Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Labor senators need not be embarrassed. Many of those on the opposite side of the chamber like to caricature the IPA as some sort of subsidiary of the Liberal Party. History suggests otherwise. In the true style of an honest broker, the IPA's interventions in policy debates are fearless and have always placed the defence of core principles ahead of what might be considered politically convenient for a particular party. That is how it should be. I contend that a think tank is not doing its job if it is not pushing the envelope, challenging the conventional wisdom or asking questions that certain parties, whether of the left or of the right, would prefer to gloss over. Thus was the case when the IPA and free-market Liberals like John Hyde questioned Australia's approach to car manufacturing in the early 1980s under the Fraser government. Thus were the IPA's criticisms of aspects of Howard government policy, especially in relation to workplace relations. Thus has been the case over the past couple of weeks, when the IPA has been sharply critical of some elements of the coalition's current policy platform.

Yes, the IPA has been critical of the Rudd and Gillard governments—given the target-rich environment provided by Labor's incompetence over the last five years this is hardly surprising—but the fact remains that the IPA has shown itself, over its 70-year existence, to be a staunch defender of principle over partisanship. Long may that remain the case.

Of course, in its 70th year, the IPA has enjoyed two of its most significant victories. The first of these was the proposal by the now former Attorney-General, the member for Gellibrand, to reform Australia's antidiscrimination laws in a manner which would effectively have made it illegal to offend someone. Whilst we all have a responsibility to maintain a civil public discourse, the implications for freedom of political speech and thought in what Labor proposed were deeply troubling and alarming to all who knew of them. I have no doubt that the IPA's extensive campaign to highlight the dangers of the proposed laws and to campaign for their defeat was instrumental in Labor's decision to back down.

Also this year, we witnessed Senator Conroy's attempts to regulate the content of Australian newspapers and otherwise to crack down on press freedom—one of the most Orwellian and dangerous proposals that any government has ever brought before this parliament. The Institute of Public Affairs was front and centre of the campaign to defeat Labor's disturbing proposals and, once again, the government was forced to back down.

These victories are all the more remarkable when you consider that the IPA is not an especially large organisation. It has just 20 staff, making it much smaller than, for the sake of comparison, most trade unions. Yet the institute consistently runs professional campaigns designed to alert the community to threats to freedom, and produces high-quality publications which push the boundaries and encourage new ways of thinking about contemporary policy challenges. This is a legacy well worth celebrating, and the IPA's ongoing capacity for renewal and its strong membership growth over recent years will mean there will be many more milestones to come. I congratulate the IPA's executive director John Roskam, the board and the staff, on their significant achievements to date, and look forward to many more years of fruitful work and policy activism.

On a much less celebratory but no less significant note, this is the first sitting period for the Senate since the death of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Time does not permit me to place on record the full scope of the transformational nature of Margaret Thatcher's period in office. Whether one looks at Britain's economy, at the entrepreneurial spirit that she fostered in so many of her citizens or, more broadly, at her impact on the world stage—with the collapse of communism in eastern Europe—it is impossible to escape the clear conclusion that in the sweep of post-war history, Margaret Thatcher was a towering figure.

Along with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher was perhaps the original conviction politician—someone who was prepared to turn orthodoxy on its head, to question consensus where it had clearly failed to deliver beneficial outcomes, and to take enormous political and personal risks in the pursuit of those things she firmly believed in.

The path of genuine reform is never easy, and for her troubles Margaret Thatcher was routinely vilified by her opponents, by the media and even by some in her own political party. Moreover, almost a quarter of a century after she departed Downing Street, Margaret Thatcher is still the Prime Minister against whom others—Conservative and Labour—are regularly compared.

In the immediate aftermath of her passing, there was a good deal of commentary about the 'divisive' nature of her period in office, and a heavy focus on the misguided individuals who saw fit to celebrate the moment. Those individuals are not worthy of comment. However, their actions did give me cause to reflect on the wise words of one of Baroness Thatcher's predecessors at No. 10 Downing Street, Sir Winston Churchill, who once observed: 'You haveenemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.'

It is hard to think of a more appropriate epitaph for this extraordinary leader. And despite the carping of the naysayers, on the day of Baroness Thatcher's ceremonial funeral in London we saw thousands upon thousands of honourable British citizens standing up for her, lining the streets and offering their own silent, respect-filled acknowledgement of all she had done for them and their country. It was a dignified tribute to a political figure who not only defined a particular era in Britain, but whose vision, commitment to freedom and determination to succeed will continue to inspire generations in many countries for the years to come.