Opinion & Commentary
Howard a social democrat in disguise
In his first speech to Parliament as Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd compared John Howard's government unfavourably with the "social responsibility and social justice" concerns of Sir Robert Menzies, the Liberals' longest-serving leader. Rudd went so far as to allege a "complete right-wing takeover of modern liberalism" under Howard's prime ministership.
Most Australian voters aren't attuned to the nuances of Liberal history or ideology. But Rudd's broader attack could resonate in the electorate. A poll conducted to mark Howard's decade as Prime Minister revealed that more of us think that Australia has become "meaner" during his term than believe ordinary people have been given a chance to improve their lives. Three-quarters believe that the gap between rich and poor is growing. Yet it is hard to match these assessments with Howard's record. After initial expenditure cuts to bring the Budget back into balance, Howard has spent large sums in social security, health and education. These are traditional priorities of Labor governments.
Over recent years Howard has increased per capita spending in all these areas at a faster rate than did his Labor predecessor Paul Keating. On these social democratic criteria, Howard doesn't just compare favourably with Labor, he compares exceptionally well to Menzies. On a per person basis, Howard would have to slash per person education, health and social security spending by more than 80 per cent to get it back to the levels prevailing in 1965-66, the last Budget under Menzies' long reign.
It isn't just on the spending side that Howard has acted like a social democrat. Under his government, the top 25 per cent of income earners have paid an increasing proportion of the nation's bills, though tax cuts in 2005 and 2006 offer them some relief.
After taking into account taxes and government spending, and adjusting for household size, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics income inequality in 2004 was lower than at any time since 1997, and lower than in the last years of Keating's term.
Howard talks like a social democrat too, focusing on the needs of low and middle-income families and linking egalitarianism with social cohesion.
The distinctiveness of the Howard Government is not, as Rudd and others argue, its rejection of "social responsibility and social justice". What distinguishes Howard's government from Keating's, and possibly from a Rudd government, is the way it goes about putting these ideas into practice.
Through his career, Howard has emphasised the importance of the family, and in power he has backed up this belief with generous payments, including the family tax benefits and the baby bonus. Because low-income families are particularly well-treated, this has helped reduce the effects of market income inequality. But single people and couples without children don't do so well out of the income tax and social security systems. Relatively affluent families with children receive benefits denied to much poorer single people. Family Tax Benefit B, in particular, which provides added assistance to stay-at-home parents regardless of how much their partner earns, fits with conservative ideology about family structure, but not with Labor ideas about helping those most in need.
Howard has also introduced mutual obligation, through schemes like Work for the Dole, into the welfare system. This reflects conservative ideas about individual responsibility and giving back to society, rather than left-wing ideas about entitlement to income support.
Ironically, though, Howard's departures from social democratic orthodoxy are likely to have entrenched the social democratic state. He has extended welfare dependence far into the election-deciding middle class, while easing concerns that those wholly reliant on income support are doing nothing at the expense of hard-working taxpayers.
Far from the Howard Government being taken over by radical Right ideas, Howard has done more than anyone to bury the smaller government agenda of the 1980s and 1990s. What we have now is conservative social democracy.
Andrew Norton is a research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies and a former Howard government adviser on higher education. This article is based on The Rise of Big Government Conservatism, in the Summer 2006 issue of Policy.
