Politics
A Liberal Party politician with an independent voice
This coming Monday, August 14, Bridget Archer MP, Federal Member for Bass, will discuss integrity and accountability in politics, hosted by the Australia Institute.
It will be a Zoom session, 1300 AEST. Registration is essential.
Can we re-build the public service?
One lesson from Robodebt is that the public are poorly served by a politicized public service. Writing in The Conversation, Chris Wallace of the University of Canberra describes the path to re-establishing a public service that would return to its true role: After robodebt, here’s how Australia can have a truly “frank and fearless” public service again.
Her article takes the reader through a short history of the Australian public service, covering not only its politicization by the Howard government, but also the cult of “new public management” that essentially stripped the idea of “the public”, or res publica, from government service. The so-called “public servant”, particularly in the senior ranks, became a part of the minister’s personal and political staff. (To their disgrace, some university schools of public management taught “new public management” not just as a competing theory, but as a normative model of public service.)
As ministers stopped relying on public servants for advice and policy analysis, they turned to consulting firms. This transformation was aided by staff ceilings imposed on the government departments, made in the name of “small government”, limiting their capacity to provide advice and analysis. So at great expense they contracted this work to consulting firms, whose motivations were expansion and profit rather than the public purpose. This is covered in the Four Corners episode Shadow state: how consultants infiltrated government, where Chris Wallace explains what we have lost because of politicization of the public service and describes the work needed to restore a true “public” service.
How we get our news – if we bother at all
A few bits of good news about news. People place high trust in the ABC and SBS, and two-thirds of Australians who are concerned about media misinformation consider our public broadcasters to be important social assets. Also Australians are increasingly willing to pay for news, by taking out paid subscriptions to news sources. That’s promising news for journalists.
These are some of the many findings in the University of Canberra News and Media Research Centre’s Digital News Report: Australia, 2023, a major survey, linked to similar surveys worldwide, about how people keep themselves informed through news media.
Of some concern, however, is a finding that a large proportion of Australians say they avoid news, particularly news about social justice and climate change. Those who identify themselves as on the “right” are particularly prone to not keeping themselves informed on these topics. Others are turned off news by what they see as an increasing presence of misinformation, negativity and trivia.
Notably some who identify themselves as on the “left” are also turned off by news about social justice and climate change. This may indicate an excess of preaching to the converted.
Women are much less engaged with news than men: only 43 percent of women report that they have a high interest in news, while men report 62 percent interest. And the gender gap has been widening.
Another finding is that while many have taken up subscriptions to newspapers, young people tend to get their news through social media. This is news curated through a process that tends to keep one guided towards outlooks and perspectives that reinforce, rather than challenge, one’s beliefs.
Cynara Vetch of the journalists’ Constructive Institute, whose comments are included in the report, writes:
The internet has impacted the news industry beyond business models and distribution channels, the content of news is also being shaped by our digital world.
On the ABC’s Saturday Extra last week Geraldine Doogue interviewed Caroline Fisher, one of the many authors of the report: Avoiding the news? You're not alone. Fisher summarized the main findings of the report – at least the findings that differ from common perceptions. She couldn’t find a convincing reason for the gender difference, other than the possibility that news topics are more about matters that are of interest to men. But why are some topics of more interest to men than women?
Essential poll – we’re getting impatient with the government, and Dutton is (deliberately) confusing us about the Voice
The Essential poll of August 8 covers issues in economic policy, the Voice, and regulation of betting and drugs.
Economic policy – people are impatient with the government, but they’re not supporting the opposition
On economic policy the government gets a poor assessment for its performance on housing affordability and the cost of living. Women and older people are particularly critical of the government’s performance.
There is a question on the government’s ability to have an impact on the cost of living. Most respondents (67 percent), particularly younger people (78 percent aged 18-34), believe that the government can make a meaningful difference. Similarly, nearly 80 percent of Labor and Green supporters, in particular, believe that the government can have an impact, but only 54 percent of Coalition supporters believe the government can have an impact. (So why does the Coalition go on blaming the government?)
There is a question on people’s current financial circumstances. From media reports we may have the impression that everyone is doing it tough, and that the situation has gotten worse as interest rates have risen. There is indeed evidence of a worsening trend, but it’s slight. The general picture is that half of respondents say they are “financially comfortable” or “secure”, while the other half say they are “struggling a bit” or in “serious difficulty”. Is not “struggling a bit” a condition most people experience at some stage of life? It’s the 13 percent “in serious difficulty” we should be concerned about. Are the media talking too much about a “financial crisis”, rather than problems experienced by identifiable groups?
There are significant differences by gender (women are much less financially secure than men), and by age (respondents aged 35-54 are less financially secure than younger and older respondents).
There is also a question “In general, would you say that Australia is heading in the right direction or is it off on the wrong track?” There was a 21 percent a net positive response just after the election last year; it has steadily slipped to 16 percent net negative. It would be informative if Essential asked people “what do you think would be the right direction?”.
Considering these responses, one would think that the electorate is ready to swing to the opposition. But on voting intention Labor holds 33 per cent support, the same as at last year’s election, and the Coalition holds 30 percent support, down from 36 percent at the election.
A possible interpretation of this polling is that people are annoyed that the government is doing too little to make progress on our economic problems, but they aren’t impressed by anything the Coalition is offering. If all the Coalition can do is to make up scare stories around the Voice while offering nothing on economic policy, voters aren’t coming back to it.
The Voice – it’s about age
Confirming findings from other polls, support for the Voice continues to slip. It is now 43 percent “Yes”, 47 percent “No”, with 10 percent unsure. There is a significant gender gap (women are much more likely to vote “Yes” than men), and there are very large age differences (18-34 respond 62 percent “Yes”, while 55+ respond 27 percent “Yes”.)
“No” respondents aged 55 and over are much more likely to describe themselves as “Hard no” than younger “No” respondents.
It’s not surprising that “Yes” campaigners are picking up positive vibes from meetings and doorknocking. But that’s false assurance: they need to get to older voters.
Essential breaks down two reasons people would vote “No”: “It won’t make a real difference to the lives of ordinary Indigenous Australians” (58 percent agree) and “It will give Indigenous Australians rights and privileges that other Australians don’t have (42 percent agree). That leaves the “Yes” case with a dilemma: will it counter the idea that it will do nothing, or the idea that it will do too much. (Kos Samaras, in a Twitter post, suggests that people who are struggling financially may have no objection to the Voice, but will vote “No” as a protest vote. It’s the politics of grievance, he explains.)
Dutton seems to have seized on the Voice as a chance to kill what he (falsely) portrays as an Albanese initiative. He would see a failure of the Voice as an embarrassment for Albanese, and therefore a step towards the Coalition’s return to office. Conservative commentator and Australian columnist Chris Kenny is on recordfor having written that the Coalition is using the Voice campaign as a “partisan, political weapon to be used against the federal Labor government”.
A success in killing the Voice could be a pyrrhic victory for Dutton, for it would confirm the impression among young and well-educated voters, many of whom are passionate about the Voice, that he is a wrecker, or to use Kenny’s words, that he is presenting the Coalition as “ugly” and “cynical”.
Betting and drugs – we’re not libertarians
We’re not too keen on sports betting, believing it should be banned or more strongly regulated. As has been the case for at least the last hundred years, women and older people are much less permissive about gambling than men and younger people. There is no discernible partisan difference in attitudes. (So why doesn’t the government make a move?)
There is a question on attitudes to illegal drugs: respondents are asked “To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following currently illegal drugs should be regulated and taxed by the government in a similar way to tobacco or alcohol?” Only marijuana scrapes in with a 50 percent acceptance. There is far less enthusiasm for legalizing LSD, MDMA, Cocaine, opiates and Ketamine.
For all drugs there is a large “neither agree, nor disagree” response. The question, as put, seems to be too simple to guide public policy.
Can social democrats hold on to the youth vote?
In Australia, as in the UK and the US, it’s a reasonable assumption that young people are supporters of Labor/Labour/Democrat and related social-democratic parties, at least for the present.
As Sebastian Millbank explains on the ABC’s Religion and Ethics Report, the political landscape is different in mainland Europe, however, where young people are increasingly attracted to populist parties on the right, such as Alternative für Deutschland, or Le Pen’s National Rally: Young nationalist voters growing in Europe. The parties to which the young are drawn, particularly working-class young men, are different from mainstream parties of the right.
True to right-wing form these parties show contempt for liberalism and the institutions of democracy, but they are not necessarily hard right on distributive welfare, and they share with many young people a resistance to globalization. Notably their candidates are often young and may even be from ethnic minorities.
Don’t make Morrison the scapegoat for our political failings
There is something pathetic about Scott Morrison sitting on the back bench, presenting himself as a “bottomless well of self-pity” to use Bill Shorten’s words.
Writing in Pearls and Irritations and in NewDaily, Allan Patience says “There is no doubt the Morrison government will go down in history as one of the worst – if not the worst – governments endured by this country”. (That’s quite a challenge, when we recall the performance of the Hughes, Bruce, Lyons, McMahon and Abbott governments.)
Note that Patience is writing about the Morrison government, not just Scott Morrison. Morrison had a cabinet, a compliant back bench, and branches that pre-selected and campaigned for them.
Also his article is headed Scott Morrison is a symptom, not the cause, of the decline in Australian politics. He’s not writing only about the Coalition, although he devotes much of his article to tracking the Coalition’s decline into mediocrity and “nastiness, small-mindedness, lack of political vision, vindictiveness, and pro-monarchy sentimentality” under Howard’s guidance.
But he’s writing about something that has affected federal politics in general, including the present government, which can be best summarized as a lack of visionary response to our country’s problems and opportunities.
Julian Assange – running low on options
In June Julian Assange lost his appeal to the UK High Court to stop his extradition to the USA to face charges under that country’s Espionage Act. Writing in the Lowy Institute’s theinterpreter – The vanishing options for Julian Assange – Donald Rothwell notes that Assange still has other avenues of appeal, including the European Court of Human Rights, but he believes “their prospects of success would appear low”.
That leaves political intervention, drawing on Australia’s strong relationship with the USA, as the only realistic chance for Assange, explains Rothwell.
Writing in The Conversation Holly Cullen, of the University of Western Australia, notes that in responding to a question about Assange, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken repeated his country’s hard line on Assange, one pursued by former President Trump: A rocky diplomatic road: Julian Assange’s hopes of avoiding extradition take a blow as US pushes back.
Cullen’s article provides a historical and political context to Assange’s case. Both the present and previous Australian governments have pursued the case. How much more strongly is the Albanese government willing to take it up with the Americans?