Joe Hockey On Liberty

Joe Hockey, shadow treasurer of Australia and Member of Parliament, delivered an excellent speech at the Grattan Institute, on liberty, personal responsibility and a call for limited government. Below are snippets of his speech:

On Individual Worth and Liberty:

I believe that we are equal in our worth, if not necessarily in our talents. I have a role, you have a role, each of us has a role to play in the process of our own governance. This is what liberty means. This is what it means to be free.

On Liberty:

[John Stuart Mill'] famous statement of liberal principles is that:

“the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”

And just in case we have a tendency to gloss over words like “freedom” and “liberty”, Mill defines it in the most compelling way:

“The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.”

I believe that individual liberty must be the foundation of our society, even when it clashes head on with the perceived communal good. That belief rests on John Locke’s positive view about human nature – that there is an essential good, rationality and an innate desire to co-operate in all men and women. I share his conviction that happiness is achieved when individuals are permitted to flourish in ways of their own choosing, according to their own conscience and beliefs.

On the other side of the coin, though, individual liberty is based on an acceptance that we are all fallible – that there is no certainty that any one person or any one society knows “the truth”. It is only through diversity, debate and discourse that we can come closer to understanding what is right.

Free vs Open Societies:

On the one hand you have societies that are free and open. The press is free and the judiciary is independent. Elections are free and regular. An open mind and spirit of enquiry are fostered. The arts and sciences flourish and innovation is encouraged. Multiculturalism, diversity and tolerance are hallmarks of a liberal society. The existence of dissent and debate are regarded as positive signs. Authority is respected only when that respect is earned. It is from this that economic and entrepreneurial activity arises in a way which, over time, raises the living standards and dignity of all citizens.

And on the other hand, you have societies that are not based on individual liberty. In those societies conformity and control are the guiding principles. The alleged good of society (usually only code words for the benefit of the ruling elites) are extolled above the rights of individuals. There may be art and science, but there is little creativity. Dissent leads not to debate, but to detention. Economic activity is centrally controlled and usually stagnating. Wealth is created, but only for the few.

On Eroding Liberties:

Liberalism not only confers the rights of individual liberty on a nation’s citizens, but it also demands that citizens accept their civic responsibilities.

I am however concerned that some of the liberties we take for granted in Australia are being eroded by the actions of government.

I fear that step-by-step and in a way that barely registers in the consciousness of most people, we are losing some of the protections against the arbitrary and interfering actions of the State.

Some of these changes are driven by the community itself. It is hard to empirically quantify, but I am concerned that our society is becoming less self-reliant and placing more store in government to solve our problems.

On Globalisation:

Globalisation also represents the great potential of economic liberty. The breakdown of tariff walls, which restricted individuals and companies from trading, the internationalisation of the labour force, and the reform of failed centrally controlled economies has delivered wealth to large portions of the world’s population.

We rightly paused during the recent financial crisis to reign in the excesses and address some of the flaws in the global financial system, but the shock of recent events has not diminished my faith in either market forces or the positive power of a globalised economy.

Wealth should never be the sole indicator of progress. However globalisation, and the economic growth it is delivering to developing nations, is the most effective poverty reduction program in operation today. For example, between 1990 and 2015 the World Bank estimates that the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day will halve – from 1.8 billion people to 950 million people.

On Anti-Terror Laws:

As a liberal, a legislator and a lawyer, it is the Anti-Terrorism laws, enacted by a government of which I was a member, that has given me great cause to reflect on our individual rights.

Are there occasions I ask, in which the welfare of the majority warrants the restriction of the rights of the few? It is one of the challenges that we face in seeking to apply Mill’s principles.

In this case, the Australian government – like its counterparts elsewhere – was responding to terrorism threats that potentially put the lives of thousands of people at risk.

But did the solution also have the potential to limit the freedoms we hold so precious?

Under normal circumstances, much of the powers conferred on enforcement agencies by the Act are ones that I would be horrified to see any democratic government advance.

In particular, I make mention of “preventative detention” without charge that severely limits access to legal assistance or even outside communication; “control orders” that limit movement and may be in force for up to ten years; and expanded police stop, search and interrogation powers.

However, I reached the conclusion that the threat to liberty of so many justified the actions we took against so few. When effectively the whole polity is under threat from attack by people determined to bring it down, then the government’s primary responsibility is to secure the safety of its citizens.

These are war-time measures. If the nation was under immediate threat of invasion, I suspect that debate and concern would have been more muted. However, the war against terrorism is far less tangible. It’s like a guerrilla war where the enemy is not as easily discernible.

What is important to me is that the restrictions on individual liberty contained in our Anti-Terrorism legislation do not become permanent. The Act includes a sunset clause for some of its more draconian elements, which is essential. There is a compelling case for those sunset clauses to be something less than their current ten years.

But what if the war against terrorism is to last a life time? As the government’s White Paper released last month concluded, there is no end point in sight. Do these laws effectively stay on the statute books forever because the threat of terrorism will persist for generations to come?

It is my own view that the loss of individual liberty that these laws represent cannot stand for all time. What we must do is objectively, dispassionately and regularly review their efficacy, preferably in a bipartisan way. If we find the laws have not been used, or have not been needed, then they should be repealed. I would not find it acceptable to declare a situation an “emergency” one day and then declare it “permanent” the next.

On Internet Censorship:

we see the current Federal government seeking to introduce laws that will effectively censor the Internet. Of course we all want to stop unlawful material being viewed on the Internet. There are appropriate protections that are in place for that. But I have personal responsibility as a parent. If I want to stop my children from viewing other material that I feel is inappropriate then that is my responsibility to do something about it – not that of the government.

What we have in the government’s Internet filtering proposals is a scheme that is likely to be unworkable in practice. But more perniciously it is a scheme that will create the infrastructure for government censorship on a broader scale. Protecting liberty is about protecting freedoms against both known and future threats. Some may argue that we can surely trust a democratically-elected government in Australia to never try to introduce more wide-spread censorship. I am not so sure!

In Summary:

Our desire for a fair go. Our healthy scepticism. Our belief in self reliance, diversity and our multicultural society are the values that have guided Australia’s development. They cannot be taken for granted. It is the duty of us all to ensure that every new generation of Australians – whether native born or recently arrived – share those ideals.

It is the fundamental duty of governments, parliaments, places of learning, and our civic and cultural institutions and for us as fellow citizens to fight to maintain the fire of liberty for which our Diggers fought.

And that is why it is right for our veterans to remind us that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Related posts:

1. Enshrining Economic Liberty
2. Libertarianism vs Right vs Left
3. 1st Post
4. Australian Government to Censor the Internet
5. Australian Election 2010