eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781742244020 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | UNSW Press |
| Publication date: | 01/10/2018 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 320 |
| File size: | 2 MB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
PERSPECTIVES AND POLEMICS
TOM FRAME
When you say something is 'consigned to history' it might imply that it has no contemporary relevance or continuing significance; that it is best forgotten and wisely struck from memory; and, that its slide from the present to the past ought to be welcomed. Consigning something to history is analogous in many instances to saying 'good riddance' to an unwanted object. But the notion has a positive implication too. Consigning something to history places it beyond the uncertainty and confusion of the present; suggests that it ought to be treated with dignity and respect because it provides a context in which the future might be anticipated; and encour-ages a closer and more conscientious examination of its shape and substance. In most Western societies, history is respected and revered, preserved and presented as a treasured storehouse of insights and wisdom, promise and possibility. Because students of history sometimes replicate its tragedies, people can be sceptical about the claim that those who are ignorant of history are likely to repeat its mistakes. Yet there is no doubt that commentary immediately after an event will never stand as the final word. Dispas-sionate historical analysis takes time and the benefits ought to be savoured.
The Howard Government is now being consigned to history. This statement stands on four observations. First, the Howard Government was elected more two decades ago and defeated a decade ago (at the time of writing). The passage of time has allowed the dust to settle making the genuine successes and actual failures of the Coalition a little easier to discern. Only some of what appeared to have importance between 1996 and 2007 now matters. Decisions that were hailed as triumphs and policies derided as failures are now free from the forces that obscured their character and the immediacy that concealed their significance. The introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), for instance, did not produce the range of adverse outcomes forecast by pundits and no political party is campaigning for its repeal. Although supporting the new tax in the Senate contributed to the demise of the Australian Democrats as a political force, the party's leader Meg Lees continues to believe the country needed a consumption tax. The passage of time has made it possible for historians to apply the principles of their discipline to the place of the Howard Government in the nation's life.
Second, the Howard Government is no longer the 'previous Coalition Government' against which the performance of subsequent governments is compared. The performance of the Rudd and Gillard governments was routinely compared with the achievements of the Howard Government. These contrasts may have been unfair and the conclusions drawn inaccurate but they were still made. Commentators noted the buoyancy of the economy during the Coalition's rule under John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello (1996–2007) compared with its health under Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan (2007–2010), and then Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan (2010–2013), and finally (and briefly) Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Chris Bowen (2013). But after the Liberal Party's decision to substitute Malcolm Turnbull for Tony Abbott as Party Leader and Prime Minister in September 2015, the Turnbull Government has been more frequently compared with the Abbott Government (2013–2015), with Coalition parliamentarians who regret the leadership spill and the deposition of an incumbent prime minister emphasising the contrasts between the two. In the same way that the Coalition could criticise the Keating Government (1991–1996) by comparing it with the performance of the Hawke Government (1983–1991), thereby effectively consigning the Whitlam Government (1972–1975) to history, the continuing tension between Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull has effectively hastened the eclipse of the Howard Government's significance as a political yardstick and allowed more measured and less polemical historical assessment.
Third, the publication of firsthand accounts of the Howard Government has considerably enlarged the source materials needed by historians to make judgments and draw conclusions. Howard has been the subject of biographies by David Barnett (with Pru Goward) published in 1997; and by Wayne Errington and Peter van Onselen published in 2007. Notably, the first appeared not long after Howard became prime minister; the second not long before he became a former prime minister. Howard produced his own substantial account, Lazarus Rising: A Personal and Political Autobiography, in October 2010. Memoirs and diaries from senior ministers have been produced or published by Peter Costello, Tony Abbott and Peter Reith. In each instance, these works explain and clarify decisions and events that the participants expect historians to take into account when assessing the Howard Government. They are better treated as historical resources than as histories in their own right.
Fourth, the official records relating to the Howard Government's first year in office will be made available to researchers on 1 January 2019. This might seem an odd moment – 23 years after the Coalition was elected in March 1996. Under amendments to the Archives Act 1983 that were approved by the federal parliament in May 2010, the closed period for Commonwealth records will be gradually reduced from 30 years to 20 years by 1 January 2021. As a function of the reduced waiting time, records from 1996 will be available early in 2019. It is, of course, difficult for historians to produce critical and comprehensive assessments of the Howard Government without access to official records which will disclose confidential advice, guidance and the warnings that were provided to the government, the timing of particular announcements or the basis for certain decisions, and the names and motivations of those members and senators who agreed or disagreed privately with policy options. Official records may also hint at controversies that were avoided, scandals that were concealed and disagreements that were subdued. Reducing the closed period also increases the opportunity for researchers to conduct interviews with surviving participants based on primary source materials. With the release of official records not far away, historians will be able to assemble the best picture possible of the Howard Government.
In assessing the years 1996–2007, researchers also need to be self-aware and conscious of that well-known taxonomy that suggests the historical record passes through at least three well- defined stages. In the first stage, history is written by the victors or survivors, largely from published sources, within a framework of 'conventional wisdom' shared by the participant writers. In the second stage, the conventional paradigm handed down from the participant writers is challenged, often a priori, by a later generation of non-participant writers. In the third stage, non-participant writers not only challenge the received paradigm, but perceive the evidence (and the questions to be asked of it) in entirely different ways from earlier generations of participant writers.
The rise and fall of the Howard Government has already been described by a handful of active participants including journalists (who made the news as much as they reported it), public servants and cabinet ministers. These are essentially personal accounts of what was seen, heard and done although the publication of politi- cal memoirs relies upon familiarity with matters that, in some instances, remain the subject of confidentiality or security provisions. Most of these works appeared in the aftermath of the Coalition's electoral defeat in November 2007. The transition through the first stage of the taxonomy now appears to be largely complete.
The history of the Howard Government is presently located between the first and second stages. Because it held power for nearly 12 years, it is possible to approach the early years in a different way from the later years, especially as the release of official documents will allow researchers access to previously unavailable material. The ability to conduct primary archival research will mark the beginning of the third stage of the taxonomy. It appears as though the second phase will probably be the shortest in duration although it has been the subject of much more terse political commentary than measured historical assessment.
Most appraisals of the Howard Government are better termed 'commentary' than history. Commentaries can deal with matters of historic significance, but commentary is not history. History has well-established disciplinary rules for handling sources, weighing evidence and devising conclusions. Most appraisals are commentary because they either lack perspective or reflect bias – either for or against the actions and achievements of the Howard Government. The inability of commentators to stand back from unfolding events limited some assessments of the Coalition between 1996 and 2007; the commentator's political sympathies shaped others. Because commentators are obliged to go beyond reporting into the realm of critique, assessments invariably reflect personal values and ideological commitments. It is difficult, of course, to evaluate the significance of a decision or an event when the consequences, intended and unintended, remain matters of speculation. And some commentators are unable to transcend their private beliefs in the cause of impartiality.
When, then, is a matter of purely historical significance? Perhaps never. The past is always enlisted to serve the present and to shape the future in some way – reasonably or otherwise. For instance, the Whitlam years are not merely historical relics given that political scientists continue to talk about 'Whitlamism' as a distinct approach to the business of national government. When it comes to examining politics and politicians in an adversar-ial setting, assessments are always liable to contain a polemical element. Historians have their own political philosophies quite apart from any partisan sympathies. When writing a biography of Harold Holt in 2003, I found myself wanting to explain in contemporary terms why Holt's approach to Cabinet decision-making and public sector finance was more democratic and more effective than those of his principal political opponents, the Labor leader Arthur Calwell and the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) Senate leader Vince Gair. I could not avoid explaining why Holt's approach was, in my judgment, to be preferred as a matter of principle. My point is simply that assessments of the Howard Government ought to become less partisan and less political given the passage of time, especially as commentators have started to talk about 'Howardism'.
To date, the Howard Government has been the subject of two kinds of commentary. The first are essentially ideological tracts written as part of contemporary political discourse and hoping to produce a political outcome. Although these works are focused on the past and offer something resembling historical analysis, they are not history. The second are analytical works from scholars representing a range of academic disciplines. They are primarily inter-pretative, focused on public policy and seek to provide an informed perspective for political debate, although the writers profess no avowed political intention, that is, they are outwardly indifferent to electoral outcomes.
As expected, the Howard Government was the focus of closest attention when first elected (1996), when finally defeated (2007) and when intense political controversy prompted substantial critical commentary (2001). Analysis has waned since its defeat and, other than the appearance of Peter Reith's edited papers in 2015, it has not been the subject of close or continuing consideration over the past five years in the form of a major monograph or collection of essays. Yet many commentators favourably compare the Howard Government with its successors. Chris Kenny noted the derision following John Howard's comment in 1996 that he wanted Australians to feel 'comfortable and relaxed'. Since Howard's demise
we've had five prime ministers in place over six years (counting Kevin 07 and Rudd Redux separately), record budget deficits, border chaos, terrorist attacks, political scandals, public policy disaster and a global financial crisis to keep us amused ... Howard's dream looks like an unattainable nirvana. If we get back there within two decades we will have done well enough.
The emerging view is that the nation probably took for granted the unrivalled political stability and material prosperity that it experienced between 1996 and 2007.
Astute observers will note that assessments of the Howard Government's performance petered out with the last of the descriptive books dealing with its demise: Howard's End: The Unravelling of a Government by Peter Van Onselen and Philip Senior which appeared in 2008 and To the Bitter End: The dramatic story behind the fall of John Howard and the rise of Kevin Rudd by Peter Hartcher in 2009. Van Onselen and Senior thought the nation was about to see 'some of the darkest days of Australia's most successful political party' and that history would judge Howard 'harshly for not having instituted party reforms when he had the authority to do so'. Hartcher claimed 'the man who had done most to make Rudd look a safe alternative was none other than John Howard' and noted Julia Gillard's commitment that Rudd's leadership would only end when 'the Australian people decide to terminate it'. The authors of both books, I suspect, would prefer these judgments were forgotten. But they highlight the conditional nature of works written when events are recent and the documentary record is not available.
The Howard Government looks decidedly different with the passing of each year. With the release of the first official papers in the near future, the time is right for devotees of Australian political history to reassess the Howard Government and determine its enduring place in the national narrative. This volume is an attempt to encourage informed citizens interested in the uses and abuses of history, and the rising generation of political scientists still deciding where to direct their energies, to consider making the Howard years a focus of close attention. Unlike other periods in the nation's life where the sources are scant or difficult to locate, it will be possible to undertake comprehensive primary research using archival sources without needing special access to original documents or detailed training on how to use official records. The material will be accessible through powerful internet search engines that will identify every item related to a specific topic. No longer will students of Australian political history be obliged to rely on second-hand accounts. They will be able to access the official records from their homes and offices and come to their own conclusion about Cabinet deliberations and decisions. Given the extent of the Howard Government's archival footprint, the assessments and interpretations of Coalition rule made in the aftermath of the government's defeat in 2007 are unlikely to stand. The depiction of 1996 as a watershed year for the nation will, however, abide.
During the 1996 election campaign, Prime Minister Paul Keating remarked: 'when you change the government, you change the country'. It is now plain that the election of the Howard Government in March 1996 marked a turning point for Australia. The nation had experienced 13 years of Labor government headed first by Bob Hawke (1983–1991), Labor's most electorally successful prime minister, and then by Paul Keating (1991–1996), Hawke's former deputy. Although the two Keating governments pursued their own agendas, there was a great deal of continuity between the Hawke and Keating governments and a strong affinity of purpose. The Hawke–Keating years were marked by substantial variations in the performance of the national economy but there was no sense in which either was considered a poor administration despite some economic and labour market difficulties that lasted into the early 1990s. The Hawke and Keating governments were more than merely competent. They were visionary and reformist across a range of portfolios, even if the electorate did not always understand the need for change.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "The Ascent to Power, 1996"
by .
Copyright © 2017 Tom Frame.
Excerpted by permission of University of New South Wales Press Ltd.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Contributors,
Preface Tom Frame,
1 Perspectives and polemics Tom Frame,
PART I: THE MOOD,
2 Menzies' forgotten people and Howard's battlers David Kemp,
3 Howard and Keating as friends, rivals, combatants Troy Bramston,
4 A candidate's view of the 1996 campaign Brendan Nelson,
PART II: THE OUTCOME,
5 Learning from campaigns Andrew Robb,
6 Howard's battlers and the 1996 election Ian McAllister,
7 Did Labor lose or the Coalition win? Murray Goot,
8 Compulsion and liberty in the trial of Albert Langer Andrew Blyth,
PART III: ASSUMING GOVERNMENT,
9 Economic management Warwick McKibbin,
10 A vision for government Michael L'Estrange,
11 The foundational year Paul Kelly,
12 The new government's agenda Kevin Andrews,
13 The public service history wars John Nethercote,
PART IV: ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES,
14 The challenge of reforming gun laws John Anderson,
15 Revenues come and go, but entitlements go on forever Gary Johns,
PART V: LOOKING FORWARD; LOOKING BACK,
16 1997: The year in prospect Nick Cater,
17 The view from Kirribilli John Howard,
18 With the benefit of hindsight Tom Frame,
Appendices,
I Extolling the Coalition's victory Andrew Robb,
II Explaining Labor's defeat Gary Gray,
Notes,
Afterword,
Acknowledgments,
Index,