{"id":26934,"date":"2022-08-18T04:49:59","date_gmt":"2022-08-17T20:49:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dingo.news\/voice\/?p=26934"},"modified":"2024-08-16T08:16:57","modified_gmt":"2024-08-16T00:16:57","slug":"john-howard-and-the-new-guard-by-oscar-wobbly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dingo.news\/voice\/john-howard-and-the-new-guard-by-oscar-wobbly\/","title":{"rendered":"John Howard and the New Guard – by Oscar Wobbly"},"content":{"rendered":"


\nI’ve done a lot of threads on the Catholic strain of fascism in Australia<\/a> but John Howard’s reentry into public discourse means it’s time for their Protestant counterparts.<\/span> Let’s talk about his father and the fascist paramilitary he allegedly belonged to, the New Guard.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n<\/span>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/span>\n<\/span>\n

 <\/p>\n

Now I’m already hearing the right scream<\/span> “The Loony Left call everything fascist!”<\/span><\/span> They called themselves fascists and attempted to align themselves with their European counterparts.<\/span> One of their street fighting orgs, the Fascist Legion wore KKK inspired outfits.<\/span> <\/span>  <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

<\/span>  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

  \"\" <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n<\/span>\n

Their leader Eric Campbell described the organisation as the following…<\/span> “We’re not Italian fascists or German Nazis, but as far the broad philosophy of Fascism goes I am a fascist to my fingertips”<\/span> He’s the gentleman giving the Nazi cosplay and salute below. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n<\/span>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/span>\n<\/span>\n

There’s nothing ambiguous here.<\/span> Like the Spanish and Italian Fascists they were rabidly pro monarchy to the point where one of their slogans was “obey your masters”.<\/span> They drew from a very long history of the Australian Protestant Right, seeing Australia as an extension of Britain rather than an independent country in its own right.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n<\/span>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t
New Guard rhetoric stressed the invisible bonds of kinship between Australia and Britain. The importance of \u2018God, King and Country\u2019 was paramount to the average member; one former leader of the New Guard joked many years later that it was \u2018all they ever seemed to worry about!\u2019  Australians were \u2018a people of pure British stock\u2019 carrying on British traditions in the South Pacific, the preservation of which was \u2018so completely dependent on the integrity of home, of Crown, and Empire\u2019.   <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>\n

These values were epitomised in the Union Jack, which was ceremoniously borne into New Guard rallies by standard-bearers. Campbell declared it, along with the movement\u2019s own banner, to be one of the two \u2018colours\u2019 of the movement \u2018under which they were prepared to live and to die\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/span>  <\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

To the New Guard, British traditions were \u2018an interpretation of natural law… which successive civilisations have found to be in the best interests of mankind\u2019. This placed imperial patriotism beyond the reach of criticism; it made it absolute and inviolable, and painted those who challenged it as illegitimate, alien, and disloyal. – Cunningham, Matthew. (2012). Australian Fascism? A Revisionist Analysis of the Ideology of the New Guard.<\/strong><\/a> Politics, Religion & Ideology<\/em>, 13<\/em>(3), 375\u2013393.<\/span> <\/span><\/div><\/div><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

An excellent case study of this mindset<\/a> is Australia’s second prime minister Alfred Deakin who wanted Australia to be part of a broader British Imperial Federation and saw Australian independence as a modernisation of the Empire rather than a break from the empire.<\/span> This mindset was deeply ingrained in the New Guard and their leadership saw the organisation as part of a broader project of British imperial fascism and they formed close ties with the British union of Fascists in the UK.<\/span><\/span>  <\/p>\n<\/span>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t
On his European trip, Campbell first met with Mosley and attended several BUF meetings and gatherings and, as Andrew Moore has asserted, far from recognising the traditional imperial hierarchy that Mosley, Joyce and others believed would be the relationship between the BUF and the fascist movements in the Dominions, Campbell felt himself to be on an equal footing with Mosley during these meetings. <\/span> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Addressing the crowd at the BUF headquarters in London in April 1933, Campbell declared that \u2018the time was not distant when the Empire would be ruled by Fascists\u2019 and he spoke highly of the New Empire Union that would also take in similar organisations in New Zealand, South Africa and Canada Evan Smith (2017) <\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

The pivot of empire: Australia and the imperial fascism of the British Union of Fascists, History Australia, 14:3, 378-394, DOI: 10.1080\/14490854.2017.1359092 Addressing the crowd at the BUF headquarters in London in April 1933, Campbell declared that \u2018the time was not distant when the Empire would be ruled by Fascists\u2019 and he spoke highly of the New Empire Union that would also take in similar organisations in New Zealand, South Africa and Canada.102 <\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Using Mosley\u2019s connections, Campbell travelled to Rome and Berlin and met with high-level Fascist and Nazi officials (but not Mussolini or Hitler) and returned to Australia in August 1933 \u2018enthusiastic about the fascist transformation of Europe and the movements he had experienced at first hand\u2019. Evan Smith (2017) – <\/span>The pivot of empire: Australia and the imperial fascism of the British Union of Fascists<\/strong><\/a>, History Australia, 14:3, 378-394, DOI<\/div><\/div><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

They were early pioneers in the use of blending liberty rhetoric with open authoritarianism.<\/span> If this sounds contradictory you need to understand that they’re not using freedom or liberty in the same way normal people do. When they talk about “liberty” and “freedom” they don’t mean you get a say in how society is run or even the right to feed yourself.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t
Central to the New Guard\u2019s individualism was its conception of \u2018liberty\u2019. Indeed, the \u2018maintenance of the full liberty of the subject\u2019, as spelt out in its attestation paper, was one of the most consistent features of the movement\u2019s ideology throughout its life. In the classical liberal sense, the New Guard interpreted liberty as \u2018the right to personal freedom, the right of freedom of discussion, the rights of personal property, and the sanctity of the home and family\u2019. <\/span> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In practical terms, this meant advocating for the individual\u2019s \u2018right to work\u2019 without the interference of arbitration or industry awards; the unemployed,it was argued, could easily be absorbed by industry if fixed wages were abolished.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/span>\n

This narrow definition of liberty coincides with T.H. Marshall\u2019s concept of \u2018civil citizenship\u2019. Citizenship, according to Mitchell, is commonly defined in one of three ways: civil, or \u2018the rights necessary for individual freedom\u2019; political, or \u2018the right to participate in the exercise of political power\u2019; and social, or \u2018the right to a modicum of economic welfare and security\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>\n

The civil element, which arose in Britain by the eighteenth century, predated the universal suffrage and welfare statism of the political and social elements. More importantly, civil citizenship does not require democracy \u2013 it only needs a functioning courts system. Since the New Guard was ambivalent about democracy and utterly opposed to state interference in the economy, its definition of liberty rested solely on the defence of individual rights. Those who held contrary definitions of liberty were fair game for suppression. – Cunningham, Matthew. (2012). Australian Fascism? A Revisionist Analysis of the Ideology of the New Guard.<\/strong><\/a> Politics, Religion & Ideology<\/em>, 13<\/em>(3), 375\u2013393. <\/span><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/span>\n

Who was entitled to these rights was limited solely to those who kept within the New Guard’s view of the natural order.<\/span> “Disloyal” groups like Communists, Catholics, trade unionists, the Irish and other “subversives” were excluded from this definition.<\/span> If this is sounding very familiar this concept of “liberty” is the same one John Howard subscribed to.<\/span> It’s visible in his anti-terror laws that stripped suspects of many of their rights for up to a fortnight . Howard deemed suspects “disloyal” and that was enough to strip them of their rights.<\/span><\/span>   <\/span>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t
Preventative detention orders (\u2018PDOs\u2019) were introduced into the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) schedule 1 (\u2018Criminal Code\u2019) by the Anti-Terrorism Act (No 2) 2005 (Cth) after the terrorist attacks in London in July of 2005. They permit a person to be detained, without arrest or charge, by the Australian Federal Police (\u2018AFP\u2019) for up to 48 hours.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

While in detention, the person\u2019s contact with the outside world, including family members, is strictly limited. The orders can be issued to prevent an imminent terrorist act from occurring or to preserve evidence relating to a recent terrorist act. <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Each state and territory has enacted legislation that extends the maximum length of detention under the PDO regime to 14 days. PDOs are unusual among the many anti-terrorism laws enacted in Australia since the September 11 attacks.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Unlike other measures, which typically cover matters such as new criminal offences and special powers for enforcement and intelligence agencies, PDOs have no comparison in nations such as the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. In addition, it is difficult to discern why the PDO regime was introduced, as the law at the time already contained a wide range of powers and offences that enabled police to arrest, charge and prosecute individuals involved in terrorism.<\/span><\/div><\/div><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/span>\n<\/span>\n

You also see this with the authoritarian doublethink you see in the conspiratorial right in Australia, which was on full display during the pandemic.<\/span>  <\/span>  <\/p>\n<\/span>\n<\/span>\n

\"\" <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n<\/span>\n

The Australian right isn’t the only group that subscribes to this view of liberty.<\/span> Neoliberalism’s founding fathers subscribed to this view of liberty.<\/span> Friedman was notably a fan of undemocratic Hong Kong and Hayek was a fan of dictators Pinochet and Salazar.<\/span><\/span>  <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t
Hong Kong was Milton Friedman\u2019s favorite economy. From a first encounter in the mid-1950s, all the way through to the end of his life, the economist regarded Hong Kong as a kind of free-market utopia. He loved the variety of freebooting capitalism that had been established there under British colonial rule, the entrepreneurial spirit of its residents, the official deference to free-market ideals and common-law principles, and the disciplined commitment to tight-fisted social policies.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>\n

The Hong Kong style of laissez-faire governance, he understood, should not be mistaken for a do-nothing policy: what became known as \u201cpositive non-interventionism\u201d entailed the rigorous defence of free-market rule. – Peck (2021) Milton Friedman\u2019s Favorite Economy: Hong Kong in the Neoliberal Imagination, Law and Political Economy Project “Hayek later described Allende\u2019s administration as the only totalitarian government in Latin America. He couched his defence of Pinochet in a broader context of supporting democracy only insofar as it contributes to the formation and maintenance of a liberal market order: \u201cIn Modern times there have of course been many instances of authoritarian governments under which personal liberty was safer than under democracies\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>\n

He offers Salazar\u2019s \u201cearly government\u201d in Portugal as an example and suggests that there are many democracies in Eastern Europe, Africa, South America and Asia that fail to protect personal liberty. Hayek sees liberalism and democracy as potentially compatible. But he also sees the former as compatible with authoritarianism. \u201cIt is at least possible in principle that a democratic government may be totalitarian and that an authoritarian government may act on liberal principles\u201d. Liberalism does not, therefore, require democracy. For modern liberals the protection of private property and the ability to do with it what one wishes is paramount, while political democracy is desirable but not essential.”<\/span> – Selwyn (2015), Friedrich Hayek: in defence of dictatorship<\/a><\/strong>, Open Democracy<\/div><\/div><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/span>\n

This ideological convergence between Howard’s New Guard influences and Neoliberalism over the concept of liberty and economics blended seamlessly into the Howard government’s policies.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

The conservative worldview that informed these events does much to explain the ideology of the New Guard. This worldview was structured around a genuine belief that \u2018sane finance\u2019 \u2013 balanced budgets, private enterprise, self-reliance, minimalist government, and the sanctity of contract \u2013 represented the \u2018national interest\u2019 of Australia as opposed to the \u2018sectional interests\u2019 of organised labour<\/span> – Cunningham, Matthew. (2012). Australian Fascism? A Revisionist Analysis of the Ideology of the New Guard.<\/strong> Politics<\/a>, Religion & Ideology, 13(3), 375\u2013393.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>  <\/span>  <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t
The election of the Howard government in 1996 brought with it a different set of privatisation drivers. Paul Kelly has noted that in the Howard government \u2018the primary ideas flow from the top downwards\u2019 and that \u2018Howard uses Cabinet as an instrument of his authority. . .obedience and unity\u2019 (2006, 7), so we can assume that Howard himself has had a pivotal role in setting the privatisation agenda over the past decade. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

This is not surprising given his long-term support for widespread privatisation in Australia; arguing that privatisation would act as an important protection against the erosion of basic rights. As he argued, \u2018freedom and personal responsibility require private ownership of property\u2019 (Liberal and National Party 1988, 12).<\/span> Some have labelled this preference for private over public as \u2018economic fundamentalism\u2019 (Greenfield and Williams 2003, 279), perhaps forged by his experience working in his father\u2019s small business (a petrol station) during his younger years (Norington 2006)\u2014an experience which echoes British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher\u2019s observations of her childhood experiences in her father\u2019s grocery store. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

Regardless of its genesis, analysis of more than two decades of his speeches and policy documents show a steady philosophical commitment to the notion of \u2018private\u2019 and his desire to foster incentives, choice, competition, customer-oriented public services, and privatisation.<\/span> – Aulich, Chris and O’Flynn, Janine , (2007) ‘John Howard: The Great Privatiser?’<\/strong>, Australian Journal of Political Science, 42:2, 365 – 381 DOI: 10.1080\/10361140701320075<\/div><\/div>    <\/span>  <\/p>\n<\/span>\n<\/span>\n

WorkChoices and the Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) <\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/span>\n

During the Howard Government\u2019s infamous WorkChoices era, a statutory individual employment agreement known as an Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) was introduced. In promoting AWAs, the government stated that \u201cAWAs offer an employer and employees the opportunity to make an agreement that best suits the specific needs of individual employee.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

That opportunity was a mirage. In practise, AWAs were identical documents imposed on thousands of employees, many of which reduced remuneration and other benefits. <\/span>Telstra successfully imposed many thousands of identical AWAs on its workforce.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

The New Guard’s fixation on national cohesion is also very clear in Howard’s immigration policies, most notably in his infamous “One Australia” immigration policy as opposition leader in 1988.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

The New Guard\u2019s professions of loyalty reflected a desire to effect the moral rejuvenation <\/span>of the citizenry. Australia was riven with sectarianism, party squabbling and class hatred at a <\/span>time when the country needed to come together for the benefit of the nation as a whole.<\/span><\/span> The New Guard lambasted \u2018professional politicians\u2019 as \u2018quack doctor[s]… [who] in <\/span>order to remain in power, must secure votes by promising those sections of the community <\/span>who are most numerous, monetary and other advantages levied from the less numerous <\/span>wealthier class\u2019.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

They were also pioneers in using centrist language to mainstream fascist ideas.<\/span> The New Guard was eventually turned into a failed political party, the Centre Party. This wasn’t a change in ideology. Their leader wrote to Mosely describing it as an attempt to adapt Fascism to Australian conditions.<\/span> By December, Campbell had transformed the New Guard into the Centre Party, moving from paramilitary organisation to a political party. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

Moore argues that this shift into electoral politics is \u2018explicable only if one takes the Centre Party to be … a Trojan Horse which would participate in the process of liberal democracy only in order to undermine it\u2019,104 a method employed successfully by the Nazi Party in Germany, yet unsuccessfully by the BUF. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

This conversion to fascism (and to the Centre Party) was explained by Campbell in a 1934 book, The New Road: <\/span>\u201cI am a Fascist because I am a democrat. I am a democrat because I believe in government by the general will. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

The only possible form of government for a country like Australia, where … there is no traditional ruling class, is the intelligent selection by the people of the most high-minded and capable of their number to undertake the task of government \u2026 The party system of government is a negation of everything that [democracy] stands for; it is to the ideals of Fascism that we must look for the retention of democracy as the guiding spirit of the people.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

This was reinforced in a letter that Campbell wrote to Mosley in May 1934 (intercepted by the British and Australian authorities), in which he stated that the \u2018principles of the Centre Party are simply an application of the Fascist principles to Australian conditions\u2019 <\/span>– Evan Smith (2017) The pivot of empire: Australia and the imperial fascism of the British Union of Fascists<\/strong>, History Australia, 14:3, 378-394, DOI: 10.1080\/14490854.2017.1359092<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

I really want to draw attention to the anti-Catholic elements of the New Guard and their counterparts in other states<\/span> Because they considered Catholics inherently “disloyal” it caused Australian fascism to develop parallel sectarian strains.<\/span> These constructions emerged from the tensions of the Great War, during which self-proclaimed \u2018loyalist\u2019 conservatives lumped their various opponents \u2013 anti-conscriptionists, Catholics, Irish Republicans, and most importantly \u2018Bolshevists\u2019 \u2013 into one catch-all category of \u2018disloyalism\u2019. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

No distinction was made between communism and organised labour, although regular appeals were made to wean \u2018sane labour\u2019 away from the \u2018extremists\u2019 and \u2018wreckers\u2019.<\/span> Overarching this worldview were the intertwined concepts of nation and Empire. To be Australian in the 1930s was also to be British, for the Australian national identity was heavily geared towards British institutions and traditions.<\/span> – Matthew Cunningham (2012) Australian Fascism? A Revisionist Analysis of the Ideology of the New Guard, Politics, Religion & Ideology<\/strong>, 13:3, 375-393, DOI: 10.1080\/21567689.2012.701188<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

It’s also why their Catholic counterparts and Santamaria opposed the White Australia policy while actively trying to build a European Catholic peasantry.<\/span> They understood their Protestant counterparts considered them fundamentally alien and disloyal because of their Catholicism and the Catholic Church\u2019s opposition to conscription.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

By the beginning of the First World War there was a clear Catholic\/ALP voting alignment and there were many Catholics in the local branches of the party, but the ALP as a whole did not have an Irish-Catholic image. This was to change by 1917, mainly as a consequence of the conscription referendum. The divisions on the conscription question brought tensions between British and Irish elements in the Australian population to the surface. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

Archbishop Mannix of Melbourne became a leading spokesman for the ‘No’ cause. <\/span><\/span>Prime Minister Hughes played on this to appeal to Protestant and British-identifying voters in the referenda<\/span> – O\u2019Connell and Warhurst. \u201cChurch and Class: (Irish-Australian Labour Loyalties and the 1955 Split).\u201d<\/strong> Saothar, vol. 8, 1982, pp. 46\u201357. JSTOR<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

By the evening of Friday, 6 March 1931, days of threats and innuendo had brought the town of Donald to the edge of violence. Inside the local convent, Catholics waited with arms, in fear of a Protestant attack . Outside, the White Army patrolled, waiting for the moment when the Catholics and the communists would rise. One of those on the outside was a young soldier settler named Arthur Clifford. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

In an interview, he recalled the event :<\/span> I was out on the farm at the time. I got a call late one Thursday night. Be at Major Sproat’s place, first thing in the morning. When we got there, we were told that we’d have to form an organisation to protect the town. We were all sworn to secrecy. They didn’t know who it was: whether it was the communists or who. But we had to guard the bridges, and the main buildings, and things like that. We didn’t know whether it was the Irish or the communists. Harris was the head man here. But he said that he didn’t know. Some of us thought it was going to be the Catholics. And the Catholics were guarding the convent, because they thought it was us.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

I reckon it must have been a put up job to see how far you could have divided the country. Whoever started it should have been shot. We were so close to shooting at each other that I wouldn’t like to say. If one shot had been fired, the<\/span> the whole town would have been at it.<\/span><\/span> As the storm mounted over the preceding days, Catholic children were terrorised with tales of the fate which awaited them and their parents once the revolution broke. A local minister reported at the time that Catholics were openly threatened and were ‘fearing for their lives and property ‘. But protestants too were afraid . <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

The more vigilant had heard that Father Coghlan and Doctor Flanagan had been ferrying in arms to Catholics throughout the district. Doctor Flanagan was also said to have used his car to transport communists in town , while Mr Kelly, the dentist, had been seen driving home with a car-load of crates which were assumed to contain bombs. The agent from the Investigation Branch (IB ), Les Simpson, later established that the doctor’s communists had been two swaggies who had hitched a lift , and that Kelly ‘s bombs were ‘in reality… two cases of tomatoes from St. Arnaud –<\/span> Cathcart, M. (1985). <\/span>T<\/span>he white army of 1931: Origins and legitimations: The league of national security in Victoria in 1931, and the means by which it was legitimated (Order No. 28819381).<\/strong> ProQuest One Academic<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n<\/span>\n

Tony Abbott’s recruitment <\/strong><\/h2>\n

This is the single biggest break Howard had with his father’s ideology and would form the power block that made him the second longest serving prime minister in this country\u2019s history.<\/span> In their last weeks at school, Catholic boys of particular promise were taken aside and invited to rather mysterious \u201cPeace with Freedom\u201d weekends to prepare them for life at university. Though not invited, young Abbott tagged along: \u201cSome instinct whispered that this was not an opportunity to be missed.\u201d In the heady atmosphere of that secret forum in the summer of early 1976, the course of his political life was set: young Tony was recruited for Bob Santamaria\u2019s Movement. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

The men who did the work were Peter Samuel, the Bulletin \u2019s cranky political correspondent; Warren Hogan, the embattled professor of economics at Sydney University; and Joe de Bruyn, a hard-line Catholic union official about to assume lifetime leadership of the shop assistants\u2019 union.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

Howard had done his homework. He knew this was the former student politician, the footballer, the Rhodes Scholar, the ex-seminarian. He found him \u201cVery intelligent, easy to talk to, had a lot of views the same as me; was traditional about a lot of things, but he was also somebody with a great inquiring mind \u2026 he saw Australia as something of an outpost of Western civilisation and values in the Asian Pacific region, and having to combine the history and the geography of our country, which he thought we could do \u2026 I thought he had real political talent.\u201d<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/span>\n

At this nadir in the fortunes of his party, Howard invited Abbott to lunch. There was a job going as one of the press secretaries of the new leader of the Opposition, John Hewson. Twenty-four hours later, Abbott was in Canberra. He had found the mentor who would mean almost everything to him in his political career. It wasn\u2019t Hewson. Abbott and his boss were very different men \u2013 a Catholic idealist, Abbott would later say, serving a Baptist technocrat workaholic \u2013 but things began well. Hewson found him bright and hard-working. \u201cDiversity of opinion is an enormous asset,\u201d he says. \u201cTony was the furthest to the right of my advisers. He was, with that DLP background of his, always about hard-line social policy. He was very good at defending a case in argument.\u201d<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/span>\n

Abbott cites sending this note \u2013 which Hewson has no recollection of seeing \u2013 as a clarifying moment in his career. He had seen deep conviction frankly expressed make his boss unelectable. More finesse was required, more discretion. Fifteen years later he urged Santamaria loyalists at a dinner for their newspaper, News Weekly , not to abandon principles. \u201cIf you don\u2019t have them, what is the point of life in politics?\u201d But principles must be pursued \u201cintelligently and sensitively\u201d so as not to frighten the public: The art of effective democratic statesmanship is of presenting your principles, presenting your convictions, in ways which sufficiently impress the public such that you are seen as a man or woman of principle, but which don\u2019t so worry the public that they think you would be a risk if you found yourself in a position of power –<\/span> Marr, David. Political Animal : The Making of Tony Abbott<\/strong>, Black Inc., 2013.<\/span> 18\/ <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n<\/span>\n

Howard attracts Catholics to the Liberal creed<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/span>\n

In exchange undermining bodily autonomy Far right Catholic conservatives became acolytes of his economic program.<\/span> This would create the modern Australian theocratic right and secured Howard’s leadership against his less bigoted counterparts through an influx of members.<\/span> Much has changed. After John Howard\u2019s first victory in 1996 one of the Liberal Party\u2019s first claims was that the government\u2019s higher vote had reversed a number of its historic electoral weaknesses, including a weakness among Catholics, by then Australia\u2019s largest Christian denomination. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

This was a new development. Andrew Robb, then Liberal Party federal director but now an MHR, claimed that \u2018a 9 per cent deficit among Catholics was turned into an 11 per cent lead.\u2019[4] By the 2001 election the Australian Election Survey reported that the Coalition still led Labor among Catholics by three points (45 per cent to 42 per cent). In 2004, while the political scientists Dr Clive Bean and Professor Ian McAllister point out that Catholics are still more likely to vote Labor than other denominations like Anglicans and Uniting Church members, the Coalition led Labor among Catholics by nine points (50 per cent to 41 per cent).[5] The old alliance between Catholics and Labor still has some relative strength, but in absolute terms it has gone.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

Throughout the Howard decade the Coalition has also enjoyed a striking electoral lead among those who attend church regularly. Research into voting in previous decades showed a similar, though not so clear pattern.[6] This phenomenon holds across all denominations. By the 2004 election the Coalition lead Labor among regular churchgoers (at least once a month) by 22 points (55 per cent to 33 per cent), while its lead among those who never attended was just seven points (46 per cent to 39 per cent).[7] This combination of strong support among church-goers and better performance among Catholics has been an important element in Howard\u2019s dominance – Warhurst (2006) Religion in Australian 21st Century Politics<\/span><\/strong><\/a>, Australian Parliament House
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

There are similarities between the two cases beyond the use of the conscience vote and the party divisions that inevitably followed. The first involved a successful private members\u2019 bill moved in the House of Representatives by Kevin Andrews to overturn euthanasia legislation introduced by the Northern Territory parliament. <\/span> The second involved a cross-party private members bill introduced into the Senate by four women, Lyn Allison (Democrats), Claire Moore (Labor), Fiona Nash (Nationals) and Judith Troeth (Liberal) to overturn the ministerial control over RU-486 exercised at the time by Tony Abbott, the Minister for Health. <\/span> The Prime Minister personally supported the first and opposed the second (while the Opposition Leader on each occasion, Kim Beazley, supported both). The parliamentary debates each had strong religious-secular overtones, though this was only part of the story and many other themes also featured. <\/span> Notably each generated enormous religious (primarily but not solely Catholic) pressure group activity closely associated with Catholic parliamentarians in both parties, Labor as well as Liberal, and Catholic church leaders. In 1996 it was called the Euthanasia No! campaign and in 2005 it was Australians against RU-486.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

It\u2019s important to note that Santamaria himself was openly disgusted by the idea of breaking bread with the Liberals and predicted that the Protestants would turn on their newfound Catholic allies.<\/span> He also never gave up on integrating the union movement into the power structures.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

Not long before he died in 1998, that veteran conservative political warrior B.A. (Bob) Santamaria granted me a series of interviews. After one session, over a cup of tea, his spirits seemed low and he wondered aloud if he had achieved much. The world seemed as troubled a place as ever.<\/span> In an effort to cheer him up, I suggested that, given he\u2019d been on the receiving end of a great deal of anti-Catholic sentiment over the years, he might be heartened by the fact that religious bigotry was no longer evident in public life. Santamaria looked at me with sad eyes, shook his head and said quietly, \u201cNo, bigotry has not gone. It is religious belief that has faded, but once that returns, if it does, back will come the old hatreds.\u201d<\/span> Howard’s father like many of the rank and file New Guard members would become an enthusiastic supporter of the Liberal Party<\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t
In spite of the Great Depression, the service station survived. The family was prosperous enough to buy a second garage on the corner of Permanent Avenue and Wardell Road in Earlwood. Tough economic times, however, led to tough politics, including a number of movements that bordered on fascism. The New Guard was one of these. The short-lived movement was best known for disrupting trade union meetings and for its leader’s upstaging of Jack Lang when he beat the New South Wales Labor Premier to cutting the ribbon at the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge in March 1932.<\/span><\/span> <\/span> Lang’s interventionist policies made him an enemy of business, and the New Guard was fiercely pro-business and popular with ex-servicemen. Its member-ship form described its ethos as ‘unswerving loyalty to the Throne; all for the British Empire; sane and honourable government throughout Australia; suppression of any disloyal and immoral elements in government, industrial and social circles; abolition of machine politics; and maintenance of the full liberty of the individual’. – <\/span>Errington and Van Onselen (2007) John Winston Howard<\/strong>, Melbourne University Publishing<\/span><\/div><\/div><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

Small retailers are an important sub-section of the middle class. Their long hours and narrow profit margins give them an acute sense of their place in society. They feel great pride in their achievements when things are going well but limited empathy for those who aren’t prepared to make sacrifices. John Howard, as the son of a service station owner, shares this background with Robert Menzies and Margaret Thatcher. <\/span> Lyall Howard was a logical candidate for member-ship of a group such as the New Guard. Police records make no mention of his membership, but Bob Howard recalls his father defending the activities of the New Guard and is of the view that his father probably was a member. His brothers disagree.<\/span>  <\/p>\n<\/span>\n

While the Howard family rarely discussed religion outside church, politics was a different matter. Family, business and politics were never separated in the Howard household. Lyall and Mona supported the Liberal Party from its foundation in 1944 and Lyall was a paid-up member, although he never attended meetings.<\/span> The 1949 election is the first one John Howard clearly recalls. As a 10-year-old, he listened to Opposition leader Robert Menzies on the radio during the campaign and would have heard Menzies promise to end petrol rationing, an extra reason for the Howards to hope for a Labor defeat. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n<\/span>\n

The New Guard fade away but their legacy remains<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/span>\n

The Chifley government had extended wartime planning and rationing and was attempting to nationalise the banks. For the Howards, petrol rationing was a potent symbol of the differences between the parties.<\/span> Howard wasn’t the only person to continue the New Guard’s legacy. Several members of the leadership would go on to join United Australia (No relation to Palmer).<\/span> Hubert Primrose would go on to become a UAP minister and Herbert Lloyd would briefly become a UAP MP.<\/span> Primrose’s philanthropic endeavours were tinged with class interest and apprehension. He joined the paramilitary New Guard and rose to senior rank within its council of action as assistant adjutant and quartermaster general. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

Through his good offices North Sydney oval was made available as a rallying point for the vast battalions of North Shore New Guardsmen in the event of their mobilisation against the unemployed or the Lang government. <\/span> On 19 March 1932, after another senior New Guardsman, Francis de Groot, had unofficially ‘opened’ the southern approaches of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, on the northern side, Primrose, as North Sydney’s mayor, ceremoniously slashed another ribbon. Despite some police reservations about his New Guard allegiances, no attempt was made to stop him. So the New Guard opened the bridge at both ends.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Captain de Groot declares the Sydney Harbour Bridge open in March 1932<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/span>\n

His disillusionment with parliamentary democracy was temporary. On 11 June 1932 Primrose was one of many New Guardsmen elected to the Legislative Assembly for the United Australia Party. His career as member for North Sydney was largely unremarkable. Brought into the Stevens-Bruxner ministry in July 1939, he was acting minister for health until its fall in August, held that portfolio for the next month in the Mair-Bruxner cabinet, then served as assistant minister until May 1941. Again acting minister for health from January to August 1940, in February 1941 he became minister in charge of the National Emergency Services. Here he was in his element but was defeated in the April elections.<\/span> Lloyd obtained a post with Vacuum Oil Co. Pty Ltd, but severed his connection with that company on winning the Legislative Assembly seat of Parramatta for the Nationalists in 1929. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

Next year he became managing director of Australian Soaps Ltd. Defeated in the 1930 general elections, he was deputy-commander of the New Guard before his re-election in 1932 as the United Australia Party member for Mosman, a seat he was to retain until 1941. Following the outbreak of World War II, he held the civil post of director-general of army recruiting in May-July 1940. This has left a lasting authoritarian strain inside the Liberal party and its predecessors.<\/span> In Victoria in 1948 the Liberal Country Party government introduced a bill to ban the Communist Party, as well as repressive trade union laws. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

Trade union protests had delayed their application but allegations made by Cecil Sharpley (a defecting former Communist trade union official who sold his \u201cstory\u201d of communist corruption and sabotage to the Melbourne Herald) led to the establishment in 1949 of the Lowe Royal Commission into communism in Victoria, which was intended to produce evidence supporting Sharpley\u2019s claims to ban the Communist Party. <\/span> Former Communists, J.N. Rawling and T.C. McGillick, witnesses called before the Commission, claimed that the Communist Party was funded by Moscow, acted as a Soviet fifth column and had rigged the ballot in union elections. After 154 days of hearings, the Lowe Commission concluded that while the Communist Party advocated revolution it was not a pawn of the Soviet Union, nor did it commit industrial sabotage.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

The Party\u2019s mass work continued through the mechanism of non-Party organisations committed to democratic liberty. The model for this organisation was the Democratic Rights Committee, established in Melbourne in 1949 when Menzies declared his intention of outlawing communism during the Federal election campaign.[24] This form of mass Party work was an expression of the united front against state repression. These organisations, often with slightly different names, were formed in workplaces and local communities primarily in urban industrial areas, where the Party formerly had a public presence and became mass organisations mobilised during the 1951 Referendum to rally the \u2018No\u2019 vote against banning communism.<\/span> In Melbourne a week before the Referendum on 22 September, 417 delegates from these people\u2019s organisations representing 467,000 citizens throughout Australia unanimously condemned the Communist Party Dissolution Bill \u2018as a measure which, if effect can be given to it, would convert our country into a vast concentration camp\u2019.[25]<\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t
Former governor-general Sir Zelman Cowen captured the period in his George Judah Cohen Memorial Lecture in 1976: There are challenges to authority in many areas… People mass, march, sit in defiance of government and law, there are clashes with police…involving the massed resistance of people protesting about various political and social issues\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n

There is a current and anxious debate on the propriety of the use of industrial power for objectives which cannot remotely be described as industrial… Not very long ago it was put in an editorial in a national Australian newspaper that the level of violence in western society has escalated to the point of an undeclared war. It was said that we were…at the beginning of a period in which the greater part of organised western society must think it is in the middle of a civil war with those forces which wish to overturn it. These are strong words, but it seems to me that they are not extravagant<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This was \u2018one of the most turbulent periods in Australian history\u2019 (Langley,1992). The tumult caused such disquiet in the ranks of the Gorton government that it gave consideration in 1969 to banning street demonstrations – <\/span>Lavelle, Ashley. (2017). Opposition Vanishing<\/a>. P43-44 Springer Singapore Pte. Limited.<\/div><\/div><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span> <\/span>\n

If any of this is remotely surprising to you, ask yourself this question.<\/span> \u201cWould a country founded on white supremacy be particularly prone to fascist ideology?\u201d<\/span> Because that\u2019s the country we live in. This ideology can only be broken if we understand it.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/span> <\/span>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t
Former governor-general Sir Zelman Cowen captured the period in his George Judah Cohen Memorial Lecture in 1976: There are challenges to authority in many areas… People mass, march, sit in defiance of government and law, there are clashes with police…involving the massed resistance of people protesting about various political and social issues\u2026 There is a current and anxious debate on the propriety of the use of industrial power for objectives which cannot remotely be described as industrial… Not very long ago it was put in an editorial in a national Australian newspaper that the level of violence in western society has escalated to the point of an undeclared war. It was said that we were at the beginning of a period in which the greater part of organised western society must think it is in the middle of a civil war with those forces which wish to overturn it. These are strong words, but it seems to me that they are not extravagant This was \u2018one of the most turbulent periods in Australian history\u2019 (Langley,1992). The tumult caused such disquiet in the ranks of the Gorton government that it gave consideration in 1969 to banning street demonstrations<\/span> – Lavelle, Ashley. (2017). Opposition Vanishing. P43-44 Springer Singapore Pte. Limited.<\/div><\/div><\/span><\/p>\n<\/span>\n<\/span>\n

 <\/p>\n

References<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\n<\/span>\n


\nCunningham, Matthew. (2012). Australian Fascism? A Revisionist Analysis of the Ideology of the New Guard<\/b>. Politics, Religion & Ideology, 13(3), 375\u2013393.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The pivot of empire: Australia and the imperial fascism of the British Union of Fascists<\/b>, History Australia, 14:3, 378-394, DOI: 10.1080\/14490854.2017.1359092 Tyulkina and Williams. (2017),<\/span><\/p>\n

Preventative Detention Orders in Australia<\/b>, UNSW Law Journal, Warhurst (2006) Religion in Australian 21st Century Politics, Australian Parliament House, Errington and Van Onselen (2007)<\/span><\/p>\n

The Boy who would be PM<\/b>, The Age, Cottle, (2015)<\/span><\/p>\n

How Australia failed to destroy Communism<\/b>, Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, Warren Perry,<\/span><\/p>\n

‘Lloyd, Herbert William (1883\u20131957)’,<\/b> Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, Errington and Van Onselen (2007)<\/span><\/p>\n

John Winston Howard,<\/b> Melbourne University Publishing Lavelle, Ashley. (2017).<\/span><\/p>\n

Opposition Vanishing<\/b>. P43-44 Springer Singapore Pte. Limited. Andrew Moore,<\/span><\/p>\n

‘Primrose, Hubert Leslie (1880\u20131942)<\/b>‘, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. Bornstein, (2018)<\/span><\/p>\n

Requiem for the Right to Strike,<\/b> Monash University, PDF Malone, (1988) Multiculturalism row divides party,<\/span><\/p>\n

Liberals criticises Howard\u2019s view,<\/b> The Canberra Times. Abjorensen (2017),<\/span><\/p>\n


\nMulticulturalism row divides party Liberals criticise Howard’s view <\/b>– Trove<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>\nMarr, David. Political Animal : The Making of Tony Abbott<\/b>, Black Inc., 2013.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Australia\u2019s great political shift<\/b>, Inside Story<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

IMPERIAL  FEDERATION <\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>\nAn Address delivered by the  Hon. Alfred Deakin, M.P. at the Annual Meeting of the  Imperial Federation League of  Victoria, Town Hall, Melbourne, June 14, 1905.  
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

A Manifesto of the Objects and Aims of the League<\/b> (Link)<\/a>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I’ve done a lot of threads on the Catholic strain of fascism in Australia but John Howard’s reentry into public discourse means it’s time for their Protestant counterparts. Let’s talk about his father and the fascist paramilitary he allegedly belonged to, the New Guard.       Now I’m already hearing the right scream “The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":34558,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"off","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[530,135,3,392,34],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26934","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles-by-oscar-wobbly","category-australias-move-to-the-right","category-political-issues","category-racism","category-religion"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dingo.news\/voice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26934","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dingo.news\/voice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dingo.news\/voice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dingo.news\/voice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dingo.news\/voice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26934"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dingo.news\/voice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26934\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dingo.news\/voice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/34558"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dingo.news\/voice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dingo.news\/voice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dingo.news\/voice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}