politics
Dennis Altman
Paul Kelly
Paradise Divided
Allen & Unwin $24.95pb, 278pp
1 86508 291 0
Paul Kelly is a thoughtful and intelligent commentator on both national and international affairs. His influence on Australian public life has been considerable, and he has been elected a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences. This collection will neither enhance his reputation, nor, given that it consists largely of pieces from The Australian newspaper, does it provide access to rare or hard to obtain articles. It is particularly disappointing compared to his book, The End of Certainty (1992), the definitive study of the Hawke/Keating governments.
Paradise Divided consists of a large number of short and previously published pieces, divided into six sections: 'snapshots'; 'the coalition in power'; 'the mood of the 1990s'; 'the international scene'; 'the constitution, the republic and the dismissal' and 'immigration and multiculturalism'. Some of these pieces are profiles of politicians (and in one striking exception, of Australian scientist Howard Florey, 'our tallest poppy'.) The international coverage is particularly scrappy: running commentary on the changes in Indonesia and our involvement in Timor, some reflections on Clinton and Blair, but no overall framework or analysis.
On the record of these articles Kelly is too inclined to believe the rhetoric of both Howard/Costello and the owners of News Ltd. about the success of the 'reforms' of the past few years leading to 'a more dynamic, market-oriented and competitive economic structure and culture'. I have more sympathy with his fellow journalist, Deborah Hope, whose very powerful indictment of what such 'reforms' mean for our quality of life in a recent Australian Magazine (May 6-7) should be read alongside the self-congratulatory smugness of mainstream economic commentators.
Kelly himself knows that all is less well with the body politic than much of his writing suggests. In perhaps the best piece in the book, taken from a speech to the Australia Unlimited Conference last year, he outlines the need for 'a new strategic role for government'. This piece foreshadows the final chapter, 'National Disgrace', where Kelly provoked considerable furore by his claim that both Howard and Beazley are major failures.
This piece was written in the aftermath of the government's bailout of National Textiles (the firm run by the Prime Minister's brother), and Kelly accuses Howard of being 'the most knee-jerk, poll reactive, populist prime minister in fifty years'. Only worse, in his eyes, is Beazley, who is, it appears, not just a populist but a dishonest one. We need, claims Kelly, a politics of social inclusion. But we also, he argues, need to base such a policy on acceptance of economic globalisation, and here he sees Beazley as wanting.
Both criticisms have some accuracy. It is hard to find much good to say about the Prime Minister, and hard to find many who will try, even within his own party. It is equally true that the Opposition risks becoming a joke, with its insistence that everything is due to the looming impact of the GST -- while simultaneously not pledging to abolish it. But Kelly, for all his fine words, about social inclusion (and in an earlier piece he tries to spell out what this might mean) never gets down to the core questions of how do we create a society which treats people better and fairer while at the same time constantly cutting back the role of government.
Kelly argues that: 'Governments need to be able to convince their people of the vast opportunities offered by the marketplace, yet signal their willingness to hold the line against a new market-imposed tyranny.' Well, yes -- but with several caveats. I feel uneasy about the reference to `their people': I thought the relation was the opposite, namely they were our governments. I detect an over-economist view of government, and indeed Kelly seems largely disinterested in social or cultural policies. And what exactly are these 'vast opportunities' of which he is fond? Are we really better off if all Australians end up with 400 Telstra shares -- and a crumbling health and education system?