Photo: Whose child is Tony Abbott? Bronny and Johnny? Or Fraser and Santamaria? (AAP/ABC)
Does Tony Abbott's political pedigree owe more to Bronwyn Bishop and John Howard - or is he Malcolm Fraser and BA Santamaria's ideological love child, wonders Paul Rogerson.
Tony Abbott once described himself as the political love child of Bronwyn Bishop and John Howard; allegedly prompting Bishop to quip it was a birth as a result of an immaculate conception. John Howard has wisely kept his own counsel on this topic.
Yet the early days of the Abbott government give rise to questions about what sort of government will Tony Abbott lead?
Abbott made the claim about his political parentage to establish his conservative credentials both within the Liberal Party and more broadly with the community. Not that many of us were in any doubt on that score.
However, the term 'conservative' has many facets. Doubtless, Tony Abbott shares many conservative views with either or both of Howard and Bishop.
He is opposed to abortion, largely based on his Catholic faith. He is on the record as not being in favour of same sex marriage and is uncomfortable with homosexuality even though he is very supportive of his sister who is openly gay.
And of course, prior to entering parliament Abbott was known as being implacably opposed to Australia becoming a republic in his role for Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy.
All these issues generate strong feelings in some within the community both for and against. Beyond these issues, 'conservatism' has importance in other fields but most importantly in the field of economics.
It is this area where some doubt may lie.
The conservative pedigrees of Bronwyn Bishop and John Howard are orthodox. Both became involved in the Liberal Party at young ages and have dedicated much of their adult lives to the Liberal cause.
Tony Abbott is different. He came to the Liberal Party after having been first connected with the Movement led by B A Santamaria.
Santamaria did much damage to the Labor Party in the 1950s and played an influential role in the split of 1955. He was an influential figure in the young Abbott's life when he was a student politician in the 1970s.
Whilst a rabid anti-communist, Santamaria was a formidable conservative thinker holding strong views on many topics such as social justice.
This may have played a part in Abbott's views on indigenous affairs.
Abbott's commitment to assisting the plight of indigenous Australians is sincere. If he is successful, this will be his lasting legacy of which he will be rightly proud. Only time will tell.
However, Santamaria was notably opposed to 'economic rationalism'.
Economic rationalism has been the dominant economic ethos in Australia since the Hawke/Keating governments of the 1980s through to the Howard government and in part carried on by the Rudd/Gillard governments. At times, Abbott has been uneasy with the prevailing economic ethos.
Under Howard, Abbott was noted as one of the few willing to speak out against WorkChoices in Cabinet, concerned about the harshness it brought to the workplace.
WorkChoices was the apotheosis of John Howard's dream for IR reform.
It just goes to show that when ideological blindness creeps in, even the shrewdest of politicians can come unstuck. Tony Abbott will not go down this hard edged path on IR if he listens to his inner Santamaria voice.
Since winning the election, Abbott has been in no hurry to deal with the 'budget emergency' he repeatedly claimed to exist when in opposition. (You cannot imagine John Howard being so sanguine).
In the early days after the election, Abbott deliberately had himself filmed telling officials and others how he wanted to take things steadily prompting news channels to broadcast old footage of Malcolm Fraser saying much the same thing after winning in 1975.
Comparisons with Malcolm Fraser would be cause for concern for many within the Liberal Party. The Fraser years are not remembered fondly by many Liberals. Those years are seen as a lost opportunity for reform.
Australia under Fraser was largely ruled by a cabal of agrarian socialists plus one lone economic rationalist (John Howard).
The agrarian socialists were Fraser, leader of the Nationals, Doug Anthony, Anthony’s deputy, Ian Sinclair and senior Nationals minister, Peter Nixon.
It was a period marked by much policy timidity. Howard was frequently at odds with his colleagues when it came to matters of reform in the economic area and little was achieved. The heavy lifting in the area of economic reform was left to Hawke and Keating after 1983.
Whilst getting the budget deficit back under control is important, proceeding too fast will damage the economy and Abbott is right be cautious in this regard. However, without being seen to be dedicated to the task of getting the nation's finances in order will not inspire confidence in business or consumers that the government has a proper grasp of economic affairs thus delaying economic recovery.
To be fair to Tony Abbott, the early signs are mixed tending towards positive in the area of economic management and reform.
Abbott appointed Andrew Robb as Trade Minister whereas traditionally that position is filled by a Nat. Robb is a sensible and safe appointment.
Can you imagine if Abbott had appointed someone like Barnaby Joyce to that post? The only worse move he could make would be to appoint Bob Katter.
Information leaked to The Australian over the weekend seeks to test the appetite of the public for further privatisations in order to reduce the budget deficit. Whilst the Coalition announced the proposed sale of Medibank prior to the election, the suggestion that Australia Post and Air Services Australia are also on the block is new.
If community opposition to either of these is strong, it will test Abbott's resolve as an economic conservative to argue the case for the sales or they will be quietly shelved.
Abbott says he wants to be known as the 'infrastructure Prime Minister', a worthy goal. It is a pity John Howard did not feel the same way as PM when public opinion indicated many were willing to forego tax cuts in exchange for improved public infrastructure yet Howard ignored such pleas.
Back then Australia had money in the bank to pay for road, rail and port infrastructure but not anymore.
The Abbott government has floated the idea of issuing 'infrastructure bonds' to fund new projects. No matter how it is disguised, it is just more government debt.
Whilst debt to fund infrastructure is better than debt that funds recurrent expenditure, it does call into question Abbott's promise 'to pay back the debt' which in turn questions his economic credentials.
Tony Abbott is a powerful leader and has shown early signs of exercising that power. The power Abbott exerts stems in part from his ability to determine his Cabinet and ministry.
With that power he can establish other controls such as instructing all ministers to clear media briefings through his office.
He can largely set the agenda of Cabinet and that of the government.
A recent example of this is his overruling of Christopher Pyne on the question of student service and amenities fees claiming it is not a first order issue. This was mainly done to appease the Nationals. Abbott's views and his values will heavily influence the work of the government.
So exactly whose child is Tony Abbott?
Is he Bronny and John's? Or is he Fraser and Santamaria's?
Over the weeks and months ahead, we will find out.
Paul Rogerson is a lawyer with an interest in politics and public policy. View his full profile here.
Where does Tony Abbott's political DNA come from? - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
