Politics in the long election campaign
Looking forward to three months of political trivia
It’s no wonder voters turn off political campaigns when journalists fail to report on the issues that matter in people’s everyday lives – the cost of living, the security of their employment, adequacy of schools and hospitals, congestion and pollution, their protection from a pandemic, the future Australia their children will live in – all concerns directly related to public policy, and where, in every election there are differences between the policies of the contending parties.
That’s the main point Margaret Simons makes in her 14-minute interview on last Saturday’s Saturday Extra: The media’s coverage of elections.
Instead of what really matters to us, as revealed in parties’ policies, most journalists report on the parties’ political tactics, the behaviours and personalities of the so-called party “leaders”, and the two-party score in the latest opinion polls.
Had Simons been on air a week later she would probably have commented on journalists’ reaction to Morrison’s Press Club address, when they were obsessed by a reports of a senior member of the Liberal Party calling him a “psycho” and a “fraud”, while they failed to deconstruct the economic drivel in his presentation.
It’s as if journalists have been re-assigned from reporting on football to covering the election. But in football the outcome is inconsequential: there is no difference in people’s lives if St Kilda beats Essendon or if Essendon beats St Kilda: each team is focussed on the same outcome, and that is to win. In politics winning an election is only a means to an end, and that end is to realize a policy agenda.
To her observations Simons could have added journalists’ gullibility (or is it laziness?) when presented with a big number in a government statement, such as $1 billion for the Barrier Reef, or ”Record $50 million for Koalas”. To their credit most journalists picked up the fact that these initiatives avoid dealing with the main reasons the reef and koalas are dying – climate change and deforestation. But what journalists miss, dazzled by big numbers after a $ sign, is that the amounts are so trivial that they aren’t worth any more than a couple of column centimetres on Page 6 of the Betoota Advocate. The $1 billion for the Reef is over 9 years: that’s $111 million a year, or about $8 per household per year. And the $50 million for koalas is over 4 years: by the same primary school arithmetic that’s about $1 per household per year. In giving prominence to these trinkets, even journalists in independent media are inadvertently complicit in the government’s carefully-crafted and misleading impression management.
Simon’s interview builds on her Inside Story contribution Here we go again: This time the election campaign needs to be reported differently, a review of work on the nature of political journalism. When journalists emphasise political tactics and strategies rather than issues of concern to people, the result is voter cynicism, increasing the appeal of “outsiders” such as Donald Trump. (But does that cynicism also open up a space for independent candidates?). She goes on to describe “public journalism”, a model where journalism is driven by what the people want to be informed about, rather than what journalists want to push on to the public.
What’s upsetting these people out on the streets?
When we wander around our cities we are likely to encounter some the most heterogeneous groups of protesters imaginable. Some bear the Eureka flag; some, like Liberal politicians, hold aloft the Union Jack colonizing a corner of the Australian flag; some carry MAGA placards (what does “A “stand for – America, Australia?); many carry anti-vaccine placards. Some younger demonstrators would be at home at Woodstock in 1969, while others, with fluoro vests over blue singlets, would be at home at a truckstop diner. Some hurl abuse at the police while others express solidarity with the police as representatives of “law and order“ (whatever that means). The only unifying theme is opposition to the current government and “the establishment”, but it’s hard to know what they stand for.
These groups were particularly active on Tuesday, when they gathered around the Press Club while the “traitor” Morrison spoke (the exact nature of treachery unspecified). Finn McHugh, writing in the Canberra Times, has an “explainer” – Why are people protesting in Canberra? It’s a good description, but he finds it difficult to reveal any unifying theme other than the absence of face masks.
The Canberra Times also has an editorial The odd bunch protesting on the Hill, stressing that we need to understand what discontent lies behind such a cry of “incoherent rage”.
We ignore them at our peril. They don’t fit into any “left-right” or “progressive-conservative” classification, which is why political parties tend to ignore them. Those concerned with public policy fail to realize that while their messages are incoherent, contradictory and illogical, they do have genuine grievances. They will rally around a Trump, a Johnson, or a Palmer, who can pick up on their discontent while ignoring their interests. This is a particular challenge for social-democratic parties.
Political donations: not much light but plenty of dark money
February 1 saw the release of the Australian Electoral Commission’s oddly-named “Transparency Register” of political donations in 2020-21. Anyone with a penchant for generating big spreadsheets can go to the AEC website, but he or she will be disappointed, for there is a big gap between what donors disclose as contributions, and what parties disclose as income. Some of the difference arises because donations below a certain amount, presently $14 500, do not have to be disclosed, and there is no restriction on someone setting up a stream of regular undisclosed donations of $14 499.
Callum Foote and Stephanie Tran of Michael West Media provide some basic analysis: Quid pro quo: donations data shows billionaires and corporations fix politicians for another year. The biggest individual donor, once again, was Anthony Pratt’s Pratt Holdings, with $1.28 million going almost entirely to the Liberal Party. The “Big 4” accounting firms, which have been awarded so much business for work previously done at lower cost by public servants, gave to both main parties – only about $600 000, but it was a good investment in view of the millions of dollars worth of contracts awarded. The other usual suspects – the gambling lobby, the Australian Hotels Association and the banks – are well represented in the 2020-21 figures.
Michael Mazengarb, writing in Renew Economy, dissects donations made by fossil fuel companies: Labor and Coalition enjoyed more than $1.15 million of fossil fuel donations last year. He goes into details concerning a $25 000 donation that seems to have resulted in the Morrison government funding a $21 million project. He also points out that while he found that fossil fuel companies gave generously to both main parties, he couldn’t find any donations from renewable energy companies.
The Guardian’s Royce Kurmelovs analyses donations gas companies made to Labor and the Coalition. “More money than ever”: gas companies made almost $1m in donations to Labor and Liberals.
The figures released on Tuesday relate to a year in which Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania had elections. Writing in The Conversation Kate Griffiths and Owain Emslie of the Grattan Institute trace donations by state, revealing a surge of donations in Queensland and Western Australia, with the parties in power (Labor in both states) attracting the bulk of donations, while at the Commonwealth level the Coalition received the major share. (A practice that favours incumbents is surely not healthy in a democracy.) They also reveal that in 2020-21, 62 percent of the Coalition’s income was from undisclosed sources, and although the other 38 percent are classified as disclosed sources, we have no way of tracing who’s funding major Coalition donors such as the National Policy Forum and the Cormack Foundation: $177 million flowed to Australian political parties last year, but major donors can easily hide.
It will take some time before analysts can pull all this together. Just last week the Centre for Public Integrity released its comprehensive analysis of donations over the period 1988-99 to 2019-20. They reveal a big gap between what donors reported and what the parties reported. This is just part of the dark money corrupting our political parties. There is no disclosure at all of payments for events such as expensive fundraiser luncheons where lobbyists get a chance to nobble politicians, for example. The Centre calls for real-time disclosure of donations over $1000 and campaign spending caps (which would certainly clip Clive Palmer’s wings).
The aged care crisis explained
Perhaps Aged Care Minister Richard Colbeck went to the cricket knowing that the inevitable ensuing controversy would divert the media’s attention from the government’s mishandling of aged care?
In a segment on the ABC’s The Money program Stephen Duckett describes the long-standing and systemic problems in aged care, most of which have been identified in the reports of Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.
He is concerned with the miserable pay in the sector, which is nowhere commensurate with the responsibilities and difficulties of the job. Employers and unions are at one in agreeing that there has to be a substantial lift in wages, but in this sector, because more than 70 percent of funding comes from the government, it too has to be brought on board. The government is shirking its responsibility, apart from that petty and offensive $800 bonus -- “a derisory amount” according to Duckett.
He goes on to describe reforms under consideration, including changes in the funding model which would delegate the setting of fees providers charge the Commonwealth to an independent body, but he believes the whole governing legislation has to be changed to focus on the rights of those in aged care. (8 minutes)
Human rights in two countries
Myanmar
There has been a fair bit of media attention to human rights abuses in Myanmar. Less attention has been given to the decision by the US, Canada and the UK, a year on from the coup, to apply a series of coordinated sanctions against Myanmar officials. Even less attention has been given to the decision by the Morrison Government not to join in this action. Australia has joined with some other countries in condemning the junta, but has refrained from taking any action beyond freezing military cooperation with the country’s armed forces.
Israel
On Tuesday Amnesty International released its report Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: cruel system of domination and crime against humanity. Any criticism of Israel raises hackles, and an emotionally-charged Manichean presentation of the conflict suggesting that any criticism of one side of the conflict is a moral endorsement of the other side. It suffices to point out that Amnesty International is not only non-partisan, but that its investigations are always painstakingly thorough. Its mission is about exposing oppression and providing a voice to the silenced, whatever the nominal ideology of the government involved.
Ukraine and Russia – the longer term
A reader has drawn attention to an article published by the Moscow Carnegie Center: Are we on the brink of war? An interview with Dmitri Trenin – the centre’s director.
It goes beyond the present brinkmanship over Ukraine, and into Russia’s longer-term geopolitical aspirations. The post 1989 assumptions that Russia would fade into the background, or that it would somehow be absorbed into “the west”, have not materialized – in part because the US and its NATO allies tended to ignore Russia’s interests. Trenin suggests that Russia may form strong alliances, including military cooperation or even integration, with other countries. (We might recall the old days when Americans talked about the “Sino-Soviet bloc”).
All you need to know about democracy in 20 minutes
On Late Night Live Phillip Adams interviewed John Keane of the University of Sydney on a history of democracy. Keane explained how and where democracy arose (the Athenians in the 6th century BC were latecomers), and how what we understand by “democracy” has developed as societies have changed. In a challenge to what we may have learned from The Federalist Papers about the development of representative democracy in America in the 18th century, Keane suggests that true representative democracy didn’t emerge until the 19th century.
We are rightly concerned that in our current era democracy is in retreat around the world, but although the circumstances were different, the 1930s were also a dark time for democracy. In those countries that can still be described as “democratic”, what has emerged since that period is what he calls “monitory democracy”, where power is held to account by strong institutions outside the immediate influence of government.
Keane is author of The shortest history of democracy.