 Political
Corrections
with Margo Kingston
The modern-day heroes of democracy
Liberalism distrusts the state. It believes checks and balances are required
to protect the citizen from abuse of state power, including a strict separation
between those who make the laws (the Parliament) and those who oversee and enforce
them (the judges). As Liberal rebel Judi Moylan put it at the Coalition party
room debate on refugee policy last week, "We in the Liberal Party believe
in the individual - that each human being is regarded as morally significant and
should not be used as a means to some social and collective policy."
Many have wrongly written that the backbench revolt over prolonged mandatory
detention of refugees is the first big test of Howard's absolute power over his
party. The last big one, in 2000, was also over mandatory detention, a Northern
Territory law compelling judges to send children to jail for their first stealing
offence. It's worth reviewing the outcome, because it points to how Howard might
resolve the current revolt.
In 2000 an Aboriginal lad of 15 was sent to jail for stealing a Texta pen.
He hung himself after unqualified staff - one of whom was an ex-abattoir worker
- ignored his deteriorating mental state and locked him up in solitary.
The once sacred right of Liberals to vote against the wishes of the majority
on matters of conscience was central to the debate. Howard had just helped pass
a federal law overturning the NT's euthanasia law, saying the matter was one of
conscience. But, as now, he proclaimed that he would decide what was a matter
of conscience and the circumstances under which Liberals could consult theirs.
Like now, when he told his Party that his hard-line policy was the foundation
of his political success, he said then that the NT law was keeping his side in
power in the NT.
The matter came to a head when Danna Vale, a southern Sydney backbencher, proclaimed
that as a boy, her son was nicked evading a train fare. He was now a fine family
man, and she dreaded to think what his future might have been had he been thrown
in jail.
After I reported her comments, describing her as a devout Christian, Danna,
an avowed conservative and Howard fan, sent me a note saying my report had convinced
her she must take a stand as a Christian MP with a duty to protect all Australia's
children from government abuse. She announced she would introduce a Private Members
Bill, backed by current rebels Petro Georgiou and Bruce Baird, Brendan Nelson
(now a Cabinet minister) and Christopher Pyne (now a parliamentary secretary).
Like now, the question was whether Howard would allow a debate and/or a vote
in the House of Representatives. Like now, he arranged a party room debate on
the matter. Danna needed six Liberals to cross the floor to pass the bill. She
fell one short.
As I write, the current House of Representatives rebel Liberals - Georgiou,
Baird, Russell Broadbent and Judi Moylan - need another nine to join them to pass
the Georgiou bills. It seems unlikely they will get them, despite significant
support among Senate Liberals.
Without the numbers, Danna did a deal. To prevent a damaging floor cross, Howard
gave the NT $5 million for diversionary programs for kids in the NT, and got NT
agreement that in return all kids under 18 accused of minor offences would be
diverted to those programs. He also allowed the Bill to be debated in the House
of Representatives so the rebels could have their say - on condition there was
no vote.
Danna never thought much of Malcolm Fraser as PM, yet a personal letter from
him hangs on the wall of reception at her electoral office:
"It is always hard where there are a few who have a particular view which
they hold very strongly but which runs counter to the stated position of government.
The fact that you have stood up and been able to influence the future direction
of government policy is enormously important. The Party, in my memory, has never
denied the capacity of an individual to follow his or her conscience in matters
which the particular member believes to be important. I am delighted to see that
the Party's liberal conscience has been stirred, and seems to be alive and well."
This time, like the last, Howard faced a majority in the party room which,
while not wanting to cross the floor, was deeply concerned at the injustices of
the policy. He now says current policy is not being administered humanely or even
fairly.
It seems clear that Howard will not change his basic policy line on mandatory
detention, which sees the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs and its minister act as police officer, prosecutor, judge and jailor of
boat people and people it merely "suspects" are "unlawful non-citizens".
This is a recipe for grotesque abuse of power, as shown by the Cornelia Rau and
Vivian Alvarez tragedies.
But he will agree to tinker, and he might agree to allow a debate in the House
of Representatives so the rebels can have their say - provided there is no vote.
Like the NT debate, this one shows the tragic loss of influence of small l
Liberals in a party which can no longer truly label itself "liberal".
Still, the death screams of the liberal tradition are still being heard despite
Howard and his henchmen's systematic destruction of the liberal tradition since
the 1980s through ousting true liberals from seats. Today's liberal rebels are
fighting perhaps the last great battle to preserve the Menzian liberal tradition
in the "Liberal" Party. No matter who you vote for, they are democratic
heroes.
|
