Michelle Grattan calls them "militants". Laurie Oakes labels them "hard-liners". Matthew Franklin tells us they're "rigid conservatives". To whom are these stalwarts of the Canberra press gallery referring? No, not remnants of the ousted Taleban leadership in Afghanistan or even die-hard supporters of the rejuvenated, albeit much maligned, Pauline Hanson. They are Liberal party backbenchers whose crime is to defend the Howard-Costello legacy of economic management.
In recent weeks, these true believers have taken exception to the Rudd government's $42 billion fiscal stimulus package as well as its plans to implement an emissions trading scheme and beef up the union movement's power in the workplace. Initially, Malcolm Turnbull barely raised any objections at all to Labor's big spending, let-Canberra-solve-it interventionism. But these party militants -- from former treasurer Peter Costello and former leader Brendan Nelson down to veteran parliamentarians Wilson Tuckey and Bronwyn Bishop -- did something pretty unusual for politicians these days: they stood up for principle. And they presented such a unified front that their leader backed down and embraced their agenda. Three cheers for party room democracy.
That, of course, is not how many esteemed members of the Fourth Estate see it. If only these "militants" had stood behind their leader and bowed to the prime minister's agenda, they argue. I've given up counting the times the press gallery has urged the coalition to back Labor government policy on the grounds that it was in the national interest. Yet I don't recall the same journalists calling on the former (Labor) opposition to give unconditional bipartisan support to the former (coalition) government policy from 1996 to 2007 -- whether it was Peter Costello's fiscally conservative agenda to pay off Labor's $96 billion debt and $20 billion budget deficit, or Peter Reith's war to end all the union militancy and long loading delays on our container wharves that made us an international export laughing stock. Surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander?
Such contradictions aside, the last few weeks reveal that many Liberal backbenchers don't want their party to lurch left on policy. Nor do they care much for Labor's ruthless use of history -- or more particularly their version of it -- as a political weapon in today's battles.
Start with policy. A lot of issues that litter the political battlefield today put Liberals and conservatives on the defensive. What are we going to do to kickstart the economy? How can we neutralise the government on climate change? And why should we acquiesce over Labor's plans to damage small and medium-sized businesses that form the economic backbone of middle Australia, not to mention an important Liberal party constituency? Some coalition MPs try to avoid philosophical confrontation with Labor, often urging solutions that would expand government while justifying the expansion at a slightly slower rate. Or, in the case of combating climate change, out-greening Labor by advocating deeper cuts to carbon emissions.
The "militants" know that such an approach is not only weak policy, but weak politics too. Instead, they are staying true to their principles and fighting the government. They want their party to adhere to conservative principles that resonate with the party faithful at local branch level. And they know that such unashamed advocacy would have more success if its leadership believed in those principles and was able to articulate them forcefully and coherently.
Take Labor's stimulus package: it was too big, too soon, requiring too much debt to pay for it; it was also a very mushy, weak form of stimulus that overplayed old-style Keynesian pump-priming and downplayed income tax cuts that actually change incentives to work and invest.
Or take Labor's emissions trading scheme: it had all the hallmarks of creeping socialism that would inflict collateral damage on the economy, in terms of lost jobs, lower growth, higher energy prices, and exporting many energy-intensive industries to those big polluters, such as China and India, that won't conform to any post-Kyoto global deal at Copenhagen later this year.
Or Labor's proposed new industrial relations laws: it was one thing to roll back the Howard government's WorkChoices laws, which was part and parcel of the new government's electoral mandate. It was another thing for Labor to go further and restore union power to levels not seen since the 1980s, a move with huge implications for the nation's economic competitiveness.
On all of these issues, the "militants" adhered to their fundamental ideals of small government and economic freedom. These ideals have brought the nation much success during the past generation, and may well win the day again. But there is another issue at stake here. Call it: let's defend our history.
The conventional Labor argument now is that the "neo-liberalism" of the Howard-Costello years has, as Rudd insists, "not served Australia well in preparing for the current crisis". Never mind that the economy is better prepared to weather the global storm precisely because of those very "neo-liberal" policies of economic reform and prudent regulation of the finance sector. Never mind that Australia had nearly a dozen years of budget surpluses and can now spend tax dollars to try to fuel a recovery from a strong position. And never mind that no Australian bank has suffered a run or sub-prime mortgage default.
There are still too few Liberals who fully comprehend the extent of their contribution's marginalisation over several generations. Fortunately, the militants who tried to obstruct the Prime Minister's (and the opposition leader's) agenda know better.
Shortly after the federal election loss in late 2007, former Labor senator Stephen Loosley said: "The Howard legacy is in the process of being trashed by sections of his own party, in a time-honoured tradition of the Liberals." He was right about the latter point; when Menzies, Gorton, McMahon and Fraser left the political scene, they were fair game, and many of their successors went out of their way to trash their legacies. But there was one exception: Malcolm Fraser. During the early-to-mid 1970s, he was critical of those Liberal revisionists, lamenting: "How often since the retirement of Menzies have the achievements of those years been proclaimed by Liberals? We have put them too much aside and allowed our virtues to be seen as a liability."
By standing up for the principles of the Howard-Costello era, the backbench militants took an important step in repudiating past bad habits and celebrating Liberal party history. For them, the virtues of the Howard-Costello years are no liability.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment