The Hon. Rod
Kemp, Senator for Victoria
First Speech - 14/09/1990It is a great honour to have been elected by the people of Victoria
as one of their representatives in this chamber. I believe the Senate performs
an indispensable role in our system of government. I am one who strongly supports
the role of upper Houses in the Westminster system. Many of the developments in
the Senate in the last two decades have enabled this chamber to act as a more
effective House of review-a trend the founding fathers of our Constitution would
have viewed favourably. The increasing powers of executive government have further
emphasised the need for effective upper Houses. This chamber has acted responsibly
in carrying out its constitutional duties. My introduction to the Senate came
when I was senior private secretary to Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. I was fortunate
to work with Dame Margaret for five years. As one of the Liberal Party's and this
nation's distinguished politicians, Dame Margaret showed that politics could be
conducted with dignity and decency. She showed that a successful p
olitical
career could be built without vicious personal denigration of opponents; that
politics in sensitive portfolios could be conducted successfully without sordid
deals with vested interests. I also had the great honour to work for a short period
of time on the staff of Andrew Peacock, a man whom I regard as a great Liberal
and good friend. I come to this chamber after seven years at the Institute
of Public Affairs (IPA), one of a number of private sector think tanks which expanded
its activities in the 1980s. It was a valuable experience to work at the IPA with
such talented people as Des Moore, Ken Baker, Dame Leonie Kramer, Hugh Morgan,
Les McCarrey, Charles Goode and Sir James Balderstone. The IPA has been active
in promoting such public policy issues as smaller government, privatisation and
micro reform. From time to time people as eminent as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)
and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) used to call such people troglodytes and reactionaries.
Other observers, happily, have poin
ted to the significant role that these
think tanks are having in promoting more market-oriented policies. On Wednesday,
the Prime Minister said that he had changed his mind about privatisation. We on
this side hope that he will change his mind about other policies such as the accord.
We welcome the Government's new approach on privatisation. But its task in
selling this new agenda to its own party has undoubtedly been made more difficult
by its cynical attempt to whip up anti-privatisation fever in recent Federal and
State elections. I am very conscious of the support that I have received from
many people in seeking a political career. I would like to take a few moments
to acknowledge some who have been especially important to me. I am delighted that
my wife, Daniele, and daughter, Nathalie, are in the gallery today. My son, Alexander,
could not join the family because of other commitments. Without Daniele's strong
support, it would not have been possible for me to stand for election. I am also
please
d that my family are joined by my sister Rosemary and brother David,
the honourable member for Goldstein. One of the great blessings anyone can
receive is to have devoted parents. Here I count myself particularly rich. My
mother has always had a very active interest in the wider concerns of politics,
but I record here today how much I admire her other qualities, her family commitment,
strength of character, her erudition and Christian principles. My father was
one of the founders of the Institute of Public Affairs, its Executive Director
for more than 30 years, and, I might say, its inspiration. In this role he was
very active in promoting the free enterprise philosophy. The importance of his
work in this area has been acknowledged by a number of recent studies. He was
a leading opponent of the fashionable socialist view which had achieved a degree
of dominance in academic and, to a certain degree, in public service circles in
the 1940s and 1950s. In that period he was one of what were an endangered s
pecies: a free enterprise economist. It has been generally acknowledged that his
work made an important contribution towards turning back the onrush of socialism
in Australia after the War. He was one of those who helped establish the intellectual
climate in this country which contributed towards the final defeat of socialism
as a credible philosophy in the 1980s. I am proud to be part of the Liberal
Party. I believe its traditions and principles reflect the values, hopes and aspirations
of most Australians. My involvement with Liberal politics started at the University
of Melbourne in the mid-1960s. I regularly meet with Liberal students, and it
is particularly encouraging to me to witness the strength of the Liberal movement
on so many campuses today. The vigour of the Liberal student movement reflects
in part the strong reform agenda of liberalism in the 1990s. The Liberal Party
of the 1990s has a special appeal to youth. Our platform calls for major economic
and social reforms, which have often been v
igorously pushed by Liberal students.
I commend the Liberal student movement for its initiatives in promoting such important
issues as voluntary student unionism. I am conscious that my election to this
chamber reflects the outstanding performance of the Liberal Party in Victoria
in the last Federal elections. Anyone who is No. 3 on a Senate ticket-and I guess
there are a few here today-benefits greatly from the effectiveness of his fellow
State and Federal politicians. The strength of the Liberal Party organisation
under Michael Kroger and Petro Georgiou also contributed mightily to the splendid
State result we received in the last election. My good friends Julie Reid and
Charles Gilles were with me at the beginning. I believe the philosophy of
the Liberal Party, with its emphasis on the individual, free enterprise and liberty,
is as relevant to the needs of the Australian people today as it was in the period
of Alfred Deakin or Sir Robert Menzies. Indeed, of all the political philosophies
that have
dominated this century, it is liberalism as we recognise it in
this country, and liberalism alone, that has stood the test of time. Who would
now stand in this chamber and advocate socialism? Liberalism provides a rational
framework for policy. Any philosophy which is not compatible with promoting maximum
opportunities for the individual, which does not recognise the vital role of free
enterprise and which does not protect the individual from oppressive governments
and institutions, is doomed to failure in Australia. Therefore, I view with the
deepest concern the development of what has been termed widely the corporate state
in Australia, with its attendant powerful lobby groups claiming a key role in
government decision making. There have been too many decisions that have not been
in the public interest but have been to the advantage of powerful vocal special
interests. The Liberal Party offers a sharp contrast to that corporate state
approach. Our guiding philosophy requires the party to pay particular
heed
not so much to the trade union bosses as to the trade union members; not to the
powerful and sometimes politicised environmental groups, but to all Australians
who are concerned about the environment; not to the social planners, but to the
families struggling to bring up their children in a failing economy; and not to
powerful business interests, but to the 700,000 men and women who are running
Australia's small business enterprises. I view with a considerable amount of pride
that the Liberal Party in so many areas is now regarded as setting the agenda
for change. As I have mentioned, the policies upon which our opponents regularly
heaped contempt just a few short years ago, such as privatisation, labour market
reform, smaller government and tariff reform are now the lights on the hill illuminating
the direction in which the Government must go. Liberalism does not accept the
view that politics and political processes provide the main answers to our economic
and social problems. The wealth of our soci
ety lies in the experience and
knowledge of our people. It is for this reason that our Liberal philosophy attempts
to limit the political domain and emphasises the need for strong independent institutions
to protect the individual and the community from executive power. Who would argue
now with the fact that Australia would be a better place today if a number of
our vital institutions, such as the Reserve Bank of Australia, had been able and
prepared to adopt a role more independent of government? The alarming decline
of an independent Public Service ethic has not, in my view, strengthened our body
politic and is one of the factors behind the debacles that we have seen in public
administration in the last decade. We are now witnessing a strong move to conscript
our universities into the corporate state. Government policies, in recent years,
I regret to say, have savagely limited their independence. I do not believe
that the intensely political role that the trade union leadership seeks to play
in Austr
alia benefits this nation or, indeed, the trade union movement itself.
Like the major business lobby groups, the Australian Council of Trade Unions has
no right to claim a special role in government decision making. I believe that
this unique period in Australian history, when the trade union leadership has
been effectively given a place at the Cabinet table, is now coming to an end.
Australia's experiment with corporatism has been a disastrous failure. Despite
the huge privileges which have been granted to trade unions, membership continues
to decline as workers rebel against a union system which is not responsive to
their own needs and has, in recent years, delivered falling living standards.
The reform of the trade union movement must be an important element in any program
of micro reform. The Liberal Party supports trade unionism. Our program spells
out how we can make trade unions more responsive to their members. A paradox which
will not be lost on some observers is that the Liberal Party policy of
voluntary
enterprise unions which are fully accountable to their members may well be the
only way to arrest the decline of unionism in this country. We need more, not
fewer, unions; but the focus of this new union movement must be in the factories
and business enterprises around Australia, representing directly and intimately
the real interests of workers. I now come to a matter at the forefront of
public debate. The Liberal Party philosophy emphasises that competitive markets
are better than political processes, which are so often captured by special interests
at reflecting individual needs and values. I see the Liberal Party program of
privatisation as a means of increasing real public control and influence in many
of our enterprises now under government control and ownership. Monopoly power,
allied with a ready access to the public purse, often creates government enterprises
which are insensitive to community needs, as well as being inefficient in their
use of scarce resources. Australia has barely
commenced the historic
process of freeing its economy from large intrusive government. Overseas observers
would undoubtedly be shocked by the pain in government circles caused by the partial
privatisation of a few government enterprises. This is not to deny that government
will continue to play an important role in the overall management of the economy-of
course it will-but this does not mean that government should be in the business
of regulating every nook and cranny of our economy or running business enterprises
which would be run much more effectively in the private sector, as Senator Crane
outlined this morning in his first speech. In many ways the decade of the
1980s is one of which Australia cannot be proud. By almost every comparative measure,
Australia is in a worse position than at the start of the 1980s. I believe history
books will record this period as a wasted decade. It has been a decade marked
by economic failure. The scandals we have seen in government administration in
Victoria and Weste
rn Australia, which have cost the Australian community
billions upon billions of dollars, have no parallel in our history. The widespread
corporate abuses of the 1980s have brought Australian business reputation to an
all-time low. The economic standing of our nation is reflected in the oft-repeated
statement that we are heading for Third World status. The leading British
journal the Economist publishes each week a series of comparative tables on the
performance of major world economies. In practically every area-inflation, interest
rates and balance of payments deficits-Australia has been one of the poorest performing
economies. And to top it all off, we are now in the process of entering a serious
recession caused essentially by internal economic mismanagement rather than, as
in the past, external factors. The malaise affecting Australia is not only
economic. I have already pointed to the decline of some of our public institutions
and the trade union movement. I would like to comment on some aspects
of
the legacy with which we have been left from the last decade. Survey after survey
has indicated that politicians and parliament are at present held in low esteem
by the public. I welcome the lead that John Hewson has given in the short
time he has headed the Opposition in highlighting the need to improve the operations
of parliament and the behaviour of parliamentarians. The scandals which have plagued
government administration and the business community have undermined public confidence
in some of our central institutions. Perhaps the most serious has been the alarming
decline in community standards. The increase in crime and mindless vandalism is
well-known and well-documented. Deregulation in the business area gives greater
freedom to individuals and managers. It has not always been accompanied by a necessary
and corresponding increase in business and community responsibility. Freedom unaccompanied
by responsibility leads to anarchy and the law of the jungle. Responsibility,
we should always bear in
mind, is the other side of the coin of freedom.
The two are indivisible. I want to speak a little on living standards. Australia's
economic failure in the 1980s is reflected in the stagnation of family living
standards. Real wages, for the first time since the war, have declined for most
of the decade. This is a direct result of the accord, a savage tax regime which
discriminates against families with children. The economic crisis in which we
find ourselves will almost certainly ensure that family living standards will
continue to decline. A recent report showed that in no other period since
1945 has there been such a dramatic decline in living standards for the person
on average weekly earnings. It is worth recalling that, in the period just after
World War II, the individual on average earnings with a dependent spouse and two
children effectively paid no taxes. I believe it is a central priority that not
only do we carry out the economic reforms which will ensure Australian living
standards can comm
ence to rise again, but also we must look closely at the
tax-government spending regime which imposes such heavy burdens on families.
I now want to highlight an extraordinary feature of economic management over the
last 20 years; that is, the acceptance of high unemployment as part of our economic
arrangements. I agree with Mr Keating that unemployment is the major cause of
poverty in this country. It is worth recalling that in the postwar period there
was a consensus between the major political parties that high levels of unemployment
could no longer be tolerated and for almost a quarter of a century unemployment
figures were at levels which, by the standards of the 1970s and 1980s, could be
considered unattainable. The lack of interest in the issue of unemployment
reflects, I believe, an unwillingness to and, indeed, a fear of tackling labour
market rigidities and the disincentives in our social welfare system. The latest
figures show that, among young people in the 15 to 19 years age group looking
for work, unemployment is now over 20 per cent and rising. In earlier periods,
in the time of Chifley and Menzies, this would have been regarded as a national
scandal. I believe that the Senate can help put a full employment policy back
on the public agenda. We should conduct an inquiry into examining the methods
by which we can return to a full employment economy. Do we believe what our predecessors
could achieve in the 1950s and 1960s is beyond us in the 1980s and 1990s? I
have a particular interest in the development of small business in Australia.
Small business, as Peter Boyle, the National Director of the Australian Small
Business Association, points out, does not seem to rank in any importance in Australia's
corporate state. Small business is one of the great outsiders. I agree with Peter
Boyle when he argues that the single most important assistance for small business
would be the deregulation of the labour market. I refer to the high interest
rate policies pursued by government and its effect
on small business. Comparative
interest rates for business borrowings in Australia have been 5 to 8 per cent
higher than those of our major competitors. This differential has been largely
constant for the last eight years. It has come about as a deliberate policy and
has had savage effects on business competitiveness and family living standards.
How we can expect a major export industry to develop in this high interest rate
environment is beyond comprehension. In the 1980s Australia failed to address
the major economic problems facing the nation. The lack of will in the economic
arena can perhaps in part be traced to the negativism and lack of confidence that
too many of our opinion leaders have in our nation. I say this because another
feature of the last decade has been the growing tendency to denigrate our past
without any sense of our nation's great achievements. This is clearly demonstrated
by the debate surrounding the bicentennial program in which Senator Shirley Walters
played quite a prominent ro
le. I have long been of the opinion that there
is an astonishing gulf between the guilt-ridden view that many of our so-called
elites have of Australia and the patriotism of our people. For those who may doubt
this statement, I invite them to read the number of denigrating and uninspired
histories of Australia which were released during the year. My good friend Ken
Baker at the Institute of Public Affairs has been very effective at bringing this
issue to public attention. In 1988 Time Australia published a feature essay
by a man often acclaimed as Australia's leading historian, Professor Manning Clark.
It read, in part: . . . the coming of the British was the occasion of three
great evils: the violence against the original inhabitants of the country . .
. the violence against the first European labour force in Australia, the convicts;
and the violence done to the land itself. The same year saw the publication
of the four volume A People's History of Australia Since 1788. This has been listed
as
a general resource in the course development and support material for
the new Victorian Certificate of Education in Australian Studies in Victoria.
It frankly admits in its editors' comments: This history is critical- It continues
as follows: Held up against the millennia of Aboriginal experience, the last
200 years seem but a brief, nasty interlude. This history, the editors claim,
rejects myths of national progress and unity. Will this encourage schoolchildren
to view their forebears with pride or with shame? Will it encourage them to work
for a better Australia? The answer, I believe, is no. Of course, Australian
history has not been without its injustices and cruelties. Geoffrey Blainey, who
is a notable exception to the tendency to look with rancour on the past, has written: In
the past 200 years Australia has had powerful achievements and every part of the
nation has contributed to them. Professor Blainey writes: A people's sense
of history can unite or it can divide them. It is hard
to instil a sense
of purpose in a people who believe that history which formed them is worthless.
It is of great importance, Mr Deputy President, that the students of today
have a proper appreciation of the achievements of our nation, of the struggles
of our pioneer men and women, and of their fortitude and their courage. The
failure of the 1980s is in many ways a failure of leadership. It is not that we
lack resources. Indeed, Australia is immensely wealthy in terms of its mineral
and land resources. It is not that our people are not enterprising. Indeed, as
a nation we can draw on the enormous vigour and determination of a migrant heritage.
It is not that our people lack a strong commitment to our nation. There is every
evidence that the Australian public has an uncommonly high degree of patriotic
feeling compared with other nations, as I have mentioned. The problem is this:
our leaders have constantly told us that their policies are working. How can we
hope to address our economic problems when
our political leadership will
not take people into its confidence? The Australian people are waiting for leadership.
The Liberal Party has a detailed program of reform, a philosophy reflecting basic
Australian values, and a leadership determined to take the Australian people into
its confidence and to honestly inform them of the steps which must be taken to
put Australia back on the road to prosperity. It has a clear vision for Australia.
I will be working to implement that vision. 
| 
