I would like to thank you for inviting me to deliver the 1997 Robert Nestdale Oration. I did not know Robert, but I know many of his friends in the Liberal Party who often reflect on his fierce advocacy for liberal principles on a range of social issues — particularly individual freedom and the enhancement of human dignity.
Considering Robert's dedication to these principles, I want to use this oration to reflect on how modern liberalism should be applied in a world that many believe to be increasingly devoid of philosophical direction.
George Orwell's classic novel "1984" is a dire prediction for the future of our community. O'Brien, the ultimate Party apparatchik, painted a bleak picture of a world under a brutal totalitarian regime. He said "if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on the human face — for ever".
Arguably, Orwell's 1949 prophecies have become realities for some and I am not referring to the despotic regimes of third world dictators nor the rumoured clandestine ambitions of the New World Order.
We are all able to recognise the extreme results of Orwell's missive, particularly in countries throughout Asia, Africa and South America.
A disproportionate spread in wealth and resources across our global community has resulted in 1.3 billion human beings living on less than $1 a day and one nation in six dealing with ongoing armed conflict. We may have a Universal Declaration on Human Rights but, despite the colourful rhetoric, human rights abuses continue to occur whilst the global protectors stand idly by. We need only recall the pause that followed the Serbian Army genocide of 7,000 Muslim men and boys at Sebrenica before the world reacted.
In Australia, we don't suffer the catastrophic upheavals experienced in other countries. However, Orwell's image of human individuality being stamped out forever may even occur here, unless we stand away from the fracas of daily life and search for the philosophy that will guide our lives.
As each day passes we must ask ourselves as leaders how can the principles of modern liberalism, particularly the inalienable rights of the individual, be applied in our community?
The cornerstone of modern liberalism is the right of the individual to live freely. It is a principle which has been fought over for centuries and one which, in the words of Martin Luther King, "is worth paying for;...is worth losing a job [for];...is worth going to jail for". Of course, for many it has literally been worth dying for.
The inalienable rights of the individual were first expressed by the father of liberalism, John Locke, in 1689. Its application to modern times is simple — the foundation of government should be the protection of individual rights, specifically the rights to life, liberty and property. As custodian of these rights government must protect and enhance the rights of individuals in our society.
An essential part of these rights is the liberty to act freely, according to one's conscience and beliefs, with mutual respect for freedom of expression from all other individuals. In the words of John Milton, "give me the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties".
In a modern liberal society, individuals must seek out and protect their own self-determination. The greatest threat to this path is a paternalistic government which advocates extensive welfare provision as a substitute for individual self-reliance. In Australia, the result of such paternalism over the last few years has created a pool of 7.5 million people who rely on a regular welfare cheque from the government. To put this figure in some perspective, this is more than the total number of Australians in the workforce and costs our nation nearly $50 billion a year, twice the amount spent annually on all forms of education throughout Australia.
This is not to advocate the 'Ayn Rand' school of liberalism where every individual looks after him or herself, regardless of others. On the contrary, a liberal society is a just society where the freedom of the individual to pursue his or her own goals is fiercely protected but brings with it an obligation to protect the weak.
As respected jurisprudential lawyer Charles Fried said "if liberalism is distinctive as a moral position, it is in its attempt to accommodate this duty of altruism to an individual's right to define and pursue his own conception of the good without being consumed by the needs of others".
Modern liberalism also entails a firm belief in parliamentary democracy. For only a democracy can provide for the fullest and freest of expression and the growth of individual ideals, thoughts and policies.
In a parliamentary democracy governments are made responsible and kept accountable by regular elections. However, there is an underlying obligation on citizens to exercise a minimum degree of participation in democracy.
This legitimises government activities. It is as Montesquieu warned — "the tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy". This legitimacy provided by citizens affords governments the right to make provision for the weak in society. The need for this legitimacy is the single most obvious justification for the continuation of compulsory voting.
Modern liberalism also embraces a commitment to improving society through reform. The value of modern liberalism to society is enhanced by constant repositioning of its goals to meet new challenges. For modern liberalism to stagnate, for its principles to become trite and predictable, would sound the death knell for its survival into the next century and beyond.
This commitment to social reform is the most compelling reason for us to categorically reject any suggestion that the modern Liberal Party is a conservative Party. For conservatism is a doctrine that glorifies the status quo. It is an acceptance of a mediocrity which seeks to quash initiative, colour, resourcefulness and expression. It is incompatible with the exigencies of the modern human spirit and for me it is directly at odds with the fundamental principles upon which our great Party was built.
The ability to adapt modern liberal principles to the vagaries of more recent times has provided impetus for social reform. In the 20th century, we have met the challenges of the emancipation of women, recognition of the rights of indigenous Australians, the surge in environmental awareness and rapid technological change. Modern liberalism has provided the framework for meeting these challenges and its success in adapting to such challenges will validate its continuing applicability in our future.
In short, through its commitment to reform modern liberalism is as robust as it is enduring.
In promoting social reform, modern liberalism is able to further its principle of equality of opportunity for all citizens. This principle dictates that creativity and industry should always triumph over the happenstance of birth. I abhor the notion of 'born to rule' which serves only to stultify the most basic and fundamental liberal tenet of equality.
However with this principle comes the obligation on government to create an environment in which opportunity may flourish. For example we must provide a reasonable level of education and must make a reasonable attempt to redistribute resources in order to open the window of opportunity as wide as possible. This entails a provision of an equitable base from which each individual can pursue his or her own path to self-determination.
The principles of modern liberalism are by no means mutually exclusive. There is always a need to weigh the liberal ideals of equality and opportunity against independence and freedom. For instance, the application of affirmative action laws may ensure equality of opportunity for employees, however, it could be argued that they constrain individual choices for potential employers.
It is in this balancing act that the importance of parliamentary democracy becomes apparent. The role of government is to promote and protect liberal values and this is often only achievable through extensive public action and reaction. It is the degree of government intervention in promoting these ideals which is the sticking point.
As renowned liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill said, "a government cannot have too much of the kind of activity which does not impede, but aids and stimulates, individual exertion and development. The mischief begins when, instead of calling forth the activity and powers of individuals,...it substitutes its own activity for theirs".
The true liberal society is one which has resulted from the countless ways in which individuals cooperate with one another and compete. We need only consider the growth of liberal ideals in Australia to illustrate this point.
Our nation's convict heritage provided us with the basis for a true liberal society. To state the obvious, none of the bastions of hereditary privilege travelled with the convicts on the transport ships. With every convict emancipation, with every free settler came the opportunity for individual development. It was a society reliant on the spirit of the pioneers and the entrepreneurs for its very survival. It was also a society which placed great emphasis on two of the strongest liberal doctrines — the development of private economic interests and the ownership of property — and a society which developed a strong dislike of interventionist government.
The advent of modern liberalism in Australia has led to the development of a unique liberalist doctrine — tolerance. Australia is a country where multiculturalism has not only flourished, but has served as a litmus test to the continuing relevance of modern liberalism. Where else in the world can you travel from town to town and know with absolute certainty that nestled between the Royal Hotel and the RSL Club, there will be the local Chinese Restaurant? It is as endearing as it is typically Australian.
But how will modern liberalism survive the challenges of the 21st century? Indeed what will these challenges be?
For the modern liberal, globalisation has brought about a restructuring of its ideals. The inalienable rights of the individual are no longer constrained by national borders and establishing an international system of law and order to protect these rights is the new battle to be won by the modern liberal. Hand in hand with this is the need for an assault on poverty, made easier by a redistribution of the world's natural and man-made resources.
Another challenge facing modern liberals is the increased intervention of public and private interests into virtually all areas of life. The fingers of public and private organisations are reaching around the globe forming amalgams that challenge the ability of the individual to compete on an equal footing. Opportunities available to individuals are being determined by powerful organisations and the ability of individuals to forge a future on their own is disappearing.
Modern liberalism does not decry the concept that the individual's technical knowledge and the power of organisations can be harnessed and act together to promote individual freedom and self-determination. But a distinct problem rises in relation to the effective management by government of powerful organisations. How can governments regulate organisational dominance? Is the answer to provide governments with more power to control the activities of large organisations in the furtherance of the rights of the individual?
To grant more power to governments could serve to promote the paternalistic tendencies on the part of legislators. On the other hand, in reducing government functions to a minimum there might well be a minimising of individualism. Once again, it becomes a balancing act between the legitimate activities of governments promoting the rights of individuals against the individual's capacity for self-reliance.
Perhaps the biggest challenge for modern liberalism is the revolution that has occurred in the field of communication. Over a relatively short period of time, the world has embraced new technologies such as cable TV, electronic mail and the internet. And the development of fibre optics and digital compression has brought about a blurring of the division between the more traditional categories of electronic communications.
What has resulted is a multimedia environment providing average citizens with access to a myriad of transmissions at a mere click of a keyboard or remote control button. This new environment will provide for a revitalised democracy in which the individual wields a powerful voice in political and international affairs and which encourages the development of a more informed and active citizenry.
Not only will this result in more accountability on the part of representatives, but individuals will be better placed to identify with particular issues which will lead to more sophisticated activism on the part of special interest groups. New and developing technologies will close the gap between individual citizens and their representatives, effectively cutting out the middle man.
In fact, an example of this closing of the gap between the individual and more powerful organisations occurred very recently. The latest Hollywood blockbuster, "Titanic", saw the distributor engaging in some very questionable tactics designed to orchestrate reviews of the film. In Australia, the distributor decided that reviewers of the film were to be barred from viewing it until the night before its scheduled release.
As a three hour, 14 minute film costing an extraordinary $US300 million, the distributor was, understandably, sensitive to bad reviews and particularly their impact on global ticket sales. However, the distributor was unable to control the use of the internet by wayward reviewers to post their views on-line. Nor was there anything the reviewer could do about individuals accessing these on-line reviews which, ironically, contained a number of negative reviews. Thus the internet and other newer technologies could provide a more democratic outlet for individuals right across the world.
But the modern liberal should be aware that instead of freeing up access to representatives, a more interactive world could serve to marginalise citizens into the 'haves' and 'havenots', that is, those who have access to communications outlets and those who do not. This would severely undermine the liberal principle of equality of opportunity. Modern liberals should also be warned that the opportunity for almost immediate public response to various issues could eventually serve as a daily opinion poll which would render the compromise and consensus necessary for a liberal parliamentary democracy obsolete.
Once again, modern liberalism will need to balance equality and opportunity against individual rights. The modern liberals' reformist zeal should work to make access to new technologies available to all citizens and a reassessment of individual rights in a parliamentary democracy revitalised by new technologies should be undertaken.
What is obvious from the rapid march of technology is that individuals will be better placed to play a more substantial role in decision-making. This immediate participatory democracy, one which is able to accommodate participation from the community with increasing regularity, will promote the rights of the individual to a level which has never been seen before.
In addition, the scrutiny under which parliamentary democracy will be placed in this new world will make representatives not only more accountable, but will reactivate the grass roots dialogue envisaged by the founders of liberalism as the very essence of true parliamentary democracy. This increased focus on accountability and individual rights will pave the road to further social reform which, in turn, will see equality of opportunity prevail.
As we face this bold, new and almost surreal world we as modern liberals cannot allow complacency to set in. In facing the challenges which will be brought about by globalisation and technological change, we must continually revisit the foundations of modern liberalism and we must support their continued application to our evolutionary world.
Above all else the shadow of alternate philosophies must never darken the beacon of hope that only modern liberalism can keep burning brightly for the victims of an Orwellian world.