Stealthy PM All Too Aware Majority Will Write History

by Malcolm Mackerras - Canberra Times

As an avid reader of opinion pieces in all Australian newspapers, I have decided the time has come to nominate the best opinion article I have read in any newspaper this year.

It is the recent opinion by Dr Mark Hearn ("The people have a right to be heard on IR reform", May 5, p11.)

Let me quote the key part of Hearn's article, referring to John Howard and his Government on IR reform.

"He avoided outlining this apparently crucial policy at the 2004 election; has subsequently refused to debate the Opposition leader over the reforms; significantly limited parliamentary scrutiny of the legislation, and delayed an announcement of the controversial regulations that accompanied the Act until that announcement could be smothered by media reporting of the Commonwealth Games.

"These are the actions of a government dealing in bad faith with the Australian people."

You can say that again! Or can you? Given that the Workplace Relations Amendment (WorkChoices) Act 2005 could well turn out to be by far the most significant achievement of the Howard years the major question historians will need to ask is whether or not they agree with Hearn.

I agree with Hearn: but will the economic rationalist historians agree with him? That, I believe, now depends on the High Court.

It is possible historians will blame Mark Latham rather than John Howard. Even I have succumbed to the temptation to do that.

Readers may know that in March this year there was a conference at the Australian National University titled, John Howard's Decade. Along with 70 other academics, I presented a paper. It would seem, however, that I was the only academic to send his/her paper to the Prime Minister and get a comment on it from John Howard himself.

My paper of 38 pages was presented on the morning of Friday, March 3. I had sent a copy to Howard before its actual presentation in person. The paper was titled, Howard's Strategy for Senate Control, and I now give its gist, together with some direct quotations.

My basic argument is that Howard's current Senate majority is not a fluke. During his third term (2001-04) he developed the Senate strategy described in the paper. I then went on:

"Howard, Australia's most cunning Prime Minister, had a strategy to get a Senate majority by stealth. Its essential element was to proclaim loudly the impossibility of the Coalition getting a Senate majority. Howard hoped that Labor, led by its worst-ever and most-incompetent-ever leader, would ignore the Senate election in its campaign. Mark Latham and Labor duly obliged. So in October 2004 the Senate election was 'buried' in the House of Representatives election and there was virtually no ticket-splitting in the vote cast for the two houses".

Howard knew that such a strategy would virtually guarantee the Coalition to win three of the six places in every state and one of the two in each territory. That was the easy part - provided Labor was led as incompetently as he expected. That would give the Coalition 38 of the 76 senators, half the seats but not a majority.

The difficult part was to produce the result he wanted in Queensland. We now know that this eventually occurred, namely three Liberal, two Labor and one National. That Queensland result gave Howard his current Senate majority.

My paper gives a significant amount of evidence as to the campaign of the Liberal Party in Queensland and how Howard supported that campaign.

Howard knew as well as I did that the first five places in Queensland were predictable - first Brett Mason (Liberal), second Jan McLucas (Labor), third George Brandis (Liberal), fourth Joe Ludwig (Labor) and fifth Barnaby Joyce (National).

His problem was how to get his third Liberal candidate, Russell Trood, elected to the sixth vacancy.

My paper contains the details of how Howard and the Queensland Liberals were successful in their campaign to achieve that. The trickery and dishonesty of the Liberal Party Queensland Senate campaign is explained in much detail.

In the paper I make a number of comments on the Workplace Relations Amendment (WorkChoices) Act 2005 but my major comment is this: "However, my main thought on this particular enactment (without doubt the most important of the 10 years of Howard, PM) is that it increases my contempt for Mark Latham, a hopelessly incompetent leader, a pure dud.

"Imagine a leader to whom it never occurred that his party should wage a scare campaign about what Howard would do if given a fourth term and you have Latham. Imagine what might have been if Labor had waged such a scare campaign. It would have forced Howard's hand. By failing to wage such a campaign Latham allowed Howard to pretend he had been given a mandate".

To my astonishment, I received a letter from John Howard which I now quote in full.

"Dear Malcolm. Thank you for your letter of 23 February 2006. I read your paper with great interest. I won't try to comment on every claim in it, but do agree very strongly with you that Russell Trood's election was the crucial breakthrough for the Coalition in Queensland.

"Your analysis reminded me that it has been very much the norm in Queensland for the Nationals, ever since the demise of the joint ticket in 1980, to win at least one Senate position in that state.

"It was good to hear from you. Kind regards. John Howard."

My interpretation of Howard's failure to comment on my other claims is simple. He knows my claims are all correct. He also does not care that historians will see them to be correct.

Franklin Roosevelt is universally regarded as the most cunning president the Americans had in the 20th century. He is also generally regarded as the greatest. John Howard knows that historians will rate him as our most cunning prime minister. Some will see that as a sign of greatness. Economic rationalist historians will defend him on the ground that the Workplace Relations Amendment (WorkChoices) Act 2005 was the ultimate enactment of 30 years of Howard dreaming.

Mark Hearn is quite right to note that Howard "avoided outlining this apparently crucial policy at the 2004 election" but the problem for Howard's critics is easily explained.

He never said he wouldn't.

What historians will decide now depends on the High Court.

If four of the seven justices can be persuaded to constitutionalise the unconstitutional Howard will be rated our greatest-ever prime minister - as well as our most cunning.

For a good populist like Howard, it is easy to trick four Queensland voters in every 10 to support the Liberal Party's Senate team - particularly when he concealed from them what they were doing with their vote.

This enactment is patently unconstitutional. For him to trick four of the seven justices into its validation will be a much more difficult task. Perhaps Howard will finish up as the prime minister who was too cunning by half.


Malcolm Mackerras is Visiting Fellow in Political Science, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, the University of NSW at the Australian Defence Force Academy.