G�day. Amid Tony Abbott�s �Honest Politics Trust� scandal in September 2003, I wrote in We want convincing pollies � honest:
�I reckon Abbott’s invented the slogan for Labor at the next election, if Labor is brave enough to grasp the opportunity: “Honest Politics.” Every time we see Abbott and Howard, we know they don’t stand for that. Labor’s job is to convince the Australian people that it, at last, is for it, and will take significant policy action to work towards that goal.�
Since he became Labor leader in December, Latham has been building his credentials to run an honest politics, power-to-the-people election campaign against Howard. He started with style � speaking plainly and wandering around NSW in a bus addressing town meetings open to all comers. On policy, he�s announced a ban on tobacco company donations to Labor, floated the idea of appointing an independent Speaker to run proceedings in the House of Representatives and last week gave a speech outlining more honesty policy. His censure of Howard on the Keelty affair in Parliament yesterday was replete with references to the need for truth in politics.
Today in Parliament, Labor instigated debate on the government�s growing avoidance of disclosure of material under freedom of information laws to highlight Labor�s promise to strengthen the law, one of Liberal Prime Minister�s Malcolm Fraser�s greatest legacies to accountable government in Australia. The government�s counter attack pointed to the NSW Labor government�s equally appalling record on honesty, transparency and accountability. It�s a great point � one I discussed in The sneaky theft of people power – and Latham has to convince voters in NSW he is different from his bovver boy NSW colleagues and will not collude with them if he wins office.
Latham will also need to do more on the policy front, and he’s clearly listening to Carmen Lawrence � she set out a comprehensive plan to improve our Parliament in Ideas to save our withering democracy.
What would Latham�s standards of ministerial conduct be, and how would he ensure they don�t become the sick farce Howard�s have? I had some ideas in Crean’s new Labor: A chance to change:
�I’d like to see Crean (the then leader) set out a covenant with the Australian people. I’d like him to promise that, if elected Prime Minister, he would be honest with the Australian people and would always ask, in the words of HIH Royal Commissioner Neville Owen, “What is right?” when addressing policy issues. In other words, that he would see his role as leading Australia in the public interest, not as a mere dealmaker or mediator between competing interest groups. He’d promise to do what he believed was right to the limit of what was possible, and explain why in clear, non-partisan terms.
�John Howard’s ministerial code of conduct, a key promise in his 1996 election win, quickly collapsed, partly because most ministers didn’t read it, let alone take it seriously. Crean could learn that lesson by sending each shadow minister to ethics training from the St James Ethics Centre, where they could confidentially discuss their financial affairs, seek guidance on how to handle conflicts of interest, and get a grounding in the responsibilities and duties of a minister.
�Howard’s code also suffered from being too “black letter” in its formulation, opening the way for a vulture-like media to force its first resignation – that of assistant treasurer Jim Short – over a technical breach lacking any substance. Ethics are ideals to aspire to. Mistakes can and are made without bad intent. It is honourable to admit them quickly and move on. Crean could promise that in government, an independent person of honour and experience would be appointed to act as confidential adviser and mentor to ministers, ministerial staffers and backbenchers on ethical questions. He could even – if he was very, very brave – delegate to the independent person the power to decide whether or not a minister in breach of his ethical duties should resign, be counselled, apologise to the Australian people, or have a stint in the sin bin.
�Rebuilding ethics in government, business and the professions is fundamental to Australia’s future. Howard’s government has no credibility to demand ethical behaviour from business and the professions given its record. Australians believe virtually noone with power can be trusted with it.
�A radical ethical government policy would set the foundation for a Labor government to assert the moral authority to lift standards across the nation. And for a government, a little bit of community trust is a big help in getting acceptance for new policy and in creating energy in ordinary people to hop in and do their bit for their society.
�I’d like to see Crean experiment with portfolio titles and responsibilities in his reshuffle, to emphasise issues of trust and bottom-up government. For example, he could appoint a shadow minister for ethical government, with responsibility for putting together a comprehensive plan to nurture an ethical Labor government.�
And will Latham clean up our political donation disclosure laws so both parties don�t drive a truck through them as they�re doing now? We�ll see.
The sham of our disclosure laws were exposed during the Honest Politics Trust scandal, and this month the Senate set up an inquiry to examine the matter. Submissions close on April 8, so go for it � a letter or email is sufficient, and you can also offer to give oral evidence.
Here�s Latham�s speech.
***
The new politics
by Mark Latham
La Trobe Politics Society Annual Lecture, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 19 March 2004
Throughout my 10 years in Federal Parliament one thing has always puzzled me. Why don’t more MPs talk openly about the loss of public trust and confidence in the political system? It’s as if, having become part of the system, nobody is allowed to talk about it.
Yet this is the number one issue facing our democracy today. If the people do not trust their elected representatives then the governance of our society is much weaker. People do not respond as well to government initiatives, the public’s interest and participation in politics starts to hollow-out and, over time, respect for the Rule of Law is diminished. Society itself is likely to be more fragmented and fractious.
Unfortunately, this is how many Australians now see the democratic process. They talk about politics with a cool anger and sense of frustration. They have a feeling that the system is far from genuine � that it has become too plastic and too contrived. That politics is more about convenience that conviction, more about posturing than problem-solving. That the democratic process has somehow divorced itself from the public interest.
We need to be honest � brutally so � about the seriousness of the problem. Anyone who has campaigned for public office knows what I’m talking about. If that’s not enough, then listen to talkback radio or read the letter pages of our newspapers. Or stand in any suburban shopping centre and ask people what they think about politics.
This is not a question of Labor or Liberal, Democrat or Green. None of us are without fault or responsibility. It’s a matter of facing up to the failings of the system and trying to find new ways of restoring public trust and confidence in it.
The responsibility for fixing our broken politics rests with all politicians. But I believe that social democrats have a special responsibility.
More than any other political movement, we have a belief in the power of social reform by democratic means. Our belief in the capacity of human reason and progress to create a fairer society. Our conviction that parliamentary democracy is the most likely and effective means by which this goal can be achieved. If the public does not trust the political system then our task is made doubly difficult. We not only need to convince the electorate of the merit of our reforms but also, that the political process itself can make a difference. Without trust in public life, there can be no meaningful reform.
Our Tory opponents, of course, don’t believe in the potential of good government to improve society. They have no ambitions for Australia beyond the status quo. They don’t have a stake in repairing our broken politics � but Labor does.
Through self-sacrifice we must show people that service of the public is a life-building motivation. Through a new politics we must show the electorate that there are good reasons to believe in democracy and the social good it can produce.
This is why I regard democratic reform as a mainstream political issue. This is why I have placed it at the forefront of my Labor Party leadership. Many great things need to be done for Australia � rebuilding Medicare, creating educational opportunities, protecting the environment � but their potential will not be realised if the Parliament is weak and our democracy is shallow.
Today I want to outline the pathway to a new politics, a program of reform to give the Australian people greater access to the political system and good reason to trust in it. Our program of democratic renewal relies on four principles:
More open government
Higher ethical standards
Greater public participation
And comprehensive Parliamentary reform.
Open Government
Throughout my time in politics I’ve always believed in open government. My first campaign for public office was in 1987, seeking election to my local Council in south-west Sydney. I ran on a platform of open government � the introduction of precinct committees and freedom of information, based on the model pioneered by Ted Mack at North Sydney Council.
After the election I sat down with the senior Council staff to talk about the implementation of these policies. One of them said to me: “You want to bring the people out there into the workings of the Council. But we’re better off if we look after each other inside the Council and keep them out!”. I had to explain that I represented �them’ and had a mandate to open up the Council to greater scrutiny and public participation.
This taught me an early lesson in public life. Too often our institutions operate like a club � the insiders look after each other’s interests at the expense of those outside the club. This is how the political process can separate itself from the public interest. Real power and access are concentrated in the club, leaving the public on the outside � disenfranchised and disillusioned.
This process also defies one of the most important trends in our society. With massive improvements in information technology, most citizens now have better access to information and a strong understanding of public issues. They are hungry to find out more and hold our public institutions to account. They expect the Information Age to be just that: a new age of access and information about all aspects of society, including government.
Far from meeting this expectation, the public sector is going backwards. Just look at the record of the Howard Government. There is always a missing piece to the puzzle, something it doesn’t tell the Australian people. From the children overboard scandal to WMD in Iraq, to its abuse of the Parliament and gutting of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, it habitually controls and manipulates public information.
Consistent with this approach, the Howard Government has downgraded Australia’s freedom of information laws. The Attorney General, Mr Ruddock, has described the primary purpose of FOI as “ensuring people can get access to information concerning their own affairs”. Public information and the public interest have been sidelined. So too the Treasurer, Mr Costello, has used a technical provision of the FOI Act � a series of conclusive certificates � to deny The Australian newspaper access to basic data on the First Homeowners Grant and bracket creep.
Today I can announce that a Labor Government will reform the Freedom of Information Act to make it more open and democratic. We want the legislation to reflect a pro-disclosure culture � that all government information should be made available, unless its release would cause substantial public harm.
Accordingly, we will amend the objects clause of the Act to create a pro-disclosure regime.
We will also ensure that the public interest test is applied more thoroughly and consistently. The information collected and created by public officers should be regarded as a national resource. It’s a waste if this material, developed at great public expense, is not available for public use.
Ministers shouldn’t be allowed, without any reason or explanation, to declare certain documents �secret’. That’s why Labor will abolish the use of conclusive certificates � other than for matters of national security or Cabinet-in-confidence. Ministers will still be able to refuse a request for information but they will have to argue why, not simply hide behind a certificate.
There are some types of material that should be protected for individual privacy or security reasons, but refusing to make information public because it might embarrass a Minister is unacceptable. Labor will insert into the Act a clause ensuring that “embarrassment to the government” cannot be used as a reason for withholding information. As ever, the public has got the right to know.
Ethical Standards
One of the disturbing aspects of the recent debate about parliamentary superannuation was the suggestion from senior Liberals, including Mr Costello, that some people go into politics for the money. If that’s the case then I say: go set up a company, go into business to make money, not into public life.
We need to rekindle the high ideals of community service. Those of us elected to public office have been given a great honour and privilege, well beyond any material benefit. That is, the honour and satisfaction that comes from helping other people. I’ve always believed that the best life is one lived in the service of others.
This is why � notwithstanding the current cynicism about politics � we should be proud to call ourselves politicians. The task is not to change our vocation in life but to change the way in which we present our work to the public. A good starting point is austerity in office, bringing Parliamentary entitlements closer to community standards. In terms of personal finances and lifestyle, I believe that Members of Parliament should have a clear affinity with the constituency they represent. This is why I have foreshadowed action to:
Close the parliamentary superannuation scheme to new members; and
Cap the superannuation entitlements of existing senior office-holders in Parliament.
I’ve also given my commitment that, as Prime Minister, I will live in just one piece of public housing � The Lodge in Canberra � and Kirribilli House will be returned to public use.
Labor is also committed to greater transparency and accountability in public office. This is why we plan to:
Establish an independent Auditor of Parliamentary Allowances and Entitlements to investigate breaches of the entitlement guidelines;
Impose a 12 month ban on former Ministers taking up paid employment and consultancies with companies in areas relevant to their responsibilities as Ministers; and
Require all government advertising to meet strict Auditor-General guidelines to ensure it is necessary for the purposes of government, rather than party political purposes.
Today I can also announce that in office Labor will legislate for the registration of lobbyists. The public deserves to know about the work of lobbyists and how, on behalf of certain corporations and interest groups, they try to influence the decisions of the Federal Parliament and Government. Transparency is important when people are paid to get the inside running in a democracy.
Registration will involve disclosure of the names of their clients, companies or associations and a regular update on the Federal public office holders who have been lobbied. Labor will also introduce a Code of Conduct governing the industry � with a provision for the deregistration of lobbyists who breach the code. All of this information will be publicly available on the Internet.
Public Participation
I mentioned earlier my hope that more MPs will focus on the need for democratic reform. One politician who has been tackling this issue is Carmen Lawrence, the directly elected National President of the ALP. I commend her speeches and papers on this subject to you.
When the Labor Party decided to directly elect its President, the usual sceptics said that it would not work. In fact, it has been a successful exercise in grassroots democracy � empowering our rank-and-file members to have a say in how the Party is run.
In our busy society � with the pressures of work, family and community � people are not likely to get involved in politics unless their participation is meaningful, unless they can directly influence public policy and the things happening around them. An information-rich society demands a participation-rich politics.
Democracy was founded on the idea that everyone should have a say in the decisions of government impacting on their lives. With the increased size of government, however, this system of direct democracy has been replaced by a corporatist state � where governments hear the views of sectional interest groups on a regular basis, often to the exclusion of the general public. This concentration of power has added to the public’s distrust of politics.
Interest groups, of course, deserve their say. But when they start to monopolise the time of government, the process has gone too far. I believe we need to open up the corporatist club and substantially increase the level of public participation in modern politics. For democracies to flourish, people need to be actively involved, and not just on polling day.
As Opposition Leader I have been holding community forums around Australia � a return to the traditional town hall-style meeting where citizens can come along and have their say. And people have responded. They know that political campaigning has become too stage managed, too choreographed for the benefit of the media, rather than open to genuine community participation.
In government, we will hold regular Community Cabinet meetings and forums � a chance for Ministers and senior bureaucrats to get out of Canberra and talk to people in the suburbs and regions face-to-face. It is remarkable how easily governments, seduced by interest group politics and the isolation of Parliament House, can get out-of-touch. The Community Cabinet process is an effective check against this problem.
In other areas, especially the great national decisions of Australian identity and independence, I want the people themselves to determine the outcome. I want to give power away, transferring political influence from the powerful to the people. Let me give two examples of what this would mean in practice, drawn from the experience of the 1999 referendums.
I see the issue of an Australian Republic as not just a question of constitutional independence, but as a way of broadening our democracy � the essence of republicanism itself. This is why Labor will hold a series of plebiscites: direct voting to involve the Australian people at every stage of the process. Do we want to become a Republic and if so, by which constitutional model? Only when the people have determined these matters would a formal referendum be held.
The second referendum in 1999 concerned Mr Howard’s attempt to draft a new constitutional preamble. Given the scale of social change in recent decades, many people are interested in the issue of national identity. They want to talk openly and constructively about what it now means to be an Australian.
These issues can only be sorted out satisfactorily by an exchange of views between Australians themselves. The last thing the nation needed was for its Prime Minister to pre-empt such a debate by writing his own preamble.
The Federal Government should have sponsored a national dialogue about the modern meaning of Australian identity. It should have given every Australian a chance to have a say.
Every classroom should have been asked to debate the values important to young Australians. Every newspaper should have been asked to invite submissions from its readers. Every local government area should have been asked to conduct public forums and opinion surveys. Every household and library connected to the Internet should have been asked to join the debate on-line. Only by asking the people could the nation have had confidence in a new constitutional preamble.
During a time of social change and uncertainty, governments need to do more than frame laws and make decisions. They need to get the public involved in the many social issues we share in common. How do we answer the new challenges of citizenship and identity? How do we build stronger relationships and communities? How do we work together to provide opportunity but also demand social responsibility?
That’s my approach: if in doubt, let’s have more democracy, more direct voting, more public participation. As ever, real power comes from giving power away.
Parliamentary Reform
Our Parliamentary institutions also need to be reformed. In a world where information flows at a faster rate and people exchange views more frequently, many of the procedures of the Parliament appear anachronistic.
Legislative debates lack spontaneity and significance, with the results predetermined along party lines.
Question Time in the Parliament suffers from the farce of Dorothy Dix questions and Ministers obsessed with point-scoring, rather than problem solving. Most people who watch Question Time are struck by its artificiality and lopsided rules. Far from being a showcase of the Parliament, it is widely regarded as a public embarrassment.
I’m committed to comprehensive Parliamentary reform, starting with the appointment of an independent Speaker. This is something that Mr Howard promised in 1996 but failed to act on. In practice, it is the key to improving the Parliament. Without impartiality and a sense of public interest from the Chair, the chamber will continue to be bogged down with procedural points and grievances.
A Labor Government will also make the following improvements to the rules of the House:
Questions Without Notice will be limited to one minute in duration and answers limited to four minutes.
The practice of allowing supplementary questions will be re-introduced and limited to one minute in duration with the answer also limited to one minute.
The Speaker will be empowered under the Standing Orders to require Ministers to not only be relevant but also to actually answer the question in full.
Questions asking about “alternative policy positions” will be out of order, along with answers based on personal point-scoring.
Fewer Dorothy Dixers will be allowed and more opportunities will be created for genuine backbench questions.
Points of order will not be allowed during Question Time itself. They will only be able to be raised at the end of Question Time, in line with the practice in the House of Commons.
Ministers will be required to answer Questions on Notice within 30 days.
Parliamentary Committees will be given increased powers, including the power to refer matters to themselves for inquiry.
And, finally, the Independent Speaker will have a new power to make rulings on whether Ministers have misled the House.
These rulings will not be binding on the government but they will create pressure for higher Ministerial standards. We need to restore the fundamental principle of honesty in the House of Representatives.
Conclusion
This is a comprehensive program of democratic reform. I am confident that it will make our political system more responsive and open to the Australian people. Most of all, I hope it gives them new reasons to believe in public life and the possibilities of public progress.
Politics today is like a permanent campaign, with both sides jostling for public advantage on a daily basis. In this sort of environment, politicians are at risk of losing sight of the great problem-solving traditions of democracy � that issues are more important than image. That substance matters more than spin. That a positive contribution to the debate counts for more than negativity and partisanship.
In this election year, I want to ensure that we don’t lose sight of the need to reform politics itself. This is an agenda above and beyond party politics and the next campaign. It concerns the finest of all democratic ideals: a strong and trusting relationship between the people and the people’s representatives. One hundred years ago Australian was known internationally as a laboratory for democratic reform. I want us to regain this reputation � a world leader in open, participatory government. I want this to be the trademark of the next Labor Government.
Now, of course, there will be sceptics � commentators who will say that this is the sort of thing Oppositions always talk about. But they said the same thing about Parliamentary superannuation � that no party would move first to close the scheme.
In public life, it is always good to prove the sceptics wrong. And when it comes to democratic reform, that’s exactly what I’ll do. I got the mail through on Parliamentary super. And in government, I’ll be doing the same, the same dedication to reform, to give the Australian people a new politics.