Howard’s legacy: don’t fall for his rhetoric

Social conservatism

Howard loftily argued in his speech that: “We should not forget that it is the values of our societies that terrorists despise most. That is why we should never compromise on them.”

This followed with: “It is fundamental to the continued unity and purpose of a democratic nation state that there not only be respect for the rule of law but the state have but one body of law, to which all are accountable, and from which all are entitled to an equal dispensation of justice.”

If only Howard had left things as they were. Australia had most of these noble attributes until he began to tinker with and dismantle them. The right to a fair trial and the right not to be imprisoned without charge were compromised by the anti-terrorist legislation that enabled authorities to lock people up for extended periods of time without formally charging them (thereby dispensing with habeas corpus), and to deny their legal representatives access to all the evidence being used against them in court.

On top of this was the erosion of the right to free speech via the sedition laws, the constant criticism of anyone that said these things were going too far, the politicisation of the bureaucracy and the concealment of information through the slow processing or outright blockage of Freedom of Information requests.

As for the “equal dispensation of justice” and equality under the law, one needs only to look at the treatment of Muhamad Haneef, David Hicks or Cornelia Rau to see that this wasn’t so. Anyone that looked or sounded foreign was treated with suspicion and as an enemy - certainly not innocent until proven guilty.

And need I mention the Iraq War, the AWB fiasco and disastrously inhumane and arbitrary treatment of suspected illegal immigrants? The immigration detention centres and turning away of boats were illegal under international refugee conventions; conditions in these camps were on par with many third world prisons; children and families were psychologically harmed for no good reason; and valid applications or appeals for humanitarian visas would be treated with contempt by the minister and his department.

I fail to see how this is social conservatism.

I also fail to see the logic behind the treatment of welfare recipients. Sure, there may be a case to reduce benefits to encourage people to work more, but by demanding instant repayment of overpayments and cutting off welfare for extended periods of time for small administrative breaches was simply unnecessary and spiteful. There must have been some ideological component to this too, as treating people in this way was hardly going to make them seek out paid employment (if they could find it).

There’s also the Howard government’s treatment of remote Indigenous communities. This is Australia’s biggest and most pressing social problem, and has been for a number of years. However, the Howard government simply neglected the matter for so long and let it get to crisis point. Even then, only widespread public attention ensured a response, although that response turned out to be a military-style intervention. Social conservatism indeed!

I have nothing against John Howard personally, or economic liberalism or social conservatism per se. However, what Howard is saying now doesn’t fit with what his government did - and I suspect he knows that.