Reform must continue beyond economics to social policy

At the next New South Wales election, in 2003, first-time voters will have been born in 1985. Picture their world.

In their lifetime, they have known only two Prime Ministers. To them, the Whitlams are a band, not a former Prime Minister and his wife! They have never known the Soviet Union, or lived through the nuclear threat. They have never known war or campaigned for nuclear disarmament.

AIDS has always been part of their lives. Drink driving has never been an option and illegal drugs have been freely available. They have never heard of or dealt with Telecom. They have never used a typewriter and never owned a record player. And they have probably never seen a black-and-white television.

Their life has been one of constant change. Indeed change has been the only constant. They will cope with rapid change and expect it to be a feature of their lives.

Unlike their parents, they will not receive a free tertiary education. They will be required to make compulsory contributions to their retirement from their first day at work. And they will be required to contribute more to their health care throughout their lives.

The message to this generation is clear – self-reliance is expected and government is for the provision of essential services and the protection of those who cannot provide for themselves. This generation will not hold a nostalgic view of what government used to be like and what it should do for them.

The ownership of public assets, for example, will be less important than the expectation of quality and service. To them, it will matter little who runs or owns the rail system, just that it runs on time, safely and cleanly.

This revolution in the direction of government is the result of progressive, reforming Liberal Governments.

From 1996 Prime Minister John Howard has taken the next step and reduced the role of government to regulator, funder and provider of essential services. Many of the traditional roles of government, such as welfare and employment services are now conducted by the non-government sector.

The Liberal message is clear – business and the community are better equipped to deliver many government services more efficiently and effectively than the bureaucracy.

In contrast, the Australian Labor Party remains directionless and unable to keep pace with a progressive, reformist agenda. Kim Beazley's stale party is still fighting the last election and fails to realise that fundamental tax reform is now a reality. Labor's light on the hill has extinguished. They have become the true conservative party in Australia, clinging to the trade union movement in an increasingly de-regulated labour market and to class warfare in an increasingly egalitarian society.

David Williamson's latest play exposes Labor's crisis of faith. From "Don's Party" to "The Great Man," Labor has lost its meaning. Where they govern successfully they do so on the borrowed blueprint of liberalism – proved by their unwillingness to turn back the reforms of previous Liberal Governments.

The Australian Liberal tradition has always been progressive. It recognises the individual, their creativity and their right to choose.

The time has come to recognise the benefits of our progressive, liberal society and embrace them for all. Our rich and diverse culture demonstrates our tolerance and acceptance of change. Although we sometimes despair in our differences of culture and geography, any comparison to the violence, tension and instability of similar developed nations is a reassurance of our strength.

Liberals must match their progressive economic policies with progressive social policies. If the Party of Menzies believes that government should reduce its involvement in the market and in an individual's economic affairs, then this must be matched with a reduction in government's role in our personal lives.

A truly progressive liberal agenda must address issues such as multiculturalism, euthanasia, equal age of consent and drug law reform. In all of these we must apply the test of John Stuart Mill, that of exchanges between individuals based on free will, and the mutual toleration of different moralities.

We should recognise that human dignity and respect for the individual allows each of us to determine the point at which we can end our lives when faced with a terminal illness. It is surely the ultimate expression of individual choice.

We can no longer sustain a system where the age of consent for sexual relations discriminates between males and females based on sexual preference. If the state has no place in the bedroom; then it has no place in discriminating against homosexual males on the basis of age.

As a society we must address drug usage and drug law reform with an open mind. We gain nothing from criminalising addiction instead of treating it. We must be brave enough to experiment with solutions to drug addiction that recognise the failure of criminal law to stem the tide of drugs. Drugs are an evil in our society, but it does not follow that those who are addicted to them are evil too. We must accept Menzies’ challenge as Liberals to be "willing to make experiments" in addressing this issue.

And we must fully embrace the benefits of a multicultural society. Australia's immigration story is the most successful in the world. Our tolerance and acceptance of different cultures and people is a major factor in our tolerant and peaceful society. We should spend more time celebrating cultural harmony than fuelling minor divisions.

The Liberal challenge is to be relevant to the new generation of voters, who have grown up in a modern, tolerant, progressive Australia, and who expect an economically progressive government that respects the consumer's right to choose in an open and competitive market.

But they also expect a progressive society that respects the individual's right to choose how they live their life in a free and tolerant community.

We must ensure that all our actions in government and our policies in opposition are consistently liberal, not a hybrid of economic liberalism and social conservatism. This uneasy combination dilutes the Australian Liberal tradition and confuses our message.

The community will reject a conservative social policy, just as it rejected a conservative economic policy. Change is demanded now, and we must deliver it.