| In
rising to give my maiden speech, may I first say that
I regard it as a great honour to have become a member
of the Senate. I have very great respect for the place
of the Senate in the Australian constitution and its role
in our process of government.
Australia is a vast and varied country with great differences
between the regions, some of which, while having great
economic potential, have low populations. Because of
that, I believe that a system of government recognising
the need for regional representation is essential for
the continued development and good government of this
country at both state and federal levels. I was pleased
that the High Court of Australia, in rejecting the recent
Western Australian ALP challenge to the electoral boundaries
in Western Australia, held that the concept of regional
representation was implicitly recognised in the constitution
as a feature of the Australian system of government,
which, needless to say, in the federal sphere is provided
by the Senate.
It is also a great honour to have the opportunity of
representing my own great state of Western Australia
in the federal parliament and, in my case, to represent
here in Canberra the north of Western Australia. The
north of Western Australia makes a massive contribution
to the national economy. For example, the Pilbara mining
industry alone contributes 10 per cent of Australia's
merchandise exports. Yet, notwithstanding this, the
north of Western Australia has never had any effective
representation here in Canberra, much less been represented
by a person who comes from the area.
Having lived in the Pilbara for the last 22 1/2 years,
been Mayor of Port Hedland for the last three years,
been chairman of the Pilbara ward of the Country Shire
Councils Association, a member of the board of the Pilbara
Development Commission and closely involved in the formulation
of WA Liberal Party policy for the north since the early
1980s, I believe I am well qualified to give the people
of the North-West and the issues which concern them
a powerful voice here in Canberra, and give the north
effective input into the federal political process.
I understand that traditionally in a maiden speech one
should say who one is, where one comes from in the sense
of what relevant life experience one brings to the Senate,
and what one's beliefs are.
I am a fourth generation Australian. My great-grandmother,
Alice Murray, was born - as Senator Abetz will be pleased
to know - in Van Diemen's Land in 1839. My grandfather
brought my part of the Eggleston family to the west
in the 1890s. I grew up in Busselton in the south-west
of Western Australia and I went to school and university
in Perth.
I was a medical student at UWA and at that time I joined
the Liberal Party and became what is now described as
a `student politician', being involved in the UWA Guild
Council, NUAUS as it was then known, and my national
faculty bureau, the AMSA or Australian Medical Students
Association. I then spent four years in the UK and,
after returning to Perth, to fulfil a long-held curiosity,
I went to the North-West - supposedly for six months,
but, as is the story of so many people in the north,
that six months became 22 years.
Turning to my beliefs, senators will not be surprised
to learn that I am a committed federalist. I believe
that states and state governments have a valid and ongoing
role in looking after the interests of regional Australia
and that the federal system provides the best formula
for the good government of this country. In terms of
political philosophy, I am a classical liberal. I believe
in the individual and the right of the individual to
conduct their affairs without undue interference from
the heavy hand of government.
As a classical liberal, I look to the future and do
not unnecessarily cling to the past. I accept the need
for well ordered change, which in my case includes supporting
a purely Australian institution for the office of a
national head of state and the conversion of Australia
to a republic. I am not anti-British and I do not deny
the value of our British heritage. I do not want to
change our parliamentary system, nor would I want Australia
to leave the British Commonwealth.
I am very proud of being an Australian, proud of what
Australia stands for in terms of political ideology,
if I might put it that way. That deep pride has been
engendered by the knowledge that Australia is a land
to which people came - people who for the most part
were not from privileged backgrounds and had little
in the way of material possessions, but they are people
who, through their diligence and the opportunities Australia
offered them, have enjoyed success.
In contrast, the monarchy is an institution representing
a system which divided people into social classes and
is the very antithesis of the democratic and egalitarian
values for which Australia stands. One may ask whether
the breaking of the symbolic tie to the British monarchy
is such a big step to take.
In the legal world, a similar step has already been
taken. In the mid-1970s, Australian appeals to the Privy
Council in London were abolished so the High Court of
Australia became the final arbiter in Australian legal
matters. Many Australians see the breaking of the symbolic
tie to the British monarchy as very much akin to the
abolition of legal appeals to the Privy Council and,
just as Australia has taken charge of its affairs in
the world of the law, they believe the time has come
for Australia to take ownership of the institution of
our national head of state.
Senators will be interested to learn that three years
ago at the 1993 Western Australian state conference
of the Liberal Party only 55.5 per cent of delegates
voted in a formal ballot for a motion confirming support
for the monarchy. In other words, 44.5 per cent of delegates
were not prepared to vote for the retention of the present
system. That is worth noting because the Western Australian
division of the Liberal Party is regarded as being more
conservative than most.
Conservative lawyers such as Sir Harry Gibbs have made
much of the difficulty of drafting a set of words for
a republic constitution which would recreate the balances
and political stability enjoyed by Australia under the
present arrangements. Without doubt, the task will be
complex, but I have long suspected more was being made
of this difficulty than needed to be.
To me, it has never been credible for monarchists to
argue that, in a nation which has produced as many brilliantly
clear thinking lawyers as Australia, a constitution
could not be written which protected and preserved the
rights of the Australian people, entrenched responsible
parliamentary government under a prime minister and
cabinet and created an institution for head of state
not only having clearly defined and limited powers but
also embodying formulae for the democratic means of
resolution of crises should the good government of the
Commonwealth be in jeopardy.
Dubious lawyers can take comfort from the knowledge
that the Irish have successfully written such a constitution,
as have Germany and India, among other nations. With
the passing of Paul Keating from the political stage,
I hope the debate on the republic can be conducted in
a more objective and thoughtful manner. The republic
was never Keating's republic.
According to Professor Geoffrey Bolton of Edith Cowan
University in Perth, there has been discussion about
whether Australia should convert to republican status
since the 1850s, and Henry Lawson's mother, Louisa,
for example, was the editor of a pro-republican newsletter
in Sydney towards the end of the last century. Now in
the 1990s, just as in the 1890s, I believe there is
a renewed sense of the need to define our national identity
and to express that identity in the institution of the
office of our national head of state.
I look forward to contributing to the debate on constitutional
change which, apart from the issues I have mentioned,
I would like to see include a review of Commonwealth-state
financial relationships and the role of the High Court.
It is my belief there is also a need to give consideration
to constitutional protection of the civil, political
and human rights of our citizens.
In conclusion, may I repeat that I have great respect
for the Senate and consider it a great privilege to
be a member of this house.
|
