Aspirational nationalism or nationalist aspirations?
In a speech given yesterday, Howard set out the "agenda" for a fifth term in government. The third item on the agenda was "to embrace a sense of aspirational nationalism to guide relations between different levels of government in Australia". The term "aspirational nationalism" sounds like a political slogan rather than a concept with meaningful content. We must therefore begin by asking what is "aspirational nationalism" according to Howard and what does it mean for Australia. The PM had the following to say about this topic:
A sense of aspirational nationalism in the Federation
So much of the debate about Commonwealth-State relations concerns the respective roles of the two levels of government, as if an appropriate balance between the two were an end in itself.
To me, that misses the point. We should be neither centralists nor slavish adherents to states rights. We should be focused on outcomes, not systems.
We should be aspirational nationalists, and applying this spirit to the governance of the Federation will be my third goal of a next term.
We should want and aspire to achieve the best possible outcomes for Australians wherever they might live and by whatever method of governance will best deliver those outcomes.
Sometimes that will involve leaving things entirely to the states. Sometimes it will involve cooperative federalism. On other occasions, it will require the Commonwealth bypassing the states altogether and dealing directly with local communities.
I've often said that there are two powerful trends in Australia today: localism and nationalism. Neither are of a brash, exclusivist variety; both embody a very Australian brand of quiet, understated pride and patriotism.
Our local communities are objects of loyalty and solidarity that transcend the costs and benefits of daily transactions. Commitments to town and team, neighbourhood and network, provide much of the texture of social engagement and what we think of as our quality of life.
We in the Coalition believe in trusting people. We believe that by giving people more control over their lives at the local level, we encourage responsibility and so build a better society.
That includes looking at new ways of delivering government services and tackling problems that are more responsive to individual and community needs. The old rigid state monopoly models for health, education, employment and welfare services have become increasingly obsolete.
Sounds like a lot of waffle and sloganeering (eg. the talk of "very Australian brand of quiet, understated pride and patriotism"), but there is enough substance in the waffle to cause justifiable alarm, for what Howard envisages is not so much aspirational nationalism, but nationalist practices that would undermine the Australian federalism in order to further Howard's aspirations of a fifth term in office. Let's look at some of the more disturbing statements:
"We should be neither centralists nor slavish adherents to states rights. We should be focused on outcomes, not systems."
Now, this is quite an extraordinary thing for the Prime Minister to say. I take no issue with his statement about states rights. States rights is not a meaningful concept - people have rights, states have powers and responsibilities. The respective powers and responsibilities of the states and the Commonwealth are set out in the Australian Constitution (actually, the Commonwealth powers are set out in the Constitution, with the remaining powers becoming states' areas of responsibility, but the effect is much the same). In saying that we should focus on outcomes not systems Howard is suggesting that we should disregard the system established by our Constitution in order to achieve a particular outcome (which in the present case appears to be Howard's re-election). It may sound good when you like the particular outcome, but remember that this isn't always going to be the case.
In fact it is the system of government that is worth protecting rather than the ability of a government of the day to action every political whim. Consistently good outcomes cannot be attained without an appropriate system of governance, just like a house cannot be built without a foundation. The federal system established by our Constitution provides that foundation - it is a system for multi-level decision-making and participation at state and commonwealth levels and it is a system that functioned reasonably well for the last century. Howard seems content to undermine our political foundations for his own political purposes. The alarm bells should be ringing.
We should want and aspire to achieve the best possible outcomes for Australians wherever they might live and by whatever method of governance will best deliver those outcomes.
This begs the question - who defines what are the "best possible outcomes"? Under the federal system we, as state constituents, elect the state governments to deal with state issues, such as secondary education, healthcare and the like. If the state governments do not deliver the outcomes that we desire, they pay the penalty at election time. Yes, it is true that the system does not work perfectly in accordance with the theory and it is also true that sometimes the commonwealth government can and should intervene in traditionally state areas (eg. to ensure compliance with our international obligations). However, to say that we should simply allow the commonwealth government to intervene to impose the outcome that it considers "best" is to either say that state level governance should not exist (because on this approach state government policies will only be allowed to exist if the commonwealth government agrees with them) or to say that Australian voters cannot be trusted in electing the state governments that will deliver the best state-level outcomes. The latter proposition would seem to conflict with the later statement by Howard that "We in the Coalition believe in trusting people".
The old rigid state monopoly models for health, education, employment and welfare services have become increasingly obsolete.
This sentence sums up Howard's nationalist position. What Howard describes as "state monopoly models" are the powers and obligations reserved for the States under our Constitution. If the model is indeed obsolete, it is up to the Australian people to alter the system, by voting in favour of a constitutional amendment at a referendum. It is not for the government of the day (elected by a smaller and more transient majority than is required to amend the Constitution) to unilaterally change the foundations of our system of government.
Howard's position on commonwealth/state relations is one of utter arrogance. He himself wants to define the "best outcome", decide whether to leave matters for the states, engage in "cooperative federalism" or step in to overrule the states and impose a policy which the voters, as state constituents, may not have approved. He has already demonstrated the true meaning of "aspirational nationalism" when he intervened in state affairs, for political purposes, without consultation and without adequate attention to the cons and pros of his intervention, most recently by undermining Queensland government councils policy.
However, in his arrogance, Howard seems to have forgotten one inevitable consequence of his nationalist policy - his government is not going to rule forever. Will he still support the idea of "aspirational nationalism" when Labor is in power at the commonwealth level and it overrules the policies of Liberal-party governed states? Will Howard still believe that the focus should be on outcomes and not on the systems when he can no longer control the outcome? Somehow I don't think so. And when a government forgets that it will not govern for ever, it is a sure sign that it has governed for too long.
RSS
