Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I join other speakers in this debate in congratulating you on your well-deserved elevation to your present role.

I rise today to talk about trust in politics. This is something I have often spoken of in the short time that I have been a member of this place. It is most certainly timely to speak of it now. Over recent weeks we have seen the response from the public when there are breaches of trust and when rules and standards are broken. I think this is especially so at a time of economic uncertainty and of increasing inequality. That this reaction has been so strong, severe and visceral is illustrative of a wider malaise and disengagement, on the part of the public, from the political process.

The past few weeks present all of us who are fortunate to be in public life with a great challenge: we must restore and rebuild public confidence in how politics works in Australia. But let us not confuse symptoms with causes. It is of the utmost importance that we find a way to assure people that we meet the high standards they are entitled to expect from us in respect of our expenditure of public money, if we are to rebuild the bridge between citizens and their representatives. This is necessary but it is not sufficient. This malaise is not merely about expenses, and it certainly cannot be all about us politicians looking into the mirror.

I note that the Lowy Institute has asked Australians for their views on democracy in each of its annual polls since 2012. The results have been consistent and not uplifting. Support for democracy amongst young people is consistently below 50 per cent. Support for non-democratic forms of government is 18 per cent and 23 per cent among Australians and young Australians respectively. People feel remote from, and alienated by, decisions that affect their lives—and understandably so. These are questions of substance as well as of form. Its not just about the tone of question time; it is about the purpose of the parliament and its members, and their relevance to the public.

This week's trickiness on the part of the Prime Minister in relation to marriage equality and our response as legislators to a significant community concern is another symptom of this malaise. More broadly, it is one thing to seek to engage in debate around policy choices as a politician and quite another to be listened to, to be engaged with. A government that speaks of ending 'the age of entitlement' on the one hand, while demonstrating a lack of concern for the accountability of its members on the other, invites further cynicism in the electorate. It is a fundamental point: if we fail to heed and respect the concerns of the public, why should they continue to have faith in formal politics? This government has proven that three-word slogans are not a prescription for bringing people along on the challenges of governing or for having a real conversation around solving the problems of our future and seizing its opportunities.

Of course, there are great challenges for the Labor Party in fleshing out an alternative in an environment where the role of government itself is under sustained challenge. In an increasingly globalised world, where many significant decisions are made by bodies removed from this political process, it is very easy to see how people can feel powerless to change the direction of their lives. Labor's recent national conference, however, offers an example of democracy in action. Labor have sought to broaden our membership and reach out to people to inform the policies we take to the next election, to offer a real choice in Australia's direction. Labor offer a stark alternative to this government, because meaningful politics is about choices. Bipartisanship is not a panacea. Indeed, to the extent that it suggests a lack of choice, it may be part of the problem for many who are sceptical about how politics serve their interests. This is something we have seen much of in Europe, with the rise of movements that are anti politics in recent years. Instead, perhaps we might strive in this place for a less rancorous partisanship and find ways of expressing our differences—these choices, and what these approaches mean for people—that do not exclude others by their very tone.

In this regard, I acknowledge the work of my colleagues the member for Gellibrand and the member for Hotham, who have just co-authored a book which focuses not just on ideas but on how they might be better expressed, grappling with the threshold issue of opening up our politics as well as setting out ideas for a better Australia. So, in the spirit of that book, Two Futures, let us all commit ourselves to tackling both of these challenges: through our work, constructing better politics and having a real and inclusive debate around a fairer future.