I don’t purport to have a clear answer to the question of whether Paul Keating was right (though one thing that Howard’s decennial round of interviews has put beyond doubt is that the two PMs agree). But there’s some very interesting research on social and economic attitudes in a forum from The Australian Review of Public Affairs on the Howard decade. In research that Paul Norton discussed on the basis of an SMH report, University of Sydney political economist Gabrielle Meagher and ANU sociologist Shaun Wilson have brought together data from a number of surveys to sketch out an answer to the question. As they say, go read the whole thing, but here are some snippets.
We have shown that Australians have not moved ‘off center’ to borrow Hacker and Pierson’s (2005) useful phrase. If anything, the public has drifted leftwards in their attitudes in major policy areas, supporting working women, public spending, and immigration. So we can’t confirm that the Government remains popular because it has succeeded in finding the true centre of gravity in Australian politics. If Howard’s ultimate goal is to instil more conservative values, then he is unlikely to succeed.
There’s no doubt that Howard’s ‘family values’—which emphasise the traditional roles of male breadwinner and female homemaker—find ever clearer expression in social policy. In one area of expanding welfare, the Family Tax Benefit system, ‘stay-at-home mums’ now receive payments without means testing in an otherwise highly targeted social security system. Meanwhile, working mothers in low and middle income households face strong economic disincentives to participating in work (Apps 2004; Hill 2006). Policy analysts are now speculating that pro-breadwinner welfare is feeding into real-world changes in women’s workforce participation (Kelly et al. 2005).Yet public opinion is moving against the conservative values that underlie this policy direction. A large proportion of Australians now understand ‘family’ as a much more inclusive institution than the ‘man and stay-at-home mum’ combination that conservatives extol; as Ann Evans and Edith Gray show, more than half of all Australians under 50 now believe that a same-sex couple with children is a family (2005, p. 19). In fact, support for traditional gender roles has fallen precipitously in recent decades. In 1980, nearly two thirds of Australians agreed that ‘It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the breadwinner and the woman takes care of the home and family’ (Age Poll 1980). By 2002, less than a quarter agreed (ISSP 2002). And opposition to mothers working—even those with preschool children—is now a minority view. In 1994, half of all Australians agreed that ‘preschool children suffer if the mother works’ (ISSP 1994). By 2003, this had fallen to around a third (AuSSA 2003). Although these questions don’t ask about policy preferences, these findings suggest that there is no longer majority support among Australians for values that prioritise traditional families.
The last para is the clincher - “Labor must hope for a resurgence in union vitality in response to industrial relations reform, or seek out new constituencies to rebuild its voter base”
When freedom of association was enacted unionism dropped dramatically.
I would add that the article has not addressed Howards’ primary achievement, people today have more choices - they do things because they can not because they should.
Just what does the ALP represent, a return to restrictive trade practices?
“If Howard’s ultimate goal is to instil more conservative values, then he is unlikely to succeed.”
I wonder if it is his ultimate goal? Isn’t he too much the political pragmatist to force-feed or command social change? Despite the somewhat hysterical prognostications of Marion Maddox et al, I don’t for instance see Howard embarked on a campaign to re-Christianise Australia. Firstly, I doubt that he personally has much time for God-bothering, though he observes the ritual forms on public occasions and will accept any political accrual. Secondly Australia has a long tradition of opposition to wowserism, holy rolling, blue-nosing and the like and Howard is acutely attuned to the national social radar.
It seems to me that he attempts to celebrate the conventional rather than points of difference on the basis that broad acceptance of social change ultimately evolves gradually from the former rather than springing fully-formed from the latter - Keating’s mistake as he might see it. In this respect, it’s pretty hard to see significant daylight between his position and that of most of the Labor premiers or indeed, the federal opposition.
He doesn’t always get it right. For instance, I think he’s misread the mood on civil unions but the ground has shifted fairly rapidly here as similar societies to our own have adopted various forms of non-heterosexual relationship recognition and the whole issue has become fairly unremarkable. He was probably politically astute in moving to confine the definition of marriage - Helen Clark made exactly the same move in NZ as the quid pro quo for the introduction of civil unions there and Nicola Roxon’s thunderous ovation from the Christian Right as she signed Labor up to his position must have caused him glee - but his recent observation that, “civil unions are a cop-out,” begs the question as to whether he believes that gay and lesbian Australians should have relationship protection at all. He would no doubt point to various initiatives like Commonwealth super inheritance etc but in so doing he’s already on the slippery slope to agreement. So ….enter his 21st century social change mechanism - the Liberal backbench with a private member’s bill.
geoff is on the money.
Howard doesn’t have any major ‘value’ he holds dear to his chest except living at the Lodge err make that Kirribilli
I find myself in the rare and strange position of agreeing with homer.
geoff: I can see Howard in a while reading the wind and somehow incorporating “No Gay No Way marriage” with some statement about respecting people who care and look after each other. There are already plenty of recognitions of relationships, including super, most people get compassionate leave irrespective of who (or what) partner is on breakups, illnesses and death, immigration recognises established gay relationships for residency and so on. Howard has this ability to make the headline statement say AGAINST but underneath actually have the goals achieved by a sort of silent means.
(1) “Does changing the government change the country?”
No way.
(2) Does changing the rotten system of pre-selection within the political factions which we laughingly call “parties” change the country?
You bet!!!!
Democracy breaks out. Real talent emerges and vies for seats in parliament. Electors are represented at long last. Crooks find it infinitely harder to commit corruption. The treasury fills and taxpayers get value for their money. Things work. Progress becomes unstoppable. Injustice is redressed. Enemies tremble. Happiness spreads. The nation prospers.
Chances of (2),above, actually happening?
Zilch. Zero. Nil.
(kindly refer to improbability drive and to a whale being brought into existance in “A Hitch-Hiklre’s Guide To The Galaxy” for far more likely events).
By the way, could it be that recent research on Australians’ attitudes does make a monkey out of the usual nasty stereotype of Australians?
Insightful and uplifting really. Good to see the public can carry it’s own agenda without dependancy on Howard.
Good news for a jaded leftist
Yes, the flipside of not “worrying constantly about who we are” and “being relaxed and comfortable” is that we can get on with forming our own opinions about how we should live our lives despite politicians’ best attempts to dictate to us what we should think, or what “values” we should hold!
Social conservatism is only half of Howard. The other half is economic liberalism. Although the size of the tax burden suggests that he has failed to deliver on this second ideal.
There are several reasons why the Federal Government (whatever its stripes) is limited in its ability to cause and control social change. Some of them are:
1. Federalism and the existence of local government means other tiers of governments can also affect social change, only sometimes in the same direction as the federal government.
2. Capitalism means that the first priority of the Federal Government is to maintain the conditions for strong economic growth. Economic growth and associated economic and technological changes have major consequences in the socio-cultural sphere (e.g. creating demand for women’s wage labour whilst downsizing traditional male breadwinners’ jobs, increasing the mobility of individuals and thus potential freedom from traditional family/community ties, fostering consumerist and individualist attitudes and lifestyles which are incompatible with social conservatism, etc.). I believe it was Marx and Engels who wrote, in 1848, that capitalism dissolves all patriarchal relations, or words to that effect.
3. Capitalism also means that governments largely don’t control information media and cultural production, which is important for shaping people’s sociocultural values and behaviour.
4. Liberal democracy entails a large space for an autonomous civil society in which non-government actors (including businesses, unions, churches, social movements, etc.) can exert an influence on how people think and what they do.
5. Globalisation subjects Australian people and society to a range of influences which national governments have limited ability to control or oppose, and reinforce factors 2 through 4 above.
6. People have minds of their own.
Excellent points Paul but I would just have a quibble in regards to point 6. People always have minds of their own therefore this point doesn’t explain anything. Liberal democracy , the structure of government ( apart from the executive ) and capitalism are all forces which can negate the social conservatism of an errant executive . However there are limits to these processes and it is clear that the Howard government is decreasing citizens rights in the name of the war on terror.