Brendan Nelson Speaks To John Laws

Sep 28, 2005

The Minister for Education, Brendan Nelson, spoke to radio 2UE’s John Laws following a demonstration that prevented him speaking at the University of Sydney.

This is the transcript of Brendan Nelson’s interview with John Laws on 2UE.

LAWS:

Minister, good morning.

DR NELSON:

Good morning John.

LAWS:

Am I right – it’s a sad day for democracy when you’re stopped giving a speech that is important and probably wanted to be heard by a number of people?

DR NELSON:

Well, sad is probably the politest way of putting it, John, because you’re always polite, but this is a conference that’s been organised by the Australia New Zealand School of Government and it’s actually looking at schooling for the 21st Century and the kind of reforms we need to take. And I was going to speak about the need to drive standards in schooling throughout the country, and international guests had been invited, and the police informed me that there were 50 demonstrators inside the building – the conference was due to start at nine o’clock – 50 demonstrators inside the building by eight o’clock, and they were described to me as, shall I say, your hard-core demonstrators – not the sort that would be easily moved. Further to that there were about 100 demonstrators outside preventing just the normal people who wanted to attend the conference from getting into the building. The police also informed me that they were having scuffles with these normal everyday people wanting to go along to the conference, and so I said to the police, who were prepared to bring in serious numbers of reinforcements, I said, look, there’s no point of people being injured, particularly police. And the police also said to me that while I may get into the building there was serious doubt as to whether the conference would actually go ahead, and even greater doubt as to whether I would be able to get out.

LAWS:

If you did this at a business meeting or an office building somewhere you’d be straight in a paddy wagon. These people seem to get away with it.

DR NELSON:

Well, it’s an interesting thing John that Mark Latham, for example, I see him on television this morning, he goes to Melbourne University, they offer him a cup of tea, the Vice Chancellor is there with a nice smile on his face, welcomes him in and a group of people politely listen to what he has to say. I disagree with what he says but you and I defend the right in this country for people to say…

LAWS:

You bet.

DR NELSON:

…what they want to say, and we respect (inaudible) and we disagree with it. But we are now living in a situation where these people think that they own the universities in this country, and it’s your listeners, John, your shop assistants, your truck drivers, your gas fitters, your plumbers, your policemen, your nurses – they’re the people whose hard work funds these universities, and then these ratbags think that they belong to them and they are preventing me, and whatever your listeners think of me, the democratically elected Minister for Education…

LAWS:

Absolutely, and that shouldn’t be forgotten.

DR NELSON:

Well it shouldn’t, and, by the way, I wasn’t going along there to provide some provocative and inflammatory remarks about students and student unions or any of those sorts of things. I was actually going along to speak about the changes that we need in schooling across Australia if we want to lift and have national standards, and this ratbag element, by the way John, have got into university and now apparently are hell bent on stopping them running a conference there to talk about how we can improve school standards to get more kids into university.

LAWS:

Yeah, it’s extraordinary. They’re frightened, they’re angry with you because of the union thing, aren’t they? I mean that’s what it all boils down to.

DR NELSON:

Well that’s the main thing they’re upset about at the moment. I always think it’s a healthy sign when young people are prepared to get out and demonstrate and show what they think about the people that are running the country.

LAWS:

Nothing wrong with that, but I just don’t understand why they welcome a grub like Mark Latham who’s shot all his friends and supporters to smithereens in order to make his own position in the world better in his mind, and yet they offer him a nice big smile and a cup of tea but they want to throw you out.

DR NELSON:

Well, it’s extraordinary, and the thing that’s got them exercised the most at the moment is that we are pushing and I’m pushing voluntary membership for students who go to university of student unions.

LAWS:

And we live in a democracy, why shouldn’t it be voluntary?

DR NELSON:

Well of course it should, and this is the 21st Century. A lot of your listeners who work so damned hard, who pay for three quarters of the cost of university education, have got their own kids going to uni – these poor kids if they go to Sydney University, John, the first thing they do when they turn up is they get a bill for $590. The rich and the poor pay the same amount and that goes to the student union. And I’m simply saying, well look, when you go to university to get an education, if you want to join the union good luck to you, we encourage people to join political, cultural and sporting things, but you ought to have a choice.

LAWS:

That’s right, and if you don’t want to join the union there will be certain things you’re unable to do, but that’s a decision that must be made by you.

DR NELSON:

Well, that’s right and, you know, I’ve got a son who’s an apprentice and he paid a week’s wages to go and play in the local soccer competition. Well good luck to him, but people go to university and they think that all the people that don’t do all these things should be subsidising their activities. And I do think it is an outrageous situation where you find that a hard-core group of students, and I suspect some of them are not even students, are working so hard to stop the Minister for Education basically going along and stimulating an audience to think about the issues that face us in schooling.

LAWS:

Yeah, well what you said is right. You are the minister and you have been democratically elected. Now, like you or dislike you – it’s totally immaterial. That’s your job, you happen to have it at the time, and one can assume rightly that you are doing the best with what’s available to you to do the job very well. Now, as far as this union thing is concerned, I just think it’s outrageous they want to force people to join a union when we live in a democracy. They’re the first ones to scream their heads off about their democratic rights.

DR NELSON:

Well it says a lot about their cause that they would go to these sorts of lengths. And the other thing, John, I’ve got to say is the university management itself – you’ve got to ask yourself what sort of interest are they taking in getting people in and out of universities safely and…

LAWS:

Not too much Brendan, not too much…

DR NELSON:

Yeah, not much at all, and the next time you hear a university Vice Chancellor, John, saying that they desperately need more money for their universities from your hard working listeners, just remind them of what’s happened today.

LAWS:

Yeah, well that’s the point. I bet they’re all unemployable arts students. I mean there wouldn’t be too many from the faculty of dentistry or medicine or law. I can promise you that.

DR NELSON:

Well you’re absolutely right, I mean the vast majority of students at all universities are working hard. They’re working hard at their studies; their families are proud of them; they’ve got part-time jobs. Some of them will go along and join protests that are peaceful, they’ll yell out abuse at me and all that, and all of that’s fine. But when these people become violent and the police informed me that there was every prospect that that’s the way they were going to go today, I have no choice but in the interests of public order to say to the police, look I don’t want you putting in 200 police there who are basically putting themselves on the line so I can go about doing the job and…

LAWS:

But apart from that, all that aside, I mean you’re a married man with a family, you’ve got people around you who care about you. You don’t want to be putting yourself at risk. Why do you want to beaten up by a bunch of filthy students that are probably there on somebody else’s money, all doing arts courses?

DR NELSON:

Well it’s interesting, the last time I went to a university at Edith Cowan university in Perth, John, they had to get the police forces in to get me into the place because I was determined – we’d built at a cost of $7 million of your listeners’ money an Aboriginal education centre to help poor Aboriginal kids get a uni education – and I thought I’d be blowed if I’m going to let these mongrels stopping me from doing my job.

LAWS:

(Inaudible)

DR NELSON:

I said to the police, I said you know you’ve got these horses out here, I said you might get sniffer dogs – they’ll get rid of them more quickly than the horses. And the problem I have is unfortunately I’ve had instances where it does become out of control. There’s a herd and pack mentality. They do become quite violent, not just toward me but, as I say, to the police, and I’ve had a couple of incidents where they’ve tried to smash the cars at the window, and I’ve seen the police beaten to the ground, even using their capsicum spray until the reinforcements turn up, and that’s the kind of thing that unfortunately I understand we were looking at here today.

LAWS:

Imagine, imagine the money that’s been spent to secure these things. I mean we’re supposed to be worried about terrorism and we’ve got (inaudible) the police wasting their time on these clowns.

DR NELSON:

Well yeah, I’m always, when I make decisions about these things, I’m making a judgement, because if they have to pull in 100 or 200 police, for example, they’re police officers that are not out on our roads, stopping our houses from being robbed, and a lot of your listeners would think well, particularly the ones who don’t particularly like me, they might think well why on earth are the police out there looking after Nelson, they ought to be looking after me. But I think, whatever the politics of your listeners, I think that they are and they should be quite concerned when we live in a country where the university management doesn’t lift a single finger to secure the safety of people going onto campus, secondly where the university management is such that they allow this thing to occur, and I think, thirdly, also these are public facilities – your listeners and generations of Australians have paid for them – and anybody, within reason, ought to able to use them and go safely into them and out again.

LAWS:

Yep, quite right. I appreciate your time. I hope your day improves for you Brendan.

Filed Under: Howard Government, Pressure Groups Tagged With: , ,

Business Council Lobbies On Infrastructure

Mar 28, 2005

The Business Council of Australia has produced a position paper calling for action on Australia’s infrastructure.

This is the text of an article by Rod Pearse, chairman of the Business Council of Australia’s Sustainable Growth Taskforce and chief executive of Boral Limited. It was published in The Australian on March 28, 2005.

We can avert a crisis and seize opportunities

Much has been said recently about how Australia can lock in its economic success. The country’s outstanding economic performance during the past decade has delivered enormous benefits. Substantial improvements in average incomes, high employment, low interest rates, low inflation and record highs in consumer and business confidence are just some of the tangible benefits.

But we have to make sure we have the basic tools to do the job of securing our economic future. Water. Power. Transport. These things shape our everyday lives and support our long-term economic growth.

So let’s face facts. Unless we act now, in 20 years our main cities will not have enough water to meet population requirements, making the present water restrictions seem mild in comparison. Sydney, for example, will have, by 2025, close to a 40 per cent gap between the volume of water it needs and the amount of water available. For Brisbane, the gap will be 33 per cent and for the Gold Coast 23 per cent. We won’t be generating enough electricity to meet demand.

Unless we can invest up to $35 billion in new energy supplies by 2020 and start to make that investment now, energy shortages will become commonplace, affecting our lifestyles as well as business. There will be double the number of trucks on our roads while our railways remain underused.

All our main urban areas are suffering from rapidly increasing road congestion and lost travel time. Without a significant shift in policy, total traffic congestion costs across the nation are estimated to rise to $30 billion a year by 2020.

All this means less economic growth, which in turn means an inevitable depreciation of our high standards of living. Nobody wants a future like this.

Adequate water, electricity, roads, railways and other elements of economic infrastructure are fundamental to our future prosperity and to our quality of life. They can’t be taken for granted. That’s why Australians, and particularly federal and state governments, have to assess what we need for the future and decide how we are going to get it.

There is at present no overarching stocktake, vision or strategy that enables governments to quantify, prioritise and deliver Australia’s future infrastructure needs. There’s no co-ordination between federal, state and local governments, business and the wider community.

You may be surprised to learn that no uniform database exists to keep track of the state of Australia’s $300 billion infrastructure asset base. Infrastructure bottlenecks at our ports and rail links that are curtailing our export capacity are only one manifestation of the problem. The bottlenecks exist throughout our economy, in our ageing and inadequate water supplies, our stressed energy system and our transport networks.

The infrastructure designed and built to service a 1980s economy cannot keep up with 21st-century levels of supply and demand.

We need a new approach. Through the Business Council of Australia, Australia’s biggest companies are suggesting solutions that aim to put planning and funding of infrastructure on a sustainable footing. The work that the BCA has released on the infrastructure issue demonstrates that the problems are not the result of high economic growth. Nor are they necessarily the consequence of a lack of investment.

The fundamental problem is the lack of frameworks and policies by governments and other decision-makers to plan for and co-ordinate future infrastructure needs. Many of our basic infrastructure assets cross state boundaries, and therefore require a national approach, or are interdependent on the policies and practices of other jurisdictions. By getting consistent policies and signals in place, the required investment in our infrastructure will be encouraged and better financed.

The council is calling on all levels of government in Australia – federal, state and local – to work together in a new way towards a national integrated infrastructure reform agenda covering urban and rural water, energy and greenhouse issues, freight and urban transport.

It is also calling for a reinvigorated Council of Australian Governments structure to develop such a plan, outlining clearly articulated principles, objectives and timetables.

Australians are tired of blame shifting between different levels of government. That’s why the BCA is suggesting that through the COAG process, the infrastructure roles and responsibilities for each tier of government should be clearly defined and tracked. Progress should be measured by a comprehensive annual state-of-the-nation infrastructure report.

The dividend from such a reform is potentially huge. The initial estimate by Port Jackson Partners, the infrastructure analysts the BCA commissioned to examine the issue, is that co-ordinated infrastructure policies that sustain growth can lift Australia’s economic output by about $16 billion a year.

No doubt, reasons will be put forward why federal and state governments can’t come together on this issue. But the opportunity (and danger) for our economy is too great for the issue to continue to be dominated by the failed approaches of the past.

Filed Under: Infrastructure, Pressure Groups Tagged With: ,

Democracy And The Law Threatened By Howard Government: Burnside

Jul 10, 2002

In an interview published in The Bulletin magazine today, Julian Burnside QC argues that democracy and the separation of powers is under threat in Australia because of the Howard Government’s attitude to refugees.

Burnside is quoted as saying: “The government has attacked the High Court and the Federal Court. It has politicised the public service, the office of governor-general and the armed forces. What’s left? These are meant to be apolitical arms of government where each functions independently of the others. The current regime does not seem to recognise this”. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Democracy, Howard Government, Political Words, Refugees Tagged With:

Harry Evans: Time For Reformation Of The Australian Parliament

Apr 24, 2002

Reformation, not reform, of the Australian Parliament is needed, according to the Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans.

Harry EvansAddressing the National Press Club in Canberra, Evans called for a reformation to enable the parliament to perform its prime functions, particularly holding the government in the lower house to account.

“What is needed is not “reform” of parliament but reformation. The latter term connotes a reform which is designed to return an institution to its original purpose, from which it has fallen away. We do not have parliaments so that they can be rubber stamps. We have parliaments to represent the voters properly, so equipped that the holders of the executive power cannot legislate by decree like absolute monarchs and can be made to account for their actions between elections. Any changes to the institution of parliament should be designed to assist those ends.”

Evans advocated fixed parliamentary terms as a “genuine reform”.

Text of speech by the Clerk of the Senate, Mr. Harry Evans, to the National Press Club.

The Australian Parliament: Time For Reformation

The Australian Parliament, it appears, is perennially seen as an institution in need of reform.

Reform proposals are again being proclaimed. A reform is a change for the better. Are the changes usually proposed really reforms?

Before a major institution can be reformed, as distinct from simply changed, the following questions must be answered: What is the institution for, what functions is it meant to perform? Is it performing those functions well, and, if not, why not? Are there any changes which could make it perform its functions better? [Read more...]

Filed Under: Democracy, Parliamentary Reform Tagged With: ,

Public Liability Insurance: Why Politics Matters

Feb 04, 2002

“Don’t vote, it only encourages them,” a wit once proclaimed.

“It doesn’t matter who you vote for, a politician still gets in,” said another.

“If elections changed anything, they wouldn’t be allowed,” said a more cynical observer.

Teachers of politics often encounter this attitude of indifference or disregard towards the political system. The challenge for teachers and students is to alert those around them to the everyday relevance of political activity.

Reports in recent weeks about public liability insurance premiums provides a good example of how a seemingly dry subject can be used to bring the political process alive for the disinterested.

The 7.30 Report

The ABC’s 7.30 Report had a segment on this issue on January 21st, 2002. Click here to read the transcript of the segment.

The segment began with the reporter’s commentary:

“The footy season may still be three months away, but on the outskirts of Melbourne, Berwick Football Club is already counting the cost of a massive hike in its public liability insurance premium.”

Then we saw Peter Jensen, a representative of the Berwick Football Club:

“Our insurance this year is going to go from $360 per year, which is supplied by the Dandenong District Football League, and they’ve just informed us that it will go $4,000 to cover us this year for insurance, for our public liability.

“So it’s a massive hike and I don’t think any chocolate drives or anything are going to be able to make up that money.”

According to the reporter:

“At least 400 junior footballers are pushing to join teams at Berwick, but the club has shelved plans to create new teams to accommodate them.

“And the league in which Berwick plays expects the ripple effects of the massive public liability insurance price hikes to be felt for months to come.”

Then Rodney Garwood from the Dandenong Junior Football Club outlined the practical effect of the problem:

“You could lose say 10-20 teams and 20 players a team, 400-500 kids probably could miss out.”

The example was then given of the chairlift operator at Arthur’s Seat in Victoria who may have to close the tourist attraction because he can’t find a company willing to insure the chairlift.

What followed was a debate about the causes of the increase in insurance premiums for public liability. Amongst the possible causes:

  • Lack of profit for insurance companies.
  • An increase in litigation (legal action) by members of the public, possibly encouraged by the legal profession.
  • Anxiety following the events of September 11.
  • Uncertainty in the insurance industry following the collapse of HIH in 2001.

The Minister for Small Business, Joe Hockey, was interviewed about his proposal for a National Compensation Scheme to remedy this situation. Hockey plans to legislate to abolish the common law right to sue in these matters.

The reporter then spoke to Ian Dunn of the Law Institute of Victoria. He disputed Hockey’s claim that litigation was increasing.

Peter Jamvold from the Insurance Council of Australia called on the federal, state and territory governments to hold a forum on the insurance crisis.

Queensland Insurance Task Force

Since this report, the Premier of Queensland, Peter Beattie, has convened a Task Force to examine the problem. Click here to read a statement from Beattie.

Beattie has already offered to underwrite (pay) the insurance premiums for 1300 Parents and Citizens Associations in Queensland.

The Task Force will take submissions from groups such as insurance companies, the legal profession, sports organisations and other community groups, local government, and others.

Is the Australian Way of Life Under Threat?

Today, according to a report in The Australian, the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Helen Coonan, has convened a meeting of State government ministers for next month to co-ordinate a program of reforms to the insurance industry.

Coonan is reported as saying:

“I’m making the offer because I think it is so important that Australians can continue to enjoy the kind of lifestyle we all love – the great outdoors – and to continue to carry on community functions. The great volunteering tradition we have in Australia might be under threat.”

Coonan says that the States have the “clear and unambiguous responsibility” to reform the insurance industry, but that the Commonwealth government should take a “leadership role”.

The Relevance Of This Issue In A Politics Class

There are many ways in which this issue can be used to illustrate the relevance of of politics:

  1. It is an issue which has an easy-to-understand impact on local communities and individuals. Government policies on insurance matters are not isolated from the reality of everyday life.

  2. There is a proposal from the Government to remedy the problem. The Executive governments of the States and the Commonwealth will devise a course of action which will then be submitted to Parliament for approval.

  3. There will be input, criticism, support or opposition from a range of groups in the community: the legal profession, the insurance industry, local councils, sporting groups, etc. The role played by pressure groups will be crucial to any outcome.

  4. Legislative responsibility for the issue rests with the State governments. In Australia’s federal system of government, the constitutional limits to the power of the Federal government means that relations with the States are crucial in many areas.
Filed Under: Democracy Tagged With: , ,

Murdoch Group To Lobby Backbench MPs Over Digital TV

Nov 26, 1999

News Limited, the Murdoch company that publishes The Australian, is planning to direct mail hundreds of thousands of leaflets in coalition held marginal seats in an effort to lobby the government over digital television policy.

Federal Cabinet is due to debate the issue on Monday, the same day as the campaign is scheduled to start. Previously, the government allocated high definition television (HDTV) rights to the existing free-to-air broadcasters, including the ABC.

Companies such as News Limited argue that HDTV will be too expensive for consumers – television sets currently cost in excess of $3000 – and that the government should opt for a cheaper form of digital television and allow more datacasting, online shopping and the like.

Due to the tight party discipline that exists within the Australian parliamentary system, it is rare for such an intensive lobbying campaign to be directed at backbench members of parliament. In the United States such lobbying is commonplace, indeed rampant, given the separation of the Executive branch from Congress.

Ordinarily, a company like News Limited would use professional lobbyists or someone like its political strategist, Grahame Morris, who used to be John Howard’s Chief of Staff until he was sacked during the 1997 Travel Rorts scandal.

Filed Under: Howard Government, Media, Pressure Groups Tagged With: ,

Intense Lobbying of MPs Over Digital TV

Nov 01, 1999

Paul Neville, NPA, HinklerThe Age reports today that Federal MPs, especially those on the policy committee advising the Communications Minister, Senator Richard Alston, are being lobbied by media and communications companies in the leadup to a Cabinet decision about which digital television policy model should be adopted.

Paul Neville, the chairman of the Communications Committee, is quoted as saying “this is the most intense lobbying campaign of politicians I have ever seen since I have been a Member of Parliament.”

Current government policy aims for all free-to-air broadcasters to commence digital broadcasting in metropolitan areas on 1 January 2001. The Age says there is concern that the Cabinet is committed to a model that will put the new generation of television sets beyond the means of most consumers.

Filed Under: Pressure Groups Tagged With: , ,

Politics And The Media Circus

Feb 20, 1998

This is the full text of a speech given by Gareth Evans, then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to the Australian Institute of Political Science (AIPS) 65th Anniversary Dinner in Sydney.

Gareth EvansThe organisers of tonight’s 65th Anniversary Dinner were on to something in making the specific theme of this evening the relationship between politics and the media. We needed something to divert us from the orgy of self-congratulation in which Institute members would otherwise have indulged, and this topic was well calculated to provide it.

I don’t want to spend much time making self-evident points about the inherent importance of the media to the political process – although this is the soothing and stroking part that won’t get me into any trouble! Whether we like it or not – and most political practitioners have very mixed views on the subject, probably varying with the number of bruises we are currently nursing – it’s impossible to imagine a democratic polity being conducted in this or any other country around the world without the media. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Democracy, Media Tagged With: