The Hon. Ian
Campbell, Senator for Western Australia
First Speech - 23/05/1990
Thank you, Mr President. It is a great honour to be selected by
the Liberal Party of Western Australia and appointed by the Parliament of Western
Australia to represent my great State here in the Senate. At the outset, I pay
tribute to my colleague and predecessor, Fred Chaney. Fred Chaney's career in
the Senate was long and distinguished and I wish him great success during his
time in the House of Representatives.
I feel a strong sense of
responsibility to the people of Western Australia, representating them as I now
do as a senator. There are few times in the past two decades when a new member,
rising to make his maiden speech, could not have been confronted with a feeling
of urgency and the need to reform. I guess it becomes somewhat repetitive and
trite to restate the necessity for political action to solve this nation's significant
problems, when this has been so often and so clearly stated before. Yet, no matter
how often this has been stated by past generations, the myriad of problems facing
our nation remains. Many of the problems have worsened considerably despite the
very best efforts of very well intentioned politicians who have been elected to
this Parliament in the past two decades. There is certainly an intertia which
permeates the political process and seems to frustrate the course of reform and
adjustment.
What then are the causes and where are the solutions?
For a long time I have believed that it is important that one's community activity
should involve an interest in politics. This belief is clearly not shared by many
of my generation. There is a deep-seated mistrust of politicians and a lack of
understanding of politics. Those of us who have pursued the pilgrimage to parliament
and who sit in the various parliaments share many common ideals and make significant
sacrifices in the pursuit of those ideals. In the main, we are committed to the
institution of parliamentary democracy. We also have our own visions for a better
future for our nation and the well-being of our fellow Australians. Those visions
vary as do our philosophies and the policies we would pursue to achieve those
visions. As a Young Liberal State President in the early 1980s, I
toured around secondary schools in Western Australia with the non-partisan objective
of encouraging the youth of Western Australia to become involved in political
parties. Indeed, I encouraged those young Western Australians to join the political
party of their choosing and to take a role in determining the future shape of
this nation. I implored them, as a young Winston Churchill had done so many decades
before, to consider the question, `Does our nation always have to be ruled by
old men?'. I ask, `Why cannot many young men and women concerned for the future
of their nation, for their generation and for future generations, become active
in the politics of their nation?'. Government does not always have to be in the
hands of the older generation. It is heartening to see that over
the past few years the coalition parties across this nation have actively encouraged
younger members to gain high office, both in the organisational wings and the
parliamentary wings. I feel sure that this augers well for the rebirth of our
fortunes. But the fact does remain that membership of political parties in Australia
is very low-shamefully low. I am sure that if all political parties achieve an
increase in membership at a grassroots level, our political parties will become
more vibrant and representative and the political process will win.
In recent weeks we have heard much spoken about community disdain for politicians
on both sides of the political fence. The quality of our politicians and our accountability
reflects the level of community involvement in the political process. The people
of Australia get the government they deserve. I put it to the Senate that we do
deserve better. It is vital that the politics of the 1990s are very
different from the politics of the 1980s. Politics in the 1980s were domi-nated
by the tactics described in the book Programming the President-I guess, in Australian
terms, it would be called `Programming the Prime Minister'. During the past decade
of missed opportunities, our game was led by telephone polling and opinion polling.
Policy was dictated by the politics of expediency with the longest term vision
being firmly focused on the next Morgan gallop poll. I do not direct
all of my criticism at the current Government. Former State and Federal governments
squandered vital opportunities to implement long needed and important reforms.
The examples of good words and noble rhetoric not being matched by good deeds
and real action would fill a tome and are part of the cause of why politicians
are not trusted. One example that is very close to my heart and has
been high on the agenda of the Liberal Party of my generation is voluntary student
unionism. The principle of freedom of association and the individual's right to
choose to join or not join a union is a fundamental philosophy in which I believe.
It is a principle that has been supported by the Liberal Party across Australia
for many years. Yet, Liberal State governments in the early 1980s right across
Australia failed to apply this philosophy when it came to student unionism and
the payment of student union fees. I eagerly await the next era of Liberal-State
governments and trust that they will use their power to implement this long overdue
reform. Again, I look forward to the New South Wales Liberal Government showing
the leadership that is required in this policy area. Men and women must be free
to choose whether or not to join a union. There are no special cases and there
are no exceptions. We must be free to choose. Clearly, this philosophy
must also apply to industrial trade unions. I suggest that the continuing decline
in union membership across Australia cannot be arrested by the formation of 20
mega-unions. The percentage of people in the work force who are members of trade
unions has fallen from 51 per cent in 1976 to 42 per cent in 1988-the last figure
recorded by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. As with any organisation, when
a union becomes too large the distance between the grassroots and the leadership
becomes too great and the hopes and aspirations of the rank and file become very
remote from the agenda pursued by the union bosses. I believe that
trade unionism can be a positive force for Australia, but it needs to be democratic.
The membership needs to be voluntary and the trade union leadership must reflect
the needs of its membership. These needs will clearly vary from enterprise to
enterprise, from State to State and from region to region. But I suggest again
that the future of unionism is in decentralising it-taking control back closer
to the grassroots. If we can do this, the proportion of those who are members
of unions will actually rise. I am convinced that the current approach to union
amalgamation and centralisation will hasten the current decline. Big government,
big unions, big business and their cosy deals have ruined this big country. I
hope that the era of the big deal is over. There are three policy
areas that I wish to concentrate on in this speech, namely, micro-economic reform,
federalism in the 1990s and environmentally sustainable economic development.
There is no doubt that there is a growing consensus about the dire economic circumstances
in which we find ourselves today. In the early 1980s we referred to the `misery
index', which was derived from adding the inflation rate to the prevailing unemployment
rate. We could now claim to be beating almost every other nation in the civilised
world in terms of an index of doom. I proposed that a cocktail derived from adding
the net foreign debt as a proportion of gross domestic product of 32.9 per cent
to the inflation rate of 8.6 per cent, an unemployment rate of 6.2 per cent and
prime lending rates of 18.5 per cent would create a staggering index of 86.2 per
cent. Of course, this is a very meaningless figure statistically, but it is a
stark reminder of the sort of pain that people, their families and their businesses
are undergoing. It shows why our economic activity has stalled.
We need to work hard to bring about a downward trend in this doom index, and perhaps
on this day every year we could look at that figure again and see whether we are
succeeding in this place to do just that. Of course, the bringing down of this
index can be achieved only by providing an economic environment where the hopes
and aspirations of individuals can be realised. The vast majority
of Australians do believe in the concept of reward for effort, a fair day's work
for a fair day's pay, and an extra reward for an extra hard day's work. Australians
are competitive by nature and will always rise to meet a challenge. We have proven
that time and again on the sporting field where we have taken on the best the
world can offer, and won. But the prerequisite to this success is a level playing
field, clearly defined goals and incentives to achieve those goals.
This environment does not exist in Australia at the moment, and that is why the
political agenda of the 1990s has the words `Micro-economic reform' written in
big letters at the top. Australia cannot compete successfully on the world market
with the inherent structural rigidities and inefficiencies which afflict our productivity
as a nation. The Liberal Party, for the past seven years, has championed the policies
of deregulation and privatisation. These are the fundamentals of micro- economic
reform. There is now a high level of debate within the Government
about the pace of this reform, but the Government is severely handicapped by the
political forces within Caucus, pressure from its trade union constituency, and
outdated ideological baggage which maintains a com- mitment to centralised control
and government ownership of trading enterprises. I hope that the Liberal Party
in Opposition can contribute to this debate. Our policies prescribe urgent and
rapid reform, and we will, by leading the debate, blaze a trail that will, to
some extent, assist the Government. There is little use in talking
in the language of micro-economic reform, privatisation and deregulation as most
people in the community do not really understand what these terms mean. But people
do understand the concept of freedom and of free enterprises. People are generally
aware of waste and inefficiency and the lack of responsiveness to change within
govemment. We are all exposed to it every day. People are also aware of the strong
dedication to service and the needs of the customer within privately owned busi-
nesses, and few would argue that if we can transfer the operations out of the
Government sector and into the private sector then our economy will become more
vibrant. Of course, the great thing about this transfer into the private sector
is that it need not be revolutionary; it can also be done without causing dislocation.
However, what it will do is increase opportunities for Australians
and create far more flexibility and choices in employment. At the moment, 27.2
per cent of our working population is employed within the government sector. I
suggest that, as the number of people employed in the free enterprise sector and
within small business increases, there will be greater freedom, as people employed
within the private sector will have more flexibility in career moves. I have always said to those people who have worked with me that when the
morning comes that they do not want to leap out of bed and tear into work, that
is the morning that they should start looking for a new job, because no-one should
have to spend five or six days out of a seven day week doing something that does
not provide them with both personal satisfaction and adequate financial rewards.
This is what privatisation and micro-economic reform is really about. It is about
creating a better environment for each and every Australian to achieve their full
potential. This should be the focus of the debate and the test of
any micro-economic reform agenda. What does micro-economic reform achieve for
individual Australians in terms of creating more opportunities and more economic
freedom? It should not relate to the needs of peak employer groups, peak trade
unions and government, for when these groups set the agenda the individual loses
out. One of my goals as a senator is to see privatisation and deregulation policies
communicated in digestible language and to see these policies successfully implemented.
When we talk of privatisation it is no longer a question of will we do it, but
a matter of when-and I will use all my energies to ensure that that is so. One of my other fundamental objectives as a senator representing Western
Australia is to maintain a strong and vibrant federal system. Too often in the
past the rhetoric of federalism has concentrated on States rights. This is seen
to be reactionary, conservative and parochial. Centralists who usually, and not
coincidentally, live in the more populous States often use the phrase `States
rights' to demean the politics of federalism. As a phrase, States rights shares
the weakness of privatisation, in that it is not very descriptive and can readily
be misused. Indeed, the advocates of States rights who use the phrase and then
leave it to stand alone as if it is self-evidently righteous do more harm than
good in the debate on the inherent benefits of the federal system. The benefit
of a decentralised political system is that decision making is kept close to the
people. Government and Parliament are accessible and responsible
to individual and community needs. Yet since Federation we have witnessed an entire
procession of politicians from all political parties come into this place and
try to centralise power. The proponents of centralisation would have us believe
that it is more efficient to centralise control into one government and that we
can get rid of duplication and make things more efficient by doing just that.
The same logic could be applied to a dictatorship or a one party state: it is
very efficient but far from my vision of representative and accountable democracy.
The most successful companies in the private sector ensure that decision
making and responsibility are delegated right down the line to ensure that the
customer deals with the decision maker. The world wide trend to franchising is
evidence of this. At a time when businesses, faced with fierce and escalating
international competition, are decentralising to ensure they can adapt to change
quickly, we are continuing to centralise political power. At a time when the nations
of the Eastern bloc are clambering for democratically self elected government,
we are continuing to centralise power in the Federal Government at the expense
of the States. My proposition is that Australia cannot become more
competitive and more adaptive to a rapidly changing international economic climate
without a decentralised political system. Our commitment to federalism must be
based on this principle and not on reactionary States rights dogma.
Federalism does not mean buying off the States with grants and handouts and large
regional offices. It requires real control by the States of those areas of responsibility
not reserved for the Commonwealth under the Constitution. The current negotiations
over the control of corporations and securities law are a classic example of the
States being bought out by the Commonwealth. I implore the business community
to see this centralist grab for power for what it is. The business community must
send a clear message to the State governments that are caving in to the Commonwealth's
national scheme. Business people across Australia must inform the State governments
that control and accountability for corporate affairs has to be retained at the
State level where the majority of business activity takes place. This does not
deny the need for a strong national corporate watchdog, which must be well resourced.
But this can all be achieved by an upgraded and more accountable cooperative scheme.
No matter what the Federal Government promises today about the level
of services that businesses in the outlying States will receive from the Australian
Securities Commission, that promise will be irrelevant, because control and resources
will be determined here and will not be responsible to business communi- ties
at the local level. The development of federalism during the 1990s
must proactively decentralise both power and responsibility and reduce Federal
Government intervention and control. I am dedicated to achieving this shift away
from centralised power for the benefit of both my nation and the people of Western
Australia. I am also committed to achieving environmentally sustainable
economic growth. Again, many centralists would have us believe that the only way
to achieve economic growth and protect the environment at the same time is to
hand over control to Canberra. Of course, much of this control has already been
assumed by the abuse of the external affairs power and the use of World Heritage
listings. When we move down the path of centralised government control
through regulation and prohibition then a whole diversity of environmental enterprise
and entrepreneurship will be smothered at birth. The recent Globe 90 international
conference in Canada focused world attention on the potential for environmental
management and associated technology to become a rapidly growing industry in this
decade. It is an industry in which Australia is very well placed to lead the world,
and I put it to the Senate that it is a potential source of future export income.
But this can occur only if the Government stays right out of it.
The growing environmental consciousness is a worldwide movement of public opinion.
It is a grassroots change that will reshape our industries and technologies, but
this will be from the ground up. It is the sort of change that is naturally suited
to a decentralised decision making and law making structure. Dr David Suzuki's
catchcry of `Think globally and act locally' is to me a call to our fellow man
to do away with the rhetoric and take action. That action starts in our very own
backyards. It embraces local communities, our towns, our cities, our regions,
our States, and a shared responsibility for our nation and our world. This should
be the order of priority for our environment policies. We must reject calls to
hand over control of the environment to the government in Canberra. We must encourage
local action on local problems and cooperative solutions to national and global
problems.
The environment debate during the 1990s should not be fought
on the grounds of how `green' one politician or one political party claims to
be. This is quite irrelevant and quite transparent. I know many environmentalists
around this country who would have been sickened to see politi- cians jumping
on the Green band wagon and saying, `Me too'. The debate must focus on how best
to create the framework which will harness the force of individual commitment
and enterprise in achieving our vision of a healthy economy and a protected environment.
I think I have made it pretty clear that there are two paths down which we can
travel: one is the path of centralised control and regulation and the other is
that of encouraging free market solutions which provide incentives for individuals,
businesses and industries to enhance and protect our environment.
There has been a rapidly increasing level of information about our environment.
This has created a healthy awareness of the long term damage that can be caused
by disregard for natural ecosystems. This awareness exerts both political and
market pressures on governments and industry. Industry is forced to take a longer
term view than just looking towards the next quarter's profits. Companies which
pollute the environment will be put out of business by the consumers of their
end products. This market pressure was evi- denced by research referred to in
the Australian Financial Review of 16 May. The Quaker Oats company in Canada found
that 41 per cent of Canadians had either stopped buying or switched brands on
the basis of company environmental records. This is a trend in consumer behaviour
which, no doubt, will become even more widespread as the years go by. This behaviour
is far more effective at regulating the actions of industry than arbitrary limits
imposed through regulation and bureaucracy.
I am not advocating `She'll
be right' and that we can just leave it all to the private sector, because there
is a very important role required of political leadership. We do have a responsibility
to ensure that resources such as clean water, clean air and forests are protected
for the benefit of mankind in perpetuity. Past generations of Australians have
been responsible for visiting some major environmental disasters upon this nation,
but I do not think it is fair, relevant or helpful for us to place all the blame
on our forefathers. What is relevant is that our generation assume responsibility
for rectifying those past mistakes. What we must also do is ensure that our natural
environment-and our knowledge of how to manage it-is passed on to the future generations
in a far better condition. This is a goal I will work towards as a senator and
a goal I will encourage my generation to share.
I look forward to
redefining the debate and the objectives of micro-economic reform, the relevance
of federalism in this new age, and environmentally sustainable economic development.
My Party clearly has not been successful in communicating its philosophies and
principles in these areas in the past, but I do look forward to dedicating my
efforts to communicating these policies while in opposition and making sure they
are implemented when next we return to government.
In conclusion,
I consider it a great honour and privilege to serve alongside my colleagues in
the Senate and to work for the achievement of these goals. I thank the Senate.
Opposition members-Hear, hear!
| 
