a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy
This proposal about reform of the way the board of the national broadcaster is composed is very welcome news – both in the context of ensuring that there is at least one relatively neutral and unbiased source of news and current affairs in the country, and more broadly for the fact that a political party is choosing to make objectivity an issue in the 2007 election. The proposal is that the appointment process be reformed so that the leader of the opposition has to agree to any appointments before they are made (more here).
Having the leader of the opposition approve appointments is not perfect – it maintains the two-party duopoly that dominates the Australian political landscape and effectively guarantees that someone from within the establishment will always be appointed – but it is certainly a lot better than having not-so-subtle ideology driving appointments. Most importantly, with each major party unable to appoint an obvious political hack, there is far more chance that someone will be appointed on merit, of all things.
It is also perhaps the best resolution to the ‘culture wars’ – implicit recognition that it is not for the federal government, or any government, to determine what content is or is not the ‘right’ version of history or contemporary culture. As such, creating an ideology-neutral (rather than “balanced”, per se) intellectual environment is essential.
This approach needs to be considered for use far more widely. Judicial appointments, in particular, are an area which might well benefit significantly from a move towards a non-partisan appointment process. As pointed out here, the ALP has also proposed a bipartisan approach to determine the composition of future federal industrial relations bodies.
I think the cuture wars will fizzle with the passing of Howard anyway – of the next crop of Liberal hopefuls, the two with a chance (Costello and Turnbull) seem to be far more “wet” than Howard and the mad ideologues (Downer and Abbott) are so politically radioactive as to never stand a chance.
If the government does indeed lose and lose badly (both of which are less certain propositions in my view than some might think) I think there’s a real uncertainty about what will happen next because Howard has created such a power vaccuum at the top of the Libs – Turnbull is the first real leadership prospect he’s let anywhere near him in the whole time they’ve been in government, with Costello safely under control.
One would think that a crushing election defeat would drive the party towards moderation on social policy – just as Labor has been dragged right on economic policy – but there is always the possibility that it will just become a test of willpower and manipulation in which case someone like Abbott could easily end up leader. Scary though that thought is, however, I guess we should also remember that Liberal leaders in opposition tend to have a short and very unhappy life…
As for Costello being wet, I have my doubts – I’ve always thought so, but his attitude to industrial relations seems as bad as Howard’s. He’s definitely more moderate on aboriginal and women’s issues (but then again, who isn’t?).
Turnbull is a bit of an unknown, I think. He seems willing to recast himself according to the requirements of the situation and the objective of maximising the success of M Turnbull.