This article is an instalment of Where to for real Liberals?, a series on the future of the Liberal Party under Peter Dutton.
The ideology of liberalism argues that political problems should always be solved in a way that maximises the liberty or freedom of the individual. But while the Coalition’s nuclear proposal may or may not be good policy for delivering clean, affordable and reliable energy supply in Australia, the mere fact it involves the creation of massive government-owned power plants does not mean it is illiberal.
Liberals believe in small government because they believe government should not do things for individuals that they can do for themselves. In the case of individuals’ energy needs, it seems unlikely individuals can make their own arrangements: we do not live in a world in which we can generate our own energy by going into the local forest and chopping up enough firewood to keep the home fires burning.
Anarchists believe there is no role for government intervention; liberals are not anarchists. When it is not viable for the private sector to run an industry that is nevertheless in the national interest, liberals see no problem in allowing the government to step in.
It is true that liberals value the free market and believe government should avoid interfering with it. But this is not because liberals believe the free market is some intrinsically good thing: it is because they believe that the free market operates to maximise the freedom of the individual.
If nuclear power is in the public interest even though there is no appetite in the private sector to invest in nuclear power, then the liberal would accept that government ownership is necessary.
The Great Depression, World War II and the COVID-19 pandemic are all examples of situations in which liberals would accept that government intervention was necessary, even though it encroached on the liberty or freedom of the individual. These were not times for small government, even though liberals would argue for the retreat of government intervention as soon as circumstances allow individuals to manage their own affairs and the marketplace to operate in their interest.
There may be many good reasons to oppose nuclear power as a policy response to Australia’s energy needs, but liberal ideology is not one of them.
Real liberals want a market economy to operate without massive government intervention when this advances the liberty or freedom of individuals. If extraordinary circumstances mean that the interests of the individual are best served by government intervention, then this is not illiberal. The liberal would be keen to wind back the intervention, however, as soon as the individual or the market economy can manage without government intervention.
It may be that the free market alone cannot be relied upon to deliver a clean, affordable and reliable energy supply in Australia. In that case, these are indeed not good times for the market economy. But if these are the challenges of the times, and if a clean, affordable and reliable energy supply will ultimately advance the liberty or freedom of the individual, then liberals must accept that government intervention is the only possibility.
None of this is to say that the Coalition’s nuclear policy will deliver this kind of energy supply. It is just to say that if it is the best way of doing so, and if doing so advances the liberty or freedom of the individual, then real liberals should not cower at the thought of such a policy.
The pathway for getting genuine liberals into public life is to cultivate in them a more profound understanding of the qualified nature of the liberal’s commitment to the market economy — and a capacity to explain why sometimes the best way to advance the liberty or freedom of the individual might require government intervention rather than deference to the free market.
