Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The beginning of a new parliament is one of the best times to reflect on the future direction of our country. Having been re-elected for another term, I thought it worthwhile also to reflect on my maiden speech in this place and the causes I have pursued since that speech seven years ago. Back then I warned that the modern rights movement threatened to corrupt the true meaning of 'right', giving status to mere desires and fuelling a competing so-called rights agenda. Seven years later, I regret to say it has come to pass. We regularly see it: a tiny vocal minority pursuing its own desires at the expense of others, at the expense of our traditions and of our societal fabric. I have spent my time here trying to tackle that agenda, along with many other issues that are important to me and important to mainstream Australia.

The other day one of my staff reminded me of a quote from Peter van Onselen back in 2010. He said:

Bernardi was the person who got the ball rolling on Abbott's ambition to become Liberal leader.

I am not sure that is entirely correct but there is no denying that I have done my best to help get the ball rolling on a few worthy causes. I did help to get the ball rolling on tackling Labor's emissions trading scheme in 2009—a policy that was against the national interest, was fuelled by falsities and rent seekers and, regrettably, was embraced by the coalition at the time. The response to my opposition was hysterical and vitriolic. I was called a dinosaur, a rebel, a denier. How dare I question the always accurate, eminent wisdom of Al Gore, Tim Flannery and their acolytes? Those who shared my views in this parliament were told they spoke for nobody but themselves. Yet only weeks later the ETS policy was opposed by the coalition. It was defeated in this place and then it was dumped by the former government.

I helped to get the ball rolling on open discussions about dismissing calls for sharia law and legal pluralism in this country. My approach was labelled at the time as cynical and knee jerk, with some having no problem with the government's plans to change tax, property, insolvency and security laws to accommodate sharia finance. Despite the condemnation of the critics about my concerns, the major parties finally dismissed calls for sharia law in Australia in what I deem yet another win for common sense.

I also helped to get the ball rolling on raising security and identification concerns about face coverings like the niqab and the burqa. People could not run away from me fast enough, quite frankly. They took every opportunity to tell the media that my attitude was simply racist. Who would have thought that being concerned about people hiding their faces in public would draw such absurd responses? These responses look even more foolish when you consider that New South Wales, Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and a number of other places have enacted legislation to tackle this very issue.

On behalf of parents everywhere, I helped to get the ball rolling on challenging excessive foul language during family TV-viewing times. But apparently, by standing up for families, people think you are whipping up a 'moral uproar', which is just another flippant response from the morally vacuous.

I also helped to get the ball rolling on exposing baby bonus payments being paid after abortions, something the previous government at first denied but then were pressed to deal with. My pursuit of these causes has been met with derision by some in the media, contempt from the political left and white-anting from a few snipers on my own side.

So I stand here, somewhat bloodied after these departures from the PC agenda, but I am still determined to keep the ball rolling, to represent my constituents and the millions of Australians who share similar concerns. It is a task that I welcome with every fibre of my being. I agree with the sentiments of the new member for Fairfax: politicians come and go but ideas last forever. Sadly, in the battle of ideas these days, it seems more important to be politically correct than to be actually right. I do not and I will not conform to that mantra.

I have always fought for the things that I believe in. These are the same things that many Australians believe in too. They love this country and want to see it prosper. They love their families and they want to see them strengthened and protected. They love their communities and want to see pride in our culture and a greater sense of belonging. They love to work hard and want to see less government interference in their lives and to keep more of the fruits of their labour. They love our traditions and want to see them endure. They are mightily sick of politicians pushing conviction aside and putting convenience in its place. For the past seven years I have stood together with these Australians and tried my best to give them a voice. It has meant that I have often found myself standing outside the political and media establishment, but I know that I do stand with the mainstream and I make no apology for having firm beliefs. I will not be silenced by the bellicose calls of the intolerant, and neither should any other Australian.

Some in the political class are too afraid to talk about the issues that matter to many of our citizens, the issues that go to the very heart of our society's foundations. They forget that our role in this place should always be more about the commitment to our nation than about satisfying our own personal desires.

So, as we embark on a new direction, with a new parliament and a new government, we are wise to remember that our constituency does not stop at the press gallery or at our own colleagues. This House was built within the hill, not on top of it, as a permanent and enduring reminder that true democracy never comes from the top down. We have a duty to speak up for our beliefs and those of our constituents as well as fostering respectful debate without fear or favour. That will be my goal in this new parliament, as it has been ever since I stepped foot in this place.

In briefly addressing some of the issues I feel are most important, I start by saying there is nothing wrong with loving your country and fighting for its culture and its institutions. After all, those institutions have helped make this country as great as it is, which in turn brings many from overseas to our shores looking for a better life. Australia has been the beneficiary of decades of migration that have enriched our national tapestry. Indeed, my own family is part of that tapestry too. But we can only maintain this if we stand against what UK journalist David Goodhart refers to as 'separatist multiculturalism'.

Let me say that I do not argue against the genuine desire for different ethnicities to live together harmoniously. I have always supported an orderly and respectful migration policy. But I do have concerns about policies that emphasise differences rather than focus on national pride and citizenship, or policies where Australians are made to feel ashamed of our own history and culture.

Somehow it is seen as xenophobic to suggest that those who choose to come here adjust to our society and embrace our values, the values that made Australia such an attractive place to migrate to in the first place. Some even maintain that our flag is a symbol of division, rather than unity. And when things do not work out, the PC apologists blame our culture, our values and our people for not trying hard enough.

We need to ask ourselves: how does our country benefit if we encourage isolation? How do we build a stronger nation when some are unwilling to become building blocks of a cohesive society? So a balance must be struck between the obligations of society and the obligations of those wishing to benefit from it. After all, a strong and harmonious nation is one that values above all what unites us, not what divides us.

Many amongst the political elites do not seem to want to talk about this, but the public sure do. And we saw this in the parliament's multiculturalism inquiry, where hundreds of Australians raised concerns about sharia law, immigration, integration and competing cultural demands. These people are not 'extremists' or 'racists', as the modern day version of Lenin's 'useful idiots' would have us believe. These people are patriots, deeply concerned with the type of country we will be leaving to future generations. And, frankly, I share many of their concerns—as does the great silent majority. Is it any wonder that faith in our political class is at such a low, when some politicians have so much trouble reflecting the genuine concerns of regular people in favour of some token appeasement to political correctness?

Just as we face challenges to our culture and laws, our society also faces a concerted push to deny the most fundamental right in existence: the right to life for the most vulnerable in society: the unborn, the sick and the elderly. We must remember that part of the duty of government is to care for its citizens—particularly those who cannot care for themselves.

Unfortunately, the push for legalised killing continues. In recent weeks Australia's first euthanasia clinic opened in Adelaide only a few streets away from where I live. Advocates of euthanasia claim that safeguards can limit the abuse of euthanasia. They say that the slippery slope does not exist. But they are either uninformed or are being deliberately misleading to further their cause.

In Belgium, where euthanasia was legalised in 2002, there have been a number of cases where patients were killed who did not explicitly request euthanasia and where nurses administered the lethal drugs despite this being against the law. And now, the Belgian parliament is even considering allowing euthanasia for minors. Tell me again that the slippery slope does not exist. Crossing the line to allow legalised killing opens up all sorts of questions that have dire consequences for us all, including the most vulnerable in our society.

It is a similar slippery slope with unborn babies' right to life. I know this is an emotive issue for people on both sides of this debate, but when legal, medical abortion was introduced in the sixties did the advocates for abortion foresee that 70,000 to 100,000 unborn children would be killed each year in Australia? Were they so naive as to think that abortion would just be restricted to protecting the health of the mother? These days in places like Victoria abortion is available virtually any time during pregnancy and it even caters to the whims of parents: they can abort a healthy baby girl if they prefer a boy. The human toll of this slippery slope is simply astounding, and yet even abortion on demand is not enough for some. Greens party cofounder Peter Singer, for example, spends his time advocating for human rights for apes but does not seem that concerned about unborn children or even disabled children that have been born. Singer argues:

Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.

I disagree. I think it is absolutely wrong. We should be promoting a culture of life in society and not allowing the shadow of death to be cast over all our lives. I know of many Australians who share this view and I am continually heartened by their support. They might not be the ones who shout the loudest, but that does not mean that they are wrong or they should not have their voices heard.

The same goes for those Australians who support the current definition of marriage. They often endure terrible slurs for simply giving their opinion and sometimes get labelled homophobic, which is an absolutely unfair accusation to make. Defending traditional marriage in no way means that someone harbours hatred for homosexuals. This is yet another example of the political Left using insults rather than evidence to make their point. In fact, the Left continue to invent new phobias as pejorative terms for anyone that does not agree with their radical agenda.

In response I would like to suggest that many of these people seem to suffer from veritaphobia—a fear of telling the truth. And the truth is that history has demonstrated that tampering with tradition has unforeseen consequences. When I questioned the possible future demands associated with redefining marriage, my words were labelled as the 'worst sort of slippery slope argument'. It was said that there is no country that has legalised same-sex marriage that has legitimised polygamy. Critics climbed over themselves, and stampeded over the truth, on their way to the nearest microphone to twist my words for their own ends. They conveniently failed to notice that we already see in Brazil and the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage is legal, the recognition of multimember unions. I will say it again: tampering with tradition has unforeseen consequences. This is not about denying rights; it is about the fact that individual desires should not trump the wisdom of the ages.

Part of that wisdom has come to us through organised religion. Of course, religious belief is essentially a private matter for individuals, but when religion is discussed in the public sphere double standards abound. Frankly, in this brave new world it is seemingly permissible for people to denigrate Christianity in all manner of ways but not to critically examine other competing belief systems.

There are concerted efforts to remove Christian influence from our society, despite the incredible contribution Christian ethics and beliefs have made to our way of life. And, contrary to popular belief, recent studies have found that most religious persecution is directed against Christians. They face oppression in nearly three-quarters of the world's nations. Where are the headlines about this in our mainstream press? Just imagine the indignation if believers of a different faith were subject to the same level of persecution. We would never hear the end of it, and yet when it comes to the slaughter and oppression of Christian people the silence is deafening. The inconsistent reactions from the perpetually outraged in respect to religion—and any of their other pet causes—demonstrate the deliberate agenda that political correctness pursues against free speech.

Many Australians saw that through the Labor government's blatant attempts at censorship via their proposed media council and antidiscrimination laws. While these more obvious methods have been called out for the rubbish they are, more subtle efforts continue to enforce groupthink on society today. We see it in our newspapers, on TV, in our kindergartens, our schools and workplaces. We regularly see it on our ABC. One of its flagship programs, Q&A, regularly has a token conservative panellist outnumbered four to one, as if this represented community sentiment. It does not, but it does represent the ABC's bias. So it is reasonable to ask: why are taxpayers footing a $1 billion bill for the ABC when it consistently fails to present a balanced view?

Sure, the political Left speak about tolerance, but time and again we see that their tolerance only extends to an echo of their own voice. Rather than respectfully disagreeing and getting on with debate, traditionalist views are drowned out in a cacophony of slurs, smears, confected outrage and attempts to cow others into silence. A former member of the parliament, the Hon. Dr David Kemp, put it this way:

The threat to freedom of speech has always come from those who believe they have some superior wisdom, or access to a truth that others must be forced to see.

This threat must be met each and every time we see it and it must be met with an unwavering commitment to free speech for everyone, not just those who are deemed worthy by the self-appointed elites.

It is also time for this parliament to tackle the sense of entitlement and the burgeoning welfare state. Every Australian should have the opportunity to reach their full potential through education, employment and hard work. The spirit of entrepreneurship and diligence are the keys to individual prosperity and a stronger economy. In 2009-10, according to the ABS, 60 per cent of Australian households received more in social benefits than they paid in taxes—60 per cent. Of course some of them genuinely need assistance, and part of the government's job is to help them. But to have 60 per cent of households relying so heavily on government in this way is far too much.

Too many children are growing up in families that are stuck in a hopeless cycle of generational welfare. We simply cannot allow this debilitating path to continue. Nor can we allow a government to live beyond their means, for that is merely stealing from future generations to fund the indulgences of today. Making change in these areas will require tough choices to be made. It means we have to stop kicking the proverbial can down the road hoping someone else will eventually pick it up. But in the end isn't that what we are meant to be doing—picking up after the legacy of previous can kickers and getting Australia back on the right track? What our forefathers built for us and what past generations have fought hard to maintain is too precious to play around with. Our values, our principles and our traditions have endured the test of time and are worth preserving and speaking up for.

So I say it again: just because you support traditional marriage does not make you homophobic, just because you defend Australian culture does not make you a racist, just because you defend the right to life does not make you a misogynist, just because you are a Christian does not make your views any less important in the public debate. Australians who believe in the essential pillars of our democracy, in our traditions and in our values must learn to throw away the insults of the self-styled progressives and stand strong against such tactics.

What traditional conservatives seek to defend goes to the very heart of our way of life and the blessed bounties we receive from residing in this land. In this new parliament it is fair to say that I carry a bit of scar tissue from my commitment to these values over the past seven years, but I am absolutely resolute in my determination to continue to stand for conviction over political convenience in this parliament and beyond.