Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr President, you will be aware that the members of the Senate of Canada are appointed to their positions. There are no doubt good reasons for this, but as much as I admire a great deal that is Canadian, its appointed Senate has never been something of which I entirely approve—that is, until now! Being now in a position where I am required to exit this place as a result of having lost my seat at the most recent federal election, I can suddenly see the many virtues of the Canadian way. The idea that one cannot be removed from a legislature by the electorate, and from which one is allowed to retire in a leisurely manner on reaching the estimable age of 70, is one that, with some persuasion, I believe I could embrace. But whether I like it or not, we are here in Australia and we are a democracy, and a very robust one at that. The contrarian second President of the United States, John Adams, a man whose dogged determination and vision for his new country I greatly admire, may have been somewhat over­stating the point when he remarked that with the end of elections there can be only slavery, but the sentiment is surely correct. Elections are the lifeblood of any and every stable democracy, and I of course accept the judgment of the Queensland people as they rendered that judgment last year.

The six years I have been here have passed extraordinary quickly and, at times, tumultuously. When I arrived, the Howard government had just been elected for a fourth term. As the sixth senator elected, and the fourth from the coalition in Queensland, I am very conscious it was the winning of my seat that gave the coalition the numbers it needed to gain a majority in the Senate—the first of any party since 1977. Contrary to common wisdom, the Howard government did not, as a matter of general practice, abuse that majority. Some landmark reforms of national significance were made in the areas of Indigenous affairs, aged care, superan­nuation, taxation and telecommunications, among much else, and Australia and Australians were all the better for it.

Then of course there was Work Choices. We did not lose the 2007 election because of Work Choices, but it did not help. I well remember the day in 2006 when the Senate resolved to pass the enabling bill. Senators who were here may recall that it was late in the afternoon and a storm was brewing outside the building as a third reading debate was getting underway. With the public galleries of the chamber replete with protesting members of the trade union movement, Senator Brandis gave a stentorian third reading speech in which he told the bill's opponents that they were, among other things, on the wrong side of history. I think it is fair to say that this was a prescient observation in more ways than one.

Just as the final vote was about to be taken, there was an intense flash of lightning and a very heavy, resonating clap of thunder. To this day I still believe that momentarily the lights of the chamber went off, to return perceptively duller than before. At that point, I recall turning to Senator Fifield on the bench to my left—a rather unusual position for Senator Fifield since on most other occasions he is almost always to my right—and I remarked: 'This could be a sign. Perhaps we should rethink this bill?' We did not, of course. The bill was passed and the rest, as they say, is history.

In my view, the coalition overreached parts of Work Choices, but only parts of it. In doing so, it fell into one of the great age-old traps of success: the tendency towards hubris. Perhaps not surprisingly, it suffered the unravelling of reputation that ineluctably followed from it. To the extent that Work Choices struck down some of the long established fundamental industrial rights of Australians, it went too far. But many of its reforms were innovatory and entirely appropriate for a modern 21st-century economy. The Rudd-Gillard government has now reversed many of these changes and in doing so taken Australia's system of industrial relations back to the era of pre Hawke-Keating government reforms. Not only has much of this been bad for the Australian economy but it has disempowered Australian workers, killed competition and undercut the foundations of small business. A policy correction is required so that a constituency in need of a voice can be heard. So at some point I anticipate the coalition will have to revisit its reluctance to engage with this area of public policy.

Work Choices aside, I am very proud that, as a very active member of several Senate committees, I was able to make useful contributions to improving some of the legislation that came before us. In my view, the committee system is unquestionably one of the great strengths of the Senate. Indeed, one of my first letters to an editor of any kind was penned as a rather callow youth and in praise of Senate committees. The committees are not places where politics is left aside and nor should they be. They are often, however, places where reason, judgment and compromise can triumph over prejudice in the search for solutions to national problems. I trust this will continue to be their role and, when accommodation is not possible, I hope that we will all at least be left with civility of difference.

As a member of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee I was a party to strengthening the civil liberties protections in some of the anti-terror legislation, which was, I believe, a valuable role. On some issues, such as immigration, I was grateful to have been fortified by the courage of some of my Liberal colleagues. They provided me with the strength of purpose to assist in seeking humane and sensible reforms to our government's sometimes austere refugee policy.

To have served as the chair and deputy chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee is for me an enormous honour. I am convinced the work the committee did on military justice under the leadership of Senator Payne will be recognised as being of profound importance in helping the Australian Defence Force to address a deeply troubling aspect of its culture, one that serves neither its members nor the nation.

I am especially proud of the committee's inquiries into peacekeeping, public diplomacy and the Torres Strait region—the last two of which I was fortunate to lead. As the continuing public debate over these matters testifies, they focus on issues of long-term significance to the nation and serve as a welcome reminder that the work we do on committees in this place is amongst the most valuable we undertake.

Finally, in relation to committee work, I take the opportunity to highlight my time as the chair of the Senate Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation. I anticipate that the committee's report will be tabled by the end of this month. It will, I hope, draw renewed attention to an aspect of Australian public policy that has been woefully neglected—namely, federal-state relations. Australia's system of government was conceived as a federation. That, indeed, was the form of governance that my own great-grandfather helped to create during the federation movement at the end of the 19th century. But over 100 years the federal compact between the states and the federal government has been severely eroded. Centralising governments in Canberra, with complicity of the High Court, have recast the constitutional distribution of powers which was once carefully balanced. Financial distortions have not only impoverished state and territory treasuries, they have grievously undermined the states' political authority, making responsible government increasingly remote from every Australian.

The parties of the coalition cannot absolve themselves of responsibility for this parlous state of affairs. The drift of political power and fiscal responsibility to Canberra has been visible on our watch as with Labor, yet we are supposedly the party of federation. Neither Deakin nor Menzies, however, would now recognise it in this way. Regrettably, in recent years my party has had few serious considered thoughts on restoring the health of the federation. As the natural custodians of the federal ideal, we should feel more than a little guilty at this neglect. But, more than this, we should be urgently committed to responding to the challenge it poses. The Liberal Party needs to rediscover its federalist values and develop the program of reform which will restore them to their principal place in our system of government.

Away from the parliamentary domain, I have tried to be always conscious of my responsibilities to pay close attention to the needs of my constituents—the people of the great state of Queensland. Engaging actively, often and, hopefully, effectively with the men and women of the rural and regional parts of the state has been enormously satisfying. As a former educator, my involvement with schools, colleges and universities has also been an important facet of my work. In part this has been a dimension of a personal quest to try and expand public knowledge and understanding about our parliament and more particularly the role of the Senate in our system of government. More than this, education offers Australians the promise of a secure and prosperous future. We do not fill that promise by wasting millions of dollars on ill-conceived education revolutions. We need to invest in knowledge, innovation, languages and best teaching practice. When we think we have done enough, there will always be more to do.

It has been rewarding to assist community groups to take up ignored causes and issues such as international adoption; to assist constituency and personal distress; and to help promote environmentally sound ideas, such as opposition to the entirely ill-conceived Traveston Crossing dam.

It is fair to say that when I took office I had little comprehension of how varied and, indeed, busy a senator's life could be, but the richness of my work among the people of Queensland has proved one of the most rewarding parts of my term. In my first speech I spent some time decanting my views on international relations and, more especially, the challenges to Australian foreign and defence policy. I urged the Senate's attention to several matters, not least the need to engage more fully with East Asia and the demands posed by a rising China. I return to these and other foreign policy themes with a mix of reassurance and pessimism. On the reassuring side, I am delighted that the Rudd government saw fit to adopt, at least partially, several of the policy proposals outlined in my 2008 Lowy monograph on the emerging global order. In my view the comprehensive national security strategy, of which we have so far seen only a glimpse, is still a worthwhile objective. I welcome the establishment of the Office of the National Security Adviser, although I am anxious that it should not overreach what should be its limited responsibilities.

On defence more directly, I wait with high anticipation for the moment when we are all able to face up to the reality that the capability program in the 2009 Defence White Paper is well beyond the nation's ability to achieve. Only when we face up to this manifestly obvious point will we begin to have a credible defence posture for the 21st century.

For all its many detractors, the Howard government left office in November 2007 with a distinguished record of achievement in East Asia. By contrast, the policies of the Rudd and Gillard governments have been far less assured, being often poorly formulated and ineptly implemented. In 3½ years the steady trajectory of a deepening engagement with Asia has faltered as our relationships with China, Japan, India, Fiji, Papua and New Guinea, Indonesia and others have all been shaken by problems. We might reasonably hope that eventually these relationships will be put back on track. But as I said in my first speech, engagement with Asia–or indeed the Pacific–cannot be a part-time affair. Nor can we be indifferent to the changes taking place in the wider Indo-Pacific region.

This is our neighbourhood, and just coincidentally it has become the central dynamic arena of the 21st century global strategic order. We dare to ignore that reality at our political and economic peril. And yet, as Australians, we seem so little interested. As Michael Wesley has said in his new book, There Goes the Neighbourhood, we remain complacent, incurious and unprepared to think about how the world is changing, how this might affect us and what we will need to do to prosper and to remain secure in the new era. This is a national delinquency of the highest order, and requires urgent attention if we are to have any hope of surviving the international challenges ahead.

When we are struggling to pay serious attention to our region of primary strategic importance, it is perhaps fanciful to encourage a focus on horizons even further afield. If for no other reason, however, than that the Indian Ocean rim is of fast growing importance to our national interest we should begin to look anew at Africa. I acknowledge that this has been, and is, a policy priority of the recent Labor governments. To my colleagues in the coalition: I urge that we no longer continue to look at Africa through the prism of Labor's goal to secure a non-permanent seat on the Security Council and its aid policy there. In my view, the Security Council is in the national interest, and should be embraced for a multitude of reasons. But I emphasise: not at any cost, and I fear that this is where we are heading.

With that to one side, Australia's interests in Africa should be judged on their merits. They are neither wide nor deep at this point in time, but they are growing. Africa itself is changing rapidly in ways that will mean it is a place of mounting significance in global affairs. We can ignore this if we wish; alternatively, a relatively modest strategic investment now in Africa's political, econ­omic and educational future is likely to pay considerable dividends into the future.

Finally, I cannot leave the topic of foreign affairs without mentioning the long-ignored need to better resource the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Recent evidence to the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and in Senate estimates, has once again underscored the parlous state of DFAT's finances. The failure to confront this issue is not just a neglect of this government: my party must accept some of the responsibility. But the situation has deteriorated over the last few years because of Labor's very ambitious foreign policy, which has been underfunded. Diplomatic, representational, consular, public diplomacy, policy analysis and long-term policy planning within the portfolio are all under intense pressure. In a globalised world Australia's diplomatic footprint is both narrow and shallow in key regions of importance to our security and prosperity, and is far less than comparable countries. This is no longer sustainable as it is undercutting the protection and advancement of Australia's national interests.

The answer is not just to find the resources to reflate the DFAT budget. The way Australia is represented abroad will have to change and DFAT's habits of doing business at home will need reform. That said, the department needs more resources and the simplest, least painful way to secure them is to look at AusAID The planned growth in its rapidly expanding budget over the next few years responds to our generous instincts. But in the context of DFAT's plight, it is ill-advised. It should be slowed and the savings directed to DFAT as a matter of high priority.

In closing I take the opportunity to thank the servants of the Senate, the former Clerk, Harry Evans, current Clerk, Rosemary Laing, and their dedicated staff. I also extend my gratitude to the staff of the committees, most especially, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and its distinguished secretary, Dr Dermody, who have helped to make my work so fulfilling. My staff have been wonderful. Without the thoroughly professional and dedicated service of Fraser Stephen, Honor Lawler, Lynn Mitchell, Kate Grayson, Marty Kennedy and Julie Crouch, I would have accomplished very little.

I have been fortunate in being able to develop some lasting friendships among my colleagues on this side of the chamber, and I trust that they will continue. And among my colleagues on the other side of the aisle I have found, rather unexpectedly I have to say, a degree of much appreciated collegiality. In the interest of not blighting any careers anywhere in the chamber, I will mention no names!

In the absence of the love, understanding and support I have received from my wife, Dale, and our family, my life here would have been simply impossible. I am very conscious that, as I took my seat in this chamber just six years ago, I was exceptionally fortunate to have been given an opportunity to sit as a senator in our nation's federal parliament. Many years ago, I had a dream that one day this might be possible. Over six years, that dream has come true. I thank my party for giving me the chance to stand for office. It has been an absolute honour and an enormous privilege to serve the people of Queensland, and I thank them most sincerely. I thank the Senate.