Slowly the reality is becoming clear. John Howard’s Government is putting as much of John Hewson’s Fightback program into effect as he can get away with. The only difference is that Dr Hewson was courageous, or stupid, enough to tell the electorate what he was going to do beforehand.
Mr Howard, on the other hand, told the electorate one thing and after the election is doing another. A promise of mild cuts to the public sector of 2500 have in reality being cuts of the Fightback recommendation of up to 20,000. Other Fightback recommendations announced or on the way are: a 10 per cent cut to the ABC, SBS and ATSIC; chopping Working Australia; chopping family reunion; cutting foreign aid; axing jobs programs; overhauling superannuation and so on. Medicare, too, is likely to face changes. Telstra and industrial relations reform are in a different category. He announced them very clearly before the election.
The justification for the harsher approach is that, after the election, the Government found what it said was a deeper fiscal hole than the former Government had acknowledged.
Even so, Mr Howard should tread more carefully. He has paid far too much attention to the fiscal black hole. Moreover, he runs the risk of be accused of inventing the black hole as an excuse to give vent to his ideological commitment to Fightback-style policies.
Aside from the unnecessary damage some of his slash-and-burn policies might have on parts of the Australian community, he should see their political danger. Recent history reveals it.
People were prepared to stomach Paul Keating in 1993 rather than cop Fightback. That should show him the strength of feeling in the community against these sorts of extreme policies. In 1996, with Fightback and the extreme economic-rationalist ideology of John Hewson out of way, people felt they could vote for the “”comfortable and relaxed” society promised by Mr Howard. If he suddenly dusts off Fightback, however, people will not only feel duped by a broken promise, but it will mean the 1999 (or earlier) election will be fought by Mr Howard with all of the disadvantages of 1993 (the rotten fish of Fightback around his neck) and none of the advantages of 1996 (the rotten fish of Mr Keating around Labor’s neck).
Mr Howard should think carefully about this … for his own good and Australia’s good.
Australia needed change away from unearned union monopoly of industrial relations; uncontrolled Budget deficits; and rampant favouritism to various minorities and cronies. But it does not need a lurch to the right with radical gutting of public-sector functions. Mr Howard should move back towards the centre ground he promised before the election. That, after all, is what the people voted for. And it is what the people will vote for again (but perhaps for a different party if the Labor Party is intelligent enough to change its ways).
It is folly for Mr Howard to attempt to repair the Budget deficit with such speed and on the expenditure side only. His Government should be a little gentler on this side of things. Rather, it should focus on the industrial relations package and convince the Democrats of its economic merit … especially that it could prove the fillip to business that will give rise to natural revenue growth that might obviate the need for some of the harsh public-sector cuts being imposed now. As it is, Mr Howard is running the risk of squandering the goodwill engendered by his leadership on the guns issue and the natural honeymoon period for new governments.