 |
Meg Lees, Senator
for South Australia
First Speech - 11/05/1990I
am proud to be the fourteenth Australian Democrat to give a maiden speech in this
chamber and to be one of a dozen Democrats now elected to parliaments around this
country. I have been chosen to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of
Senator Janine Haines, the first Australian Democrat ever to give a maiden speech
in the Senate. Former Senator Haines also entered via casual vacancy, but in far
more controversial circumstances. It may be interesting for honourable senators
to note that 12 senators who were here at the time she gave her maiden speech
are here now to hear my first speech. Janine's contribution as a parliamentarian
will be forever felt-in the shape of health care, for instance, with her negotiation
of many successful amendments to the original Medicare legislation at the drafting
stage. It was her strong advocacy, indeed her motion that led to the formation
of the Senate's longest running select committee, the Select Committee on Private
Hospitals and Nursing Homes, which will have
a lasting impact on the delivery
of government services in this area. A witty, determined and intelligent contributor
to debates, Senator Haines was also an active participant in two of this chamber's
most controversial inquiries, the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a
Judge-the so called Justice Murphy inquiry-and the Joint Parliamentary Committee
on the Australia Card. Senator Haines was always in the headlines and went from
being `Chipp's girl' to just `Janine' in a relatively short space of time, chalking
up a very impressive list of firsts along the way. Through 1985 and 1986 Senator
Haines survived four leadership ballots within the Australian Democrats to become
Deputy Leader and then Leader. She was the first woman in Australian history to
lead a parliamentary party. The Australian Democrats, under Janine's leadership,
grew in strength through the 1987 election and on to the 1990 election. In the
run-up to the last election Janine deliberately chose a more dramatic course to
lift the
profile of the Democrats by deciding to lead our 144-strong House
of Representatives team from the front. In doing this she showed true courage
as a leader. The result, through her inspiration, sheer personality and force
of will, is that the Australian Democrats gained a record vote. Over a million
Australians voted for us at the 1990 election. We now have a record eight senators
as from 1 July and a pivotal role in national politics from which to build.
I would like to thank Janine for her support to me personally, for her advice
and for the assistance she has given me in recent months as I prepared to take
my place in this chamber. I would like now to leave the subject of Janine. In
fact, I had better leave it before it sounds more like an obituary; it is not.
She is certainly going to be around for a long time and will be a very active
woman in Australian public affairs and will continue to be a very important role
model. I would like to use this occasion to give honourable senators a quick
sketch of the way I see the world so that they will have some understanding
of my motivations and what I consider to be the vision splendid when it comes
to dealing with legislation.
In the 1990s Australia faces a variety of problems.
We as legislators, from whichever party, seek solutions to these problems. However,
in the broader context when we view our nation against the daily reality faced
by most citizens of this earth, Australia can still be called the `lucky country'.
As the three Hawke Parliaments have progressively moved to lock Australia into
the global society-I am sure that this will continue-it is useful to draw some
comparisons between Australia and countries in what are known as the First, Second
and Third worlds. Compared with other developed Western nations we can cite
many indicators which illustrate our favoured position. I have time to look at
only a couple. I would like to start with the environment. Although our smog problems
in our cities are a cause for concern-we are the third worst
in the world
when it comes to actual sulphur emissions; it is something like four tonnes per
person per year-we as yet do not have the acid rains of Europe. From Europe I
give just one example: in Greece and the United Kingdom now 64 per cent of their
forests are dead or dying. Also, in Canada over 14,000 lakes are strongly acidified.
We have many unique and beautiful wilderness areas, unspoilt and still in
their natural state. This is unfortunately, as my travels in Europe have led me
to see, not the case throughout much of that continent. Although the water
quality in the River Murray is deteriorating and many of our streams and creeks
in our cities are little more than open drains, we still do not have the problems
that people in Europe and North America face. At least all our major rivers still
flow; the Colorado has ceased to do that. Though salty, the Murray's waters are
still used for Adelaide's supply. Many of our native species of plants and animals
still survive despite predation and habitat devastation. Although we have
lost many of our birds and small animals forever and others are restricted severely
in their range, we still compare favourably with other First World nations.
I wish to look at our lower tax rates. If we compare Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) figures for the total tax revenue as a percentage
of gross domestic product, we find that Australia ranks a low twentieth out of
23. The only country that asks its citizens to pay significantly less tax than
Australia does is Turkey. In Japan and the United States of America, the two countries
with which Australia is most often, and most misleadingly, compared, the rate
is only about one percentage point lower. Both those countries have significant
environmental problems and are far from equitable societies. Certainly, we
are particularly lucky in our lifestyle, the ordinary Australian way of life,
and the sheer living space in our cities and our country. We can look at our vast
golden beaches and compa
re those to the crowded pebbles of the Riviera which
it costs one to visit and compare our homes and gardens with the tiny boxes found
in some developed nations. At the end of the day, after we have paid for the necessities
of life, including the tax man, the average Australian has more money in his or
her pocket or handbag than many of our Western counterparts. So it is appropriate
that we count our blessings and not take them for granted. If we compare ourselves
to the rapidly changing east European nations, the differences I have mentioned
apply again and are even greater. Particularly greater contrasts can be found
with regard to environmental issues. Their environmental problems have frequently
been ignored, and here I am referring to both the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
Planning for financial gain or `progress' has overridden any consideration of
environmental issues. In fact, many of their citizens have not been aware of the
the severity of the environmental problems that they now face. One ex
ample
is the Aral Sea. This inland sea was once the fourth largest in the world. It
has lost about 40 per cent of its surface area since 1960. The dry bed is now
a salt encrusted wasteland. Where there were once 24 native species of fish, there
are now none; and gone with the fish is the fishery that supported 60,000 jobs.
The people of the region are suffering from a host of illnesses related to poor
nutrition and environmental degradation. I now move from broad environmental
problems to food. In Australia we do not have food shortages; there is abundant
choice; there is plenty of food on our supermarket shelves. Likewise, consumer
goods are readily available for most average Australians-those who can afford
them. Again, the choice is almost unlimited. Fuel shortages should also be included
in this section, something we have so far been spared. We enjoy political
stability, a free democratic system. While some would argue that Eastern European
nations are, in fact, catching up with us and may, indeed, shortly pass us,
we enjoy a free society-something that they are currently working towards.
When comparing ourselves with the third or developing world, our problems pale
into insignificance. Almost any social, environmental or economic indicator will
show up the wide gulf between the quality of our lives and the quality of theirs.
I shall start with health. Our life expectancy in 1986 was 76 years while in Africa
life expectancy was 51 years. In this country the infant mortality rate is eight
per 1,000 births, while in Africa 108 babies in every 1,000 die. Lack of access
to safe water, adequate sanitation and basic primary health care or immunisation
all contribute to these untimely deaths. We could go on to look at educational
issues; we can look at environmental issues, with nightmares such as Bhopal in
India; we can look at the destruction of the Amazon rainforests in Brazil, which
is one of the great tragedies in history that is already affecting our world climate
and obviously will continue to do
so. Political instability and the resulting
conflicts further exacerbate these problems. To all of this, the introduction
of Western economic systems has not helped. Resulting changes, such as cash cropping,
have led to famine, starvation and disease. What are the problems facing Australia
in 1990? The easiest way to look at the problems is to put them in three separate
categories, although they cannot really be separated because they are intrinsically
linked and rely upon each other. Firstly, there are environmental problems. We
seem to have learned very little from what we have seen happening overseas, from
the actions of other nations and the resulting environmental difficulties that
they now face. We prefer to continue our old habits until there is a crisis and
then try to patch up the damage. In fact, we are socially geared to respond to
crises after they have happened. For example, we are now discussing what should
be done for the River Murray. We are still talking while salt levels continue
to incr
ease, as was predicted decades ago. Native vegetation is being removed
at an alarming rate. Only in South Australia is a permit required for clearing,
and that is because my State has virtually no vegetation left at all; in fact
there are only remnant patches remaining. Many pristine areas are left but
still the pressures are increasing-pressures from mining companies, pressures
from tourism, and, indeed, pressures from tourists themselves. Do we have to wait
until almost nothing is left before we fund national parks and qualified individuals
to a level where they can protect and preserve the unique Australian species that
remain, or perhaps reintroduce them as Warrawong Sanctuary has done in the Adelaide
Hills? Funding must be provided to a level that will ensure that introduced plants
and animals are eliminated, or at least controlled. Again, Warrawong Sanctuary
is an excellent example of this. We can now predict the crises. Ignorance
of what we are doing is no longer an excuse. We have the scientific knowledge,
the understanding and the experience of this land to be able to make such predictions.
We have the support of the Australian people. The last election has shown us this.
They want us to do something now. This means an immediate end to logging of old
growth forests before there are none left to log. One way or another this logging
will stop, and very soon.
This means a total protection for our World Heritage
areas and a rapid listing of other significant areas such as Shark Bay, Kakadu
and Mound Springs. It means urgent protection of areas of significance to Aboriginal
peoples, and along with this, of course, immediate attention must be given to
the control of air and water pollution. It is up to us to act now. As a teacher,
until last year, I can assure honourable senators that the generations coming
on are very environmentally aware. They are looking to us to do something now.
The environment vote will increase with each new batch of teenagers reaching the
age of 18. The second broad area is social justice. Those already comfortably
or well off in Australia are gaining even more under our present economic policies,
while those who are struggling are put under even greater and greater pressure
and being made to feel guilty at the same time. Time and again, particularly in
Third World countries, the trickle down effect has been proven a failure. It further
advantages those with power and wealth and few, if any, benefits flow on to those
at the bottom of the system-those in real need.
In spite of this, we have
a continuing push in Australia for a consumption tax-and I understand that the
Treasurer (Mr Keating) has again said that at the moment it is not planned to
be introduced. But the pressure is still there to raise as many taxes as possible
at the level where we actually purchase and to put down the top tax rate for pay
as you earn taxpayers. Surely the right way, and the only fair and just way, is
to lift the tax threshold so that all taxpayers, particularly those on low incomes,
will benefit.
The Australian people are constantly being told that we
pay too much tax. The facts show otherwise, the major problem being who pays it.
Large Australian corporations pay taxes that are low by international standards.
Despite a nominal company tax tate of 39c in the dollar, the average rate actually
paid last year by the 150 top companies was 28c. I acknowledge that this is an
improvement on previous years. Australian taxes, which were 90 per cent of the
OECD average in 1969, are now only 80 per cent of that average, and the contribution
of company tax to revenue is only 10 per cent, having fallen from 17 per cent
over the last 15 years. Neither do figures support the common contention that
wages are too high and that there are too many perks demanded by the work force-a
lazy and non-productive work force, if we are to listen to some. Economic rationalists,
as they are called, will proclaim that we must deregulate further. This is despite
the fact that the lending boom which followed der
egulation with soaring interest
rates has led to misery for new home buyers and escalating corporate crashes.
These same people also maintain that this is a welfare state and a workers' paradise
in comparison with other countries-again, the facts prove otherwise. Let us
compare teachers' salaries-and we can do this with a number of salaries. OECD
figures for 1987 show that a primary teacher with 10 years experience in Sydney
earned $22,000; in New York, it was $26,000; in Toronto, it was $33,000; and in
Tokyo, it was $44,000. I could go on and do the same exercise for motor mechanics
and for managers. Far from being a welfare state, our expenditure on social welfare
is only 18.4 per cent of our gross domestic product (GDP) while Germany spends
25.2 per cent and Denmark 33.9 per cent. In fact, the only OECD member in Europe
to spend a smaller percentage than Australia is Spain with 17 per cent. In 1989,
a survey in Australia reported that more than two million Australians, including
500,000 children, are living in poverty. In 1990, a New South Wales Department
of Planning report shows that 16.4 per cent of two parent families and 50.2 per
cent of one parent families are living below the poverty line-and by poverty line
I mean living on such low incomes that they are not even able to purchase the
basic essentials. They certainly are not able to participate in what we would
consider to be the ordinary everyday Australian way of life.
As well as this
large number living in poverty, there is a wide variety of groups in the community
with special needs who are being forgotten, ignored or overlooked. Their needs
are either not understood or put aside in the rush to get bigger and bigger budget
surpluses. I mention only four groups, as time is moving on. Firstly, care givers:
those who look after the handicapped or elderly in their own home get very little,
if any, respite help. This, in the long term, costs the community more. Other
institutional alternatives become essential and the parent or spouse is forced to take them as they become available. The Southern Domiciliary Care Service
in Adelaide is one example. It has insufficient resources. In 1989 it had some
6,500 people requiring its assistance, and funding is nowhere near keeping pace
with this increasing demand.
Secondly, there are those who suffer from violence
in their own homes. Domestic violence is the most common cause of assault in Australia.
Surveys suggest that as many as one in three women is likely to be subjected to
domestic violence at some time in her life. This places a tremendous burden both
on the individuals concerned and on the community as a whole. We urgently need
to assist the abused, any children involved and, in particular, the offender.
Forgotten, overlooked and often ignored are Aboriginal children. The infant
mortality rate for Aboriginal children is double that for all Australian children,
and in fact is approaching Third World standards. I will use some specific examples
to look at the problems faced by Aboriginal children. Trachoma is suffered
by 32 per cent of Aboriginal children compared with 1.6 per cent of non-Aboriginal
children. Over 10 per cent have some hearing loss, and in isolated communities
this rises to 80 per cent with at least temporary hearing loss. Early medication
can usually cure this totally, with no after effects at all. One in eight primary
school age children does not go to school regularly and the number going on to
senior secondary school is three to five times lower than for the community as
a whole.
The fourth and final group I would like to mention is the elderly.
Many elderly people suffer in silence, and the majority are women. It is not in
their nature, or rather their upbringing, to complain about their standard of
living. However, a great many people, both pensioners and superannuants, survive
on very low incomes indeed. Surely a pittance is still a pittance, no matter what
the source of that income. Elderly people often live in conditions which are a
hazard to their health, and as health costs continue to rise and institutionalised
care becomes a necessity, this places a greater burden on the community than if
the source of the problem was tackled in the first place. Urgent support is needed,
this time for the services offered for home-based care, particularly in rural
areas.
The final area I would like to look at is that of economic management.
I have obviously already touched on this a number of times. The environment, social
justice and the economy are enmeshed, and decisions taken in one area obviously
affect the planning and results in another. One thing I have not mentioned is
foreign debt. This is not because I do not consider it a major problem-it certainly
is-but we must not lose sight of the fact that this is mostly private debt. Much
of the money coming in-in fact, I think only something like 10 per cent of the
debt is attributed to the Federal Government-has been spent on unproductive takeovers
that have cost jobs and in a number of notable cases have led to major collapses
of business empires.
I move on to look briefly at a second area, our
way of measuring economic success. Our economic indicators do not take into account
the quality of life issues. We do not count the costs. We have a political climate
where the only thing that really seems to matter is money. At the same time we
do not place any economic value on many of the things that really matter to us.
We do not, for example, value our health, leisure, or environmental assets. We
do not value work done in the home. Until a tree is chopped down it is of no economic
benefit. Once it is in a ship travelling to Japan as woodchips, then we place
a real value on it. Until a river is polluted and someone has to clean it up,
again it does not register on gross domestic product figures. Conversely,
many things that are negatives do appear on our books and are counted as gains
because they increase our GDP; for example, road accidents. The more loss of life,
damage to property and associated trauma there is, the more our gross domestic
product increases. Another example is drug abuse. As a teacher, I believe the
greatest drug abuse problem faced in this country is the twin problem of alcohol
abuse and tobacco use by our young people. Again, the greater the medical and
associated costs the greater the number of programs needed to undo the damage
and the more our gross domestic product increases.
We need urgently to find
another means of assessing our economic progress. We must count the costs as costs
and include the positives-those things that we value such as clean beaches, a
healthy population, unique and ancient forests, et cetera-and we must take out
those things that are negatives. As to my vision splendid regarding legislation
and how I am going to vote, I am fortunate that, being a Democrat, I can look
at each piece of legislation and ask myself what is the effect on the environment,
what is the effect on each and every individual South Australian. I can then vote
according to my own decision and my own conscience.
I would like to quickly
do two things. Firstly, I shall read from this month's edition of the Australian
Society magazine a quote which states: Janine Haines may have lost her last
electoral battle, but her impact on Australian politics is arguably greater than
that of any politician elected in March. And last, by no means least important,
I would like to thank my family, particularly my husband, Keith, and two daughters,
Ingrid and Tegan, without whose support and encouragement I would not be here,
and certainly would not be able to continue to be here. I would also like to thank
the South Australian division of the Australian Democrats, who preselected me
for this vacancy, for its support. Also, to my staff, my fellow Democrats and
fellow Democrat parliamentarians in particular and their staffs, thank you. A
special thank you to all those in this chamber, including you, Mr President, who
have already made me feel so welcome. 
|  |
