As
has been said, it is good to be back
in Sydney as this is the town where
I received my education at the hands
of the Jesuits, at Riverview. Riverview
has been a successful stable for the
conservative side of politics; Tony
Abbott and Nick Griener are the first
to come to mind. The Jesuit influence
also includes Tim Fisher, Richard
Alston, Brendan Nelson, Christopher
Pyne, the McGauran brothers and Bill
Shorten. As has been said by many
a Jesuit, they are good at creating
politicians but unfortunately of the
wrong side.
I very rarely read speeches, it reminds
of me of more sanctified occasions
delivered by men of the cloth. Not
being such, I prefer to fish for the
interaction of the audience and concentrate
on the message they react to. It is
to the continual annoyance of those
who wish to monitor and report on
my meagre protestations, which is
supposed to be the case for tonight.
I am afraid this habit I have taken
is worse than smoking.
What
I wish to talk about tonight is the
future of the National Party and the
role of the Senate in that future.
No
party has a guarantee of a future.
Irregardless of how strong the Liberal
or Labor Party are, I believe that
if, by some occurrence, we were to
become the next one, six or eight
states of the US, the word Liberal
or Labor would very quickly disappear
from our lexicon to be replaced by
Republican or Democrat. I do not know
what faction Julius Caesar was in
but to say he ruled the world and
has now passed into history forgotten.
People, and I mean party members,
put too much to a name, especially
when the philosophy of what it stands
for becomes clouded.
What
is Labor? It is hardly the party of
blue collar workers as they do not
exist like they did in the time of
Prime Ministers Fisher, Chifley or
Curtin. The Liberal party is certainly
not liberal and really, at the majority
of times, the rhetoric is far more
defining than any actual differences
between the two parties. I listened
to a speech on Radio National the
other night and, having joined mid
way through, believed I was listening
to one of the Treasurers leading acolytes
as he espoused the great benefits
of market rationalisation, especially
that of the Dairy Industry. This is
something I believe has been an unmitigated
disaster, bringing lower farm gate
prices and the loss of income and
industry to many hinterland towns
and higher prices in the shops. Who
was the academic powerhouse I was
listening to? Some pimply faced treasury
sycophant on the road of regurgitated
economic modelling garbage, from some
theorist who has never operated so
much as a school tuck shop? No, it
was Lindsay Tanner whom I thought
may have had a concern with where
all this leads when it comes to an
item called Australian workers' jobs.
Likewise,
some of the social leafy green issues
in the Liberal party would get you
as many cups of coffee as you like
in your disturbed middle class nirvana
of Nimbin. When your children cannot
cut the mustard, and start reading
books they cannot understand, you
know they are about to move to the
North Coast. What every good North
Shore Liberal must do is desperately
connect with their wayward progeny
without affecting their portfolio’s
value. The way to do that is to start
actually aping the dizzy social policy
that would have those of the harder
times in our nation’s history turning
in their graves.
Yes,
we drive around with I am Liberal
or I am Labor stapled to our foreheads
but what the hell does it mean? Most
importantly for tonight, where do
The Nationals fit into all of this?
Look
out these windows here in the centre
of Sydney. None of the people who
work in those buildings actually own
them. We have created a society in
which the vast majority are middle
managers. The differences between
the floors are not defined by ownership
but by schools, motorcars, funny inflections
in the way people talk, clothes, imported
beers and politics. The political
system of the Liberal Party knows
that it lives and dies by the middle
class worker of the large business:
a very easy world to control and pitch
to. Cheap groceries, low interest
rates and a sense of social position
is the pitch.
My
belief in the future of the National
party is based on this premise that
is counterintuitive to the above.
The purpose of the economy is not
to produce the lowest price product
to the end consumer, that may be a
consequence of a good economy but
it is not the purpose. The purpose
of the economy is to create the greatest
connection between the wealth of the
nation and its people, and it generally
does that through small business.
What is so good about small business
and why is it something to be desired
beyond working in this or that building
across the road? Being in your own
business allows you to attain a true,
higher sense of freedom as you are
master of your own ship. The ultimate
purpose of politics, I believe, is
to allow the people the highest level
of freedom possible that does not
impinge on the lives of others. That
does not exist when you have to turn
up at 8.30, leave at 5.00, work late
as required and what you are paid
and where you go is determined by
others. If you do not to go into business
and prefer to work for others, that
is fair enough and is the lot of the
vast majority of Australians. The
potential or opportunity to go into
business, from the ground level, must
remain if our society is to maintain
the most basic of economic and personal
freedoms.
You
cannot be the party of both big business
and small business; on many occasions
they compete against each, and so
are mutually exclusive. For the potential
of small business to survive it must
have a policy bias in its favour.
The market place is a pro-forma of
big business and, as such, without
policy restriction there is a latent
bias to the growth of market leaders
over the top of all new or small established
players.
You
cannot be the party of both the larger
retailers and the small family retailer.
The first is putting the latter out
of business and the Nationals are
there fighting for the small family
business against the aspirations of
the bigger business. My crossing the
floor of Schedule 1 of the Trade Practices
Amendment Bill was just that, to protect
the smaller business from the absolute
domination and centralisation of market
power.
You
cannot ignore your bigger political
benefactors and the major political
parties enjoy the ample largess of
the major retailers. The National
Party must become a proven champion,
not by vague insinuation in dog whistle
form at the door to parliament, but
in a strident voting or motion form
within the chamber.
Sydney
is a great place and nearly five million
people think so. Likewise, so is the
South East Corner of Queensland which
about 1,300 new residents call home
every month. But it is hardly taking
our nation to its most efficient or
effective edge if that epitomises
our demographic progression for the
last couple of hundred years. There
are economies of scale in infrastructure
for water, sewerage, roads, rail and
power and these have been reached
with excessive logarithmic costs attached
for the progression of size, beyond
that infrastructure horizon. There
are social infrastructure issues as
well and their deterioration is evident
in such things as the Cronulla / Lakemba
issues. There is a definite price
that you, in this room, will pay if
you wish to keep stacking people up
in the same corners.
Every
new geographic region of a nation
that develops brings with it new enterprise
that would not be evident in a developed
area. A new town brings new participants
in the economic wealth, while growth
in a town brings an increase in the
size of the established economic benefactors.
Development of a new area brings new
media and media owners, new retailers,
new garbage runs, concrete plants,
transport operators and so on. With
new entrants into the mercantile class
come new ideas and techniques that
others may benefit from. Most importantly,
there is potential for the development
of new areas that those with the get
up and go can set themselves up at
the ground level and then grow in
established economic fields, such
as a retailing. The new participant
can develop into a certain size to
protect themselves from the time when
their town or region becomes big enough
to attract established players from
other areas.
Imagine
the United States if all they had
developed was New York and Los Angeles.
It is not the strongest nation on
earth because it is timid or myopic.
It is to the benefit of all Australians
that we harness a little more foresight
and heroics in how we further develop
our nation. On this front of nation
building, the writers of history will
have very little to say about this
generation, beyond how they managed
to build new tunnels in the Sydney
road network.
The
National Party has to have vision
statements and the platforms of policy
to achieve those visions. It has to
offer more than lobbying support for
band-aid solutions to droughts floods
and fires. It has to boldly spell
out its vision for Australia and then
demand its vision be taken forward.
It has to be prepared to be ridiculed
for having vision but that is better
than polite silence in deference to
its coalition colleague. Silence in
politics is death. Ridicule is the
litmus test that you are gaining effect
in the public arena. It may cost you
in the short term, so requires braver
statesmen at the helm so that, as
a party, you may exist in the longer
term. The Page or McEwen standard
is to be carried in the knowledge
that political fortitude comes at
a cost. The editorials may be kind
to you now for not rocking the boat
but the history books’ dissections
of inaction will be ruthless.
Politically,
you do not have to be loved to survive;
you have to be relevant and strong.
To be relevant you must lay out the
roadmap for the people who you aspire
to vote for you and to be strong you
must actively and openly pursue the
course. To have great ideas, which
I can not tell you about but which
we pursue behind closed doors, is
not a platform that gathers anything
beyond the dust of sentimentality.
CJ Bradfield would not rate highly
if his contribution to this city’s
architecture was merely a doubling
of the lanes on a bridge at Parramatta.
The
Nationals has its legacy in the small
business of agriculture, but its future
must be seen as having a far wider
horizon. The Nationals must never
be embarrassed or forget where we
came from as there is always a suspicion
about those people who do. However,
we must now champion other groups
who may never have owned a block of
land in their life. I personally feel
The Nationals must personify the reality
that the vast majority of people,
who vote National, have a tenderness
and nostalgia for the rural life but
are living in streets with curbs and
corner stores. These people, generally,
are socially conservative. That aspect
of their life is manifested in religion,
or the monarchy, or the serious and
frugal nature of how they respect
the worth of money. If The Nationals
lose sight of this, the essence of
their voters, there would be an immediate
demise. Unfortunately there are signs
of policy fights The Nationals are
taking up (which they needn’t) which
will not gain any votes but will definitely
lose constituents who were previously
counted on. The religious right voter
was in many cases a “no questions
asked” National voter and now, with
positions changing on such things
as abortion, we are giving this growing
constituency questions to ask.
Now: to the role of the Senate. The
constitutional roll of the Senate
is different to the lower house and
one only needs to reflect on the history
of the Senate to see this defined.
Richard Baker from South Australia
was a Free Trader and fought a duel
with Kingston. He was also instrumental
in the design of The Senate and became
its first President. He saw the house
as a reviewing house. His fear was
that it may become dominated by single
issue parties and so he designed a
first past the post voting system
that was later changed by Dr Evatt.
With
the inception of the Labor Party and
the first long term Labor Prime Minister,
Fisher, the block voting format started
to grow as a cancer and the independent
reviewing nature of the Senate was
compromised. From 1910 to 1913 and
then 1914 to 1916 Labor held a majority
in both houses. Then from 1916 to
1929 the Nationalist/Country Party
did. Once more, from 1931 to 1941
the United Australia Party/Country
Party held this trust from the Australian
public. The reasons the periods of
so called double majorities existed
were two fold, primarily the voting
structure of first past the post,
and secondly because there was, in
practice, independence in the way
Senators voted. In fact, prior to
1910 there was very little structure
or correlation at all between parties
and votes in the Senate.
The
block voting becoming apparent with
the Labor Party, made the Australian
public very sceptical of their reviewing
sincerity in the Senate. They held
their last majority in both houses
in the 1946 to 1949 period and have
never been trusted with it since.
You
would think that the conservative
side of politics would learn from
this, and certainly Menzies foresaw
it when he appealed that Members and
Senators should follow government
policy because of its logic and not
by reason of compulsion. Little by
little this independence in the Senate,
on the conservative side, has also
been usurped. This loss of independence
in the Senate is directly correlated
to the loss of trust of the Australian
public in granting conservative government
the privilege. The Liberal / National
(formerly Country Party) government
has held, since 1949, a majority in
both houses from 1951 to 1956, 1959
to 1962, 1976 to 1981 and now from
2005 to where? Your guess is as good
as mine? Note the period that lapses
between these years: approximately
4, 14 & 24 years. The experience of
this trend is a once in a lifetime
experience so enjoy it, most in this
room will never see it again.
People
in the media and within my own side
of politics deride me for upholding
the oath I put my hand on a bible
and swore. This derision, I believe,
is a vain attempt to salvage credibility
for the belief in conservative politics
that there is a Parliament, there
to deliver freedom to the people.
By displaying freedom within its walls,
Parliament is also espousing what
should fall outside of these walls,
in the community.
What
of Senator Reggie Wright of Tasmania?
He crossed the floor, for whatever
reason, 150 times. His party, the
Liberal Party, kept re-nominating
him and he sat in the Senate from
1950 to 1978. Likewise Senator Ian
Wood from my State, another Liberal,
130 times was his score and he sat
also from 1950 to 1978. I do not believe
that Government collapsed under Menzies
so why did they have the belief in
the role of the Senate that we do
not? From that proud tradition of
sworn Senators upholding his or her
constitutional obligation to review
and amend legislation, the last Liberal
Senators to believe they should exercise
their rights were Senators Abetz,
Calvert and Watson in 1994. Has there
been a complete uniformity of views
on everything since then? I do not
think so. What was all that swearing
on the bible about? There is nothing
in the oath of office that you will
abide by back room, code for a poor
excuse way out, party negotiations.
They are more instructions from the
lower house than negotiations in any
case.
The
only thing that should be truly remarkable
about crossing the floor is when it
does not happen. The last Labor Senator
to cross the floor was Senator George
Georges from Queensland and he was
immediately expelled from the Labor
Party. This was just to reaffirm to
the Australian people that they completely
mock the sworn constitutional process
of the Senate and any comments by
Labor on extremism is to be taken
for the insincere grain of salt that
it is.
The
Nationals have the chance to show
to the Australian Public that, in
the Senate, they are prepared to take
their sworn office seriously and in
so doing give back to Australia their
Senate. This is resonating with the
public and it is currently attached
to me but I would love it to be held
by my party. The question is: are
they prepared to do it? It is their
one, best and possibly last hope of
connecting to a wider constituency.
|
