Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Perhaps his French is better, Senator Hutchins, after my tutorage! But this job is a very special job. It is a job where the public only really sees what happens in this particular room. I do not actually think they ever see what makes it special and what makes its unique contribution to Australian democracy. I was thinking of that today when Senator Brandis passed me a note. Some of the work that we did on the Senate economics committee is really an example of what this place does well. I remember many a hearing where Senator Brandis, Senator Andrew Murray and I were in attendance. All three of us would come to the hearing with an open mind, and it was the evidence of those before us that guided us all into making good, objective public policy. That is what this place is about. That is the true work of this place, not the role-playing that goes on in this particular room of this place.

Having said all that, when you get up to make a final speech, you can spend a lot of time casting your mind to the past and what may or may not have happened. Or you can talk about the future. So I have decided to spend a bit of time focusing on the future. I am very proud of the fact that, although I am leaving this place, I am leaving with a Labor government in place—and a strong Labor government. That makes leaving just that little bit easier; in fact, it makes it pretty easy on the whole. But I think that that Labor government has some significant challenges that it needs to address. I am absolutely confident that in Kevin Rudd we have a Prime Minister who will address those challenges, because he is concerned about the state of the nation he leaves for the next generation, not just for the next three years.

Of course, it would come as no surprise to those who know me well that one of those challenges that I want the Rudd Labor government to have front and centre is the delivery of mental health services. Now that we are busy reforming federalism, ending the blame game and working together, please in mental health can we have a well-resourced plan—not three plans, one plan? We need one plan that is well resourced by all levels of government, that is supported by all levels of government and that has coordinated care at its centre. If we do not do that, we fail our community. So, please, can we do that?

One of the other concerns that I have had for a while, and it has again come out of the work I have done in Senate committees, particularly through the estimates process—and this will come as no surprise, given some recent comments—is the impact of what I consider to be very lazy public policy: the imposition across the board of an efficiency dividend, on every government agency. I think it was probably a good idea at the time, in that it helped focus the minds of those who were in charge of government agencies, but I think the role for that has long since gone. I think the role for that has long since gone for two reasons. Firstly, I think those of us who are elected to this place, particularly those who are elected to the executive, should actually accept the responsibility of making the hard decisions and not delegate that. They should actually accept the responsibility of casting government expenditure to mirror government priorities—and that means making some hard decisions and taking expenditure from things that do not mirror government priorities. I think to do anything else is lazy and is letting our community down.

I also think it is lazy because it does not actually offer the rewards that it should for government agencies that perform well. Where is the incentive, if you are a government agency and you are going to be given the same cuts, the same efficiency dividend, whether you meet the government objectives effectively or not? When you are all going to be treated in the same way there is no incentive to become more efficient, because the government is actually going to set the maximum as well as the effective minimum. A long time ago, in my previous life, I worked for a member of this place: former Senator Peter Walsh, who was a renowned Labor finance minister. Whilst I cannot vouch for his views on the efficiency dividend, there is a bit of me that says this is not the kind of public policy he would like. He would have been prepared to take all of the hard decisions, no matter what the political or personal cost. So I see this as a challenge for our new Labor government.

One of the other challenges that I think we face as a government is the development of the emissions trading scheme. I think that is going to be one of the biggest pieces of public policy and economic reform that this country has seen for quite some time. It is a huge challenge; it is a complex issue. But I am of the view—and it is probably going to upset quite a few—that, if we want effective change, if we have decided as a community, as a government, that the way we are going to deliver change is through an emissions trading scheme, then the best way to do that is to introduce the purest possible model, because no model will work if it is introduced in a compromised way. It is my view that we have to have the purest possible model and then use the money that the government raises through the auctioning of permits to develop a compensation package. That way we can look after the needs of those who most need it in our community whilst ensuring that all of us play our role in meeting the challenges of emissions trading. After all, all of us know—or most of us who have studied any of these things know—that the most effective way to change people’s behaviour and to change the market is through a price signal. You are only going to get the real price signal if you have a pure model. If you have a pure model you will probably also find that a lot of the current debates we have around renewable energy targets and around other issues actually become redundant. We will create an effective renewable energy market by actually introducing a pure emissions trading scheme. But that is a debate I am sure all of you who are staying here will get to dwell on for many a long hour.

Another thing that has concerned me for a while about the direction of policy debate, both within my party and within politics, is that it seems to stay as a fairly static thing. We seem to hold on to treasured views about particular policy. I think the time for that has gone. I am not saying that we should discard everything but I think that, with a new government, a new role for everyone and a mood for change in our community, it is time to put your principles at the forefront but not to hold policy as a static thing. The needs of our community change and so our policies and ideas to address its priorities also need to change. I know that in my time here my views on a number of policy icons, which I held dear for a long time, started to change as I was presented with new ideas. I hope we do not hold on to our policy settings forever, just our principles.

On leaving this place I think about the composition of this place. In fact, Mr President, you were the person who first made me think about this when you pointed out at the function the other evening, which is now being referred to by everyone, that when the 14 of us—whom I have taken to referring to as ‘evictees’—leave this place and the new mob come in there will be 39 senators who have been here for three years or less, which will be a challenge for everyone in terms of the breadth and depth of experience. I came here having worked for a number of politicians. I found it difficult to work out how to make this place work for me in this role, yet I had a very good understanding of the rules of this place. I cannot imagine the challenge that this place will be for those who do not come with that background. I also started to think about the composition of this place. It is changing, sometimes for the better. Have a look round here. There are a lot more women here than there used to be, and that can only be a good thing. It will be an even better thing when we have the numbers! But what my party as a major party really needs to do is look at the breadth of people’s experience. I came here as a party hack—that is what we are called—and so did my very good friend Chris Evans. You could probably also put Nick Minchin in that category. We were elected officials for our respective political parties. I have enormous admiration for people like Nick and Chris but, when you combine the party hacks and the lawyers, there is not a lot left here—there is not much else.

I look around and I see my good friend Glenn Sterle, who started life as a truck driver. As I understand it, that was his aim in life and then he got sidetracked into other things, such as representing the views of his friends. It was never his aim to be a professional political activist, whether it were through the trade union movement or through the Labor Party. Therefore, I think people like Glenn bring a very unique perspective to this place and a perspective that I worry we will lose if we as a party do not have a mind to ensure that we maintain the breadth of representation.

The highlight of my time in this place has probably been working with a wonderful group of women—the cross-party women who have previously been referred to by others. They have been referred to by others a lot more eloquently, so I will not go into that, except to say that I echo all of those comments that have been made by Kerry and Linda and, in particular, by Natasha.

We have achieved some great things. I hope we have achieved them with a sense of pride and a sense of purpose but also a sense of respect for those who do not hold our views. I am disappointed to be leaving this place without one last achievement, which seemed to cause a great deal of anxiety around this place earlier today, which is the proposal to change the AusAID funding guidelines. It is disappointing that that issue has not come to a head and that a decision has not been made. As I said, we all hold strong views on issues like that, but we do need to remember to treat one another with respect. Sometimes the contributions that people make do go unnoticed. We could have had an interesting experience here this morning and it certainly would have got me all riled up. But thanks to my good friend Claire Moore and thanks to Lyn Allison, we did not, and I think those who oppose my view should also acknowledge that.

In concluding, I would like to thank the many people who have come in here and said some very kind things about me. It is always interesting sitting here and learning other people’s perspectives of your contribution to this place. I would like to thank the many people who have been in contact to say some very kind things. After I have had my first sleep-in in a long time on 1 July, I hope I will then be able to get around to personally thanking each and every one of you.

I look forward to the future; the future is good. I have had an incredible opportunity. I come from a state with a population of about two million people. There are only four people at any one time who get to do this job, which is to be a Labor senator from Western Australia, and that should be remembered. It is an incredible opportunity. You have to make the most of it. It has given me the skills, the strength and the confidence to go forward. Thank you.