Mark Bishop,
Senator for Western Australia
First Speech - 11/09/1996
I welcome my opportunity in this speech to thank the people of
Western Australia for electing me to take office in this parliament. It is a privilege
granted to few to participate in the public affairs of our country. That privilege
imposes high responsibility and my commitment is to honour that trust and faith.
I offer my congratulations to my new colleagues and wish them well in their parliamentary
careers. I offer also my warm best wishes to Senator Hogg, whom I have known for
more than 15 years and whom I have worked with closely in a range of forums for
all of that period. As is customary, I wish to acknowledge the support of
the people who have provided advice or assistance in my life to date in the Labor
movement. They know who they are because I thanked some of them a few weeks ago
in public in Perth. It is appropriate, however, to single out one person who offered
me the opportunity to work in the trade union movement many years ago. That man
was Jim Maher, a former national president of the Shop
, Distributive and
Allied Employees Association. He also held a number of senior and influential
positions in the Australian community. In 1981 he offered me the opportunity
to assume senior office in the SDA in Western Australia at a relatively young
age. He guaranteed no success--simply offered a vision of the likely growth of
that state and said that a job needed to be done. He offered me the chance to
participate in the building of an organisation from the ground up and to be part
of the dynamic growth of service industry unions in the Australian economy. As
later events were to demonstrate, that was no mean offer. I thank him wholeheartedly
for his support and help over the intervening period and wish him and his wife,
Fran, well in their retirement. In my own case, I studied law at the University
of Adelaide and graduated in 1981. After graduation I chose to pursue a career
in the SDA, because it offered the ability to give practical expression to a number
of longstanding interests. Those interests
were, and are: law, economics,
politics and history. Indeed, I took the opportunity to pursue some postgraduate
study in economics and public policy in the United States in the years 1993 and
1994. If I had my time over, even with the benefit of 15 years hindsight, I would
make the same decision again without reservation. My family background is
typical of many people who grew up in the outer suburbs of our major cities. My
parents had few assets and many demands which did not shrink as their family grew
to six children. Occasionally I read press or newspaper stories of the golden
days of the 1950s and 1960s. Australia was apparently a land of milk and honey.
I grew up in that period and have no memory of that fabled land. Behind my
family fence it was a time of insufficient earnings, mean comfort and poor to
nonexistent public facilities. It was a struggle to keep family and home together.
One of my clearest memories is of my mother waiting impatiently for the quarterly
child endowment cheque doled o
ut by the then government to fund purchases
of school uniforms and other essential items. I do not, however, paint any extreme
picture of unmitigated hardship, simply one of constant struggle. Both my
mother and father, for different reasons, placed great emphasis on the value of
education, hard work and personal effort for individuals to make the most of their
talents. Equally important was the expectation that individuals had an obligation
to give something back to their community. Both of them were people who acted
out their principles, and I know they are proud to see all of their children successful
in their respective careers and professions. In particular, I have been touched
at their pleasure in my election as a senator in this place. I see the two
big issues for public policy in the coming decade as reconciling the imperative
for economic change and the natural desire for personal and family security. Government
is the only mechanism we have that can hope to reconcile the potential for confli
ct between these two equally pressing imperatives and so avoid further polarisation
of the Australian community. In terms of people's desire for individual and family
security, the actions of the previous Labor governments in this area of family
payments and family assistance packages were worthy initiatives indeed. In
this context, the policy initiative of the current government in providing tax
assistance to single-income families with dependent children is an interesting
development. It seems to suggest a heightened role for the states in the provision
of assistance to families and is something worthy of further study. This is because
the form of the payment reflects economic recognition of the partner in a single-income
family with primary responsibility for dependent children. Personally I have no
quarrel with this new direction. However, I do not think it should be at the expense
of other family support programs. I suspect this particular payment will cause
much discussion in a range of circles
in forthcoming years. It will be interesting
to note how a government responds to the inevitable requests for its extension
in future years. The soft option of cuts in other programs will not be available
forever. Our side of the house well knows this because for many years we looked
everywhere for the painless cut. Unfortunately, they did not exist then and they
do not exist now. The second theme I briefly wish to address is the absolute
need for our economy to grow and expand in future years. A lot of the reform initiated
by the former Labor government in the period 1983 to 1991 will bear rich fruit
in the next few years. I suspect the productivity growth alone will surprise a
lot of commentators. If those policy prescriptions had been maintained, Australians
might not continue to be satisfied with achieving the modest growth outcomes of
western European or Anglo-Saxon economies but might start to understand that our
country has the potential to match the economic outcomes consistently delivered
by our
Asian neighbours over the last generation. The previous government
agenda--including micro-economic reform, the reduction in tariffs, the emphasis
on growth in manufactures, and the obsession with an export orientation--were
correct. I make no apology for endorsing the overdue modernisation of the Australian
economy in any way. The years in a private sector union left me with an appreciation
of the dynamics of that sector in our economy. I am not aware of any superior
system to that of our mixed economy. That necessarily means a continuing role
for government. Generally, the mechanics of price allocation as a determinant
of outcomes is satisfactory. There needs to be good reason for government intervention
in the marketplace, and in no way do I advocate a return to the dreary days of
yesterday's economy. My earlier comments on my own upbringing bear witness to
my attitude concerning the sad state of affairs that prevailed in the 1950s and
1960s. However, the market is not God and government has a
role to play,
not only in mitigating the harm occasioned by efficiency but also in stimulating
industries which show clear potential for national competitive advantage in the
future. In that context, our country could usefully profit from rigorous study
of a number of Asian economies. The World Bank has indeed done that study
and, in 1993, concluded that the ongoing growth of east Asian economies was due
to the use of both fundamentals and interventionist policies by government. By
fundamentals, the World Bank said that macro-economic management was unusually
good in providing a framework for private investment. It was a focus on policies
that, first, encouraged high levels of savings; second, provided education policies
that equipped students with the ability to enter industry; and, third, provided
agricultural policies that stressed productivity--all contributed to sustained
high levels of growth. The bank, however, also conceded these policies did
not tell the whole story. The bank went on to obser
ve that in most of these
economies, in one form or another, the government intervened to foster development--in
some cases the development of specific industries. In saying so openly, the bank
acknowledged its own violation of neo-classical theory and went on to conclude:
. . . Government intervention resulted in higher and more equal growth than
otherwise would have occurred. So according to the World Bank there is a critical
role for government intervention in the development of firms, industries, sectors
and markets. We on this side have never doubted the wisdom of that conclusion.
The issue of industry policy and industry development is out of favour at
the moment. Instead, the government has an alternative strategy of debt reduction,
balanced budgets, transparent accounting and minimal social programs. If those
policies are successful in giving us full employment, low inflation, low interest
rates, a balanced current account and high growth, I will be flabbergasted and
delighted. I have no do
ubt that on their own those policies are inadequate
to give the Australian economy a period of sustained economic growth of above
three per cent per annum. In the final analysis, those policies will result in
massive unemployment and the undoing of this government. There is nothing
inherently wrong with balanced budgets, reducing borrowings to a minimum or even
transparent accounting. In most circumstances, they are desirable options. However,
this government will never achieve higher and more equal growth simultaneously,
because its members fail to heed part two of the advice of the World Bank concerning
government intervention. I hope to be a member of the next Labor government,
which will place more emphasis on this aspect of public policy. In my time in
the Senate, I intend to maintain an interest in the areas of trade and industry
policy. I have also been asked to take an interest in tax and defence associated
areas. This side of the Senate is currently suffering that most terrible of
punishme
nts. That punishment is rejection. Rejection, however, can be temporary
and is very different indeed from irrelevance. The next few years are times of
opportunity. The opportunity to revisit our roots, the chance to plan our future
and the need to develop policies that guide our country are tasks I face with
relish and anticipation. I know many of my colleagues share that sentiment.
In closing, I wish to publicly acknowledge the role of my wife, Fran Marsh, and
two daughters, Gabrielle, eight, and Georgia, six. The travel in this business
breaks your back, particularly when most flights are of five or seven hours duration.
I have been doing that travel since 1980 and, in recent years, up to 30 or 40
times a year for a range of negotiations. One of the interesting consequences
of enterprise bargaining in both national and medium sized companies is that it
has centralised the negotiation process more often than not in both Melbourne
and Sydney. That was an unwelcome development for those of us who lived
on
the western side of our continent. The end of the week is the best time for
me, as it is the time I am welcomed home and find comfort. So to Fran, I thank
you for your support and our two children. Finally, I thank my colleagues for
their attendance in the Senate today and I look forward to many years of robust
participation in the issues that face our nation. Thank you 
| 
