Dr THEOPHANOUS (5:09 PM) —Today I want to talk about an issue that has concerned the Speaker and many other persons in this chamber. It is an issue on which we are not making much progress. I refer to the absence of serious discussion of philosophical ideas and vision in relation to our society and the fact that we are becoming more and more pragmatic in the development of policy—without having an overall conception of where we are going as a society and, indeed, what the philosophical differences may be between the various political parties.

I have been in this place for some years, and there was a time when there was a lot of emphasis on philosophical differences—on differences of perspective, on visions for the future. I was interested in an editorial in the Age the other day that said, `Well, it's good that the Treasurer, Peter Costello, has come up with some ideas about a vision for society, because we haven't had much discussion about that from the government.' But it could also be argued that the Australian Labor Party have become more and more pragmatic in their approach, and it is very difficult to get much sense of philosophy and direction with respect to where they are going. There have been some attempts by some individual MPs to develop some ideas about society and even to have a debate in this place about our conceptions of society. Unfortunately, it is not something that has been particularly pursued.

This is very unfortunate at the current time, when we are faced with the problem of trying to come to grips with the phenomenon of economic globalisation and all it is creating in the world. We have had various political responses to economic globalisation, some very wild and some very tempered. Everyone expresses concern about the consequences of globalisation, but not very many people are actually addressing the issue of how we can come to grips with it. I believe that in this place we should be encouraging much greater debate on different ideas about how to come to grips with the problems being created by economic globalisation and the internationalisation of markets and the consequences, especially the social consequences, on people living in various areas—not just in rural areas but in different suburbs of Australia where factories may be closing down, or where there may be social consequences of being left behind by the pressures of economic globalisation. Indeed, there is no doubt that the meaning of social justice in our society is forced to change. There need to be new ideas about social justice as a consequence of what has happened with economic globalisation.

One thing that I agree with Mark Latham about—he has written extensively on this issue—is that economic globalisation forces us to rethink our ideas about social justice. I do not necessarily agree with Mr Latham's `third way' or his solutions in relation to social justice issues, but I think it is important for us to address these questions.

Unfortunately, the tendency in this House has been the opposite. Rather than there being greater emphasis on ideas—and I sit here as an Independent and watch this place, especially at question time—there has been more and more bickering over personality politics. This bickering and fighting is taking place not only in this chamber but also within the political parties and within the various groups and factions of the political parties. Personality politics has reached a very high level in this country—as distinct from debate about ideas, philosophies, vision and direction. Genuine thinkers are not the ones who are preselected to go forward in the political parties. People who have written on ideas about how we can move forward— and I do not just mean academics; I mean people who have engaged themselves with visions of society—are not necessarily taken into account in all the fighting that occurs over things like preselection in the various political parties. The personality politics has reached a level that is totally unacceptable, in my opinion, and that has led to smear politics in our society at all levels. The media have a role to play in this, because they seem to grab onto this rather than onto the discussion of the ideas being put forward.

I was pleased to see that in a speech last week the Treasurer decided to float some ideas on society and social justice. He is capable of doing more than what he has already done, and he is capable of putting forward more ideas. I know this because I once taught the Treasurer and I know that he is capable of that sort of policy thinking. However, we need to hear more from him than what he has already floated. It was interesting to hear his ideas on society and the role of society vis-a-vis the marketplace, as they were quite different, were a welcome breath of fresh air from the Liberal Party, which has focused so much over the years on the huge role of the marketplace while placing insufficient emphasis on the role of society. It is also interesting to see that the Treasurer's ideas are not that much different from those of Mr Latham, who put forward a range of ideas about the `third way' when he spoke about a concept of social justice which is quite different from that of the traditional Left and the traditional Right.

I too believe that we should be developing concepts of social justice that are alternatives to those of the past. We can do this when we try to come to grips with economic globalisation. I agree with those who think that globalisation in the economic sense is here to stay, and that there will be other forms of globalisation in the information age. Some of those forms will be positive and some will be negative. We cannot turn back the clock; we have to come to grips with this.

In this regard, I agree with one of the other few contributors to this thinking process, the honourable member for Denison, Duncan Kerr, about the need for the problems of globalisation to be dealt with at an international level. In a paper that I gave in July 1998 entitled Economic globalisation and the need for a new international policy response, I talked about the need for us to develop international responses to the globalisation phenomenon, the need for more action on the social and cultural agendas internationally, and more action to limit the excesses of the marketplace internationally, so that we can balance the social, cultural and economic considerations.

This is not the time to make a big speech about this. I am focusing on the need for us to have a greater focus on ideas and discussion. In other countries, especially in Western countries at the moment, there is much discussion and intellectual fervour about these issues. That is not happening in Australia. We need to have more of that. We need to discuss ways and means in which Australian society can help to develop a response to economic globalisation—one which makes sense and which is based on fairness and a new concept of social justice. However, we will not do that if we limit ourselves in our political debate to the narrow agenda of trying to score points, with one party against the other, on very small issues, without a sufficient vision of the future.

I would like those people with some vision, some idea about the future and some ideas about responses to globalisation to go forward. This is one of the issues—and it is only one; the other major issue has to do with multicultural and immigration questions. My position on those issues—which I will talk about in another speech—has led me to declare that I will be standing again as an Independent in the next election. (Time expired)