Integrity In Politics

Senator John Madigan took his seat in the Senate on 1 July 2011. As a Democratic Labor Party senator, he reminded many that old style politics is not dead. In his election victory, he edged out two other conservative candidates – Senator Julian McGauran (Liberal) and Steve Fielding (Family First) and, after 35 years, brought back to the Senate a party known for it anti-communism and strong attitudes to family values and Christian principles. Senator John Madigan addressed The Sydney Institute on Tuesday 19 February 2013 

INTEGRITY IN POLITICS

JOHN MADIGAN

I would like to start by thanking Gerard Henderson and the Sydney Institute for inviting me to share my thoughts on the state of our political arena with you this evening.

The topic of my address this evening is “Integrity in politics”. Some people have suggested I add “and other myths” but I’ve resisted that idea.

I am now in my twentieth month as the first Democratic Labor Party senator to be elected in almost 40 years. Since I took my seat I have had what could best be described as an interesting journey etching out a place once again for the DLP in the federal political arena.

For a blacksmith from Ballarat, this experience has been a steep learning curve. Over these 20 months, I have slowly found my bearings and with the never ending patience of the Senate staff have eventually come to have a decent understanding of the processes and procedures which are essential to the functioning of the Senate and the government.

Of these learning experiences, some have been helpful, some inspiring and others frankly disappointing. Among the helpful have been the assistance and approaches of a handful of fellow senators such as Nick Xenophon and Nigel Scullion. Most of the inspiring experiences have come from constituents, many of whom are genuine battlers and others who dedicate their time and energy to assisting others with no expectation of reward.

The disappointing aspects are almost exclusively tied to the topic of my talk today. Virtually every one can be put down to what I consider to be a lack of integrity in our political system.

Integrity, as I see it, is being truthful to yourself. Honesty is being truthful to others. When asked about integrity in public life, Frederick Douglass, an escaped slave who became a leader of the abolitionist movement and the first African-American candidate for the vice presidency of the United States in 1872, said:

I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence.

Integrity is vital for good governance and good representation and yet some of the more cynical political manoeuvring in both Houses of Parliament and in the backrooms undermines the very practice of Democracy. To many the notion of integrity is seen as a weakness in others that should be exploited.

In my first speech to the Senate I paid tribute to the principles of the first DLP senators who, in a time of trial, were courageous enough to bear the ostracising of their contemporaries for daring to stand up for a principle. Such courage was rare then but the virtue of integrity and ethical behaviour is, at the present time, thin on the ground.

I am not suggesting the DLP is faultless, or has a history of unimpeachable integrity. On the contrary, there were times when we acted in a manner similar to other parties, putting self interest before duty.

Coming in to the Senate as the most outside of outsiders – a tradesman and a member of the Democratic Labor Party, an oddity and a leper – I was quickly educated and simultaneously frustrated at processes that were deemed by those already incumbent as normal practice or protocol, yet were, I believe, tarnishing the democratic process.

Politics is about people, or should be. After all, that’s what we are supposed to be in this for, to represent the people of our electorates, our states and our country. Unfortunately this view – still held in hope more than in belief by the Australian populace – is not one held in the hearts of many politicians today.

Supporting the desires, needs or rights of our constituents seems more and more to come a distant second to the will of the party machine.

I know I’m not telling you anything you do not know already, but that’s the point. This is known to you, the media, and it’s known to the people of Australia. The trick in politics is never to let the two bring it to a head. Your job in the media is not only to report what we are up to but to give voice to the people.

Or as Frederick Douglass put it:

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

As the sole senator for a political party without the balance of power, and I am usually left out of most party conversations. That’s understandable. The two – or three – party machines speak with their own language and it’s not one that I’m fluent in.

But while those party machines babble on in their mechanical, emotionless chatter the occasional wandering senator, a spare part loose from one or other of the machines, will approach and admit they envy my position. Me, alone, with little power, minimal resources and regularly ignored, am envied by those who stride the halls of parliament like “lords of the earth”.

And why? Almost without exception they will state it’s because I have a will of my own. I can support my constituents, make a speech, move a bill or a motion, that is not something churned out or pre-approved by the inner workings of their emotionless machine. Yes, they have principles, but these are too often subordinated to the will of the machine.

And to subordinate one’s principles for the base objectives of another is soul destroying.

If a candidate for election cannot his or her principles before an election, they will never do so after their election; and if they cannot stand on them while in office what good are they.

The DLP, as you all know, is a “pro-life” party. For those of us who for decades have fought for justice for the unborn, it galls me to watch political candidates strut around seeking votes from pro life groups only to hear their entourage proclaiming platitudes such as – “Just wait until so and so gets in. They’re staying quiet now but when they are in they’ll sort things out”.

Then the aptly named “so and so” is elected having “kept quiet about their principles” and the excuses start. “Oh, now is not the time”, “We have to pick our moment”, “Patience is a virtue”, etc… then every third year here they come to start the process over again. “This time,” they say. “We’ve got it all planned out, just get us back in and watch us go.”

To those politicians, I reserve my utmost disgust. There is no integrity in them and integrity in others is not seen as a virtue but a tool to be used for their convenience. To any voter who falls for that, again and again, I remind them of the saying: “Fool me once ‘shame on you’; fool me twice ‘shame on me’”.

In this I must admit – and not without distress – you can’t fault the Greens. Their principles, while far removed on so many levels from my own, are known before the election and you can be sure they’ll act on them once they’re in.

I am not here to be anyone’s friend. I am here to represent the people of Victoria to the best of my ability, honestly, fairly and yes, with integrity. If I get every other parliamentarian offside, by sticking to the principles that brought me here, then so be it. Neither I nor the DLP will be bought, nor will I play the game of secrets so popular with party machines. I do not know how long I will be here, and if it’s up to many of my fellow senators it won’t be long. But when I do eventually leave, I intend to go with my soul intact.

When it comes to integrity versus the party machine, there are any number of examples I could go to, but I will restrict it to one for now. Late last year, I moved a condolence motion on the death of asylum seeker activist and ALP member Vicki Riley, who was killed in a bike accident in Darwin on 10 September 2012.

In consultation with Ms Riley’s family, I worded the motion to recognise the work she had done with asylum seekers, and for the East Timorese and West Papuan people. The Coalition voted against the motion. The ALP senators were directed to vote against the motion for one of their own members because of the mention of “West Papua”.

The motion did not call for support for West Papua, or West Papuan independence. It did not heap condemnation on the Indonesian government, nor did it raise any issues of human rights violations. It simply mentioned West Papua as one of the many causes which Vicki Riley supported. The motion was defeated.

Only eight senators voted to honour the life of a caring Australian and express condolence to her family, friends and those she worked for; myself, Senator Xenophon and the Greens.

Where did it get Senator Crossin who acknowledged her collaboration with Ms Riley, but who out of loyalty to the machine voted against the motion? She has been dumped from her Senate position in favour of a more marketable candidate.

This may appear to be a small matter, but central to the motion was a respect for the dignity of the person and the contribution Vicki Riley had made to her community. The machine subordinates the principle once again.

A topic with a broader national impact, and one you probably already know, regards a bill on electoral reform now before the Senate. Among various amendments the bill calls for a 100 per cent increase in nomination fees for federal election candidates. Needless to say, with only seven months to an election, this was not good news for the minor parties.

I raised the matter with the government and the opposition, The Greens had an amendment prepared which would remove the increase in nomination fees. I assumed that was unlikely to get up and put up a motion to allow the increases but to bring them in by 25 per cent a year over four years, then increasing the fees on an annual basis according to the CPI. They would get their increase and the minors and independents would have time to prepare.

Almost immediately, I got good news. The opposition was willing to support the amendment. Then, a day later, I was advised that they’d reconsidered. I can only assume they realised the Greens would also support it and, with the amendment getting up, it would not have the debilitating effect on the minor parties they desired. At this point, I decided to get the opinion of other minor parties and called almost half those currently registered on the AEC website.

Parties as diverse as the Australian Christians and Socialist Alliance, the Greens and One Nation, the Liberal Democracy Party and Family First…. Without fail, every one stated this unannounced increase was clearly a deliberate attack on their ability to participate in the next election.

Along with the Greens, these parties represent between 22 to 25 per cent of the voters across Australia. Yet virtually none of them, the DLP included, receive any funding from the Electoral Commission.

I advised the government, the opposition and the media that this would not be forgotten by any of the parties when the majors come on their three year prowl for preferences. It was at this point that I was approached by a member of the government and advised that the electoral reforms could include the introduction of “administration funding” in the order of $1 per national vote. This funding would be available for the parties elected in 2010 and that it would more than likely commence from March 2013.

As the DLP had received some 140,000 votes we would be entitled to receive $1 for each of those votes, to be paid in quarterly instalments over my six year Senate term. Only those already elected would receive this funding, leaving the other minor parties high and dry again, competing against the ALP, Coalition and Greens who would, under this scheme, rake in something like $12-15 million dollars between them.

The Electoral Reform report does mention an intention to offer “administration funding” based on a suggestion by the NSW Greens, but it set out no details and stated the minor parties would be consulted before forming any detailed plan.

Now here was a final plan. I assume legislation was ready to be put into the House of Representatives but, as yet, with no consultation and with no benefit to any minor party except the DLP as the new boy in the exclusive club.

Imagine the position I and the DLP would be in if that legislation appeared and I voted to accept it with what I assume would be the same obscene haste the majors approach any bill providing them with financial benefit. I would be turning our back on the democratic principles I had promised to defend in the name of every party from the Christian Democrats to the Socialist Alliance.

How in God’s name can this situation continue?

After the last election the ALP received some $21 million; the Coalition received some $23 million and the Greens received about $7 million. I am not complaining about that, these are the rules and under those rules these parties were entitled to share the $51 million dollars of taxpayers’ money between them. Truth is I would love the DLP to have received a little funding but we didn’t qualify.

So we now have the situation where the three larger parties share $51 million, or so, from election funds but decide that they also need to share another $12 million for their party administration. The DLP party administration doesn’t have quite the same problem because we do not have a single paid employee. But if we did have paid party workers we would not expect the taxpayers to fork out more money just to keep us running.

I think a simple solution to this would be for the 220 MPs and Senators of the ALP, Coalition and Greens parties to take the hefty pay rises they gave themselves last year and put that towards their party’s administration. I estimate they would only have to contribute half their pay rise over the three years of the parliament to meet these costs. I should state that the Greens voted against the pay rises so they would probably have no problem using the money for this purpose, but I doubt the Coalition or the ALP would agree.

If your administration and electoral costs are blowing out then that is your problem not the taxpayers. Scrooge complained about employees picking their employers pockets every 25 December. Just imagine how the Australian people feel about having their employees do it to them 365 days a year.

What these matters highlight is that, in today’s parliament, pragmatics trumps integrity. Last Friday, I went to the Donald primary school in country Victoria. When I visit regional schools, I am in the habit of taking a portable forge with me and giving the kids a quick demonstration of blacksmithing and of the enjoyment that comes from working a trade.

As usual, the kids were enthralled and, despite the school day closing at 3:30pm, the kids called home to tell their parents they would be staying behind to “make a hook”. These occasions give me the opportunity to meet the parents and grandparents of the children, to demonstrate the skills of what Senator Evans refers to as an “obsolete” trade and also give me a chance to see what problems both the school and the local community are having.

The Donald primary school is an example of countless other schools across our country. This school is over a century old, riddled with borers, with windows that can’t open, with teachers coming in on their days off to paint the classrooms, with the local community banding together to raise money for equipment and much needed work and with a principal who gives his own time and money in an attempt to give his kids a shot at a decent future.

This is our education system held together by our greatest asset – community.

So when I see a bunch of self satisfied politicians who vote themselves a pay rise greater than some people’s yearly wage, who get $50 million and more of taxpayers’ money just for getting elected and who now decide they need another $15 million or so to keep their precious parties in the style to which they are accustomed, I am ashamed to be called one of them.

Integrity in politics. Maybe “and other myths” was correct after all. Fundamental to all DLP policies is respect for the dignity of the human person. This belief is what informs all our policies from the rights of workers through to the right to life of all human beings.

It is this, I believe, that makes our policies appear contradictory in the common political divisions of left and right. We might be correctly assessed as conservative in the area of social policy and progressive when it comes to industrial relations and economics.

In the area of worker’s rights, we support the role of trade unions in collective bargaining. It is a great fiction that an unresourced individual worker can engage in bargaining for his or her rights with a richly resourced company that has the services of legal and HR professionals. In any other circumstances, such a situation would be seen as bullying.

This year I am introducing several bills I hope will increase the rights of workers and encourage our manufacturing sector. The first of a series of Fair Trade bills will be introduced in a few weeks. The Fair Trade Workers Rights Bill is aimed at limiting imports from countries with which we have a Free Trade Agreement but whose workers do not get basic workers rights. Australian employers pay work cover, superannuation, holiday pay and a myriad of other things. They cannot be expected to compete on a supposed level playing field with countries whose workers have few if any rights.

I also hope to introduce details of the long held DLP policy for a Personal Leave Insurance Scheme enabling employees to take their sick leave and carers leave with them from employer to employer while not burdening the new employer with any further costs.

In the area of social policy there are some ugly things which happen in the halls of parliament where many simply turn a blind eye to inconvenient matters. The absurd situation over the condolence motion for Vicki Riley highlights this hypocrisy.

On an equally serious matter, there is a small cohort of Members and Senators who, when they are put to the test, will claim they are pro-life. Unfortunately they rarely introduce adequate legislation and secretly wish it would not raise its ugly head. Without a murmur from them on the essential issues of life and death which underpin our whole understanding of human rights, bills pass.

This applies across party political lines. Perhaps only the Greens can be said to be consistently in favour of ending life. There does not appear to be a similar cohort aimed at preserving life.

Recently the Federal Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott repeated that he would like abortion to be “safe, legal and rare”. An aim shared by Barack Obama in his second inauguration speech. However I would like to point out that there is no such thing as a “safe” abortion; someone always dies. I would also agree with the US commentators on President Obama’s statement when they state that while the “legal” part has been fulfilled, it’s the “rare” that seems to elude public policy.

This is a view shared by a sexual revolution pioneer Bettina Arndt who a year ago wrote about the advances made under the Howard Government in increasing the availability of long acting contraceptives and the legalising of the importation of RU486. I do not agree with the latter, but I do agree with her when she wrote:

How ironic that Australia now has its second female federal Health Minister and, despite this, Gillard’s government shows no interest in improving the sorry state of Australia’s fertility control. Australia has one of the highest abortion rates in the world. … Whatever one’s views on pregnancy termination, it is shocking that each year between 70,000 and 90,000 women face the stress of abortion.

Bettina Arndt has the honesty to admit that abortion is stressful to women. Indeed a report in the Journal of Perinatal Medicine concludes that for some women it can lead beyond stress to anxiety, depression, alcohol and drug abuse and suicidal behaviours.

Bettina Arndt quotes research from Marie Stopes International – incidentally Australia’s biggest abortion services provider – that 51 per cent of Australian women have experienced an unplanned pregnancy and 40 per cent of those were not using contraception. Again I disagree with Bettina Arndt when she says a women’s right to abortion must be protected, but find myself agreeing whole-heartedly with her qualification that it is unconscionable for governments not to make every effort to help women avoid abortion.

Tony Abbott has expressed a desire for abortion to be “safe, legal and rare” and as Health Minister in the Howard Government did take some steps towards offering impartial counselling from services other than abortion providers. The Gillard Government has shown no interest in moving towards making abortion rare. Indeed, in some parliamentary circles promoting abortion appears to be a badge of honour.

We might look at the behaviour surrounding the legalisation of the importation of RU 486, both in its passage through the parliament in February 2006 and more recently with the announcement that it would be imported into Australia by a pharmaceutical company, Marie Stopes Health – established by Australia’s biggest abortion services provider Marie Stopes International, for the sole purpose of importing RU 486.

Although it was before my time, I have read reports that the mood of supporters of that legislation after its passage was euphoric, and that some RU486 supporters were reprimanded by the President of the Senate for gloating behaviour by entering the Senate with celebratory flutes of champagne.

On 10 October 2012 another “celebration” of RU 486 was held in the House. This time it was to “celebrate” the Therapeutic Goods Administration approval for Marie Stopes Health to distribute RU 486 in Australia. The gathering, sponsored by the parliamentary Group for Population and Development and chaired by Liberal Senator Sharman Stone, hailed the availability of RU486 as a “triumph of bipartisanship”. Lyn Allison of the former Democrats and patron of Marie Stopes noted that the RU486 Bill was only the second Private Members Bill to pass both Houses of Parliament and had support from four political parties. ALP Senator Claire Moore spoke of the purpose of the bill to have RU486 treated like any other medicine – never mind that it doesn’t treat any illness. And of course it was launched by the Health Minister Tanya Plibersek, who had “great pleasure in launching this important step”.

There are a few incongruities in this event which occurred five and a half years after the passage of the legislation. The obvious one is that no pharmaceutical company sought to import the drug. Could this be due to the risks involved in administering such a drug?  Certainly there is a danger to women. Even obstetrician and RU 486 supporter Dr Caroline da Costa warns that it should not be administered in remote areas where access to hospital care is unavailable.

The second is that the country’s largest abortion provider, Marie Stopes International and now known by the caring title of “Dr Marie” had to establish a new pharmaceutical company for the sole purpose of importing an abortifacient drug. Surely, one has to ask whether there is a conflict of interest here. Where are the checks and balances? Should a company that administers the only late term abortion clinic in Victoria, where there has been one documented death and one case of organ failure in a woman undergoing an abortion, be trusted to work in the best interests of women?

Here we have an extraordinary display of bi-partisanship from the abortion lobby. Where is the pro-life political lobby? Are any of them even aware of these conversations taking place? Where is their commitment to the cause?

I know that many will want to excuse my comments on account of my Catholicism. Being Catholic is not a prerequisite for being pro-life. Many people, including Christians of various denominations, profess a pro-life ethos as do most Muslims.

It may have been true in the past that God, and therefore one’s religious principles, had pre-eminence over family and country, but with the current cries for separation of church and state, we are perhaps in a situation where if one has a religious conviction, he or she will be asked to check it in at the door. A person of religious or ethical conviction is seen as a liability in politics. Secular pragmatism is trumps; but being right is not a statistical average. As Frederick Douglass said, and I will end with his words,

The man who is right is a majority. He,who has God and conscience on his side has a majority against the universe.