The Deeming saga
On most days that the Australian Parliament sits, there is one - sometimes two or three - rallies on the lawns in front of the building. Most parliamentarians are unaware of these events, unless they happen to wander out the front of the building. I would often observe the organisers setting up stages, amplifiers, flags and banners as I returned from my early morning bike ride. Unless the rally was covered by the media, most occupants of the house remained oblivious to the events. Over three decades, I attended a handful of rallies, and spoke at a few, but most went by largely unnoticed.
The danger for parliamentarians is that someone can easily hold an unfavourable sign or banner behind you, allowing photographs and film to be recorded. Advisers were on guard to prevent this occurring, but it could not be avoided, as parliamentarians have learnt over the years. It was one reason that MPs were reluctant to attend the rallies. The other reason is that such protest rallies are ineffectual. They have little sway on public debate, with a few exceptions over the years. Protests are mainly a rallying-call to supporters of a particular cause.
The main beneficiaries of protests are the organisers, who convey activity to supporters. Parliamentarians might attend if the subject was relevant to their own electorate. Apart from kindling a feeling of solidarity amongst the protesters, little came from the rallies. Passion was kindled amongst the believers in the cause, but little was ever achieved. Worse, if violence broke out, the protesters were condemned in the media, even if was not caused by them. This is increasingly the case for conservative groups in recent years.
These thoughts came to mind as I followed the Moira Deeming saga in Victoria. Three issues are pertinent. First, the rally was hijacked by a few neo-Nazis who understood the publicity value of their gestures. That the police allowed them anywhere near a rally in favour of women’s rights and freedoms is worrying. But organisers of such events, especially conservatives, should be aware of the possibility.
Secondly, the events were stirred-up in the media by the Victorian premier who brands anyone who doesn’t share his views as hateful. Thirdly, the Victorian Liberal leader fell for this narrative rather than sensibly rejecting it. Acting on unsound advice, he allowed the issue to become his own, with disastrous consequences once the real facts were disclosed. Instead of dismissing the premier’s nonsensical claims, the Opposition leader accepted - and amplified - them. The State Liberals ended up in another round of internal warfare.
A number of lessons can be drawn from the sorry saga. First Ms Deeming must move from being an activist to a parliamentarian. There are many more effective means of influencing public policy than organising or speaking at public rallies. This will disappoint her ardent supporters who value activity over outcomes, but if she wishes to be effective, she needs to assume a new role. She could start by helping to organise members of the Victorian opposition interested in discussing and developing policy, something that has been missing for decades. However, Ms Deeming can be excused as a political neophyte.
Less understandable is the reaction of the Liberal leader. It is easy to imagine the scenario in the leader’s office. Overly influential inner-city party members who advocate a libertarian agenda, especially on social issues, would have been on the phone and messaging him immediately. Relatively inexperienced and junior staff would have reinforced the message; and having won the leadership by one vote, he decided this was the issue on which to stamp his authority. Prudence and judgement are invaluable qualities in politics, but they went missing. It appears that Mr Pesutto did not consult any experienced colleagues, just members of his leadership group, before making a decision.
How expulsion from the party room could ever have been considered is a mystery. The irony is that members from the left of the party who are amongst the first to bemoan that it has a ‘woman problem’ seem unable or unwilling to defend the right of women to identify with their biological sex and demand the safety of women-only spaces.
Liberals need to return to the ethos that Robert Menzies expressed when he founded the party. Freedom of association, speech and religion were foundational to the new political entity.
In 1941, President Roosevelt, in discussing the things at stake in the Second World War, referred to ‘the four freedoms’, namely freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. It was a theme that Robert Menzies developed in his ‘Forgotten People’ broadcasts in 1942.
In October 1944, the inaugural conference of the Liberal Party, held in Canberra, adopted a set of principles. Amongst them is the statement: ‘We will strive to have a country . . . in which an intelligent, free and liberal Australian democracy shall be maintained by (b) freedom of speech, religion and association.’ The subsequent November 1954 platform went a little further, containing two objectives pertaining to freedom. The thirteenth clause affirmed that ‘We believe in the great human freedoms: to worship, to think; to speak; to choose, to be ambitious; to be independent; to be industrious; to acquire skills; to seek and earn reward.’ The fifteenth stated: ‘We believe in religious and racial tolerance among our citizens.’
It is notable that from the very beginnings of the Liberal Party, freedom of speech, religion and association have been fundamental values. They are manifestations of freedom more generally which has been diminished in the past decades. The assertion of basic freedoms by the Liberal Party from its inception reflected an international movement.
In Victoria, another young conservative parliamentarian was also locked out of the Liberal Party caucus last year, not because of anything she said or believed, but because of the views of her father! This rejection was later overturned, but it should not have occurred.
Liberals should learn from these incidents. Perhaps they could begin by reading the ‘Forgotten People’ broadcasts.
First published in the Spectator Australia.
