At year's end

The Australia Institute ran its End of year politics wrapup as its final Politics in the Pub session and it's one PitP that I did get to this year. Ben Oquist (TAI) chaired a session with four Parliament House journalists: Rob Harris (Herald Sun), Annika Smethurst (Sunday Tele, Herald Sun, Sunday Mail), Bevan Shields (SMH, Age) and Amy Remeikis (Guardian Australia). Somewhat like the previous session on climate, there was horror at the last year but some sense of hope. Somewhat like the other session, I just wait to see the green buds, But it was interesting and informed chatter and even added something for this politics junkie. First up, what's wrong with Parliament: Parliament "doesn't look like us" [lovely observation]; its culture, not least bullying; importing of personality politics into the Westminster system (esp, the Presidential PM); poor leadership [yes, obvious]. Does the LNP need time in opposition: Victorian election night, 8pm, realisation of slaughter; return of Barnaby Joyce and Abbott? Who are they speaking to? Scott Morrison and the election: is anyone listening, answer "No"; Labor has 3 seat benefit in recent redistribution; his "hysterical press conference" last week; Julia Banks and the LNP's problem with women; National security as " a natural reflex"; LNP so bad because Labor has been so good for so long and Labor as "formidable" and as a government in opposition; LNP's best chance at election is just to offer money, it influences some; but no expectation of a LNP win. Highlights of the year: The Spill ("ridiculous" especially given Turnbull was "Labor's greatest asset"; Dutton???); the "OK to be white clusterfuck" which seemed an awareness raiser for much of Parliament; LNP shutting down Parliament after the first Turnbull spill to deal with its own problems; treatment of women, not least Barnaby Joyce questioning paternity of his girlfriend's baby. Oh, and Melissa Price offending island states and 2 weeks later, admitting she, as Environment Minister, hadn't read the recent IPCC report. The questions, Shorten seen so poorly because opposition leaders always "winge and complain" and he's "very managed". Labor was wedged on Encryption legislation but Shorten blinked anyway. Media requires some soul-searching although not all media deserves blame, think Allan Jones calls at Turnbull spill and Ray Hadley with Dutton "pretty much gave instructions". They don't broadcast to many, but they do to NP pre-selectors [I found that that explanatory]. Dutton and the conflict of fewer boats (to save on cost) vs National security as a political issue [I read Dutton has given instructions not to reduce security boating]. Nauru may see some LNP supporters move to Labor. I missed the final comments, but was amused by Ben's wrap-up "Best spot to finish ... on sex." It was interesting to hear these people who are so close speaking so openly although most is in the media if you look or listen for it. Again, I'll just await the light after the storm.


The Australia Institute ran its End of year politics at ANU with Ben Oquist (TAI, chair) and four Parliamentary Press Corp journalists, Rob Harris (Herald Sun), Annika Smethurst (Sunday Tele, Herald Sun, Sunday Mail), Bevan Shields (SMH, Age) and Amy Remeikis (Guardian Australia).

No answers here

This was the end of year wrap-up at Politics in the Pub, chaired by Australia Institute director Ben Oquist with journalists Rob Harris (Herald Sun), Daniela Ritorto (SBS News), Matthew Knott (Fairfax) and Alice Workman (Buzzfeed) and I was disappointed. I guess I have to recognise these are all press-pack journos form Parliament House, so that's what busies them and pays their keep and I doubt there's much time for anything else, and they were called to speak for the 2016 Political Wrap. But despite the concerns about 24-hour news cycle and expectations of continual breaks and the sheer speed of Australian politics, this was all "Beltway' stuff. Probably it is all "Beltway" stuff because of that - the journos are just too busy to have time to think. I was interested that they remembered Turnbull's press conference clashing with Usain Bolt and Turnbull speaking at some club or other when the Brexit result was announced and Turnbull's delayed and caustic speech after the election and Shorten's treating it all like a win and the year as the "rise of the deplorables" and that photo of George Christensen. All jokey, and I guess you need this to survive the blistering pace in this bickering place. And it was interesting to hear of threats to Turnbull and likelihood of another PM being rolled and incumbency as the new burden, of Pauline Hansen as the big winner of the year, that she runs a "slick operation" after 20 years in politics and that she avoids the press and publishes videos direct to followers on FB. There were questions about post-truth and what to do about it (MK admitted he'd been fooled by one for a while - so was I): media has a role, but the public must be "skeptical consumers". About the saving Medicare stoush and opinion vs facts; di Natale representing his supporters who allow no deals with government; economic insecurity not being enough to explain Trump, culture is also important; that disdain for politics has always been around, but it's highlighted now, partly by the double dissolution election (One Nation would only have won one quota in a normal election); about incumbency and consistency and policies (ACT cited here, but demographics is also an issue); about sneering at bogans and need for conversation; about SkyNews as an internal broadcast between politicians (interesting). But not a mention that I remember of the end-game issue of climate change, and nothing substantial outside Australia and nothing at all outside US/UK. So we remained in that puddle of inbred concerns and battling that we all rail against. I wanted to ask "how long can they keep blaming Labor" but my question, too, would have been in the local swamp (excuse the borrowing). As the Arctic melts and our kids' future with it, along with 1% and education and poverty and the rest. Things are mighty wrong and Trump/Brexit are not the answer but sadly no answers here. We all just keep getting consumed.

The Australia Institute staged its Politics in the Pub 2016 Politics wrap-up chaired by director Ben Oquist with journalists Rob Harris (Herald Sun), Daniela Ritorto (SBS News), Matthew Knott (Fairfax) and Alice Workman (Buzzfeed).

More Budget

There wasn't too much new when the Australia Institute ran its commentary on the recent Budget. The Budget has been all over the papers and media for days, and it's a first budget for a new government and this is always controversial. This one is more controversial than others, given the direction of its cuts. For all the hysteria of budget emergency, there were not really great changes in the overall budget position. One speaker said the cut was only 0.1% of GDP in FY2014/2015. But the cuts are real for some poorer parts of society. See NATSEM and ANU Crawford School for some figures. Three speakers appeared at this session. David Richardson spoke of debt. Australia's is 14% of GDP (read, small, esp vs other countries; small vs BHP-Billiton which was said to have profit of $19b pa and debt of $66b). Australia had debt of over 100% in the 1950s after WW2, and also after WW1. He also queried that we are living beyond our means, given GDP is $1.5t and our consumption (excludes education, hospitals, infrastructure, etc, which he seemed to treat as investment) spending is $1.1t. So Budget emergency is "unquestioned rhetoric". Matt Grudnoff spoke of the Worst and Best of the budget. He gave the Medicare co-payment, indexing of school and hospital payments to CPI (the missing $80b), the Newstart 6 month cuts for under 30s and the $6b cut in Foreign aid as his worst (and the Newstart cut as "nasty"). Then the Goods: reindexing of fuel and means testing for Family Tax Benefit B. He also gave an honorary mention for the Deficit levy despite the high marginal rate and its short duration. He also talked of the "rhetoric" around "unsustainable" and "Labor's reckless spending". Then Ben Oquist spoke of the political aspects, especially in the Senate, the "muddled messaging" as well as the "savage cuts". He made the interesting observation that the Right wishes to reduce taxes because "Government is [essentially] redistributive" and observed that we are a very rich country in the richest period of our existence [maybe excepting the gold rushes?]. He suggested the strategy is for a bad budget then to get through to the next election with some tax cuts on a GST promise. But the reception is worse than expected, partly due partly to poor messaging. He considered the Senate's role and the positions of Greens and Palmer and stated it's the "toughest Senate [for a Government] since 1975". And he mused over Labor and their response and whether they can present a real challenge with real policies. Questions were on the reduction company tax and the involvement of the BCA. The rough figures are: company tax is 30% and raises $60b, thus the 1.5% reduction is a $4.5b cost to the budget. [But then, on forward estimates, getting rid of Mining tax costs $5.3b and Carbon tax costs $12.7b]. They considered electricity pricing (where carbon tax made up 9% of rises, widely agreed) noting that rollout of updated infrastructure is largely done now so electricity prices will return to CPI increases. I found it interesting when a speaker noted that it's "harder to lie in Government than in Opposition". Someone spoke of a son and friends at College who were starting a letter-writing campaign, and this was welcomed by one speaker. Someone asked about Royal Commissions and failed infrastructure, with rhetorical implications. There was talk of research on the likely health costs of a Medicare surcharge. (Hawke introduced a Medicare copayment and it became an issue in the leadership tussle with Keating and was removed, so there are interesting resonances with Labor). Martin Parkinson even got a run with his recent statement on the budget. David said it reminded him of Keynes' response to Treasury officials who worried about the post-war while bombs dropped in WW2: "The future can look after itself". Matt observed that it's strange that we are now living longer, and we find this a problem [such is economics]. There was a clarification of the "structural budget deficit" created by tax cuts (permanent) during a boom (temporary) and also the distribution of these changes. There was an interesting observation that Old Business dominates in influence now, and that New Business is yet to find its voice; also that they don't always have common interests. [I heard a solar business leader commented negatively on changes related to climate policy the other day. That's not the lines from the coal industry]. There were some comments on Rural/Regional and how the budget has a disproportionate effect on them, and how they continue to support the Nationals. David finished by saying why Australia can't end like Greece and Spain, as we are an independent economy with our own central bank: evidence is Greece debt 160% > crisis; Japan debt 250% > no crisis. Interesting, but nothing particularly new. And I wonder how much influence this can have. We live in interesting times, damn it!

Three researchers from the Australia Institute, David Richardson, Matt Grudnoff and Ben Oquist, spoke at Politics in the Pub.