The dark horse: Kevin Andrews and modern Australia

Kevin Andrews' first substantive achievement in politics that gained him nationwide attention as well as significant levels of scorn, was the 1997 Commonwealth Euthanasia Act that overturned the decision of the Northern Territory government to legalise the practice of euthanasia.

Andrews' private members bill which overturned the NT legislation was inevitable owing to the fact that it is near impossible to craft a legal framework that is beyond abuse. The Australian Parliament acting cautiously, was not confident that a system of rules and procedures for euthanasia could be established that was zero risk to vulnerable people making a potentially wrong decision to terminate their own lives or the lives of family members or legal guardians.

That is after all why the overturning law received overwhelming support in the House of Representatives and why no state governments, which are empowered to legalise it, have done so. This fear is demonstrated by the fact that the Labor party when in government at the state and federal level has been reluctant to reverse Andrews' 1997 law.

Hawke-Keating created the more decentralised economy and expanded labour force of today through their neo-liberal policy mix. The economy transformed from a more regulated less dynamic economy to one that was deregulated and more dynamic with the associated costs of income inequality and employment insecurity for some. Andrews clearly supported the deregulation agenda to make the economy more dynamic and decentralised.

The introduction of Work Choices at a time of economic prosperity and low unemployment ensured its political destruction. However the deregulation of the labour laws in 2005 were part of a continuum across decades of Australian politics. It began with the Hawke government's efforts to bring harmony to the relationship between unions and the private sector by encouraging industrial moderation. It then led to the liberalisation reforms of the Keating government that sought to bring into the industrial relations framework the reality of the new economy and labour market.

During the Work Choices debate Andrews followed Howard's line in framing his IR changes as the next stage in the Hawke-Keating economic legacy. In what was likely a tongue in cheek remark Andrews said of his IR legislation 'in a sense it's not that far away from what Paul Keating set out' in his 1993 reform package.

Aside from the public service the growth industries of Australia since the Hawke-Keating reforms have been in smaller scale retail firms such as cafes and restaurants, high skilled contract labour, financial services, private service providers and self-employed small business people. The trade union movement is not especially strong in these areas because this new more mobile more dynamic workforce, has a different set of economic interests to the workforce employed in large scale industries of the post-war years. That component of the Australian economy has declined and so have the numbers of workers predisposed to trade unions.

Labor's history of labour market reforms spurned John Howard to pursue evermore radical measures to liberalise Australia's employment laws. But Howard's drive took him too far too fast down this path and a sharp public reaction pulled him and his party back from the edge in 2007. Just like Whitlam's temptation to exercise the power of the federal government without first considering the fiscal consequences. Whitlam had gone too far and the Australian political system through the Fraser and Hawke-Keating governments reigned in the excesses of the Whitlam period.

Just as the Hawke-Keating governments had to jettison past Labor practices to tackle the problems of the 1980s. So too did Andrews formulate policies designed to address the new environment that Australia faced after the 1990s. And although ideological speaking Andrews expressed general discomfort with the social environment of modern Australia his actual policy agenda was far more targeted to specific problems. Andrews repeatedly said that extra injections of resources into the social services system in the short term were vital to bring about an eventual reduction in the welfare budget in the long term through successful employment and social mobility policies.

Far from being a captive of the past Andrews has stated that women have been unduly obligated in previous years to their traditional roles 'at the expense of their individual development'. In economics he favours the Keating model of a deregulated internationally competitive economy over the ossified one of the 1970s. It was the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) and the Pauline Hanson's One Nation who favoured the old protectionist model and at present the Greens and the hard-left who reject the economic model that has made Australia so prosperous since the 1980s.

Andrews' political views form a coherent and focused program of economic liberalisation and cultural traditionalism. His influence has been less effective on the latter, though it is overemphasized by his detractors.

Whereas other figures like Bronwyn Bishop, Cory Bernardi, George Christenson, Sophie Mirabella who receive more media attention than Andrews lack his considered approach. Though regarded as strong conservatives, hard-right and culture warriors they do not demonstrate a coherent political position or much interest in the business of passing legislation. They have failed to influence policy or achieve high office. As such they cannot claim to have influenced the direction of Australian political life as Kevin Andrews has.

For all the talk of a resurgent socially conservative right-wing liberal party it is interesting that its effects on Australian politics have been far from effective. Public support (including within the Liberal Party) for same-sex marriage has steadily increased since Howard was elected in 1996. Despite public airings critical of abortion by Liberal Party figures the consensus in favour of its legalisation has not been shaken. Marion Maddox's claim of a rising 'moral repressiveness within the Howard Cabinet' was clearly not 'repressive' enough.

Andrews has emerged as perhaps the Liberal Party's most substantial source of ideas and practical policies because of his under recognised modesty in public political life. Andrews clearly understands that he will never be the Liberal leader or Prime Minister. And it is that recognition which allows him to concentrate on crafting laws and reforms instead of constantly working on a leadership bid. Australian politics would benefit from more parliamentarians who shared Kevin Andrews' depth of knowledge, seriousness in policy debates and unwillingness to vault into the impractical and extreme.

Though his conservatism is anathema to many opponents and less than favourable commentators it is intellectually coherent and grounded in the political realities of Australia. Politicians who know what they're about are more likely to succeed in government and make a difference. Kevin Andrews offers future political leaders an example of someone who combines seriousness of purpose with the necessary faculties to put ideas into action. His story should be one more widely read.