|
July 17, 2007
Paul Kelly's Cunningham Lecture delivered in 2005 was concerned with how Australian Governance is being re-shaped and re-thought by John Howard. Kelly's argument is that from a historical looking back perspective:
Howard will be important for three ideas that, ultimately, underwrite his conception of Prime Ministerial Government – an expansion in executive power authorised and sustained by invoking the popular will; the re-shaping of our governance culture to incorporate the priority he attaches to economic liberalism and national security; and the upholding of parliamentary supremacy and popular sovereignty against the limitations involved in the emerging demand for a Bill of Rights.
Kelly understands Howard as a change-agent despite Howard understanding himself as a ‘Burkean’ conservative; albeit one who follows Burke's maxim that ‘a state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation’. This is change justified in the name of the national interest that is then equated with the will of the people.
So how does Kelly consider the contradiction between Burkean conservatism and economic liberalism designed to role back the welfare state? What is the balance or relationship between the two conservatism and economic liberalism?
|
he re-shaping of our governance culture to incorporate the priority he attaches to economic liberalism and national security;
I have to disagree with that. Howard has not been economic liberalist. Their governance has been more status quo. Qantas has a protected market, Au is behind the broadband roll out because of government intervention and Telstra while the AWB (a legislative monopoly) deserves its own hall of shame.
I think there is an argument that security - outside of electoral advantage - has been done under emergency. Procurement has been adhoc and as Robert Merkel argued based on appealing to the vanity and whim of the cabinet - namely Howard and Nelson.
There has not been a defence white paper since 2000. The US has a quadrennial defence report every four years in comparison. Nelson didn't initiate a new white paper when he took over either as ministers tend to do.
There is no strategic or coherent direction to procurement.
When Australians talk about "upholding parliamentary supremacy" they are really talking about executive rule. Westminster has poor separation of powers and parliament is dominated by the executive. Something the Washington system cannot get away with.