Christopher
Evans, Senator for Western Australia
First Speech - 19/08/1993I thank the Senate for its cooperation in allowing me to make
this, my first speech. Having sought and received much advice about the appropriate
form of a first speech, I have received quite varied and different suggestions.
I hope what follows does not offend any established practices, but I have found
it impossible to think of anything worth while to say that is, if not controversial,
at least highly political. May I first pay thanks to those whose support has
allowed me to take up the great honour and opportunity of representing Western
Australia and the Australian Labor Party in this parliament. While I thank the
people of Western Australia for my election, I do not delude myself that, given
the Senate electoral system, they have expressed any great confidence in me personally.
I come here by virtue of the endorsement of my political party. To its members,
supporters and trade unionists I offer my thanks and commit myself to honour the
trust they have placed in me. In particular, I wish to acknowledg
e the support
of the Miscellaneous Workers' Union, the United Firefighters' Union and the many
party members who have assisted me in my political development. I was the
sole Labor senator elected at the last election to replace Senator Pat Giles and
Senator Peter Walsh who both retired. Both senators made enormous contributions
to Australian political life. While no-one would argue that they are not very
different characters with diverse interests, I nevertheless hope to emulate some
of the qualities each brought to the Senate. On my retirement, if I were to be
fairly described as a feminist champion of social justice with a reputation for
financial responsibility and an abhorrence of humbug and privilege, I think I
could retire well pleased. On a personal level, I would like to acknowledge
my family for their support and my father and my sister who are in the gallery
this evening. My father, a Welshman, brought us to Australia with the intention
of moving on to Canada. We never did get to Canada and
I am sure he never
imagined his son would one day sit in the Australian parliament. It is of course
long overdue that a Western Australian Labor senator with Welsh heritage was elected.
The Irish and occasional Scot have dominated the ALP ticket for far too long.
Despite the pressure of political life and the tyranny of distance I am determined
to honour my commitment to be a good husband to Miriam and a good father to Dylan.
I hasten to mention before the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Gareth Evans,
is unduly maligned that I am no relation to the honourable senator. Nevertheless,
I am opening his misdirected mail in the hope of intercepting invitations to foreign
parts. There must be some positive side to being the other Senator Evans.
In preparing this speech the temptation was to roam far and wide outlining my
views on the world. I am afraid to say I have only in part resisted that temptation.
I have chosen to make some comments on three of the public debates dominating
Australian political
life. While not claiming a unique perspective on these
issues, I do wish to contribute something to the debate. In structuring this
speech I have identified common elements to my approach when addressing these
and other issues that will come before the parliament: firstly, that there exist
fundamental inalienable human rights that must be paramount in our considerations
and that those rights must be protected and enhanced by any legislative action
we take; secondly, that we must defend those fundamental rights against attempts
to subjugate them to propositions designed to protect privilege, property, discrimination
or inappropriate power; thirdly, that notions of states' rights should not be
given pre-eminence over human or people's rights; fourthly, that the federal government
should not shirk exercising its full constitutional power to legislate whenever
that is required to protect those basic human rights; fifthly, that our legislative
approach must be guided and give effect to international law and Au
stralian
treaty obligations. These are the principles on which I base my remarks today
on the issues of constitutional reform, the High Court Mabo decision and industrial
relations. I am disappointed that in 1993 so much that I had thought of as
accepted principle in Australian politics is having to be reargued in the context
of these debates. In June 1993, the High Court, in ruling in the case Eddie Mabo
v. the state of Queensland recognised native title rights for Aboriginal Australians
and rejected the notion of terra nullius. This ruling confirms what any fair minded
Australian must accept--that the process of European settlement has dispossessed
Australia's Aboriginal people of their land and denied them justice. The High
Court's decision establishes this historical fact in Australian law. The Prime
Minister has quite rightly recognised the importance of the High Court decision
and sought to build on that decision in order to provide a more substantial and
binding basis for reconciliation. I comm
end the government's determination
to legislate to bring certainty to the question of titles while protecting and
enhancing the rights of Aboriginal people as recognised by the High Court. This
debate has unfortunately generated some of the most ill-informed public comment
in living memory. Those who seek again to remove the legal rights of Aboriginal
people in order to placate the vested interests which they represent are beyond
contempt. In my own state of Western Australia, we have seen a particularly
virulent attack on the High Court's decision and senators could be forgiven for
gaining the impression that all Western Australians are hell-bent on denying Aboriginal
people justice. However, the vast majority of fair thinking Western Australians
support the recognition of Aboriginal rights and a lasting reconciliation between
indigenous people and other Australians. Unfortunately, sections of the Western
Australian branch of the Liberal Party have championed the most hysterical arguments
against the
High Court's decision. They have claimed that 80 per cent of
Western Australian land is subject to claim and that even Perth suburban backyards
are under threat. These claims have been calculated to spread fear and division.
Thankfully, rational voices within the Liberal Party have spoken in opposition.
The member for Tangney, Darryl Williams QC, and former senator and member for
Pearce, Fred Chaney have, to their credit, opposed their state colleagues and
defended the High Court's role. The High Court's Mabo decision does raise
issues that will require considered legislative response from this parliament.
The government will introduce legislation that will bring to the matter the certainty
that is required. Some, of course, would argue that the uncertainties raised by
the High Court decision require us to trample on the rights of the Aboriginal
people in order to give certainty to national and international investors. The
need for certainty must be balanced, however, against the need to protect the
right
s of Aboriginal people and the need to maintain our international human
rights reputation with our neighbours. In 1988 during Australia's centenary
celebrations I was fortunate to study at the London School of Economics. During
my stay there I witnessed a large anti-Australian rally protesting over the treatment
of Aboriginal people. I was at first affronted and shocked that people could view
our treatment of Aboriginal people in the same way we view the treatment of, say,
black people in South Africa. Upon calmer reflection, I could see that our record
on Aboriginal imprisonment, child mortality and poverty could reasonably be compared
with those countries which we ourselves hold in contempt for their human rights
records. An Australia Day function I helped to organise was boycotted by many
of my African and Asian student friends for those same reasons. For the first
time I was exposed to the increasing belief and concern within the international
community that Australia had failed to live up to its resp
onsibilities and
obligations to its own indigenous people. It is worth noting that Sydney is
favoured to host the 2000 Olympic Games partly due to the international concern
over the poor human rights record of the People's Republic of China. Make no mistake
that the attitude of many African and Asian nations to Sydney's bid is influenced
by their concerns regarding our record on the treatment of Aboriginal people.
Australia's international political reputation and trading future will be
damaged by any lack of resolve in facing up to the challenges of our responsibilities
to the Aboriginal people. The High Court's Mabo decision recognises the fundamental
human rights that have been denied Australia's indigenous population. The government
must remain firm in its resolve to implement its commitment to justice for Aboriginal
Australians. I turn now to industrial relations reform. This government has,
through the accord process, presided over a transformation in industrial relations
practice in this co
untry. By a cooperative and constructive approach, the
government has achieved real reform at the same time as ensuring record low levels
of industrial disputation. The industrial relations system now encourages greater
flexibility and productivity without diluting the commitment to the fundamental
rights of workers that are the cornerstone of the Labor Party approach. The
Labor Party is committed to further reform and believes that, with the development
of real enterprise bargaining, further improvement can be achieved. But we totally
reject arguments that there exists any justification to go down the low wage,
low skills path driven by attacks on workers' rights. It is tragedy that,
despite the recent real reforms in Australian industrial relations, some groups
in society have reverted to the propagation of discredited 19th century ideas
with their basis in the old master and servant acts. These ideas have been adopted
in different forms by some branches of conservative parties in Australia. We in
t
he Liberal Party--I am sorry; we in the Labor Party-- Honourable senators--Ah!
Senator CHRIS EVANS--At least I am on the right side of the House. We in the Labor
Party are being forced to defend principles we thought agreed in the early years
of this century and broadly accepted as part of the Australian social fabric.
The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Brereton) is currently preparing to
bring legislation into the parliament to expand the government's industrial relations
reform agenda. The government will encourage the extension of enterprise bargaining,
at the same time as protecting and enhancing our commitment to fair minimum conditions
and standards for all Australian workers. Unfortunately, the government's
capacity to achieve further constructive change has been severely hindered by
the actions of conservative state governments. Industrial legislation in New South
Wales, Tasmania, Victoria and now Western Australia has attacked basic principles
and working conditions developed over 90
years of Australian industrial relations
practice. The cooperative tripartite approach encouraged by Labor has been turned
on its head by regressive attacks on the most fundamental of workers' rights and
working conditions. The continued development of enterprise bargaining and the
future of cooperative federal-state relations are called into question by these
developments in state legislation. The trade union movement and working people
generally have cooperated with the federal Labor government to implement its reform
agenda. That change has been painful and difficult for many. The fact that they
have largely accepted the change is a credit to them. As a community, we cannot
expect the trade union movement to cooperate in change and the development of
enterprise bargaining if, at the same time, its very existence is being threatened
by conservative governments. The union movement will be forced to adopt a defensive
position and devote its resources and energies to protecting its members' rights
and cond
itions. The progress of enterprise bargaining under federal awards
will clearly be adversely affected. The impact of regressive state government
legislation has already been felt in this parliament. The Kennett government's
industrial relations legislation has provoked much debate here already and has
seen the federal government respond in order to protect Victorian workers.
The recent industrial relations workers compensation legislation introduced by
the Western Australian Court government may also require a response from the federal
government. While a cooperative federal-state approach is Labor's preferred option,
we will not tolerate the erosion of fundamental workers' rights implicit in the
Western Australian legislation. The Western Australian legislation is less
honest than the Victorian equivalent but arguably more radical. The legislation
purports to be about workplace agreements, but in effect its whole intent is to
promote individual contracts--contracts based on the unequal power rela
tionship
between an employer and a single worker. The Western Australian legislation
is an attempt to reduce working conditions by excluding unions from the industrial
relations process and destroying the protection offered by the award system. The
legislation reduces the protection offered to workers to little more than that
provided by individual contracts under common law. It brings with it secrecy provisions
which ban the disclosure of the details of an individual contract. It aims to
deter unions from challenging the making, or indeed the contents, of workplace
agreements. It even introduces punitive action directed against unions seeking
to protect their members by moving to federal awards. This legislation will deny
Western Australian workers the fundamental right to organise and bargain collectively.
It is totally unfair and un-Australian. Today thousands of Western Australian
workers rallied and marched through the streets of Perth as part of their continuing
campaign against the legislation.
They were protesting in defence of their
basic rights--rights that we accept as part of the very basis of Australian society.
The Western Australian legislations attack on workers' rights to organise
may well, in my view, be in contravention of Australia's obligations under International
Labour Organisation conventions. In particular, they would seem to contravene
the principles underpinning conventions 87 and 98, which deal with the right to
organise and bargain collectively. I endorse the government's commitment to improve
the process of ratifying more of the ILO conventions. There is an increasing
need for the fundamental code of international labour standards enshrined in the
conventions to be accepted by Australia and adhered to by all Australian governments.
In particular, ILO convention 154, the convention concerning the promotion of
collective bargaining, should have been ratified by Australia long ago. That convention
was passed in 1981 and has the effect, among other things, of recognising t
he role of unions in collective bargaining. This is a principle thought self-evident
in Australia until recently, but one which is directly challenged by the Western
Australian government's legislation. I understand that the convention would have
been ratified but for the states dragging their feet. The federal government may
well need to review its processes for ratifying conventions if the states are
unwilling to ratify appropriate ILO conventions within reasonable time lines.
Conservative state governments should not doubt the commitment of the Labor
Party to protect worker and trade union rights. The states' right to pass laws
relating to industrial relations will not prevent Labor from guaranteeing the
central role of trade unions in the protection of workers' rights and the protection
and improvement of their working conditions. I turn now to the current debate
over constitutional reforms in Australia. The Labor Party is committed to reforming
Australia's constitution in an endeavour to make it
more relevant and more
in tune with political reality. It is important that our constitution and institutions
reflect that development in Australian society. Some opponents to change cling
to the sanctity of the original constitution as if it were holy writ. However,
the constitution has progressively been amended and interpreted over the past
90 years. Many of the notions upon which the constitution was founded are now
regarded as the antithesis of democracy. The electoral rights of women and Aborigines
were not provided for in the original constitution. The Labor Party believes
that now is the appropriate time in Australia's development to sever our links
with the monarchy and establish an Australian republic. That republic must, however,
be built on proper democratic foundations. In order for that to occur, the principle
of one vote one value must be one such foundation. The rural vote weighting
that still exists in a number of Australian parliaments is an undemocratic hangover
from the time when o
wnership of property was a qualification for an entitlement
to vote. In my own state of Western Australia outrageous malapportionment in both
the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly continues to act as a blight
on the democratic process in that state. In the 1993 state election vote weighting
in favour of country areas was almost two to one in the Legislative Assembly and
up to 3.4 to one in the Legislative Council. In practical terms, this means that
the votes of 44,000 people in the city are regarded as being equivalent to the
votes of 13,000 people in the country in the conduct of elections for the Legislative
Council in Western Australia. In the lower house the figures are similar, with
roughly half the number of voters required to elect a country member to the Legislative
Assembly as are required to elect a metropolitan member. This is not equal suffrage.
Both the Queensland Electoral and Administrative Review Commission and the
Western Australian royal commission have advocated reform.
The Western Australian
royal commission recommended that a commission on government review the electoral
system for representation in both houses of parliament. When commenting on reform
of the Legislative Assembly, the commission said: The democratic principle by
which the majority of votes in the Assembly determines the formation of the Government
is generally and properly understood to require as close to equal value in the
votes of electors as is possible. The commission went on to say: Whether the
present electoral system is one which properly reflects the democratic basis on
which a House of Government should be elected is a matter which warrants examination.
The Conservative parties in Western Australia have enjoyed a majority in the Legislative
Council ever since the chamber was established. Despite the gradual extension
of the franchise and political reform around Australia, the Conservatives in Western
Australia refuse to yield to pressure for proper democratic elections. The Court
governme
nt's cynical backing away from the implementation of the royal commission's
recommendations confirms that those reforms will not be implemented for the state
parliament. The Western Australian electoral system is corrupt. The Western Australian
parliament has not reformed itself in almost 100 years; it will not do so now.
The recent interpretations by the High Court concerning implied rights confirm
me in my view that the federal parliament has the power to legislate to establish
the principle of one vote one value for elections for all Australian parliaments.
I urge the government to give very serious consideration to such legislation.
Australia must honour its obligations that flow from our being a signatory
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In that covenant,
article 25 states: Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without
any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2, and without unreasonable restrictions-- (b)
to vote and to be elected at genuine p
eriodic elections which shall be by
universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot guaranteeing the
free expression of the will of the electors. Article 50 of that covenant goes
on to say: . . . the provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all
parts of Federal States without any limitations or exceptions. Australia's obligations
are clear. While no-one would argue that some tolerance should not be allowed
in the electoral system, it cannot be argued that the sort of malapportionment
which I have identified provides in any way for equal suffrage. The parliament
is confronted by these simple facts: the current Australian electoral system allows
for election to its parliaments by means of unequal franchise; judicial inquiries
into corruption of the political process in two states have called for reform
to bring about equal franchise; the Constitutional Commission in 1988 recommended
reform in this area; Australia's international treaty obligations require us to
establish equa
l suffrage; and the federal parliament has the constitutional
power to legislate to ensure equal franchise for all elections for all Australian
parliaments. It would be wrong for us not to take action to rectify this last
remaining undemocratic practice in the election of Australian parliaments. Federal
legislation is urgently required to establish the fundamental democratic principle
of one vote one value. In drawing to a conclusion, I thought it worth while
in this my first speech to set out the approach to issues that I intend to adopt
in matters that come before the Senate. I also wanted to contribute to placing
the government's general approach to these issues within a philosophical framework.
I think the Labor Party has paid too little attention in recent years to redefining
and expressing its philosophical approach to issues. The world has changed
rapidly and our experience of it and of long-term government has undoubtedly changed
us. There is a need for Labor to re-examine and restate its phil
osophical
approach as we respond to modern challenges. I have also framed my contribution
today in response to my concern at the particularly narrow and parochial politics
Western Australia has become notorious for. I do not exclude my side of politics
from that criticism. Senator Panizza--You had 10 years in power. Senator
CHRIS EVANS--I remind Senator Panizza that I just said that I do not exclude my
side of politics from that criticism. There is a need to counter the parochial
and often mean spirited nonsense that is propagated under the heading of states
rights. People have rights--not states. The High Court has increasingly come
to the view that the constitution is a people based constitution rather than one
based on the traditional federation of the states and Commonwealth entities. It
is an attitude I commend. The Chief Justice of the High Court, in responding to
his critics, said this: . . . the Constitution contemplates a flexible balance
of powers and that it does not expressly preserv
e the position and powers
of the states free from federal interference. They tend to assume, quite wrongly,
that the Constitution preserves in some way or other the actual balance of powers,
or the actual federal-state relationship as it existed at some undefined time
shortly after the Constitution came into operation. The parliament of Australia
should never allow fundamental human or people's rights to be subjugated to narrow
state interests. Honourable senators will conclude from these remarks that
I am not a great advocate of the doctrine of the Senate as a states house. That
doctrine, I think, like the role of the monarchy, has outlived its usefulness.
The Senate is very much a party house. Unlike some of my colleagues, I do not
argue for the abolition of the states. They are constituent elements in our federal
structure and are not necessarily a major impediment to our national development.
That is not to say that issues of duplication, waste and accountability must not
be resolved; nor does it me
an that we must not deal with issues from a strong
national perspective. Abolition of the states is not on my agenda. An Australian
republic established on democratic principles of one vote one value with a truly
representative Senate is a far more important objective. At the risk of offering
gratuitous advice, I would like to end by quoting Hubert Humphrey, who once said
to his party: It is time for the Democratic Party to walk out of the shadow
of States' rights and into the bright sunshine of human rights. I think that
is good advice for us all. I thank the Senate for its patience. 
| 
