John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight I wish to speak about the law in Australia and what I refer to as Western values. The purpose of this address is not to cast judgment or to set people against others. However, we need some debate about where current values are leading our society and the need for standards so that we are seen as an inclusive, generous and just society. At this time I would also like to acknowledge the work of Reverend Ian Morgan, whose autobiographical account of his survival as an RAF bomber pilot in the Second World War was quite remarkable.

It is the prevailing attitude today that civil liberty consists of the freedom to exercise the senses of the body and the mind without moral restraint, as long as such an exercise does not impinge on the enjoyment of others. Since the Second World War, offences once chargeable under the civil and criminal law in this country have either been legalised, allowed under licence, categorised for adult showing or tolerated. For example, foul language and violence of all kinds are shown on TV, pornography is widely available, gambling other than on a racecourse is licensed and used as a means for raising government revenue, euthanasia is openly advocated, adultery is no longer the basis for divorce and no-fault divorce has been instituted.

Up until the Second World War most of these things were considered to be in violation of civil law and against the good consensus of society. The fact that they are now legalised, tolerated, practised, accepted and encouraged is causing many people to question the direction in which our nation is heading. Some say Australia has sown the wind with respect to the decline in moral values and standards and is now reaping the whirlwind of rape, domestic violence, teenage pregnancy, family breakdown, child abuse, murder, armed robbery, burglary, delinquency by juveniles who do not know the difference between right and wrong, as well as vandalism.

Furthermore, we are seeing increased rates of white-collar crime, corporate crime, insider trading, massive tax evasion, embezzlement, computer and internet fraud, and money-laundering at high levels in our society. We also see corporate fraud ruining the lives of hundreds of Australians, stripping them of their life savings. We see boards of directors walking away from agreements because they think they can get a better or a higher deal elsewhere.

All these ills are symptomatic of a decline in values in Australian society. Legislation not based on ethical principles cannot solve what is in essence a moral problem, but running parallel to that is the fact that you cannot legislate for honesty. So the problem is that, where there are no fixed laws or principled conduct, the establishment of a stable society I believe is impossible—whether it be in a single nation or a group of nations.

I remind honourable senators that it was the decline in the values of morality and justice, and the ensuing chaos, that led to the falls of such great empires as the Greek and Roman, and that gave rise to communist totalitarianism under Stalin and to national socialism under Hitler, along with the excesses of those regimes. It is a matter of history, both ancient and modern, that whenever values of decency have been forsaken economic and civic chaos has resulted, followed by war in some cases, insurgency in others, often dictatorships and sometimes wars between nations.

I will take a moment to discuss Australian attitudes to such issues. Australia is a multicultural society and a multireligious one as well. In a multicultural society there cannot be differing systems of law to suit each culture because then there is no consensus concerning a system of principled law. Australia is now a nation with mixed ideas of what constitutes decent values. Everybody wants moral politicians making morally justifiable law, but any suggestion that we define those standards is routinely howled down.

So I remind you that the traditional and ancient Judaeo-Christian moral principles are multinational and suitable to be taught and practised by all nations—being suitable for multinational observance in the sense that they are also multicultural. Traditional principles, as they have been established under English common law over several centuries, do not destroy or interfere with indigenous culture, nationality or religion but regulate the conduct of societies in accordance with moral principles, which I believe are universal.

I think this debate is also relevant to the rise of the Family First Party. They are obviously a section of the electorate deeply concerned about the decline in family values in Australia. However, my concerns go beyond the family, important as it is, to every aspect of Australian life. There is also a message for Australian churches here. A lot of the traditional mainstream churches have seen attendance plummet, while Bible-believing churches, those who are not afraid to preach concrete values and standards of behaviour, have seen their attendance move in the opposite direction and skyrocket.

As I finish, I ask my fellow senators to consider: do we want a nation where absolute truth is in decline and where right and wrong are pragmatic values to be changed at whim? Do we want to discard the standards and principles which have made countries like Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States such havens for liberty and freedom? With liberty and freedom come responsibility.