Judging Howard

There was even significant public support for the government’s tactics against the MUA, and majority support for a free trade deal with the US despite ongoing criticism from political scientists (such as Ann Capling and Linda Weiss). With multilateral trade negotiations stalling in recent years, many governments and societies viewed bilateral trade relationships as the next best thing.

While many humanities academics find it hard to even consider views opposed to their own, even the most democratic and prosperous nations (like Australia) struggle to balance many contradictory needs. This includes economic competitiveness and social welfare needs, national and international economic and social obligations, and respect for cultural differences while each urges their own version of cultural integration.

While poor governance should always be criticised, at least in legitimate democracies where such a right is accepted and respected, the Howard government did not undermine Australia’s democratic capacity to be a progressive nation.

Australia retained one of the world’s highest per capita immigration inflows between 1997 and 2006. In terms of any accusation of racism, about 40 per cent of immigrant arrivals in 2007-08 came from Asia (25 per cent in 1994-95), along with 8,200 from North Africa and the Middle East, and 10,600 from Sub-Saharan Africa.

Federal funding for increased from $1.7 billion in 1996-97 to $3.5 billion in 2007-08 for indigenous-specific programs, while also increasing from $1.69 billion to $4.3 billion for the environment between 2001-02 and 2007-08.

Australia was one of just four OECD nations in 2005 where the gap in income between the richest and poorest regions was less than double.

In the end, however, the Australian public tired of the Howard government by electing Labor at the 2007 federal election. Arguably it was industrial relations which cost the Coalition most, although rising interest rates also gave people less reason to remain faithful for economic reasons alone.

To conclude, while many humanities academics judge the Howard government unfavourably, constantly looking for excuses that may help explain its success such as greater media control or many more ministerial advisers, they should pay greater attention to the factors that explain the policy mix of a government. With policy in Australia’s democracy best explained by analysis of the ongoing interaction that takes place between political parties, interest groups and public opinion, this requires an examination and discussion of primary evidence rather than selective opinion alone.

Many Australian academics have indeed failed to provide fairer analysis of both the Howard government and the people who voted for it to win four successive federal elections. Liberal Rule: The Politics That Changed Australia merely reflected academic bias against the Howard government rather than encouraging a thorough discussion of what recent policy trends tell us about some of the age-old (and potentially divisive) problems that confront a nation.