While I’m quite a fan of allohistory, I rarely engage in it because (a) I’m not very good at it and (b) it’s rather self-indulgent. But like most indulgences, it’s a bit of harmless fun and it won’t make you go blind.
So here goes: This letter in today’s Oz alerted me to the intriguing possibility that a bit of judicial activism by the High Court over WorkChoices might have been enough to save the Howard government from electoral oblivion.
While the High Court’s 2006 judgement on WorkChoices makes an unassailable case for the legal correctness of upholding the legislation, let’s pretend things were different. If the High Court judges had gone all activist and concocted a convoluted Constitutional argument to strike down WorkChoices, then the result of the 2007 election might have been very different.
Howard could have made extraordinary political capital out of a situation where the High Court Judges sat between him and his IR nirvana. This would most likely have galvanised the conservatives (and their media pets) into a righteous fury about interfering judges, and they would have had a strong case to make. They could’ve blamed all the post-2006 interest rate rises and inflation on the the judges’ decision to block WorkChoices, and by association the State ALP governments for bringing the case, and there would’ve been no way to falsify that argument.
Meanwhile, then-ALP leader Kim Beazley would’ve also been able to build up a head of steam over the issue, becoming ever more trenchant with his ineffective 20th-century style class-war rhetoric. I doubt whether Rudd would’ve got a look-in for the leadership in a situation where Beazley could dig in over such a signature Labor issue. And Beazley would’ve played exactly into the conservative case that WorkChoices was needed to keep interest rates and inflation low…
In addition, the Libs would’ve gone to the election with none of the WorkChoices baggage, which we know scared off many of the decisive Howard battlers. It’s even possible that the Coalition could’ve made WorkChoices the centrepiece of their 2007 election campaign – insisting it was necessary to control inflation and interest rates – and convinced the battlers to vote for it!
Feeling little electoral pressure from Beazley the Bloviator, Howard might even been relaxed and comfortable about an orderly transition to Costello in 2007. If anything Costello would’ve been even more compelling as a champion of the “unfairly-struck down” WorkChoices, as the Treasurer-cum-PM would’ve been able to whinge with great authority about what a mess the ALP and the High Court had made of his beautiful sets of numbers.
All of which creates a delicious conundrum for the critics of judicial activism, who usually couch their opposition in demagoguery about the interference of judges with elected representatives. For a bit of judicious intereference in 2006 might just have kept their beloved Coalition in power.
Meanwhile, fans of judicial activism, often associated with progressive forces, have an equally uncomfortable case to ponder…
PS – For any other fans of allohistory, I can strongly recommend Kim Stanley Robinson’s The Years of Rice and Salt (2002). It starts with the premise that a supercharged mutation of the 14th century Black Plague wiped out all of Europe’s population, and then chronicles how world history might have unfolded had Chinese, Islamic and Amerindian cultures been the dominant civilisational forces down the centuries, instead of Europe.
Well, perhaps…
On the other hand Howard may have come across as the tricky little manipulator who was less competent than he was evil. The spin cycle on this counterfactual is not as clear as it may appear to be at first sight.
On the issue of judicial activism. Can a judge be considered to be a black-letter judge when she constructs a justification for a whole new IR regime based on a vast extension of the corporate powers provisions while at the same time ignoring a complete section of the Constitution which is specifically and explicitly devoted to establishing the machinery of Industrial Relations?
Defeat in the High Court?
It may have been so humiliating for PM Howard and his IR Minister (and Attorney-General, and Treasurer, et al), who would have been forced to justify their Act and argue against the Court; with various Labor Premiers chiming in; golden opportunity for ACTU bumper stickers, etc.
Shorter version provided by Katz: “tricky little manipulator who was less competent than he was evil.”
Counter-factual above….?
Beazley may well have stumbled over something else. For example, China looked like invading Taiwan early in 2007 (how could you forget that?!!) I mean, if you’re gunna change the High Court decision, all bets are off.
Let’s play by the rules: there are none.
The Coalition govt, led by Howard, was doomed.
It had alienated itself from enough voters through a whole range of attitudes, policies and actions that as a whole package rendered it, to borow a phrase, ‘out of touch with the majority of Australian people’ and made defeat inevitable. Not just workNOchoices but a whole variety of issues eg the environment, Iraq, anti social attitudes, racism, sexism/misogony, constant lying/spinning eg interest rates, and so on. Too many issues, too much arrogance, too many groups who were openly rejected by them. The people, enough of them, said ‘too much, no more’. The popularity of Beazley in the opinion polls was evidence for the looming defeat.
To win the electiion the Coalition would have had to get rid of so many policies, so many unpopular spokespesons, Abbott, ruddock, Costello, Andrews, reverse direction in so many ways they would no longer have been the Coalition, as Nelson is finding out.
Rudd reaped what the Coalition sowed.
The academic equivalent of allohistory is counterfactual history, which has recently become quite popular in certain circles. It is useful insofar as it can be used to evaluate conventional claims of historical significance, or highlight the possible significance of apparently insignificant events. At any rate, it’s good for keeping historians busy after they’ve burnt out in the archives.
The libs are now living in that alternate reality normally reserved for Kirk,Spock et al
“a whole variety of issues eg the environment, Iraq, anti social attitudes, racism, sexism/misogony, constant lying/spinning eg interest rates, and so on”
If they had ever mattered, Keating would never have lost
Great post, Mercurius.
What counterfactual history does is enable you to sort the deeper, underlying trends from the short-term, transient and coinidental factors – puts Great Men in their place. That’s why I disagree with Ambigulous@2.
The strongest part of Mercurius’ post was the fifth paragraph (”Meanwhile … inflation low”). Rudd’s businesslike approach in articulating an alternative vision to Howard, in contrast to the passionless meanderings of Beazley, was the circuit-breaker. Hannah’s dad@3: Menzies was pretty much exhausted etc. by 1958, but history shows he had plenty more electoral victories in him.
The high court needs their bum kicked for ever allowing the Workchoices case to get up. What were they thinking?
here’s an intriguong counterfactual ro contemplate.
What would’ve happened if Whitlam had lost the 1972 election?
1) There’d be a sequel to Don’s Party.
2) The 1998 ARIA award for No Aphrodisiac would’ve gone to The McMahons.
3) The first thing that visitors to the National Gallery usually say wouldn’t be “$2 million? I reckon I could paint that for twenty bucks and a slab!”
4) There wouldn’t be a statue of Al Grassby.
5) Jim Cairns and Junie Morosi could’ve conducted their affair as nature intended.
6) Mark Latham wouldn’t have had the patronage to get preselected.
7) Maybe half of currently serving parliamentarians wouldn’t have gone to university.
8. We wouldn’t have to listen to RWDBs carry on and on and on about the Whitlam years.
9) John Kerr would’ve drunk himself to death in peace.
10) “It’s Time” would’ve entered the lexicon, not as a winning political slogan, but as an ironic piece of Aussie slang, viz:
Reg: “Reckon It’s Time for a beer.”
Vic: “I can’t wait that bloody long!”
Mum: “C’mon kids, It’s Time to go home.”
Kids: “Yay! Mum said we can stay as long as we want!”
—-
Hat-tip to Paul Burns for a worthy thread derailment.
Here’s another counter-factual question: what would have happened if Belinda Emmett had survived a year longer?
As I’ve commented elsewhere, it’s a matter of historical irony that it was originally the environmental movement which put the argument that Federal Governments could leverage the Corporations power to legislate pretty much as they saw fit, in the context of arguing for a national Environmental Protection Authority. Having noted that, it’s also worth remembering that just because Federal Governments can legislate about just about anything on the basis of a High Court ruling doesn’t mean that they will, that they will want to, or that they should. If a State or local government has good policy machinery in place to handle an issue which is bound within State or local borders, and is handling it competently, there is nothing to be gained by Federal involvement for the hell of it (funding is another matter with VFIs, etc.).
Can’t resist (sorry, Mercurius).
Old farts like Frank Crean and most of those who would have been ministers in the Whitlam government would have given it away/been tapped on the shoulder while their contemporaries in the Coalition would have stuck around, creating an effect similar to the isolation that happened after Bracks and Beattie retired leaving Howard looking not experienced but just too old.
1973: oil shock creates economic “perfect storm” that wrecks Liberal reputation for prudent economic management. Though the McMahon government has completed its withdrawal from Vietnam, it has failed to distance itself from US failure in the war. The new Labor leader admonishes the young Trots who spit on returning servicemen, recognising them as working-class heroes on par with returnees from other wars, deserving sympathy and support. This attracts conservative voters to Labor without alienating their base. Leftists reconcile to this by viewing Vietnam vets as victims of Yankee imperialism.
At some point during 1973-4, with all those byelections, Bob Hawke enters Parliament and takes the fight to McMahon. The Liberals from NSW have proven themselves inadequate ministers, and the Vics are regrouping behind Malcolm Fraser after he reconciles with Gorton. Fraser challenges McMahon for the leadership 1974-5 – possibly wins, possibly doesn’t.
Hawke leads Labor to government as a Wilson-style social democrat, doesn’t challenge tariffs or fixed exchange rates (let alone, God forbid, centralised arbitration) and spends like a drunken sailor. 1979 oil shock buggers the economy again. Hawke embarrasses self, party and nation with booze/sex scandals.
The adherence to US/UK political cycles continues when the Liberals come back to government implementing Thatcher-Reagan-style policies, deregulating and privatising. No Medicare, no car industry either. Early 1990s: Labor comes back to office with a Blair/Clinton “third way” agenda, possibly including Medicare. We would now be governed by a Bush-style conservative government.