 Political
Corrections
with Margo Kingston
A not-so-liberal party
In the end, liberalism is not compatible with Howard's Liberal Party. That's
the truth of it. The party either rebalances or there's a split.
One or the other needs to happen quickly. There's been a gaping hole in the
political market place for a 'small l' liberal party since the Democrats imploded
over the GST and never recovered. That means that because the Howard Liberal Party
no longer stands for traditionally bipartisan liberal values - the separation
of powers and human rights for every human being in our nation - Labor is forced
into a corner defending such principles against a barrage of spin designed to
destroy the case without arguing the merits.
We saw the result in 2001, when Howard mesmerised his backbench - without even
giving them time to have a real look at them - into voting for bills that would
have allowed Australian officials to murder boat people without legal consequences.
Howard knew Labor would have to oppose the bills or split asunder. So his loyal
troops put their names to these foul bills. Howard got the Senate rejection he
expected, and then put up something more reasonable to a desperate Beazley. Howard
then spent the election campaign claiming Beazley's initial no showed he was weak
on border protection.
I suppose Liberals have the excuse that it was close to an election and this
would win it for them if they kept saying yes to Howard and that if they protested
they'd be letting down the team. I guess that's the effect unprincipled leadership
has on a party.
Now, though, the tables sometimes look like they're turning, and both majors
don't quite know what to do. For example, last week Howard said he wanted more
humane, efficient and timely processing of boat people. In Parliament on Tuesday,
that was whittled down to merely "efficient".
Beazley, having pronounced himself early as proud of being part of the government
which introduced mandatory detention, winced in question time yesterday when Howard
pronounced the policy bipartisan and quoted a Beazley line in 2001 that there
wasn't a cigarette paper between them.
He even started rehearsing his defiant, angry performance piece to the Australian
people through the 2001 campaign, "We will decide who comes to this country
and the circumstances in which they come". Didn't pack the same punch somehow.
Even he couldn't keep a completely straight face.
Still, he was warning Beazley that if he tried to capitalise on Liberal troubles
on this matter then Howard might play hard. Beazley knows exactly how hard that
is.
Underlying the debate, however, are fundamental questions about what sort of
country we are and what democratic traditions are we prepared to ditch.
The Georgiou bills would put in place once uncontroversial protections against
abuse of state power against citizens - that government officials must convince
a judge or independent officer that they should keep someone imprisoned. The Department
of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) could imprison
boat people for 90 days but not longer without an independent review.
This is not only compassionate; it drives consistency and fairness in decision
making.
But in his meeting with the rebels on Monday night at The Lodge, Howard rejected
this outright. Why DIMIA alone should be police officer, judge, jury and prison
officer was not explained - and instead he produced the glib line that governments
should make their own decisions. There was more - all would be fixed by giving
DIMIA and the minister even more discretion to do what they liked according to
whim. This is the rule of man, not of law, and a recipe for totalitarianism.
It means that Howard's Liberal Party has abandoned what was a central tenet
of liberalism - the separation of powers between Parliament, the executive (ministers
and officials) and the judiciary so the people are protected against deprivation
of their freedom except in accordance with the law, which applies to everyone.
The second core disagreement surrounds the meaning of "the individual"
in the Liberal Party. I think this is the issue that is forcing Moylan into the
most uncomfortable position there is in politics - letting down the team and putting
some of your colleagues in extremely awkward positions which could adversely affect
their careers to defend your core beliefs.
Moylan, a 'small l' liberal, believes that the primacy of the individual over
the collective is a defining difference between Labor and Liberal. That is why
- until Howard decided he would decide what was a matter of conscience for Liberal
MPs - Liberals had the right to cross the floor on a matter on which they disagreed
with the party line without being expelled or destroyed. Labor, in contrast, believes
that you slug it out, come to an agreed position and if you cross the floor you're
expelled.
Moylan believes, as do most Liberals of my acquaintance, that every individual
is worthy of equal treatment and respect under the law. Or, as liberal Webdiarist
Harry Heidelberg put it:
"Some people who decry liberalism don't fully understand what it is about.
A discussion about the individual need not only be about a dark side of selfishness
and 'every man for himself'. At its core we are talking about dignity, the dignity
of the individual, the pricelessness of every human life and every human mind.
The moment we start meddling in these areas is the moment we slide away from justice.
Detained babies with bar codes and ID cards? What the hell are we doing Judi?
You know the answer to that and that is why you are doing what you are doing.
You're not a rebel, you are a true believer."
Moylan told Howard during one of their meetings on the Georgiou bills that
the mandatory detention laws and administration was not in accordance with liberal
principles and that it was unethical.
Howard's answer: that 90 per cent got refugee status in the end.
Means and ends, folks. That's what this is about. Some leaders will climb over
the bodies whose faces he will not let us see to win power. Some won't. Some people
think all human beings are important in their own right. Others see them as a
mere means to an end.
What Howard did at the 2001 election has led to the disintegration of a department,
the detention and deportation of Australians, the return of asylum seekers to
death and torture and countless unjust decisions leading to terrible human misery
on our soil.
The mask is peeling off. What will the people think now? When they see Howard
will they see themselves, or someone else entirely?
|
