Judging Howard

On a personal level, I was opposed to the Howard government’s support for the US in Iraq without a UN mandate.

I also argued in Quadrant (September 2007) that much more needed to be done to address public housing needs in these times of large surpluses.

In regards to industrial relations I also opposed the government’s support for militant tactics used against the Maritime Union of Australia in 1998, although dubious practices by dock workers needed to be addressed. I also feared the loss of collective bargaining through the promotion of AWAs as my relatively high wage for working as a labourer was indeed the result of efforts by the CFMEU, a union despised by the Coalition.

The Howard government should also have apologised on behalf of the Commonwealth for the past treatment of Australia’s Aborigines.

Nor did I not support the 2001 Tampa affair when 430 asylum seekers on that ship were not allowed to land on Australian territory.

However, as an academic, I respect the right of the government to reflect a policy in line with the views of many, with ultimate judgment given by the people at the next election. I was not going to ignore about half of the Australian adult population who voted for the Coalition on a two-party preferred basis: 53 per cent in 2004, 51 in 2001, 49 in 1998 and 53 in 1996.

Do political scientists really expect centre-right governments to ignore the wishes of many constituents on controversial issues? Are not political parties and leaders also representative of like-minded constituents, despite many Australians increasingly holding an eclectic range of views.

The harsh truth for academics, whether they like it or not, is that even the Howard government’s most controversial policy decisions often reflected the views of many Australians. In response to the 2001 Tampa affair, a Newspoll taken on October 26-28, 2001 found that a majority (including women and young people aged 18-34) wanted all boats carrying asylum-seekers turned away, although this sentiment declined several years later (probably because such arrivals decreased).

The Howard government promoted a view that new citizens and residents be committed to the basic structures and values associated with Australian democracy, again in line with longstanding concern by majority public opinion with a number of polls from the late 1980s expressing concern about cultural independence. And no Australian government was going to accept radical views offered from a few within the Muslim community.

Similarly, the Howard government did initially lower immigration policies in line with longstanding public opinion since the late 1980s with a majority believing that immigration levels were too high within a climate of high unemployment. Same was true of the public’s longstanding desire to reduce the family reunion immigration program.

Mutual obligation programs were also overwhelmingly supported by the public from 1997 with 1999 and 2000 Roy Morgan research indicated 58 per cent support for single parents to seek part-time work once all children reached primary school.

And though extensive debate led to much less support for the government’s 10-point Wik plan, there was initial significant concern expressed towards native title claims on pastoral or farming leases, as there was support for greater government intervention in regards to Aboriginal governance matters.