Berowra - Enews Update

As the year draws to an end I wish all constituents and supporters a relaxing and safe Christmas Season. It is a time to catch up with family and friends and to plan to look forward to a new year. Certainly 2009 has been another busy year both in the electorate and attending parliament - proudly representing the constituents of the Federal Electorate of Berowra. Many constituents have brought their problems to me and we have resolved many of these by making representations to the Federal government.

As an island continent, Australia is uniquely positioned to ensure that the Government of the day determines migration programs that reflect the desires of the Australian community, namely; to accommodate migrants with skills, those with close family ties and humanitarian entrants with a high need for protection.

From time to time some people believe that they can bypass reasonable checks and selection criteria to obtain an outcome to which they might not otherwise have been entitled. People smugglers have seen opportunities to profit in these circumstances. While all governments loudly proclaim that they determine who enters and settles in Australia, they should be judged by their record rather than their rhetoric. Like its predecessors, the Howard Government was faced with the challenge of unauthorised border arrivals. Yet for almost half a decade it managed to bring people smuggling to an end.

There are a range of measures that can be taken to contain people smuggling – some involve high levels of international cooperation and others involve domestic policy settings. The Rudd Government would have Australians believe that the pursuit of international cooperation is sufficient. The deployment of Immigration officials and police abroad, dialogue with other nations and even advertising campaigns are not new strategies. The Howard Government used them all.

In reality, however, the only measures that worked were domestic in character. These included the return to Indonesia of a number of vessels destined for Australia, the implementation of the so-called "Pacific solution" with the cooperation of Nauru and Papua New Guinea and humane mandatory detention for those who reached Australia. The detention enabled the consideration of claims for protection or other reasons to remain in Australia, as well as character, security and health checking. It meant that detainees were available for processing and for removal if necessary. Further, if a detainee was found to be a refugee, temporary protection was offered rather than a permanent migration outcome - to limit the consequential family reunion.

Border security was, is and always will be difficult public policy. The Rudd Government appears to have walked away from its responsibilities and its promises made during the last election campaign to maintain robust border security. This abdication of responsibility is putting peoples lives at risk, forcing them into the hands of people smugglers who Kevin Rudd himself described as "the vilest form of human life".

The Rudd Government maintains that the increased number of unauthorised boat arrivals is unrelated to its winding back of the Howard Government’s border security arrangements. It argues that softening border controls has not become a ‘pull’ factor for illegal immigration to Australia. Rather, it points to increased ‘push’ factors due to a global increase in displaced people and refugees.

This argument is seriously flawed. During the Howard administration the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees identified more than 24 million people as refugees. Its most recent reports suggest that that number has fallen to little more than 11 million.

The government then argues that the worldwide security situation has deteriorated. This is also not true. Indeed, in some places it has improved. The situation has always been difficult in source countries such as Afghanistan and Sri Lanka and it is arguable that Afghanistan was significantly less safe under the Taliban than it is now. Likewise, Sri Lanka was always beset with a Tamil insurgency that now appears to have been defeated militarily.

It is clear that it is not the push factors that have changed. What has made the task of people smugglers advertising their wares easier has been the unwinding of the measures implemented by the Howard Government.

When people smuggling was at its height - around the year 2000 - officials estimated that there was a pipeline of more than 10,000 people between Indonesia and the Middle East engaging with people smugglers with a view to travelling to Australia. It is hard to see how the situation would be very different today with more than two thousand arrivals since August 2008 and more than three hundred either intercepted by Indonesian and Australian authorities over the last weekend alone. Only a fundamental rethink by the Rudd Government of its immigration policy will bring this insidious people smuggling activity to an end.

This is another broken promise by the Rudd Government which will affect access to affordable healthcare for all constituents. On 24 September 2007, Nicola Roxon stated:

“On many occasions for many months, Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing Private Health Insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians. The Liberals continue to try to scare people into thinking Labor will take away the rebates. This is absolutely untrue.”

As late as February 2009, in the lead up to the Budget, whilst modelling was being conducted and policy drafted, and the Health Minister said, “the Government is firmly committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates." The Rudd Government has clearly misled the Australian people on this very important issue. These changes will further increase health costs, including for the one million Australians with private health insurance who earn under $26,000 per annum. Increased premiums will drive many of the most vulnerable Australians into the already overstretched public system. This is poor health policy and the Coalition has consistently opposed it!

The Coalition is committed to ensuring all Australians have affordable access to healthcare and whilst in Government, introduced the private health insurance rebates and as a result, private health insurance coverage increased from 34 per cent to 44 per cent during this period.

· Why the Rudd Government has failed to pressure banks over the ballooning margins between mortgage rates and small business lending rates;

· The impact of the Rudd Government’s botched bank guarantee on providers small business credit; and

· Why the Rudd Labor Government has had so little to say on banks’ immediate rises in small business rates over the past two months.

Small businesses have suffered by banking principles during the downturn, and the Rudd Government has simply stood by and watched it happen. The margin between residential-secured loans for small business and regular mortgages has ballooned from 0.30 percentage points when Labor was elected to 1.30 percentage points today, Reserve Bank figures show.

I do not speak on the motion on the national apology to the forgotten Australians and former child migrants with any alacrity. It is a very tragic situation that brings us to this point and, like many who have spoken on this matter, I intend to inform the parliament and hopefully the people of Australia of the circumstances that some people have suffered and continue to suffer. When I spoke on the apology to our Indigenous brothers and sisters I talked a little about the reconciliation movement because I think it is appropriate to remind people that the genesis of it was in fact after the Second World War in the organisation that a former leader of the Labor Party and, before him, his father was associated with—Moral Rearmament.

Moral Rearmament is a very interesting organisation. It has had a name change. It is now called Initiatives of Change and it has, over a long period of time, conducted what is euphemistically known as second level diplomacy. It works to resolve those issues that often divide people and can have tragic results. It played a role after the Second World War in bringing people together from Germany and around Europe. That was its genesis, but it later played a role in the industrial movements in some of the differences between employers and employees. It played a role in relation to Indigenous peoples. It had an active role in what was happening in South Africa. It is interesting that South Africa had a reconciliation commission, which functioned after the first democratic elections, which I witnessed, in 1994. In Australia I do not think it is recognised that a gentleman called John Bond, who is very much associated with Moral Rearmament, Initiatives of Change, has worked on the issues affecting our Indigenous people. He organised the last conference in Europe, which I participated in. He spent many years here in Australia promoting the concept of reconciliation.

A lot of us do not understand, as I have mentioned previously, that reconciliation has two parts to it. The first is an apology from those who may have been guilty of some very unfortunate activities or acts. But it also is meant to evoke a basis upon which you can move on together, and that is the concept of forgiveness. In relation to a lot of the issues that we are dealing with, there is a quest for apology but the circumstances that can give rise to the second element of forgiveness are often not there. That is something I am going to speak to today. I note that in the Sydney Morning Herald of 16 November there was a very interesting article by Hugh Mackay, the social commentator. He is a person I have known over a long period of time. He does not always agree with me, I might say. I once included him on an advisory committee for the former government. I do not know how much he relished that. But I have always respected his opinions. He writes:

It’s a sorry state of affairs when forgiveness is not the main objective. He goes on to say in this article:

So we’re to have another … apology … This time, it’s the turn of the “forgotten children”—those who languished, and were often neglected or abused, in institutions …

But there’s a terrible gap in this process that no one seems to be acknowledging. You can easily identify that gap if you ask yourself: what is the purpose of an apology?

The glib answer is that an apology is an admission of wrongdoing and an expression of regret for harm caused to another person by our actions or by our failure to act. We apologise to get all that off our chest, and who doesn’t feel better once that’s done?

But is that all an apology is about? Is that all we try to achieve when we apologise—feeling better? I don’t think so. An apology is more than a declaration; it’s not just a message we send to the injured party. It is also, importantly, an appeal to the injured party to forgive us for what we did to them.

An apology without a corresponding act of forgiveness is only half the story. If the forgiveness is withheld, the apology is left hanging in the air, like a gift you offered someone that they never formally accepted or thanked you for. Worse, an apology that is not met with forgiveness ends up looking like a solo performance: something we did to the injured party, rather than something we did together in the true spirit of reconciliation.

Too easy, in fact: to say “we’re sorry” without having negotiated our way through to a meeting point where forgiveness can also occur is simply to have taken the first step.

It is in that context that I want to talk about some litigation in the state of New South Wales. The matter involves Shane Paul Nicholls and the state of New South Wales as the defendant. In this judgment, His Honour, Justice Malpass, says this:

The plaintiff was born on 3 October 1957 (he is now 48 years of age). Since the commencement of the proceedings, he has changed his surname to Bell.

He is the same person that Tony Abbott mentioned in his comments earlier this week. The judgment continues:

The plaintiff became a ward of the state on 21 February 1973 (when he was about 16 years of age). He remained as such until 1979 (when he was 22 years of age). He did not return to the family home.

It recounts how he was brought before the Penrith court, charged with being uncontrollable. That was in 1971.

It continues:

In October of that year, the plaintiff was committed to an institution. He remained institutionalised till 1979. During this period, he exhibited … symptoms (one of which was nocturnal enuresis). He was still bedwetting at the age of 20. His appearance disclosed, inter alia, constant smallest of stature and excessive thinness. He was treated as being mentally retarded and his education was neglected.

… Prior to institutionalisation, he had suffered an unfortunate home life. He was one of eight children in a household of poor financial circumstances. He suffered, inter alia, sexual and other abuse … After institutionalisation, he had little contact with his mother.

What becomes apparent is that, while he was taken into care, little was done to address his circumstances—and this is in the time that I have been in this parliament. This man was committed in 1973, in a period in which I would have expected that some attention would have been paid in institutions in New South Wales to the needs of the young people entrusted to their care.

This litigation retails medical opinions about the way in which, in later life, conditions that should have been identified were found. I read here a letter from a Dr Ryan in 1993:

You can be assured that I am doing everything that I can to seek an early settlement of your claim. I have given advice to the Department that your condition should have been diagnosed when you were in the departments care.

This is a man of whom the judge says:

… when he was discharged from the wardship, he was functionally illiterate … he had few, if any, life skills. He has never held a serious job for any length of time … he is now realistically unemployable.

He is clearly a person whom we—our generation—failed.

What was this litigation about? This litigation was about when this man had identified that he had certain claims that might ordinarily be addressed through our legal system. Those who are dealing with these issues now in the state of New South Wales used legal remedies available to them to ensure that that claim could never be addressed. We all know what they are. They are statutes of limitation, which demand that even if you had no knowledge of any rights and entitlements to bring forward a claim, no advice that suggested that there might be a difficult issue that had to be addressed, if the time that has elapsed—in this case, three years—is too long, unless you receive a special waiver from a court, which has to be obtained in very limited circumstances, you have no remedy. The very point I want to make is that, at a time when we are seeking to apologise, there are people in this country, governments in this country, who have resisted any inquiry into their handling of these issues and continue to do so, who ensure that even the legal system will deny a remedy to a person deserving one.

If you cannot guess, I have come to know Shane Nicholls over a period of time. He is not an easy person to deal with. He is a person greatly wounded by what he has been forced to endure, and he does seek a remedy. I think people wanted to have him here in Canberra for this apology, but he feels the apology without at least some effort to get those responsible in New South Wales to address these issues is hollow. I do not know what the relationships are in these matters, but we apologise and he is denied a remedy. We say to him, ‘Are you prepared, having received an apology, to forgive?’ I do not like to say it, but, unless we are prepared to pick up some of the points that Hugh Mackay has made, in a lot of these situations we are not going to move forward.

I think the very least that is required in New South Wales is for those in authority—and for those here who can speak to those in authority in New South Wales—to say, ‘We will no longer use statutes of limitations to deny people the opportunity to have their claims heard and addressed on their merits.’ It is a pretty simple step but one that I think would, in the context of these issues, help some people to address those matters and move forward. Likewise, I see the resistance that has occurred in my state of New South Wales to an inquiry in relation to these issues. In the time that I have been sitting in this parliament, I have heard about the way in which people were physically abused—were wounded—by those who were entrusted to care for them. As it said in this litigation, they were not even given an education which would unable them to go out and get a job. Those in authority kept them institutionalised until 22 years of age and then tried to get them off on benefits so that, hopefully, they could survive.

I think we still have a long way to go in addressing these issues before some of the wounds that are there are healed. I hope some, particularly in New South Wales, if this speech of mine is read more widely, might recognise that they have some responsibility if they endorse this apology to take the practical steps to provide some remedies for redress. Equally, I think it ought to be clear to governments that this litigation—this case; I have it before me—was resolved by the judge simply saying: ‘Because of statutes of limitations, I have no basis upon which I can provide a remedy.’ I hope some people will take on board the pain that that sort of approach by those in authority evokes amongst those whom we recognise have suffered a great deal.

ENDS

While parents want quality childcare, any changes to quality standards must be affordable and must deliver real and positive outcomes for the whole of the childcare sector. I welcome the launch of Early Childhood Australia’s “Hands up for Quality Campaign” and while this campaign is well intentioned, it really is time for the Federal Government to realise the costs to parents of their childcare reforms. The fact is: higher quality comes at a premium price. Parents should decide if they are really unhappy with their current childcare, whether or not they are willing to pay an extra $100 a week to make it that little bit better. The Rudd Government has failed to recognise how the changes will impact on different sectors of the industry – particularly the private small businesses that provide the majority of childcare in this country. It is very clear that parents are not being told how much costs are expected to rise. In fact, they are being misled into thinking that the rise will be minimal. That is clearly not going to be the case with some estimates in the industry ranging from increases of $20 to $40 a day. Any increase in fees at this time when we have rising unemployment and economic uncertainty will be a burden on working families, and this has to be balanced against the need for a high-quality childcare system.

Footnote: Part of my e-news reports are taken from information provided by my parliamentary and shadow cabinet/ministry colleagues.