While many in the Howard Years got rich, many many more got as poor as Church mice. Howard created an "underclass" something we had never before known in this country. So for all of you who claim to have increased your wealth, remember it was done so at the expense of your fellow Australian family.

SHONGA

Stop living in your fantasy world

A. during Howard's year, more people got jobs
B. during Howard's year, the poor got more benefit

He did more for the unemployed and poor than Keating and Hawke ever did.

In every society, there a people who are the "Underclass". In Australia, it is now people who do not have Plasma TV, in US, it is people who do not have jobs, in Africa, it is people who has no food

There is going to be an so call "underclass" in every society, Australia has a better underclass than the rest of the world, you just did not notice it

Not too much of an unreasonable analysis, though I think it neglects key points.

If the question is in regard to the performance of the Howard Government in its entirety, you must consider the performance in the economic, social and international spheres.

This is purely an analysis of the economic spheres, arguably the most important I suppose, but even then it misses core points. I'd like to see more information on infrastructure investment and more probing in regard to how diversified the economy really is.

I say this for a few reasons - it's a tired cliche but relevant: we're riding an economic boom thanks to the resource sector.
Considering that tankers have to queue for weeks outside Mackay to wait for coal that's delivered on woeful rail infrastructure that can't keep up, I'd say we seriously need to look at this infrastructure.
Yes, I'm aware that this is a State Government responsibility. Again, conservative rhetoric dictates that those who tax the money should spend it instead of sending it to other departments, lower levels of govt etc (in contrast to the traditional Liberal party rhetoric which values State's rights). Howard did little to change this status quo.
With our economy so heavily reliant on the resource sector, I think this raises questions how prepared our economy really is. Any economy that isn't diversified is vulnerable.

I'm running out of words, so I'll conclude by saying that I think Howard's performance on economic grounds was passable, but only just. On social grounds I he failed dismally. Aside from the decline in foreign aid, he had a habit of wolf-whistling to the lowest common denominator and appealing to xenophobia at election time (Tampa being the most notable example, but there were others).

Diplomatically speaking, while he did a fine job of maintaining the relationship with the US, this was among the easier diplomatic relationships to maintain. He didn't need to be so slavish there, and it cost us in other, more challenging relationships. He did well with Japan, but failed to engage with Europe and angered many of our closer neighbours.

Australia and Australians were never better off, financially, than they were during the Coaltion's time in office.

That 'working families' are helped by Labor has been a myth ever since Keating. The brighter voters among those who went for Labor at the last election are now seeing their folly.

People who experienced Whitlam, Hawke and Keating know full well that it is a big mistake to trust Labor with with money box.

Mind you, the people who think that they are part of an 'underclass' with any government in Australia would stay poor if the streets were paved with gold. They need to take a good look at themselves before they start blaming others for their situation. Unfortunately, it is blaming others that got them into dire straits in the first place.

TurnRightThenLeft
I agree with much of what you said.

I will certainly provide much more detail of economic, social and environmental policy if possible in future articles should they be published. One can hardly address the complexity of all issues in just 1000 words.

However, purpose of article is to indicate that all Western nations are under greater pressure to meet many policy needs from Sweden to the US. On that proposition alone, the Howard govt was a pretty good performer given that many national govts will be accused by certain voters of downplaying social or environmental needs.

from the article "the Howard government was a successful performer across a number of policy issues, although its record was hardly perfect in a world increasingly made tougher by greater economic competition."

That is it in a nut shell.

"Successful performer".

No government is ever "perfect". Politicians are men and women with feet of clay, like the rest of us (although I doubt the hubris of labor allows them to acknowledge it).

The best thing Howard & Co did was

1 avoid interfering in peoples lives where interference was not needed

2 not pretend the IPCC was God Almighty.

The danger Krudd & Co are bringing down upon us it to destroy the competitiveness of Australia compared to India and China in the area of secondary processing through artificial carbon taxes, in turn destroying the job growth which the Howard policies encouraged.

Australian clean air is fine, until the trade winds bring Indian smog to this pristine land but Australians opportunities will be lost, to be consumed in the engine of that Indian smog.

Howard stood up for Australia, some might smirk and say for "traditional values"

Well, I have yet to see where Rudd stands on or for anything, other than an insatiable lust for power.

Good article Chris, may I also append to this post a web address

http://www.liberal.org.au/about/ach.php
Krudd and Co are increasingly looking like a one term aberration,

To paraphrase the insidious Keating’s crass remark “the mistake we had to have”.

Talking of recession, it must rank as a record, the speed with which the vibrant optimism of the Howards 2007 has crashed into the depressive hopelessness of Krudds 2008.

Some will suggest it is external factors like oil and sub-prime but it is more. The optimism which cultivates entreprenurialism and hope in the future is being destroyed by the politics of the swill levellers who sit in government to command us (in difference to Howard, you bet).

Col Rouge

I am also one of those who advocate some sort of taxation to aid renewable energy, so you would probably disagree with me on that issue.

However, as a political scientist, I have to call it the way it is rather than merely putting forward a biased view about how it should be. Political science should always be about policy possibilities and limitations, key ingedients that the simplistic Left needs to pay greater attention to.

The facts do suggest that the Howard govt was a successful performer if one looks at a variety of OECD data. Remember Australia is still one of the five greatest destinations for immigrants in per capita terms, including for all regions, accepts a large trade defit which helps fuel the international economy and the plight of millions of people, and does not use nuclear energy as many rich countries do.

Of course, policies can always be better. But there are strengths and weaknesses to all arguments and policy stances.

There's nothing like looking at the profits of a business without taking into account the side-effects.

They are called "externalities" and include the cost of drying rivers, erosion, destructon of timber.....think Tasmanian pulp mill etc.

The Howard government stayed in power partly because it put dollars into pockets.

But at what cost to the environment?

Point to one major Howard initiative to protect Australia for future generations.

I am always intrigued by people who base their arguments on statistics, particularly employment statistics. You only have to be working for a very short time each week to be regarded as employed.

As the old saying goes, "There are liars, damned liars, and statisticians"

David

Howard produced the first class of people that could really be termed the "underclass" with WorkChoices legislation. Yes he created many jobs, that were underpaid without important social conditions. Hence we have a permanent underclass of legitimate poor. Families tearing themselves apart through lack of income, while some who were prepared to exploit their fellow human being prospered. Wicked wicked people were the Howard Government. The economy is only one way to measure progress.

Lets see, Mr Howard's performance

- unemployment (anyone who breathes and wants work could get it)
- interest rates (very low in comparison to Hawke/Keating)
- foreign policy (debatable although many Iraq's now are far better off and Mr Rudd would not of done any different)
- reducing abortions (total failure)
- welfare (handed out more than any previous Governments)
- Health (made mistake by not taking it away by pathetically incompetent State Labour Governments.
- Indigenous Affairs - failed as every other Government has in the past. Gave lots of money to corrupt organizations. In his favour he abolished ATSIC. Mal Brough did something (to little to late)
- Immigration -failed in that he let to many Muslims in the country

Even the poor are not that poor in Oz. The best selling items in the supermarkets after cigarettes, are soft drinks, lollies and biscuits. If you don't believe me, then go and look at the aisles of them.

David

Chris,
I understand your reasoning but am uncomfortable with a number of underlying assumptions to your piece.

1. That a fair/accurate assessment of Howard’s performance is by comparing figures with OECD.
2. That Countries should be corparatised and Governments merely executive managers.
3. They ignore world wide philosophical swings in economical reasoning.
4. They ignore unique foreign policy issues.
5. Differences in the structural basis of economies

OECD figures show outcomes not specific circumstances that created them. A booming mining sector (a comparatively low employment sector) can cover a multitude of sins. Especially when it comes to high technologies sectors of many of the European countries.

There are scales of economy that make services delivery cheaper in many of those same compact countries this would in effect mean that their 10% of GDP would go further than our 10% GDP. The comparison is moot if you’re in a rural centre and need urgent specialist medical care. Simply put the structural differences in these economies make comparisons and a measure of government competence dubious.

The concern is that good business is all about profit, this financial year and benefits management and a minority (shareholders). Conversely Governments’ focus should be longer, more strategic and whole population oriented.

Business will always go where production costs are cheapest in a developed country the answer must be in Technological advancement. We can’t compete with 3rd world labour costs. Attracting Sunrise as opposed to life support for Sunset industries. In the latter the ultimate winner is the opportunistic businesses not the people.
Foreign policy has long term effects including economically on the country therefore must be part of the competence equation.
OECD numbers in this perspective are so generalized/qualified that they are little more than feel good comparisons. Short term measurement in this situation isn’t a realistic assessment of the long-term health of an economy.

Party politics doesn’t necessarily mean the most competent come to power.

To me Howard Government was 3rd rate. I doubt that Rudd will ultimately be any more than a style change.

No offence intended but Politics and Science don’t sit comfortably together. Science deals with laws and hard facts (Predictability, Measurability, Testability and Provability) but Politics is more about Perception than Substance. Together as discipline they are equivalent to that of History subject to bias and constantly changing orthodoxy. Therefore assessment by comparisons as a methodology fails most of the requirements for objectivity.

Less than 55% in any test is hardly a ringing endorsement (‘D’ grade result) a mediocre result. Would you be happy to submit to surgery from a mediocre surgeon? How about one who gained 36% pass (Liberals vote level)? Would we even let him practice? Yet we still trusted our collective lives to a government with such a result.

Why else have we constantly put a 3rd party to play monitor? Hence two dubious philosophies battle it out by casting the other side as MORE of a risk than them.(lesser of two evils). In effect the PEOPLE are telling us that they aren’t happy with either side. Even the voters WANT more.

To now offer comparisons with other country’s vagaries is subjective at best irrelevant at worst. visa vie the extraordinary claims of some of the commentors. "anyone who breathes and wants work could get it" comes to mind.(what would we do without runner to add colour?)

In reality Chris I think it would be more productive for Political Scientists to help the public to focus on.
• Rectification of the errors
• Intelligible nation planning
• Generally look forward rather than backwards.

The jury has voted on the Conservative regime it was found wanting.
Both parties need to ditch platforms built of century(s) old wood and prejudices/self interests and consult to build new alternative. I don’t mean Rudd’s show piece of ‘eminent (?) invitees’.

History shows that 10/20 years from now many of the reasoning, principles and comparisons will be derided as a ‘manifestation of the era’

1. I can not forget Howard's lies for Iraq, he did not care at all for international organizations and law or for the Australian public opinion. He was from the most fanatic supporters of Bush's war in Iraq.

2. I can not forget his lies against migrants on Tampa. He attacked innocent migrants to win votes!

3. He did nothing to protect our environment, although Australians are number one polluters,( per person) in the world. He did not care at all! He and Bush was the only one from developed countries who did not signed the Kyoto protocol.

4. He was not very friendly with Aborigines and it was impossible for him to apologizes to Aborigines.

5. His attacks against labor's rights and against the Australian Union movement was out from any comparison, if he could convert us (labors) to slaves you could do it. I can not understand his hate against the labors.

6. He was fanatic monarchist! he did everything to block Australian majority to demolish the Monarchy in the last referendum.

Big corporations, extreme nationalists and monarchists lost Howard's protection!

As you understand I never voted Liberals and I never could vote a party which have a leader like Howard!

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Antonio Symeonakis

1. I hope you did not vote for Kevin Rudd either, he voted for the iraq war too. but unlike Howard, he changed his mind.

2. Australian now accept more migrant than at any time in the previous Labor Government

3. US is no 1 polluter in the world and Kevin Rudd's environment policy is a copy of the coalition policy

4. I guess we should all sit around and do nothing, like the Labor NT government on aborigines child abuse.

5. If you are talking about (Labour rights), why do you think kevin Rudd is not scrapping work choice - IT PRODUCES JOBS, it stops inflation and stop us from interest rate of 15% like the last Labor government. One thing people do not understand is that if everyone in the economy gets a 15% wage rise, all it means is that inflation goes up 15% and everyone who has a mortgage is worse off.

6. Howard allow the republic convention to choose their republic model and then he allow a referendum on the replubic. Australia rejected it. I guess you wanted him to not allow a referendum to prove your point?

Please get your facts right before posting rubbish

I’m not one of those with a rosy view of Howard’s economic performance.

Remember the sale of most of our gold reserves at bargain prices and the billion-or-so lost on currency swaps? The ongoing privatisation of Public assets has resulted in a significant percentage of our GDP now leaving the country as dividends to overseas owners.

The deliberate failure to fund CSS pensions (to keep the bottom line looking good) resulted in having to sell Telstra to pay for it.

Cutting of capital gains tax led to too much money pouring into the real estate market and driving up the cost of existing housing instead of creating the additional housing that was needed in years to come (ie now).

Telling everybody they are somehow individually wealthier than they really were, fed the debt industry.

Then, when personal debt levels were at an all-time high, along came Workchoices and down went personal income levels for many vulnerable workers.

Many also came to realise that about 10% of all the after-tax cash they had in their wallets/purses and of all their accumulated savings was actually already earmarked as GST, so not only were they getting deeper into debt, their ability to repay was also eroding.

At the end of his reign, we were left with a deskilled country, stripped of public assets with reduced manufacturing capacity and dependent on demand for resources plus an ever increasing middle-class welfare tax burden.

Of course, some people did very well indeed but despite all the statistics and interpretations, I think the election results spoke for themselves.

It probably doesn't matter what Rudd does. For many, the fact that he's not Howard is good enough for the time being.

Chris Lewis “I am also one of those who advocate some sort of taxation to aid renewable energy, so you would probably disagree with me on that issue.”

I would, same way I disagree with taxpayers continually being duded over funds for (say) the motor industry, which the once much lauded “Button Plan” was supposed to fix. Today we see the motor makers once again begging at the public purse.

Maybe if the taxes spent on subsidizing cars in Australia was left in the tax payers pocket, we would be able to afford the vehicle of our choice, instead of the one favoured and cherry-picked by government.

With all due respect for your view, I fear ‘renewable energy aid’ is no different to ‘motor vehicle aid’. It deprives the individual of choice through excessive taxation and favours deals engineered by bureaucrats behind closed doors.

I guess too, if we were to measure our ‘carbon footprint’ against say, the French, the environmental question should be how much does ‘carbon’ offset ‘nuclear waste’ with its half live of centuries?

Seneca “Point to one major Howard initiative to protect Australia for future generations.”

Examples:.

It was the liberals who instigated the “higher education endowment fund” with some of the surpluses of their fiscal responsibility, after funding the previous unfunded civil servants superannuation fund. Actions which directly go to the benefit of future Australians.

It was the Liberals who managed their role as regulator to bring the economy back from the brink of Hawke and Keating’s incompetence.

http://www.liberal.org.au/about/ach.php
go read it for yourself

I further recall it was the Victorian Labor State government who blocked the liberal initiative on the Murray Darling plans, jeopardizing the rivers system for now and the future.

Wobbles “Cutting of capital gains tax”

Actually what happened was the rate was cut and the index allowance abolished. All it did was make a complex system simpler

but don’t let the truth get in the way of your bias.

dovif2,

5. One thing people do not understand is that if everyone in the economy gets a 15% wage rise, all it means is that inflation goes up 15% and everyone who has a mortgage is worse off.

Yes, it's much better if one CEO and management team cuts 100s of jobs or caps wage rises to less than inflation, gets a 500% wage rise and sends the rest of the money overseas. I really need it explained to me how this is better.

6. Howard allow the republic convention to choose their republic model and then he allow a referendum on the replubic. Australia rejected it.

Yep. But it's the old Yes Minister trick of coming up with a handful of ridiculous government models to choses from, rather than having a vote on whether a republic is wanted first.

Col,

'Maybe if the taxes spent on subsidizing cars in Australia was left in the tax payers pocket, we would be able to afford the vehicle of our choice, instead of the one favoured and cherry-picked by government.'

Hear hear!

all,

I know it's unrealistic, but I want either the States to lose more power, or actually abolish state governments, or for the federal government to fund some of the states infrastructure. That is what the country was lacking during such a boom was some substantial improvements to infrastructure. Instead, the Liberals starved the Labor states, and bought elections. Yeah, I know good politics and Labor would do it too.

I only naively hoped the Federal Labor might care a little for the state labor and fund some infrastructure. The only possible advantage I can see from wall to wall Labor is the absence of the federal Liberal / state Labor conflict of interest.

Oh, and I hate the churn of Howards craftily targetted middle class welfare for votes.

Col Rouge

My previous point, to which you have responded, is that we all have views. I support greater intervention, you don't. No problem. Let Australians have the debate and then decide through their interaction with govt and elections.

However, my article, is intended to provide a fair asessment of the Howard govt regardless of my personal views. After all, I am supposed to be a reasonable political commentator through my training, and I must never let the reality of never voting for the Coalition in the House of Reps get in the way of honest political inquiry.

The fact you liked much of what I said, and the fact that many did not (probably Labor voters), proves that I am somewhat balanced, although I can never hope to satisfy all with our different views and values.

I do not support recent policy trends, given my concern for battlers, but can only judge the Howard govt against other nations within an awarness that all must respond to the same tough economic environment.

I think Mr Lewis's posts, combined with Usual Suspects comments regarding infrastructure tend to sum up my view of the economic performance of the Howard government pretty well.
Infrastructure was most definitely neglected and yes, much of this was due to the politics of the three tiers of government. Frankly, I'd like to see the responsibilities of State government divided and handed out to the Federal Government as well as local government.

Regardless of the situation and challenges, the Federal Government was the government with the resources to improve the infrastructure situation, and they did not. The consequences are now being felt in most of our sectors.

I'm also a little annoyed at the classification for unemployment we use, given that working just a few hours a week removes an individual from the unemployment figures. We need vastly improved 'underemployed' figures. That being said, as nations in the world go for unemployment, I am aware that we are very fortunate.

I suppose that's my view on economic grounds. On social grounds, as I mentioned earlier, I was quite disgusted with Howard's government.

If this was ever a callous, selfish, myopic, xenophobic nation then John Howard was by far the best PM we have ever had.

Thank goodness this nation is not.

dovif2,

1."I hope you did not vote for Kevin Rudd either"
"Sorry" Sir, I voted ALP for parliament and Greens for senate.
Do not forget that Howard did not elect even as MP (unforgettable humiliation)! And check more often the surveys for Liberal party's popularity, at the moment it is OK, about 9% but if there are many liberals like you, then probably it will jump to 1-2%!

2. "Australian now accept more migrant than at any time in the previous Labor Government" Howard's government had two faces about migrants. One for the poor and nationalists: against migrants and AN OTHER for the corporations: many, cheap hands of migrants. What really he was? Australians send him home! That's VERY clear.

3. "US is no 1 polluter" What is this? I wrote "Australians are number one polluters,( per person) in the world"
You wrote that "Rudd's environment policy is a copy of the coalition policy" I did not know that Howard signed the Kyoto protocol. REALLY?

4. "I guess we should all sit around and do nothing"
I guess we must grow up and undertake our responsibilities. It is not bad to recognize our mistakes and apologize for them.

5. workchoice! no limits on length of shift, no meal
breaks or breaks between shifts No guaranteed provisions for penalty rates No guarantee of redundancy pay. Redundancy pay in awards can be removed without compensation No Leave loadings NO, NO, NO!For labors!.
Workers sacked and offered their job back on an AWA that cuts pay and conditions.In Australia, 2.3 million people are part-time or casual workers.

6. "to choose their republic model" Yes that was the dirty trick! Instead of Republic or monarchy we had to choice republic models.
NO ONE TRICK CAN STOP AUSTRALIANS TO PUT THE MONARCHY INTO MUSEUM!
The mass majority of Australians are against the monarchy.

"Please get your facts right" YES THE FACTS ARE THAT HOWARD DID NOT ELECT EVEN MP, LIBERALS POPULARITY IS ABOUT 5% AND IT NEEDS NO LESS THAN 50 YEARS FOR RECOVERY, IF IT DID NOT DISAPPEARED!


Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Antonios, while I was glad to see the end of the Howard government, this low popularity rating for the Liberals is a very, very bad thing, make no mistake.

Fear of the opposition gaining power is what keeps governments centrist. Had Labor not been such a weak opposition, Howard would not have been able to do many of the things that were so objectionable.

By my estimation, in relation to social policies, Rudd is a significant improvement. We still need more time to make value judgements in regard to his economic performance.

However, it is up to the Liberals to keep him in line. They can't do that if they're this weak. So yes, I hope the Liberals make a significant recovery. Not enough to oust Rudd in the next term, though I don't think there's much risk of that, but yes, I'd like to see them gain ground and be competitive. It requires a competent opposition to keep a government centrist.

Chris Lewis “although I can never hope to satisfy all with our different views and values.”

Lincoln said something similar.

Rainier “If this was ever a callous, selfish, myopic, xenophobic nation then John Howard was by far the best PM we have ever had.

Thank goodness this nation is not.”

Yes but remember, he was elected more than once, something I believe the current prime minister is not likely to achieve and something Howard’s predecessor failed to do too.

As for the rest of your rhetoric, the sad words of the spoiler.

No nation ever grew strong on handouts, only the efforts of individuals working to support their personal goals and aspirations.

You might call it “callous, selfish, myopic and xenophobic”,

I call it self reliant, inspiring, industrious and responsible.

With the present economic down turn things are going to be aggravated by a population experiencing a sense of uncertainty and insecurity from a number of incumbent government policies and agendas.

Give it a year of two of labor and this decade of liberal statecraft will be looked back upon as a golden era (among the rust-pile years of socialism).

TurnRightThenLeft: "this low popularity rating for the Liberals is a very, very bad thing"

Well, its not a good thing. But I can think of many worse things, such as one party having control of both houses, or worse not having a senate at all.

As a fellow Queenslander I suspect living here is what inspired your comment. The worst thing would be having no senate and a six pack for an opposition. Just ask us Queenslanders. And just in case anyone's wondering if this is politically motivated - I think Beattie did a reasonable job.

What drove the point home for me was those nurses quarters on the Islands. The government said it was all the fault of the manager. I was waiting for the howls from the opposition. True or otherwise, how could they let it go unchallenged? If nothing else the government appointed the manager, and they are supposed to be monitoring his performance. Yet barely a voice was raised. Does everyone think this a well oiled democracy?

Its odd. How I curse the continual whining of politicians in opposition every time I hear them speak - which is all too often. Yet now I miss it when they don't.

I decided a long while ago to have a decent opposition, you needed to have a senate where they could retreat and lick their wounds. It frightens me that the senate can be disbanded if we citizens mistakenly elect a mob of twits. Its so easy to do as the bastards lie so fluently. Before you judge this language as harsh, consider that Mike Rann wants to abolish SA's upper house:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4399

Or read how we lost ours:

http://www.democraticaudit.anu.edu.au/papers/20070213_aronprass_upphqld.pdf

"At the end of his reign, we were left with a deskilled country, stripped of public assets with reduced manufacturing capacity and dependent on demand for resources plus an ever increasing middle class welfare tax burden"

I think Wobbles has put it in a nutshell quite nicely here. A skilled economic manager does not automatically make a great statesman and Howard was neither. Howard basked in the glow of a golden era that had little to do with his making. I charge that he and Costello's economic management skills were never pressure tested under adverse global conditions such as those that have begun to rear their heads higher since he left office.

He was probably the luckiest PM in recent history, given that large numbers of disinterested voters make little or no attempt to understand what makes the world tick. They simply apportion all credit or all blame to whoever is in charge at the time.

Howard was simply a man in the right place at the right time and was only turned out when he struck at the Australian sense of fairness in the workplace - if not for workchoices, he'd probably still be in office right now.

Couldn't agree more rstuart. The democratic process has been somewhat gutted in Queensland, but it was the Council amalgamations that rammed that home for me.
Despite a majority vote in the admittedly voluntary plebiscites that returned a whopping rejection of the process, it was rammed through anyway, and the opposition was ultimately too weak to make any use of public sentiment.

That being said, competitive State oppositions are hard to find these days anywhere in Australia. A damn shame.

To me, it's evidence that we don't need the three tiers of government. I'd rather see the responsibilities of the State divided between a stronger local government sector and the Federal government.

The reason why I think so, it's it's evident that for the population base of this country, we're overgoverned. Thus, with so many politicians, there is less talent, which leads to oppositions which aren't the disciplined, competent organisations they should be.
The talent is spread too thin. Removing the middle tier, but strengthening the local government sector would hopefully result in a better calibre of politician at both ends.

I think the measure of Howard's success are the current warnings being espoused by P.M. K.Rudd about the dire expectation of an Australian recession.

P.M. K.Rudd is giving all these warnings while the resources boom is continuing in full swing ... and all predictions are for it to continue.