Power without principle

There are few who would question that power has a commanding allure. Those with an interest in human behaviour will readily attest the transformative impacts power has on those who seek it and those who attain it. These observations are frequently fascinating but rarely edifying.

Perhaps it is the innate frailty of humanity that makes power such an apparently desirable attribute. Whatever, power is the defining element of our body politic and, as such, influences every aspect of our lives. It is worthy, then, to examine the influence power has had on one of the fundamental institutions of our way of life over the past century: the Australian Labor Party.

The Labor Party grew out of the much less-faceted Australian society of the late 19^th century. It would be disingenuous to suggest issues in those days were essentially black and white but contrasted with the multi-megapixel reality of our contemporary way of life, there were far fewer choices to be factored into decision-making. In this environment, it was common for categorisation to be simple, basic and blunt. Long before we discovered upper and lower strands of even a middle class, we made do with rich and poor and bosses and workers.

It was from this milieu that Labor arose as a party for the workers. Make no mistake, it was bold and innovative for its time; quite revolutionary, in fact. Pertinently, the Australian Labor Party was a needed initiative. It served a real and vital purpose to help those who felt oppressed withstand the superior power of those cloaked with authority. An ethos of service to those less able to look after themselves was the heart and soul of Labor and the labour movement that it nurtured. It was the purity of this ethos that earned Labor pervasive community support across Australia and recognition in comparable societies around the globe.

Labor harvested this endorsement and wielded it with sometimes brutal pragmatism to look after its own. This was a reflection of the industrial relations framework of the time which can best be summed-up as might is right. The exponents of capitalism were not faint-hearted in exploiting their advantage and it may well be said that they reaped as they had sown.

In tandem with the prevailing military mindsets of the early 20^th century, these opposing sides settled in for the political version of trench warfare. Each held established positions which they defended with almost religious fervour while making occasional forays into the other’s territory. It was when issues like conscription arose that the complexity which characterises contemporary politics wrought convulsive change.

Churches had for centuries wielded overt political power in closed political systems and they had no compunction in a new era of open, participative democracy to continue to exert their influence. The pulpit was used shamelessly to both exhort and denounce as parishioners’ political preferences were confronted by religious strictures. The churches professed to help save the souls of their brethren by telling them how to vote. And to think kings thought they had a divine right!

The seeds of factionalism within Labor germinated in this era and they took root in very fertile soil. As populations and complexity grew, there was now room for an emerging middle class in Australian society as well as a nascent centre, to demarcate right and left wings in the main political entities. This was also the baseline of an existential identity challenge for Labor which came to the fore during the emergence of the Whitlam administration in 1972.

While some died-in-the-wool conservatives feared ruination, much of the Australian electorate breathed deeply of the fresh new air that Whitlam gusted through the corridors of power. At least initially. They were heady times and while the pace of change was bewildering given the comparative torpor of the Menzies era there was an unmistakeable air of excitement that attracted the attention of many young potential Labor acolytes.

Sadly, like a party at which someone has spiked the punch with hallucinogens, Whitlam’s crew exhibited ever more bizarre behaviour at seemingly every turn. Older Australians were initially mystified then became fearful of the consequences. Dedicated Labor voters kept hoping for some form of salvation, unwilling to accept that their period in office might be such a fleeting moment in time compared to the seemingly interminable domination by the conservatives. Younger Australians, though, had not been steeped in the subtleties of economic management and were still more than willing to enjoy the rebelliousness that characterised Labor. Inflation for them was a novelty and did not yet entail the pain of sharply rising mortgage payments.

And then along came Fraser. The Easter Island statue was just the rock to reassure nervous nellies that experimentation was not a legitimate role for government. With a brutality unmatched since Hitler’s blitzkrieg he began unwinding the bulk of the Whitlam’s program.

A major consequence of the drama of these times was the blurring of perceptual lines defining Labor’s support base. The staunch blue collar bulwark was now awash with young, often non-unionised white collar workers. Interestingly, while the blue collar cohort wanted to overthrow authority on the basis of past repression, the white collar cohort wanted to overthrow authority because of the adrenaline rush. They didn’t much care about anything else other than hedonistic gratification. Entirely disparate but they coexisted under Labor’s umbrella because their objectives happened to coincide. It would be later that fissures would emerge.

Astute Liberals watched this and realised it was time to start adopting at least some of the implied characteristics of their brand name. Interestingly, they wanted to cultivate the same reconciled dichotomy as Labor by melding new young things to their traditional conservative base. Their target audience, though, was much more circumspect than Labor’s and generally dressed much more conservatively, albeit with a penchant for flashy collars and ties.

All of this was evolving amid the maelstrom that was the blossoming of the baby boomers. Global society was being rent asunder as never before by a tsunami of students (primarily) who were frankly full of piss and wind, fuelling unrealistic expectations. But they were determined not to be denied. Politics, suddenly, was confronted by full-scale selfishness. Forget ideology: political parties were having their rearward focus on defining causes and philosophies wrenched into a futuristic smorgasbord of idealistic expectations.

The equation changed from I will support you because of what you stand for to I will support you if you deliver me what I want. Consumerist society bludgeoned politics onto a new trajectory. Resting on the laurels of the past was no longer acceptable.

It is remarkable that the term conviction politics emerged later because the period of the 70s and 80s really sounded the death knell of true conviction politics: the end of an era in which political parties espoused comparatively few but very clearly defined stances on a narrow array of topics. It was the beginning of when Labor began to lose its way.

Not that all the changes about to be wrought on the ALP were unfortunate. In fact, the reform agenda implemented by Hawke and Keating was essential for national prosperity. It showed the electorate that Labor had a capacity for sound economic management that had been shredded in the Whitlam experiment. Most importantly, it restored Labor’s internal confidence that it could reasonably aspire to be the natural party of government.

This was an era in which unionism reached its pinnacle of influence on Australian society. A new breed of trade union leaders emerged from the Whitlam years, determined to secure their objectives in their own way if their political soul brother, the ALP, could not master the parliamentary environment. The man for the times was Bob Hawke whose larrikinism softened perceptions of the broad belligerence of the union movement. Hawke’s overweening confidence reassured waverers that he could win out when it mattered. The trust he engendered delivered him the prime ministership. It was a unique blend of professional and personal qualities that enabled him to help check some of the excesses he had unleashed while wearing his figurative Jackie Howe singlet.

Having Hawke at the helm of the ALP encouraged many other trade unionists into the party. With Labor now able to win elections again,  the unionists recognised a new pathway to power, privilege and perks. Unfortunately, they brought with them their take-no-prisoners workplace attitudes and set about cementing their influence in party structures. Labor was to be consumed from within by the very object of its affections.

It was John Howard who reminded the Liberal Party that diversity was a positive attribute for the party, likening it to a broad church. Labor appealed to just as diverse a demographic but over time found itself arthritically crippled by a hardening of its arteries: conference and caucus. The unions straitjacketed conference while the factions did the same for caucus. Rank and file members continually had their noses rubbed in the dirt and eventually realised their influence was negligible. Careerism superseded the branch structure as the means to secure power and the result is that one of the most potent symbols of traditional Labor has been effectively discarded.

It is worthy of note that the proliferation of think tanks has created an alternative source of policy concepts for both Labor and the Liberals and Nationals. It is reflective of the burgeoning complexity of society that policy proposals have now largely superseded the proposal, debate and adoption of handwritten motions arising from the floor of a party branch meeting. A new class of policy wonks has emerged to help society govern itself well. It is a worthy and valuable trend. Yet it should be accompanied by an awareness that it comes at the cost of the loss of traditions, membership participation and core values.

The demise of the rank and file in Labor is singularly significant because it symbolises the demise of democracy within the Labor party. What Labor is left with is democracy by proxy whereby the select few – key union officials and faction leaders – get to impose their will by stifling the vox populi through rigid discipline that brooks no opposition. Debates on major issues are stage-managed in set-piece scenarios in which both actors and audience know the script by heart.

The execution of the rank and file has robbed Labor of its heart and soul. What remains is a pale shadow of a once-vibrant entity that valued its traditions above all. There is no longer a continuum of what Labor stands for and its once-proud standard flaps idly in any breeze that gusts along.

The subjugation of the articles of faith that gave birth to the ALP happened slowly but the cumulative impact is being felt powerfully in recent times. One of the first core planks of Labor beliefs to be jettisoned was the socialist redistribution of wealth. Oh, it still makes many a Labor heart beat true to think of taking from the rich to give to the poor. However, now that living standards have improved so substantially over the past few generations, most people have accumulated sufficient wealth that they feel threatened by the notion of redistribution.

One of the remarkable quirks of Labor’s partial demise is that it shares the same problem with many parties of the Centre-Left as evidenced in Britain, New Zealand and parts of Europe. All have enjoyed wide de facto branding as parties of reform.  Why, then, do they now fare so poorly in revitalising their own structures and credos? As with the fall of communism, these may be portents of surpassing significance.

In the Australian context, Labor has lost so much. Reality forced it to repudiate a foundational core belief: socialism. The decline of unionism has stifled its once pre-eminent cause of advocacy. The exile of the rank and file has robbed it of its conscience. Careerism has purged its true believers. But the most devastating blow has been spin doctoring which has stolen its values.

Spin doctoring, per se, is not a dreadful or diabolical activity. Of itself, it is largely as harmless as public relations which can be described as a formalised process of selling the positive. No, it is the associated activities and mindsets that have led to spin doctoring typecasting the ALP. What initially seemed like clever politics has now come to symbolise Labor’s loss of credibility.

As the party was forced to confront the aftermath of the damaging Latham experiment and, to its hardiest supporters, the seemingly slow death of the Howard era, apparatchiks searched for new voters and new issues to restore its relevance. They relished the apparent renaissance of the Blair years in Britain and copied some of Labour’s political tradecraft that so effectively sidelined the Conservatives.

Back here, Labor’s machine men assiduously cultivated the craft of focus groups. They tracked emerging issues to learn what pushed voters’ buttons. They danced a deadly duet with the Devil as he fed their addiction to this powerful means of winning votes. Overlooked in their lust for success was the reality that there is always a price to pay.

To be sure this flirtation with popular psychology was not unique to Labor. Many are the parties and peripheral organisations who pursue power and are willing to pay the price to get their hands dirty in this way. What Labor appears to have failed to adequately recognise was the gradual loss of its traditional support base as it cultivated voting intentions in demographics never before regarded as productive territory for the party. Blindly, they ignored the impact of an incoming tide of single issue voters focused on their own selfish expectations and how they might be accommodated by a populist, idealistic mainstream political movement. In much the same way that a chorus of canines cemented Pavlov’s reputation, Labor’s strategists won plaudits for their ability to identify issues, demographics and hot buttons. So enamoured were they of these wondrous new saplings, though, they ignored the root rot that was devastating the forest behind them. Every trendy new issue sat uneasily with the stalwart traditionalists. Gay marriage might well be an issue whose time has come but it will not win plaudits from traditional blue collar workers whose innate conservatism has been inculcated by decades of religious conditioning.

As its relevance to traditional audiences waned, Labor’s spin doctors put ever more effort into attracting new voters to the fold. It worked a treat with Kevin07 as a manufactured new-style hero emerged as a totem for those whose identity derives substantially from social media. Yes, it won an election in fine style. But when the real Kevin dropped the great moral issue of our time like a hot cake after his Copenhagen towelling, many of Labor’s new acolytes felt cheated. When Labor kept spinning that Kevin Rudd was really a nice person, many new adherents were mystified, if not appalled, by the torrent of invective that eventually erupted during the course of his recent challenge to Julia Gillard.

If you endorse a sociopath to lead your party just because he can win an election, what does it say about your values? Cabinet Ministers, apparatchiks and staffers are still running from this question, unwilling to recognise that it is a crux issue that must be resolved if the Labor brand is to be revitalised. Just as pertinent is Julia Gillard’s apparent belief that because she has secured the leadership as a childless, godless woman, customary political orthodoxies do not apply to her. Good luck with that one at next year’s federal election, Prime Minister.

With a 120-year pedigree of quite substantial success, it seems fanciful to imagine the complete demise of the Labor brand. Yet the number of those within Labor who simply will not see the writing on the wall betrays a collective foolhardiness that is incomprehensible.

If brand Labor is to be salvaged it must project a coherent set of values. It cannot be all things to all people. It most assuredly cannot win respect without trust. And it cannot earn trust without voters admiring its values. The task is not to chase complexity. If Labor can succinctly state a set of core principles which guide its ambition to play a leadership role in this nation, it will enjoy a renaissance. Otherwise, it will be smashed as comprehensively as the Berlin wall signified the demise of communism.

Learning lessons

As life in Queensland rolls along without the thunder, lightning and devastation commonly associated with the apocalypse, some are wondering what all the kerfuffle was about. The kerfuffle, of course, was the monstrous hiding delivered to the Australian Labor Party at the weekend’s state election.

In the random wash-up of this momentous event there are numerous little things that make one think.

Anna Bligh’s almost immediate resignation from her own electorate despite continuously promising to serve a full three-year term. Yes, she did get the message that Queensland wanted to see the back of her.  And, yes, the ALP would encounter some difficulties in its rebuilding challenge with her still in office. But, for twelve months at least, she could have offered guidance and mentoring to her protégés. Anyone who thinks the Labor rump will not need someone to hold their hands for a while at least simply does not appreciate the human factor of politics.

An apology. Not a word from anyone in the ALP that they are repentant for so thoroughly disillusioning the Queensland electorate. There is a reason that religions stress repentance before absolution. If you cannot even express sorrow for your actions why should anyone excuse you? ALP leaders may well still be thunderstruck but unless and until they can persuade people to take them seriously again their future is far from certain. An apology is the foundation stone for the future. Without it, any new edifice may well be a house of cards.

Dr Heather Beattie. Wife of former Queensland premier, Peter Beattie, under whose leadership the ALP rot started in earnest has nominated for a Brisbane City Council ward in the local government elections next month. Yes, as an individual she is perfectly entitled to stand for office. But it just seems, well, unseemly. It shouts that her husband can neither see nor accept his role in the damage done to Labor. That he remains handsomely glued to the public teat through his lifetime pension (not for a moment forgetting his lucrative appointment by his successor to the plumb job of Trade Representative to the Americas) is surely sufficient burden on taxpayers. But, no, Heather wants to taste some more generous public funding if she wins a seat on council. Nowhere is there a sense of propriety in all this.

Lost in the real world. Prime Minister Julia Gillard fails to wake up from her imagined romantic sit-com in which the Australian people applaud her as their ideal leader and role model. She has vowed to continue managing the economy in the interests of ‘working Australians’ rather than the ‘privileged few’. So . . . would the privileged few include those who have for so long enjoyed the teat of the Queensland government? Would the privileged few include all the ALP apparatchiks who stream from university, policy adviser or union leadership positions direct into parliament? If the ALP could identify one ‘blue collar’ unionist who is now a federal MP, they might realise why they so badly fail to understand what real Australians want from government. And the Bill Shortens of this world who can marry into the Governor-General’s family and who design superannuation schemes can hardly be considered real world blue collar unionists.

Factions. Far from learning lessons at the weekend, Queensland Labor is still rooted in the past. The Left faction which claims Anna Bligh’s seat as its own will not let the Right faction parachute a potential future premier (Cameron Dick) into preselection. Aside from the strong likelihood that Dick would be beaten and tarred as a two-time loser, it simply signifies Labor’s refusal to learn that voters have said they will not be treated like fools. Oh, and an announced candidate for preselection is Jackie Trad, Labor’s assistant state secretary and an architect of the screw-up. Ya just gotta love it.

And then there’s The Mad Katter. Far from licking his wounds in the weekend debacle in which he had promised to become the third force in Australian politics, Katter’s Australian Party may dramatically swell its ranks by allowing a merger of One Nation and the Democratic Labor Party into its ranks. Words simply fail.

Oh, and then there was Hawker. That would be Bruce, once a champion campaign strategist for Labor but as a key architect of the weekend’s debacle, possibly not a future one. His seriously warped world view is that it was ‘probably’ not the right thing to let Anna Bligh carry the massively-alienating attack on Campbell Newman. So, why? Well, the premier’s the one who ‘gets the most media attention and she’s the one who gets all the questions’. Yeah, right. And, you guessed it, no apology and no acknowledgement of personal fault.

Nah, it’s hard to see a Labor renaissance anytime soon.

What the hell just happened?

Those who live outside the borders of the Sunshine State may choose to think this weekend’s state election means little to them. Entirely their choice, of course. But there are ramifications which will likely impact politics in every state and territory from here on.

So, what the hell just happened? Well, the Australian Labor Party lost office in a landslide after holding the reins of power for 20 of the past 22 years. In which case, one might well say: oh, it was simply natural justice – the other side gets to have a go again. And that is certainly true but there are many nuances which followers of politics may find worthy of reflection.

For a start, it was not just a landslide. It was a massacre. Even the powerfully evocative analogy of voters sitting quietly on their verandahs cuddling baseball bats, waiting to deliver judgment on the incumbent administration fails to get the full measure of this rout.

Labor had assumed the mantle of natural party of government after a decade of reform and reasonable economic management. Its initial triumph over the National Party – itself a government in various guises for 32 years – demonstrated the validity of two axioms: power corrupts and nothing lasts forever.

It was after Peter Beattie’s second election victory for Labor that the seeds of this weekend’s cataclysm were sown. Beattie was glib and his greatest gift was empathy. He struck a chord with Queenslanders and they forgave him numerous faults because he appeared genuine. Time and again he apologised for administrative stuff-ups and all was forgiven – until the electorate worked out that the mistakes were not being corrected systemically. Ministers were not held to account and a culture of arrogance soon took root. This was the genesis of the apocalypse.

In the normal course of Australian politics, Labor would have lost the 2006 election but voters proved that while they may appear apathetic, there’s not a lot of things they miss. Queenslanders, largely, were willing to farewell Labor that year but they were simply not willing to endorse a coalition of Liberal and National parties that were dysfunctional in their relationship. Labor got back.

Much the same happened in 2009. Beattie knew his time was up and vacated the hot seat for Anna Bligh, his chosen successor. Voters again were not satisfied that the Liberals and Nationals could peacefully co-exist on the government benches so, again, Labor won by default. This was to prove pivotal.

Bligh became the first woman Premier to be elected in Australia. Two others had achieved the office: Joan Kirner in Victoria and Carmen Lawrence in Western Australia; but could not win election in their own right. With a fifth victory, Labor – and Bligh especially – began to believe they could not produce a bad odour. So, when Bligh quickly announced that she would privatise $15 billion of state assets to help ward off the Global Financial Crisis, voters were stunned. No mention had been made of this during the campaign and they felt cheated. Bligh failed to sell her reasoning and that was when many Queenslanders decided they would get their own revenge.

But while much has been made of Queenslanders’ anger at asset sales, it was not that per se which cost Labor so dearly. The real reason, I contend, is that Labor failed to produce a decent dividend from the privatisation. Bligh still claims the money created jobs but has never produced any evidence that this was truly the case. Meantime, the Sunshine State remains blighted by a lack of infrastructure; a massive debt set to reach $85 billion shortly and the loss of our vaunted AAA credit rating. The signal barometer of Labor’s poor performance is that it inherited arguably the best hospital system of any Australian state and has reduced it to a shambles under which many patients can’t get treatment, nearly as many spend unconscionable time waiting for treatment, bureaucrats outnumber medical staff and a payroll system stubbornly refuses to pay any of them properly.

Just as crippling was a virulent malaise that can be classified as The Labor Disease. This is the insidious practice of spin doctoring. The ALP became a world-class exponent of this fatuous form of power at any price. The astute use of focus groups and qualitative market research enabled Labor strategists to identify emerging issues and pinpoint voters’ hot buttons with laser-like accuracy. Over the past two decades, particularly, they have ruthlessly exploited this capability to inflict enormous pain on the conservative political parties across the nation.

Oh, it is not that the conservatives have not tried to emulate Labor because they certainly have – sometimes with success. But, for Labor, spin has become an end in itself. Ultimately, Labor has forgotten what it truly stands for as it blindly chases any issues which may deliver political advantage. The true believers have been left with no credo. Labor is living a sad fantasy that it still represents the ideals which led to its formation a century ago.

This is the true lesson of the 2012 Queensland election. Brand Labor is a failure because its practitioners have forgotten the fundamental attributes of their product. It is near unsaleable anymore because voters know the quality of the original product has been watered-down so badly that it is over-priced, offers little taste and next to no nutrition.

This is the brutal reality of Labor being left with fewer seats than qualifies it for official party status in the Queensland parliament. This is the brutal reality of electorates that have been Labor strongholds for a century now hosting LNP Members of Parliament with comfortable majorities. The truly brutal reality that Labor must now confront – not just in Queensland but elsewhere across the nation – is that many of its most die-hard supporters have indulged the ultimate act of betrayal and voted for their arch-enemies to deliberately tell their party it has lost the plot.

It must be noted that the staunchest Labor voters generally did not exercise a protest by giving their ballot to an alternative like the Greens or even the Katter Rednecks. No, they went straight to the Liberal National Party – for generations the most hated bogeyman they could use to frighten children – in their droves. Truly, this is a momentous challenge for Labor.

Thus far, there is scant evidence all but a few Labor stalwarts have realised just how precarious is their position. Anna Bligh’s valedictory was an object lesson that those who will not see just won’t ever get it. Her lengthy ode to her own term in office failed to address the factors that brought her supposedly beloved party to the brink of extinction in Queensland. Attempting to defy the adage that it is the victor who gets to rewrite history, Bligh extolled her own perceived triumphs blithely ignoring the hard truths that must be faced if Labor is to rediscover its purpose.

Bligh mounted the most negative, slanderous campaign of character assassination yet attempted in Australia.  At no stage did Labor offer a vision for the future of Queensland. They had zip, zilch, nada. Just nothing. And voters clearly recognised this. It appears to have still not occurred to Bligh that her real legacy is not becoming the first woman elected Premier of an Australian state but failing so badly to capitalise on that achievement that it has set the cause back substantially.

It is just as pertinent that Labor’s opponents do as much soul-searching over these issues as the ALP should. The lesson for those in the Liberal and National parties who are tempted to triumphalism is that the Australian electorate has now tasted a new volatility. The electorate has learned something from this poll. More than ever before voters are today savouring their own power. They proved to themselves that they can forge a new direction if they want to scout new territory. It would be a fool who believes the LNP has won its new constituency for the long term. If it governs well, it may convert them. But if voters who have fled their comfort zone to try this new product feel they have been taken for granted, we now know just how vicious they can be in demanding satisfaction.

The electorate has spoken in a new and compelling way. We must heed their message, not simply count their ballots.

Labor’s straitjacket for a free media

First there was Fightback! Then the pale imitation of Jobsback! And now the damp squib of Payback! For surely there has rarely been expended so many words on an attempted campaign of fear and intimidation than the Finkelstein shot across the bows of News Limited. Three hundred plus pages of walking softly while carrying a very large bludgeon. It remains anybody’s guess as to how the Gillard administration will play this little adventure but the track record of the incumbent and previous Labor administration demonstrates an unhealthy penchant for pulverising peanuts with piledrivers. For sure, there is writing on the wall.

It is essential to appreciate the background to establishment of this inquiry to contextualise the implicit intent of the instigator and any apprehended bias on the part of its instrument. The most notable icons are the protagonist: the Gillard minority government under constant threat since inception, and the antagonist: The Australian newspaper which has implemented a determined campaign to hold our national political system to account. Partisan elements will find fault on either side of this divide and few will apportion their prejudices evenly.

That said, bias is the quintessential element of this initiative. Regardless of any putative bias by the key players, the fundamental freedom of democracy is that bias is not only permissible, it is protected. Defence to the death is the lauded standard of protection for holding contrary views. It is not a law, just an ideal. But it has served us well. Many would accept a practical rider that the exercise of any such bias should not damage another person. Yet the very value of democracy is that its governing system – the particular political process which lies at the heart of any democratic jurisdiction – is subject to a far more robust exchange of views for its participants than the general populace. Indeed, it is fair to say that protection is more frequently honoured in the breach than resorted to as a defence mechanism.

 

Even so, sensitivities abound and The Australian (though certainly not it alone) has, in the eyes of federal Labor, suffused itself with the spirit of Tomas de Torquemada and relished tossing burning brands onto pyres featuring many a Labor luminary tied to a stake. Indigenous Australians got an apology from the ALP but don’t count on any similar contrition for what is likely to befall that merry little band known as Murdoch and the Shock Jocks. In this context it is interesting to note the instigator of the Finkelstein fandangle felt it necessary to label the inquiry as ‘independent’. Nothing like a little spin at the outset just to get things humming along nicely.

 

In a move reminiscent of Goebbels, this interrogation of the media was given an overt focus on new technology and online digital media. Surprising, if not spurious, given the bulk of reaction since announcement of the inquiry has suggested the actions of the technologically-ageing print media was the prime focus of attention.

Seemingly as an afterthought, codes of practice and the notion of redress was appended to the initial terms of reference. And scant was the scrutiny redress received: just twenty pages out of 331. Yet existing legal remedies for poor or seriously inaccurate journalism/commentary – the laws of defamation and libel – have served society for centuries. Interestingly, The United Nations Commission on Human Rights ruled just this year that the criminalisation of libel violates freedom of expression.  Regardless, Finkelstein reports that he has concluded these measures are not sufficient to achieve a desirable degree of accountability in a democracy. His right to call it that way should be respected but the manner in which he proposes to ‘rectify’ his assessment causes concern.

Finkelstein’s utopia is governed by a News Media Council which would have the power “to set journalistic standards for the news media”. Disconcertingly, Finkelstein says the new standards “will likely be substantially the same as those that presently apply and which all profess to embrace”. Which surely begs the question: if it ain’t broke why bother to fix it? Unless, of course, that which the government sees as being “broke” is not journalistic standards at all but simply a powerful stream of criticism.

Another very serious concern is Finkelstein’s approach to his News Media Council’s powers. He professes that “apart from secure funding from government and its decisions made binding” government should have no role. But, in the same breath, he proposes that this is not about increasing the power of government or about imposing some form of censorship. Some might like to agree with Finkelstein but for a QC he is rather loose in the terminology of his recommendations. So loose, in fact, you have to wonder if it was not intentional. How, for instance, is anyone to prevent the government from imposing restrictive guidelines on the operation of this News Media Council? And since censorship is the suppression of elements deemed objectionable how else can one view a News Media Council that inherently seeks to suppress that which it finds objectionable? The price of our future freedom (or the loss of it) may well be measured in the fees paid to Finkelstein.

Regrettably, it is impossible to shake-off the disconcerting sense of a Big Brother regime in the statement: “There will be a single, properly-funded regulator with the power to enforce news standards across all news media outlets.” Especially so when Finkelstein tells us we have nothing to fear.

To this end, Finkelstein should address this concern: if, as he argues, his proposals are made at a time when polls consistently reveal low levels of trust in the media why does the government ignore the exact same conclusion about politicians in those very same polls? And what the hell are we to make of a bolstering argument that contends the outcomes of this review have been driven, in part, by polls?

There are some illuminating insights into how Finkelstein approached his brief. For instance, Section 11 of the report entitled Reform seeks to answer the question: “Is there a problem?” Hey presto, the answer appears on the next line which asks: “What are the social costs of the problem and who bears them?” Nothing like an open mind to begin with!

There are a few items of curious terminology. Finkelstein offers readers a section entitled: Some key terms. It is as illuminating as a black hole, offering just two items. “News media” which advises us that the report does not purport to deal with other forms of media though attempts at various distinctions could have been fascinating. The second is “press” which we are told is used as a generic descriptor for the news media in certain contexts, including broadcasting, online and print. The omissions are glaring, given that one of the terms of reference he was charged with investigating was “the level of investment in quality journalism”. Quality journalism! How can one reasonably explore this concept if the term itself is not even defined? Similarly, for “independent journalism”. Is, say, The Drum reflective of independent journalism? Whatever way the question might be answered is irrelevant compared to what arguments might be propounded for either affirmative or negative. But Finkelstein doesn’t dare. Similarly, another term of reference was to determine whether the media operate in the “public interest”. Gee, we could have had another 300 pages just to cover that one but sadly it, too, suffered scant elaboration.

What does leave one with a queasy feeling is that the government of a free-market democracy decides it must question “the traditional business model for media organisations”. In the best of circumstances this would be of real concern. When promulgated by those who brought us the flammable ceiling batts debacle and the profligate school hall debacle and a resources rent tax debacle and a Treasurer who reverts to socialist attacks on the wealthy, you have to wonder. No, you can’t spot an agenda in there anywhere. Until it is expressed in the oxymoronic question posed by Gillard et al: “Is there a need for additional support to assist independent journalism”? Well, if it is to be editorially independent, should it not it be financially independent?

Similarly, Finkelstein was tasked with investigating the removal of obstacles that may hinder small-scale publications as well as promoting ease of entry to the media market. Here is another reversion to socialist principles of picking and choosing winners and losers in a supposedly free market. Bad enough in any customary area of economic activity but when it impinges on the free flow of information and the influencing of opinion then, no, we do not want such interference in our democratic way of life.

Interesting that Finkelstein himself has thus far refused to be interviewed about his approach and the conclusions of his report. Scoffers who scurrilously suggest he fears a biased reception have been put in their place by his avowedly pious proposal that it is, rather, a desire not to pre-empt discussion of the report. But it is passing strange that he then says he did “not think it fair to speak to individual members of the media lest it be thought I am showing preference to some over others”. So we are left to contemplate that the man charged with assessing potential bias in the nation’s media feels so inadequate to avoid perceptions of personal bias that he must shun the very industry he has been probing. The only thing stranger than that would be Julia Gillard praising Kevin Rudd at the launch of Anna Bligh’s Queensland re-election campaign launch. True story, no bias.

Sadly, the standard of commentary on the Finkelstein report reaches a nadir (in The Australian of all places) when Tom Morton, director, Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at UTS  claims, inter alia, the impetus for establishing the inquiry came not from a desire by governments to muzzle the press but from profound public revulsion at the revelation that News of The World journalists had hacked into Milly Dowler’s voicemail. Anyone reckon an umprompted cold canvass of Australians would achieve even a 1% recognition factor for Milly Dowler? Hmm . . .

The comment certainly illuminates the relevant but peripheral issue of just what Australian universities are teaching in their journalism courses these days. Maybe an incoming federal administration could instigate an independent inquiry into the postmodern proclivities of teachers rather than doers who delve into the depths of digital doggerel? Just a thought.

However, this all plays out, it is nearly a certainty that Finkelstein is just an appetiser and that fevered brows in Labor’s labyrinths are cooking-up a main course that may well feature stuffed Oz with shock jock courgettes.

 

A Greek tragedy played upon a very large stage

So, what is with these Greek tragics?

They are on the brink of destroying their country. They are on the brink of destroying the European Union. They are on the brink of destroying the global economy. But none of it is their fault!

Not since Hitler portrayed genocide as a recycling enterprise has anyone so distorted an inescapable truth. On any reasonable assessment the Greeks present as a pitiful bunch of frequently anarchist whingers who are so self-centred and wilfully unaccepting of reality that they deserve the fate from which everyone else is so desperately trying to save them.

Such is the intransigence of the Greek community to accept their role in the country’s economic demise that it engenders a strong desire to simply wash one’s hands of them. If that sounds harsh, consider cancer: in many of its manifestations, one has to excise it in order to save the patient. And, by any measure, Greece currently is a canker upon the body corporate.

Except that their fate is inextricably entwined with our own. They sneeze, we get the flu. Cutting-out this growth would be like operating on oneself without anaesthesia, using a bread and butter knife and hindered by a blindfold. One might get rid of the growth but the collateral damage doesn’t bear thinking about.

So, the world is left to confront several very unpalatable scenarios:

• Is the concept of most nations forming a truly global economy in which member states are, by default, participants in a community which rises and falls by the actions of even the least of its number, a patently flawed premise?

• Was it better when recalcitrant states that acted in a manner offensive to their neighbours were invaded and put to the sword until they regained, if not a sense of reality, then at least acceptance of the status quo

• Is a ‘civilised’ community justified in punishing a member who behaves in a barbarous way?

If, as remains a dreadful possibility, this Greek-inspired European crisis does still trigger a global financial crash worse than the Great Depression, untold millions of us who suffer the consequences will have way too much time to think about such things.

Which does raise the fundamental question: are most Greek citizens unfeasibly arrogant, unutterably selfish or just plain stupid?

Anyone who thinks these are unnecessarily harsh options has not adequately considered the potential consequences of this all-too serious farce.

At best, one can sympathise with those Greeks who stand to suffer very harsh financial and social concsequences if their national economy collapses further or even if the medicine they are forced to take actually works. It will be a tragedy of grievous dimension for them.

Even so, one cannot ignore what led to this sad state of affairs: you cannot live beyond your means without a reckoning. To a greater or lesser extent almost every human alive has learned the fundamental lesson: if you have not got the means to pay for something and you cannot commit to a viable repayment scheme to facilitate purchase of it on terms, then you cannot afford it. There is no escaping the ultimate corollary: if you cannot afford it, you should not have it.

Surely this is as obvious as banging any of your appendages with a hammer, hard, and finding it hurts.

You do not even have to go to school to learn this. Life will teach it to you in a bewildering array of ways, and has done so throughout history, because it is a fundamental underpinning of our global civilisation. Trade, in even its most basic form, is essential to developing a civilisation. Without the exchange of meaning inherent in any act of trade or barter, development is stifled and progress is impaired. Civilisation is not and cannot be onanistic: it has to reflect a collective.

So the Greeks surely should, at some stage, give reasonable recognition to the harm they may be about to do to the rest of the world. Yet still they refuse.

They deny they have enjoyed protected workplaces with unrealistic benefits and inflated wages and unaffordable retirement subsidies for decades. They have had a distinctive preference for indulging socialist and communist parties. Perhaps that is the true lesson of this failure of their modern state: magic pudding economics as preached and practised by socialist/communist parties cannot deliver the heroic images of a workers’ paradise they so wilfully portray. This Greek tragedy may well have started innocently enough decades ago but it has proved, ultimately, to be insidiously debilitating. There is, and can be, no soft landing because the sheer extent of the indulgence the Greeks have deluded themselves they were entitled to is a farce. Worse, it is now a tragedy.

None of us would want to go through what so many Greek citizens may have to. Yet, if they do not, most of the rest of us may have to share their pain. Who among us is so altruistic as to sacrifice personal wealth and wellbeing for a nation of deluded indulgents? They may have given us democracy and we should be grateful. But we need to forever reject their version of economics.

Games the media play

Australia faces a crisis of leadership. That much is obvious from even a cursory assessment of leading opinion polls.

Our traditional loyalty to major political parties waxes and wanes but does not deviate all that much from norms that have been established over a few decades. Few of us are swingers, no matter how much some might secretly fancy that appellation in a sexual context. Seems that as chaste as we are in the bedroom, so we are at the ballot box.

But we do demonstrate a judgmental streak in our performance assessment of political leaders. A few soar as high as a kite for a while – especially if they disburse the public purse to enhance their standing with voters – but once we get to know them their appeal usually fades as quickly as a sunset in the tropics.

So, if we accept the principal pillar of democratic practice – that the majority view should prevail – where do we turn if effectively all of the key political leaders on offer make us turn up our toes? It is a pathetic state of affairs any way you look at it.

This dearth of talent and appeal at the heart of our political process makes wonderful grist for the media mill. Outlets of public record have a field day, every day, in creating controversy, fomenting frustration and stimulating scandal. Keep those presses printing, those valves vibrating and those dishes disseminating is their unstated mantra since large audiences attract large advertising budgets. It is a capitalist media proprietor’s wet dream.

Does it serve the public good? Not very well. Then again, it is not an obligation on the free ‘press’ to do so. They are entitled to challenge their audiences in any way they see fit so long as they adhere to fundamental standards of honesty, accuracy and right of reply.

Even so, they should be subject to scrutiny and the current contretemps over federal leadership of the Labor Party raises issues of substance.

Speculation about leadership challenges and spills has proven to be a touchy subject for mainstream media over the past two decades when questioned about their role. It is a perfect bookend to the chicken and egg conundrum. Does their reporting and speculation tend to cultivate a challenge or do they scrupulously maintain balance and simply respond to events without attempting to lead debate?

Absolutely nothing is provable in the ephemeral mists of leaks, background briefings and  protected sources. However, anyone familiar with the political process and political reportage would appreciate just how easily media influence and stimulus can engineer self-fulfilling predictions that are presented as genuine analysis.

It is arguable that The Australian (among other media outlets) has done much to bring the current impasse between Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd to a head. It is doubtful there has been a deliberate ‘conspiracy’ to create a leadership crisis but journalistic instincts suggest very strongly that analysis has preceded events fairly frequently in this particular episode. That does not for a moment ignore that Kevin Rudd has a pathological determination to win back the prime ministership no matter what the cost to the ALP or that Julia Gillard’s lacklustre performance as PM has legitimately raised questions about her competency for the office.

The temptation for journalists and other apparatchiks to want to be more than bit players in the occasional major production dramas on the national stage is alluringly seductive. They would hardly be human if they did not get caught-up in the addictive adrenaline rush of impending crisis. Some, of course, cannot accept they signed-on to be a member of the chorus only. These are the real trouible-makers. But all should appreciate their moral and ethical obligations to fulfill their respective roles without subverting the process in an attempt to play kingmaker no matter how far removed they might be from the centre of the action.

There is no viable means of preventing media from influencing political outcomes: such interventions are a small price to pay for the vital privilege of a free press. Nor should it be overlooked that influencing events can happen serendipitously as much as intentionally. Our challenge as consumers of the media is to be aware and alert to how the game is played and remain mindful of the nuances of what is happening. It is an arcane art to read between the lines but it is a bulwark of protecting our democracy. Vigilance and freedom need each other.

Not since the bombing of Darwin . . .

Don’t worry about stopping the boats; turn back the planes!

Mad Hatter says his KAP-gun party – The Redneck Rifles – have their sights trained on a new breed of infiltrators. These skilled subversives are not stealthily storming the barricades like the good foot-sloggers of yesteryear. No, these are modern-day guerrillas employing contemporary assault tactics.

Just like airborne commandos they get flown to their target but they no longer have to parachuite to ground, instead their pay-masters charter massive jets and land them safely and pleasantly into the territory they are fighting to claim: in this skirmish , the vast coal and gas resource basins of inland Queensland.

Still, we can all sleep soundly because The Redneck Rifles reckon they are ready to repel this invasion force.

The KAP-guns are going to mandate an almost Australian-only workforce to deliver Queensland’s extractive resources boom. A token 5% of workers can come in from ‘outside’ but the rest would be true blue locals. The Redneck Rifles won’t let them foreigners sully our soil. Talk about ethnic cleansing!

And, as is so often the case, an economic rationale is supposed to underpin  this xenophobia.

The Mad Hatter tells us: “If the wages go overseas, and the profits go overseas, what is left in Queensland? Nothing but a great big hole in the ground.”

Maybe the Tea Party will tell Mad Hatter there will be no holes in the ground without the capital and labour able to exploit the resources buried beneath. No hole, no wealth.

Ah, but practical realities have never been grist for the Mad Hatter’s mill. Hence his delusion that his posse will rope-in well over a score of seats in the Queensland election – despite polls showing notional support for the KAP-guns at a mere 4.8%.

Yet poor polls are an irrelevance to Mad Hatter who claims Pauline Hanson had a similar level of support in her initial electoral cycle but came home with 23% and 21 seats. Besides, Mad Hatter says the only poll that counts is the response he personally gets wherever he goes; and he loves it!

What does he not yet understand about how raucous laughter from those he talks to is more likely appreciation of his entertainment value and not an endorsement of his bizarre off-the-cuff policy pronouncements?

As Mad Hatter presciently predicts: climbing into a bag of black mulga snakes will get you bitten. The bite from a Redneck Rifles’ parliamentary presence could make snake-bite seem like an infinitely preferable alternative.

There are many in other parts of Australia who will laugh at Mad Hatter’s antics but bear in mind that his delusions of grandeur are not confined to the Sunshine State. He honestly believes the whole nation needs him.

Truly, not since the bombing of Darwin has Australia faced such a threat.

A footnote to history

Electing a government at any level is an act of trust by voters. The bedrock of this act of faith is that the administration will implement good governance for the benefit of the public.

How indebted are we then to The Australian’s Paul Maley who  today exclusively revealed that Prime Minister Julia Gillard has imposed a ban on any of her Ministers taking notes during Cabinet meetings.

This farcical initiative demonstrates as well as anything else just how unfit to govern is her administration.

The lack of trust was triggered by a series of leaks and resulted in the scribbling ban last October. Two aspects are worthy of note. First, a poisonous level of mistrust between those entrusted with the national interest denounces their capacity to act cohesively for the greater good. It is a hallmark of failure and symbolic of the pursuit, only, of selfish ends. Resignation would be honourable but that would be a stretch way too far for this lot.

The second is more whimsical but just as damning. If Ministers charged with the most burdensome responsibilities including the expenditure of close to $400 billion a year cannot remember detail of the juicy bits they might want to leak, what does it say for their mental faculties?  F for Fail for the lot of them.

The ban also provides insight into the failure of leadership by Ms Gillard. Clearly unable to lead by inspiration, she reverts to mere management and a command-and-control determination to bring her erstwhile colleagues to heel.

Ironically, it is an approach that would tug at the heart strings of her predecessor (and, dare we say, erstwhile successor!) Kevin Rudd who so hated and was hated in return by his own band of merry men.

Both Rudd and Gillard exhibit a tendency to micro-manage which, of itself, is not dreadful. But it is indefensible when applied to presumed leaders who have been elevated to some of the highest positions in the land on the supposed basis of their leadership and managerial abilities. Then again, these are the senior members of the team which chose both Rudd and Gillard. So much for their judgement. And the same team which appears entirely unable to find a suitable alternative to Rudd and Gillard from within their own ranks. So much for their collective capabilities.

Not worth a hastily scribbled footnote to Australia’s parliamentary history.

Bligh: a legacy of promise unfulfilled

Anna Bligh appears soon to be but a fading memory in the continuum of the Australian political landscape. Her tenure as Premier of the Sunshine State has left most Queenslanders underwhelmed and there is a clear mood in the electorate that they just want to pass judgment and get on with the next political roadshow. The opinion polls clearly demonstrate that even many Labor voters feel their own administration has run out of steam after nearly two decades in office.

It is salutary to consider why Bligh finds herself so alienated from the electorate given the goodwill she enjoyed at the start of her term. Perhaps it all seemed too easy from the beginning. She inherited the job before the Labor brand had become so tarnished nationally and enjoyed the advantage of a Labor machine that is one of the most cashed-up in the nation with a reputation as arguably the toughest campaigning outfit around.

Bligh was regarded as a pleasant, intelligent and capable leader who would provide a refreshing contrast to the political trickery that characterised her predecessor, Peter Beattie. To all intents and purposes she had what it took to make good. Yet it began to unravel very quickly.

Her moral imperative in seeking the premiership – to leave the state in a better condition than she inherited it – has been a manifest failure. Just a few weeks out from the 2012 election campaign, Bligh appears entirely unable to offer any attempt at a narrative outlining her administration’s successes. Indeed, so busy is she stamping out ever more brushfires and defending a never-ending stream of Ministerial and Parliamentary resignations from within her own team that there appears not enough hours in the day to rise to the challenge. The default position is simply to question the capability of her opponents. This may be pertinent but does nothing to suggest another term in office is appropriate for the incumbent.

The Bligh legacy will be irredeemably tainted by a perceived massive lie (no sale of public assets); utter incompetence (Queensland Health payroll debacle); idiotic strategic positioning (Towards Q2); no friends in politics (predecessor Peter Beattie); nepotism (cushy job for hubby in Premier’s Department); lacklustre team (space precludes a full list of Ministerial incompetence but think of those in gaol, retired, dismissed, and otherwise unable to amount to a string of beans).

Not a pretty picture.

But there was one interlude when a majority of her constituents felt she should be Premier.

That was during the massive Brisbane/Queensland floods of January 2011.

Bligh proved to be a star on television bulletins as she personally masterminded the government’s public response to a disaster. It was a performance that all and sundry rated as genuine, sincere and in perfect pitch with the electorate’s patent need for reassurance.

Which begs the question: if she was that good then, what the hell happened to her for the rest of her reign?

The answer is sadly simple. In that blink-of-an-eyelid period, Bligh did her own thing.

There was no time between running from one disaster management meeting to another interspersed with constant video news commitments to be shackled by advisers, party hacks and spin doctors.

Bligh was Bligh. And Queenslanders loved it.

Of course, disasters have a limited timeframe and the scenario in which Bligh shone was short-lived. The resurgence of public empathy with their leader proved to be a dead cat bounce in the opinion polls once things got back to normal.

Old habits refused to die as the Labor modus operandi ground on: spin anything but a screw-up as a great success; never apologise for an inadequacy or failure; criticise your opponents relentlessly and in the most caustic terms; ignore the need to articulate a vision because you believe you own the mantle of natural party of government; and genuinely believe you always know best and have no possible need to explain why.

Labor’s failure to reinvent itself is the product of both arrogance and tiredness. An election is a popularity contest and failing to offer voters anything new or exciting is suicidal. It is as if it has all become too hard. The Bligh legacy will be forever tainted by a lengthy record of poor administration and lack of connection to the electorate. Almost certainly her fate is cast already and she simply has to suffer the ignominy.

But to be fair, it is worth recalling that brief, shining moment of her transcendence during the floods and understand that – but for the foibles of modern political gamesmanship and the pathetic messaging that sacrifices basic human sensitivities on the altar of party political preferment –  Bligh might just have had what it takes. We will never know. Nor might she.

But what happens from here is worth noting. If Queensland Labor falls off the edge of the electoral cliff how will the machine men, the backroom boys and the hairy-chested apparatchiks portray the loss? You can bet that in true presidential-style, blame will be apportioned to the leader. They will attempt to protect the brand and sacrifice the memory of their former ‘best mate’. The Premier is dead, long live the party.

Bligh may well have blatantly failed her mandate but the blame game by the Labor remnants will be self-serving and shameless underlining the bedrock maxim that politics is not a pleasant pastime.

It’s time to reconcile reconciliation

It is a legitimate expectation of governments that they spend taxpayer funds wisely, even if this maxim is so frequently honoured in the breach. Almost a Greek tradition, one might say!

In this spirit, I am grateful to the rowdy ratbags who displayed their true colours on Australia Day at the Lobby Restaurant in Canberra. Such was the heady aphrodisiac of that eventful afternoon that they had a real morning-after outside Parliament the next day with a burning of the national flag.  Just not sure their spittle was intended to extinguish the flames.

Remarkably, the symbolism of these two events appears to have truly registered on the national psyche though in a way quite contrary to what the aboriginal cause may have wanted to achieve. For many, this appears to have been a seminal turning point. And, yes, it is valid to recognise that these were the actions of the few and not the many. As such they should not be used to hold guilty those who neither took part nor endorsed such protests. Yet, as with a genie out of a bottle, getting it back in can be a bugger.

Over the past four decades we have provided untold assistance packages, welfare programs, support services, interventions and just plain handouts to assist the cause of aboriginal betterment. But on every front we are told that things have not improved and may even have become worse. How could this be? It is clear to all that real change has not been achieved.

It is time for a reconciliation of accounts to determine value for money.

It is time to uncover the truth of what four decades of assistance have achieved.

It is time for a Royal Commission into aboriginal welfare.

Let us start with tallying the outlays. So, from the instigation of the aboriginal tent embassy in Canberra let us be told just how much funding has been applied to aboriginal betterment, welfare, reconciliation and allied issues. This is the foundation of any assessment. Debate as to effectiveness may well be inconclusive yet it is surely a debate that must be had. We keep getting told, after all, that the eyes of other nations are upon us as we consider amending our constitution to entrench aboriginal advancement. Frankly they appear to have their own share of problems. Certainly, the down-trodden, oppressed masses in the rest of the world could only pray for the largesse the Australian people have lavished on our own indigenous peoples.

And while on the subject of the so-called aboriginal tent embassy, let us acknowledge the farce that it is. After four decades, any potency of symbolism has waned to the point of irrelevance. Worse is that the occupiers appear entirely unaware of the fraudulent nature of their ‘permission to remain’. If there is a sadder example of white, middle-class patronage than the generally well-off Canberra residents tolerating this smudge on their otherwise orderly landscape, it is difficult to imagine. How smug they must generally feel to know they are playing their part in the advancement of indigenous people by letting them have their little plaything in the heart of town. Such a patroinising pat on the  head. Quite sad, really, but there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

As for the rest of us racist, rapist invaders, let us shrug off the yoke of tyranny we allegedly have imposed on this land’s traditional owners. Let us treat them with the respect they deserve and be mindful of the injustice their forebears suffered. Yet history cannot be rewritten. What has been done cannot be undone and none of us today had any part in the events of yesteryear so we cannot legitimately bear the guilt some try to impose on us. Those who cannot or will not get over their grievances must pay the price of such angst. But if they wish to bite the hand that feeds them then let them at least know how much feed they have had.