Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:

(1)

the Member for Fremantle moving immediately a motion relating to the International Day of Democracy;

(2)

debate on the motion ensuing and on being adjourned, the order of the day for the resumption of the debate standing referred to the Main Committee; and

(3)

in the Main Committee, the item being called on and debated during government business time.

Question agreed to.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1)

notes that, on 8 November 2007, the United Nations General Assembly decided in resolution 62/7 that the International Day of Democracy would be observed annually on the fixed date of 15 September, and that all Member States, organizations, non-governmental organizations and individuals are invited to commemorate the International Day of Democracy in an appropriate manner that contributes to raising public awareness;

(2)

notes further that the United Nations General Assembly invited Member States to make sure that parliamentarians and civil society organizations are given appropriate opportunities to be involved in, and contribute to, the celebration of the International Day of Democracy;

(3)

notes also that the United Nations General Assembly reaffirmed that “democracy is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems, and their full participation in all aspects of life;” and that “While democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy and that democracy does not belong to any country or region.”;

(4)

notes that the Inter-Parliamentary Union adopted a Universal Declaration on Democracy on 16 September 1997 in which it recalled the principles of democracy, the elements and exercise of democratic government and the international dimension of democracy;

(5)

notes further the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s strong support for the International Day of Democracy held on 15 September as declared by the United Nations;

(6)

notes that the Inter-Parliamentary Union has urged parliaments to celebrate the International Day of Democracy as an opportunity for parliaments to:

(a)

emphasize the importance of democracy, what it involves, the challenges it faces as well as the opportunities it offers, and the central responsibility that all parliaments have as the key institution of democracy; and

(b)

examine and discuss how well parliament performs its democratic functions and identify what steps it may take to strengthen its effectiveness; and

(7)

declares its strong support for the International Day of Democracy.

On 8 November 2007, the 192 member states of the United Nations General Assembly resolved by consensus that 15 September would be celebrated annually as the International Day of Democracy and invited all member states, organisations, non-government organisations and individuals to commemorate this day each year in an appropriate manner that contributes to raising public awareness. The UN invited member states to make sure that parliamentarians and civil society organisations are given appropriate opportunities to be involved in and contribute to the celebration of the International Day of Democracy. I note in this regard that the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which is the world organisation of parliaments, had adopted a universal declaration on democracy back in September 1997. It is a function of the IPU to promote democracy by strengthening the institution of parliament. It does this by developing principles of governance and standards for free and fair elections. It also helps establish parliamentary systems where they do not already exist and assists more than 40,000 parliamentarians around the world in representing their constituents freely and safely. In 1976 the IPU established the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians. It has also played a strong role in encouraging women’s participation in political life. The IPU is celebrating the first International Day of Democracy today by holding a special event at its headquarters in Geneva.

Like motherhood, everyone seems to agree that democracy, or rule by the people, is a good thing. An international survey in 2005 found that eight out of 10 citizens across a range of countries believed that democracy was the best form of government. Or perhaps they agreed with Winston Churchill that ‘democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried’ from time to time. But what does democracy really mean? The preamble to the UN resolution about international democracy day reflects its fluid nature. The General Assembly:

… reaffirmed that democracy was a universal value based on the freely-expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems, and their full participation in all aspects of life.

And furthermore:

… while democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy … it does not belong to any country or region.

As noted by Duncan Green of Oxfam International in the recently released book From Poverty to Power, today 120 countries out of 192 UN member states are identified as having democracy as their system of government, of which some 85 are thought to be full democracies in that they provide respect for the rule of law and civil and political rights. The international system supports democracy as the preferred form of government. The United Nations charter begins with the words:

We the peoples of the United Nations determined … to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, of which we will celebrate the 60th anniversary this year, provides in article 21(1):

Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

Article 21(3) states:

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Green notes that, more than any other political system, democracy has a track record of promoting and protecting individual political rights and civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and association, which fosters democratic politics and paves the way for economic, social and cultural rights. He notes, however, that democracies are not always benign, citing the atrocities committed against indigenous groups by emerging democracies in the USA, Argentina and Australia.

In Green’s view, democracy is best understood as a cluster of devices and institutions—legislature, judiciary, executive, media and civil society. It is the checks and balances that these institutions exert on each other that determines the degree to which democratic regimes respect the rights of all their citizens. This complex interrelational view contrasts with the minimalist notion of democracy consisting of a vote for representatives every few years.

Mahatma Gandhi warned that democracy should not merely be a game of chess between rival parties with the people as pawns. The man often referred to as America’s first poet of democracy, Walt Whitman, asked:

Did you, too, O friend, suppose democracy was only for elections, for politics, and for a party name? I say democracy is only of use there that it may pass on and come to its flower and fruit in manners, in the highest forms of interaction between [people], and their beliefs—in religion, literature, colleges and schools—democracy in all public and private life …

My predecessor in the seat of Fremantle Dr Carmen Lawrence took up this subject in a speech entitled ‘Exporting Democracy’. Dr Lawrence noted:

… [t]here has been a lot of talk of late about the virtue of spreading democracy to those corners of the globe still ruled by monarchs, dictators and juntas of various persuasions. Democracy is unchallenged as the ne plus ultra of governance. What is puzzling is that such prescriptions stop short of any serious examination of exactly what is meant … Many, myself included, would regard as central the extent to which citizens actively participate (beyond the simple act of voting) in the political life of the country. This will depend, in turn, on whether we respect and encourage the expressions of diverse views and whether we provide for open deliberation before decisions are made, giving everyone a chance to voice their interests and concerns.

Dr Lawrence’s assessment of Australia’s achievement in this expanded participatory form of democracy is striking. It is obvious that, when measured against these objectives, Australia’s democracy is falling short, particularly in citizen participation. It is a sad fact that many Australians have an almost monumental lack of political interest and knowledge; they leave the work of democracy to others. But knowledge is a prerequisite to effective political engagement and, in turn, participation informs citizens about politics and increases their attentiveness to political events.

Dr Lawrence remarked that ‘whether it is a cause or effect of disengagement, Australians are very cynical about politicians and political institutions’. We have recently seen some remarkable results in elections around the country that bear this out—for instance, in Western Australia where the vote on 6 September reflected voter sentiment of ‘a pox on both your houses’ more than a rousing endorsement of either major party. The result is the replacement of the state Labor government with a minority Liberal government in a power-sharing arrangement with the National Party. Fortunately for all, the bloodbath was a metaphorical one. Meanwhile, people in other parts of the world, including some of the places I have lived, are actually dying for the right to participate in the political process.

Earlier this year we saw the military junta in Burma make a mockery of democracy by holding a referendum on a new constitution in the immediate aftermath of the devastating Cyclone Nargis and, at the same time, renewing the house detention of Burma’s democratically elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who has now been imprisoned for 19 years. In Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe’s idea of a free and fair election was to intimidate the people of his country through starvation and violence. Victims of the state sponsored intimidation in Zimbabwe heard repeated reference to ‘Operation Where-Did-You-Put-Your-Vote?’ Under this operation, supporters of the Movement for Democratic Change were pulled from their homes in the middle of the night and beaten with logs, whips and bicycle chains. A report by the NGO Human Rights Watch documented gruesome cases of torture and murder.

On the positive side, there is the example of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, who became Liberia’s and Africa’s first elected woman president two years ago. As her success shows, women can overcome historic barriers. And as her country’s experience shows, women can help build stronger, healthier communities. Liberia today is recovering after a devastating civil war, thanks in large part to the contributions women are making to the country’s political, economic and social life.

We are generally quite proud of the fact that Australia and New Zealand led the world in extending the franchise to women. Nevertheless, it was disturbing to discover that, of the 1,059 members in the House of Representatives since Federation, only 78 have been women. In my first speech in this place, I noted the Labor Party’s success in selecting and promoting women as parliamentary representatives. Women make up approximately 35 per cent of the Labor parliamentarians in this new parliament; and women constitute 36.5 per cent of all state, federal, and territory Labor parliamentarians. This is compared to 23 per cent and 13 per cent for the Liberal and National parties respectively. While the Labor Party’s performance is comparatively better than that of other major political parties, and while acknowledging that we have made substantial progress, when we consider that women make up more than half of the population it is clear that there is still a long way to go.

Our nation’s record of promoting Indigenous representation is even worse. Aboriginal people did not gain the right to vote in federal elections until the 1960s. It is sobering to reflect that, in this year of the apology from the national parliament to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, there are no Indigenous members in the federal parliament.

I note that on 26 July 1901 Hugh Mahon, then ALP member for Coolgardie—who, incidentally, later became the only member to have ever been expelled from federal parliament—moved in the new federal parliament to establish a royal commission on the condition of Aborigines in northern Western Australia. He noted that ‘in this particular matter the reputation of the whole people of Australia is at stake’. Unfortunately, there was no further debate and the motion lapsed at the close of the first parliament. That we should be here more than 100 years later still grappling with these issues is indeed a state of affairs for which we should be sorry. The lack of representation of Aboriginal people in the parliament has no doubt contributed to this situation.

In addition to the issue of representation, a functioning democracy needs a strong civil society. The active involvement of citizens in community groups, in sporting and in other clubs and the ability to engage in open debate is so ingrained in Australian life that people may not even realise they are part of a civil society. They may also not realise when it is being taken away. As noted by Clive Hamilton and Sarah Maddison in their book Silencing Dissent, the frog that is put in cool water that is slowly brought to the boil will not notice and will die. In this case the authors were referring to the disturbing trend of the previous government towards attacking NGOs, scientists and others with alternative views from the government and the increasing politicisation of the Public Service and the boards of statutory bodies, among other things.

One of the most important changes that came in on 24 November 2007 was the re-opening of the space for public debate. I see the success of online community activism through groups such as GetUp! as an extremely positive development in Australian democracy. Nevertheless, in Dr Lawrence’s view, there are very few serious attempts to engage the public in debate about policy and legislation in Australia. While we are not alone among the mature democracies in these deficiencies, we seem to be unusual in the lack of serious attention we give them. Dr Lawrence studied new approaches being adopted in Scotland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, which are consciously broadening and deepening civic participation and re-engaging their communities based on the premise that citizen engagement beyond voting is desirable. Dr Lawrence cited numerous examples, including in Scotland, where the public were invited to submit questions to a special question time. And in Denmark a board of technology was established to disseminate knowledge about technology, its possibilities and its effects on people, on society and on the environment. One of its principal methods of assessment is the ‘citizen technology panel’, or consensus conference, which is in effect a dialogue that is open to the public between experts and about 14 lay people who are selected from a random sample of Danish citizens.

The Rudd government has developed several interesting initiatives to engage with the community, including events such as the 2020 summit and community cabinets. I am also very much looking forward to the national consultation process on the issue of a charter of rights for Australia. It is important that democracies like Australia continue to take an interest and active involvement in promoting universal respect for human rights. Human rights are profoundly democratic. Entrenchment and exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, association, assembly and participation in public life enhance rather than diminish democracy.

Another element critical to a strong democracy is an independent media. While we may complain—with good reason in some instances—about the standard of journalism in Australia, we are a long way from a situation where state issued propaganda is the only information available to us. However, the increasing tendency of governments of all persuasions towards spin based on polling and slavish adherence to the media cycle is not conducive to genuine and open debate and it contributes to voter cynicism and the anti-politician vote evident in recent elections.

There are ways in which media independence and effectiveness can be strengthened in Australia. In this connection I applaud the government proposal to protect whistleblowers in the Australian government public sector and I note that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is currently conducting an inquiry with a view to developing a preferred model. The government is also committed to ensuring much greater access to government documents through changes to the FOI Act, including the abolition of ministerial conclusive certificates.

Integrity in government is fundamental to democracy. Accountability and transparency are about ensuring that public officials are acting in the public interest. At the last election Labor made it clear that it would seek to make a range of changes to the ground rules of the political process. These changes can only be described as pro-democratic, because they increase transparency in the political process and they reduce the value of incumbency. The changes to the electoral rules and to the operational practice of government, some legislative and some administrative, include reinstating sensible disclosure thresholds for political donations; prohibiting foreign and anonymous donations to registered political parties and candidates; adopting a lobbying code of conduct and establishing a register of lobbyists; introducing a ministerial staff code of conduct; and releasing new guidelines to govern the content and oversight of Commonwealth government campaign advertising.

There are two further matters I wish to mention in connection with the notion of strengthening our democracy. The first is my support for a requirement for parliament’s consent before Australian troops are committed to war in the absence of an immediate security threat or a UN Security Council mandate. It is notable that the United States congress must approve military action against another country but in Australia the parliament does not need to be consulted before we go to war. I note that the UK is currently considering the introduction of a war powers act.

The second matter is the constitutional anachronism that an Australian citizen who also happens to hold citizenship of another nation cannot be elected as a representative to this national parliament. Section 44(i) of the Constitution currently operates to exclude from representative politics at the national level an estimated four to five million Australian holders of dual citizenship, on the basis that they are presumed to be subject to an ‘allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power’. In a nation founded upon immigration and which is proudly multicultural, it seems to me undemocratic to have a quarter of the Australian population excluded from standing for parliament unless they agree to relinquish their other nationality. I hope to see this matter addressed in any future referendum on constitutional change.

There is one kind of dual citizenship that I am happy to say does not present any constitutional difficulties for aspiring federal representatives. It is described in a poem by the Nobel prize winning Irish poet Seamus Heaney called From the Republic of Conscience and it seems an appropriate way to mark this first International Day of Democracy.

I

When I landed in the republic of conscience

it was so noiseless when the engines stopped

I could hear a curlew high above the runway

At immigration, the clerk was an old man

who produced a wallet from his homespun coat

and showed me a photograph of my grandfather

The woman in customs asked me to declare

the words of our traditional cures and charms

to heal dumbness and avert the evil eye

No porters. No interpreter. No taxi.

You carried your own burden and very soon

your symptoms of creeping privilege disappeared

II

Fog is a dreaded omen there, but lightning

spells universal good and parents hang

swaddled infants in trees during thunder storms

Salt is their precious mineral. And seashells

are held to the ear during births and funerals.

The base of all inks and pigments is seawater

Their sacred symbol is a stylized boat

The sail is an ear, the mast a sloping pen,

The hull a mouth-shape, the keel an open eye.

At their inauguration, public leaders

must swear to uphold unwritten law and weep

to atone for their presumption to hold office

and to affirm their faith that all life sprang

from salt in tears which the sky-god wept

after he dreamt his solitude was endless

III

I came back from that frugal republic

with my two arms the one length, the customs woman

having insisted my allowance was myself

The old man rose and gazed into my face

and said that was official recognition

that I was now a dual citizen

He therefore desired me when I got home

to consider myself a representative

and to speak on their behalf in my own tongue

Their embassies, he said, were everywhere

but operated independently

and no ambassador would ever be relieved

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Speaker—I am pleased to second the motion, and to support the member for Fremantle’s remarks. I am delighted to speak on this tremendous motion for several reasons. But, first of all, I notice in the gallery upstairs that there are some young Australians. Wherever you are from in this great country of ours, I welcome you to the people’s House, the House of Representatives of this parliament. I am not sure if you are from Queensland, but if you are from Queensland: a particularly warm welcome! To those citizens from elsewhere in our great country who are visiting the national parliament, I extend a very warm welcome as well.

I am delighted and, indeed, honoured to support this motion because I am a believer in democracy. I certainly subscribe to the democratic way of life, so I want to put on the record that I am for democracy. In my maiden speech I said in my opening comments why I think that this is a great country. I want to revisit those words, because I think they also say something about this democracy—the great democracy that is Australia. This is what I said, way back in 2002, when I came to this parliament:

… I consider my election to the Commonwealth parliament a very deep privilege. Indeed, that someone like me—who claims no fancy background, no establishment patronage and who possesses no material advantage—can be elected to the parliament of Australia says much about the strength of our contemporary civil society. My fellow Australians, the majesty of our democracy is alive and well.

We are a majestic democracy because anyone—from any station in life, of any gender, of any financial background, of any capacity at all—can come to this place, be a representative of the people and make a contribution to the greatness of this country.

The member for Fremantle referred to Indigenous representation in our country. I take this opportunity to honour an Indigenous Australian who did in fact come to this parliament to represent the state of Queensland. I refer, of course, to Senator Neville Bonner AO, who was born on 28 March 1922 and died on 5 February 1999. He was an Australian who loved his country immensely, and he broke new ground by being the first Indigenous person to become a member of the federal parliament. I would like to very briefly talk of his stature and his background because they go to the heart of this motion, I think, and reflect the significance of what democracy is all about: to reflect the people’s will, to be a voice for the people, to carry the sentiments and the views—diverse, of course, but also united in many aspects—of the people. That is, in my reading of it, something that is part of the spirit of this motion. Senator Neville Bonner was a great Australian. He came to this parliament not with great wealth, great networks or great education but simply as a man who was a farm labourer. He came to this parliament with great distinction and a great reputation—so much so that he was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in 1984. Before that he was also an Australian of the Year—a great honour indeed.

Senator Neville Bonner in this place served not only his party but also, more significantly, his state of Queensland—so much so that we as a nation honoured his service in this place by creating the federal seat of Bonner. I touch on Senator Neville Bonner because, as an Indigenous Australian, he is someone who created history. He is someone that all of us must remember and honour in our deeds and words here in this parliament.

In relation to this motion specifically, on 8 November 2007 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution introduced by Qatar and declared 15 September 2008 the International Day of Democracy. A UN press release states:

… the Assembly recognized that 2008 marked the twentieth anniversary of the first International Conference of New or Restored Democracies, which would offer a special opportunity to focus attention on the promotion and consolidation of democracy at all levels. As such, the world body decided to commemorate the International Day, and invited all Member States to participate in a manner that contributed to raising public awareness.

I note that the preamble of the resolution affirmed:

… while democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy.

It affirmed that democracy does not belong to any country or region and:

… democracy was a universal value based on the freely-expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems, and their full participation in all aspects of life.

The UN General Assembly, in making these remarks, highlights one of the very strong points of the UN: to focus on something that draws attention to the wider international community. I think that there is a significant place for the UN in the architecture of international bodies and in the architecture of our global system. I am sure that many would know of its flaws, and it is certainly an organisation that can be improved.

As a graduate student at Cambridge university, I had the distinct pleasure of being the president of the Cambridge UN society. While being one who puts up his hand for democracy, I also say that, as someone who was a voice for the UN as a graduate student at Cambridge, I am certainly one who is in the corner of the UN—overwhelmingly so. It does not mean that the UN is the sole repository of all solutions to our challenges, but it is a very significant organisation in our global architecture.

The International Conference of New or Restored Democracies began in 1988 and was initially an intergovernmental forum. The ICNRD process developed into a tripartite structure with participation of governments, parliaments and civil society. The sixth conference, which took place in Doha, Qatar in 2006, reinforced the tripartite nature of the process and concluded with a declaration and plan of action which reaffirmed the fundamental principles and values of democracy. Following up on the outcome of ICNRD 6, an advisory board set up by the chair of the process, Qatar, decided to promote this International Day of Democracy. It took the lead in drafting the text of that UN General Assembly resolution. The resolution was entitled ‘Support by the United Nations system of the efforts of governments to promote and consolidate new or restored democracies’. That was adopted by consensus on 8 November 2007.

As a federal member, I think one of the great pleasures we have is to visit our schools and talk to young people. Certainly, as the federal member for Ryan, I do that in the western suburbs of Brisbane. It is a great joy and delight to engage with our young people and talk about the work we do as members of parliament and as representatives of the people. One of the questions I get asked quite often when I talk about Australia being a democracy is: what is meant by ‘democracy’? I always go back to a little bit of history when I talk to the students of the schools that I visit. I take pleasure in talking about the history of ‘democracy’. It comes from ancient times, from the Greek historian Herodotus, who as we understand first used the term in the fifth century BC. He coined the word from ‘demos’, ‘the people’, and ‘kratien’, ‘to rule’. It really is rule by the people. The people are supreme, and they are whom we serve as elected members of parliament.

One of the other famous definitions that I like to raise when I talk to students about democracy and its meaning is a phrase by a very historic figure in American politics: Abraham Lincoln, a former American president. He coined the phrase ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’. It is this simple eloquence that really does go to the heart of what democracy is all about and, in a sense, also what government is all about. ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people’—what majestic words they are to describe the spirit of this motion and the spirit of a way of life that we in this country certainly treasure very much: the democratic way of life.

Getting back to Herodotus for a moment, I think it is no accident that it was a Greek who coined the word, because ancient times were when scholars were able to see democracy in Athens during the fifth and fourth centuries. We understand that people at that time actually assembled together and ruled in a very direct, community oriented fashion. It is a lesson for those in politics today that the community forum or town hall still has its supreme place in modern politics. It is interesting how something so long ago has profound relevance to politicians in the 21st century.

In my view, the ultimate benefit of democracy to the modern state and to people who believe in democracy is that it confers a sense of legitimacy on the elected government of the day—that legitimacy of course comes about quite simply because the will of the people is reflected in the government of the day. The mechanism to achieve democracy in modern times is through the ballot box and through elections. It is through that mechanism that a government is formed. It has a mandate to govern on behalf of the people.

I want to make three observations about a fully democratic and pluralistic state as I see them. The first great benefit of democracy is the right to oppose. Professor Kenneth Minogue of the London School of Economics has suggested that no state is seriously democratic unless opposing and critical voices are permitted to criticise governments; there is guaranteed freedom for people to form political organisations of many types—whether formal or informal, direct or indirect; and people are able to freely contest fair and frequent elections. The tolerance of opposition is distinctive to a genuine democratic form of government.

Another benefit of democracy is that democracy enjoys and respects individual freedom. Citizens can meet whomever they like, whenever they like and do whatever they like in terms of worship, free speech and movement. They can actively engage in the democratic process. In our modern times that would of course involve things like writing letters to newspapers, ringing up talkback stations and getting involved actively in the democratic and the political process. Citizens of course are not barred from voting or from seeking the votes of their fellow citizens if they wish to contest elections.

Another significant benefit of democracy is that government is seen to be transparent with a two-way communication between governments and citizens. Governments must not only be prepared to listen to the com-munities they represent but clearly communicate their decisions. The member for Fremantle made observations of the media and I acknowledge her point about the significance of the media as part of the architecture of a fully functioning democratic state.

Australia is the sixth-oldest uninterrupted democracy and is recognised all over the world for its history of political stability and its values—the sixth-oldest uninterrupted democracy only behind the United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, New Zealand and Canada. What a great place we occupy. We are, of course, a parliamentary democracy with our roots set deep in the British tradition of Westminster. The distinctive feature of our modern democratic Australia is our proud liberal democratic tradition that provides for robust public debate and exchanges from town halls to national stadiums. I am very proud to be a member of the Australian parliament and to be a citizen of this great country, and I pledge to do all I can to guard our significant way of life. (Time expired)

Debate (on motion by Mr Combet) adjourned.