Howard’s way: we must be careful to retain all that is good

The former PM urges reformists not to throw the baby out with the bath water as we emerge from this crisis.

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and former PM John Howard.

After every calamity, disaster or revolution, there is a sense of beginning again — whether it’s starting from scratch, ground zero, day one or a New Deal.

After two world wars, the Spanish flu and the Depression, which combined to kill more than 100 million people and destroy the lives of millions more, there was a sense that there needed to be a new beginning. This Anzac Day reverberates with such historic upheavals: 100 years ago, the first Anzac Day after World War I was blighted by the outbreak of the Spanish flu; 90 years ago the world was in the grip of the Great Depression; and 75 years ago, Anzac Day was marked in the last year of World War II.

Scott Morrison drew on some of these echoes of history on Friday as he reported on the national cabinet’s plans for suppressing the coronavirus and starting on the “road back”.

The Prime Minister noted the anniversary of the Spanish flu, and said Saturday will be an Anzac Day like no other.

But, while he is not prepared to publicly lift his view from the immediate and ongoing threat of the virus to Australians’ lives and livelihoods, and talks about specific changes and reforms after the pandemic passes, there is a growing recognition and encouragement of the idea of a new beginning sprouting from ground zero.

Morrison has declared he wants to look at Australian institutions and the economy with “fresh eyes”. He also wants to build on the strengths of society and government that have demonstrated their success in delivering Australia from a far worse fate.

“We are looking afresh at all of the work that has been done over the past decade,” he said.

“We need to go through this process … of harvesting all of these important policy options and how they can be utilised to have an effective and sustainable and strong recovery on the other side of the coronavirus.”

It’s clear that Morrison wants to keep the one clear innovation to emerge from the threat to Australia, the national cabinet, which is comprised of all nine government leaders and which has operated co-operatively and without partisan politics as the federation has never acted.

Apart from the national cabinet, he has given little indication as to what reforms he may pursue beyond the pandemic to build on the colossal economic attempts to head off depression, save jobs, keep businesses going and restore the economy to life as soon as possible.

There are two points of principle that he has indicated for the future: the Morrison government does not believe increased taxes to help pay for the cost of fighting COVID-19 will help the economy; and the Coalition will not intervene in particular corporate failures, such as Virgin Australia, but rather concentrate on industry-wide support.

But any hesitancy Morrison has about speaking about specific policies is made up for by an avalanche of advice on how to make the most of the opportunity of the virus crisis, which has forced a complete rethinking of policies and principles, and has encouraged unprecedented bipartisan state and federal relations.

There is also the undoubted pressure that will come from ordinary Australians, who will have new experiences and insights into how their fellow citizens live and what governments can do.

For instance, after the coronavirus there will be millions who have experienced living on welfare for the first time and will come to realise the value of the social safety net, as well as the reality of living on a low fixed income. This is the sort of experience that can change attitudes towards social support, just as Jack Lang’s child allowance paid to mothers after the Depression created a bedrock for family support and its acceptance as a value to society.

Anthony Albanese and his Treasury spokesman, Jim Chalmers, have made their preferences clear for a clean slate and a new beginning with a stronger social focus and bigger government.

The Opposition Leader has called for a new approach, to have an “economy that works for people, not the other way around”, for government intervention in the Virgin collapse, stronger protections for workers, higher wages, limiting changes to industrial awards and a similar “respect for science” on climate change as there has been for virus management.

“What we need to make sure is, arising out of this, we don’t return to the rhetoric of labour-market deregulation, of freeing up the ­labour market, which really means driving down wages and conditions,” Albanese said.

Chalmers makes similar broad appeals: “We want a big conversation about what the nation looks like after the coronavirus wards empty, but we don’t want it to focus just exclusively on a ­return to the old narrow, ideological obsessions of the government. There is a role here for economic reform.

“Australians would be disappointed to learn that after making all these sacrifices now to get through this diabolical health crisis, waiting for them on the other side is just all of the old failed ­approaches, which meant we ­entered this crisis from a position of relative economic weakness rather than strength,” he said.

Reformers for reform’s sake, reformers with vested interests and reformers with political agendas are all citing the need for a new beginning, which can kickstart stalled economic growth and take advantage of the sense of ­crisis driving new-found partnerships and co-operation between governments, private industry, business and the labour movement. But, while there will be new attitudes developed towards some policies, the idea we have to start from scratch or reinvent the economic wheel and the social contract is as dangerous as the sweeping view that the French Revolution had to be a new start.

Just as Australia got through the global financial crisis better than most in the world, and just as it is performing at the top of the pandemic fight this year, it is ­important to recognise the way we were equipped before the ­crises hit. It is also incumbent on leaders to recognise what has worked during a crisis and what has failed.

When it comes to reform, there have been no better 20 years than those of the Hawke-Keating and Howard-Costello governments. Micro-economic reforms, banking changes, a new charter for the RBA, industrial relations changes, waterfront reform, a new consumption tax, compulsory superannuation, Medicare, private health insurance, education, gun control and a wages accord were all introduced in the face of a recession, the Asian financial crisis, energy crises, even pandemics.

Yet the answer was not then, nor is it now, to simply wipe everything and start again.

John Howard, prime minister for 11 years, has warned that reformers should be careful not to throw out the good with the bad and to recognise and “hold dear” the strengths of Australia to have emerged during this pandemic.

“We will have come through this where our institutions have demonstrated great resilience and great strength,” Howard told Inquirer. “If we have to change things in the future, don’t change or cast aside those things that have given us this success, because the Australian model in dealing with this crisis has turned out to be very effective.

“There’s always a tendency when something big like this ­happens that everything we’ve had in the past has to be put ­behind us and we have to start again without it, but that’s not the case,” Howard said.

“I want a vigorous debate about how we handle the next few months. I want a vigorous debate about what measures are adopted. But I don’t want this feeling that we have to change or reimagine the future as some people are ­suggesting,” he said.

“I am not sure about reimagining the future. I am concerned about holding on to the good things we have. One of the great things about Australian society is we have always had a capacity to display balance, to hang on to the things that work and to discard those things that don’t.”

Howard’s principal point is about the mix of the private and public health systems, which have “seamlessly” worked together to provide certainty to Australians.

Howard uses this as an example of how leaders must adapt to what has become part of the ­Australian egalitarian nature. For years, Howard was a self-­confessed “unabashed critic” of Medicare, but when he again ­became Liberal leader in 1995 he told the party the people wanted Medicare and they should support it as long as they could protect a private health insurance and hospital system.

“During this crisis, fundamentally each part does augment the other, and what was remarkable during the crisis is that it came ­together seamlessly. We should celebrate the success of the partnership, not renew the argument about what is right and what is wrong,” Howard said.

“I have argued for a long time that on health, Australia has found the sweet spot between the laissez-faire indifference of the American system and the overly paternalistic, stultifying grip of the systems in many parts of ­Europe. We were able to find a midpoint.”

For Howard, there was his own conversion on Medicare and the seeking of an Australian way. When the reform debate begins, there will need to be more attitudes like this from all our political leaders.