The Guardian 22 June, 2005
TAKING ISSUE with Nathan Barnes
From democracy to autocracy
As you may have suspected, we here in Australia have a government which, from the day it was first elected in 1996, has been moving toward a form of authoritarianism. In order to do this it has used subterfuge, cover up, outright lies, character assassination and muckraking. Secrecy is essential to its operation: every effort is brought to bear to make sure there is no public accountability.
Such a situation also pushes people to do unusual things. And so it was that last week an extraordinary thing happened, one of a number of extraordinary things that have emerged recently. The Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, made a public statement lacerating the government.
In it he raised the ghosts of the framers of the constitution, saying they would be astounded at the current situation because they put in place a basic principle, that the power to make laws should never be vested in a single authority as that is the definition of tyranny.
Mr Evans points out, among other things, that; the prime minister is now the executive government; that the government is now taking over any state function it wishes; High Court judges are appointed by the prime minister based on their ideological position; government ministers and backbenchers simply act as a cheer squad for their leader; and that the government has a vast media-management network which feeds the public only that information it wants them to have.
"We would have to concede", said Mr Evans, "our government has become more like an early modern autocracy: the monarch rules from his royal court (the prime minister’s office) and while he may consult his courtiers, his will is the law. The power and will of those courtiers depend on how close they are to the throne and the monarch’s ear."
He continued, "The system is justified on a ‘mandate’ theory, the claim that, by electing a government, the electors endorse everything it has said it will do and everything it does in the future."
Strong stuff. Further, the Sydney Morning Herald has revealed an aspect of this government’s secrecy in that the government has ignored 70 parliamentary inquiries that have taken sometimes years to complete, and on which thousands of ordinary people have spent time and money compiling submissions and giving evidence, only to see the reports left to gather dust.
Of course, one does not unequivocally support the parliamentary system which has managed to maintain a two-party system and keep the status quo in place. But we must differentiate between specific historical moments. We need to look no further than the destruction of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission — the first elected, national representative Indigenous body — as an example of the Howard government’s utter contempt for any form of democratic process.
Harry Evans isn’t completely correct when he indicates all members of the government are servile before the throne. There are a growing number in the Senate and lower house voicing their concern about the direction the government is taking.
This list of disturbances includes — unrest over the government’s push to place restrictions on women’s access to abortion; its plan to impose voluntary student unionism; detention of asylum seekers; the full sale of Telstra; poor draught relief for farmers.
There was also hostility from farmers and National Party members over the sell-out of Australian sugar growers in the Free Trade Agreement with the USA. Thus, not all government members and followers are comfortable with the thrust of the Howard line. These differences will be sharpened more now that Mark Vaile — who negotiated the Free Trade Agreement — is leader of the National Party.
That is a substantial list and therein lies the possibility for some form of cooperation, around agreed objectives, with those discontented in government circles and the left and progressive forces.