G’Day. I attended the Reid Group launch today in NSW Parliament House in search of a flicker of hope for our democracy, and got it. As I wrote in Rekindling Liberalism: a beginning the Reid Group was set up to prove that Liberalism is not dead in our society, just in our political parties. The members I met today were Cameron Andrews, a former Democrat, Syd Hickman, a former chief of staff to Kim Beazley, James Gifford, a Wilderness Society activist, and David Barr, the independent state member for the Sydney North shore seat of Manly. Sounds like an ‘unholy alliance’ to me!
I’ve published Syd Hickman’s speech below. Apart from Syd’s misconceived attack on the Greens, I agree with just about all of it. So might Herald reader Pamela Chippindall in Sydney’s Point Piper, whose letter to the editor published today said in part: “…there are no Liberal “wets” in Federal Parliament, merely a collection of “yes-persons” who endorse their leader’s policies and pronouncements. But outside the Canberra hothouse, we flourish. We walked across the bridges of the nation for reconciliation, we marched in the streets for peace, or at least UN-sanctioned war, and we’ll fight for an ABC which will continue to encourage free and uninhibited debate, even when the topic is the present American administration (and no, we’re not anti-American, Mr Alston).”
Besides putting up genuine Liberal policies, the group is considering endorsing independent liberal candidates for safe “Liberal” seats at the federal election. Trends at the recent State election show there’s real potential to frighten a few “Liberals” in core constituency territory, just as John Howard has paralysed Labor by taking some blue collar voters.
David Barr survived a concerted attempt by the Libs to take back Manly at the recent State election, mainly because hundreds of grassroots supporters put in very hard yards on his behalf. This could be the future if enough people are prepared to put the work in and converse with people they usually wouldn’t have a beer with. The idea would be to find a person non “Liberal” party members in the seat and community people believe has the integrity, guts, intelligence, commitment and drive to represent the electorate with honesty in the public interest, and to stand up for the health of our democratic instititutions and democratic values.
The big task would be to convince such a person to stand – after all, why would any sane person want to try to enter the political bearpit? The way to do that would be for enough people in the seat, across the non “Liberal parties” and community groups, to back the candidate before the election and deliver support to get him or her through the ordeal. Even if the candidate didn’t win, a solid support base would put enormous pressure on the “Liberal” member to promise to fight for Liberal principles instead of caving in to Howard’s neo-conservatism out of fear or personal ambition.
In Faultlines in Howard’s plan for absolute power, I wrote about the possibility of “unholy alliances” in the face of a powerful and determined threat to our democracy that many of us – despite our political differences on many issues – hold dear. If people who care about our democracy can put aside their differences to fight for what unites them – the core principles underlying our democracy – then they really can roll back the anti-democratic, corporatist juggernaut now rolling all over our freedoms and civil rights and ignoring the long term public interest for short term profit.
The threat to our democracy has got to the stage where only the people can save it. As Barr said today, we’ve got a government into corporate cronyism which cares nothing about civil rights and deliberately misleads the people on crucial issues during elections and even on going to war. “The government is getting away with an awful lot because there’s no opposition to stand up for different values and to get a different dialogue going,” Barr said. “We’re reduced to a low level, low brow debate – we desperately need people to stand up and say what’s going on in our democracy and what we can do about it.”
And there’s lots independents like Barr can do. At the moment, he’s trying to get a law passed which would limit the amount of costs a plaintiff can get in a successful defamation case to the amount of damages he or she receives. What happens now, Barr says, is that rich people can close down the free speech of epople without big money behind them through small-time defamation claims prosecuted by big time QCs. “It’s a gross inhibition of free speech. How can our democratiuc society allow the wealthy to take punitive action against someone who’s not wealthy?”
I’m working on a piece about Howard’s latest attack on free speech and the right of ordinary people to participate in and influence politics – his attempt with Peter Costello to strip charitable status from groups who engage in political advocacy. This is a long term Howard strategy with three related elements, including a contract with the neo-conservative think tank the Institute of Public Affairs to devise a policy to control and exclude non-government organisations and charities from the political process. I hope to have something ready by the end of the week.
Before Syd Hickman’s speech, Daniel Moye bites back at Philip Gomes’ critique in Whose democracy? of his conservative self examination Owning your beliefs.
***
Intellectual Yoga
by Daniel Moye
If only we could all have the intellectual flexibility and versatility of ideas of this nefarious New Left. We could then embrace and contemplate the world with our Yoga-master and find wondrous solutions to healing the world’s ills. But do not be confused – this is not a passive position but an active inquiry bound by a zealous need for transformation and transcendence of our history to bring a new dawn to the world.
Let us again redefine the debate and transform ourselves and our future. We can no longer be ideology bound, we must embrace this open-sourced common foundation of redemption and save the world from its sociopathic tendencies.
Awaken yourself to this rising Age of the Second Enlightment and embrace the righteous cause of a renewable future. Do not be passive in your middle class fishbowl – embrace this future with all its promise and we could finally find that salvation we all crave for Freedom from ourselves.
Teach me Yoga master, to disavow my longing to waste my last $20 dollars on bourbon and punting. Enlighten me, so that I can unshackle myself of the envy I have towards my D.I.N.K. friends and their newly borrowed Sydney housing dream. Lead me to this promised land of selflessness and far-sighted wisdom. Free me with your seductive voice as I drift off into meditative bliss.
Woe is me, who will only get cramps from yoga and who always ends up falling asleep and snoring when he meditates. I guess only that mythical bartender in the sky will be my salvation. Double bourbon and coke please.
Points of Clarification for Philip Gomes and all interested parties:
1. The political compass found me somewhere close to the centre but in the libertarian right. Unfortunately that was no surprise. It is an interesting website.
2. My use of the term ‘ownership’ was used more in a philosophical sense than in a direct material sense. It is true that ideas, ideals and institutions are in the public domain and yet some are owned, but that was certainly not the point that I was attempting to make. Rather, that when we confront the world we tend to possess ideas and ideals of ourselves and the society we live in. When confronted with a heavily marketed world, where people and ideas are not always what they seem, how do we repossess things that have been camouflaged by others?
3. I agree that in many senses Australian political conservatism has become very ideology bound. When contributing to this forum, I am attempting to reengage other conservative readers into reclaiming a broader conservative consensus.
4. I would suggest that your observation that modern conservatism is sociopathic in nature (paraphrase) is a caricature, and like my little ditty above and all caricatures is either wholly or partially false
5. Do not confuse Obscurantism with Conservatism. Conservatives are always open to new ideas but tend to want to moderate the changes of the world through traditional institutions and their moral framework. It is true that there is a preponderance of a particular type of conservatism under the Australian and American governments, and not all of their policies are conducive to providing as broader conservative umbrella as I would like to see.
***
THE REID GROUP
Address by Syd Hickman
Jubilee Room, NSW Parliament House
Tuesday August 19 2003
What are we on about? Why has this bunch of people, some ex-Labor, some ex-Democrat, some ex-Liberal – as well as quite a few with no previous associations in politics – come together to start this organisation?
The short answer is, the new application of old liberal values.
Right now, here in Australia, there is a black hole, a vacuum of ideas. And it’s a worry. Debates about the future of this country have become stale, reduced to point-scoring on minor issues, not consideration of major ones. We are all suffering as a result. And things will get worse if we don’t take action.
The causes of this change are party political. John Howard has successfully reoriented Australian political debate around a deeply conservative agenda. The ALP has failed to provide any kind of alternative vision, and simply comes up with populist twaddle or watered-down versions of conservative Government positions. The Greens and Democrats have become two variants of the economic irrationalist left.
Which leaves us with a great and gaping hole in national debate. And the great hole that exists is around liberalism – about a set of sensible, moderate and progressive beliefs that, when implemented in policy, have always delivered the best outcomes for Australia. The liberals within the Government are too cowed – or dazzled – by John Howard’s success to speak up for their beliefs. The term ‘Wet’ is now a dirty word. So is Moderate. So is Pragmatist. Even within the Labor party, the kind of progressive liberal values that guided the best of the Hawke-Keating reform efforts are now expressed as a nervous moralising.
So our political advocates have vacated the field. Which means it’s time for the citizens to step up.
Understandably it is taking liberal Australians a fair while to appreciate the alarming reality that faces us. After all, liberalism for a long time represented the political middle ground. For much of the past thirty years small l liberals have had the luxury of being the swinging voters who decided who would win federal elections. What we thought about key issues used to matter. Quite frankly, in political terms, now it doesn’t. And that’s why core liberal issues like the future of the ABC, the secular education system and universal health care get such meagre attention.
The war on terror has made great cover for the quiet dwindling of our key national institutions. We can complain loudly but that won’t change things. Quite frankly, things will not return to that long-standing idea of normal. We can not seriously believe a) that Peter Costello will become Liberal leader and b) that as Prime Minister he will suddenly discover his inner Moderate. Surely no-one seriously thinks Labor will suddenly regroup around progressive and forward-looking ideas?
People who hold liberal values must demand their own place in the political spectrum. To get it they are going to have to work outside the old frameworks. They should stop telling themselves that it’s good enough to be the wets or progressives in political parties which are now openly dedicated to illiberal ends. This is not virtue, its self delusion.
Conservatism must be opposed by a true liberal alternative, just like George Reid produced over a century ago. We in the Reid Group do not aim to be a political party but we do see ourselves making a start on a body of ideas and policies that can contribute to a political goal.
We focus our view of the future on five key ideas, what we call the five pillars.
The first is to strengthen support for an open and environmentally sustainable economy. The capitalist economy, combining free enterprise and free trade, has proved to be the best system for raising living standards and providing individual choice of life-styles. It is also increasingly clear that open, inclusive, tolerant societies generate the creativity and leadership that produce the highest levels of wealth creation. A commitment to sustainability is good for the environment, and also for business. The simplest summation of the Reid Group position is the phrase ‘for an open economy, a progressive society and a sustainable future’. We believe these are mutually-reinforcing positions.
The second pillar is the need to maximise the efficiency of government. One hundred years on from Federation it is time for a serious renovation of government. The original allocation of responsibilities between the Commonwealth and States is not working. The digital age offers enormous possibilities for government administration. And there is a great need to eliminate wasteful programs that exist only to buy votes. Across the board government is a big part of national efficiency and there is a lot to be done.
Third, revitalising our public institutions. The great public institutions that play a quiet but vital role in creating and maintaining our society are under threat. Think of the legal system, public health, public education, public broadcasting, the universities, the public service, the defence force, scientific research, museums, regulatory agencies. All are experiencing problems of funding cuts, improper interference or over commercialisation. We believe these institutions must be strengthened, not weakened, as society becomes more diverse and complex.
Fourth, encouraging the growth of the community sector. There is tremendous potential for social benefits from engaging more people in community activities and from dealing with social problems, in a more localised and personal way. With increased funding flowing from corporate social responsibility programs, and the stimulation of more philanthropy, the possibilities are endless. But governments must resist the temptation to use the community sector simply as a cost saving device. This is a complex area for government involving serious legislative and administrative change. We intend to pursue it vigorously.
And finally the fifth pillar. We support devolving government authority and empowering local communities. This is a recognition of what is already happening out of necessity. Society is becoming more diverse and the range of decisions that must be made are increasingly complex. So more decisions must be made by the people or institutions that really understand the problems and the potential. You can call this pluralism, or the end of top-down, one-size-fits-all, decision-making. The Reid Group sees a role for government in facilitating this process, making sure the decision making bodies are appropriate, devolving funding along with power and responsibility, and helping to enact decisions.
So, to return to my theme, we are here to take these very big ideas, the five pillars, develop them, and drum up support for a national renovation along such lines.
But I should add that we are also internationalist. Australia has 0.03% of the world’s population. But we make up nearly 2% of the global economy, and we are responsible for about 10% of the earths surface. To we true liberals in the Reid Group that has implications. Clearly we must work for a rule-based international system with strong global institutions, we must make a serious contribution to improving the situation of poorer nations, and we have a very big environmental role.
I will conclude with the observation that we are a small group but we have very big ideas. We want a big Australia. And we are going to have a go at spreading the word.
So, with high hopes for success, I declare the Reid Group open and ready for action.