The Tampa Affair as many call it was controversial but was a political plus for the Coalition. When John Howard said “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come” he outlined in a succinct phrase what is both a policy permissible for a serious government to undertake, and for a people to expect. Labor knew how unwise it would be to seriously challenge the PM’s reform in the area of the boat people. He worked out a policy whereby people seeking to escape their homeland for legitimate reasons aren’t forced to return, nor are they neglected at sea forbidden any assistance.

The “Pacific Solution” was agreed to by sufficient pacific nations that boat people could be redirected to locations in these countries and then work out their future plans there. It strengthened Australia’s grip on its sovereignty while seeking a humane approach. I believe that one of the Rudd Government’s most dreadful mistakes was to end this policy which statistics have shown was a huge success in terms of achieving its aims and substantially reducing the numbers arriving in this fashion without going through the proper procedures. It shows once again that even if Labor goes along with popular Coalition measures in opposition, once in government there is no certainty they will stick to it.

I do not understand how people could criticize this act of boldness. From my perspective as an American constantly hearing of comparatively much larger numbers of illegal arrivals through our borders and having governments of both parties for decades hiding as much as possible from this issue. I know for a fact that just as among regular Australians, average Americans by a large majority support a decisive leader keeping border entries in order, and actually know who is coming in. I would not want outsiders telling me how to run my country or tell how and how not to handle border/immigration concerns provided these problems are handled in an ethical fashion.

When one is entrusted with the high honour of serving as Her Majesty’s Prime Minister, the job description includes to do all they can to keep their nation safe from domestic threat or those from abroad, i.e. to protect their country and its people. They however should also realize the importance of upholding traditional, time tested community values, such as the institution of Marriage. For generations, let alone centuries, Marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been held up as an ideal and one of life’s most important and rewarding decisions. It has through the ages been meant to be an act of mutual love and devotion. As a result of this mutual love and devotion, these couples normally have one or more children, and the intention of living out their devotion for life should allow a stable two parent home where each handles their share of their burden of life.

It is in this belief, that I think John Howard acted when his government crafted and passed with bipartisan support an amendment to the Marriage Act 1961 to ensure that only marriages of the traditional definition were to be recognized. Marriage is not something to be lightly played with and if it strays from the regular understanding of its full purpose, then can’t marriage become anything or nothing; something to be understood in a morally relative fashion? It is not Mr. Howard who determined the marital formula, so it’s not for he or anyone else to take upon themselves to change. The 2004 legislation is not intended to be an act of hatred or division, merely to set in stone as it were what has been a matter of consensus and thus lack of debate until recently.

To be Prime Minister means to look at both the secular duties of the job and the defense of traditional morality as an irreplaceable foundation of humanity. Not one at the expense of the other, but both in harmony corresponding to unified worldview, as opposed to one seeing them on entirely separate pains never to cross paths.

One of the best ways to ensure hope for the future of a country is if you inherit a deficit, pay it all off, and then sock away extra money. To prove you care about your people you make sure they don’t owe others anything, so they can stand with their head held high and with the possibility to have enough savings for times of emergency, and/or so an ambitious government can fund their ideas without asking taxpayers to further open their wallet.

When John Howard took office in 1996, he inherited a hefty debt, but around the time of his 10 year anniversary it had all been taken care of. As is the case with Presidents, Prime Ministers don’t do everyone’s job, and if they’re wise don’t stand over their cabinet’s shoulders micromanaging. They give their input, make final decisions and are called to account for mistakes or get credit for successes. It’s the duty of the PM to make sure the right person is in the job, and Mr. Howard readily admits Peter Costello delivered time and again as regards his work as Treasurer.

I’m not a big fan of the “It’s Time factor” unless there is a legitimate reason, and that applies both to the government in general and those in the cabinet in particular. Government and its ministers aren’t drinks in need of refreshing (or replacement solely for replacement’s sake). To the contrary, the expertise and tests along the way serve to make those that serve stronger and the collective experience more like a prized wine.  In another setting, would we prefer a teacher fresh from University, or a teacher with some in the field practice?

It is one thing to promise a clean government, it’s quite another to deliver. At the beginning of his term as Prime Minister, John Howard put in place what was known as the “Ministerial Code of Conduct” to demand a corruption free cabinet. The first test came the year when three ministers were sacked for breaching the code. It showed the PM could be just as firm with his own people, as he had and would demonstrate he could be with national issues, the opposition, any problem in general.  When you’re shown to be no-nonsense with your own people declining to make excuses, it builds respect for you and confidence in your government.

When your word is your bond, it increases your stock and ability to accomplish things that aren’t so touchy feely when it’s necessary, and such a person is often able to get the support needed to move boldly in furthering one’s aims. If someone isn’t viewed as a straight talking person of action, others, especially the less bold, will have a more difficult time remaining loyal and it will be difficult to gain public approval.  Without all these components, how can one expect to govern long, productively and honourably? John Howard got it, and in the whole, history will recall this aspect of his tenure and the wise aspirant to high office will realize from this and other examples that Ethics are the cement that holds everything together.

In the Gospels, Jesus talks about giving a man a fish would feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. I believe I paraphrased, but that’s quite close to how it’s written. He also said “the poor will always be with us”. One doesn’t have to be Christian to appreciate the importance of helping the poor and that no matter how much we do there will always be poor people.

What is important about our responsibility to the poor is to do all we can to ensure they have a chance at pulling themselves up, and ensuring a safety net during the transformation process, not to mention one permanently available for the disabled. To provide an incentive for those on benefits to seek to improve themselves and then for the government to work with them to get them off the dole and into a job is such a lasting gift that over time will allow them to build work experience and a resume to keep them on the path out of poverty.

I believe that this is one of John Howard’s landmark pieces of legislation. I know I’m not alone in that, but I think if anyone (particularly on the left) questions conservative interest, I invite them to reconsider their judgment and look at his “work for the dole” scheme from the teach a man to fish feed him for a lifetime outlook, and they will see the moral sincerity of the conservative approach, and the commonsense of it from the perspective of the government pocketbook, having more contributing taxpayers and fewer in need of same resources. Most schemes that would be good for the pocketbook are also good for people.

I close with this quote from American Founding Father Benjamin Franklin on the best way to help the poor: “I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”¹

Again, don’t leave the impoverished languishing in callous neglect, by all means help them before they can help themselves, but ensure the string attached causes them to learn a skill, and create an indefatigable drive to find work or be inventive and thus improve themselves.

¹ http://www.povertyinsights.org/2009/06/02/import-1209/