If we can draw any firm conclusion about the Howard Government’s wielding of political power during its final term in office, it would almost certainly align with the old adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Although the government obviously did not enjoy absolute power, its manner of control of the Senate during its final term and indeed its handling of certain matters under its jurisdiction (such as the Haneef case) suggest that when it came to the crunch, base political want was king. On a number of issues in particular (e.g. our old favourite WorkChoices), it is quite clear that if the architecture of government was exploitable for potential misuse, and the government had a good political reason to misuse it, it often did so.

Coming from this somewhat toxic background, it’s no real surprise that the views and approach of the new Immigration and Citizenship Minister, Chris Evans, are a breath of fresh air. Over three years later, the change of government appears to have finally resulted in Cornelia Rau receiving justice and closure, after her epic ordeal at the hands of the Immigration Department. As Jewel Topsfield reports for the SMH, one has to wonder what former Minister Kevin Andrews thinks about these sorts of statements from Evans:

Immigration Minister Chris Evans has admitted he is uncomfortable “playing God” and has ordered a review into his own role, claiming he believed his position had too much power.

…

“I have formed the view that I have too much power … in terms of the power given to the minister to make decisions about individual cases,” he said. “I’m uncomfortable with that, not just because of concern about playing God, but also because of the lack of transparency and accountability for those decisions.”

It is hard to imagine any of the former Howard Government Immigration Ministers uttering any sentiment along these lines, and the reason for this is that the new government has a somewhat different way of viewing the architecture of government. Late into the previous government’s reign, in particular, there was hardly any question of federal government processes or governance mechanisms being revised or updated, unless of course strong pressure was applied on a given issue by the Opposition. In contrast, what we are seeing with the Rudd Government is some long overdue process house-cleaning. Arguably this is at least partially politically motivated, with the new government making hay out of the opportunity to point out all the odious things the previous government got up to, but there is also some evidence (e.g. renowned “straight and narrow” man John Faulkner’s ongoing role as Special Minister of State) suggesting that the government truly does have benevolent motives.

In any case, one hopes that the new government continues with this line of work throughout its tenure, and does not just abandon it when it becomes politically expedient to do so. The experience of the previous government should serve as a useful reminder of how negative public perceptions have the potential to snowball, when buffeted by repeated ministerial misdemeanours. This only happens, of course, if the government’s ministers and parliamentary members are perceived to be much more interested in slithering through governance loopholes than fixing them.