Howard's Legacy

Saturday, December 1, 2007

Howard's history

McKew finally makes Howard history

December 2, 2007, The Age

A WEEK after voters went to the polls, Labor star recruit Maxine McKew has officially claimed the Sydney seat of Bennelong, making history as the person who knocked off prime minister John Howard in his own electorate.
Despite leading Mr Howard from the outset, Ms McKew had been reluctant to claim Bennelong, saying it was too close to call.
Yesterday in Sydney, the former ABC journalist and now parliamentary secretary to the prime minister and cabinet finally said: "One week after the polls opened, I can now say that in Bennelong we are 2100 votes ahead, we have 51.25% of the two-party vote … Bennelong is now a Labor seat for the first time."

Subscribe to: Comment Feed (RSS)

The Sunday Age, September 16, 2007

LABOR leader Kevin Rudd didn't wait for Prime Minister John Howard to call the election - he launched his own campaign yesterday in presidential style.
Mr Rudd strode onto the stage in Penrith to a rock beat, wolf whistles and a sustained standing ovation from 400 party faithful who witnessed the unveiling of Labor's campaign slogan - New Leadership.
While Mr Howard was shaking hands in a Carlingford shopping centre and contemplating when to call the election, Mr Rudd was seizing the initiative in western Sydney's mortgage belt, where Labor hopes to pick up several marginal Liberal seats.
The party faithful, many wearing "Kevin 07" T-shirts, were warmed up by speeches by Deputy Opposition Leader Julia Gillard and one of Labor's star recruits, former SAS soldier Peter Tinley, who is contesting the Liberal-held West Australian seat of Stirling.
Then Mr Rudd rose to deliver a rousing sermon, declaring that the Howard Government was confused, bogged down in the past and had lost its way.
"Five years into a global mining boom…does anyone seriously believe that our national Government has invested the proceeds from the boom in the future productive capacity of the nation?" Mr Rudd asked.
"Today I'm asking you to imagine something different.'
"New leadership for the nation. New leadership for the nation's future. And new leadership with the foresight, focus and energy to plan for the challenges of tomorrow."
He slammed the divisions in the Government's leadership following Mr Howard's announcement that he would hand over to Treasurer Peter Costello if the Liberals won the election. "Does anyone believe that the leadership Australia is now crying out for can be delivered by a Government that no longer has confidence in its leader yet lacks the courage to replace that leader?" Mr Rudd said.
"Does anyone really believe this Government can now magically regain any real sense of direction just because after 11 years Mr Howard and Mr Costello have declared, yet again, that they intend to put up with one another and from now on call themselves a team?"
Mr Rudd pushed another key Labor election theme - that the Government does not understand the plight of working families.
"There is one difference between Mr Howard and Mr Costello," Mr Rudd said. "Mr Howard has lost touch with working families. Mr Costello has never been in touch. And given the chance, whatever he may now say, Mr Costello would take WorkChoices even further."
Mr Rudd said Australians were asking if the economy the Government kept boasting about was doing so well, why were they finding it so tough? "Working families have become the forgotten people in Mr Howard's and Mr Costello's Australia," he said.
Mr Rudd said Penrith was chosen for the launch because it, like other areas where the election will be decided, is where housing affordability and living costs are hurting working families.
"This is the real world," Mr Rudd said, "where working families shoulder the financial pressures of mortgages and rents, where working families have to cope with spiralling petrol and grocery prices, where families live with insecurity brought about by Work Choices."
The Labor leader promised to create a body to tackle the nation's skills shortage. "Skills Australia will be an independent, statutory body responsible for advising government on the future skills needs of the nation," he said.
Following the launch, Labor elder statesman John Faulkner declared: "We don't have to wait for a Government in disarray to call an election for Kevin to outline the core elements of his program."

Latham - Parliament - 2002

BROADCASTING SERVICES AMENDMENT (MEDIA OWNERSHIP) BILL 2002
Second Reading
Speech
Mr LATHAM (Werriwa) (4.09 p.m.)—I support media diversity—not just diversity in ownership, but, most importantly, diversity in media opinion. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002 should be opposed for the way in which it would stifle diversity in Australia's media. It would put more power in the hands of the big media holdings and lead to a narrowing of media opinion across the country.
Indeed, this is a bill for the insiders—those who already hold power and influence in the Australian media. What we need is a government that is willing to empower the outsiders, to break down the centres of power in our society and democratise all aspects of our national life—in politics, in public culture, in the economy and in the media. This is the key test for the laws governing Australia's media ownership.
I believe it is possible to identify two distinctive political cultures in this country. The powerful centre of our society, concentrated in the international heart of the major cities, talks a different language from suburban communities; in lifestyle and political values, they are poles apart. At the social centre, people tend to take a tourist's view of the world. They travel extensively; they eat out; they buy in domestic help. This abstract lifestyle has produced an abstract style of politics and media commentary. Symbolic and ideological campaigns are given top priority. In the suburbs, by contrast, the value set is more pragmatic. People lack the power and resources to distance themselves from neighbourhood problems. This has given them a resident's view of society. Questions of social responsibility and service delivery are all important. What matters is what works.
Unfortunately, the Australian media are dominated by insiders, and this applies to both the Left and the Right of politics—the old and the new establishments. Let me give one example. Australia's best known, and perhaps longest standing, left-wing newspaper columnist is Phillip Adams. One of Australia's most prominent right-wing columnists is Piers Akerman. At face value, one might regard them as poles apart. But in fact they are soul brothers. They are both political insiders living in the inner city enclave of Paddington. As such, they have very little experience with suburban life and suburban values. They both practise an abstract and symbolic style of journalism; they are both out of touch.
Whether it is the Left or the Right in Australian media opinion, it is an insider's job. We do not have people who live and write from the great suburbs of this nation. We have a lack of media diversity. We have a lack of diverse media opinion. And this bill would make it much worse. It is bad enough as it is at the moment. This bill would make the problem even worse. We do have a lack of diversity in the Australian media, and it applies to most media outlets. We have a paucity of outsiders. The suburbs are badly underrepresented, both in the journalistic profession and among those who call themselves opinion leaders in the newspaper columns.
I can refer to my own experience. During my time on the backbench, I wrote a newspaper column for the Daily Telegraph between 1998 and 2001. That newspaper, to their credit, knew that they were hopelessly underrepresented by columnists and journalists from Western Sydney. To their credit, they tried to do something about this embarrassment. They were always promising to do something about it but they were never able to achieve a higher level of representation from Western Sydney.
When I came on board in 1998, they had Miranda Devine. She reckons she knows something about Western Sydney, but she is from the lower North Shore. They had Piers Akerman, who lives in Paddington and has a holiday house in Pittwater, a long way from the western suburbs that he purports to write for. And they had Michael Duffy from the eastern suburbs. Then there was me. I was from Campbelltown. I was the only Tele columnist who lived west of Annandale. With my departure, I must sadly report, they do not have anyone who lives west of Annandale writing for that paper and its Western Sydney audience. It is a paper of insiders trying to appeal to outsiders. That is one of the reasons why in recent times they have been struggling with their circulation.
This problem of narrow media opinion is reflected in news reporting and priorities. I recall the situation a few months ago when the Vinson report on school education threatened to close down selective high schools in Western Sydney, the very best of our educational institutions. Unhappily, it was seen by the Daily Telegraph as a non-issue. What did they put on their front page the day after this threatening Vinson report? The front page of the Telegraph was dominated by the theft of Hector the parrot. Of course, you need to ask where Hector came from. Was Hector a parrot from Blacktown, Liverpool, Bankstown or Fairfield?
Interjection

Continue
Mr LATHAM—No. There were three or four pages of coverage about Hector. Hector was from Ryde on the lower North Shore. Hector came from the Prime Minister's electorate. Sadly enough, in the narrowness of media opinion in this country, even the parrots are insiders. Even the parrots are insiders in the extensive coverage in the Daily Telegraph.
There is a lack of diversity in media opinion. I know my colleague opposite, the member for Sturt, would have reservations about this legislation. I think he was just indicating some to the House by way of interjection, and I am sure that, along with other small `l' liberals, he would be opposing this bill in his heart, but he might not be able to bring himself to oppose it in a vote in the House. So we do have a problem, and the member for Sturt knows the problem full well. We have the same insiders and opinions that are recycled—
Interjection
Mr Pyne—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Werriwa should get a wig and a gown if he is going to start verballing other members of the chamber in this way.
Interjection
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! There is no point of order.
Continue
Mr LATHAM—As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, members who break the standing orders and interject do so at their own peril. I thought that is what he said, but if not I stand corrected. But we still have this problem in the Australian media: the same insiders, the same opinions recycled week after week. This problem is particularly acute on the conservative side. The same opinions are repeated endlessly.
I would suggest to the House that the best way to understand this phenomenon is to read a revealing new book by David Brock called Blinded by the Right. It lifts the lid on the corrupted networks and fraud of the neoconservative project in the United States media. The similarities with Australian columnists such as Piers Akerman are quite stunning. David Brock was one of the heavy hitters of the American media during the Clinton period. He led the attack on Anita Hill, he broke the Troopergate story and he discovered the notorious Paula Jones. He was a darling of the Republican Right. But behind the scenes the story was quite different. Over time, Brock came to see the futility and fraud of neoconservative journalism. This is the story he tells in Blinded by the Right. As a young man he got into politics and journalism as an act of rebellion against his family. He writes about this, and I quote extensively:
I had begun my career by suppressing my liberal social values to get ahead in the conservative movement; I then abandoned the conservative traditions of restraint and civility for Gingrich ends-justify-the-means radicalism. As a closeted gay man, I did the work of the right-wing lawyers of the Federalist Society, the Christian Coalition, and the worst bigots from Arkansas—racist, homophobic Clinton-haters. Through it all—the destructive partnership, the careerism, the personal aggrandisement—in my mind I managed to rationalise each of my actions.
He then goes on to write:
All the attacks, the hateful rhetoric, the dark alliances and strange conspiracies ... it all led right here: I lost my soul.
That is the story of David Brock in the United States, and the comparisons with Piers Akerman are indeed quite remarkable. Paddington Piers comes from a traditional left wing family with a deep concern for refugees and multiculturalism. His brother Kim is one of Australia's leading experts in Aboriginal culture, history and social justice. As a young man, Piers Akerman was a Maoist who signed up to the Association for International Cooperation and Disarmament and denounced the Vietnam War as `one of the most obscene crimes of the 20th century'. Today, of course, he is the ultimate chicken-hawk: someone who did not want to go to war himself but now urges war for young Australians in Iraq.
Akerman then turned on his family, his own flesh and blood, to seek the embrace and encouragement of the other side of politics. He wanted to prove himself by winning the support of those who are least likely to approve of someone called Akerman. In effect, however, this meant leading a double life. In his book, David Brock writes of the double standards of neoconservative journalists, preaching morality and family values in public yet leading a life of decadence and hypocrisy in private. So too with Akerman. I note the comments of my colleague the member for Wills in October 1997 in this place, when he said:
I too have been aware for some years of reliable reports that Piers Akerman was a cocaine user—and much more recently than the 1970s. The copy kids who worked at News Ltd in Sydney in the mid-1980s could hear him in the toilet at 9 p.m. snorting cocaine while he was working on the Australian and he used to reminisce at the local pub about his drug-hazed days in the US.
This makes an important point; it is a telling point. But I think we can be too harsh; indeed, I would congratulate News Ltd for giving a drug addict a second chance in life. It is not easy. We should all appreciate the lesson that is involved, but I would also urge Mr Akerman to give others the same second chance: to give minorities, the dispossessed, the disadvantaged and the poor in our society the same second chance in life, just as News Ltd have given him a chance to write columns for their newspaper.
The comparisons continue. In his book, David Brock describes neoconservative journalists as `an army of (political) operatives posing as commentators'. It is a very useful quote. That is the problem we have in Australia. It is the narrowness of media opinion; it is the insider's job that would be made much worse by this particular legislation passing through the parliament. In Akerman's case, I am indebted to my colleague the member for Griffith, who has provided some statistics about the narrowness of Akerman's opinion—indeed, the political bias that is involved. I quote from the member for Griffith's article in the DailyTelegraph on 9 September. He states that his office looked at:
... the 150 or so articles—
that Akerman had written—
since the beginning of last year ...
The member for Griffith goes on to state:
The score card goes something like this: on 88 occasions, you've directly attacked Labor for its various crimes against humanity.
On 31 occasions, you've told us what a fine bunch of chaps the Liberals are. And guess how many times you've had something nice to say about Labor?
Just for respectability's sake, I thought maybe you could have risen to the occasion once or twice by saying something positive. But no, the answer is a big, fat zero.
A telling piece of research that confirms the problem; it confirms the problem of the narrowness of media opinion in this country—a problem that would be made worse by this legislation. In fact, Akerman is not a commentator; he is a de facto press secretary for the Howard government. This problem is confirmed in Brock's book, where he talks not only of political bias but the wilful invention of stories to suit political purposes. At page 159, he writes of how he wrote articles that were:
... a mix of circumstantial observation and rumour—and no-one would ever be able to tell which parts of it may have been accurate and which parts were not.
So too with Piers Akerman. When I challenged him recently about one of his journalistic inventions, he responded that it is defensible for comments to be `wrong, even grossly exaggerated, based on prejudice or obstinacy'.
Piers must be really proud of himself today. His column in the Daily Telegraph starts as follows:
October 14, 2002 was Australia's 9/11.
On Sunday, he referred to an Indonesian terrorist organisation called `FI'. Enough said—accuracy and Akerman are obviously foreign worlds. Indeed, it is measure of the man's sickness that his column today uses the tragedy in Bali as an excuse to attack his fellow Australians, to continue his obsession with the ALP and to revive his prejudice against Muslim Australians. Why anyone would want to blame Australians who had absolutely no involvement in the Bali bombing is beyond belief. Akerman indeed is Australia's answer to David Brock. At one level, it is surprising that a prominent and professional media group like News Ltd would maintain such a partisan and incompetent fool but, as I mentioned earlier, their Second-chance Drug Rehabilitation program is to be commended. They are a socially responsible organisation. Other organisations are also quite tolerant. In his book, David Brock exposes the role on the congressional aides and right wing think tanks—
Interjection
Mr Pyne—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am loath to interrupt the member for Werriwa, but I ask you to point out to him that he is supposed to be discussing the media ownership bill, not launching personal and vindictive attacks on particular journalists.
Interjection
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa has been tying in his comments to the media ownership bill. He has been keeping his comments very smartly to the bill.
Continue
Mr LATHAM—We have a problem of narrowness of media opinion in this country. As the Brock book exposes, in the United States it is fed by congressional aides and right wing think tanks in the United States, confirming what Hillary Clinton described as `a vast right-wing conspiracy'. In Sydney, the Centre for Independent Studies hosts a monthly lunch in Balmain of all places, where it coordinates the neoconservative approach to the culture war, feeding gossip and attack lines to journalists and other commentators. In Akerman's case, most of his material comes directly from the Prime Minister's press secretary, Tony O'Leary. Paddington Piers, for instance, was an integral part of the government's slur campaign against Justice Michael Kirby. He was constantly briefed about the Heffernan bucket-job and the Prime Minister's intentions, until the matter was exposed as a fraud and an embarrassment to the government.
As the Attorney-General would appreciate, none of this is good for the health of our democracy. The media should be impartial rather than partisan. It should commentate on the political process rather than participate in it. It should not be a freak show for neoconservative politics and its pursuit of the culture war. Traditional conservatives understand the point, as I am sure the members opposite would agree. In the United States, Republican strategist Lee Atwater ridiculed hard-core conservatives as `the extra chromosome crowd'. Towards the end of his book, David Brock laments how he had become a dancing bear for the far Right. In Australia, of course, we have this problem of media narrowness and, on the neoconservative side, they have a troupe of dancing bears. There is Akerman, Andrew Bolt and Janet Albrechtsen—Cokey, Nancy and Filthy—dancing the same step to Tony O'Leary's drum. I can understand why News Ltd employs Akerman—it is a socially responsible corporation—but does it really need three dancing bears when one would suffice?
In the last sitting week, I explained to the House how Bolt does not practise journalism but paranoia. Bolt was engaged in an act of journalistic fraud, emailing my office on 29 August with the false claim that he had `a very funny confrontation with Stephen Roach' and that he wanted to write `a very funny little item', even though he intended to do the opposite. It is difficult to understand how News Ltd can continue to employ someone who is regarded, even by his colleagues, as a fraudster. I have an email which further demonstrated this approach. It is an email that Andrew Bolt sent on 30 August to the aforementioned Stephen Roach. He wrote as follows:
Sorry Steve but I forgot the other questions. Did Latham have anything to do with your decision to approach me on Wednesday? Did he urge on you or ask you to go over to me? Can you tell me what connections you have with him?
Recently, Mr Bolt made himself notorious for saying that women should not be in the Australian parliament because they are irrational. How irrational is this? This is not journalism; it is paranoia. It is the work of an irrational and paranoid mind. In his recent comments, Mr Bolt said that we should not have more women in the Australian parliament because women are more likely than men to practise witchcraft. I suggest that what he calls journalism is a lot closer to witchcraft than any of utterances that you might hear from women around country.
In Albrechtsen's case it is even worse. She has a history of inaccurate and malicious journalism, having been found guilty in several defamation cases. In one of her pro-USA columns in February this year, she fabricated words by General Norman Schwarzkopf. Earlier this month, in her desperation to attack the union movement, she failed to disclose her personal financial interest in the collapse of Ansett. Then in a notorious exchange, Mediawatch exposed her attacks on the Muslim community in this country as being based on plagiarism and journalistic fraud. She is David Brock in a dress. Albrechtsen has not even attempted to refute these claims, preferring instead to launch a distinctly uncivil attack on Mediawatch itself. If an academic, a politician or any other public figure had such an appalling record of inaccuracy, fraud and incompetence, they would be sacked—no questions asked, just sacked. Albrechtsen's survival is a very bad reflection on the professional ethics and standards at News Ltd.
So we have these three dancing bears for the neoconservative cause in this country. It is a sign of the narrowness of media opinion. I am very concerned about these developments at News Ltd: not only have they not recruited journalists and columnists from Western Sydney to replace me; they have narrowed their base to the dancing bears and to neoconservative political partisanship on the pages of their newspapers. This bill, of course, would worsen the problem. This is a bill to narrow the ownership of Australian media. As you narrow ownership, inevitably you narrow opinion, you reduce the media in its standards and you reduce its diversity of coverage. You reduce its gene pool: the number of journalists it can call on to produce reporting and opinion for the nation. The bill should be rejected.
As I said at the beginning, we need a government that helps outsiders, a government that empowers people in the great suburbs and towns of this nation, to play a bigger role in the economy, in our society, in the political system and, most importantly, in the media. This is legislation for the insiders. It would give extra power to those who already have influence and a big say in the pages, the screens and the sounds of the Australian media. We do not need legislation for the insiders. We do not need a narrowing of ownership and opinion; we need a very different approach to this bill, which should be comprehensively rejected by the House.

Inside Howard's End - Laurie Oaks

Something has gone badly awry with Howard's political judgment. That was again evident in his public justification for remaining leader against the wishes of his colleagues. "My level of personal support is significantly higher than the party's," he told a radio interviewer. "If the party's level of support in the opinion polls was as high as mine is, it would be a different story." In other words, it is not Howard's fault the government looks to be heading for defeat; everybody else is to blame. The resulting front-page headline in Sydney's Daily Telegraph, the PM's favourite newspaper, summed up the arrogance of the statement. "You're Nothing Without Me", it read.

Howard clearly hated admitting he would not serve another full term as prime minister if he won the election. He did it through gritted teeth in the party room, and on television his reluctance was palpable as he announced he would "probably ... certainly" retire part-way through. But he had no choice. Voters knew he would not run again in his 70s, and had already factored that into their thinking about the election. And any attempt to persist with the old formula - "I will remain as leader for as long as the party wants me to" - would have been treated with contempt once the results of the Cabinet soundings leaked.
After dismissing the majority Cabinet view brought back to him by Downer, and vowing to stay on as leader anyway, Howard can no longer pretend that he puts the Liberal Party's interests ahead of his own. He had better win the election now, or he will inevitably be portrayed as the villain. His legacy will be seen through the prism of the past few months and massively diminished as a result.

Howard! The Comic Opera

Caroline Overington, September 29, 2007, The Australian

IT was the smash hit of the season. Everybody with an interest in Australian politics was dying to see Keating! The Musical.
Everybody, it seems, except the man who is most mocked in the show: John Howard. "It sort of passed me by," the Prime Minister said of a work hugely sympathetic to his predecessor.
But that's not quite right. Mr Howard received a briefing on the musical, in which the character John Howard wears cricket whites and marches to victory aboard the Australian "Mate Ship".
In an interview with The Weekend Australian Magazine, published today, Mr Howard was quick to stress that he did not send staff to the musical to give him a formal briefing on Keating!
"I haven't sought a briefing. Somebody saw it, and gave me a briefing."
Mr Howard was not offended to hear that he was pilloried. "Not much gets under my skin," he said. He did not think there would ever be a Howard! The Musical and suspects he would only be further mocked. "I sort of have a view, most of the people who write (a musical like) Keating! wouldn't be a barracker for my view of life," he said.
Mr Howard did two interviews with the magazine, one before and another immediately after the Coalition leadership turmoil. He spoke about the things he has put on the line: his seat of Bennelong, which is under siege by the ALP's celebrity candidate, Maxine McKew; the prime ministership; and his precious, unbeaten legacy. He believes he is the Liberal Party's best bet against the incandescent Kevin Rudd.
Mr Howard spoke also of his wife, Janette. Her role in public life has been small, compared with, say, Billy McMahon's wife Sonia, who admits in Stand By Your Man -- a new book by Susan Mitchell, also extracted today in The Weekend Australian -- that she changed a federal budget to give more money to women and children.
Lady McMahon said she was "like a spy" for the prime minister, posing as a mute wife while secretly collecting information at meetings of the World Bank and the IMF. Mrs Howard has mostly cared for their three children while her husband ran the nation.
Mr Howard talked about his now empty nest, saying he particularly missed his son Richard, who works in Washington DC. He is still amused by Richard's appearance at the White House dinner in Mr Howard's honour in May last year, with a stunning young Republican from Texas, Kirsten Slaughter, on his arm. "He's had a number of romances over there," Mr Howard said. "I've met one of them. She was very nice. But that's no longer so, and I'm sure he's finding other nice girls to go out with."
Mr Howard particularly values his friendship with George W. Bush. "I don't care who knows that I like him. People in Australia can be critical of him, but I don't turn my back on friends. He is a friend.
"I think he's misunderstood by a lot of people. (Even without the alliance) it would be a friendship anyway."
Mr Howard said it was important, rather than thrilling, to have meaningful conversations with powerful friends.
"I don't want to sound blase but I hold an office too, which is even better (than that of US president)," he said. "Prime Minister of Australia is better."

A Quick Guide to Howardspeak

Howard was just on the radio saying he was ‘astonished’ people were worried about him meeting the Exclusive Brethren.
In Howardspeak, ‘astonished’ means “I have no legitimate explanation for my actions but am not going to ‘reject’ what you say just yet”.
‘I reject that’ means “I did it but I’ll never admit it”
‘That is ludicrous’ means “That is true but I’ll never admit it”
‘I would not do that’ means “I am doing that right now”
‘you have my word’ means “I am lying to you right now”
‘I will stay on as long as the party wants me’ means “I will be here forever”.
‘The Economy’ means “my rich friends”.
bernie of sydney, Wed 22 Aug 07 (01:09pm)

Judith Brett on the Third Legacy of John Howard - The Future
-
The third and final legacy of John Howard's period of government is to our awareness of the future. Temporality is an intriguing issue in politics. The speeches of politicians in the early decades of last century were full of projected futures - justifying the policies and actions of present governments and politicians in terms of their long term contribution to the future of the nation. Governments were building a nation, investing in infrastructure for the future, educating future citizens. I get little sense from the way Howard governs that he thinks of the future much beyond the next electoral cycle. This is part of his extraordinarily self-disciplined focus on the daily political game.
In the lecture I referred to before, Paul Kelly pointed to Howard's innovation of the permanent campaign as a feature of the way he has transformed governance. Howard operates in a 24 hour media cycle for the 1000 days of each three year term. Tight control over public servants, plausible deniability, rapid shifts in agenda are all means developed during Howard's period of government to maintain his dominance of the media. But all this has nothing to do with whether the long-term public interest is being served by the government continually coming up trumps. In keeping its eye so firmly on the ball of the present, the future seems to elude the government's view - with the notable exception of Peter Costello's concerns about how the baby boomers are to live in retirement.
The other major agent of temporality that has come to dominate Australia's sense of political possibility under Howard is the market driven by competition and individual choice. The Howard government has continued the neoliberal agenda of the 1980s, in many areas replacing the state as an agent in the distribution of resources with the market. The consequence has been a reduced capacity of the state to engage in long term planning and to embark on projects based on estimations of future needs. The skills shortages Australia is currently experiencing, and the running down of national infrastructure, are examples of the consequences of a reliance on present-oriented market mechanisms rather than future-oriented deliberative planning.
Howard once said he preferred to take an optimistic view of the past. I always thought this a puzzling claim - optimism is properly an attitude about the future - one which puts a premium on hope, and on faith in the inherent order of things. Howard made this claim in one of his forays into the debate about settler indigenous relations in Australian history. Howard has taken a strong personal interest in arguments about Australia's history and has been a champion of those who see it mainly as a triumphant story of progress and development, albeit with a few black spots. Whatever we think about Howard's understanding of Australian history, the point I want to make is that after 10 years in power we know far more about how he sees the past 100 years than how he sees the next.
The question of the time frame within which Howard governs is urgent because of what I and many others see to be the most difficult problems facing the future not just of Australia but of the planet: climate change and global warning, related environmental issues such as declining water quality and land degradation, and beyond that the end of the petroleum based economy as the world runs out of oil.
Howard has not only done little about any of this. He has also weakened Australia's capacity to respond to these future problems. He has done this in three ways. First his government's inattention to industry policy which would increase the diversification of Australia's export base, has further entrenched the dependence of the Australian economy on the export of fossil fuels, particularly our leading export, coal. Second by failing to invest enthusiastically in renewable, non fossil fuel energies, he has maintained Australia's dependence on coal for energy generation, and weakened the capacity of Australian science and industry to contribute to the future of the planet. In response to government policy, the CSIRO recently shifted its research priorities way from renewable energy to `clean coal' technologies. Third, he has weakened the capacity of the scientific and research institutions - like the CSIRO and university based science - on which we will have to rely if it turns out, as is very likely, that the government got it wrong.
Howard of course, is one of many world leaders in deep denial over the likely future of the world's climate and environment, but, for better or worse, he's ours. The barrage of media commentary on Howard's 10 years treats 10 years as a long time in human history. It isn't. Howard's long term historical legacy in my view is likely to be similar to the now faceless and nameless men who condemned Galileo for claiming that the world went round the sun. The natural world has its own laws and in the end we are subject to them, whether we consent to them or not.
-
Judith Brett, Australian Liberals and the Moral Middle Class: From Alfred Deakin to John Howard, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2003, chap 9; Relaxed and Comfortable: The Liberal Party's Australia, Quarterly Essay no 19, Black Inc, Melbourne, 2005.

Howard's Legacy

Saturday, December 1, 2007

Howard's history

Nicholson's 'Ugly Johnny'

News Resources and Opinion - Some less reputable than others

Quick Guide to the Australian Political Blogosphere

And now for something completely different - Leadership

The Sunday Age, September 16, 2007

Archive

Howard's Legacy Links

Tandberg - Howardization

Ladies and Gentlemen, here it is, Mr Peter 'The Hyena' Hendy

Howard's Australia

Latham - Parliament - 2002

Inside Howard's End - Laurie Oaks

Howard! The Comic Opera

A Quick Guide to Howardspeak

Yeah whatever, enough...goodbye....GO ALREADY!

(Ed.)