John Button, a federal Labor minister from 1983 to 1996, was an astute politician. He accused one parliamentary opponent of citing statistics as Oscar Wilde's inebriated man used a lamp-post—for support rather than illumination. Button's wit anticipated the gloom of Australian public discourse in the early 21st century, as defenders and critics of government policy express incompatible opinions rather than engaging in dialogue. Particularly noticeable by its emptiness is the field of public morality.
Amorality
While there might never have been a golden age in which ethical considerations dominated the pragmatic pursuit of politics, critics of the Howard Government accuse the Coalition of elevating populism over principle to act unethically on mandatory detention of asylum seekers, invasion of Iraq, civil liberties, social welfare and industrial relations. While such assessments can be subjective, the government seldom defends the morality of its decisions, preferring to argue that its policies suit the circumstances, denigrating critics and waiting for ethical arguments to dissipate.
Ministers dismiss church criticisms by telling the religious not to meddle in affairs beyond their expertise. The Prime Minister's claim that he governs for all Australians invites majority opinion—or lowest common denominator opinion—to resent possible church influence in secular affairs. Other critics such as moral philosophers are dismissed as ivory tower elitists, and whistleblowers with inside information have their characters impugned.
As well as creating moral vacuums around issues, this approach impoverishes the culture of public discourse. The venality of the current political paradigm has three non-negotiable elements—power, ego and prosperity. The leaders of the Anglophone Coalition of the Willing remain unrepentant despite their arguments for the invasion of Iraq proving to be deceptions or errors. While the power to act unilaterally should incur grave responsibilities, the governments of the US, Britain and Australia have ignored the constraints of constitutions and international law.
Their arbitrary actions threaten the spirit of moderation, consensus and compromise that is essential to democracy and which guards against tyranny. This fosters an international and domestic order which says that might is right. When the government claims a mandate to implement its program unrestrained by criticism, the moral question of what we ought to do is overwhelmed by what we can do.
The 2004 election campaign showed that most Australians now give greater priority to finance than to morality. This is understandable given that they have been encouraged to associate security with prosperity. During the campaign the Opposition,