Speech
Manly Pacific Hotel, Sydney, 21 January 2006
Speech at the Federal Young Liberal Convention
Politics and the Power of Ideas
Thank you for inviting me to speak at the Federal Young Liberal Convention.
It is a great honour for any political leader to address the youth of his or her Party and it is certainly no exception in my instance tonight.
Congratulations on putting this Convention together.
On behalf of the Howard Government, I thankyou for your continuing efforts and contributions towards this great Party.
Your efforts are immensely valued both in Canberra and in the State Divisions.
No one takes your work for granted and we hope that you will continue your valuable contributions.
Tonight I would like to talk about Politics and the Power of Ideas.
It is a topic that I am very passionate about and it is a topic that goes to the heart of the success of the Howard Government.
My contention is that in today's political climate, the quality of ideas is what wins people over more than anything else, and this Government is streets ahead of the federal Labor Party in this domain.
Let me explain.
The decline of party identification
Forty years ago, the decision-making process for most voters was quite different from what it is today.
Back in the 1960s people identified closely with one party or another and this basically determined the way a person voted.
Consider some of the results from the first national survey of political behaviour conducted by Professor Don Aitkin in 1967:
95% of the electorate identified themselves with a political party and of those that identified with one of the major parties, 93% voted for that party.
Sixty six percent of people never changed their vote in any election. (Aitkin, 1977).
These are quite staggering figures and reveal remarkable political stability.
Professor Aitkin described the political behaviour at the time as bearing an "astonishing resemblance" to that in America and Britain and noted that:
"... [in these countries] most voters were likely to vote for the same party from one election to another. Even when issues were dramatically altered or a famous local politician was replaced by a tyro, or economic disaster was visited upon a district, the pattern of party voting was very likely to stay the same."
Now compare this situation with today's political behaviour.
Party identification, while still apparent, has declined steadily and the affiliations are weaker.
The number of people who identify with a party has dropped to 84% with 16% saying they have no identification.
Moreover, the number with very strong allegiances to one party or another has dropped to 20% (from 33% in 1967) while those with weak allegiances have increased.
The number of people who always vote the same way is now only 47%. (McAllister, 2005 cited in Sydney Morning Herald; McAllister, 1997, Bean, 2005)
In a country where elections are won or lost by a single percentage point, these are stark changes in political behaviour and have profound implications.
Election results now swing wildly, as we have seen in state and territory elections; seats once considered 'safe' can no longer be counted as being so; and the contest is more open and less predictable.
Professor Aitkin's statement, reflecting on politics in the 60s, that people's voting behaviour would stay the same even when issues were dramatically altered is no longer the case.
Today, the ideas and issues count.
There are a number of factors that explain this change in political behaviour.
Perhaps the most significant is what I call the de-classification of society.
In the past, society could be quite accurately classified into working class and middle class and this became the dominant cleavage in politics with the blue-collar workers supporting the Labor Party and the white-collar workers supporting the conservative parties.
Today, this pattern is no longer so stark: classifications of working class and middle class are less meaningful as the nature of work has changed and everyone has become more affluent.
Moreover, the Labor Party has now abandoned its traditional working class base to focus on the inner city, bourgeois left.
Other major political cleavages are also less stark today than in the past.
Religious affiliation plays only a small role in voting behaviour whereas there was quite strong alignment between Catholics and Labor and Protestants and Liberals in the 1960s.
Regional issues are also less important to voters driven by a greater movement of people between states and regions and national integration of communications networks (Kemp, 1978)
In this political climate where political and other affiliations are weak or non-existent, other factors become more prominent in determining electoral results and political success.
The two most important are the quality of politicians, particularly the leader, and the quality of ideas.
There has been a lot of discussion about the quality of the Liberal parliamentarians compared with Labor parliamentarians since the last election.
When our newest intake of backbenchers is of such high calibre and from such a huge cross-section of the community, then we know we are doing well in this area.
Less has been said, however, about the quality of ideas and this is what I wish to concentrate on today.
The quality of ideas has been the key strength of the Howard Government.
In an age of weak political affiliations, we have provided a reason for people to vote for us.
We have developed core ideas or organising principles upon which we govern....
...and we are true to these principles in the implementation of policy, even if they are unpopular.
This is the thing that most distinguishes us from the Labor Party.
Whereas we have developed core ideas upon which we govern and remain true to these ideas, the Labor party either lacks ideas, has weak ideas or has ideas that are not adhered to in policy formulation.
A firm set of ideas
The big ideas or organising principles of the federal Liberal party cover every portfolio.
Let me touch on a few and explain why they matter.
In my portfolio of foreign affairs, the over-riding imperative is of course the national interest, both in security and economic terms.
The key idea or organising principle, however, that guides this imperative and guides our policy is the concept that liberal markets and democracy are the best mechanisms for addressing global problems.
This principle is firmly rooted in traditional Liberal party values.
It is also proven by evidence: all experience indicates that liberal democratic regimes are better at creating wealth, alleviating poverty, respecting human rights and promoting freedom.
It is also often claimed that no two liberal democracies have gone to war with each other.
Our approach to the Middle East, for example, is firmly guided by this organising principle.
We strongly believe that the problems of the Middle East will be all the more difficult to solve while there are no liberal markets and the public are denied indefinitely access to the ballot box.
Hence, our continued involvement in Iraq.
The Australian Government was immensely proud to be part of the Coalition of the Willing that removed the Saddam Hussein regime that terrorised its own people and posed a threat to the world.
It is equally proud to continue to be part of the reconstruction efforts and to support the Iraqi people in its transition to democracy and in its efforts to provide its own security.
Iraq has now held three elections, the latest to elect a government under their newly approved Constitution.
The turnout at the general election last December, in the face of terrorist threats, was a remarkable 70% - a figure far higher than that received by many established democracies.
Iraqi's want democracy and freedom just like anybody else and Australia will continue to support them.
Closer to home, our organising principles equally apply.
One of the most dramatic changes in our lifetime has been the democtratisation of Indonesia.
Indonesia is the largest country in South East Asia, the largest Islamic nation in the world and is now one of the largest democracies.
It has been a stunning transformation from dictatorship to thriving democracy over a period of less than ten years.
Australia has put its heart and soul into supporting this transformation and into supporting the democratically elected governments.
Our contribution to the Tsunami is just one manifestation of this.
Our alliances are also driven by those who share our views on liberal markets and democracy.
Hence, our strong alliance with the United States and our intimate ties with Great Britain, Japan and other democracies.
Today, our organising principle for foreign affairs has received broad acceptance in the Australian community and it would be easy to suggest that this is the only 'idea' or principle that could reasonably be adopted.
It must be remembered however, that just a few years ago there was a strong view that democracy and economic liberalism were western concepts that would not be accepted, and should not be promoted, outside the Western world, particularly in the Middle East or in Islamic countries.
Promoting democracy was bad enough; promoting economic liberalism as a method of solving global problems was frequently seen as fundamentalist.
It should also be remembered that our organising principle is not shared by the Labor Party.
If it was, they would not be continually advocating that we cut and run from Iraq...
...And they would not be implicitly or explicitly sneering at the United States at every opportunity.
Their organising principle, as much as it can be determined, is that Australia is a little country which should keep its head down and from time to time take positions of convenience and which would appeal to the bourgeois left.
You will have noticed that whenever Australia is criticised by another country, the ALP invariably takes up their cause.
This is part of Labor's "chip on your shoulder" foreign policy.
They lack self confidence in what they call "Little Australia".
In foreign affairs, we are streets ahead in the battle of ideas.
Our principles are morally sound and coherent.
Even if the community doesn't like every decision we make, it knows what we stand for.
We have given the electorate a reason to support us and we will continue to work hard to keep that support.
We are equally strong in the battle of ideas in other portfolios.
In education, for example, the overarching ideas are the support of choice and higher standards.
Through the leadership of Dr Kemp and then Dr Nelson, the government has actively enacted policies to promote these ideas.
Voluntary Student Unionism, an issue close to many of your hearts, is a good example of such a policy.
We support VSU because students should have choice about whether they wish to join a student union and whether they wish to pay for a myriad of non-academic services.
The idea of choice clearly governs our schools policy.
Perhaps the most significant policy in this area was the abolition in 1996 of Labor's New Schools Policy - a policy which severely restricted the establishment of new non-government schools.
Since the abolition of this policy, over 300 new low fee schools have started, two-thirds of which would not have been able to establish under Labor's policy.
The entire funding system for non-government schools has also been restructured so that parents are not penalised through the withdrawal of public funding when they invest more of their own money in their children's education.
State schools have additionally received record funding each year with increases averaging 6% per annum.
The next frontier in support of our principle of choice should be to allow parents greater choice over state schools, via the relaxing of the school zone rules and through the creation of more selective schools.
Selective schools - state schools that select students on the basis of their academic achievement - are reasonably common in NSW but almost non-existent elsewhere.
Yet, they are highly sought-after by parents and produce outstanding results.
In NSW, about 15,000 students apply each year for the 3500 places in the 28 selective schools.
The only two selective schools in Victoria topped the list of schools for academic performance over the last five years.
Selective schools provide real choice, particulary for those that cannot afford the high fees that characterise most of the other top performing schools.
Selective state schools do not need to be purely academically selective; schools could specialise in music, or languages or in science and take students on that basis.
The federal government has already started to do this through the commitment to create 24 technical colleges catering to year 11 and 12 students.
Of course, selective schools are the antithesis of what the Australian Labor Party believe in.
Choice and high standards are an anathema to the ALP as we saw at the last election with Labor's "hit list" schools policy.
Consequently, no other state apart from NSW and Victoria offer selective schools and neither of the Labor Governments of these two states have plans for expansion.
Choice also forms a key organising principle in our health policy.
It drives our decision to strongly support private health insurance
In welfare policy, our central idea is that welfare should only be a safety net and that getting welfare recipients back to work is best for them and the broader community.
Consequently, we introduced the work-for-the-dole scheme and are currently rolling out the welfare-to-work package which creates greater incentives for people to get a job.
Again, this central idea is clear and well understood by the community.
Labor, by contrast, has traditionally held the idea that welfare is good and moral, but now is less certain.
Its current position is at best equivocal and at worst, non-existent.
This is weak and unattractive to the public.
In economic management, we strongly believe in economic growth as essential to delivering jobs, greater prosperity and better community services.
We have no problem with people making money and acknowledge that many of those who have made money have risked their house or other assets in order to do so.
We encourage them and we support policies that encourage business activity and further economic growth.
Again, where is Labor? What is their organising principle?
Do they support economic growth or not?
They say they do, but have they opposed every major economic reform initiative that the Howard Government has introduced over the last 10 years.
I could go on.
In each case, there is a firm set of organising principles that provides a reason for the public to support us, and this is a key part of our success to date.
Winning the young person's vote
This focus on ideas is particulalry important in attracting the young person's vote - a group that has even lower party identification than the general population. (Bean, 2005)
There was once a time when it was conventional wisdom that young people were more likely to vote for left or center-left parties while older people were more likely to vote for center-right or conservative parties.
This is no longer the case.
In the last federal election, 43% of the under 25s, and 50% of those aged between 25 and 30 supported the Coalition parties.
Support for the Liberal Party among the 25-30 year old bracket was higher than the over 30s bracket and was particularly high amongst men - 62%. (Bean, 2005).
The Labor Party and many Baby Boomers still think that young people today are the same as they were when they were young - ideological, pacifist, and always seeking state solutions to problems (if not seeking outright socialism or Marxism).
I don't believe that the majority of young people are like that today.
Young people today are far more pragmatic and don't want the state intervening in their lives.
They see personal freedom as a given.
They want to listen to their own music, to make money, to invest in their future.
This personal freedom extends to their politics.
They are even less affiliated to political parties than the rest of the population and form their opinions based on the merits of the ideas.
Quality ideas are what counts and that is where the Liberal Party is doing well.
Conclusion
My final observations are that while the federal Liberal Party is winning the battle of ideas today, we can never be complacent.
We must continually work on our ideas and refine them as appropriate to maintain their relevance and appeal.
At the state level, the Party will prosper as it engages more vigourously in the battle of ideas.
We will not win state elections just by claiming to be better administrators.
We must continue to define what we stand for, develop our organising principles and give people a reason to vote for us.
And this brings me right back to you, the Young Liberals and this Convention.
You are a key part of our Party in both articulating our ideas and selling them to the public as well as in idea formulation.
Thankyou again for your contributions to the Party and I wish you well for the remainder of the Convention.
ENDS