I

97

71

83

58

60

00

8

04

Volume 3 Number 4www.australianpolity.com

In Pursuit of Modern MarriageImportance of Marriage for the Family

Making Family Bonds StrongerHelping Relationships to Strengthen Families

Overcoming the Threat to Freedom of SpeechBreaking the Limitations on Free Speech

Researching the Asian CenturyAchieving Real Results in Higher Education

Reaching for Better Child CareBuillding Productivity and Increasing Options for Families

“In every state, not wholly barbarous, a philosophy, good or bad, there must be. However slightingly it may be the fashion to talk of speculation and theory, as opposed (sillily and nonsensically opposed) to practice, it would not be difficult to prove, that such as is the existing spirit of speculation, during any given period, such will be the spirit and tone of the

religion, legislation, and morals, nay, even of the fine arts, the manners, and the fashions.”

- Coleridge, Essays on His Own Times.

As Coleridge observed, every age is the subject of a prevailing philosophy. There are many elements to this public culture: the content of everyday conversation, the discourse of the daily media, the sermons from pulpits and other places, the subject matter of political debate, and the lessons of teachers and scholars, to name just a few.

The prevailing philosophy is not static. Like a stream, it flows in a series of eddies, washing this way and that. It runs up against objects that can divert it in differing directions. It can be shaped, over time, in one direction or another. And it is subject to competing claims and interpretations.

At its heart is the wellbeing of society. It defines how we live together: What is permitted and what is forbidden; what is right and what is wrong; what is lawful and what is unlawful; what is supported and what is rejected.

Ideas are important. They shape the public culture. They inform political discussions. They shape the role of government. They define the relationships between individuals, families, and the institutions of civil society. They underpin policies and programs. In short, they inform us about how we should live together.

There are certain ideas that we believe are important:

• That the dignity of the individual is the foundation of all other relationships;

• That the political and economic freedom of the individual is central to societal wellbeing, and that personal responsibility underpins such freedom;

• That the convental relationships of love, loyalty, friendship and trust exist outside the political sphere but are essential to the health of society;

• That social order and shared values underpin a healthy society;

• That government should be limited, without forgetting that the protection of the poor and the weak are pivotal political challenges;

• That functional families are crucial for the raising of children and the stability of society;

• That society is a partnership across generations;

• That we belong to a nation, not a series of segregated groups; and

• That our western, liberal democracy best enhances individual freedom and human dignity and is worth defending.

Our purpose therefore is to examine the principles that underpin policy and to discuss proposals and program directions.

Volume 3 Number 4www.australianpolity.com

Contents

ISSN 1835-8608Published by The Hon Kevin Andrews MP, Level 1, 651 Doncaster Road, Doncaster VIC 3108Printed by New Litho Pty Ltd, 124 Union Road, Surrey Hills VIC 3127Address for Correspondence: Australian Polity, PO Box 124, Doncaster VIC 3108The views and opinions expressed herein by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.All articles remain the property of Kevin Andrews MP, however, the publisher welcomes reproduction of articles.If you wish to republish an article, please contact the publisher for permission prior to publication.

Editorial 2

THE NATIONAL INTEREST

Population Changes and the Baby Bonus 3

FEATURES

In Pursuit of Modern Marriage 7 Andrew Bolt

Making Family Bonds Stronger 11 Kevin Andrews

Overcoming the Threat 17 to Freedom of Speech Scott Ryan

Researching the Asian Century 23 Brett Mason

Reaching for Better Child Care 29 Sussan Ley

ECONOMY

Key Economic Indicators 35

PETER WEHNER

The Recalibration of Conservatism 36

2

A s families throughout Australia have come together over the recent month to celebrate the festive season, many would have been sharing countless stories about how they

are doing it tough and trying to make ends meet.The last year has not been an easy one for Australian

families with the introduction of a carbon tax, reduction in the Private Health Rebate, and many organisations that have helped in the past have been unable to do so due to increased regulatory burdens and decreased funding.

The central theme of this edition of Australian Polity is the family. It is an important subject to consider and reflect upon as the burdens on Australian families have never been greater.

The current Labor Government has been slowly reducing support to Australian families while at the same time increasing the burden on them.

In this edition of Polity, Andrew Bolt reviews my recently published book, Maybe ‘I do’ — Modern Marriage and the Pursuit of Happiness, outlining the importance of the family in the protection and welfare of children. There is no greater investment in the future than that in our children and society should do all it can to ensure that every child has the best start in life.

Following on this topic of the welfare and protection of children, I write about the constant attack of the Labor Government on the various mechanisms that support families. I highlight the issues being faced in the charitable sector that will critically hamper the efforts these non-government organisations to help families in their times of greatest need.

Scott Ryan argues that there is no such thing as a

legitimate restriction of free speech where someone feels offended or racially vilified. He argues that it is better to allow the speech and then argue why such an opinion is wrong rather than simply outlawing it from the outset.

With the rising importance of the Asian region in Australia’s foreign policy and as a considerable market for Australia’s services, Brett Mason outlines the Coalition’s approach to improving Australia’s higher education system so that it maintains not only its current world class standards, but continues to improve. With the increasing prosperity of the region, Australia is well placed to take advantage of our natural advantages in higher education and educate the next generation of leaders in our region.

Sussan Ley contributes an article outlining the Coalition’s approach to child care and the importance of delivering choice to Australian families, whether a parent wishes to stay at home and care for their children, re-enter the workforce, or other care options for their children. With the increasing pressure on the Australian economy to deliver greater productivity gains, the issue of child care is going to be consistently at the forefront of any policy debates in Australia. As such, the Coalition has provided a way forward with a comprehensive review of the sector and ways in which it can be improved to provide even greater benefit to Australian families.

The family is an integral part of any society. Any policy approach needs to always take into consideration the effect it will have on families. It is necessary to create an environment where families are confident so that they can build a future for themselves and their children. The underlying sentiment of this edition of Australian Polity is opportunity for families and all Australians.

EDITORIAL

The Hon Kevin Andrews MPShadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human ServicesMember for Menzies

3

THE NATIONAL INTEREST

W hen Peter Costel lo famously encouraged Australian families to have a child for Mum, one for Dad and one for the country, he was

focused on a significant national challenge, the aging of the population.

Population aging is the product of two demographic trends, longevity and a declining birth rate. It is a challenge for many western nations, including Australia.

Australians are living longer, on average, than at any time in the past. While this will increase costs, especially for aged and health care, it is not an insurmountable problem. It is the combination of longer living and declining fertility that threatens the economic growth of the nation.

According to the OECD, the ratio of older people to those in the workforce in 1990 was nineteen per cent. By the year 2030, this dependency ratio will double to 38 per cent across OECD countries.

In a study of global fertility rates, the Australian demographer Peter McDonald concluded that if the current levels of fertility were maintained in many western nations, they are so low that they would threaten the future existence of the nations concerned: “In an era in which we have come to understand the momentum of population increase, it is remarkable that we are

yet to appreciate that the same momentum applies to population decrease.”

The concentration in media headlines on the total size of the global population continues to mask the depopulation momentum in many nations. “Perhaps people used to living for the here and now may have difficulty appreciating the long-term consequences beyond their immediate horizon,” noted the Australian demographers, John Caldwell and Thomas Schindlmayr, in their study of 28 countries where the fertility rate has fallen to less than 1.4.

As the experience of Singapore illustrates, once the birth rate falls below about 1.4 children per woman, it is extremely difficult to grow it again.

One of the most rapidly ageing societies in the world, Japan, provides a glimpse of the demographic decline underway. While the Japanese are living longer, the number of young people never marrying has also increased significantly. The National Institute of Population and Social Security Research forecasts that the population will decline from 127.7 million to 86.7 million by 2060, and fall again to 42.9 million by 2110 “if conditions remain unchanged.”

The economic impact will be significant. Using data from two countries that have experienced population contraction—Russia and North Korea—economist

Population Changes and the Baby Bonus

4

Sanghan Yea states that population decline will have a more damaging impact than we expect presently: “Depopulation not only stops economic growth completely, but also reverses it.” Not only is there less demand for goods and services, the reduction in new entrants to the labour force may decrease flexibility and productivity. The world’s working age population grew by 1.3 billion, or 40 per cent, between 1990 and 2010, but is expected to increase by only about 900 million between 2010 and 2030.

Future growth in the workforce requires a prior investment in children. In the US, it has been estimated that the investment in human capital has amounted to two-thirds of the nation’s economic growth historically.

Demographic patterns are not easily reversed. Even if nations introduced policies today to address these trends, it would likely take two generations for an impact to be observed. It is also easy for nations in the early stages of fertility decline to be seduced by the phenomenon known as the “demographic dividend.”

This occurs when birth rates first fall, allowing more people, especially women, to enter the paid workforce. Individuals are able to spend and invest more, including in the education of fewer children. The phenomena occurred in Japan and other Asian countries from the 1960s, and are occurring in China currently.

But the dividend must be repaid. As the population ages, there are fewer workers and the numbers of dependent aged grows, there is a drain on resources. Japan is already experiencing the impact, and China will in the coming two decades, as it enters long-term depopulation.

Australia ignores these trends at its peril. That is why Wayne Swan’s attack on the baby bonus

is misguided. Not only does it undermine many families that are already struggling with cost of living pressures, it diminishes a measure that helped to maintain a higher birth rate. Over the decade from 2001, the birth rate grew from 1.72 to about 1.9.

NATSEM research indicates that single-income families suffer the highest rates of poverty when their youngest child turns three because of the ending of benefits like the baby bonus. It is hardly the time for Labor to be hitting them again.

7

I was amazed to go into the men’s toilets at the Herald Sun. There was a new notice from the Health Department with the title: ‘Attention: Wash your hands’. There were also step-by-step instructions,

with pictures, on how to do so—four pictures to establish how to wash your hands.

It is absolutely extraordinary that we should need to be reminded of something so basic—not only basic hygiene, but basic courtesy.

In a sense this is a far more profound exercise but it seems to me in the same way extraordinary that we need to have a book to tell you that marriage is good.

It is unbelievable when you think about it that you need to make the case for marriage. Unless you thought there are a lot of forces arguing the opposite or at least diminishing the institution of marriage. It is like one of those things where government passes law that tells you not that something is being fixed but tells you there is a problem that someone thinks this law might address.

It is a sign of trouble. One of the ways we have seen this is in the recent debate over same-sex marriage. Leaving aside the issue, the whole idea was, the rhetoric was, we need same-sex marriage because it is equal marriage; we need equality, that same-sex marriage is an instrument of equality. This redefinition of what marriage is about is extraordinary. Marriage is not an instrument of equality, to show that you are broadminded, or to welcome various minorities. It is nothing to do with that.

It is about getting people to make a lifelong commitment, to raise children in the best possible social

unit. Kevin repeatedly goes back to that in his book, quite rightly. It is about the children. Two adults, three adults, four adults, whatever grouping together is of no interest to the country.

We do not need to legitimise friendships. We do not need a document to legitimise that you are particularly close to any other adult. You can have that relationship. You do not need society to bless it. The reason for marriage is that it is an attempt to make people commit through the power of tradition and putting up an ideal. Another reason for marriage is to make people commit not because we are particularly interested that Jill stays Jack, but that the parents stay with the children.

In Pursuit of Modern Marriage

Andrew Bolt

Andrew Bolt is the host of the Bolt Report on Channel Ten and a columnist for News Limited Newspapers.

Maybe ‘I do’ — Modern Marriage and the Pursuit of HappinessBy Kevin Andrews.

Published by Connor Court Publishing.

For more information, visit: maybeido.com or connorcourt.com

In Pursuit of Modern Marriage

8

It is about the civilising influence to produce the next-generation that will be great citizens. That is particularly important because you have to make lots of concessions in this argument. You always have to acknowledge there are lots of people from good families, and children from good families that turn out bad. You also have to acknowledge that there are lots of children from dysfunctional families that turn out good. You do not need to look far and wide to find these.

The evidence is absolutely clear: the best chance to raise a happy child, a well adjusted child, a safe child is in an intact marriage with a mother and a father.

Unfortunately those facts have been steadily washed away by a fear of being judgemental, replaced by desire, that it is honourable, to include as many people as possible. As a result, children are paying the price and what we have seen with the same-sex debate, as with the general attitude to marriage that it is about the adults.

I admire people who feel loved. That is great. But that is not what marriage is about. Think of the children. I think of the fact that some 50,000 Australian children each year go through the trauma of divorce. It is a trauma for them.

Very few children say “I wish my parents would divorce.” So often they are not taken into proper consideration. It is a tragedy for them. Almost inevitably, even with remarriage, children are being asked

to make huge sacrifices. This is why it is so important that we have tradition, an expectation, and an ideal to keep people together.

I f i nd one o f the mos t extraordinary figures in Kevin’s book, that one third of people who divorced, five years later realise it was a mistake or say it was a mistake and forty per cent say the marriage could have been saved.

That is really sad particularly for those who have children. Children pay the biggest price for their mistake.

If there was a greater social sanction for marriage, how many of those marriages could have been saved.

When you remove fault—as in no fault divorce—you are going to get lots more broken families and lots more broken children. That is the way it is.

Another statistic that I find remarkable is that we have made a temple, a new religion, in the body: worship yourself and happiness. This is a part of this drift to marriage as a temporary thing for our personal convenience and if we find someone nicer, let us not commit too much, we will break the marriage and go somewhere else.

If we have got this worship of the body what does it say according to statistics and studies that Kevin produces that people who are not married tend to have a lower life expectancy. They tend to be unhappier and not so rich. In particular, the lower life expectancy is equivalent

according to one study of smoking a packet of cigarettes regularly.

It is extraordinary if we are really so worried about the health impact of cigarettes then why not the same about marriage?

We need to really think about these things.

Kevin has some good ideas about what government can do, and what people can do to keep their marriage going. It means work. It is a sense of a journey being taken, with hurdles overcome, the sense of achievement, and not enough people know that.

This is a tremendously important book, for all Kevin says on laws, it is the fact that he writes it, engages it, and makes it an issue.

In the end it will be a counter-cultural movement that saves marriage. Not so much a law.

It is people thinking about it, honouring it, realising all the challenges to it, realising what it is they must protect and in that regard, I am sorry that this book had to be written. I am tremendously glad that it has been written. It is a countercultural movement that needs your support.

These are edited remarks of Andrew Bolt from the launch of Maybe ‘I do’ — Modern Marriage and the Pursuit of Happiness, October 2012.

9

11

T he Brookings Institution economist, Isabel Sawhill, wrote this year that if individuals do just three things—finish High School, work full time and marry before they have children—

their chances of being poor drop from fifteen per cent to two per cent.

The respected scholar of child poverty went on the say that “unless the media, parents and other influential leaders celebrate marriage as the best environment for raising children, the new trend—bringing up baby alone—may be irreversible.”

Sawhill is not alone in her observations.Across the Atlantic, the UK Centre for Social Justice

concluded in its report, Broken Britain, that the fabric of society was crumbling, leaving at its margins an underclass, where life is characterised by dependency, addiction, debt and family breakdown. It is an underclass where a child born into poverty today is more likely to remain in poverty than any time since the late 1960s. The Centre identified five key paths to poverty: family breakdown, serious personal debt, drug and alcohol addiction, failed education, worklessness and dependency.

In Australia, demographers at Monash University were some of the first in the western world to observe a growing gap between the educated, employed, well-off and married; and those who are less educated, in marginal or no employment, and are unpartnered. It is a trend that has since been recognised in the US, the UK and elsewhere.

Hundreds of social science studies across the western world now point to one clear conclusion: that the incidence

of family breakdown and unpartnered parenthood is having a significant impact, especially on children, but also on adults and society. This is something which many of you witness every day in your work.

This trend was borne out by data released by ACOSS recently, which revealed that 25 per cent of lone parents in Australia live below the poverty line (defined as fifty per cent of median income). Similarly, 52 per cent of the unemployed and 43 per cent of parenting payment recipients are below the fifty per cent of median income line, suggesting that Isabel Sawhill’s observation is as true for Australia as it is for the US.

As I point out in my recent book, Maybe ‘I do’ — Modern Marriage and the Pursuit of Happiness, the studies report problematic outcomes for the health, education and well-being of the young people affected by the changes. Where children experience more than one family transition, the risks compound.

This is not to say that all the effects apply to each child whose parents’ divorce, or who is raised by a single parent. There is no way to predict how any particular child will be affected, nor to what extent. But it is clear that there are widespread ramifications for this cohort of children as a whole.

Nor is it to suggest that many single parents are not doing a good job, often in very difficult circumstances.

The renowned sociologist, Professor Andrew Cherlin, notes, even if a minority of the affected children have their

Making Family Bonds Stronger

Kevin Andrews

The Hon Kevin Andrews MP is the Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services and the Federal Member for Menzies.

Making Family Bonds Stronger

12

lives altered, it is still a lot of children.This has been reinforced for me over

the past few weeks. A school principal related how an increasing number of kids come to school without having had breakfast and are often unable to settle into class. A welfare group informed me about the new poor fifty-something women whose marriages have ended, and who have neither a job nor adequate retirement savings. A homeless shelter told me that almost every young person there had come from a dysfunctional family and many had been abused.

If we are concerned about poverty and social justice, we must be concerned about what is happening to marriage and family in our society.

Increasingly, social scientists argue that we must do something about the issue.

The alternative is to treat the negative consequences as the unavoidable flotsam of modern relations. This is a counsel of despair.

Isabel Sawhill’s observation, based on over forty years of research, seems like common sense. Encouraging young people to finish school, get a job and make a commitment before having children should be the foundation of social policy.

In Maybe ‘I do’ — Modern Marriage and the Pursuit of Happiness, proposals are outlined about how we might attempt some of these things. Importantly, it involves a new emphasis on prevention and early intervention.

Previously, it has been suggested that government should cut the red tape and burdensome reporting requirements on family service providers.

Since then, many opportunities have presented themselves to discuss those proposals with many service providers across the nation.

Family service agencies provide

valuable services to the community. Many have been working with the poor, the marginalised, and the vulnerable for decades.

Services have arisen from perceived needs in the community. Programs, ranging from parenting skills training, through marriage and family education and counselling, to divorce mediation, drug and alcohol assistance, and family violence programs, provide information and support to hundreds of thousands of Australians annually. Many agencies are motivated by charitable intentions. They are professionally conducted, and often utilise the valuable contributions of volunteers.

Government has increasingly reached into the affairs of these agencies over the past two decades, imposing more and more burdensome contractual and reporting requirements. For example:• separate audited financial

statements are often required for each funded program, even though the agencies’ annual financial returns are audited for annual registration purposes;

• serial audits are conducted, often for different programs and within different time frames;

• different quality assurance measures are required of the same agencies; and

• masses of data are collected at considerable cost to the agency about each client, but much of this is not retrievable by the agency and is not collated by the Department.Government contractual and

reporting requirements cost family service agencies significant sums of money to administer. Much data is collected, but little of it is ever used. Many agencies have multiple contracts with governments, with different

requirements, different obligations, and different reporting. Agencies continue to expend valuable resources on meeting these requirements that could better be spent on providing services and funding innovation.

The Coalition supports transparency and accountability in the use of taxpayer’s funds. It also supports simplicity and efficiency. The civil sector has a long history of responsible governance and management. The Coalition will respect and trust this.

In 2010 the Coalition announced that in government it would simplify the relationship between government and family service providers.

The Coalition believes in working with the sector, not directing the sector and treating it as an extension of the state.

And we believe that those working in the sector, not bureaucrats working in Canberra, are best placed to tell us how we can work together to ensure we are making life for institutions of the civil sector easier, not harder.

The Coalition will:• implement one contact with the

Department for each agency, instead of multiple contracts;

• require the Department to negotiate the content of the contracts with the agencies, instead of simply imposing it upon them;

• simplify the auditing process to require only one financial report from each agency annually;

• replace the current system of rolling audits with an initial benchmarking audit that has a period of five years, with spot audits to be undertaken if the Commonwealth is made aware of any adverse conduct on behalf of the agency;

Kevin Andrews

13

• simplify reporting requirements for governance arrangements, with registration as a company or unincorporated association su f f i c ing a s ev idence o f a p p r o p r i a t e g ov e r n a n c e arrangements;

• require all agencies to lodge a one-page ‘annual governance return’ by the chairperson of the board or governing body, indicating the agency is properly governed;

• replace the current t ime-consuming and costly system

of data col lection with a requirement that each agency file a quarterly report indicating the number of clients seen by the agency, according to program area, and postcode of the client;

• require each agency to publish on its website its annual financial return and an annual governance statement;

• replace the current system of data collection with a series of cross-sector evaluations of the efficiency and effectiveness of various programs;

• work wi th the sec tor to ensure adequate and known whistleblower provisions are in place. These changes will ensure the

agencies are able to focus their time and resources on delivering vital services to the community. They also make clear that the Government is supporting and empowering the valuable work of the agencies, not directing them as an arm of the State. Importantly, they clarify that the responsibility for the conduct of the services rests with the agencies themselves, not the Government. If an

Making Family Bonds Stronger

14

agency, or a person associated with it, acts improperly, they are subject to existing laws. In addition, Government may withdraw financial support if the public trust conferred upon them is broken.

These changes would save on expenditure for both the Department and the Agencies. In particular, it would obviate the need for the costly, time-consuming FRSP online (the Department’s data collection system).

The measures would reduce reporting requirements by a significant margin. The savings generated by agencies through the implementation of this measure will be retained by them for the provision of services.

These proposals stand in stark contrast to the government’s proposals. Even the recent Discussion Paper fails to fully appreciate the administrative burden on family service organisations.

Secondly, the Coalition will adopt a different approach to the Labor Party to the associations of civil society.

First, the Coalition recognises that there is a place for a national body to enhance the role of the institutions of civil society. Accordingly, the Coalition will repeal the Charities Commission, but support a small organisation as an educative and training body, a type of Centre for Excellence for the sector. The Coalition will work with the sector to ensure that it represents the sector. The Coalition will work with the sector to transfer responsibility and governance of the Commission to the sector over the next few years.

Under the Coalition, the independent body will:• provide education and support

services to registered charities;• provide information to assist

with the process of registration for new charities and not-for-profit agencies;

• act as a ‘one-stop shop’ for information on charitable organisations and agencies operating within Australia;

• advocate for the rights of charities and not-for-profit agencies;

• represent the interests of charities and not-for-profit agencies to government;

• help facilitate the interaction between government and the charitable and not-for-profit sector;

• undertake research and cross-sector evaluations on issues of concern to the sector;

• help foster innovation within the sector.The Coalition will also ask the new

body to co-ordinate with the sector, the Commonwealth, the States and Territories to propose a new, common financial and other reporting standard that will negate the practice of numerous reports being prepared each year for different funding and regulatory bodies.

The Coalition will retain the regulatory powers that already exist in the Australian Taxation Office, Australian Securities and Investments Commission and other similar bodies, and not transfer them to the new Commission.

Un t i l a n d u n l e s s t h e r e i s harmonisat ion of var ious Commonwealth, State and Territory laws, the proposed Commission simply adds yet another layer of regulation and bureaucracy on the sector. The Coalition will respect the role of the States, but work with them to achieve harmony in relation to fundraising codes and other regulations.

Secondly, the Coalition will retain the current Common Law definition of charity, and maintain the Public Benefit Test. This is consistent with the evidence based reviews of the 2001

Charities Definition Inquiry, the 2008 Henry Review, and the 2010 Productivity Commission report.

The Coalition will examine any particular issues that are the cause of concern. It has at times been suggested that the Charities Sector needs review and regulation because the sector receives substantial tax concessions. Arguments about tax concessions for charities and NFPs do not belong in the consultation and formulation of policy on the definition of charity, the ACNC, NFP governance arrangements and charitable fundraising. The issues should not be conflated.

The Coalition will work with the sector to address any particular issues that arise regarding the taxation treatment of charitable organisations. We will not use discrete taxation issues as a Trojan Horse to impose a burdensome new regulatory system on the sector.

There are two approaches to the central task of politics, which is to help determine how we can live together. One approach is summed up in the opening words of the Maiden Speech of the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd: “Politics is about power. It is about the power of the State. It is about the power of the State as applied to individuals, the society in which they live and the economy in which they work.”

The other approach is about empowering people, not exercising power over them. It is the approach summed-up in Abraham Lincoln’s famous description of democracy as “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

The political community should be of service to civil society. That is what the Coalition will endeavour to achieve in government.These are edited remarks of Kevin Andrews at the Family Relationship Services Australia Conference, November 2012.

17

T he discussion about legitimate restrictions on speech, and in particular the Coalition’s commitment to amend section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, has been a

contentious, but important one.We all want to live in a free society. We all want

people to express their opinions and debate ideas and policies. We want people to live free of racism and the threat of violence in all forms.

However, there are some people who are not persuaded by the classical case for free speech as an argument to do away with section 18C of the Act. I do not want to convey any impression that I am somehow assigning a different motive to those who support racial discrimination laws. We have different views. I believe we all are headed in the same direction, but we have different paths.

At a personal level, I, like all liberals, retain a genuine and heartfelt concern with limits on speech.

The Andrew Bolt case in 2011 profoundly shocked many liberals. By liberals I mean those philosophically committed to the ideal of freedom of thought and speech, in almost absolute terms, with as few restrictions as possible.

Thomas Jefferson’s Memorial reads:

I have sworn upon the altar of god every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

I have always been a little moved by that statement.

It captures the liberal view that there is no more sacred, no more critical right in our free civil society than what we call freedom of speech.

It is so simply and popularly outlined in the United States’ 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech

There is a reason it holds such a special position in the pantheon of rights. Initially came our freedom to own property, then of religion and third freedom of speech. It was only following this that we obtained elections and the ballot—after people were given the voice to demand them. It was freedom of speech that drove the liberal revolution from which our societies are drawn. It empowered the development of institutions that we take for granted. I do not pretend this was without flaws or that it applied equally to all initially. But amongst those to whom it first applied some spoke out, so that these freedoms do now apply to all.

Martin Luther King crying for the ballot; those who opposed Robert Menzies’ attempts to ban the Communist party; those who condemned Pauline Hanson—critical battles like this were won by brave people challenging opinion, authority and sometimes even legal limits on speech.

Overcoming the Threat to Freedom of Speech

Scott Ryan

Senator Scott Ryan is a Senator for Victoria and the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition.

Overcoming the Threat to Freedom of Speech

18

The freedom to speak one’s mind, to challenge authority and the prevailing wisdom was the critical tool to bring about change in institutions, values and even what constitutes acceptable debate in our society. This is the perspective from where liberals start.

Free speech is on a very high pedestal, and we are sceptical of restrictions upon it. Indeed, if I briefly move to a more partisan analysis, I cannot think of another issue that so unites the members of the Liberal and National parties, both parliamentary and general membership, as this visceral commitment to free speech and hostility to new limits on it.

The Bolt case brought it home to many that the right we took for granted was under a very real threat. Within days of the judgement, the Institute of Public Affairs had thousands of donors to a campaign to repeal these laws, including a full page advertisement in The Australian, to which I was a signatory.

It is necessary to ask, why the Bolt case was such a shock, and why, by extension, is section 18C such a threat?

Much has been written about this before, so I will not simply cover old ground. But a few points are particularly helpful in explaining the liberal perspective.

According to the advice posted by the Australian Human Rights Commission, “The victim’s perspective is the measure of whether an act is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate.” I do not believe I have a right to protection from being offended or insulted. This is an extraordinarily low and subjective standard to use as a weapon against the expression of opinion.

As it is written currently, the Act is too wide. It does not differentiate between express ing opinions and intimidating or threatening individuals or groups. In the Bolt case, the fact that someone was offended was then used to seek legal redress, including an order that the comments not be published again. This is frightful to liberals.

Only a fortnight ago we had a report of the action faced by Professor Don Aitkin, who after making a blog comment regarding the colour of the skin of someone performing a welcome to country, was threatened with being sued for $6 million.

In the art ic le I read, Mr Mortimer, the complainant, was reported as saying:

[It] casts doubt on my community s t a n d i n g . D i s c r e d i t s m y Aboriginality internationally. Undermines my confidence. Treats me contemptuously, disrespectfully and offensively.

Regardless of the motivation, do any of us have a right to the protection of the state and the application of the full force of law against any damage to our confidence, being disrespected or offended? If so, then we should get moving on a dramatic expansion of a soon-to-be-very-busy judiciary.

The judgement of Justice Mordecai Bromberg in the Bolt case outlines this view in more detail:

At the core of multiculturalism is the idea that people may identify with and express their racial or ethnic heritage free from pressure not to do so. People should be free to fully identify with their race without fear of public disdain or

loss of esteem for so identifying. Disparagement directed at the legitimacy of the racial identification of a group of people is likely to be destructive of racial tolerance.

There are several assumptions here that I disagree with and I think many Australians would challenge as well—or at least need a lot of convincing. Why does the idea of multiculturalism entail the freedom to make a decision without consequence? That is to be free from pressure not to do so, or being free from criticism or disdain?

I a m a d e f e n d e r o f multiculturalism, despite the fact that there is so much argument over the word itself, which is often a distraction. But this is not a broadly accepted test of what multiculturalism is. If it is to be the newly established test, then multiculturalism has just lost a defender.

The difference between simple tolerance and legislated, compulsory acceptance is critical here. Legislation that attempts to force acceptance through preventing criticism is likely to be much more destructive of racial tolerance than simply allowing the criticism and dealing with it, fair or otherwise. The risk of backlash against people, policies and ideas that are protected by special laws, subjective judgements and selective enforcement is a much greater driver of increased racial tension.

This law also has a chilling effect. As the Aitkin case may illustrate, the mere threat of legal action can also bring the threat of ruin. An overly sensitive victim of my criticism, a trigger-happy pro bono lawyer and my family could lose their home. This

19

may not only occur as the result of an opinion that is in breach of the law, but for an opinion that is not. Most people have no capacity to defend themselves against such actions. And it may even be for a comment that does not promote, espouse or threaten violence. Comments on particular threads on Andrew Bolt’s blogs are closed—even when they are moderated. This is at least partly due to the risk of legal action.

The test is so subjective that it is much harder to police than the law

of defamation. Other bloggers I know are concerned about a single vexatious litigant attempting to make a point against something they might post, for example on a contentious area of indigenous affairs. The law then becomes a tool of political debate, wielded by one side only of course. One prominent publishing website, Online Opinion, is limiting discussion of these issues more than it did previously because of this legal risk.

I believe there are also important opportunity costs to this legalistic

approachAnother liberal icon John Stuart

Mill said the best way to address bad speech was more speech. I firmly believe that we undervalue this approach. The best way to address ignorance and tackle racism is to attack it—not suppress it.

There are many despicable opinions in the world today. In Australia and around the world, there are individuals and groups who hold opinions that are poorly formed, that are obnoxious, and that we

Overcoming the Threat to Freedom of Speech

20

strongly disagree with. But offensive speech, particularly racist speech, should not simply be shut down. It should be attacked, repudiated and disproven. It should be prominently and expeditiously pilloried in such a fashion so as to make it unacceptable, even mocked.

The best laws will not protect people from widespread racism, it is community attitudes that are critical. That appalling abuse we saw against a young French-speaker on a Melbourne bus recently will not be stopped by laws. It will be stopped by people feeling the need and duty to step in—and, I might add, feeling safe enough to do so.

Our true objective is ensuring community norms encourage people to feel a right and duty to speak out to condemn racism. And while I understand the argument that laws may underpin community norms, I disagree that this is the most effective way to maintain and develop them. Effective repudiation is what will influence community norms the most.

Look at Europe—extensive racial vilification laws have done nothing to address the rise in modern anti-Semitism. Yet the nation with the freest speech on earth—the United States—is the one with of the most secure ethnic communities, indeed with the most secure communities of victimised minorities from around the world.

The real problem with the use of legal processes to address these issues is that it also shuts down the opportunity to publicly repudiate them, and to do so quite viciously if necessary—or even to undertake a bit of comedic humiliation when we move from the merely offensively

racist to the ridiculous conspiracy theory.

To ban the offensive Holocaust denier is also to restrict our opportunity to humiliate that person and disprove his or her ideas. To silence some preacher spewing anti-Islamic hate is to prevent us condemning that person and demanding correction and repudiation by his followers, or letting it be known who they are. It is our reaction to racism that is most important.

It is through our combating racism that we beat it—not through suppressing it. It is too easy then to pretend it does not exist. We must not just win these battles, we must be seen to win them. To do that we must combat it publicly, in the full glare of the public.

I am also fearful of the risk of future applications of these laws.

What of the risk of the meaning and application of this provision changing? What if one day Zionism was deemed to be racist and action was taken against those who supported the Jewish state? Sadly I can too easily imagine that happening.

We know some sections of our universities use a logic not unlike section 18C—offence is in the eye of the beholder. I have sat in meetings when I was a student and staff member at one of our universities and been told support for Israel is racist. While many cannot imagine it happening right now, who could rule it out?

Some nat ions use s imple defamation law to stifle speech. Do we really want these institutions and levers in place if we are uncertain about their use? This is one of the most important liberal critiques of laws that limit speech.

I also fear that aggressive use of legal provisions threatens an important national consensus. The Racial Discrimination Act was introduced in the dying days of the Whitlam government. It now forms a central part of our polity, the broad principles that it reflects form a special part of the corpus of law in modern Australia.

Section 18C came two decades later, to prohibit statements that are “reasonably likely, in all circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people” on the grounds of race or ethnicity.

It has a lways been more content ious and a lways had a significant degree of liberal opposition. This opposition comprises many who are just as committed to combating racism in all its forms, but at the same time, are sceptical of state imposed restrictions on speech.

One of the real concerns I have with the existing section 18C is that it damages the entire anti-discrimination regime. The subjective nature of the offence, the wide variance in its application and now I fear its increasing use merely to bring attention to an issue or to attack an opponent, as well as the more widespread scepticism of limits on speech all pose the risk of public support being challenged.

I, for example, have always been uncomfortable with the Commonwealth’s use of the external affairs power to expand its jurisdiction beyond the scope of the authority granted by the people. But in this case I support the Racial Discrimination Act as it is a law that limits the capacity of the state to discriminate based on race.

Scott Ryan

21

It is an act that empowers and protects the individual from the mob, the state, and even the tyranny of a local majority. But as a liberal it is those same values that concern me about section 18C and the threat it poses to speech.

For I also have a fear of a self-defined elitist mob using the state’s legal mechanisms and the tyranny of a temporary majority preventing people voicing unpopular opinions. I hasten to add again that it is not the racist speech I am particularly afraid of being banned. But limits on speech have a habit of being slippery and expanding in nature.

In November, the Gillard Government released its exposure draft of its proposed consolidated Anti-Discrimination Bill. My initial reading of it leads me to believe it poses a further serious threat to the national consensus I mentioned earlier. The dramatic expansion of the grounds to claim discrimination and the reversal of the onus of proof are

as significant a threat to wide public support for anti-discrimination laws as I could imagine. Combined with the threat posed by the continued selective operation of section 18C, I genuinely believe the status quo is not an option.

As for Labor’s proposed bill I cannot jump ahead of our party’s consideration, but let me simply say I am glad the proposed bill is only an exposure draft. So I suggest an alternative.

There will always be racism. There will always be ignorance. And we need to deal with them.

Despite the inevitable presence of highly offensive speech, our case is stronger for it being fought publicly, rather than through legal fights over the offensive terminology of banners and speeches.

For other communities in Australia that feel marginalised, they would do well to learn from the local Jewish community. Education, outreach and leadership in the media

are, in my opinion, far more effective methods of fighting back than through the courts. These techniques reach thousands of people and the ripple effect is immeasurable.

So if we amend section 18C, our community leaders need to step up—and by that I mean politicians, business, ethnic, religious and other leaders. From the politician to the footy coach. We should repudiate the views that are offensive.

I promise you that I will continue to speak out, as I already have on many issues, including anti-Semitism.

Freedom of speech requires both sides to compete, and occasionally to even fight, in the marketplace of ideas. In this respect I am an optimist about Australia and Australians. Just as we have over the last half century, this is a battle we will continue to win.

These are edited remarks of Scott Ryan at the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, November 2012.

23

E very decade or so, it seems, Labor rediscovers Asia like some sort of latter day Vasco da Gama. Gough Whitlam, Paul Keating, and now the Prime Minister Julia Gillard have all,

over the years, come to the conclusion that geography is destiny and Australia’s future lies with our neighbours to the north. Never more so than today and tomorrow when the economic growth of China, India and other Tigers, Pandas and Elephants make Europe and the Unites States look like washed-up has-beens.

Which is what happens to Western governments when they accrue excessive public debt and seek to dump IOUs in the laps of future generations. When governments raise too little and spend too much to ensure intergenerational equity.

For most part the “Australia in the Asian Century” white paper is a truism. It is full of statements that no one would disagree or argue with. Everyone is by now aware of the changes taking place in Asia, though many might not be quite aware of the breath-taking extent of these transformations. Those with drive and intuition clearly want to take advantage of this phenomenon—whether they are in business, in academia, or elsewhere.

I do not think there is one Vice-Chancellor here today who is not keenly aware of the opportunities and challenges that Asia’s rise presents to their institutions. I do not think there is one university represented here today

which already does not have some ties to Asian higher education institutions and which is not planning to increase these ties in the future. But just because the “Australia in Asian Century” paper does not say much that is new, it does not mean that it is not a useful reminder that we, as a nation, as a higher education sector, as individual universities, can—and should—be doing more, doing it better, doing it smarter.

Speaking in 1959, then Senator John F. Kennedy famously noted that “When written in Chinese the word crisis is composed of two characters. One represents danger, and the other represents opportunity.” As Chinese linguists have since pointed out this reading is somewhat of a stretch and wishful thinking. Nevertheless, the appeal of this anecdote lies in its usefulness as a reminder and a call to action. So what can we—and what should we—be doing more of, doing it better, doing it smarter?

Labor: Ten Universities in the Top 100 As far as universities are concerned, the headline from

the Asian Century White Paper was the government’s target—or aspiration—of having ten Australian universities in the world top 100 ranking by 2025. It is an ambitious target, to say the least. Not just because, as the University

Researching the Asian Century

Brett Mason

Senator Brett Mason is the Shadow Minister for Universities and Research and a Senator for Queensland.

Researching the Asian Century

24

of Technology Sydney Vice-Chancellor Professor Ross Milbourne calculates, to reach it the government would have to spend an extra $10 billion a year on universities. Or, on university research to be precise, since university rankings are almost wholly driven by research performance.

Ten billion dollars would almost double current Commonwealth spending on higher education. The government spending another $10 billion they do not have—well, I can imagine that. On higher education and research—well, I cannot imagine that. The target is also ambitious, because it would make the Australian university system arguably the best in the world.

It is difficult to predict how other countries might perform on the so called Academic Ranking of World Universities in 2025 or exactly how big their populations are going to be by then, but if we took this year’s Shanghai ranking and imagined that Australia had ten universities in the top 100, it would mean that as a country we would have more than twice as many top universities as the United States per head of population and more than three times as many as the United Kingdom.

In fact only Norway and Switzerland would beat us—but only just—per capita. A great result? Certainly. Expensive? Very. Achievable? Well, founding Chief Executive Officer of Universities Australia, Professor Glenn Withers disagrees.

His two main options for getting ten universities in the top 100 are either to create five new Australian National Universities, i.e. small, elite, research-intensive universities, or to ensure that one in three as opposed to one five research grant applications is successful, as is currently the case.

His price tag for either of these

options comes to under $1 billion annually.

While I certainly sympathise with the aspiration, the experience in government teaches me that sadly things tend to be rarely as cheap and straight-forward as they should be.

Be that as it may, the Coalition is certainly interested in helping our researchers make the most of their time and talents by reducing red tape and simplifying the grant application and administration process. We are not going to make it far into the Asian Century when our research staff are often spending, I am told, thirty or even forty per cent of their time doing paperwork. I will not claim that this alone will lift another five Australian universities into the top 100, but it is a start.

Research in the Asian Century

When all is said and done, I do not think we should necessarily get too caught up in these sorts of targets. They do serve as useful headline grabbers for the government—but if we want to be serious about it, we should aim for realistic outcomes, carefully plan how we are going to get there, and make sure we can commit adequate resources to getting there. From that point of view, the White Paper fails the test.

But putting aside some metric pulled out of thin air—five or ten or fifteen universities in the top fifty or 100 or 200—what does the Asian Century mean for Australian universities, for our university research, and for research excellence? It means primarily two things: greater outreach and collaboration with Asian universities, and greater collaboration with our businesses to better leverage what Australia as an economy and a society

has to offer to the region. You want to talk about research impact—there is perhaps no greater impact Australian research can have than to help achieve these objectives.

Research Collaboration This is an Australian Technology

Network and Group of Eight symposium, so I do not have to sell you on the benefits of research collaboration. Indeed the International Links report released by Universities Australia on Monday showed that Australian Universities now have over 7,000 agreements with overseas universities, 71 per cent—or around 5,000—of which relate to joint academic and research work. I note that China has for the first time overtaken the United States as our leading partner. And of the 885 agreements with China, 89 per cent included academic or research collaboration, which is much higher than average.

We are well positioned to do more —particularly in these areas where Australia has plenty of expertise—medicine, including tropical medicine, resources, agriculture to name just a few. We are not just strong in these areas but also stronger than countries like China, where a lot of research is concentrated in physics, chemistry and engineering. This, of course, gives us a great advantage and a selling point. Perhaps the most valuable way of engaging with the region is for Australian universities to establish branches in Asian countries, not just to teach local students who might be unwilling or unable to travel to Australia to get their degrees, but to bring local and Australian researchers working on the ground in Asian countries.

We should not forget about exchanges of research staff either—more

Brett Mason

25

Australian researchers to work overseas but also more Asian researchers to work in Australia.

In particular, this includes opportunities for young researchers from overseas to perhaps fill in areas of local need and contribute to Australia in the longer term rather than just one or two year stints. Every time an Australian university enters into research project or a partnership, every time staff, students

and knowledge are exchanged, such collaboration impacts not only on the productivity and output of Australian higher education but also on our engagement with the region. It builds relationships and networks, it creates ties and good will, it helps generate further and wider opportunities for public and private sectors.

It is an impact that ripples and reverberates across time and distance.

It is a force multiplier.

Universities-business collaboration

As I mentioned, international research collaboration is not the only way to advance Australia’s interests in the Asian Century. The other area where research creates impact greater than the sum of its parts is in collaboration between universities and the private

26

sector, to assist in market penetration in the region. The challenges of the interaction, cooperation and collaboration between universities and the business world are many and have preoccupied many great minds before, including earlier this year in a Go8 Backgrounder “The university-business nexus in Australia”.

There are no easy answers on how to better marry the very different cultures of academia and commerce. It is, however, in mutual interests that such cooperation grows. The Australian economy has always been criticised for being overly reliant on resources exports.

Our country was first said to be riding on the sheep’s back—and I guess this means that in recent years it has been riding on a miner’s back. There is nothing wrong with feeding Asia’s seemingly insatiable appetite for raw materials, but clearly the key to success in the 21st century lies in innovation, in smart economy, in value adding. The private sector needs your help and expertise to solve problems that can unlock productivity and generate billions of dollars in new opportunities. You need the private sector to help you diversify and increase your income streams, as well as infuse outside expertise and ideas.

Fine-tuning ERA All this contributes to making the

case that the Excellence in Research in Australia methodology which relies so heavily on getting published in academic journals is getting somewhat dated and increasingly one-dimensional. It tends to conjure images of some semi-mythical golden age of old, when

gentlemen scholars would while away their quiet and gentile days writing learned papers, quite unperturbed by students or even less by the world outside the ivory towers. It is not that getting published is not important—of course it is—but, as more and more people are coming to acknowledge, there is more to research impact than citations.

The practical impact of research must also be considered—increased competitiveness, generation of employment and exports, and improved profitability of businesses. It might be difficult to measure but should not be underestimated. Is international collaboration itself an impact deserving recognition? It is an interesting question. Is helping a business to develop new technology that will result in a multi-million export contract and dozens of new local jobs an impact that should likewise be recognised? In my opinion seemingly yes.

It seems to me that whatever new forms Excellence in Research for Australia continues to evolve into, it should provide greater incentives—or at least remove any disincentives that might currently exist—for researchers to engage with business, knowing that the time spent on applied research that has a real and practical impact will contribute at least as much to their rankings as time spent on writing and publishing. These changes would make a substantial contribution towards boosting both our research effort in the Asian century and the prospects of the Australian economy in the Asian century.These are edited remarks of Brett Mason at the joint Go8/ATN Symposium, November 2012.

29

C hild care is a critical component of our modern economy. As productivity increasingly becomes the driver of economic growth in Australia, it is necessary to ensure

that all adults that are willing to work are given an opportunity to do so.

As such, the Federal Government needs a consistent and responsive child care policy to address the issues parents face when re-entering employment after an initial period of care of their newborn child.

Affordable child care is of increasing importance to Australian families as they struggle to meet increasing cost of living pressures, and contemplate the need for a second income to meet these financial pressures.

Child care is an important service to our community that enables greater workforce participation and support to parents.

As at the September quarter, 2011, 14,523 child care services were operating in Australia caring for 992,520 children. This means that around one in every four children below twelve years of age attends child care.

In recent years, the Labor government has reduced the Child Care Rebate from $8,179 to $7,500 and since Julia Gillard became Prime Minister, the cost of child care has risen by more than twenty per cent. The promised end of the ‘double drop-off’ never eventuated as Labor broke its promise to build 260 new child care centres.

The Coalition is a strong supporter of improved standards and conditions for early childhood educators. It is important that we as a society ensure quality care is

provided to all Australian children, while ensuring that child care remains affordable.

Creating Opportunities for ParentsWhen considering a policy approach in relation

to child care, the first step is to consider the desired outcomes of the policy. In relation to the Coalition’s child care policy, the primary objective is to create choice for parents. This includes providing parents with the ability to re-enter the workforce or to continuing caring for their children.

In order to achieve such choice in the care of children, it is necessary to provide suitable and affordable child care. This is to ensure that parents are afforded the choice of going back to work without overbearing child care fees that consume much of the increase in income.

While affordable child care is one facet of a wide-ranging policy, there is also a need to support those parents that do choose to remain at home and care for their children themselves.

This is where a comprehensive paid parental leave scheme provides essential support to Australian families. Starting a family is an expensive pursuit and a comprehensive paid parental leave scheme would assist in alleviating some of the financial stress young families face.

Reaching for Better Child Care

Sussan Ley

The Hon. Sussan Ley MP is the Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Shadow Minister for Child Care and Early Childhood Learning, and the Member for Farrer.

Reaching for Better Child Care

30

Australians deserve a wide-ranging child care policy that not only ensures affordable child care services but also offers choice to Australian families, so that they are not forced into any one option. This means a parent can choose to stay at home if they wish to but are also not prevented from doing so, because the care is too expensive—or a parent can choose to go back to work, not just because they cannot afford to stay at home.

T h i s i s a s m u c h a b o u t empowering parents as it is supporting them.

We need to make child care more accessible and more affordable for Australian parents. Too many families are excluded from child care because of where they live, what job they take, and how much they earn. Each time this happens, our economy loses the skills and capabilities of a working adult who can make a contribution to building a stronger economy.

This is as pertinent as ever. Recent Australian Bureau of Statistics data indicates more than 110,000 Australian parents say they cannot pursue the employment opportunities they would like to because they cannot find suitable or affordable child care.

The increased focus on lifting productivity means that the use of Australia’s labour resources needs greater efficacy. As such, more workers in the workforce means greater productivity. There is a direct relationship between affordable childcare and the amount of hours parents—especially women—can work.

Additionally, the child care system in Australia is a model that predominantly supports a 9-5

economy. Yet Australia’s modern economy is increasingly a 24-7 one. Child care options need to support these changes in order to increase workforce participation and boost economic development.

Australian families need a system that is not only affordable, but ensures people can work flexible hours whilst knowing that their children are receiving high quality child care.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, since the 2010 election child care costs have increased by more than twenty per cent.

Child CareAround one million Australian

children are in child care, however many more are excluded due to cost and limited choice. In particular, parents who work in regional and remote areas and those who undertake shift work find it difficult to find care which suits their circumstances.

Particularly for women, there is a significant contribution access to affordable, high quality child care can make to increased participation while also optimising children’s learning and development.

While there are positive elements of the National Quality Framework, its rollout is symptomatic of a government that too often rushes and mishandles the implementation of its policies. What is needed is for the government to work with the states and territories to find practical ways to improve the implementation of the National Quality Framework.

It is critical we have a system that works in the best interests of all concerned. It must provide a safe, nurturing environment for children but also meets the needs of their families.

Whilst State Governments have responsibility for the regulation and oversight of child care, the Commonwealth is the major player from a funding point of view.

Commonwealth funding was first provided to help finance child care in 1972. Over time the funding model has progressed considerably, and now there is the option to have a Child Care Rebate of up to fifty per cent of the cost of child care (to a cap of $7,500 per child per annum) paid either directly to a child care centre, or to parents.

There is also a means tested Child Care Benefit for a large number of families. Yet many families say they find child care to be their second largest expense after their rent or mortgage payments.

Any comprehensive policy considering the current and future need for child care in Australia, needs to include consideration of the following elements: • the hours parents work or study,

or wish to do so; • the particular needs of rural,

regional and remote parents, as well as shift workers;

• accessibility of affordable care; • types of child care available

including but not limited to: long day care, family day care, in home care including nannies and au pairs, mobile care, occasional care, and outside school hours care;

• usual hours of operation of each type of care;

• the out of pocket cost of child care to families;

• rebates and subsidies available for each type of care;

• the capacity of the existing child care system to ensure children are

Sussan Ley

33

transitioning from child care to school with a satisfactory level of school preparedness; and

• the needs of vulnerable or at risk children. In line with this, there needs to

be consideration of whether there are any specific models of care that should be considered for trial or implementation in Australia, with reference to international models, such as the home based care model in New Zealand and models that specifically target vulnerable or at risk children.

Supporting Australian Families

The Coal i t ion’s proposed Productivity Commission Terms of Reference seek to identify the means by which child care in Australia can further contribute to the needs of families and the nation. It needs to consider the choices available to families, within the existing funding parameters, include subsidies, rebates and tax deductions and how to enhance their efficacy for Australian families.

The Coalition wants Australian families to have more choices when it comes to the decisions they make about the care of their children. Parents need more choices as they move in and out of different types of child care due to their changing personal, economic and working circumstances. We want a child care system that is more capable of responding to the dynamic and individual needs of parents.

The Coalition in government will make child care more accessible and more affordable for Australian parents. We cannot afford to have families excluded from child care

as our economy loses the skills and capabilities of a working adult who can make a contribution to building a stronger economy.

Even with the many reforms of the past decade, many Australian families are still struggling to access affordable child care. Child care prices have risen by more than twenty per cent since Julia Gillard became Prime Minister in the middle of 2010. This has a detrimental impact on parents returning to work.

Thi s i s why the Federa l Government need options, within the existing funding parameters, for enhancing the choices available to Australian families in how they receive child care support, so that this can occur in the manner most suitable to their individual family circumstances.

The Coalition will consider the various mechanisms including subsidies, rebates, and tax deductions to improve the accessibility, flexibility, and affordability of child care for families facing diverse individual circumstances.

In government the Coalition:• restructured the tax and benefits

system in favour of families;• introduced the Baby Bonus and

the First Home Owners’ Grant;• provided greater resources and

choice in health and education;• introduced Family Tax Benefit;• reformed family law and the

Child Support Scheme;• provided a 21 per cent real

increase in the pension and linked the Aged Pension to growing incomes (25 per cent of MTAWE) instead of CPI (1997), allowing pensioners to share directly in the wages increases flowing from our strong economy;

• eased the taper rates, enabling around 300,000 older Australians to receive a pension for the first time or get an increase in their pension rate;

• boosted subsidies for Aged Care places and delivered significant real term funding increases for residential care and Community Aged Care Packages;

• introduced more generous eligibility arrangements to give more older Australians access to the Commonwealth Seniors Card;

• provided bonus payments to recipients of the Carer Payment and Carer Allowance; and

• introduced the thirty per cent rebate for private health insurance.As demonstrated by past

Coalition governments, we are committed to helping Australians get ahead to build a better life for themselves and their families through reducing cost of living pressures whilst ensuring parents can access child care, education and health services.

The Coalition approach to child care reform will help ensure that child care is more accessible, affordable, and flexible for Australian parents. For many families, the one-size-fits-all approach to child care is not working.

This is why the Coalition has released the terms of reference for its proposed Productivity Commission inquiry into child care that will identify how we can improve the current system to make it more responsive to the needs of parents.

Whi le the Coa l i t ion has welcomed the positive elements of the National Quality Framework, we are committed to working with the states and territories to find practical

Reaching for Better Child Care

34

ways to improve its implementation. Un d e r o u r p o l i c y, t h e

Productivity Commission would consider all the current impediments to a family friendly child care system and look at how parents can better access existing services including long day care, occasional care, family day care and in-home care. We would also look at the economic ramifications of inadequate child care places and whether current support for parents is sufficient and properly targeted.

The Productivity Commission Review of Child Care is part of the Coalition’s plan for a stronger economy. A more flexible and responsive child care system will lift

workforce participation and is part of the Coalition’s plan to deliver a strong and prosperous economy and a safe and secure Australia

ConclusionThe Productivity Commission

Review of Child Care is part of the Coalition’s plan for a stronger economy. A more flexible and responsive child care system will lift workforce participation and is part of the Coalition’s plan to deliver a strong and prosperous economy and a safe and secure Australia

The Coalition will engage with the states and consider developments with the implementation of the

National Quality Framework in states and territories, especially whether it has achieved the intended quality regime and what other ramifications it has had, with specific consideration given to compliance costs.

Ultimately, there is a need for assessment of the regulatory framework for child care providers and the impact of the implementation of the National Quality Framework. Any policy approach needs to be comprehensive and responsive to the needs of Australian families, and the Coalition will deliver better outcomes in child care for all Australian families.

3535

ECONOMY

Key Economic IndicatorsWhat is happening under the Labor Government?

Improving Government Services

A recent Productivity Commission Report found that there is a premium paid on government services and that there is much room for improvement in delivering services more efficiently.

The report found that expenditures on government services amount to approximately eight per cent of Gross Domestic Product.

The report also found that for many services, some Australian jurisdictions spend from ten to twenty-five per cent more than others in their recurrent costs per output unit.

The Productivity Commission report argues that there is the potential for a four to five per cent efficiency improvement that can be achieved that would translate to a 0.3 per cent of Gross Domestic Product saving in the government sector.

November 2007 Latest DataInflation 1.9% 2.0%Small Business Overdraft Rate 10.9% 10.2%Industrial Disputes 5.4 29.5 (Days Lost / 1,000 Employees / Year)Real Growth of Average Weekly Earnings 4.1% 3.5%Consumer Confidence Index 110.5 104.3House Approvals 14,716 12,540New Car Sales 54,195 49,291Retail Turnover Growth 8.0% 3.4%Budget Surplus $19.7 billion $1.1 billionASX All Ordinaries 6,593.6 4,518.0Unemployment Rate 4.3% 5.2%

Australian Expenditure IndexYear ending 30 June 2007 through year ending 30 June 2012

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

70

80

90

100

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Federal Non-defence government expenditure IndexState and local government expenditure IndexHousehold expenditure Index

36

P rominent conservatives have mentioned to me recently the pessimism, and even depression, they sense among conservatives throughout the land. That is understandable, given the

results of the 2012 election. Because unlike 2008, this is an election Barack Obama should have lost and that the right fully expected him to lose.

Still, there have been worse wilderness years than what we are experiencing now. (Retaining control of the House will prove to be an important check on Mr. Obama’s second-term ambitions.) In addition, the loss Republicans experienced can be leveraged to conservatives’ advantage, if we take away the right lessons from the 2012 defeat.

Two individuals who are doing just that are Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Marco Rubio. They spoke recently at the annual dinner of the Jack Kemp Foundation. Both speeches are well worth reading.

The speeches focused on the plight of the poor, the challenges facing the middle class, upward mobility and opportunity, and (especially in the case of Senator Rubio) education. Ryan and Rubio offered intelligent defences of limited government while also acknowledging the important role of government. And they used terms like “compassion,” “the common good,” “civil society,” and “social infrastructure.” Their tone was inclusive, humane, aspirational, and captured the true, and full, spirit of conservatism.

What Ryan and Rubio are doing is widening the aperture of the Republican Party and the conservative movement, which in recent years either ignored (in the case of civil society and education) or took aim at (in the

case of compassion) issues and concepts that are morally important and politically potent. It is not so much that what was being said was wrong, though in some cases (like on immigration) it was; it is that the vision being offered was constricted.

The task facing conservatives today is somewhat akin to what Ronald Reagan faced in 1977 with the GOP, Bill Clinton faced in 1992 with the Democratic Party, and Tony Blair faced in 1994 with the Labour Party. In this instance, the Republican Party and conservatism have to remain powerful defenders of liberty and limited government. But they also have to establish themselves in the public imagination as advocates for reform and modernization, of the middle class and social mobility, and of a generous, inclusive vision. There is much more work to be done, and the speeches by Ryan and Rubio were encouraging first steps.

The necessary recalibration of conservatism is under way, and that is something that ought to lift the spirits of conservatives.

The Recalibration of Conservatism

PETER WEHNER

Peter Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington DC.

Source: AP/Charlie Neibergall

Don’t forget to visit Australian Polity online for the latest opinion editorials and content from past editions of Australian Polity.

For all the latest from Australian Polity visit the website at:

http://australianpolity.comYou can join the conversation on Twitter by following @auspolity

or follow us on Facebook at facebook.com/australian-polity

Authorised by the Hon Kevin Andrews MP, Level 1, 651 Doncaster Road, Doncaster VIC 3108Printed by New Litho Pty Ltd, 124 Union Road, Surrey Hills VIC 3127