Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I begin my remarks by congratulating the member for Blair on his maiden speech and also, on indulgence, I take the opportunity to welcome to Parliament House the children of Park Ridge Primary School, who will be in the public gallery this morning, and the parents and teachers of Park Ridge Primary School, a wonderful primary school within the wonderful electorate of Aston.

I rise in the House today to make my contribution to the address-in-reply debate. In doing so, I will start by congratulating you, Mr Speaker, on your election to your high office in our parliament and wish you well throughout the 42nd Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. I want to remark today on the recent federal election, governments past and present, and, most importantly, put forward an agenda for reform of our representational system.

On 24 November last year the people of Aston, who are the cornerstone of Australia, re-elected me to be their representative in this place for the next three years. To all the people of Aston, I say thank you for granting me a mandate. I take this opportunity to place on record my firm commitment to serve and strongly advocate for them not just in this place but in whatever forum I can to assist them in their daily lives. Further, I take this opportunity to sincerely thank the many people who supported my campaign for re-election last year. To my dear family, I say thank you. To my dedicated and hardworking staff, I say thank you. I say thank you, of course, to all of the Liberal supporters in Aston. Your combined efforts were obviously instrumental in the election success we achieved in Aston.

On 24 November last year the people of Australia elected a new government. As a result, our nation has now entered a period of great uncertainty. Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I welcome the parents from Aston who have just entered the public gallery here this morning. This new government has already benefited from a situation that we in the coalition could not enjoy when we came to office in 1996. When we won office in 1996, Australia was in a devastating economic mess. Government net debt was out of control, unemployment high, fiscal policy in a shambles and inflation skyrocketing—just to mention a few key economic variables. This newly elected Labor government has inherited a nation and an economy that is envied by all for its resilience, its success over the past decade and the potential it promises into the future.

Our economic success over the past 11 years has centred primarily on macroeconomic performance and fiscal strategy, microeconomic reform, streamlining the tax system and developing our international engagement capabilities. Since 1996, our nation’s strong economic growth, our low inflation and huge decline in unemployment have contributed to a significant and meaningful increase in the living standards of all Australians.

Since 1996, real GDP has grown at an annual average rate of 3½ per cent and market sector productivity has grown at an average annual rate of around 2¼ per cent. Inflation has averaged 2½ per cent since 1996 and over two million jobs have been created. Importantly, for Australians, real wages have increased by over 20 per cent and the unemployment rate has been halved from 8.2 per cent to around 4.1 per cent. It is fascinating to note that, as a result of the coalition government’s strong economic management, the proportion of the working age population with a job is at an all-time high—that is, of those people who can work, more do so now than at any other time in our history.

One of the greatest achievements of the coalition government, of course, was the repayment of Labor’s $96 billion of debt, which they left to the Australian people as an unwelcome legacy. It is staggering that the previous Labor government was so economically incompetent that they racked up $96 billion of debt, costing Australians in excess of $8 billion per year in interest costs alone. That $8 billion per annum is now directed to the benefit of the people of Australia. Mr Speaker, on indulgence again, I see the children of Park Ridge Primary School have now entered the public gallery. As I mentioned earlier, it is a wonderful and fantastic primary school in my electorate of Aston.

As a result of the recent election, much of the success and significant improvements made by the previous coalition government is now at risk. It is at risk because you cannot trust Labor with managing the economy. I have said in this place previously that the past is an important indicator of the future. Labor’s economic track record at the federal level is an ominous warning, I think, of the damage that could be inflicted on Australians under this new government. For my part, I will do all I can to minimise the negative impacts that could flow from their policies over the time ahead and ensure this new government is held accountable for their action and inaction.

Regardless of our political differences, once an election is over Australians move forward in the style and spirit that makes this nation such a great place to be part of. The drive to continually improve oneself and the nation is constantly with us. There will always be much work to do across the entire country and it falls to each individual to contribute to the positive development and prosperity of Australia. With this in mind, there are many issues that I have observed in my time in this place which I believe are in need of review. I want to stress that my observations are in no way a reflection on the good work of past or present parliamentarians; rather, these observations are about the future.

We are elected not only to represent but to lead. It is in that vein that we are able to better serve the people of this great nation. In this debate, I have decided to focus on the way in which we represent our respective constituents. I have chosen to do this because it is through this forum that the voices of our communities are heard and acknowledged. There are constitutional changes that I believe would significantly improve our system of parliamentary democracy. It is my view that the term for the federal parliament should be extended from three to four years. My view is based on two key observations. Firstly, given the electoral cycle and the way governments typically operate within this cycle, I believe that a three-year term induces an opportunistic approach in the government of the day. Rather than taking a more long-term and mature view to policy decisions and implementation, the current term of three years does not provide sufficient time for consideration or execution of policy decisions.

Secondly, the current three-year term flies in the face of reason when compared with the four-year terms that are mandated in state parliaments. Over many years the scope of the federal parliament has broadened to be more encompassing than at any other time in our history—perhaps even beyond the intent of our founding fathers. As such, over the past century state parliaments have been gradually constricted with regard to their role and responsibilities. It is absurd that the federal parliament has assumed more responsibilities over the years but has less time to discharge those responsibilities with due diligence.

Under our current system, which we have slavishly followed from the Westminster tradition, a person can hold the office of Prime Minister indefinitely so long as the majority of the members of this place support that person. Whilst this system obviously has its benefits, one might ask: is it truly the best option available? In consideration of this question, my attention is drawn to other democratic nations who have prospered and the manner in which executive power is held in those countries. Nations who limit the tenure of a head of state or government include the United States of America and the Russian Federation. Countries that have been blighted by dictatorial regimes, such as those in Latin America, have introduced a limited tenure to prevent dictatorships forming again. The evidence to support a limited tenure approach is impressive and provides a compelling argument for its implementation in those countries.

I believe that in our case, if this approach were adopted, there would be many benefits for Australia. The most prevalent of those are the mandated renewal of executive leadership, the diffusion of power from one individual to several over a period of time and the consideration of and the ability to implement new ideas for the benefit of the nation. Therefore, I submit that the future lies with a maximum set period of three parliamentary terms for any individual Prime Minister. This would mean that under a four-year term a Prime Minister could serve a maximum of 12 years. My approach to this matter is not jaded by a partisan view. Rather, it is motivated to ensure the high office of Prime Minister is enhanced and strengthened.

As I have suggested previously, innovative concepts and fresh ideas spring from constant renewal and regeneration combined with experience of what has and has not been effective. Like any important organisation or institution, I believe best performance can be derived from those who accumulate diverse experience over a period of time. Traditionally the practice has been that cabinet ministers are appointed to a portfolio at the discretion of the Prime Minister and are infrequently removed or changed from that portfolio. Whilst this traditional practice has served the nation well—and I am not reflecting on any former or, indeed, any present cabinet minister in any way—I ask the question: is this the best form of governance? One alternative procedure could be that a minister in the cabinet could only hold the same portfolio for a maximum of two consecutive parliamentary terms. After this, the Prime Minister of the day would be required to allocate a new cabinet portfolio to the minister or the individual would be required to leave the cabinet. This approach would ensure that the cabinet over time would be significantly strengthened due to the depth, breadth and practical experience of cabinet members.

Our current system provides the Prime Minister of the day with total and complete discretion for the calling of a general election at any time. In keeping with the train of logic I have outlined, I believe the people of Australia would be better served with a set term of three years and a final 12-month tail end that offers flexibility for the Prime Minister to call the general election in that period. This approach effectively enlists the best elements of the fixed term argument, in that it provides greater certainty, with the best elements of the current approach, which provides flexibility to the incumbent.

Compared to many of my colleagues from both sides of this chamber, I have served in this place for only a moderate period. However, in this comparatively short period of time I have drawn the conclusion that reform is possible to rejuvenate the operations of this place. I believe that it is necessary to strengthen the independence of the office of the Speaker so that it is not only above reproach but seen to be above reproach. Mr Speaker, I say this without any reflection on you or on any person who has ever occupied the chair. My proposal is straightforward. Upon the election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, the incumbents would be required to immediately suspend their political party membership and would be prohibited from actively participating in any party political activities throughout their respective speakerships. Upon the calling of a general election, the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker may seek the endorsement of any political party and stand for a seat in this place. This proposal is aimed at ensuring and protecting the integrity of these high offices within our parliamentary democracy.

As exemplified in the title of the Speaker, I believe that names and titles can carry profound importance in our society. When one hears a name of an office or title, one immediately conjures up varied impressions as to the role, the responsibilities and the real meaning of what that person or group seeks to achieve. In our system the alternative government has always been referred to as the opposition. According to the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, the word ‘opposition’ means ‘resistance, antagonism or the state of being hostile or in conflict or disagreement’. From a purely logical perspective, this suggests that the party in opposition will oppose for the sake of opposing. I ask: is this truly serving the best interests of the Australian people? One might argue: what is in a name? I respond by pointing out the importance we attach to names and titles, their subsequent impact and the unconscious effect they have on people. I put to members of this place that renaming the pejorative title of ‘opposition’ to a more aspirational title, such as ‘the minority party’, might profoundly alter the expectations of the Australian people. The Australian people could be encouraged to expect positive alternative policies to be generated with greater frequency than is traditionally expected from the opposition. Further, the opposition would not be automatically expected to rally against every endeavour of the government of the day. It is hoped this approach would generate a more constructive environment in which policy and action are honed for the benefit of Australia.

I believe we have reached a crossroad. The Australian people expect us to reach beyond our party political positions to achieve the best outcomes for the national good. To that end, I propose that a bipartisan eminent persons advisory group be established. This group could be under the auspices of the Speaker of this place and the President of the other place. The group could undertake nationwide consultations and report to the parliament on recommendations for visionary and invigorating reforms to our system of representation.

I should point out that I greatly admire and respect all those who have been elected at any time to serve and represent their constituents in this and the other place. My intent is simple: these proposals are about improving the process of our representational system for the benefit of Australia now and into the future. I offer all these observations in good faith. I hope that my suggestions strike a chord of resonance with honourable members who may share my will for achieving reform to benefit succeeding generations.

See this speech in context