Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (6:04 PM) —In rising on the grievance debate, I want to refer to the following famous statement:

Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

John F. Kennedy uttered those famous words more than one-quarter of a century ago. In the early 1960s, in an era of low unemployment and booming economies, those words inspired a generation. In the late 1990s, the debate about what exactly are the obligations of nations to citizens and citizens to nations continues, but, quite rightly, there are new formulations being suggested in response to a different era.

It is the first day of the new parliamentary year—a day that we all look forward to. It is therefore opportune today to begin a discussion about the obligations of the nation to its citizens and the obligations of our citizens to the nation. I do not propose in this short time to give a definitive answer. I am more interested in kick-starting a real debate.

In recent weeks we have seen some rather cheap rhetoric on this issue. Personally, I am a great believer in reciprocal obligation—to my way of thinking, it is not only the way I was brought up; it is the Labor way. The Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement have never been about freeloading. They have always been about the concept of a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. The Australian working people have always pulled their weight.

It is in that vein—dare I say it—that the concept of the obligations of nation to citizen and citizen to nation should perhaps be enshrined in the preamble to a constitution. What is the relationship between the nation and its citizens? What should citizens expect as a right from the nation? What should the nation expect as of right from its citizens?

We have just celebrated 50 years of the Australian Citizenship Act. As part of this debate about reciprocal obligations, is there something special we should expect of our new citizens? Should that be in the preamble? The preamble defining reciprocal obligation should, I am convinced, include mention of our special obligations to the first peoples of our nation: the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. I personally believe that is a must, and I also believe very clearly that is the view of the majority of Australians as we move towards a new century. It is something that we as a nation are going to have to consider as a matter of urgency because it is about our nation's responsibility to our citizens.

I suggest that we seriously consider a preamble which talks honestly about the reciprocal obligations between government and citizens, government and the first peoples and government and our newest citizens. In the preamble we need to define reciprocal obligation using words that can inspire the many generations to come, in the same way John F. Kennedy in the 1960s inspired the American nation—and citizens of many nations throughout the world—when he said:

Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

As a modern democratic socialist, I believe that the nation—especially as represented by governments in this House—should be burdened with more responsibilities and obligations to its citizens than the citizens are burdened with obligations to help out the nation. John F. Kennedy's words were inspiring, but they were written for a particular people and a particular nation—America. America is a nation of different social and political traditions, especially in the roles and obligations government has in the lives of its citizenry.

Australia's history and political traditions put on our government a hell of a lot more obligations towards its citizenry. So, in any discussion about reciprocal obligation, we should look towards our own political history and traditions to define these obligations. We should look to our own traditions to find inspiring words to define reciprocal obligation for the 21st century. Unfortunately, the Howard government looks to the American tradition of the obligation of citizen to nation, and he reinterprets that tradition in a measly, miserly and mealy-mouthed manner. There is nothing inspiring in the way John Howard, with his idea of reciprocal obligation, wants to use the stick to bash the unemployed. He may want to break with Australian tradition and adopt American values about the role of government, but he does it without any sense of inspiration.

I am open to a debate on reciprocal obligation in 1999 because that is the Labor way, and that is what modern Labor has always been about. That is what we took into government and acted on during the period 1983 to 1996. Let us do it in a manner that will inspire our people, especially the young who are so turned off by the current political language.

I raise these issues this evening because I believe that the Australian community understands and accepts the concept of reciprocal obligation—the obligation of nation to citizen and citizen to nation. That is far from the approach that has been adopted by the Prime Minister since his election in 1996 and that was most recently evidenced by his latest political stunt, which goes to the question of citizenry and the obligations of the unemployed to accept a reasonable offer of training in literacy.

The problem with the Prime Minister's approach to reciprocal obligation is that he is all too often concerned with skipping on his government's obligation whilst pointing the finger at the most disadvantaged in the community. If he were actually concerned about assisting the unemployed who have difficulties with reading and writing, then the statement of last week would have been less about reciprocal obligation and the need for the young unemployed to accept their side of the bargain and more on how the government is going to fulfil its side of the bargain. I would have thought the Prime Minister would have spoken about the ongoing weaknesses in the Job Network, which is supposedly about getting the unemployed back to work. With respect to the most disadvantaged in the Job Network, there is no accountability on network providers to spend money on training, including literacy programs for the young unemployed and the long-term unemployed.

In the context of literacy—which is a major barrier to employment, and the whole Australian community accepts that—I would have thought that the Prime Minister would refer to the need for governments at state and federal levels to do more to provide decent, quality programs. Unfortunately, there was a lot of rhetoric but not much substance.

I conclude that the Prime Minister wants a debate on reciprocal obligation, on his narrow terms. The Australian Labor Party welcomes a debate on reciprocal obligation, but it is a two-way street. It is about the obligation of citizen to nation and, importantly, nation to citizen. It is about the obligation of the Prime Minister to engage in a comprehensive debate which produces results and opportunities for the disadvantaged in the community. It is about suggesting to the Prime Minister that if he wants that debate, let us ensure that it is a debate about substance; not a debate about political point scoring and rhetoric and not an effort to blame the unemployed for a difficult job market, which governments contribute to.

Bring on the debate, but let us ensure it is not about political stunts. Let us ensure it is a real debate about the obligations of nation to citizen and citizen to nation.