Wednesday, August 19, 2015

A Can-ning of Worms

Regardless of the result, the Canning by-election on 19 September is shaping as a catalyst for an early trip to the polls for the rest of Australia’s voters.


Brought about by the untimely and unfortunate death of the personally popular Liberal member Don Randall, the 19 September poll is both a leadership test for Prime Minister Abbott and a potential stop gap for a disaster-prone coalition government.


Early Newspoll results in the apparently safe Western Australian Liberal seat (currently held on a margin of 11.8%) are, however, broadly in line with national polling and show that a swing against the Liberals in the region of 11% is possible.


Whilst this is not an by-election-winning prediction for the Opposition it does make the contest in Canning far more interesting than perhaps it should be.


Canning has gone with the Government in 21 of the last 26 elections and was last held in a Labor Government way back in 1993 in the days of the 2nd term Keating Government. Canning was also held from 1998 – 2001 by Labor’s Jane Gerick who won the seat with a resounding 53.5% of the two party preferred vote during the near miss re-election of the 2nd term Howard Government. Gerick lost the seat in a contra-landslide to Randall as part of Howard’s 3rd term Government in 2001. (Ominously for the 19 September by-election candidates, Gerick also died prematurely from a brain haemorrhage on Christmas day 2003.)


Perhaps on the proven success of the national security and counter-terrorism agenda that has played so well for Abbott from time-to-time during this Government, Former Special Air Service Captain Andrew Hastie has been endorsed as the Liberal candidate for the seat. Look out for media appearances with senior ministers in the national security space replete with a phalanx of national flags.


The Barnett Liberal Government in Western Australia has arguably lost control of the political high ground in the State and WA Liberal fortunes have traditionally been reflected in Canning’s federal polling. None of this bodes well for a decisive victory for Liberal’s Andrew Hastie.


The only other confirmed candidate at the time of writing is the curiously aptly named Teresa Van Lieshout whose pedigree is from the conservative side of the fence with former links to One Nation, the Palmer United Party and the religious right.


Should Canning be returned to the Liberals against this State trend, it will be viewed by a nervous Federal Coalition party room as something of an endorsement of the general direction of the Abbott Government and will provide the Prime Minister with just the fillip he needs to maintain his tenuous hold on the prime ministership. The opportunity to deliver a coup-de-grĂ¢ce on the struggling but improving fortunes of the Labor leader on the back of an inevitable poll lift would be difficult to resist and an early Federal election would be a great temptation.


A loss in Canning, particularly to an as yet unnamed Labor candidate, would undoubtedly sound the death knell on the Abbott prime ministership and would inevitably herald the return of Malcolm Turnbull to the Federal Liberal Leadership.


Turnbull has recently polled as high as 57% as preferred Liberal leader(SMH 18 August) and, despite being roundly despised by many of his colleagues, offers the Coalition their best hope of avoiding a complete routing at the next Federal election.


The inevitable “sugar shock” in the polls that the re-emergence of Malcolm Turnbull would almost certainly provide will prove too much to withstand and it would not be long before he was knocking on the door of Government House in Canberra. 


Either way you cut it, the Canning by-election on 19 September is a landmark moment in the Australian political calendar and will prove most interesting viewing for those interested in the political future of the current government.


Make sure you’ve got Antony Green’s* blog in your favourites and don’t touch that dial.


*ABC Election analyst whose blog appears here:


Wednesday, August 12, 2015

ScoMo - A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

In the wash up from Tuesday’s coalition-party room decision denying a free vote to Coalition Ministers on same sex marriage, a number of Coalition protagonists, most notably the Prime Minister, have come out in support of either a plebiscite or referendum to decide the issue once and for all.


This seems somewhat at odds with the Prime Minister’s formerly stated position, following the unprecedented Irish referendum, that this should be a matter for the party room.


If the motivation behind this is to differentiate themselves from the Labor party, whose majority (but not unanimous) position is to allow a free vote, at least until 2019, it seems a curios tactic.


The cost to the taxpayer of a plebiscite or referendum notwithstanding, the reactionaries within Coalition ranks are falling in behind the Prime Minister touting the party line that the Coalition will let the people decide but Labor want the politicians to decide. 

The Coalition, therefore, has made this an election issue despite the fact that the Prime Minister explicitly stated that the plebiscite or referendum would not happen concurrently with the next federal election.


This could prove notoriously poor judgement. In the next three years there will be a general election, a referendum on constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders and, either a plebiscite or a referendum on same sex marriage. 


Current voter disengagement with politics will be exacerbated by voter fatigue and resentment at the additional cost. And, as Malcolm Turnbull points out, the same sex marriage debate remains live until the plebiscite or referendum “resolves” the issue. 


The issue will remain live until after the election and, quite possibly, until after the constitutional recognition referendum. It threatens to stay unresolved for many years to come. Given the apparent appetite for change in the community on this issue, that can’t be good for the Coalition.


Referendums and Plebiscites

As ABC election analyst Anthony Green explains: “[A] ‘referendum' is generally reserved for votes to amend the Australian Constitution…” whereas “a] ‘plebiscite' is … used to mean a simple national vote”. One requires majority support in a majority of states to change the Constitution; the other is merely a decisive indicator of public opinion. The former is notoriously difficult to achieve; the latter, well, it’s merely a decisive indicator of public opinion.


Social Services Minister and Member for the federal electorate of Cook in Sydney’s south, Scott Morrison, is one right faction Liberal minister who favours a referendum.


Morrison outlined his position on Wednesday evening’s 7.30 program, and, while ostensibly falling in behind his leader on this issue, is positioning himself in the party for the long game and for a more self-serving outcome.


Morrison’s stated preference for a referendum to change Section 51 (xxi) of the constitution is designed to fail.


Section 51 outlines the Commonwealth’s powers and clause (xxi) simply says “marriage”. Morrison’s proposal to include “opposite and same-sex” into this clause is both unnecessary and disingenuous.


Section 51 is gender-unspecific so “marriage” in this context neither implicitly nor explicitly excludes same-sex marriage. A change is simply unnecessary. It is disingenuous because Morrison knows, as John Howard ably demonstrated in the November 1999 Australian republic referendum, a tricksy wording of the proposal will almost certainly cause it to fail regardless of the weight of public opinion.


A failed referendum cements Morrison’s reactionary views and his position as a leadership front runner for the LNP’s right faction. A position that he hopes will catapult him into the Liberal leadership.


However, it might be enlightening to commission a poll in Kurnell, Cronulla or Kirrawee (suburbs in Morrison’s electorate of Cook in Sydney’s south) to gauge support on the ground for same sex marriage. If results follow the national trend of 60 – 75% support, Morrison’s 3.69% margin might not be as strong as he thinks. 


As same sex marriage becomes a defining electoral issue for both parties Labor’s National Secretary, George Wright, might just be commissioning that poll in the Shire very soon.

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Cleaving the Gordian Knot: New Thinking Required on Asylum Seekers

ALP members woke this morning to news that Federal Labor Leader Bill Shorten's policy supporting a turn-back policy on irregular boat arrivals is now an option for adoption into the Labor policy platform.


This would appear to bring the Labor Party into furious agreement with the Coalition Government’s policy on this most vexed of asylum seeker policy positions.  Whether this was done for altruistic or political reasons was a subject of some debate on the floor of this weekend’s Conference.


Couched in terms of saving asylum seekers’ lives and dismantling people smugglers’ business model this policy has had undeniable success since its formal imposition by the Abbott Government immediately following their resounding election win in September 2013.


So what is the way forward on this Gordian knot of a tragedy amidst a growing international crisis.  Will Shorten’s pronouncements be tempered with a greater refugee intake and a more humanitarian approach to processing asylum seekers to appease the party’s left faction or will it be “all the way with LBJ”?


Way back in December 2013, newly minted Senator for New South Wales Sam Dastyari gave his maiden speech to the Federal Senate.  Dastyari is an Iranian immigrant whose family fled their home as refugees in the late 1980s when Sam was 5 years old.  His family made their home in Australia and, with Sam's appointment to the Senate last year, the Dastyari story is a good one.


Dastyari has called for a new debate on the plight of Asylum Seekers and a fresh look at Australia's asylum seeker policy.  In that vein, and motivated by several years of complete frustration with the tone of Australia’s asylum seeker debate, what follows are a few thoughts on this intractable issue.


This is by no means a policy statement to rival Shorten’s and much work needs to be done to bring this thinking from nascent ideas to formal policy.  So first some background:


The opening statement of the Australian Human Rights Commission Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Human Rights Snapshot1 report states that, "For over 20 years successive Australian governments have adopted various policies aimed at deterring asylum seekers from arriving by boat.  During this period mandatory immigration detention and offshore processing have been key policies in attempts to reduce the number of boat arrivals."

The basis of Australia’s Asylum Seeker policy is narrowly focussed on “removing the people smuggler's business model” and there has been a parallel escalation of punitive conditions for entry (or non-entry) into Australia.  The language - 'business model', 'illegal immigrant’ etc. - dehumanises Asylum Seekers and demonizes the victims.  Certainly there has been a sincere attempt from all sides of politics to stop the staggering loss of life of Asylum Seekers at sea but the current policy is aimed at deterring the victims and intimating that what they are fleeing to is at least as bad or worse than what they are fleeing from.


The punitive premise of this policy position perpetuated over that 20 year period is fundamentally wrong.  Australia has the moral obligation and the economic capacity to develop permissive and empathetic policies to support the resettlement of the world’s most disadvantaged people.


Australia has resettled around 800,000 refugees since World War II, building one of the world’s most successful multicultural societies” (Australian Human Rights Commission2 ).  That Australia has encouraged and facilitated such extensive and successful migration over a relatively short period of time is a fact that is not lost on prospective refugees.  The idea that, rather than welcoming and allowing them to become part of this successful multicultural society, Australia will prohibit their arrival; forcibly relocate them to regional processing centres; and, never allow them to settle here is completely at odds with their image of our country.


At the risk of perpetuating the practice of reducing Asylum Seekers to numbers and statistics, let's look at who these people are and what motivated them to risk their lives at sea to get here:


For Afghani Asylum Seekers, the following findings have been published by the Cost of War Project2:

•There are an estimated 447,547 internally displaced persons(IDPs) in Afghanistan

•As of 2012, there remained 1.8 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan, just over 1,000,000 in Iran and around 90,000 in other neighbouring countries

•Many IDPs and return refugees are unable to resettle in their place of origin and live in informal settlements in Kabul and other cities

•Over half of all Afghans do not have clean water and 63 per cent lack effective sanitation

•One third of Afghans survive on less than $1 a day

•Another third of the population is ranked just above this extreme poverty marker

•Afghanistan has the second highest maternal mortality rate in the world

•Afghanistan has the highest rates of under-5 mortality in Asia, with levels comparable to other countries experiencing prolonged crises, such as Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo

•There are an average of 55 health personnel—including doctors, nurses, and midwives—for every 10,000 inhabitants


The complex nature of the Sri Lankan Asylum Seeker challenge is described by Paul Komesaroff, Monash University; Paul James, RMIT University, and Suresh Sundram, University of Melbourne in their article for The Conversation3 as follows:


"The million or so people who left South-east Asia after the wars in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were not fleeing straightforward oppression: they were leaving behind sites of trauma and despair that had become too painful."


"The flight of Sri Lankan citizens — Tamil, Sinhala and Muslim — after the conclusion of the recent civil war largely fits this pattern. The alleged autocratic nature of the regime, continuing human rights abuses and threats to democratic processes, the freedom of the press and the independence of the judiciary may well exist, but they are not the reasons why thousands of people are prepared to risk their lives to leave their homeland."


A common allegation levelled at Sri Lanka’s Asylum Seekers heading to Australia is that they are largely coming for economic reasons.  Komesaroff, James and Sundram’s hypothesis is that the reasons are far more complex than pure economics and that there is no future for Sri Lankan Asylum Seekers in their home country.  "They do not see a future for themselves there.  They are leaving because their hope, depleted by decades of conflict, has not been restored by the cessation of hostilities and the restoration of some level of material wealth."


For SomaliaRefugees International4 indicate :"As of September 2013, there were more than 1.1 million Somalis displaced internally and nearly one million refugees living in neighbouring countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia, and Yemen."

"The government installed in 2012 controls only a fraction of the country, and those areas remain fragile in the face of tension between competing warlords and frequent attacks from the Al Shabab terrorist group."

The plight of Somali’s massive volume of displaced peoples iswell documented and few people could truly remain unmoved by the graphic brutality that is the cornerstone of Somalia’s tragic domestic circumstances.


In Syria: Refugees International5 indicate: "As of July 2013, more than 1.5 million Syrians have registered as refugees in neighbouring countries, and refugees already in Syria from third countries are being displaced again in growing numbers."


"Best estimates suggest that 4.25 million Syrians are internally displaced, while up to 6.8 million inside the country may be vulnerable and in need of humanitarian assistance."


The United Nations Population Fund reports6 that: "As the conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic is now well into its third year, around 9.3 million people are reported to be directly affected by the crisis, more than 5 million Syrians have been internally displaced, and over 2.2 million refugees have poured into neighbouring countries, of which more than 500,000 are women and girls of reproductive age and 41,000 are pregnant. The United Nations expects another 2.25 million more to be displaced within the Syrian Arab Republic and an additional 2 million Syrians to become refugees in 2014.


Television news and Facebook feeds are full of horrific images from the Syrian crisis.  Although later claimed to be an overreach, the troubling image7 of 4 year old Marwan,posted by Andrew Harper of the UN, serves only to highlight the unimaginable conditions being experienced in this most current of war torn countries.  We have not even begun to see the incredible volume of refugees searching for asylum in our regions in the near future from this conflict.

Marwan, 4, allegedly toddling alone in the desert at the Hagallatborder crossing
Photo courtesy of

These are all undeniably desperate people – people with whom we can only vaguely empathise given our comfort and privilege living in Australia.  And yet we, who can afford both materially and morally, to do so much, do so little.  Is there another way?

A peculiar recent phenomenon of our wealthy, consumer-driven society is the concept of the pop-up business.  


Pop-ups are typically of short duration, in high traffic areas, in low-rent premises – usually paid upfront and are used to sell or launch products, be a presence during special events, generate awareness, move inventory or test ideas.

Perhaps this concept can be adapted for our overseas aid program.

A marquee; card table; satellite-phone; and an internetconnection located in the middle of a refugee camp in Kenya, Lebanon, Jordan or Pakistan etc. staffed with Immigration and other Federal Government officials facilitating the processing of Asylum Seekers at source.  Yes, UNHCR do this workalready for those nations signed up to the appropriate conventions but, in this case, we are specifically addressing the needs of a small number of Asylum Seekers who hope that Australia offers them a possible safe refuge and new start.  


The goal is to provide those who apply and pass initial checks with safe passage to Australia by chartered aircraft or boat.  No more people smugglers required.  AN ultimate goal is to offer permanent residency or citizenship.


As well as at source countries, this facility could also operatein transit countries.  Most countries currently used as transit stops by Asylum Seekers are unable or unwilling to deal with the refugee problem on a permanent basis on their own and would be delighted to see a solution that involves the expeditious transit of Asylum Seekers through their shores.


Obviously there are sovereignty issues that need to be thrashed out with host countries but there are already diplomatic protocols that can be adapted and the pop-up concept would hardly impose long-term imposts on the host countries.


But what do we do with the Asylum Seekers when they arrive on our shores?


Our history is replete with the successes of displaced people (Asylum Seekers of their era) contributing significantly to the prosperity and success of this nation.  We need to get back to an understanding of what is good about what we have achieved and how that will be enhanced with an expanded intake of refugees.

In a November 2012 article for Australian Policy Online8 ,Luke Condon from The Allen Consulting Group said: “There is a strong imperative for coordinated action to address current and looming skill shortages in the wider agricultural sector”.  The same can be said in other non-agricultural sectors.


By identifying labour shortages in rural and regional areas,Asylum Seekers, many of whom would have expertise in the areas where we have shortages, would receive meaningful and valuable work - giving them a purpose and a faster track to integration.  Any initial government investment in this scheme would be quickly repaid with increased productivity.


Through intelligent policy development, recognition of prior learning for qualified Asylum Seekers (Doctors, engineers, scientists, etc.) could be fast-tracked and accredited experts would have the opportunity for immediate employment in an expanding marketplace.  A considered expansion, with the goal of permanent employment, of the 457 visa scheme9should also be considered.


Clive Brooks in his article Understanding Immigrants and the Labour Market10 says: “Quite a large number of Australian studies have looked at the impact of immigration on the unemployment rate and all have found that overall immigration, despite the fears of some commentators, does not lead to increases in the unemployment rate.


Yes, there would be the expected “they’re coming here and taking our jobs” protests but studies like the above haveshown this is baseless, particularly when the relatively small numbers of people we are referring to is considered.  (Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection publications indicate only a little over 18,000 “Irregular Maritime Arrival” came to Australia in 2012-1311.)  This is just not that big a problem.


Both Sydney and Melbourne have large populations of immigrants.  Far from being squalid enclaves of isolated and isolationist groups, these areas are arguably some of the most interesting, culturally diverse and bustling areas in our cities.  Yes, there are social issues and crime can be higher than the norm but, in general, what you witness in these areas is people going about their business, setting up small and medium enterprises and generally becoming that diverse cultural mixthat epitomises our successful Australian community.

Disappointment with the major parties refusal to take up the moral challenge and address this issue from a fresh policy perspective is, anecdotally at any rate, becoming more prevalent. However, both parties have indicated continued support for current policies.  The Labor Party is cornered by former Prime Minister Rudd’s late adoption of the PNG solution and fear that a quantum change in ALP policy in this area will be criticised roundly on the floor of Parliament and Prime Minister Abbott’s recent pronouncements in the media seem to indicate, if anything, a hardening of the Coalition’s position on this issue:  “We will not succumb to pressure, to moral blackmail’’ and “[w]e will ensure these camps are run fairly, if necessary firmly’’12.


But Australia can and should address this issue with new vision.  Whether that is done by exploring ideas like the onesabove or through some other means Australia is ready forchange.  It shouldn’t take more deaths before we do.


The Asylum Seeker issue will not go away.  Continued unrest in Syria and the increasingly likely potential for environmental refugees from our own region guarantees that the problem will worsen.  A clear indication from the major parties that new and positive thinking on this issue is happening is well overdue and whilst the Australian public may not get the opportunity to judge this thinking until the next election, I’m not sure our Asylum Seeker brethren can wait that long.


At Labor’s National Conference, perhaps the debate on Shorten’s policy proposal may be the catalyst for this debate to move forward and cleave this Gordian knot.


On-line References













Wednesday, July 8, 2015

A Question of Leadership

New Year’s Day saw the release of Cabinet Papers from the Hawke era and a revelation that then Prime Minister Bob Hawke had unilaterally decided to extend student visas to Chinese students in Australia who otherwise may have been caught up in the melee of Tiananmen Square if forced to return to China.

That Bob Hawke made this decision without reference to his Cabinet colleagues or the Labor Party Caucus signifies either one of two things: the abuse of power by an ego-driven megalomaniac or the astute exercise of executive power by a compassionate leader.  Compare and contrast this to the frankly bizarre nomination by the current Prime Minister of Prince Philip, the Queen's consort, for an Australian knighthood on Australia Day.  The motivation for which is being thoroughly questioned by almost everyone.  Also a "captain's call.

Clearly, this commentator regards the former as visionary; the latter as, well, misguided.

Compassionate leadership, decisive solutions and an ability to “bring the people along” with them are rare and valuable attributes in a profession that has suffered an incredible downturn in its public profile in the last decade: namely, politics.

A recent Australian National University study has shown that under 45% of people regard it as relevant which of the two major political parties are in power and, by inference, wish “a pox on both their houses”.  Politicians are held so much in disdain that the old adage about knowing when a politician is lying by seeing their lips moving has never been truer in the public’s opinion. (

The rise of “personality” politicians: everyone from Pauline Hanson to Jackie Lambie, may be one response to the general demise of the political class.  And this is exacerbated by the rise of the Presidential-style leadership model that has become the norm in modern Australian political parties.

The phenomenon arguably began with “Honest John” Howard and his gratuitous appeal to the “Howard’s Battlers”.  A carefully managed persona, heavily scripted talking points and carefully stage-managed public “events” beginning with the Lazarus-with-a-triple-bypass accession to the Prime Ministership through the morning walks in Australian tracksuit to appearing in front of the gun lobby in a bullet-proof vest following the buy-back scheme.  And this careful image management has carried on until today.  Indeed, it could reasonably be argued that the Abbott Prime Ministership is the most heavily controlled or presidentialized performance ever seen in the Australian Polity. 

And the Australian public have seen through it.

Wary of three-word slogans, zingers and scripted lines delivered like automatons reading straight off the autocue, Australians have turned off in droves to the political debate in this country.  And who can blame them.  Australians don’t like politics but they are savvy enough to know that politics affects them every day.  They don’t want choreographed responses to problems they don’t even know exist in the first place.  What Australians want, and, I would argue, need given the concerning state of the nation’s moral compass, is strong, compassionate and decisive leadership.  Leadership that: identifies problems; proposes reforms; and, shapes the future direction of the nation.  A future direction that inspires us.

And I'm absolutely convinced that the conferring of a knighthood on the Queens Consul is not in resonance with the general mood of the Australian population and does not reflect the kind of leadership we are looking for.

It remains to be seen if there is a leader from either side of the political spectrum out there who can bring the people along with them and provide the decisive leadership that Hawkey showed in 1989.  There are always some glimmers of hope but it would indeed be a tragedy if another Tiananmen Square was required to flush one out.

Monday, July 6, 2015

Polls, Damned Polls and Statistics

A strange anomaly of opinion polls in Australia is that, since the big one on September 7 2013, the Australian Labor Party has enjoyed a 5.5% swing to them in 26 consecutive Newspolls.

By any reasonable metric, a sustained swing of this magnitude should indicate that whatever strategy the leader of the party has adopted up until now, more of the same should be done.  And yet there’s a strenuous debate about Bill Shorten’s continuing leadership.

The Opposition Leader is “enjoying” some of the most invidious and irascible attention from the political commentariat that a leader should endure.  Rather than lauding a series of remarkable poll results, his very future as Federal Parliamentary Leader of the ALP is in serious doubt.  Well, it is with media commentatariat.  (Aside from a few loud and proud warriors on social media, there’s scant indication from the folks that actually matter – members of Federal Labor Caucus, for instance – that there is even the remotest risk to Bill Shorten remaining in the top job.)

In the latest Newspoll, the Opposition Leader’s satisfaction among voters fell by seven points and his dissatisfaction level rose by 10 giving him a net satisfaction rating of -28 points.  (Incidentally, his nemesis has a net satisfaction rating of -27 points – not statistically different - yet the cacophony of the commentariat regarding Mr Abbott’s leadership tenure seems to have died down in recent weeks.  Clearly not from any turn around in the polls.)

These are unquestionably poor figures but they do not reflect the obvious success that the ALP is enjoying and consistently maintaining, poll after poll, from pollster after pollster - an election-winning lead over the Coalition.

Optimistically, a theory regarding this anomaly could indicate that the electorate is looking for other points of differentiation between the two major parties.

Arguably, for good or ill, there is a “struck match of emphasis” between the centre-right and centre-left positions on fiscal policy, general economic management, the role of the reserve bank in determining economic performance and all those other middle-of-the-road policy settings that aren’t reflected by a diversity of public opinion.  (What Tariq Ali would describe rather dramatically as the “Extreme Centre”.)

Yes the ongoing background noise that is the dichotomy between Keynesian verses free market economics is important.  But it only remains so where there is a wide divergence in how these philosophical positions effect the everyday of economics like cost of living, income disparity and personal income tax.  Day-to-day the philosophical basis of economic policy probably doesn’t rate in public perception.  Generally there is little significant difference because that is not what fires up the electorate.

What does resonate are issues like justice, fairness and equality.

And we can see this in spades in the debates surrounding marriage equality, asylum seeker policy, indigenous recognition and domestic violence.

The problem for the Opposition Leader, though, is that the cacophony of opinion about his popularity feeds perceptions among that part of the electorate, who only keep half an ear on the machinations of federal politics, that his hold on the leadership is temporary.  It then becomes inevitable that his hold on the leadership will slip – a self-fulfilling prophesy if you will.

No doubt this perception will be playing on Bill's mind as he faces the Trade Union Royal Commission this week and prepares for the up-coming ALP National Conference at the end of July.
Various, largely unsolicited I imagine, testimonials surrounding Bill’s time as AWU Chief testify to the fact that Shorten oversaw some of the most successful industrial relations deals in Australian union history.  Successful for both employer and employee alike but this will likely, and not surprisingly, be a feature in omission in the work of Jeremy Stoljar SC on Wednesday.

Shorten, like Gillard and Rudd before him, will front the Royal Commission and provide his evidence and I have little doubt that, like Gillard and Rudd before him, he will have no case to answer.

The Royal Commission appearance will have little long-lasting effect on Bill Shorten’s standing within the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party.  A poor performance may well be used by Mr Abbott to justify an early election but remember, those 26 consecutive polls show the Coalition is consistently up to 5 points behind the ALP.  It would have to be a revealingly bad performance from Bill to kick that can down the road.

National Conference, on the other hand, presents a more useful platform for Shorten to cement his position at the apex of the party leading up to a 2016 election.  A nuanced concession to the left on asylum seeker policy, the correct attenuation of party rules for the right and a compelling Leader’s Address aimed squarely at those points of differentiation that actually matter to the electorate and the background noise of bad personal poll numbers will fade.

And the commentariat?  They’ll be looking for the next bright shiny thing -maybe an MP misleading parliament would be a worthy subject.

Friday, June 26, 2015

Hold the Front Page

I am frankly appalled by the rank misrepresentation of events on the ABC’s QandA program on Monday 24 June, as depicted on the front pages of, in particular, the Murdoch Press and how this feeds into the fear narrative gaining prominence in Australia’s national conversation.  


Following the QandA program, accusations were levelled against Mr Mallah which were errant nonsense and extremely damaging.  Statements which I’m frankly surprised Mr Mallah hasn’t referred to his lawyers to pursue a defamation action.


But, as they say, you never want to let the facts get in the way of a good banner headline:

Courier Mail Wednesday 24 June 2015

If ever there were grounds for the government to criticise the actions of the media it is surely for this sort of banner page.


Instead the Prime Minister, ably supported by the Ministers for Immigration and Communications, reached for populist and pointedly inaccurate remarks to attack Mr Mallah and the ABC. 

“… Australians would feel betrayed… whose side are you on?”; and, “Our supposed National Broadcaster is giving a platform to someone who hates us, hates our way of life, supports the terrorists who would do us harm” were followed up the next day with: “heads should roll”.


While errors of judgement for including Zaky Mallah (a man of arguably questionable character) in a live broadcast were admitted to and apologised for by the ABC, the stifling of further discussion of the matter (with the noted exception of Mark Scott’s spirited defence at the 2015 Corporate Public Affairs Oration) by the ABC gives me cause for some concern. 


For my “eight cents a day” my expectations are higher of the National Broadcaster:  I do not expect it to be “Pyongyang Television”, particularly if this leads to the emasculation of the ABC for political or commercial advantage. 


My ABC needs to grow a pair.


A dominant theme in former Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s update to her compelling book “My Story” is her concern that the ABC is now so fearful of government criticism that it is no longer capable of fulfilling its charter.


As Ms Gillard says “More than 90% of newspaper circulation [in Australia] is covered by two companies.  For the vast majority of Australians wanting a print copy of a metropolitan daily newspaper, there are only two choices.  If you live in Perth, you can get Kerry Stokes’ West Australian.  Otherwise, you can have a Murdoch paper or a Fairfax one.  To get a Fairfax one outside New South Wales and Victoria, you need to hunt down a Financial Review.”


Even Malcolm Fraser agreed that “we have the most concentrated media in any democratic country, anywhere in the entire damn world.  That is dangerous.”  And while Ms Gillard’s statements refer to newspapers, both hers and Mr Fraser’s comments could equally encompass the very similar ownership statistics in commercial broadcast media.


Without the ABC where would Australians go for a more balanced approach to news? 


That the ABC is capable of quality journalism is beyond doubt.  Programs like QandA or the recent Killing Season ably illustrate this and Insiders, Lateline and the 7.30 Report are surely the benchmarks by which other Australian journalism is measured.  So why shouldthe ABC cower and buckle under the routine and strident criticism it gets from the government and its commercial competitors every time it holds up a critical mirror or challenges a government position?


Far from backing down, My ABC should double down on presenting and investigating alternative viewpoints, redouble its efforts to call out inaccuracies, vigorously examine ideas and policies and forensically test the claims of all of our elected representatives and public figures.  And I mean all of them.  


A big, bold, well-funded and independent National Broadcaster is vital to keep at bay an alarming narrowing of the national conversation.