| Contents > Governing for the mainstream – the manipulation of the concept of 'mainstream Australia’ by the Howard government. Where do people with disabilities fit? by Anne Wills |
Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |
Governing for the mainstream – the manipulation of
the concept of 'mainstream Australia’ by the Howard government.
Where do people with disabilities fit?
Introduction
-
…. `problems’ do not exist out there, in the social world, waiting to be addressed and `solved’, but that `problems’ are created by the policy community. … any policy proposal necessarily contains a diagnosis of the problem to be addressed.’
(Bacchi, 1999: 199).
How `policy problems’ are determined has important implications for those likely to be the subject of any resultant solutions. As Carol Bacchi (1999: 5) states, `approaches to policy studies are inherently political and need to be treated as such.
Problem representation is, according to Stone (1988:106-7, quoted in Bacchi, 1999: 36) `the strategic representation of situations … (original emphasis)’. ` Representations of a problem are therefore constructed to win the most people to one’s side and the most leverage over one’s opponents …’
Consequently, those confronting a defined policy problem need to ask `how that definition also defines interested parties and stakes, how it allocates the roles of bully and underdog, and how a different definition would change power relations.’ (Stone (1988: 183, quoted in Bacchi, 1999: 36)
Using the Disability Support Pension as a case study, this paper will show that the Howard government’s claim ` to govern for the mainstream’ is inherently political, and is creating a two-tiered society, consisting of the allegedly `deserving’ and the `undeserving’. It’s manipulation of the concept of `mainstream Australia’ in its propaganda is designed to position `non-mainstream’ groups, which now include the disabled, as undeserving. Once categorised as `undeserving’, the disabled can be subjected to increased scrutiny, control, and demands in return for any income support they might receive. They become the underdog, subject to the controls of the bully.
The 1996 Federal Election and the Rise of Populism
-
`Populism is not just a reaction against power structures but an appeal to a recognised authority. Populists claim legitimacy on the grounds that they speak for the people: that is to say, they claim to represent the democratic sovereign, not a sectional interest such as an economic class’ (Canovan 1999: 4, quoted in Bishop and Davis 2001: 193-4).
The federal election of March 1996 saw the defeat of the Labor government and the election of the conservative Coalition government. The electorate reacted against Labor’s economic reform agenda which progressed despite their views, against the erosion of their lives, and against their feelings of powerlessness to challenge the situation. (Quiggin, 2005: 28: Edwards, 2002: 6)
The frustration and insecurity produced by Labor’s economic reform stirred resentments that encourage populism. (Sawer, 2003) Populism, manifested in the 1990’s in Australia by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation `interprets the world through an `us and them’ frame and seeks to mobilize the people (us) against untrustworthy cosmopolitan elites (them)’. Pauline Hanson’s elites were banks, big business and international financial elites. (Sawer, 2003)
Whilst aspects of populist discourse can be dismissed as illiberal or intolerant, its appeal to `ordinary people’ strikes a chord with the populace. (Bishop and Davis 2001: 194). John Howard recognised this, and used it to his advantage. In his 1995 speech, The Role of Government: A Modern Liberal Approach, he stated:
-
`There is a frustrated mainstream in Australia today which sees government decisions increasingly driven by the noisy, self-interested clamour of powerful vested interests with scant regard for the national interest. The power of one mainstream has been diminished by this government's reactions to the force of a few interest groups. Many Australians in the mainstream feel utterly powerless to compete with such groups, who seem to have the ear completely of the government on major issues.
According to Howard, the Labor government had been commandeered by special interest groups, through which government largesse was delivered. In contrast, Howard promised that a Coalition government would govern in the interest of mainstream Australia, `making decisions in the interests of the whole community, decisions which have the effect of uniting, not dividing the nation ….” (Howard, 1995) (emphasis added).
Despite Howard’s rhetoric that he `understood’ the concerns of the electorate, the change of government exacerbated rather than eased the economic rationalist clout. (Edwards, 2002, 6) The Coalition government has demonstrated an even stronger commitment to economic rationalism than that held by the previous Labor government. (Edwards, 2002:7, Jamrozik, 2005: 9). Clearly, then, despite the rhetoric, the Howard Government’s policy approach would not ease the pain of the electorate. It sought to shift responsibility for the pain, by taking on One Nation’s populist stance, simultaneously criticizing its views on economic globalization, but adopting elements of its social policy. (Sawer, 2006, 13)
| Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Contents > Governing for the mainstream – the manipulation of the concept of 'mainstream Australia’ by the Howard government. Where do people with disabilities fit? by Anne Wills |