The lure of Pauline need not spell the ruin of the Howard Government or of economic reform. There is still time and scope for the Coalition to craft an agenda, which is consistent with its basic philosophy, differentiates it from the Labor Party and the parties of the Left and yet addresses the many valid concerns of voters attracted by One Nation and rural Independents.
The task is not to adopt One Nation or it leaders, but to claim its ground and drive a wedge between it and the other parties.
The first step is to stop the demonising of One Nation and Pauline Hanson. She may be a spiteful, ignorant populist but so are a large number of other politicians, commentators and so-called experts. She is less spiteful than either Philip Adams or Bob Ellis, is no more ignorant of economic issue than Robert Manne and is no more populist than Bob Brown or Bob Katter.
More importantly, by demonising One Nation, one is alienating between 10 and 40 per cent of many rural electorates. These people are not racists, fools or second-rate citizens.
The Howard Government must, in addition, realise that One Nation voters cannot be simply bought. Richard Court tried and failed. Over the last six years, the Court Government, under the skilful guidance of Hendy Cowan, undertook a huge rural spending spree aimed at buying the One Nation vote. The result was a landslide loss to an extremely urban-centric ALP on the back of One Nation preferences. The Howard Government has already pumped money into the bush without many thanks.
The fact is, One Nation's appeal is primarily cultural, not economic. Its economic policies, with one major exception, are identical to those of the Greens and the Democrats. As such, One Nation provides nothing unique on the economic front. Surely, if people are primarily interested in stopping globalisation and economic reform, they would vote for one of those culturally kosher parties.
The one exception is tax and spending. One Nation is a small-tax, low-spending party (for budget sector spending), whereas the other parties of the periphery are high-tax and big spenders. This is not surprising as One Nation harks back to an era -- before Whitlam -- when Australia had the second-lowest level of taxation and budget sector spending in the OECD. Surely, a Coalition government should feel comfortable in coveting this ground.
Clearly, Hanson's appeal comes mainly from her gutsy defence of conservative social values. She may be inarticulate, simplistic and just plain wrong, but at least she is willing to stand up to the urban elite and express the values of rural people.
What would such a agenda include?
The Howard Government should jettison its tax-and-spend policies and champion small government. It has put in place a GST which is sucking up more money than ever expected. Its much heralded income tax cuts did no more than give back a little bracket creep. And it has jacked up taxes on petrol, booze and smokes under the guise of tax reform.
As a result, the tax take measured as a share of GDP is the highest in history and, despite large increases in spending, the government has built-up a large surplus. Rather than squander these surpluses on pork barrelling, it should give it back to taxpayers in the form of income tax cuts and lower petrol excises.
The Coalition should renew its commitment to reducing red tape. It has allowed the ATO to design the BAS statement as a fishing exercise and to chase the shadow economy into every niche and cranny of the economy.
It should eliminate the BAS statement, recognise that the shadow economy will always be with us as long as the top marginal tax rate exceeds 50 per cent and put the ATO on a tight leash.
It should become the champion of national sovereignty. Australians are rightly concerned over the continual erosion of national sovereignty by the secretive signing of international treaties. This process has unnecessarily transferred many vital decision-making process to unaccountable and undemocratic foreign groups.
This tendency can be tamed with a constitutional amendment at the next federal election requiring Senate ratification by a majority of two-thirds of all treaties before they have any standing in Australian law.
It should become the champion of colour-blind government. There has been an excessive tendency to provide government assistance on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex and age rather than need. The Government should begin the task of winding this back and a good place to start would be ATSIC.
This organisation is neither representative of indigenous people, nor is it effective in addressing their needs or reconciling differences between Australians. If this is too hot for the Liberals, the Nationals should grab it with both hands.
The Howard Government should address the structural problems of Telstra. Years ago, when Telstra was being corporatised and readied for sale, it should have been split up, with its monopoly element -- the local loop -- separated from the rest which would then be opened to competition. This split was, however, blocked by the then Telecommunication Minister Kim Beazley to placate the unions.
As a result, we have the ACCC micro-managing Telstra and the telecommunications industry and the only potential competitor in the local loop -- Optus -- is about to exit the game. The solution is clear. Do it now; separate the local loop and sell the rest.
Many other initiatives are ripe for consideration, including the Business Council proposals aimed at slowing the flight of businesses offshore; introducing laws that require compensation for loss of property rights, particularly for environmental purposes; and easing restriction on immigration while limiting their access to welfare further.
In short, the Coalition should treat the setbacks in WA and Queensland as a wake-up call to go back to its basic philosophy and craft a new conservative-liberal coalition committed to open markets and a tolerant national culture.
If George W. Bush can do it in the United States, surely John Howard can do it here.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment