HAS AUSTRALIA MOVED TO THE POLITICAL RIGHT?
By Jodie Jansen and Charles Massy*Australia has always been identified as a country where everybody received a fair go. The ideas of tolerance, empathy and compassion were all summed up in the word "mateship". A national identity is capable of revealing much about a country’s inherent politics and what it is like to live in that country. In recent times there has been a subtle change to life in Australia. In one-way or another, we have all noticed it. Never was it so clear than during the reconciliation debate, the Pauline Hanson crisis, and the 2001 election.
These events led many social commentators and writers to lament, or rejoice at, the death of tolerance. However the most recent Federal election has shown that maybe much greater change is upon us.
Australia is a curious country. In the 100 years since its birth as a nation Australia’s political and ideological landscape has been one of democratic liberalism and free market capitalist economics. However since the time of federation these ideas have existed almost simultaneously with strong collectivism and the innate sense of social justice that comes with it. This simultaneous existence can best be described as the collective battle against the perceived excesses of liberalism and the free market.
There were many victories for collectivism, the extension of suffrage to women, the organisation of labour, conciliation and arbitration of industrial disputes by an independent body, the eight hour working day, workers’ compensation schemes, safety net awards that guaranteed minimum pay and conditions for all workers, Federally funded welfare for those who were misfortunate enough to need it, universal education, so that ability and not wealth could determine a person’s future, basic civil rights being extended to Australia’s indigenous population and the most basic of all human rights universal health care.
To truly understand the importance of these victories, they cannot be viewed as simple improvements in the quality of life for Australians; they need to be viewed as the triumph of the idea that not everybody is equal. A victory for the idea that everyone is society has an apparent dignity and value that exists irrespective of their circumstances. Effectively Australian society embraced the concept of collective solidarity.
When Australia embraced this idea of collectivism there was a general understanding that ideas and political policy were to be assessed and judged on the basis of whether or not those ideas or policies were good for the country as a whole, the benefit to the individual was to be considered secondary. For many this may seem infinitely sensible and right, but to the ideology of liberalism and free market economics these concepts are an anathema.
But it is on these concepts of collectivism that Australia was built and where the national identity that espoused a fair go, tolerance and compassion came from. Australia existed in a paradigm of collectivism and social justice, despite the ideological foundations of Australia as a nation. Whilst during the first century Australia was not by any means perfect and many of the above mentioned victories took longer than they should to happen the fact remains that in a supposedly liberal free market democracy these things were achieved.
It is now becoming apparent though that it is not the values that were considered "Australian" that are changing, but it is the paradigm in which our country exists that is changing or is being allowed to change.
Australia is now becoming a nation of individuals. This is obvious when one reflects on the events and cultural climate of the past twenty years and the success of certain politicians.
Over the last twenty years the influence of American culture has greatly increased in Australia. With this increase we have seen a corresponding increase in the influence of the politics of greed, self-interest and individualism.
Over the past ten years the rights of minority groups, Aboriginals, unemployed people, refugees and the like have been systematically attacked in Australia. These attacks have had two-fold effect, firstly the direct attack on the minority group, and secondly, the attack on the minority group is in fact an outward attack on the idea of collective solidarity.
Most commentators explained these attacks and the success they had by stating that Australians were simply being less tolerant. Whilst this is partly true, it would be more accurate to say that most Australians were becoming more self interested and less worried about issues that affected others.
In circumstances such as this it is important that the Left in Australia not only defend the minority groups in question, but the whole idea of collective solidarity. The idea that self-interest is okay needs to be constantly challenged.
John Howard’s recent success is proof of this. The current government has been a proponent of individual rights as opposed to collective rights. This can most obviously be seen with their attacks on organised labour, an attempt to wind back the most basic of collective victories. This was followed by their changes to the Higher Education system, where now wealth and not necessarily talent determine a person’s future. The same treatment is being given to universal health care.
Australians have apparently whole-heartedly endorsed the policy of individualism over collectivism. The question is why is this so? Many commentators have attributed this to either the community becoming more right wing and/or the skill of John Howard as a politician.
In our opinion this analysis is flawed. We believe that John Howard and the Coalition have not been challenged on their ideological basis and what ramifications they will have for the community. More importantly they have been allowed to establish self-interest as the only criterion on which to judge leadership and government policy.
It has been clear that whilst the opposition’s policies in the last two elections have established a clear difference in ideology between themselves and the Coalition (the last election more so), these policies were not put to the community in such a way that drew the community’s attention to the clash of liberalism versus collectivism.
A perfect example was the opposition’s tax and families’ policies. The debate in a policy area that has dramatic ramifications on the prosperity and management of the country as a whole, came down to which side would give families more dollars per week. At no stage did the opposition clearly state why their policy would be better for the country as a whole.
The same can be said of the debate on Higher Education. The opposition’s policy which opposed the government’s full fee paying places and 25% increase in HECS fees was marketed on the basis of what would it be like if your children could not afford to go to university or what if you have to pay an extra 25% on your fees? At no stage was there a sustained debate on the effects of reducing accessibility to Higher Education to the nation as a whole.
Essentially the opposition became bogged down in micro policy debates. The government was never seriously challenged on their vision for Australia as a country. Moreover the opposition never sought to present an alternative vision for Australia, where we as citizens were collaborators, not competitors.
This remains the challenge for any political leaders who wish to see Australia become a fairer and more equitable country in the future. Not to accept the conventional wisdom that the country has moved to the political Right and therefore the only way to win government is to move to the Right yourselves. Be bold take the initiative and challenge the Coalition on the ideological grounds of their policy, don’t get bogged down in semantics of how much per week everyone will get under each policy. Provide an alternative vision for Australia where people can choose what they think is in the community’s best interest.
*Jodie Jansen is president of the National Union of Students
stationed in Melbourne. Charles Massy is a 22 year old
articled clerk at a Brisbane law firm.