PM Transcripts

Transcripts from the Prime Ministers of Australia

Howard, John

Period of Service: 11/03/1996 - 03/12/2007
Release Date:
14/07/2007
Release Type:
Speech
Transcript ID:
15281
Released by:
  • Howard, John Winston
Address to the Liberal Party (Tasmanian Division) State Council Launceston, Tasmania

E&OE...

Thank you very much Dale. To Will Hodgman, my Federal and State Parliamentary colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. Let me start my remarks this morning by paying tribute to the revitalised nature of the Tasmanian Division of the Liberal Party. I find with the Liberal Party as I travel around Tasmania, I find a renewed commitment, I find very strong organisational leadership and I pay tribute to Dale and Damien for the wonderful leadership of the organisation that they have brought. I find a renewed interest in and support from the business community of Tasmania and I also find emphatically very strong, determined, different leadership provided by Will Hodgman. So congratulations to all of you.

The cornerstone of our efforts in Tasmania must be the retention of the two seats we hold in Northern Tasmania of Bass and Braddon and victories in the seats we don't hold, in the seats of Franklin, Denison and Lyons. And I want to pay tribute to the Division for the quality of the candidates chosen in those seats and also the quality of the Senate Team. Tasmania will be crucial to our prospects of retaining office. If we can deny Labor gains in Tasmania and better still, if we can take seats from Labor in Tasmania, we will make their task of winning across the nation well nigh impossible. And just as in 2004 the early news from Tasmania was a harbinger of a great victory and let us again plan for the early news from Tasmania once again to be the harbinger of victory in 2007.

This morning I want to make a couple of announcements about the very important area of welfare reform. But before doing that, can I say something about an issue that affects all Australians, it affects all nations that share the ideals, the values and the way of life that we Australians hold dear. And that is the constant threat of terrorism. I know people would rather not think about it, I know people would wish it away. I know people would say why should we concern ourselves with this? Why can't we just get on with our lives? Well we should and will get on with our lives and that's one of the ways you fight terrorism, a very important one.

But this will be a long fight. It will go on for years and it is an international fight. It is not something that you can cherry pick your fields of combat and battle. The fight against terrorism is a global contest because terrorism is a threat to the global ideals of free societies built on the principles of western liberalism. Make no mistake, Islamic fanaticism hates the way of life that we have. Islamic fanaticism is dedicated to the destruction not only of freedom of religion but freedom of the way of life that we believe in so strongly. And you can't pick and choose where you fight terrorism. I say to Mr Rudd, you can't choose to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and not fight it in Iraq because the battleground chosen by the terrorists is everywhere. Their enemy is the free way of life that we hold dear. Their weapons are unprecedented, they involve a borderless assault on the way of life and the beliefs that we hold dear and it requires western societies, whilst preserving at all times the rule of law which is a cornerstone of our way of life. It requires western societies to adopt new and more effective measures such as we have done in Australia with our anti-terrorism laws in order to fight this new and long threatening menace.

I wish I could say to you that the fight against terrorism would be over in five years, or ten years, or fifteen years. I wish I could lay down precise markers. Unfortunately it is not that kind of enemy. And just as we seem to be taking our mind off the issue and seem to be relaxing into a new and different era, we are reminded of the ever constant threat. And it behoves all of us to understand the nature of it, and to understand that it is insidious, it is based on principles of religious fanaticism which have no place in our society and should have no echo in any part of the Australian nation.

We are a government of reform, we're proud of our record of paying off government debt and tackling much-needed economic reforms in areas such as workplace relations and taxation. I've often said that Australians will support bold reform if they believe it is in the national interest and if it passes the basic test of fairness. And I want to use my speech today to announce two important reform measures in the area of national welfare provision.

No reform agenda that this Government has pursued has been more significant than the quiet revolution in Australia's welfare system in the last decade to tackle the scourge of passive welfare and to reinforce responsible behaviour. Beginning with Work for the Dole in 1997 which the Labor Party derided as a Mickey Mouse response to the challenge of unemployment, continuing through major reforms in 2001 and our latest Welfare to Work measures which came into effect on 1 July and which the Labor Party opposed in Federal Parliament despite what they now say is their support for these measures, we have progressively overturned much of the thinking that had become encrusted around our welfare system over recent decades.

Against sometimes virulent opposition, we have put the principle of mutual obligation at the heart of Australia's social security system - the principle that all Australians are entitled to income support when their personal circumstances demand it, but the community can expect those who receive support to help themselves and to meet basic obligations to society in return. In my view, this principle is the only sustainable and just compact between the individual and the state - where entitlements and responsibilities are in balance.

And only the Liberal Party could deliver this reform. Where Labor mouths platitudes about social justice and snipes from the sidelines, only the Liberal Party has had the ticker to genuinely reform our welfare arrangements to achieve a better balance between support, incentives and responsibilities and to help break people free from welfare dependency. Not because of any desire to cut welfare benefits or to punish people. But because we as a Party believe in our bones in the virtues of work, of personal responsibility and of social mobility - where what you become is a product of your talents, your work and your effort.

No society should rest easy while ever there is welfare dependency or the spectre of intergenerational joblessness or poverty. Which is why our record in driving down unemployment to a 33 year low at 4.3 per cent has been so vital to Australia's social health today. The long-term unemployment rate - those who have been out of work for a year or more - has now fallen to its lowest level since the series began to be collected in 1986. There is no better testimony to the human dividend of strong economic management than the fact that seasonally adjusted long-term unemployment now comprises just 0.7 per cent of the entire labour force.

It reflects a broader social policy reform agenda built on three pillars; firstly a policy framework that is unambiguously pro-work; secondly a view that well-functioning families are the building blocks of a good society. Indeed mankind has devised no better social welfare system than a united, caring, loving family, providing not only the mainstream of moral compass that people have during their lives but also a means of sustenance and support. And thirdly, a recognition that consistent with a strong safety net, there is a place for targeted policies and incentives to reinforce responsible behaviour and community standards, not least when it comes to the care of children.

In a moment I will outline two new reforms to extend the principle of mutual obligation to target child neglect and school attendance. Our philosophy is very simple. Governments must never be neutral when it comes to the virtue of work, to the special responsibilities that families shoulder in our society, and to the importance of parents and carers providing basic essentials like food, clothing and shelter and ensuring that children attend school. None of the measures we have taken or will take are inconsistent with a strong social security net or a compassionate society. And none of the measures I announce today will deny income support payments to people.

As a Government, we have consistently tilted the playing field very deliberately in favour of low and middle income families. Recent ABS figures confirmed this, showing that household income in Australia became more evenly distributed between 1998-99 and 2003-2004. From OECD research, we know that Australia directs more support in relative terms to the poorest 20 per cent of households than just about any other developed wealthy country. And because of the last budget, in 2007-2008 a single income couple with two children will pay no net tax until their private income exceeds $50, 813 a year. Can I repeat that for the benefit of those in the Labor Party and the community who say we don't care about the battlers and the low income people of this country. Can I repeat that because of the last budget, a single income couple with two children will pay no net tax until their private income exceeds $50,813 a year.

At the same time, however, our great Party has been instrumental in Australia rediscovering the original purpose and principles on which the welfare state was founded. The welfare state was never intended to be a substitute for work, it was never intended to be a substitute for work. Indeed, to its original architects - both here and in similar societies - the greatest of all social evils was idleness. The welfare state was never intended to let people evade their personal or social responsibilities, especially when it comes to the care of children. No one has a right to have the Australian taxpayer fund their irresponsible behaviour.

The modern welfare state was really a product of the Great Depression and the post-war Keynesian consensus on the need to cushion severe and lasting downturns in the economy. Today the big social challenges we face in Australia are somewhat different in that they tend to be more concentrated and localised and less narrowly economic. Australia today offers a vista of unbelievable opportunity for those who are beneficiaries of a virtuous circle of caring families, strong learning environments, good jobs and healthy lifestyles; all allowing them to succeed in a competitive world. The role of government, in these cases, is to reinforce this virtuous circle, to do no harm and to offer people legitimate choice when it comes to responsibilities like child care and education.

For a small minority of people, however, governments need to contemplate a more activist and in some cases interventionist approach in order to break the vicious circle of poor parenting, low levels of education, unemployment and health problems, which together can rob Australian children of a bright future. The challenge for social policy is to reinforce the virtuous circles of the many and break the vicious circles of the few. And it's on this basis that we must continue to reform the welfare state in the 21st Century.

I spoke about this on the occasion of the Government's 10th anniversary in March of 2006. I said then that the reforms that have yielded today's strong economy have

15281