Senator Simon Birmingham
Liberal Senator for South Australia
Address to the Australian Liberal Students' Federation Convention, 7 July 2009
Good morning and thank you very much to Byron (ALSF President), Whitney (Conference Convenor) and to all of the members of the ALSF – it's a pleasure to be here in Hobart with you for your 2009 convention.
It is a credit to ALSF that many of today's Liberal parliamentarians can recite their own war or battle stories from conferences gone past. Student politics is where much of the battle hardening of politicians from all persuasions takes place … it is where victory can be fought for in a true 'whatever it takes' spirit… it is where beliefs can be held passionately, with no need for pragmatic overtones.
I well recall those passionately held beliefs and the quest for victory leading to interesting times way back at the 1994 ALSF conference in Adelaide. I had just been elected President of the Adelaide Uni Liberal Club, in an AGM where, thanks to my then chief numbers guy, the members of the campus Greek Association took a particular interest in supporting my election – but that's an altogether different story.
That '94 ALSF conference saw one of those classic ALSF battles where, from memory, it was the Victorians and Queenslanders who led a walkout from the main conference and started their own counter conference in a different building of the college. That was all well and good, until then South Australian Liberal Premier Dean Brown arrived to speak. As the President of the host club I was a little embarrassed that half of the delegates were missing and went down to the 'counter conference' to appeal – which was code for threaten, beg, trade votes, whatever it took – for them to return for the Premier's speech. In a rare sign of conciliation, they agreed.
Roll forward to just a couple of weeks ago, in the last sitting week of the Senate, I recited this story to my good mate and colleague, Scott Ryan from Victoria, who I believe is addressing you tomorrow. Scott's reaction surprised me – ah, you were that guy, he said, equally remembering the incident, albeit as a member of the breakaway group! That fifteen years have passed – with Scott and I now the two youngest members of our Liberal Senate team – shows both that memories of ALSF stay strong and that you never know who in this room you may be sharing a parliamentary bench with in the years to come.
Byron was telling me last night that ALSF is a much more harmonious nowadays. But it is division, in part, that I wanted to address today. I want to confront some of the perceptions of the Liberal Party, circa 2009. Are we a grassroots, democratic party or are we really a divided party? Are we a party of potential or a party of the past? These are some of the questions that we must put to bed in a positive way, lest we allow our opponents to define us in the most negative of lights.
To state the obvious, these are far from the glory days for the Liberal Party. With the exception of my West Australian state colleagues our poor electoral position nationwide demands that we Liberals, to use the proverbial, need to take something of a good hard look at ourselves.
Firstly, to division … it doesn't matter what newspaper you care to take, we occupy far more column inches with discussion about our internal affairs than do our Labor opponents. Some of it is a feature of our prolonged periods in opposition across most states – success tends to build discipline, failure too often produces the very opposite. But Labor has more than its fair share of internal brawls – we just seem to read and hear about far fewer of them.
The perception of a Liberal Party divided is one our friends in the fourth estate love to perpetuate – be it over preselections, policy, leadership, whatever. It begs the question; do we have more division in the Liberal Party than Labor?
Yes … and … no. We do experience more division, insofar as we are a democratic party, as compared to a near totalitarian party. Liberal Party members enjoy a meaningful vote in grassroots, rank and file preselections. Labor Party preselections are controlled by a handful of union or factional bosses who quietly carve up the seats as they see fit. Liberal MPs enjoy not only the right to decide party policy themselves, free again of the Labor factions that control the writing of their platform at party conferences, but even retain the right to individually cross the floor on matters of fundamental disagreement or principle.
And, as my own state is all too awkwardly witnessing at present, there is nothing like a good leadership fight in the Liberal Party to break down any supposed loosely aligned, factional groupings that do exist, as a natural disagreement over the best man or woman for the job takes precedent. Contrast this with the marvellous process through which the New South Wales Labor right faction has chosen dud Premier after dud Premier and even has a fairly public list of who the next two or three may be!
Democratic principles are messy, because their inclusiveness and transparency highlights division. By their very nature they are unpredictable, often leading to weeks if not months of speculation. But it is time that we took a stand in support of our internal principles and traditions. Having hundreds of ordinary, hardworking Australians, people who share a common commitment to their country, select their local Liberal candidate is far healthier for our parliaments than having a handful of faceless men carve up the prizes between former union officials. Rather than allowing our preselections and internal ballots to be portrayed as signs of division, we should be celebrating our internal democracy at work.
If anything, we must pursue ways to continue to ensure the involvement of a critical mass in these preselections. I am a firm believer in James Surowiecki's so-called wisdom of crowds … the belief that diverse collections of independent thinking individuals are likely to produce the best outcomes … a very liberal theory, if ever there was one.
With the declining membership of organised political parties, the Liberal Party in South Australia and Victoria has moved to full, local membership plebiscites for Lower House preselections and many internal party ballots. This involvement of many hundreds of independent thinking people in selecting their local Liberal candidate is not the party divided you see all too often in the media, but a true festival of democracy.
However, in some areas the numbers involved still lacks the critical mass necessary to avoid manipulation and deliver the best outcome. We must remain open to ways to, if need be, involve people from outside of the actual membership base in the selection of our candidates … be they the hundreds of supporters who work for us on election day, local community leaders or a random selection of willing participants from the electoral roll.
By preserving and enhancing our democratic principles we can offer pathways for the best and brightest to enter parliament, while ensuring that our local candidates offer the best capabilities to both win and represent their local electorate.
Equally, we must cherish the right of our parliamentary partyrooms to set their own policies and establish their own positions, complete with that most fundamental of rights to cross the floor. Sure, teamwork and discipline have their place in politics, but there is no point in having a team of the best free thinking individuals you can offer and then depriving them of such free thought.
That the partyroom may disagree with the shadow cabinet on occasions, or that certain individuals may disagree with the partyroom on occasions is all for the better – it shows that the system is working. It demonstrates that the Liberal Party has not followed Labor's journey to be little more than a collection of pragmatic, poll controlled yes men, but instead that we remain comprised of people who believe in things and are willing to stand up and be counted for their beliefs.
Nobody batted an eyelid when more than 10 per cent of the members of the US House of Representatives crossed party lines during the recent vote on their emissions trading legislation. And, with more than 200 Liberal or National MPs having crossed the floor in Australia since 1950, it should be treated with much less excitement here too.
The next time a handful of Liberal MPs cross the floor over a matter let us not feel sheepish in the face of accusations of internal division, but celebrate the fact that we allow it and that we continue to facilitate floor crossings as a party of genuine free thinking and open debate.
As our next generation of activists, I hope that you will all go forward and help to define our party as one of true democratic principles and dispel this notion of a party divided.
The other perception I want to confront is the idea that we are a party of the past, rather than a party of potential. Now it is easy to dispel that myth when standing here, facing a crowd of young, enthusiastic and committed Liberal students. But it is critical to confront the reality that our voting base is all too reliant on older Australians – people born before or around the time of the formation of our great party in 1946.
The intergenerational reports initiated by Peter Costello rightly promoted the idea from an economic and social perspective that demography is destiny. If demography is equally destiny from a political viewpoint then the Liberal Party currently faces a bleak future. We need to build new support among younger demographics. This is not a unique problem though; it is a challenge equally faced by many of our centre right contemporaries worldwide, such as the Republicans in the US and the Conservatives in the UK.
Meghan McCain, daughter of last year's Republican Presidential candidate John McCain, recently highlighted three key points that she believed were holding the GOP back. She put them succinctly and bluntly, stating:
1. that most of her nation (the United States) wants to succeed;
2. that most people are ready to move on to the future, not live in the past; and
3. that most of the old-school Republicans are shit-scared of the future.
The natural desire of most citizens for their country to do well is something that we should never forget. It was manifested in Obama's constant message of hope and it explains much of the goodwill that continues to exist towards Kevin Rudd. Yes, Labor used fear over Workchoices with great electoral impact, but his education revolution, broadband network and promises to 'end the blame game' with the states were all about convincing people that he offered a better way for the future; it was Rudd's own version of Obama's hope.
Economic crisis may have since hit home, but that crisis has only made the bulk of our non-partisan population more hopeful that Rudd and his government do well and succeed. After all, their jobs and homes depend on their government steering the country through crisis.
It is only natural that people want the best for their country, just as they do for themselves and their families. In the process of rebuilding we cannot, Meghan McCain argues, afford to wait until the other side is perceived as worse than us. Equally, we cannot place disproportionate efforts on making them look worse than us.
The great challenge from opposition is to contrast ourselves with the government, highlighting their mistakes, while still crafting a positive message for the future.
The day to day hits on governments and ministers are important in showing capacity and capability; in rattling a government's confidence, distracting them or denting their momentum; or, simply, in doing a good job of opposition by holding the government of the day to account.
But let's not kid ourselves – such hits aren't major vote shifters. People want hope, they want to vote for the better option, not the least worse option. And they want this not because they give a damn about politics or even good government. They care because they want the best for Australia – for themselves, their children, their country.
Across the Atlantic the Tories have had a lot longer in the electoral wilderness than the Republicans (or us for that matter), providing a much longer period of time to consider how to re-pitch their message and re-create their brand. They have ditched the hard edge of Margaret Thatcher's memorable quote that "there is no such thing as society", with David Cameron stating that:
"We used to stand for the individual. We still do. But individual freedoms count for little if society is disintegrating. Now we stand for the family, for the neighbourhood – in a word, for society."
Rather than sticking with the old school, cold war style political contrast of individualism versus collectivism, Cameron has attempted to position the Tories as the party of people, families, the community and society, while defining British Labour as the party of bureaucracy, big government and the state.
But what does this mean in policy terms? How has this change manifested itself in Tory policy, rather than just the rebranding that saw the Tories abandon the ALSF style logo of the flaming torch for a leafy but solid oak tree?
They appear to be taking a very sound approach; an approach that presents a modern outlook for the future, while being philosophically consistent with the core conservative and liberal beliefs of our respective parties. Appealing to younger generations doesn't mean stepping away from everything we've always believed in. It simply means shaping our priorities to the priorities and concerns of a modern Australia.
Yes, there's been a big focus from the Tories on the environment – a pragmatic realisation that environmental issues rate as a big concern among younger voting demographics. But they are also taking a clear stand to dismantle the idea of big, centralised government as the solution for all ills, preferring a back to basics approach that encourages the local, decentralised management of services wherever possible.
In education the Tories are embracing local school management, putting power back in the hands of parents, teachers and local communities, giving the capacity for a greater variety of schools offering tailored and targeted solutions. Similar approaches are being advanced in healthcare, while commitments have also been made to simpler, more family friendly tax laws.
Each of these approaches could and should resonate with Australian Liberals. Let us discuss real plans for local school management, real choice in education through school vouchers, a real education revolution rather than Labor's bricks and mortar revolution that will simply leave every school with a one-size-fits-all school hall, whether that was their priority or not.
Let us commit to a tax system that minimises churning of funds from families, through government and then back to the same families purely as a result of unnecessarily high tax rates that then necessitate what should be unnecessarily generous welfare arrangements. Let's look seriously at income splitting or other arrangements that could end this madness that simply furthers a reliance on government that we should be discouraging.
Let us look again at how we guarantee real consumer choice in truly free and functional markets. Too many Australians feel overloaded with choices that no longer feel meaningful, but instead simply burdensome. Choosing between electricity providers, gas companies, phone plans, etc usually leaves people more confused than informed; feeling like they'll be ripped off whatever they do.
There is no doubt that competition in these markets has helped bring overall prices down, but the complexity of arrangements has left many people feeling less not more empowered. As Liberals, we need to pursue options that empower to make their choices truly meaningful.
Opposition is the time for us to actively review what we believe in; to form our agenda of exactly what we plan to do when next in office. Kevin Rudd made the mistake of formulating a plan to win office, but failing to have a plan to govern. He's been temporarily saved by the Global Financial Crisis … but trying to look good in a crisis remains a poor substitute for a clear vision and strong reformist plans.
New ideas and a modern approach must be embraced to demonstrate we are not only a party of potential, but the party of the potential; the party of the future, not the past.
Let us confront the negative perceptions that are all too propagated about the Liberal Party head on. Let us celebrate our commitment to internal democracy at every stage of our operations and, most significantly, let us show ourselves to be the party of aspiration and future potential that we've always been.
As young leaders of Liberal thinking in Australia you have a key role to play in shaping these perceptions. I wish you all a successful conference and look forward to seeing the major role I'm sure many of you will make in the years to come.