For those of you who missed it, click full story for the transcript of Dr. Carmen Lawrence’s speech to announce her front bench resignation. Go girl! Sometimes when you’re on a leaky, rudderless* ship, you should bail out rather than just keep bailing. Please please please let her win Pres.
*sorry, it has a rudder, but it only steers right.
TRANSCRIPT OF THE HON DR CARMEN LAWRENCE
PARLIAMENT HOUSE
THURSDAY 5 DECEMBER 2002
LAWRENCE: Thank you very much for coming here this afternoon. It won’t surprise you, I think, that I’m here to announce my resignation from the Shadow Cabinet and the Ministry. It hasn’t been a particularly well kept secret.
I informed Simon Crean before question time today, after having a long discussion with him about my reasons. I’ve obviously discussed it, too, with my family and friends and colleagues. And although there may be speculation to this effect, the decision’s not made solely on the basis of the policy decision on asylum seekers today. That clearly has been the trigger for my decision but it’s not the only reason that I’ve decided to move from the Shadow Cabinet and Ministry to the back bench. And that’s what I’m doing – moving to the back bench.
I’ve found myself increasingly out of step with the majority of my Shadow Cabinet colleagues. That may be me, not them. I don’t find my own views and values reflected in a lot of decisions that are made by that Shadow Cabinet, and in fairness to a great many people in the Labor Party, I think that they don’t always reflect their views either.
The difficulty with the position that I confronted - and it’s not a new one – politicians find themselves in this position on many occasions – is that once the decision made, I’m bound to both support those decisions and defend them in the public arena, and the condition of that is that I cannot then speak against matters about which on some occasions I feel very strongly. Now I’m not a novice to compromise or mistakes – I’ve done both and plenty of them.
But I’ve got to the point with my colleagues in the Shadow Cabinet where I don’t believe I can continue to support and defend a range of policies as well as on, if you like, the general disposition and direction of that that Shadow Cabinet, whether you’re talking about the current decision on asylum seekers, the lack of clarity in my view, on the position in Iraq, previous decisions such as the complete agreement, initially, with the Private Health Insurance Rebate, although I still have some hopes in that direction, funding for wealthy schools and so on.
My first experience on returning to the Shadow Cabinet over a year ago – nearly two years now – was that it had become incredibly conservative - timid, even. And I’d hoped that after the election that would change. I’m prepared, as I say, to concede that I’m the one who’s out of step. But I’m not able to continue to support and defend policies which, in my view are devised with one eye on the polls, and another on media impact.
That’s not true, I must say, of all my Shadow Cabinet colleagues or, indeed of all of my Caucus colleagues. My views are not reflected, and I think that’s true of a number of others as well, but my vote’s captured.
However, it’s not fair on my Shadow Cabinet colleagues, to seek to be an exception to the rule, that you don’t speak out and that you don’t dissent.
I’ve simply found that tension too great. As you know, I have, on a few occasions, spoken out – initially on the asylum seekers. At least the policy was then in development. I can no longer do that. I’ve spoken strongly against us supporting a war on Iraq – against attacking Iraq - because that’s really what’s at issue. And I have in many respects, although you may not all have seen it, exceeded the brief of the Shadow Cabinet. I feel very strongly that that’s an issue that we’re going to confront as a community and I don’t believe that we’re speaking sufficiently clearly against the possibility that we would sign up with George Bush, in some form of unilateral action against Iraq.
In my experience in recent times it’s not uncommon in the Shadow Cabinet, for issues to be discussed first of all with an eye on what the public reaction is likely to be, rather that whether it’s inherently good policy. And I don’t believe that we can continue in that direction. I believe that we need to be telling Australians a story about the sort of country w want this to be – what we hope for them – how their lives can be improved. Certainly we have to listen to the community and be aware of their needs and interests, but we can’t continually be responding to what is the shorter term , often, view, of a section of the community who are most audible.
To develop good polices that are consistent with our claims to be progressive, we have to start with a set of values and yes - even ideals – to which we aspire as political activists. Otherwise why bother? They shouldn’t be for decoration either – these values – they’re not just a preamble to the policy statements. They should be embedded in it – both in terms of the decision and the language. And they shouldn’t be abandoned either at the faintest whiff of grape shot.
I’ll use the asylum seeker policy as an example. First of all, I think the mistake we’re making is that we’re playing on Howard’s turf. We’re allowing him to define the territory and the arguments. Now I don’t share the view that Howard is some kind of political genius. He’s not. The times suit him. But he’s vulnerable. But as long as we try to argue the case on his territory, then he’s the one who’s dictating the terms about the political contest and the way it’s played out. We played along – before the last election, with the moral panic surrounding the boat people, instead of getting out there and persuading Australians of a different point of view.
As a lot for you know, I hated our acquiescence on the Tampa but a lot had gone before that. In a sense it was inevitable after so much acquiescence, month after month. Each small step in a way was barely noticeable. But the end result was that we were pushed well beyond a position that even our own members – members of the ALP – could endorse. This time with the asylum seeker policy after twelve months, I though it was an opportunity to get it right, to rule a line under the past.
As we did with East Timor and successfully. After twenty five years of wrong policy we finally got East Timor right and I pay tribute to Laurie Brereton for that. And I thought this was as similar opportunity. There are improvements and I will concede that. But we’re in opposition. This is the time to craft the policy in the best form that we possibly can. Now was the time to signal the we really wanted to head in a new direction, the underpinning principal of which was the recognition of the equal worth of all human beings, not trying to frighten people into some idea that they threaten our territorial integrity and they are a security threat.
It’s part of our task in politics to bring the Australian community with us and not to treat them as if they’re incapable of changing their views and in fact assuming that they’re terminally bigoted. That’s not a view I can possibly accept as a member of the Labor Party. And I guess what I’m trying to say, too, is that the way we talk about issues and people and the values that underpin our actions, are often at least as important as the policy details themselves. Because ultimately people will be asking – where will you go if you’re confronted by certain decisions in Government, how can we expect you to behave given challenges that you haven’t yet thought about. And I don’t think we’re doing a very good job at outlining those directions and dispositions. So people need to look at the detail; of every policy in order to decide where we might be.
The language, in my view, of toughness and of security and of threat, are not an appropriate language to talk about a policy for asylum seekers. These are people who are asking for our help after they’ve been subject to persecution, and, as we know in most cases that turns out to be the case. Why should we confuse the very serious question of our own national security and threats to the lives of Australians, with the issue of how we manage people who come here when they’re seeking asylum. They are not the same issue and yet we are going along with the view that these are somehow all tied in together. And we showed that in the way we put it together.
We’re also retaining, for instance, the linking of onshore and off shore refugee programs. We’re encouraging the idea that it’s reasonable to talk about queues. All we need do is separate them and then you’ve got the ongoing humanitarian program managed and predictable and then at various times an opportunity for a more generous response separate from that, when there is need. This policy clearly treats some asylum seekers as more worthy than others – what ever gloss you put on it. The Christmas Island option is seriously diminished in relation to the onshore option and yet, what’s the difference between the two groups of people – one get in a leaky boat that doesn’t make it and gets as far as Christmas Island, the others get on a slightly less leaky boat and make it, as they have in the past, to Broome. One gets the offshore processing, one gets onshore processing. One gets legal advice, the other gets none. One gets an independent tribunal – the other gets none. One gets the possibility of review – the other gets none.
And where is Christmas Island? It’s a very long way from the mainland. Are you people going to be there, watching what’s happening on Christmas Island? Are you people going to be they’re when things go wrong? Will the lawyers get there to do pro-bono work? I’m a former Premier of Western Australia, I know where Christmas Island is. I’ve been there and I know how difficult it is to get staff – to get staff to stay, to get people to visit – it takes a week, effectively, unless you’re wealthy enough to afford a charter. Christmas Island is a very long way. Out of sight, out of mind, but the recommendations of our policy have one set of processes for people who go there and one on land. And these are largely matters of accident. They’re not matters of priority, they’re not matters of one group being more worthy than the other, they’re essentially arbitrary and matters of accident. So they are a few of my reasons. They’re by no means all of them and I don’t necessarily want to go into a lot of detail about the asylum seekers issue but I will if you wish, in questioning.
I was also very disappointed on this occasion, with the process. And a number of my colleagues were as well.
There has been a lot of consultation in the wider community - true - but we knew down to the last details almost, the views of the various state conferences around the country. Labor Party people told us what they wanted. They told us that they wanted to see an end to mandatory detention for the purpose of processing. Not for checking – everyone understands you need to do that. Security checking, health checking, identity checking. And in most countries in Europe that takes around a month. The people around this country that belong to the Labor Party and support it have told us very clearly that that’s what they wanted. They told us that they wanted an end to temporary protections visas because again, they’re discriminatory. You know you get a Temporary Protection Visa on the basis of how you come here, not on the basis of the merits of your case. We argue against it in the document and then retain it.
These are the issues that I think confront us as a party and our members told us what they wanted and we haven’t listened to them. I want to move to the back bench so that I can work assiduously as a member of the Labor Party, which is a party that I joined up with a great many years ago, and I’m not giving up on, to try and change direction on some of these issues. So that I’m not silent when the decisions are made or even before they’re made, that I can act with colleagues – of whom there are many – to take back the heart and the soul of the Labor Party – away from those people for whom it’s good enough to get up in the morning just to think that we’re going to be slightly better managed on that day. Most of the people that I know won’t sign up to political activism in order to get better managers. Why would we be in politics? Go and join the beauracracy.
So my plea to the young members of the Labor Party – to the members of the party who’ve kept the faith is that mine is not a decision to abandon the Labor Party. It’s a decision to move into a different phase of my life, to work with activists to encourage young people to join up to this great party and to try with many others - because it isn’t something that anyone could do alone, to re-capture the values that I think underpin the Labor Party. An appropriate time on the thirtieth anniversary of Whitlam’ election. There was a generation of the sixties of whom I was one – forgive the nostalgia – who joined the Labor Party. Not because of the details of Whitlam’s policies, but because of what he and his colleagues stood for – because of the excitement they generated about the sort of Australia we could be – after years and years of the stuffiness and the war, by the way, that took place under the conservatives.
There are people out there with similar passion. At the moment we’re not speaking to them adequately. So part of what I’m trying to do is with others, particularly young people, to try and capture them, The Greens can’t do it. The Greens aren’t the solution. The Greens are a third party – a minor party. It’s about the Labor Party. The Labor Party taking stock of the future, grabbing that new generation and asking serious questions about human values, about sustainability for the environment and a range of other issues that I know that they all care abut.
So I thank you all very much for your time and I want to thank a few people before I conclude. I am very sorry in many respects for my colleagues – not because my going is necessarily going to make a huge difference to them, but it may appear that I’m reflecting on them. I’m not. This is a personal decision and I know there are plenty of people within the party who agonise every day over similar things. And some people may suggest that my position is selfish and self-interested. That will be a judgment that they make but I really do thank my colleagues who’ve supported me today and in the past
I’ve had the best and the worst of the Labor Party, the best and the worst of politics and a lot of people have stood beside me. That’s not a resignation speech from the party, by the way, or the Parliament, but I want to thank them for the faith they’ve shown me in getting me into the Shadow Cabinet again after a difficult period of time.
I want to thank Jo Fox from my staff. One of the things that happens when you step aside – and Jo has had this experience before and she’s not a jinx – she’s a fantastic young woman with lots of energy and commitment to Indigenous people I know that she will find a place for herself either with another Shadow Minister or in other employment if that’s what she chooses to do. And I want to publicly thank Jo, particularly for her commitment to Indigenous people.
And they’re the other group of people to whom I want to apologise. But I will continue to work incredibly hard to influence the policy of the Labor Party now and into the future. We are not doing nearly enough on that front either. Part of the success of John Howard has been to make it extremely difficult to talk about the principles that should underpin Indigenous policy in this country. And we need a renewal of energy on that front – not just mine but everybodys. Because these are the most disadvantaged people and it’s not just about health and housing. It’s easy for Howard and others to point at that and say we need to do better. It’s about, again, respecting the capacity of Indigenous leadership and Indigenous people. I get thoroughly sick of people telling us in a sense how down and out they are. The Indigenous people that I meet are powerful, potent and they want to take control of their lives. Sure there are lots of people who are damaged because of what’s happened to them over the last two hundred years, but it’s time in this community that we don’t share his views about Indigenous people, that talking about their disadvantage is not a black-arm view of history. It’s fact. And remedying that disadvantage is a task for all of us – not just for the Labor Party, but also for every single person here and every single person in the community. So I do apologise to them for not being the shadow minister. They have been incredibly generous to me and in a sense it’s a great tragedy that there has been such a high turnover. But I’ll continue on every issue – education, health, rights – plant breeders’ rights for God’s sake we’ve got involved in – to look at the interests of Indigenous people. It doesn’t happen often enough in Australia. There are too many stereotypes about them and it’s time we turned it around. So that basically is what I wanted to say and please feel free to ask any questions. Sorry if I’ve taken a while but it’s important.