2^nd June, 1983

Member for East Yarra Province

On my maiden speech I have chosen to deal with the Supply Bill, for it covers the whole gamut of government operations, but particularly the items relating to Parliament and the Attorney-General's Department.

In doing so, I recall that it was one of my predecessors who began his maiden speech with the statement that he "had not intended to speak in this chamber quite so soon", because he had "learned to appreciate the virtue of discreet silence at times".

I readily accept the wisdom of this observation, but find my viewpoint balanced by the fact that the very same person was soon to become one of Australia's most eminent parliamentarians, certainly not prone to period of long silence.

That man was the Honourable Robert Gordon Menzies, who was later to be knighted for his outstanding service as Deputy Premier of Victoria and Prime Minister of Australia.

The standards that he set, both as a political leader and, more simply as a fine Australian, provide a fitting yard-stick by which others have long been judged.

Menzies had a vision for Australia and a personal determination to advance the interests and living standards of its people.

He was a great liberal; indeed, he initiated the birth of liberalism as we know it.

In 1959 another great liberal was to begin his political career as the Member for East Yarra Province. Like Menzies, he was a man of profound vision. Through his own fine qualities of decency, compassion and foresight, he gave real meaning to the term "quality of life". That man: Sir Rupert Hamer.

It is an honour to follow in the footsteps of these fathers of Australian liberalism, not only because of their contribution to this and other Houses of Parliament, but because they were responsible for establishing and advancing the liberal cause in this State.

I take this opportunity to pay several tributes. First, to my colleague in East Yarra Province, the Honourable Haddon Storey. It will be an honour to work with such a senior and respected member of this chamber and a pleasure to continue the friendship that we have had for many years. Haddon Storey and I have similar backgrounds in that we were both State Presidents of the Young Liberal Movement. My appreciation is extended to the Young Liberals for the support, experience and encouragement they have provided over the years.

Finally, I record my personal thanks to my political party, which chose me to represent its better interests following the retirement of the Honourable Bill Campbell. I commit myself to repaying the party and the electorate for the faith they have shown in me.

Like the men who came before me, I enter this chamber as a liberal, committed to a philosophy that emphasises the freedom of the individual, acclaims the value of free enterprise system and champions the rights of the citizen over the state.

Given my concern for human liberty, equality of opportunity and social responsibility I could be nothing but a liberal.

I agree with Sir Robert Menzies, who said of our great party:

"We took the name Liberal because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary but believing in the individual, his rights and his enterprise". ('Afternoon Light').

And I find strength in the words of Sir Rupert Hamer, who said that, "for the Liberal Party it is people who matter most......we believe that government exists to serve the people and to respond to their needs and aspirations". (Liberal Party Policy Speech; March 1, 1976).

I am a Liberal, believing that progress and growth are the natural product of individual initiative and personal enterprise. I am not a conservative, nor a reactionary. It was Woodrow Wilson who succinctly described a conservative as, "one who does not go far enough", and a reactionary as, "one who won't go at all". I find no warmth in either of those concepts.

A Liberal must go forward, providing innovative and responsible leadership, initiating necessary reforms and seeking, at all times to care for the welfare, freedom and rights of the individual.

I completely reject the dogma of socialism. Socialism is a failure because it seeks to restrain and restrict natural freedoms, imposing bland conformity at the expense of individuality and spontaneity. Tragically, socialism demands total support for the State instead of placing trust in the creativity, goodwill and unique qualities of its people. By contrast, liberalism believes, (to use the words of John Stuart Mill) that "the worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it". ("On Liberty"; 1859).

As I said, I come here as a Liberal, and as a member of the only Party that represents both city and country, the only Party that gives equal representation to men and women in its policy and administrative forums and the only Party that has consistently and successfully encouraged youth involvement in politics.

Given that the average age of my colleagues in this chamber is close to 50 years, my contribution (as a 25 year old) will necessarily be quite distinct and, I trust, as fresh and positive as you would expect of any young Australian. I do not simply seek to be a spokesman for youth, but I do commit myself to giving voice to needs and aspiration of today's young people.

In a time when more than 50% of Victorians are under the age of 30, This chamber, this Parliament and this Government must all turn their minds to the critical issues of youth unemployment, homelessness, street crime, epidemic drug abuse and the increasing feelings of alienation and frustration that have beset young people. We ignore these issues, and their underlying causes at our peril.

This chamber is uniquely suited to the task of tackling serious economic, social and intellectual problems. Most importantly, it has a key role to play in scrutinising, analysing and testing the actions of the government of the day, and in initiating legislative proposals of its own.

The critical requirement of an effective review mechanism has, over the years, been highlighted by numerous eminent commentators, each of whom has cited the fact that our government and bureaucratic systems appear to be moving further and further out of public reach and becoming more and more prone to arbitrary and aloof decision-making.

Professor Gordon Reid, in his essay, "The Changing Political Framework", said;

".... the elected parliament is a weak and weakening institution (and) the executive government is the principal beneficiary of the parliament's decline."

A former Member of the Legislative Council, Dr. Kevin Foley, was moved to sum of the situation by writing that:

".....the entire system of government in Victoria is in desperate need of review and reform. Much of Victoria's machinery of government was developed in the 19^th century and since then when changes have been made they have, in the main, been at the margin and ad hoc. In that regard the processes of government in Victoria offer an almost classic example of disjointed incrementalism."

('Parliament and Bureaucracy'; 1982).

These are strong words, but they correctly emphasise the need for the creation of effective mechanisms in this State which will keep a watching brief over the activity (or inactivity) of Ministers, Departments, Bureaucrats and Statutory Authorities.

The Legislative Council should do this vital work - indeed, the Council's very existence would be further justified if it did take on this responsibility.

A comprehensive committee system should be established by the Council, one which would make this place a true house of review and which would use the resources of the Honourable Members in a more thorough and searching fashion.

Such a suggestion is not new. Others have recommended it before, including the all-Party State Law Revision Committee, but I am aware that we are no closer to achieving the desired goal.

The committee system that was introduced into the Australian Senate in 1970 provides a fine model for us, as do the systems used by the British House of Commons and the United States Senate.

Careful consideration should be given to the number, size and scope of the standing committees to be established, but it is imperative that the first step be taken without further delay.

The role of the Legislative Council Committees would be to:

• Review significant or controversial pieces of legislation, and hear public evidence on the desirability and suitability of the Bills concerned;
• Conduct Parliamentary oversight of the Budget Bills, and thereby scrutinize the projected expenditure and taxation proposals of the executive;
• Examine major new areas of policy, which may have been neglected or ignored by the Lower House, and to
• Thoroughly scrutinize Subordinate Legislation - the regulations that so often affect the rights of individuals, families and businesses more severely than specific legislation does.

Surely it is not beyond the will of this House to take upon itself the task of establishing a modern committee system. I commend the recommendations on this matter that my colleague, Mr. Guest, has previously put before this chamber and hope that, in a bi-partisan way, we can work to give the Legislative Council a new role and a new sense of purpose.

Other parliamentary reforms should also, in my humble view, be seriously considered. The community is sick and tired of the excessive number of elections that it has had to endure over recent years. The need for fixed terms of parliament, which has been strongly advocated by the State Parliamentary Liberal Party, is self-evident and has wide community backing. Support should be forthcoming from all parties for the introduction of this important reform.

In addition, we should seriously consider the introduction of numerous electoral reforms - administrative reforms like placing 'How to Vote' cards in polling booths and listing political parties names on ballot papers.

Like any other element of society, Parliament must be kept in touch with changing times and modern demands. We should not shirk at making considered and sensible reforms whenever the need for improvement can be demonstrated.

Mr. Chairman, I have commented on the roles and duties of parliament as I see it, but I would like to conclude by looking at a matter that is closer to home: the stature of parliamentarians themselves.

It is a sad fact of life that politicians are frequently looked upon in a highly cynical manner by the people they serve. A recent Gallup poll asked 1,200 Australians to rank seventeen occupations according to their perceived honesty and ethical standards. Members of Parliament came a lowly eleventh on the list, marginally above car salesmen and (with due respect to Honourable Members on the other side of the House) only just above Trade Union leaders! (Bulletin; May 10, 1983).

I believe that this public perception of politicians is quite wrong. But it will take time and effort to lift our game in the eyes of the electorate.

These are matters we must tackle, decisions we must not put off. Governments, and particularly the incumbent, will have to come to grips with issues that have so far gone unnoticed or been left unattended.

Allow me to cite the following examples of political need, and to ask the following questions:

How many Royal Commissions must we have before governments decide to seriously and uniformly tackle the shocking crime problem in this country?

How many young people have to leave our schools and end up on the dole queue before we realise that changes in our education system are urgently required if young Victorians are to be better equipped for the job market?

How many citizens have to have their privacy invaded before we introduce effective laws which control the intrusions that can be made into our private affairs, especially by the modern day "Peeping Tom", the computer?

How many businessmen have to be put in goal for providing a service to consumers at weekends before we accept that our archaic trading laws need reform?

How far does the family budget have to be stretched before governments acknowledge that taxes, rates and charges can not be continually increased without causing serious social side-effects?

The list could go on - and certainly the problems I have recorded are formidable ones. But they also provide an exciting challenge. The prospect of advancing the interests of the Victorian community should be enough to motivate the vast talents of this parliament into providing real solutions.

In many cases all that is needed is a more compassionate and tolerant approach by government. In others, innovation and vision will be required. I have complete faith in our ability to meet the desired goals and, as idealistic as it may sound, I believe we will achieve these and higher goals in the years to come.

Mr. Chairman, I am conscious that we, on this side of the chamber, must make our contribution in the role of an opposition. I do not believe this will diminish the strength, nor the popularity of the views we put forward.

As I stated earlier in my speech, the Liberal Party has the philosophy, the principles and the policies that best suit the needs of Victoria. Properly presented and vigorously pursued, these qualities will stand us in good stead at the next State election.

Opposition is a sobering experience for any party, but I draw strength from (and conclude with) the words of Emerson:

"The party of virility rules the hour, but the party of ideas and sentiments rules the age".