Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was somewhat surprised when Senator Brandis was going through politicians and oil that he did not recall Mr Downer’s statement that, on invasion of Iraq, the price of petrol would fall. I guess if we wait long enough he may be proved right.

Today I want to speak briefly about the Citizenship Visits Program. This program was introduced in 1990 by the Labor government and it provides financial assistance to final year primary students and secondary students whose schools are located some prescribed distance from Canberra to enable them to:

... visit the national Parliament and take part in a program designed to enhance their understanding of the roles of the Houses and the Parliamentary system of government …

This program was administered by the other chamber via the Parliamentary Education Office and its costs were, until recently, shared by the parliamentary departments—not any longer.

On Monday, 22 May, the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee was informed that, as of the financial year 2006-07, funds for the CVP had been transferred from the parliamentary departments to the Department of Education, Science and Training in order to amalgamate the CVP payments with the educational travel rebate, as administered by that department. Further evidence given to that estimates hearing by the President and the Clerk of the Senate made it crystal clear that the initiative for stripping the parliamentary departments of this program funding came not from the Presiding Officers but directly from the Prime Minister.

In late November 2004, in the usual way, the Presiding Officers set about securing additional funding for the CVP. Happily, their request was agreed to just before Christmas 2004. Less happily, the Prime Minister’s letter of approval also encouraged the Presiding Officers to give consideration to a possible amalgamation of the Citizenship Visits Program and the Educational Travel Rebate Scheme. The Presiding Officers were urged to discuss the matter with the then minister for education, Dr Nelson, before giving the Prime Minister their view of this proposal in a fairly short time span. The Presiding Officers set about complying with the Prime Minister’s request. They wrote to Dr Nelson indicating their support for closer cooperation between the PEO and DEST but stressing their belief that amalgamation was not appropriate, given that the CVP had a primarily parliamentary focus whilst the ETR had a primarily tourism focus.

They sought a meeting to discuss the matter further—then, silence. They were totally ignored by Dr Nelson. There was no response, no meeting, nothing occurred. They then wrote to the Prime Minister informing him, in similar terms, of their views: support for closer cooperation but not support for amalgamation. The Prime Minister persisted with his desire for amalgamation, so it was back to the drawing board for the Presiding Officers. In October 2005 they again corresponded with the tardy Dr Nelson, reiterating their views:

It would seem to us to be most inappropriate for students to be thanking the executive government in relation to a program delivered by the Parliament ...

Having been ignored by Dr Nelson for some nine months, the Presiding Officers soldiered on regardless, but to no avail. The Prime Minister persisted. He disregarded the objections of the Presiding Officers. He wanted these programs amalgamated and placed within DEST. Of course, by mid 2006, it was a done deal.

I confess to being more than a little puzzled by the Prime Minister’s passion for amalgamation of these programs, and the transfer of funding. I had no idea that the Prime Minister cared so much for the work of the Parliamentary Education Office or the Citizenship Visits Program, so you can imagine my surprise when I was advised that ParlInfo failed to find any record of the Prime Minister speaking in the other place about the Citizenship Visits Program in the 16 years of the program’s existence—not one record. Yet, here he is, not only concerned but proactive. The big question is: why?

The Prime Minister, in his various letters, offers only that the two programs in question have ‘similar objectives’. Interestingly, in his letter to the President of 17 March this year, he speaks of his view that ‘the experience of schoolchildren and teachers visiting Canberra for civics education should reflect the efficient provision of government services across agencies’. In other words, we really should explain to the kiddiewinks what Friedman-like economics is about, what accrual accounting is about and what great savings they have made by amalgamating. Can’t you imagine the little forensic schoolkids asking the Parliamentary Education Office why there are two separate programs and they are not amalgamated! Of course, no efficiencies occur. The Minister for Finance and Administration cannot find any efficiencies here. What he is talking about in his letter is not parliamentary services; he is talking about government services. That is the real reason the Prime Minister made this move. That is the real agenda.

The Presiding Officers were actively opposed to amalgamation. The responsible minister was so uninterested he did not even acknowledge their multiple letters for some nine months. But when he eventually did reply, Dr Nelson did not assert that the Citizenship Visits Program was failing or that amalgamation would improve it. He did not assert that savings would be made—of course, no-one has asserted that. He just sort of thought it was a good idea. He concluded his letter by saying—wait for it:

On the other hand, it could be possible to continue the two programmes separately:

Doesn’t that reflect a lot of commitment! Thanks, Minister. Nine months waiting and we get that insipid response.

Members of parliament who have spoken about the program over the years—and there have been many, although not the Prime Minister—have been united in their strong support for its success in educating young Australians about the parliament. And therein lies the nub of this issue: the program educates students about the working of parliament, not the working of government. The distinction is obvious—and well known to those with even a rudimentary understanding of politics. But this episode is not about education; it is about politics and it is about campaigning.

While educating students and their teachers about the virtues of parliament is admirable, it is apparently not as desirable as educating students and teachers—that is, current and future voters—about the virtues of government. It is not as desirable as is taking control of a parliamentary program and, in due course, reshaping it to give your government MPs another big, bright campaigning opportunity. This is just another cameo depicting the arrogance and all-consuming mania of this government’s desire for self-promotion, always at the taxpayers’ expense. It is about keeping the backbench happy and preoccupied.

It is just another power grab. It is the executive usurping the role and functions of parliament. It is treating parliament with contempt. When we talk about treating parliament with contempt, this is something the current Prime Minister has had a lot to say about in the past. When it suited him, and I mean when he and his colleagues were in opposition, he was the great defender of the institution of parliament. He would routinely get up in the other place and launch into full-blown indignation and righteousness about what he claimed were examples of the then government treating parliament with disrespect.

Let us go back to 10 May 1993, when Mr Howard said the following:

... when it comes to any sort of respect for the institution of Parliament, this Government could not give a damn.

Later, he said:

I think it is nothing short of disgraceful—and it shows a quite contemptuous attitude of this Government towards the processes of ... Parliament.

Then, on 9 February 1994, Mr Howard said:

His—

meaning the then Prime Minister’s—

sole objective has been to reduce the power and the role of parliament and to increase his own power, prestige and authority in this country.

A little later, in the same speech, he said:

... parliamentary respect and tradition is turned on and off like a tap according to the Prime Minister’s own political convenience.

How past words come back to haunt! It is quite ironic, isn’t it?

I want to make it clear today that in this transfer of operations I place no blame whatsoever on the Presiding Officers. They acted throughout with honour and dignity. They upheld the dignity of the parliament. But when it comes to the juggernaut of the executive rolling over parliamentary defenders, there is no defence. The Presiding Officers cannot fight the executive. They do not have the purse strings. They merely get wounded on its way through.

The real mystery is: why was this done? We do not know, you see. Who was slighted by the existing program? Who complained to the Prime Minister to make him intervene in the way he did? And why were the rest of the Howard government so indifferent to what was occurring? We will never know the answers. They will be covered up, like many other things. And, in the end, it is just another victory by the executive over parliament—just as it is another power grab.

I cannot believe it today, listening to the various ministers of the Howard government wanting to seize this or that state power. I had to listen for a decade to ranting and raving from those opposite about states’ rights, about protecting the powers of the states. Now they want to take over their industrial relations powers. They want to take over the hospitals. They want to take over higher education. Anything that moves that they do not control, they want to control. You wonder where the philosophical underpinning of the Liberal Party has gone. I have only mentioned one minor aspect today. It will not be reversed and, in the long term, the Citizenship Visits Program will be perverted and bent to government propaganda purposes. I think that is a pity but, again, I make it clear that the Presiding Officers were defenceless in this particular action and no blame attaches to them.