful at this time. I think it will be something that will be considered down the track but at the moment, the human tragedy and the crisis that we’re all watching on our televisions has to remain the focus of all our efforts and our energies.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: And of course politicising this tragedy is the last thing that any of the politicians want to do. We saw yesterday whenever this question about policy was raised, Wayne Swan, we saw Scott Morrison all saying this is not the time for policy debate. Ed Husic though I’ve got to say here at Sky News we’re getting viewer email after viewer email saying this morning that this tragedy is something that your Government might have been able to prevent.
ED HUSIC: Oh, I think we’ll just have to wait and see what comes out of the inquiry and there’ll be a lot of people that’ll feel very strongly about this, but at the same time too, speculating on it, at this point I don’t know what, what good is going to come out of that. I did want to pick up on a point Alex made about the service personnel. I agree recognising what they put themselves through, five metre swells to try and reach people, for the purpose of rescue and recommend the commendation of assistance of the WA authorities, obviously our Federal Customs and Defence personnel who have been involved and also the people that were at Christmas Island, the residents who were, trying to do what they could to save people at that point. People rallying around to save other people in such terrible positions.
ALEX HAWKE: Yeah, I’m already hearing some pretty heroic stories coming from the Christmas Island locals. Let’s move on to some other political issues around today. Superannuation is the big one today. Bill Shorten is going to be responding formally to the Cooper Report into super, we’re going to see a huge overhaul of the way we all deal with our superannuation accounts. Ed Husic, what are the key points, what can we can look forward to.
ED HUSIC: Well the big focus has been on looking at governance, efficiency fees and we think that if we are able to make savings, particularly in terms of fees, that might end up for a worker today, thirty years old, potentially reaping an extra forty thousand dollars in superannuation, and the big focus in terms of super is dealing with that massive, you know, demographic challenge we have with people ageing and as they leave the workforce having impact on Government revenue as well because you’re not obviously bringing-in taxation receipts as a result of that and also meeting the other needs of people that, particularly in an ageing population require. So this is important in that end, being able to boost people’s savings.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: And I guess this involves setting up this new default superannuation fund, the MySuper fund, the Government is estimating that four and a half million Australians are going to take that up. It will be introduced not till 2013. Alex, your leader, Tony Abbott has already said that he doesn’t like this idea. He has already flagged the Opposition will vote against it. Why not if it is going to add sixty billion dollars to the economy by 2035? It all sounds pretty positive.
ALEX HAWKE: Well, yeah Ashleigh look it all does sound positive, but look we are sceptical of the idea of a big default super fund being automatically the way to go. We’re sceptical of Labor’s motives in getting involved in superannuation in this way. I mean their economic credentials have been so poor, when you look at what’s happened in so many other industries, in the mining industry, or the banking industry, they’ve come up with proposals that are ill-thought out and they haven’t spent the right time consulting on these issues, and the superannuation industry is saying the same thing. The consultation here has to be done properly, thoroughly, and it has to be got right, and automatically creating a default fund may not produce better results at all and indeed we’re very sceptical about the unions’ involvement in all of these default arrangements and what the motives of the Labor Party really are in seeking to add more regulation to the superannuation industry.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: I’ve got to say though, most of the reaction I’ve been reading this morning from the super funds has been pretty positive, they’re embracing this. In fact, one of the comments I read from John Brogden was let’s bring this forward, that by having all these reforms not fully in place till 2015, he’s saying bring that forward we want to get these going ASAP.
ALEX HAWKE: Sure, we’ll look at the detail today. But you do have to be consultative. You have to do that in a way that is meaningful and what we have seen with a whole range of other industries, you ask the insulation industry what they think about the Government’s performance, or the banking sector, or the mining sector. Every time this Government has intervened into a market it has left a smoking ruin, and a trail of people saying they weren’t consulted, the regulations that were proposed by the Government weren’t effective and again we question the motives of the Government in setting up a big default super fund and we want a thorough examination of why they proposed this and what they do propose.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: Well it looks like they’re setting up a range of committees to look at the implementation details of all of this…
ED HUSIC: If I can, superannuation has been one of the most critical pieces of economic reform providing a massive pool of savings used by industry and benefiting Australian workers as they retire. To suggest for one moment that that it in some way, shape or form is a failure, that when Labor has intervened in that way, and Labor champions superannuation. Clearly, a difference with Alex on that and I think a lot of people today, who’re receiving a lot more than what they’d get on a standard pension because they’re being superannuated, I just think a lot of people would be welcoming that.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: I did read though some adverse reactions from some of the unions this morning, they’re worried about how this is going to be implemented and had a particular concern it seems about those default fund, the MySuper fund.
ED HUSIC: Well there’ll be, I mean there’ll be different reaction from different people and clearly unions will sit on, a number of unions sit on industry super funds, the default fund potentially represents another avenue for people to invest their savings, but the main thing is that people have the opportunity to put money aside for when they retire, that’s the thing we are trying to do. I mean there are a lot of people now who are about to retire who never had the benefit of super because there were no funds around for them to be able to put their money, their wages into and, that’s a massive problem.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: Alex do you think that the super industry does need some reforms, even if you don’t agree with the particular ones that this Government is putting forward, when you look at young people for example having four different super funds from their four different jobs they held during university that they never chased up. It is a really complex system and most economists will tell you this needs to be made more effective for the productivity of the nation.
ALEX HAWKE: Look, there is no doubt the superannuation industry needs more certainty and it needs more certainty from Government first of all. But, super is now one point three trillion dollars, it’s a hundred and ten percent of GDP, it’s attractive to governments who are in financial crisis to look at as ways of raising revenue and we have to protect superannuation from governments whose economic credentials faltering, and so I do think that kind of certainty is necessary in the industry. But that does mean carefully considering the regime you are going to be putting in there, and ensuring you do protect it from a Government that is looking to get revenue from any source it can to fund it’s debt-deficit spending, and I think that’s critical here, the industry is nervous and there is nervous concern about what the Government is proposing.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: Is this a revenue raiser? Is that what is going on here?
ED HUSIC: I am always astounded when representatives of the Opposition, talking to us about economic credentials when they had an eleven billion dollar black hole in their own costings for the last election. I just, I’m sorry, I know it is the season to be jolly but I ain’t accepting that for one minute.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: Alex, just finally on this, has the Opposition carefully considered, as you say, is needed, this issue and do you have your own superannuation policy? What sort of things would the Coalition like to see changed?
ALEX HAWKE: Yeah, look, we have to of course look at what the Assistant Treasurer will be announcing today and he’ll be making that formal response from the Government to the Cooper Report today. We’ll look at all the detail of that and certainly we’ll be putting forward our own proposals in this area.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: Bill Shorten, the Assistant Treasurer, will be doing a news conference in Melbourne at around 10.30 this morning and we are hoping to bring that to you live. We’ll get full analysis of course here on Sky News and on our business channel as well. I want to move on to a state issue, obviously you are both New South Wales MPs. We have seen a lot of controversy in recent days about the sell-off of electricity assets here in the state. Ed Husic, is that the right decision for the State Government to make?
ED HUSIC: Well, if they’ve made the decision based on their own assessment of what’s required, they’ve gone through that sale process, they’re going through the steps of explaining how that sale has come about.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: But obviously as a Labor MP from New South Wales, you would have been watching this pretty closely. Do you think it was the right decision?
ED HUSIC: Well we, the Government has made a decision, the New South Wales Government made a decision about the sale of assets and they’ve gone through the announcement yesterday.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: Do you think it is going to make the people of New South Wales better off?
ED HUSIC: Oh, look, I worked in the sector myself and know that the issues, the main thing is that the poles and wires are retained in Government hands, but the retailers themselves, I mean that is the place where you have the highest level of risk and the lowest margins, also looking that the move within the sector was for vertical integration with generators so that retailers do have access to generation and that was the model that was embraced, to look at what could be done with the protection of poles and wires being in Government hands.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: Not really a forthright endorsement from you this morning, Ed Husic, let’s get Alex’s take on this. You obviously think this was a bad (inaudible)
ALEX HAWKE: This is a critically bad decision of the New South Wales Labor Government which is just lurching from crisis to crisis in its final days. There’s no doubt, even the Treasurer, Eric Roozendaal, spelled out clearly today that the assets were worth so much more ten years ago, and this is Labor in Government. Ed talks about economic credentials, well let me say, if you have a sixteen year running State Labor Government you get this disaster in New South Wales, where the people of New South Wales are short-changed by the sale of this asset, ten years after the retail arm should have been sold and the money could have of course gone to so many infrastructure and other projects. It’s the case that this State Government has badly let down people in New South Wales. Coming from New South Wales, Ed would agree with me, it’s like a state of living un-death in New South Wales at the moment, waiting for the Government to change so the people can recover their hope in the future. We seem to lose everything to every other state and New South Wales is the last Government to get rid of its electricity retail arm and I think that is an indicator of how far we are behind we are in the reform process and the economic status that New South Wales needs.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: Ed, even the biggest optimist would say, there’s no much hope at all for the Keneally Government.
ED HUSIC: I think everyone knows that it is going to be very, very, very, very challenging come March.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: Slash, impossible.
ED HUSIC: Well that’s a word that you’re using, and a lot of others are using. It is very, very, very hard but don’t, don’t rope me into agreeing with you on (inaudible).
ALEX HAWKE: But without gilding the lily I think it’s actually very important that living in a democracy that you change Governments. This has been a sixteen-year running Government, and when you get a Government this bad, whatever its persuasion, it really needs to be sent a signal. For all standards of governance in Australia, when a Government is so bad, it just has to be sent a very clear message by the people that they will not put up with such a low-level of governance.
ED HUSIC: But just hang on there a sec Alex, I mean, okay there’s probably elements of like that for all governments will go through change and you accept that that’s part of the cycle, but it would just be great to actually get some policies out of Barry O’Farrell. Be it on electricity privatisation, be it on any of the other of the major infrastructure spends that are required, that you can clearly, be able to say, okay we know the Opposition is ready and able to take up Government, there is an absence…
ASHLEIGH GILLON: (inaudible) I think Barry O’Farrell…
ALEX HAWKE: I think the North West rail line is number one.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: I think Barry O’Farrell has (inaudible) big headache that this has already happened and he doesn’t have to deal with it. Alex Hawke, Ed Husic, thank you both for your insights this morning.
ENDS
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (8:41 PM) —It is a great privilege to speak to the motion on Liu Xiaobo moved by the member for Melbourne Ports. I congratulate the government and the member for Melbourne Ports on putting forward such an important motion.
With all our political traditions, we can all take something from Liu. For me, I take out of the life of Liu and his Nobel Peace Prize the triumph of the individual against the state—that ongoing force in human history of the individual challenging the unquestioned power of the state. Charter 08 calls for 19 changes to improve human rights in China, including an independent legal system, freedom of association and the elimination of one-party rule. That is the same challenge that has faced many people throughout our own history, and it is of course something this place should be a beacon for upholding and supporting. It is good to see a man of Liu’s character receive this award. We must speak up and stand up for those people who are oppressed, who are unable to speak, who are imprisoned, in their quest for freedom and human rights. The Australian parliament of course does serve as a source of hope and inspiration to so many around the world.
Being jailed for 11 years for producing such a charter, which calls for 19 changes to improve human rights in China, is a hideous thing—being jailed for peaceful protest seeking progress for the human race. That is why it is so important for us here today to support such a man. Often in this House I question the role of individuals and the role they play, but intellectuals do have an important role to play in our world. When you look at Liu’s life and examine his intellectual traditions, he even studies the same intellectual traditions that underpin many of the things that I believe in—and I refer to Nietzsche. Liu was an advocate of the individual in Chinese universities in his earlier year, standing up in a society dominated by the collectivist tradition for the role of the individual in his society. The member for Fraser quite beautifully spoke about the ‘lost souls’ that Liu represents in the Chinese state.
Australia has played a role in Liu Xiaobo’s life over many years; indeed, in the Tiananmen Square massacre Liu sought refuge in an Australian embassy but had the courage and the bravery to leave that safe haven that Australia provided and go back to his people to continue his ongoing quest to gain, in a constitutional way, better conditions and liberty for the Chinese people.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Liu for his long and non-violent struggle—that is very important—for fundamental human rights in China. The committee has long believed that there is a close connection between human rights and peace. It is important to note that Liu has been a peaceful protester; that he has sought to improve his society only through that which can be obtained through proper mechanisms and through the rule of law. At his recent trial he gave a great quote, which I would like to read here today:
Freedom of expression is the basis of human rights, the source of humanity and the mother of truth. To block freedom of speech is to trample on human rights, to strangle humanity and to suppress the truth. I do not feel guilty for following my constitutional right to freedom of expression, for fulfilling my social responsibility as a Chinese citizen. Even if accused of it, I would have no complaints.
It is beautiful language even when translated into English—one can only wonder how it sounds in Chinese. However, it is the same hope that is expressed by so many people in human history: to seek a better life for themselves and their fellow man and to seek limitations on state power, which has been such a great tradition in the West.
I know that there are plans to publish selections of his writings in the future and I will be one of those seeking out those writings to add to my collection of documents of liberty from our world. Those writings will stand alongside Czechoslovakia’s Charter 77, the Declaration of Independence, Milton’s works and all of those key documents from human history that have formed the ongoing tradition of seeking to limit the power of the state over the individual. In Liu we see that same quest and that same peaceful protest for the betterment of humankind. It is our role, as a parliament that is dominated by freedom of expression, human rights and the betterment of the human race, to support all of those who seek liberty in such a noble and powerful way as Liu has done in China.
The Federal Member for Mitchell, Alex Hawke, will be working closely with colleagues in this Parliament after yesterday being appointed as Secretary of the Coalition’s Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Policy Committee.
Policy committees are important in developing new Federal Opposition policies, and draw on the skills and experience of a range of Members of Parliament and Senators.
“It is crucial that in developing new policies that the Federal Coalition is able to bring together the concerns and issues passed on to and heard by representatives from right around Australia,” Mr Hawke said.
“The areas of foreign affairs, defence and trade involve many challenges. They are policy areas of particular interest to me.
“I am greatly honoured to be elected as Secretary of the Coalition’s Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Policy Committee, and look forward to this further opportunity to generate policy for the Federal Coalition,” Mr Hawke said.