Cory Bernardi

Of Crickets and Oxen

“Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that, of course, they are many in number; or that, after all, they are other than the little, shrivelled, meagre, hopping, though loud and troublesome insects of the hour."

So wrote the father of modern conservatism Edmund Burke. His words have rung true for well over a century and continue to discern some important truths for our modern world.

Indeed, the number of grasshoppers busily chirping in our public discourse versus the great mainstream that Burke’s magnificent metaphor represents as the thousands of oxen, is as relevant today as it was in 1790.

Unfortunately, the chirping crickets are concentrated in many of the institutions that have hitherto stabilised and guided our society through much of our history.

While small in number, their voice is magnified through the lens of the media, their engagement within the bureaucracy and their influence within our schools.

As such, they are shaping the future direction of society more than their numbers warrant.

Woe betide the politician who is prepared to suggest that the crickets’ voice is disproportionate to their numbers or out of synch with mainstream concerns. Yet that is precisely the case.

In modern parlance, we refer to the vocal minority and the silent majority. In this upside-down world of minority influence, the politician who continues to reflect mainstream constituent concerns is derided by the ‘crickets’ as fringe or extreme.

This is because the chirpers are scared. They are scared of critical analysis of their agenda and they are scared of losing their influence in the public debate.

But others are scared too. Few are prepared to enter the sacred PC zones self-declared by Burke’s metaphorical crickets for fear of being attacked, pilloried or marginalised.

It is not hard to find the evidence of this new fear.

Last weekend, I attended three constituent ‘surgeries’ spread over a Sunday morning. I lost count of the number of people who sought ‘a quiet word’ to raise issues that they were afraid to raise in front of others.

The fact that they all raised the same issue and shared exactly the same concerns suggests that the silent majority have been cowed into public silence.

Despite the time honoured evidence that the people are often more sensible than their politicians, too few of our elected representatives are actually prepared to listen to the people's wisdom and publicly speak up on their behalf.

Mainstream concerns are very real concerns. We need more of those in public life prepared to advocate for them, irrespective of what the crickets might have to say about it.

The Heavy Load of Green Dreams

There are always choices in the journey of life that will determine the ultimate destination. It applies equally to individuals, families, business owners and governments. Every decision is a potential alteration of course with known and unknown implications.

Often, the less consideration given to the decision, the worse the implications for the decision maker. That’s not to say that instinct and previous experience don’t have an important place in leadership, but a considered response is vital to continuing success.

That’s why I am worried about the passage of Labor’s carbon dioxide tax. From the moment Ms Gillard was reliant on the Greens and independents to cling to government, this tax was a fait accompli. Any pretence otherwise is simply wishful thinking.

The Greens have dictated the terms of this economy wide tax that will have no environmental benefit despite its masquerading as a green measure.

The effective function of this carbon dioxide tax is to impose further government intervention as a central element to the operation of business in Australia, redistributing wealth to those the government deems worthy.

The draconian compliance and regulatory regime attached to this tax, coupled with rapidly escalating industry costs will have a severe impact on our economy. These costs will continue to rise in the decades ahead which will place Australian industry at a clear disadvantage to its international competitors.

It will also hurt Australian families. Despite the one-off sweeteners that will see the carbon dioxide tax become the first new tax in history to have a negative effect on the budget, there is no built-in cost of living protection for the decades ahead.

In short, this tax will make balancing the family budget that much harder in the future.

So why would any sensible person support a tax that will not achieve its stated aims, will hurt industry and disadvantage families over the long haul?

To my mind, this is simply one part of the process that is slowly turning the Australian nation into an antipodean version of the European economies.

One review of the state of Europe was given by the head of China’s overseas investment arm Jin Liqun.

He said that Europeans are too reliant on state handouts and that their current troubles are “purely because of the accumulated troubles of the worn-out welfare society.”

He continued by saying:

“The welfare system is good for any society to reduce the gap, to help those who happen to have disadvantages, to enjoy a good life, but a welfare society should not induce people not to work hard.”

Unfortunately, by introducing a raft of new taxes and redistributing the wealth according to their social engineering agenda the Greens-Labor government is proceeding down a failed path.

The end result will be a society where the unelected bureaucracy will wield unprecedented power and where everyday Australians will become increasingly reliant on their largesse to preserve their way of life.

Neither of these options are the path to increased prosperity and the sooner we all reject this creep toward the European model of the welfare state, the better off we all will be.

Time to Restore Common Sense

Many readers would have heard the phrase “there is nothing common about common sense”. Unfortunately there is increasing evidence that common sense is becoming one of our rarest commodities.

Not only is its absence noticeable in many areas of public policy, there is a growing tendency for individuals to suspend their own judgement in deference to ‘public opinion’.

Of course ‘public opinion’ is more often than not determined by the inner city left who have little, if any, connection with mainstream Australia. That’s why the majority of Australians feel so detached and isolated by the direction our country is heading.

Their innate common sense tells them that what they read and hear from much of the mainstream media cannot be true. Whether it be climate change alarmism, rampant political correctness or a ‘government knows best’ attitude, instinctively the silent majority know they are being had.

However, too many of us choose to remain silent when confronted by a myriad of examples that make our blood boil.

How many times have you read a story in the newspaper and muttered to yourself about how ridiculous it is or lamented the loss of ‘common sense’?

Well, there are millions of Australians who share that view.

However, if they continue to remain silent the problem will only get worse. We will see a replication of the ridiculous policies enacted by the PC brigade in places like England where it is deemed discriminatory to advertise a job vacancy for ‘reliable’ people because it offends the unreliable.

Or in the United States where one school deemed that Easter Eggs should be renamed ‘Spring Spheres’ to salve the left’s demands for inclusiveness.

In Australia we are treading down a similar path. We already have public prosecutions of individuals who voice opinions that might offend - even if the words they use are not offensive at all.

We have kindergartens and schools dismantling Christmas messages of goodwill in favour of ‘happy holidays’.

We even have segregated swimming times at some public pools on the basis of one’s religious beliefs.

Make no mistake, if we proceed along this path our future can be observed in the dysfunction and social dislocation evident in one of our closest allies - the United Kingdom.

That is not the future I want for Australia and I know it is not the future most Australians want either. To reclaim our future we first need to restore common sense into our lives and into our public policy.

To do so effectively, more of us need to stand up and be counted in the fight for common sense.

Gillard on the Wrong Path

Our Prime Minister has declared that Europe has been living beyond its means. Further, she has stated that US President Barack Obama has the United States ‘on the right path’.

The first of these statements calls into question Gillard’s longstanding commitment to the European socialist experiment. An experiment that has resulted in a centralised and stifling bureaucracy, an erosion of sovereign self-determination, unsustainable social welfare and high levels of taxation.

The dichotomy between her recent statement of European failures while using the EU as an example to justify her carbon tax and trading scheme cannot be overlooked.

Nor can her new found support for the United States.

As a former official in the extreme left Fabian society, despite her protestations she ‘was only a typist’, much of Gillard’s early adulthood was spent railing against the tyranny of capitalism.

And the United States has been a world leader in free enterprise and capitalism.

So what has brought about Gillard's change of heart?

One could easily draw the conclusion that she is lavishing praise on the US President ahead of his scheduled visit to Australia in November. This would help ensure a positive rapprochement between the two when they meet next month and is an effective and widely used political strategy.

However, a second conclusion could also be drawn based on the Obama record in office.

Obama has spent trillions of taxpayer dollars nationalising banks, automobile manufacturers and healthcare. He has sought to raise taxes, disempower business and insert more government into the lives of ordinary Americans.

His legislative agenda, built around the cripplingly expensive Obamacare health plan, has the United States on track to multi-trillion dollar deficits that will have serious negative long-term economic consequences.

In reality, the current political agenda of Europe and the United States is remarkably similar - big government, higher taxes and more bureaucracy.

That possibly explains Gillard’s sudden embrace of the US.

However, in my view the United States does have one great advantage over the European Union. It can change a government that is on the wrong path.

US politics provides for regular elections, giving the people a mechanism to change the makeup of their Congress. This can radically alter the course of the nation and its approach to fiscal, monetary and foreign affairs.

The EU is in a different boat entirely. Brussels’ centralised bureaucracy is not accountable to the European parliament and dictates a great deal of domestic policy in many European nations.

It does not matter which party is in power, the bureaucrats are always in charge.

The US also has grassroots movements demanding more freedom and less government while the EU has protests demanding more subsidies and higher welfare payments.

These two differences alone give the United States a massive advantage in innovation and entrepreneurship over their European competitors.

However, for them to take advantage of this potential, they will need to change their current course. Obama’s policy agenda is too much like the failed European model and will ultimately have the same poor results.

Fortunately for the American people, in 2012 they will have a say as to whether that is the path they wish to continue down.

Based on current opinion polls, it looks like they will be voting to head in another direction.

Given the path our Prime Minister sees for the future of our nation, Australians would be wise to do the same when we are next given the opportunity.

Write Down, Speak Up

How time flies when you are having fun. This week marks three years since I began to write my regular comments.

In that time, tens of thousands of readers have commented, complained and offered congratulations about my perspective on contemporary issues.

My comments have been syndicated across multiple websites, are often mentioned in the mainstream media and have prompted spirited public debate about a number of very important issues.

They have also achieved the outcome that was most important to me - the ability to communicate directly with the people of Australia.

The insights and feedback gained from staying in touch with a broad cross-section of our citizenry have been invaluable in understanding (and reflecting) the views of grassroots Australians.

But as the effectiveness of this communication has grown, so too has the scrutiny of my musings by sections of the media and the professional left.

As most of what I write doesn’t reflect the orthodoxy of either the press gallery, the Greens or the Labor Party, any opportunity to draw negative attention to my words is often seized upon by the left.

I even remember one particular grammatical error being highlighted on the ABC’s Insiders program because a journalist didn’t agree with what I had written.

Personally, I would have thought it was more important for our ABC to address the substance of the argument rather than a misplaced comma, but once again I seem to have a slightly different perspective to our national broadcaster.

However, over the years there have been some noticeable changes evident in the responses to what I write.

As my readership has grown, an orchestrated campaign of attack by left activists seems to have also developed.

It seems that conservatives are to be held to a higher standard of scrutiny or accountability than members of the left.

I have always wondered why a conservative is labelled an extremist for representing the views of mainstream Australia yet an abusive minority are supposedly reflective of the 'broader community'.

The evidence is there for everyone to see for themselves. Different standards are applied depending on whether you support or are skeptical of man made climate change; whether you endorse or question the value of multiculturalism; whether you defend or want to ditch traditional marriage.

The choice is seemingly clear - support the left agenda and get a free ride; dissent and get flayed alive.

Under such circumstances it would be easier, and possibly personally advantageous, to stop swimming against the media tide. But to do that would leave millions of Australians without the voice they so desperately crave in public life.

The concerns, worries, hopes and aspirations of mainstream Australia are not represented by the high taxing, big government agenda of the left. They are not reflected in the characterisation of these concerns by the ABC and some other sections of the media.

That’s why, after three years, I’ll continue to write down and speak up in the interests of our nation.

And just as has happened in respect to my comments, as the silent majority begin to find their voice, so too will the intensity of the opposition to the mainstream values and principles we espouse.

In the face of such adversity, it is incumbent upon those of us in public life to provide the conservative heart of our nation with encouragement and support.

After all, it’s just common sense.

The Beginning of the End

This week is likely to mark the final betrayal of the Australian people by Prime Minister Gillard.

The expected passage of the carbon tax through the House of Representatives, despite an explicit promise not to introduce such a tax during last year’s election campaign, signals the final death throes of her political leadership.

The Australian public has clearly rendered its verdict and her colleagues are very close to doing the same.

It is now simply the mechanics of how to manage another leadership change without further angering their already disillusioned voter base that occupies the minds of Labor’s ‘faceless men’.

Naturally they are also concerned about their own positions given their spectacular judgement failure in initiating the move to Gillard in 2010.

Unfortunately, while Labor apparatchiks spend most of their waking moments (and possibly their nocturnal ones too) running through potential leadership scenarios, the country is suffering.

Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted and the government is stifling the spirit of entrepreneurialism while regular mums and dads struggle to pay the bills.

Only four years ago, Labor was elected on a platform of reducing cost of living pressures for working families.

Instead, international visitors (and locals who have recently travelled overseas) now see Australia as a very expensive place to live.

Our food costs are escalating, utility bills are rapidly rising and the level of bureaucracy is placing an increasing burden on almost every aspect of our lives.

For businesses, the lack of flexibility in employment laws has resulted in students struggling to find after school jobs, while the employment cost of Sunday trading is proving  prohibitive for many businesses.

Australian manufacturing is under pressure and Gillard’s broken promise will see tens of thousands of existing mining and manufacturing jobs exported to other nations.

There is also a great deal of international economic uncertainty that could add to the pressure already placed on struggling Australian families and businesses.

A carbon tax will only make this pressure worse.

That makes this betrayal of the Australian people by Julia Gillard and the Labor government one of the most egregious decisions we have ever witnessed.

It is a fundamental breach of faith to promise one thing before an election and to do the opposite afterwards.

However, to introduce the biggest tax change in our history, in a world of domestic and international uncertainty is sheer folly.

But it is not simply the Prime Minister who has betrayed the Australian people.

Every member of the Labor Party who won their seat at the last election stood on a platform of opposition to a carbon tax.

Yet this week,  they will be voting to introduce a tax that will fundamentally re-engineer and stifle the Australian economy whilst providing no benefit to the environment.

This week is the beginning of the end for Julia Gillard’s leadership.

It will also consign many members of the parliamentary Labor Party to that inglorious position in the Australian psyche of having betrayed the Australian people and the national interest.

Hysterics and Hypocrisy

Since my election to the Senate I have always sought to speak up for common sense and the values and institutions that have given us our democratic freedoms. Chief amongst these is the freedom of thought and our freedom of speech.

In doing so, I have given a voice to many Australians who feel that the stifling doctrine of political correctness is closing down these essential pillars of our society. I have also been the subject of repeated condemnation as a result.

In spite of these attacks, I believe that defending the right of every Australian to engage in public debate and the freedom of others to agree or disagree with their views is one of the most important functions a parliamentarian can perform.

Unfortunately, for too many in our public life, freedom of speech is considered a one way street and limited to the views they agree with.

An Australian court recently upheld a complaint of racial vilification by journalist Andrew Bolt from a group of Aboriginal persons because of his views on their self-identification as indigenous Australians.

In effect, the court has determined that because Bolt caused offence to some, he is not entitled to publicly voice his views.

Whatever the merits (or lack thereof) of this, my own experience tells me such determinations can be considered a little one-sided.

Advertising guru Todd Sampson can wear a t-shirt on our government-funded national broadcaster displaying the slogan “white people make me nervous” without reaction. Imagine the public outcry if “white” was replaced with another colour.

One could scarcely imagine a garment even being printed with such a message and yet this is one of many similar examples of the double standards applying to freedom of speech in Australia.

But such inconsistencies are not limited to matters of race or the colour of one’s skin. They can also be determined by the political braiding one has nailed to the mast.

The recent hysterical reaction by the Labor Party and sections of the media to a reciprocal courtesy extended to a member of the Dutch parliament by me is a clear example of how the different standards are applied.

It is difficult to find the same public vilification of a former Dutch politician, who also has a protective detail for delivering a similar message to Geert Wilders.

Perhaps because of her background, ethnicity and gender, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is mostly feted by the left as a brave and courageous woman speaking up in the face of great adversity. I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment but, given her rhetoric is very similar to Wilders’, I struggle to understand the difference in their treatment by the Australian media and a group of shrill politicians.

One is feted, the other vilified. I, and many other Australians, wonder why.

I also wonder why those apparently outraged by Wilders, Senator Kate Lundy and Peter Garrett MP, remained silent when Labor and Greens politicians invited the anti-Semitic and would-be destroyer of Israel, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to visit Australia in 2007.

An associate of Libya’s former dictator Muammar Gaddafi and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Chavez referred to one US President as a ‘genocidal murderer’ and ‘the devil’. Members of Labor and the Greens invited him to Australia.

I once referred to misleading statements by the current US administration in a recent blog as ‘unnecessary’ and the outraged left demanded my sacking from the parliament.

The hypocrisy and double standards from so many members of our parliament, aided and abetted by sections of our media, have made public life a laughing stock of everyday Australians.

The oft-heard criticism that ‘you can’t believe a word they say’ is applied to politicians by a cynical electorate. And who can blame them?

Speak up for what you believe in and risk character assassination or remain silent and be labelled cowardly or ineffective; a Hobson’s choice of criticism for those in public life.

Seemingly the only acceptable solution is to have an integrity lobotomy and simply repeat the leftist doctrine in the hope they won't complain about you. That might explain why Labor Senator Doug Cameron referred to his caucus colleagues as “lobotomised zombies”.

It also helps to explain why Labor’s Emily’s Listers huff and puff over a cat noise from a Liberal but remain indignantly silent when done by two of their own (a man and a woman).

Unfortunately, to rectify this crucifixion of free speech and dismantle the hypocrisy of the professional left, we need more brave souls.

Brave because they need to stand in the face of a blizzard of vitriol from the nurturers of victimhood and their sympathetic allies in the fourth estate.

We need more strength of character from those elected to give a voice to the Australian people, not to tell the people what they want to hear, but what they need to hear.

That certainly doesn't mean we will agree with what they have to say, but it would mean that the national interest would be better served and we would have a more balanced debate.

Who knows, we might even see a modicum of respect return for our politicians as a result. Of course, you would be free to disagree with that too!

Is Scepticism Back in Fashion?

Something unusual happened this week – a bunch of scientists became sceptics. Don’t be alarmed, they are not questioning climate change. According to the climate alarmists, no reputable scientist would ever do such a thing. After all, the paid government mouthpieces and billionaire climate doomsayers insist that ‘climate science is settled’.

No, this dose of scepticism concerned a rather small thing like Einstein’s theory of relativity – a mainstay of scientific theory since the 1920s 

Researchers at CERN, a European particle laboratory, found evidence that some particles called neutrinos actually travel faster than the speed of light. Such a suggestion has the scientific world abuzz with speculation.

First and foremost, the initial reaction by most scientists is that of doubt. Many are expressing the view that there must have been an error in the measurement process. Others are speculating about the amazing possibilities that such a discovery opens up.

Frankly, I have no idea whether neutrinos are moving beyond light speed and whether they will make the NBN technologically redundant or open up the possibility of time travel. That is for the scientists to argue about.

What does interest me however is the fact that such a discussion suggests that science is never really ‘settled’. No matter how accepted or widely adopted a particular premise is, a theory remains exactly that – a theory, to be challenged and debated by generations of scientists in their quest to reach new frontiers.

That is, of course, until you get to the science of climate change. Somehow this science is different.

Anyone that dares to question the public utterances of the prophets of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is denounced as a crank or a denier. We are constantly told by evangelical politicians that no ‘reputable scientist’ disputes the man-made global warming theory as justification for expensive and futile policy agendas.

The evidence of the futility of these policies is demonstrated by the stunning silence of the advocates when asked exactly what difference things like Australia’s carbon tax will make to the temperature of the atmosphere.

The answer (being effectively none) is as close to an inconvenient truth as we will ever likely see in our lifetime.

Perhaps the most important question is: how did we get to this stage?

How can it be that being sceptical of an observable, measurable and repeatable scientific experiment is deemed ‘rigorous scientific examination’ but questioning presumptive and dubious computer climate modelling is to be a modern day heretic?

The answer lies not in science but in belief. Climate change and its linked gospel of environmentalism is the new religion for many who have lost traditional faith.

Just as the heretics of yesteryear were isolated (and worse) by the Church for daring to question Canon law, the modern day ‘climate sceptics’ are marginalised by their peers and goaded by public pressure to conform.

Fortunately, there are some hardy souls who still believe that consensus or appeals to political authority are not valid scientific arguments.

In a week when one of the most enduring scientific theories of modern times has been called into question, it is appropriate to recall Einstein’s own response when challenged by a group of 100 scientists.

He was asked: ‘Doesn’t it bother you, Dr Einstein, that you’ve got so many scientists against you?’

He replied: ‘It doesn’t take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, it takes a single fact.’

Someone should remind our government representatives about that when they are trying to justify their new electricity tax on the basis of stopping climate change.

Green Shadow Over Free Speech

There is a dark shadow creeping across the Australian political landscape that threatens one of the most important elements of our democracy - our freedom of speech.  The shroud of political correctness has already stifled many Australians from speaking out on important matters for fear of public vilification.

Now the righteous left are seeking to intimidate media outlets with whose view they disagree. Greens leader Bob Brown refers to them as the “hate media”; possibly because he hates what they write about him and his Marxist party.

The Greens whinge and whine about public accountability and transparency yet loathe any scrutiny or exposure of their own hypocritical behaviour.

They decry political donations but take the largest single corporate donation in the nation’s history for themselves. By some strange coincidence, Bob Brown then asked some questions of the government that were clearly linked to the donor’s business interest. If it were another political player, such coincidences would warrant further investigation to ensure that there was no compromise of the integrity of our parliamentary process.

Greens deputy leader Christine Milne condemns plastic water bottles as an “unjustified luxury” except for “essential safety or medical reasons” but is pictured on her website clutching a bottle of her own. Milne has thus far failed to detail the essential safety or medical reasons for the double standard.

These are but two examples of the Greens’ mantra to do as I say, not as I do. For two decades, such blatant hypocrisy has gone relatively unscrutinised by the mainstream media. With the elevation of the Greens to holding the balance of power in the Senate and alliance partners of the government, surely a more vigorous public accountability is warranted? Most would think so.

Yet when the media torch shines on the dark corners of the Greens’ policy agenda and contradictory public statements, the response is to condemn the torch bearer.

Horrified Green supporters demanded the sacking of the ABC’s Chris Uhlmann for daring to ask Bob Brown to properly explain his policy position on Uhlmann’s current affairs program.

When The Australian newspaper ran a line contrary to Brown’s preferred script he condemned them.

Now, thanks to Brown and his government supporters, there is an independent inquiry into the media with some suggesting that the real purpose is to intimidate the free press from taking too hard a line against the government and the Greens.

As a politician, there are many times when I am less than thrilled with the characterisation of myself or my party’s policies in the media. Yet any suggestion that some form of license or government sanction is required before putting forward an opinion in the public sphere should strike fear into the heart of all freedom lovers.

Such concerns must be taken seriously, as any suggestion that the government (and their alliance partners) are seeking to muzzle the media would risk a further erosion of free speech in this country.

There is a Better Way

In the face of continued hardship it is easy for individuals to become resigned to their apparent fate. Whether it be financial, familial or career, there are times when the odds of affecting positive change seem insurmountable.

One adage suggests that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the results to be different. That explains why prudent change is the key to altering personal circumstances when the rut sets in.

It isn't very different when it comes to the direction of our nation. When a deep malaise, that stifles optimism and hope within our community, settles over our land due to an incompetent government, we have to be prepared to make changes.

Fortunately, in Australia changing the government is relatively easy, although in the current circumstances many would consider the three years between elections as being far too long.

There is no doubt that there is an expectation of political change at the next election. However, to fully prepare Australia for the long-term challenges we face, it is clear we cannot continue down the same path we are on.

Quite simply, there has to be a better way.

A better way of encouraging enterprise, a better way of managing taxpayers’ money and a better way of building our communities.

The better way is the conservative way. Conservatism takes the experience of the past and applies them to current challenges, prudently adapting the response to achieve contemporary outcomes.

Unfortunately conservatism is the ‘ism’ that dare not currently be spoken about in polite company. In fact, it's probably the only ‘ism’ in such a category. There are many defendants of environmentalism, multiculturalism, humanism and almost every other ‘ism’ that has left the western world in the weakened state it now finds itself.

But mention conservatism and the so-called ‘enlightened’ respond with talk of dinosaurs and white picket fences in a derisory manner.

Of course, such a response ignores the fact that conservatism has proven itself as the philosophical approach that provides the greatest amount of personal freedom consistent with an orderly society. Interestingly, it is the only approach that has stood the test of time and proven itself enduring, consistent and sustainable.

Other political and economic systems like communism, socialism and libertarianism have collapsed under the weight of public debt, societal disorder or the yoke of tyranny. Even capitalism has been demonstrated to be potentially very destructive without the moral framework that conservatism provides.

Conservatism offers the answers for societal stability, sustainable prosperity and social harmony. It is built around respect for the structures and values that have proven their worth over centuries past.

It is time that we once again advocated for the merits of such an approach - to our national accounts, our government policies and our social standards.

It is time for a rejection of the failed experiments that have led to a ballooning welfare state, the growing entitlement mentality and a sense of government dependency.

We need to re-embrace the structures and values that have been the foundation of our civilisation.

Like any transition, the rebirth of conservatism could be a painful process but it is a change that is needed to ensure our future societal wellbeing.