Who thinks Denniss is a menace

I've heard it all before from Richard Dennis but the question is, of course, is he right? He's certainly clever at identifying the inconsistencies in arguments for neo-liberalism and highlighting them with catchy images. That both parties are influenced by neo-liberalism but neither are ideologues, so the LNP wants to sponsor coal and the Greens will use a market mechanism for carbon reduction, and Labor already has. Or the LNP will attack regulation for business but happily regulates unions and the unemployed. Or that Rudd's $900 GFC-era cheques were denied to just one group, the unemployed (that was on I didn't know). So the market-is-always-right thinking is dead but to call them ideologues was always to "flatter them unfairly" anyway. One thing I hadn't heard was his answer to Ebony Bennett's question on climate change: first up, stop doing bad stuff and measure. But I've many times heard the "we're lucky: we can do anything but we're trained that we can't" because "we are the wealthiest nation at the wealthiest time in our history". We just need to consider what we want and our priorities. He gave a lovely story of the deco baths at his boyhood home of Newcastle, built beautiful and for free and wide use by the community, when, during the depression, when we were our poorest. Essentially he was arguing for a public conversation on "which public policies spark joy" in place of the endless TINA (Thatcher's There Is No Alternative) thinking. And to be aware of numbers, like spending "$50b for 12 subs to replace 6 we never used" (another good line!) and how defence is never presented as a problem for the budget (yes, and fully indexed, unlike the rest of government). Or that the cost of some generosity with the unemployed would be a "rounding error" in the budget (Comm budget $2t, forecasting error is $5-10b, Newstart increase is $2b). And to be careful with unquestioned ideas, as in "we need to minimise costs so we can compete" and yet Volvos are imported into China. Then some questions. Water as a disgraceful and corrupt scheme, and how Howard promised $10b to "save the Murray" without even consideration of Cabinet. About GDP, that the discussion should be much wider: on what we want, not just a one holied figure to rule them all with the assumption of trickle down. Then spreading the word; influences of behaviourism vs economics; inequality and the bigger gap between rich and poor as a greater incentive for the poor (while highly paid people are incentivised by higher salaries), or how work gives dignity despite many of the truly wealthy never having worked a day in their lives. How "neo-liberalism tells confusing stories", as in "inequality not as a problem but as part of the solution". What follows the downfall of neo-liberalism? RD suggests "democratic engagement" rather than another ideology. Neo-liberalism gave us TINA, which offers trivial choices to individuals but denies society-wide choices. It must be the run up to the election, but I was amused when he said "I'm sounding very optimistic at the moment; apologies for that". His reason was that we now have some alternatives to vote for, after Barnaby and Tony and others "took the party right out into LaLa land". Yep, I'd heard and read a good deal of this before from Richard, gathered some factoids that are worthy of consideration as are a string of inconsistencies in argument. Is he right, not just persuasive? I think so but it's more significant what Australia thinks and we'll know that pretty soon.

Richard Denniss was interviewed by Ebony Bennett (both of the Australia Institute) at the ANU PopUp for a Politics in the Pub as a preview of his upcoming book Dead Right : How neoliberalism ate itself and what happens next.

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).

Greenery

Andrew Barr seems to be running scared at the moment given all the strings he's pulling and offers he's making before the upcoming election. I don't know which way it will go - Libs, Labor with or without Barr - but I expect Shane Rattenbury will be fairly comfy in his inner-city electorate. But even so, this was the first time he'd spoken at Politics in the Pub. I wondered, given he stood to speak, if he's ever attended before, because I've never seen a speaker standing in tens of PitPs. None-the-less, I found his position intellectually appealing. He's not a creature of the party (compare Barr's work history which is pretty much all Labor politics) but a Greenpeace campainer for 10-years after early conversion in the era of ozone holes and the Franklin River and more. He basically argued that the Greens will take positions on issues according to evidence (climate) and community despite an awareness of the politics and this places them "in front of the curve". So Greens are supporting festival pill testing and the tram and MOCCA and fewer pokies and banning political donations and carbon-neutrality. Sometimes they may come in late on an issue (MOCCA, Dickson shops) after considerable press, sometimes they may be incidentally self-serving [like everyone else, really], but they do take on politically difficult issues. I worry about implications of some decisions, like the middle-class beneficence of home solar subsidies and the development-implications (for Barr, probably the purpose) of the tram, even if a pure heart may underlie each decision. We've seen something similar with Greens and new Senate voting and the resultant outcome, even if the mechanism is clearly more democratic and an improvement. But one should stand by principles and the Greens did here, at least I think they did: I will take them on their word for this one. But overall, this is a party with an inclusive and pretty clear vision of the future, and that's good.

So questions? About his self-description as a "persistent bugger", that support from party and staff and knowing what matters was key, and knowing when to "go for broke". About how he will act when he's freed from government in the run-up to the election (Greens are now a little big party, so are "now one of the hunted"). He answered nicely a question about "who is now the enemy": "I don't think of them as enemies", then talked of consultation processes. [I thought, we need more of this]. About creative tension in the government of Greens + Labor and how it's sometimes difficult to act as a minister (eg, kangaroo cull, prison extensions). Several questions about legislation over drug use. He noted the War on Drugs was a fallacy and will never work [no question there] while also noting the ACT is already "progressive" on drugs. Planning: LDA; new government architect appointed that day [I wondered if this could be another pre-election action]; housing affordability; Commonwealth input. West Basin a "tricky development, like the Kingston Foreshore which "some love, some hate". He interestingly quoted a visiting planner who described Canberra as a "party in too many rooms". [Yes, I like that, but the question is, do we end as Amsterdam or downtown LA?]. Mr Fluffy; Safe Schools and Headspace; national vs. local issues for Canberra pollies [funny question, that]; population limit [he sensibly observed there are two causes for the planetary human impact - population and consumption - but that we only know how to control one - consumption; I thought nicely put]. A final touch on plebiscite and Nauru/Manus, although both are Commonwealth issues.

Shane Rattenbury (ACT Greens and ACT government minister) spoke at Politics in the Pub for the Australia Institute.

Enough already

Some people just can't get enough, even after the longest election campaign in yonks. Obviously, I'm one of them because I attended the Australia Institute Election wrapup. It was hosted by Ebony Bennett of the AI with journos Gabrielle Chan and Malcolm Farr. I realised after some time that I had perhaps had enough. I had mostly heard all these thoughts and mostly agreed with them. I cavilled once at MF; that may have been my partisanship, but I don't think so. Eight weeks should be enough for anyone, so this will be a very quick run through. The public was angry, disinterested and unengaged (some journos and pollies felt the same). Disengaged is how Turnbull wanted it. The close outcome is "not such a bad thing". It was a gruelling test for journos (especially for those who had to travel the pollie buses) if not as intense as shorter campaigns. Given it was winter, there were colds and flus. Turnbull had no fun, but Shorten gained energy and won the campaign if not the election. Issues came and went. Labor's issues touched voters. On the Lib side, but what was the role of the budget, did they really "have a plan" and why was their central, almost only, plan to hand $50b in tax relief to companies. [It's not as if trickle down has been a resounding success over recent decades]. Interestingly, MF suggested Scott Morrison now wants to get the whole budget through, so "no more Mr Nice Guy" [is that something new?]. The Senate outcome was "not envisaged at all". Expect deals with Labor and Greens and Xenophon. MF accepted that the Senate voting system is improved, if this Senate composition is worse than before. Obviously, the major party vote declined and this is international (think Trump, Brexit). Stability was a big issue on voters' minds. Questions. ABCC not mentioned during the campaign [well, just a very little when prompted]: it was "just an excuse" (MF). Someone suggested minor parties lacked media coverage, but the presenters disagreed (Di Natale, Oakeshott, McGowan, Windsor were fairly commonly covered). The Greens went backwards, and some "characters" (Hanson, Hinch) are "there for a good time and a long time". Bullying is not likely to work for this Senate; it "certainly didn't work for the voters" [referring to Turnbull's last minute argument not to vote for small parties]. The result can be seen as a correction after the 2013 election. One Nation go directly to voters; they were "very defensive" when GC approached them before the election. What would have happened if Julia Gillard wasn't "backstabbed"? "I have no idea; no-one will ever know" (MF). I had problems with MF arguing that Libs failed with content and message: he seemed to suggest they had policies, but what were they other than a big tax reduction for business and an unjustified promise of trickle down benefits? Turnbull was failing months before when he argued for trust in government then was all over the place on policies [remember the "thought bubble" (not originally my words) policies that changed daily at COAG?] Is Turnbull under the Right wing or just gutless? "Still waiting to see" (GC). Predictions? See more coal [not sure I understood this message]; Libs will [have to] talk more with Labor and Greens (GC); Turnbull will [have to] be more decisive, the quick action on a Royal Commission on NT Youth Justice is an example (MF). Enough already...

Ebony Bennett discussed the Federal Election 2016 with journalists Gabrielle Chan and Malcolm Farr at Politics in the Pub for the Australia Institute.

Katy amongst friends

Katy Gallagher spoke at a Politics in the Pub for the Australia Institute. It felt like she took the opportunity to relax, this being an audience somewhere near her comfort zone, and this being Day 44 of a long, long election campaign and (a few weeks yet to go) and she's given plenty of recent speeches. On top of that, I had to run off before most questions, so even less to report. Her theme was common questions she'd received, and these were mainly about her move to Federal politics and the Senate. She has no regrets; she felt she'd done everything she could in ACT politics; she would have been in ACT politics for 19 years by the next election and in have acted in most ministerial posts. Her decision followed a COAG meeting where Abbott reneged on agreements for funding health and education, so she decided Federal level really mattered [I wondered how she could have thought otherwise]. In addition, Shorten had healed and pulled together a strong team. She spoke of huge differences: close vs. removed relationships; a different engagement with the media; gotcha politics. Interestingly, she observed the Senate was "the most sexist workplace she'd worked in" [then felt no inconsistency in the talking of "mansplaining"]. She has now found her feet in the Senate and looks forward to 2 July. She notes the difficulties of federal policy: "wicked political policy questions are hard". Gotcha politics undermines conversational styles and promotes set massages. The difference between being involved in all decisions as Chief Minister to being just one of 80 backbenchers. Parliament House as an "isolated environment" of essentially FIFO workers and the gruelling task for MPs from WA. Satisfyingly, a positive comment on the commitment of MPs despite what (little and controlled) we see. All interesting but nothing startling; then of to record at Smiths.

Katy Gallagher (ACT Labor Senator) spoke at Politics in the Pub for the Australia Institute.

We notice

Politics in the Pub is usually a weighty outing, but not every time. Cathy Wilcox wasn't a weighty one. Her topic is heavy enough, but as a favourite political cartoonist, her method is light. I particularly enjoy her view of the world and the simple pen and watercolour presentation. How much can you communicate with a few lines! Cathy started with a quick screed on political cartooning: hold up a mirror; shine true light; notice things; show them we notice; point out consequences and follow them; reassure the rest of us; poke fun; unspin the spin. There were more but I couldn't write quickly enough. Then a quick history of political cartooning (in one cartoon, of the King of France as a pear). Then an amusing romp through recent politics with a few tens of her cartoons as a guide. The audience at PitP knows the terrain, so this was fun. There were amusing quips: on Abbott "he had so much to give and gave and gave an gave"; on reality checks, that a large percentage of Australians supported Howard on Tampa; on DelCons (Deluded Conservatives) and their readiness to wreck the place to get their way; on Sovereign Borders and means justifying ends; on the gradual decline as once-offensive becomes normalised [think data retention and security legislation]. She responded to questions: about the "frisson" that indicates a successful cartoon; on materials (pencil, ink lines, watercolours, sometimes coloured pencils, and the pleasure of feeling paper); how the working day pans out; how she came to cartooning; on avoidance of topics and self-censorship; on cartoonists being sued and what's appropriately public or private. Amusing.

Cathy Wilcox (cartoonist) spoke at Politics in the Pub for the Australia Institute. Search images of "Cathy Wilcox cartoonist" or Cathy's website for a screed of her cartoons and a good laugh.

Cathy Wilcox website

Thanks to Cathy for permission to display my photos of her cartoons here

Having a Barr of this?

I have problems with the tram, but even so I warmed to Andrew Barr. I've investigated the light rail issue, and I feel reasonably comfortable with my position: it's expensive, won't change much and is unsuitable for this implementation in this town (I'm not alone in questioning the tram, joining auditors, transport researchers, Infrastructure Australia, Productivity Commission and more). There's more but that not the key issue here. Suffice to say, my tram problems are reasonably well based and secure. I went to Politics in the Pub to hear what might come up. The tram didn't (other than a few defensive references by AB himself). Obviously he's a politician and it's an election year, so he's spruiking, but his points appealed to me and appeared "progressive" in a real meaning of the word, meaning looking to prepare for a future. (I don't like the "progressive" label for left-wing: it looks to me like a bit of po-mo/marketing-aware thought management). Ben Oquist introduced him generously: "real agility and innovation in government"; "visionary", gutsy; "a knowledge when things are being done well". (I wondered here about business planning for the tram). I came around as AB spoke of "ideas boom" as motherhood, where detail and implementation are the real test (so true). Then observing that most services in Australia (other than foreign affairs and defence) are done at state level. He spoke of the move to land taxes and Turnbull's praise at some time late last year. That stamp duty raises 25% or revenue from 11% of tax payers. That Canberra has record employment despite a 3% APS cut in the recent budget. That Canberra must remain open to new investment and engage with international partners (in this context, he mentioned Singapore Airlines' decision to come to Canberra). And we are ready for it, with the most educated population in Australia, the happiest and healthiest and longest living and most employed. That 1/9 Canberrans work or study in our universities; 1/10 have ICT quals; 1/3 have post-grad quals (double the national average). He highlighted ACT strengths as renewables (seeking 100% by 2025); divestment (?); public transport; energy and a challenge as "staying ahead of the regulatory curve" (eg, early regulation of Uber, autonomous vehicles). And ACT is the most LGBTI friendly city, a refugee welcoming zone and has the highest (work?) participation of women.

Then questions. Interactions of upcoming Commonwealth and ACT elections, including issues like LGBTI, climate, renewals, public transport. Something about Uber and driverless cars (I wonder about Uber as a multinational coordinator that pays little tax in Australia: we might like ride-sharing but do we ultimately benefit?). Housing regulations and climate change/environment. Labor support for VFT and NBN, as services and as infrastructure investments. A Royal Commission on Mr Fluffy (AB said, given Commonwealth and NSW positions, it won't happen). An angry person on slum landlords and trams to Belconnen and a lost house and the UC Public Hospital. A teacher on CIT and private providers. Something on house downsizing for retirees. Something I didn't quite catch on psychiatric help in schools (?). Involvement of the public in developing and communicating decisions (I warmed to a comment from AB that there are real difficulties, eg, people enter the conversation at different times). Then about Australian democracy. AB stated that States will never be abolished, but more states could be created to work regionally like ACT; regionalism is a positive path, helps with coherence of agendas; that cooperative and competitive approaches to federalism must be balanced; that incentives are how the Federal government influences that States ("there's no safe place between a premier and a pot of money". And a final one about protecting the Safe Schools program: AB committed to maintain it if it's defunded by the Commonwealth.

He made just one attack on the Canberra Liberals, as I remember, in the context of Safe Schools. About this being the most conservative of any state Lib branches, in these, the most left-leaning of electorates. I've worried about that and observed the strong-right leaning Zed Seselja replacing the moderate Gary Humphries. Just one other thing I'll mention, and this in context of public transport. Partly to be humourous, he called an instantaneous straw poll: should a VFT go to the Airport or Civic? The vote was for Civic. I didn't vote and neither did the guy next to me. We agreed it was impossible to make a decision without more information, costings, alternatives, etc. I guess it's a mountain from a molehill, but the very idea you could ask for judgement from the uninformed seemed foolish and contentious.

Andrew Barr (Chief Minister, ACT) spoke at Politics in the Pub for the Australia Institute.

A new man?

Sam Dastyari spoke at the Politics in the Pub and I agreed with all he said but I remain unconvinced. It's relevant that the first question was from Ben Oquist, now head of the Australia Institute, referencing how he moved so far from the political warrior of the NSW Labor Right to this almost-Marxian position. Strange, that. Not impossible, of course, but worthy of some reticence. SD is young (now 33?) and has been involved in Labor politics at an organisational level since age 16, so he's had time, and it's a common enough thing for people involved in politics to change ideas, often markedly. They live with it every day; they think it; they should be prepared to honestly reconsider positions. So where is he now? He spoke about "Who really runs Australia". He had thought Parliament, PM, institutions have that power, but PMs change (recently very frequently). His answer is the major companies. He mentioned 10 (four banks, three miners, two grocery, one telco (you can guess the names) but I expect it could expand to the BCA group. He told of being shocked on coming to Canberra, of changing ideas of where power resides, of marketing budgets for political causes and ubiquity of lobbyists. He argued not just that they have influence, but that they drown out all other influence. He reminded us of the richest 7 Australians having the wealth of the bottom 20% and similar stats. Interestingly, he said the answer is in the market, through increased competition (I'd add, for influence, not just profit). He reminded us of bank corruption and lack of action and FOFA, of the mining campaign against the "super-profits tax" (which would actually have helped smaller miners, but at the cost of the biggest players). He mentioned the fightback in support of FOFA, by COTA, Choice, Seniors, victims, Australia Institute. He suggested things are boiling, the public is seeing though the marketing lines, anger and frustration is building as shown by politics outside parties, of left and right: Bernie Sanders, Trump, Jeremy Corbyn, National Front, Golden Dawn.

Then questions. We need more than a Federal ICAC: he suggested a Serious Fraud Office to investigate public and private fraud (apparently the UK has one). There is always resistance to giving up power; Labor must change or be "part of a shrinking pie". Previous exposure to power is useful to recognise power in Parliament, but his experience didn't prepare him for the Commonwealth Parliament. Tax is "boring shit" but essential for fairness. An example? The largest cleaning company in Australia pays less tax than each of its cleaners (!) [I can only think of Warren Buffett: "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning". Quoted in "In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning" by Ben Stein, in The New York Times, 26 Nov 2006]. He argues the suggestion that multinationals will leave Australia because they are taxed is bunkum: they are here for profit and profit is what is taxed. BTW, he doesn't query tax or making profit - he's actually no Marxist - but he does argue for competition and distribution of influence. He sees the big local corporations as more the problem than multinationals. The solution? The "market-based solution is a competitive environment". ACCC does great work given its "devastating" budget cuts. The "effects test" would have been good for competition. Another example: credit cards, where interest may be 22% while the cost of money is 2%. Surprisingly and interestingly, he argued that the Labor's centre left had been very successful, referencing the timespan post 1960s. Healthcare, education, multiculturalism and finance matters were on the agenda under Whitlam and are essentially in place (an interesting view and impressive evidence: we are different from then). But the centre-left needs to think where to next. He suggests decentralisation of power. There were questions of the decline of institutions, not least Parliament and Public Service, but maybe times have changed and institutions are not natural, but can change (another interesting thought). In response to a question about Murdoch and News Ltd not being in the "Top 10", he spoke of dominance, but shrinking power. Then of employee empowerment in the past by awareness that they kept their jobs with profits; but now managers are measured on an ability to restructure to reduce visible profit and tax. The High Court's latest decision on refugee returns to Nauru and the US 14th Amendment was raised; the debate is "so polarised, so emotional" that conversation is impossible. And a final few words on decentralisation of power and the twisting effect of fund raising (eg, US pollies spend 85% on their time on fundraising, so influence is inevitable, even without corruption). He admitted his major fund-raising role in the NSW Right.

So, his thoughts, or at least his words were good. I remain skeptical, perhaps too cynically, by this easily spoken pollie, but I'll watch and listen more over time. Certainly, I liked what he said and I was not alone in that.

Sam Dastyari (Labor, Senate) spoke at Politics in the Pub for the Australia Institute.

The insiders

It was an end-of-year let-hair-down take on Politics in the Pub. An insiders' affair. Rob Harris and Alice Workman are journalists, for the Sun Herald and TripleJ, Murdoch and ABC. They present the Silent Majority podcast. I hadn't heard of them before but they are a hoot and are apparently a hit around Parliament House. It's not unexpected or unlikely. Parliament House is a close and intense environment and these things develop in such an environment. I should listen (I haven't) and I'd probably learn a lot: about the characters and their backgrounds and motivations. They mentioned names and stories and it humanised some of the most ardent of representatives. That's good. We do tend to understand our politics in a different, distant, argumentative way. This is all useful. I guess. But I noticed I was not the only one who felt a little out of the joke. A few people left early and I felt like it but didn't. Not sure I was in the mood for frivolity anyway. That's how parties (as in Christmas, not political) can be. There was talk of parties, quips of broken tables informed by insider gossip. All enlightening and interesting. The questionners were often recognised, as a journo for this paper or that radio station. I was amused when Mark Colvin asked the final question. I turned around, didn't recognise him, then listened. I knew that voice almost intimately but I am an ardent radio buff. There were insights aplenty, if expressed in a jovial, thankfully not ironic, way. About "chocolate-gate" (new term for me), Johnny Depp's dogs, knights and dames, eating onions (we all eat raw onions in salads if not as apples with skin), karaoke. Ricky Muir got a worthy mention as "the standout", which he clearly deserves, but the political class more generally got some support. David Leyonhjelm apparently supports freedom for nudity and even sex in public, not just guns and his Nanny State enquiry. Unexpectedly given the polls, Bill Shorten is still standing while his opponents are all gone. Then talks of odd couples (friendships/relationships esp across parties) in Parliament. I won't mention those here although they are presumably quite innocent and actually heartening. Who was how generous at their Christmas parties. The Greens and their "spill of the year" which no-one had any inkling of and the subsequent transformation of the party (not just Labors but "lots of Libs are very worried about diNatale" and his appeal to the educated comfortable classes - include me here). And various unexpectedrevelations, like John Madigan's awareness of issues in West Papua. Even a warning about locking up daughters. There were further mentions and questions of diversity in Parliamentarians, Annabel Crabb and Kitchen Cabinet, the NT port lease, Hockey as ambassador (and Kevin Andrews wishing for another), and finally Mark Colvin asking about journalism in the new Parliament House. It's an old story, how the Old Parliament House was small, how journos overheard mutterings (I hadn't heard about the toilet cubicle ruse after party meetings), how Abbott closed off the Exec Wing but it's reopened under Turnbull. Rob Harris was sensible or optimistic in arguing there are new opportunities and you have to go with change. But in essence, the pair had been sensible throughout although with many a chuckle. So the PitP year end with a party of sorts. I still felt somewhat an interloper but thanks for the invitation.

Rob Harris and Alice Workman of the Silent Majority podcast chatted with Ben Oquist at Politics in the Pub hosted by the Australia Institute.

Greening Australia

Politics in the Pub and the Australia Institute now seems to be the right audience for the Greens, given Labor's small targets and indecisions. So it was that this PitP was on the fourth floor, a larger room used when the RSVPs are many. I guess many wanted to see Richard Di Natale, this new Greens leader, in the flesh. He seems a likeable, sensible, concerned, undogmatic type on teev and he has a history as a doctor with conscience so that fits. In the end, I felt very comfortable with his simple and surprisingly centrist presentation: recognising science, economics, the "real world" that's not one of finance and slogans and ideology. Away from the myths of the "lifters" (who do money while the "leaners" actually do work) and the entitled failures who fob off to a comfy bolt hole in Washington DC. But I digress. We were introduced to Richard then he spoke broadly of issues. Health is a function of many things. The economy is just a means to an end, but is important for important ends. An economy is just a tool. A transition to a future Australia, of innovation, intellect, education and the rest. How Turnbull was received with a sigh of relief now must prove himself different. but he's started will. How he needs a plan to manage climate change and transition. How climate is the greatest market fialure (quoting Stern) and of the benefits of acting now (we've lost benefits of acting earlier and Abbott even threw benefits away). How after Trudeau, Australia's position will be "nothing short of embarrassing" at Paris. Of some good news of transition (Geelong, and more). Of coal's structural decline and Adani and Liverpool Plains and the battle of past and present that was Abbott. Of the successes of ARENA and CEFC. Of growth but also distribution. Of expenditures, eg, on medicine, as choices of a rich community, esp given our comparison with the US's privatised health (National health expenditures: Aust 9% of GDP; US 17% of GDP; the American option can be nothing but ideological given these figures). Of intelligent policy: in military expenditure (Trudeau's first action as to cancel Canada's JSF purchase); in taxation (fix tax avoidance, then consider GST).

Then some questions. Placing the economy more prominently is a deliberate choice to disabuse notions of Green incompetence; Greens consider the purpose of economic measures, for the Government it's an article of faith. Greens support free education and education as a priority, but recognise this is a longer term goal. But it's essential for Australia's future. He was asked about Labor's policy and responded "what is it?". Renewable energy is popular. There's a history of bad decisions in Defence: a debate is necessary, but things can change quickly. Labor and Greens may work together, but coalition is not an option and some Labor members see Greens as a threat. Automation of jobs will require structural change and government must support people in transition. Someone asked about expenditure on health in final years of life. Di Natale responded that the medical profession needs to deal much better with its own failure here (interesting and sensible response). Then marriage equality (why not a free vote) and budget surpluses vs investment in infrastructure when interest rates are low. Privacy and metadata retention, interestingly from an ex-Communist country resident (oh, Labor supported that; shame on Labor; I've written my email to Shorten on that one). Di Natale: "if you have it, you'll use it" and "we share your concerns". (Good on Greens; I've got my VPN but it costs and so will the extra charges from our ISPs for keeping all this metadata).

I liked this man. He seemed informed, even and balanced, concerned about issues that matter and prepared to question some dictums, eg, that economics is all and defence can't be questioned. Richard Di Natale spoke at Politics in the Pub for the Australia Institute.

(Hoping for a) future

I can despair over climate change, the breakout of wars, today's article saying life at sea has halved in the last 25 years, refugees and lots more, but maybe I am too fatalistic. For all's sake, I hope so. I got a little uplift with Turnbull rolling Abbott, and I await with just a little hope the outcome of Paris. So perhaps I am not the best auditor of a session by two new (class of 2013) Labor MPs, launching their new book, Two Futures : Australia at a critical moment, arguing for long-term thinking by imagining two possible visions of Australia at 2040. Ben Oquist introduced Clare O'Neil and Tim Watts. Both young and presumably hopeful and, to my eyes, strangely similar in appearance to the two Green deputy-leaders. Maybe it's a generational thing. Abbott has just been rolled by Turnbull who at least recognises science and climate change, although will have internal disagreements with the right of his party, but this didn't feature much. Instead we heard of the longer term (are things looking up? A session on politics that isn't trumped by today's, admittedly significant, activities?). Ben Oquist succumbed, saying Abbott was really a good communicator (unlike Turnbull's argument). I agree. Abbott's problem was overreach. Repealing the carbon tax was not enough; he had to go to war with environmentalists with led to backlash. (In my book, not one to do things by halves ... or sensibly). But Clare and Tim avoided the daily matters.

Clare started, introducing the first three of the six themes of their book. 1. Equality / egalitarianism. There's a gap between rhetoric and reality. The wealthiest 9 Australians have the same wealth as the bottom 4.5 million. Technology and other forces will increasingly influence wealth by 2040. How can Australia respond? She specifically argued for early childhood education (and I read in today's Canberra Times that 15hours of free early childhood education will be provided to all children in ACT - just what Clare was arguing for, even the 15 hour minimum). BTW, some countries have 100% of 3 year olds in early childhood education; Australia has 175; apparently it's well supported by evidence. 2. Climate change. Old Bar is a coastal NSW town where 1m of sea front is lost per year. Residents want a sea wall; there's argument about who pays; for sale signs proliferate near the water. This is climate change arrived. (For just one more confirmation of our unsustainability, see "We've wiped out half world's marine life in one generation" in Canberra Times 17 Sep 2015, p.6) Clare also spoke of green jobs (1m new green jobs internationally; -2K jobs in Australia; not sure of the measure, perhaps annually under Abbott?). 3. Growth / economy. In 1980, Lee Kwan Yew predicted Australia to be the "poor white trash of Asia". Then Hawke, Keating and Howard, reform and mining, but now Government has little left to reform other than innovation policy, and as for supplying jobs to Asia, our education is dwindling as Asia soars.

Tim did his bit on the next 3 themes. 4. Democracy. "It matters" (sadly appended: "for economic matters". I think yes, and for more). Australian political institutions have responded well in the past, but now? There's now deep dissatisfaction; what major reform has recently survived Parliament? (Perhaps NDIS announced that very day; previously, GST). Talk of bigger ideologies, tailored solutions, possible reforms. (My thought is conventions and goodwill will salve much of this, but they talk of reform). 5. Technology. Connectivity and digitisation has radically reduced transaction costs. There's good and bad; employment becomes atomised. A suggestion is computational thinking. (My thought is increased productivity is good: the problem is how to share the benefits).6. The world. Geopolitical / geostrategic changes are big! Australia previously had external guarantors for security (UK then US). By 2040, several regional nations will be stronger than Australia (he mentioned Sth Korea, Japan, India, Philippines, Vietnam). Commit to joint security, role in ASEAN, develop soft power (eg, Abbott defunded the Australia Network; as I remember, Howard sold off Radio Australia transmitters - bought by the religious right; the Union Jack and the Queen remain as our soft power symbols).

Then questions. A new Australia Network required; new technology needed to aggregate political involvement; business involvement in Asia needs to be developed; learn from NZ (a popular position with the recent flag process); be skeptical with new ideas, reinvigorate the old (I was amused by a related comment of "Labor as road kill"); means of boosting voting enrolments; how many pollies think or are interested in the long term?; dealing with business involvement in the political process (Tim suggested the main issue is direct political campaigning by business [not sure I agree] which is a tall ask to deal with; rather there's a need to broaden political involvement/discussion).

Well, it was just a touch of what is argued in the book. I felt a little alienated; I worried that magic fixes were sought where disrespect of conventions and hard-bitten politics seems the core problem. But things move on. Good to see some pollies are thinking of these things and the 2040 timeframe seems an apt scope for vision.

Clare O'Neil and Tim Watts are newly elected Labor MPs (2013). They discussed their new book, Two futures : Australia at a critical moment, at a Politics in the Pub. Ben Oquist introduced them on behalf of the Australia Institute.

Bored with bullying

I've had a bee in my bonnet for some time over intellectual honesty, especially in the context of climate change. I can imagine no way anyone could deny climate change if they opened their minds to the messages of science and alternatively the sources of the denial messages. People may not spend the time to investigate, but citizens should, for this most important of topics, and pollies are obliged to. So bullsh like Maurice Newman's comments on the science even to the conspiratorial "new world order under the control of the UN" really require intellectual honesty on his part. In this context, I attended a talk by our local Labor member, Gai Brodtmann, for the Australia Institute and Politics in the Pub, where she spoke of Uncivil discourse. It's related. All this bluster and emotions is a denial of the chance of testing your own ideas and ultimately improving them. It's a responsibility for rational people, but what's the status in politics today? Sadly, missing in (political) action. Gai described an early doorstop that went poorly leading to shock jocks, talkbackers and tweeters having a field day of malevolence, sexism and loathing. We saw it with Ditch the Bitch and the chaff bag and Ju-liar and the rest. We see some degree in both parties, perhaps, but the current government and supporters have made a profession of it. She talked of the Dark Period (so called in the Press Gallery, it seems) of slogans and bile and the resultant Mysogyny speech; of "filthy prejudices given permission"; of politicians setting possibilities/tone; of the rise of fear from outsiders (terrorism, refugees), and through insiders from the 2014 budget. Little has changed since those dark ages. She mentioned recent Lowey polls (recently in the papers) about societal perceptions of democracy: worryingly only 49% of youth saw democracy as best and 26% thought our style of government was of no matter. And another survey about women and their desire for a political career. And a mention of a recent meeting with constituents in Kingston (Megan and I were at this one) where attendees were "fed up" with the political discourse, and this theme as common in various other encounters. Australians are increasingly disengaged and disenfranchised despite the Net which should promote connectedness. Gai argued we are all responsible to display respect and rationality; that the gene pool of Parliament must be broadened (I had heard of Fed Labor's vote for 50% women by 2025 but not of 5% Indigenous by then) and this should include older people; that the combative culture of Parliament must change. She spoke of friends who vote Lib and how they can discuss and agree to disagree because (I found this interesting) politics is a battle of ideas and people will have different ideas. In this context, she expects to talk with Sharman Stone about her recent comments on Parliamentary culture. She noted that she hasn't been ejected from Parliament despite some Labor prompting. (Bronwyn Bishop is a political infighter and this is totally inappropriate in the role of Speaker but it seems Labor is also doing some goading to achieve that ~400/8 of Parliamentary ejections). She argued for a more family-friendly Parliament; for a more restrained media (she respects the work of the Press Gallery who she considers go about their tasks professionally, but is concerned with the shock jocks and commentators and dabblers); for a more considered social media conversation. She quoted Viktor Frankl ("Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way ") and the dictionary definition of civil (polite, obliging, not rude, relating to citizens). There were questions about the partisanship of Bronwyn Bishop as Speaker; about the current commotion over the Upper House in UK (Gai argued that the individual must have a "strong moral compass"); a question on the TPP was rejected as out of field; of Question time (Gai was concerned with QT but more broadly argued that the role of a politician is "wonderful ... nothing better" and approximately quoted Gough Whitlam as saying it's the only way to shape and influence public policy). Other questions covered sacrificing self to work within a party; the effectiveness of uncivil actions (sadly, they often work); the press, esp. Murdoch; Australia as a culture of media lemmings (Gai denied this); abuse of women in politics; the quality of question times outside Australia (comparisons were not too well known, although Australia's are recognised as "brutal"); bipartisanship and the conflict of ideas; later-life political careers; what is means to be a citizen and group think and social media; politics as bloodsport and who drives the crowd, crossing over to Adam Goodes. We had to leave then, so missed just a few questions and the wrap-up. Gai's presentation was surprisingly well prepared and it's an obvious concern of hers (she's not alone) and her response to the problem of uncivility is a satisfyingly ethical civility. Let's hope it works. I hope it can't get worse. But then, the future is harder to predict than the past, and we've seen some very nasty oputcomes from uncivility in history.

Gai Brodtmann spoke on Uncivil discourse for the Australia Institute at Politics in the Pub.

Class war

Class war ... got your attention? The Conservative press consistently claims it and specifically attacked Wayne Swan for it. But theirs is a flimsy argument (as are most of these emotionally ridden arguments, doctors' wives, latte-sipping, Howard's battlers and the rest - little evidence and maximum absence of thought). But fellow billionaire, Warren Buffett, laid it on the line “There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning” (interview with Lou Deed on CNN, 25 May 2005) and it's only intensified since, especially here in Australia with the Abbott Government. Now this is emotive stuff, so we need at least some evidence, like the increasing share of wealth held by the wealthy, the rates of taxation paid by the wealthy and the corporates, the loss of power by workers, the debased level of support for the disadvantaged, the denial of science for short-sighted profit motives, the last two budgets even if 2014 was more transparently serving wealth, the profligacy of the Howard government in good times (take OECDs word for this, not mine; too much here on matters of economy: evidence disproves that the Libs are the better economic managers, certainly not in recent years) and arguments against expenditure on the rebound. I could go on, but my purpose is other.

I heard Wayne Swan speaking at Politics in the Pub. WS was the class war bette noir for the conservatives. BTW, he was also the treasurer that guided Australia successfully through the greatest economic turndown since the Depression and a winner of international award for this very feat (Finance Minister of the Year 2011 / Euromoney magazine; previously won by Keating; on the other hand, the IMF found Costello was the most profligate treasurer for 60 years). Why did WS win the medal? Because he had the wit to follow Treasury Secretary Ken Henry's classic Keynesian advice "go early, go hard, go household". How he was ridiculed for it, and what a joke now with the shoe on the other foot and the budget deficit doubled in less than 2 years. So what did Swannie say? Inequality is the biggest international issue. The current government's approach is a combination of Fightback and Workchoices and this is a classic recipe for US-style economy. This at a time other UK and US (admittedly from the Center for American Progress) are seeking to emulate our model that shared benefits relatively well over the last 30 years. Budget 2015 has a "few bells and whistles" but is an "elaborate comb-over" (nice one!): the "stench of unfairness" remains ($80b cuts to states for education and health are still there as are deregulated degrees and family benefits cuts) and it "fails the growth test too". Labor kept unemployment at 5.n%; the budget is predicting 6.n% under optimistic growth predictions of 2.5% prepared by the Treasurer's office, not by Treasury (a political giveaway). They "bungled economic transition from mining to non-mining". They are "enthralled by trickle-down" so "all deficit or debt is bad" even when IMF is promoting borrowing for effective infrastructure at historically low interest rates. There was a passing mention of Larry Summers and his "secular stagnation thesis". I have long argued that the Right have taken on the radical position that the Left held in early-mid 1900s. Their issue is the role of government, not the economy: government should be minimal; the fittest will survive. Our Right is being Americanised: the plutocracy with its Tea Party rump is flexing its moneyed muscle. WS said the replacement of Workchoices with the Fair Work Act radicalised the Right ("just payback for Workchoices"): "their enduring solution is to tip the balanced between labour and capital in Australia". Howard had a RET and ETS and it was accepted by business but climate change is now a "proxy issue" along with the rest. And a certain media plays its role as "dangerous class warrior".

There were questions. Yes, carbon pricing and the rest was working and it was mostly dismantled, but "big reforms need to be done 2 or 3 times", viz. Medicare, tertiary education. This government may be the worst one in 50 years (the questioner called Abbott "the destroyer"; I have fretted over how easy it is to demolish and how difficult to build and Abbott has certainly demolished*). But Swannie reminded that it's hard to change first term governments, that long-term commitment is required ("hang on in there for a while") and argued that the Left, more idealistic and passionate, can be its own enemy by attacking its own side for smaller failures (recollections of the Old Left, here). He cited constant attacks from environmentalists despite the success on carbon pricing: "until we learn to compromise, we will always be out". Similarly, Labor was attacked from its own side on cuts to foreign aid, but now we see the real destruction. Amusingly, the next comment, that Shorten is not persuasive, was just an immediate example of Swannie's thesis. This government is "brutalising and dictating to the APS like never before". One proof is that the Treasurer's Office, not Treasury, did the forecasts for the last budget (!), and that Medical Research Fund investments will be decided directly by the minister's office (!!! consider this, given the scientific illiteracy and obstinacy of this government over climate change). Why doesn't some business break ranks? There are plenty of good people in business in Australia but the economy is essentially dominated by just a few mega-corporates: 4 banks, ~6 miners, 2 retailers, insurance and one media company. For this, read Clout or Libs as the "Billionaire's Party". Democracy can overcome but it's difficult when the richest can buy the biggest megaphones. China/US is the "biggest strategic challenge in a long time" and of greatest concern to China's neighbours. Why is a budget surplus such a big issue? Swannie didn't sound such a mad commie on budget management: "there's no magic pudding"; "build up reserves in good times"; "need to grow the economy to do good things". On the other hand, the conservative mantra is in denial, using a "starve the beast strategy" to shrink government and flatten taxation [and I reckon, talking in an echo chamber so they believe their own imaginings]. Perhaps the saddest thing for me is how counterproductive so much of this is, as we waste wealth and energy and time dismantling and rebuilding, while it's getting hotter, the rich are getting richer, our privacy and respect for government is being eroded and the rest. This rabid ideological and cultural war is pretty dumb and uninformed. After all, it's not as if the Labor party hasn't already moved well to the right of Menzies. Enough is never enough for the ideologues on either side, and at least at the moment the ideologues are on the Right.

Wayne Swan spoke at the UniPub for Politics in the Pub for the Australia Institute.

*Cumulative list of actions of the Abbott Government

Majors or minors

Is Minority government as better way? There must be many who think so, given the low voting for major parties. If it weren't for compulsory voting and two-party preferences they may be in trouble. Richard Denniss and Brenton Prosser have written a book - Minority Policy : Rethinking governance when parliament matters - and they presented it at Politics in the Pub for the Australia Institute. There's a stream of conservatism here, but the major parties may not see it that way. Richard: "Frankly, you can't do democracy without politics", so a politician's job is to represent and doing numbers is part of that. There were stories that illustrated that, like Natasha Stott Despoja to Peter Costello when he didn't get his way with his Intergenerational Report: "Look at the numbers ... I have, Peter, and you don't have them in the Senate". The role of the PM is not to just wake up in the morning and have a brain fart; it is to negotiate policy, with the party, with Parliament and ultimately with the electorate. So Gillard was actually very successful, passing more legislation than Howard. Abbott is not so successful; he may learn but at the election he refused to deal with minor parties (and yet, he's in coalition with a very minor party). Something I didn't know: Fraser was planning a new party before he dies; what may come of that. But thinking Fraser, it was the Liberals that rolled an elected government by denying supply in the Senate. The Constitution doesn't mention major parties (or any parties or the PM for that matter). So what's the future of major parties? Will they adapt to the demands of the electorate or manipulate it through self-perpetuating legislation (many examples, including ACT, Tassie, Qld, Commonwealth that I can remember). There was talk of CPyne and Cathy McGowan (only the latter displaying a path to a future). "For democracy to work well, we need to be prepared to change our mind when a party really disappoints" or this telling quote from Richard "Preselect the wrong people and there's no such thing as a safe seat". John Key in NZ shows that Minority government can work; the approach of our major parties is unsupported by evidence. JK is in a fourth term and implementing change. Communication is the key, let alone a source of better legislation. It was interesting to hear of negotiations within and across parties to improve legislation (ministers from one party may suggest amendments to another party to achieve change the party room might not otherwise agree to). Some evidence: only ~30% of all voting population votes for the major parties; this gives 10% representation for minor parties (5% Reps, 8% Senate); at the last Federal election, 25% of the adult population didn't vote (no shows, informals or not enrolled); of the total Australian adult population, 2-party preferred, 33% voted Liberal and 25% Labor; 5% for Nationals. Richard suggested we need a Parliamentary enquiry into the state of our democracy (but don't expect one!). ACT is the most under-represented territory/state (2 Reps, 2 Senators); Tassie has 5 Reps (in the Constitution!), 12 Senators, let alone all the state and local pollies. Change requires electoral pressure but the electorate doesn't understand the voting system. Consultation is not a problem ; it's slower but policy is more considered and effective. The Media denies complexity and the most interesting parts of politics. And to end, some fascinating comments, that "Rudd broke our polity" and Abbott learned the lesson. Opposition leader used to learn to be PM through a difficult job of influencing front and back bench and party and developing policies. RUdd just "made the words" to "lead ... from the wilderness". Gillard "did an amazing job in minority government" although her public communications were poor.

Excuse the mess of comments and ideas, but the concept of minority government deserves much better here and also in public observations. Let's hope it gets it because the cause of the major parties is suffering immensely and we don't want democracy to go with it. Richard Denniss and Brenton Prosser presented their new book, Minority Policy : Rethinking governance when parliament matters, at Politics in the Pub for the Australia Institute.

Musing on a lesser tomato

Julian Cribb spoke on the future of food for the Australia Institute and the UN Association of Australia. He introduced his talk as having two parts - a first part that is scary and a second part that's an antidote - but it seemed to me, as I walked out, that we have plenty of reasons to worry and little reason to hope. Perhaps solutions are identified if not developed, but the problems were massive and virtually immediate, and, like climate change, threatening some ridiculously large corporates presumably with huge influence.

Firstly, the problems. Population growing to 11 billion (I thought the peak was estimated as 9 billion, but perhaps reconsidered) and increasing wealth demands more food and more environmentally demanding food. Peak oil, for transport, farm machinery and more, even if delayed. Peak water expected by 2030; we are "mining water" now (viz. Indian famer suicides); one coffee requires 140 litres of water to grow beans; we take 100x our body weight in water per day in the foods we eat. Loss of soil: 75b tons of topsoil are lost pa. Mining nutrients: soil is losing nutrient density and so are also our foods (we need to eat 5 tomatoes to gain the nutrients of one tomato for our grandparents!). Cities are growing and they import food; there is talk of emptying San Paolo for lack of water. Peak fertiliser: phosphates are mined from rocks and one country, Morocco, now provides most world phosphorus. Peak fish: catch is now decreasing ~8% pa; 80% of fish sold in Australia is imported. In summary, the average meal takes 10kg topsoil (not sure of this unit), 1.3 litres oil, 800 litres water and 1/3 gram pesticides. And our diets are unhealthy, so 80% of Australians die of a diet-related disease (I had thought this was a new-ager complaint). And our small farms are disappearing to the concentrated market power of ~20 food conglomerates. A climate temp increase of 4degC is estimated to drop US corn and grain production by 60-80%. And wars are associated with food, water and land insecurity.

Now for the good news. There are solutions in urban farming and green cities, intensive systems (up to 10-100x yield), floating greenhouses and desert farms (on trial in Whyalla), fish farms (now booming, ~1/3 of fish worldwide is farmed), algae (to produce food, but alternatively, to feed fish, produce jet fuel and more), novel foods (26,700 edible plants exist although only 300 species are in the biggest markets, and 6,100 edible plants are Australian), synthetic meats from animal stem cells (which can be personalised for health). Different, perhaps, but feasible. I've seen the fish farms and we all eat the salmon.

So how will it happen? Sorry to disappoint, but in this time frame (20/40 years?), I could only see this as risibly unlikely. Educate kids for food awareness; promote peace through food; develop preventative health policies; promote women to power. And water and nutrient recycling; encouragement of urban farming and rewilding. And the middle class voting with its purchasing power. This, after the dismantlement of what climate change action we were belatedly taking? And while urgent matters (terrorism, Ukraine, "lifestyle choices", deregulation) are concerns and while 20 mega-corporations mostly control the market and have lots of lose? I'd gone with little interest or awareness of the food issue (although it's promoted enough) and walked out thinking this is more even immediate than climate change. And cc is no lazy threat.

There were some questions: eating insects and 3D food printing (all feasible); slow food (nice but not particularly germane to this crisis); mining artesian waters and use of dams; genetic modification ("promising tech" but some question exist over it now; but just "one screwdriver in a big toolkit"); the middle class as consumers and La Via Campesina (an international peasant movement) and "food sovereignty" (just what does this mean anyway?); Solyent (apparently a Silicon Valley ground mush; OK for food as fuel , eg for marathons or climbing mountains, but not for social eating); food distribution (costly given travel costs for moving all that food; better to equip local farmers for food independence); population reduction and reduced fertility. But for the likely politics of all this, I just heard vain hope: "I just hope Australians are smarter than the people we elect" (we are not); "current science policy of this government is to shrink the economy", consumer decisions will change all this, need to dispossess 20 mega-corporations from their power in food. But a final comment really told the story in my book. That 51 of the largest 100 economies are now corporations, not states, so "the world is now technically a fascist state". Now, that hints rather more accurately at what is likely for this crisis over the next few decades.

Julian Cribb spoke on the future of food at Politics in the Pub for the Australia Institute and the UN Association of Australia.

Not deadly dull, now what?

Bernard Keane started his session at the Politics in the Pub, the first for 2015 and only early in the political year, with the comment that it's been "deadly dull". Of course, it hasn't been. Apparently we expected stable government after Labor, but after half a term, Abbott has "stuffed it". Two first term Liberal governments dumped (Victoria, Qld) and SA Labor winning a fourth term; submarines virtually a "captain's call"; budget in a mess and another due. Abbott's response to a near-death experience is to return to form, as if aggression was missing from 2015. Labor's had a dream start to opposition which has made Shorten a credible alternative PM ... but only in comparison, and what of election day? BK: "I'm underwhelmed". He suggests recent lessons include that NO-ing in opposition, small targets and no policies results in a ministry with no skills to sell policies in government. "You can't govern negatively". Greens had a great election 2010, then a poor 2013 after Bob Brown left, but have picked up. The economy is at a juncture and it's important! There's panic in RBA announcements. The government has a stimulatory stance, especially given $A1 at ~$US70 (Wayne Swan had to battle at $A1~=$US1.10) and interest rates are at historic lows. Yet the RBA cuts rates and more coming. The first two quarters of 2014 had strong growth, then the budget and "stumbles and ineptitude" "smashed consumer confidence". Hockey's clearly not up to it, but Bernard has respect for Mathias Cormann (interesting). But the deficit goes up and Labor continues to get the blame from Hockey et al, although budget was 19.9% of GDP in 2012 (Swan) and 22% of GDP in 2015 (Hockey). If "surpluses are in our DNA, then deficits are in their bone marrow". The Right has now started the line that the public won't accept economic reform and we'll end up like Greece, but it's "complete crap". Voters actually don't like privatisation where it's a gift to the private sector and the public loses out; otherwise they are of mixed mind. Industrial relations changes are in much the same bag. 60% recently polled that minimum wages were too low (I'd like to see this survey) and that included Liberal voters. Superannuation tax concessions cost $30b in 2015 and this is skewed mightily to the rich. Medicare Private was sold "sensibly and effectively" (later queried in a question from the floor). It's not political communication, but poor policies. However, communication remains important, especially to promote effective policy. The Hawke/Keating era is idolised, but it was a "simpler era" with the press gallery cooperating virtually as part of the governing class as gatekeepers. There's more clutter now. Data retention = Mass surveillance, despite each daily message from Abbott's for its justification. It's a direct threat to media and journalism (and the rest of us, BTW). The Big Lie is that it's not intrusive. Metadata actually provides more and more reliable information than content. Snowden: "You can't trust what you're hearing but you can trust the metadata". I didn't get the details of this quote, but apparently from head of NSA: "We kill people based on metadata". Voters have no understanding of issues over metadata retention. Questions covered journalists "colluding" with politicians to ignore climate science. BK responded there's little opportunity to question pollies these days so little chance to collude. Someone queried the merit of Medicare co-payments and the sale of Medicare Private. BK stated his more economically dry acceptance, but then noted that Abbott has actually cut infrastructure despite all the talk. There was discussion of corporate tax dodging, of recent news of NewsCorp, of trust in a tax system. All obvious enough background to a 2015 and a damaged government and a run-up to a budget (only their second!) and eventually another election. Whoa; there's NSW soon, too. All interesting for a political junkie like me.

Bernard Keane of Crikey spoke at Politics in the Pub for the Australia Institute.

Ending a busy year for TAI

Richard Denniss speaks easily and casually and I expect no less, but I was still taken aback by his best line of the night: "Telling the truth is a lot cheaper". He meant this relative to PR campaigns. It was in the context of the Australia Institute's successes over the last year and its approach, which I'd describe as turning on the light by spreading facts that respond to spin and misinformation. Like the small number of people who actually work in mining or Tassie forestry against the impressions of large workforces created by industry and government. Or the details of government reports, like Warburton's review of the RET that showed that reducing renewable power would actually increase electricity prices within few years and result in a large movement of wealth from consumers to owners of coal fired power stations.

We were at the last Politics in the Pub for the year. It's a wrap-up session and a thanks to the supporters and a chance to meet and chat. He spoke of successes for the year, of TAI's approach, of the possibilities for promoting "progressive ideas" (I hate that term, but don't have another), of the importance of the facts, of hard work by few staff, of their funding (not much!). He spoke of developing a constituency for reform for better governance, policies and longer term thinking. Richard mentioned a merge with Catalyst in Sydney, and attempts to spread events and influence outside Canberra. Also of their approach to politicians, how they inform and persuade. He mentioned their effectiveness on the Shepherd Commission of Audit, Budget measures, the Warburton Review of RET, more. He introduced a meagre list of researchers (how busy must these people be? Look at their website for their activities and publications). He said support could come in dollars, emotional support or by sharing, then expanded on the sharing of ideas to promote that "constituency for reform". He recognised how much could be done or where the research is so-far lacking. To one question, he responded: "Good question ... I don't have a good answer". He raised a new issue, of intra-generational equity to replace arguments of inter-generational equity. (I like this one; let's avoid inter-generational culture wars). But this was a relaxed and informal session. At one stage, Richard commented "Happy to take a few questions or happier to have a beer" so it was apt that I saw a string of beers being offered at the end of the night. It was a nice gesture and too bad he couldn't drink them all. Like many, he was driving.

Richard Denniss spoke at the final Politics in the Pub of 2014 for the Australia Institute.

To rekindle some hope

I left Anthony Albanese's talk at Politics in the Pub with some hope and it's a relief after recent years. Like many, I have been disappointed by Rudd and Gillard and despaired that that three-word slogans won Abbott the Lodge to implement IPA's 75 (now 100) actions in such a radical and class-ridden process. We are mulling over "progressive" politics now following the very recent death of Gough Whitlam. It was in this context that Albo's response to one question gave me some hope and trust in Labor. A woman had attacked the "corrosion of reforms" in the ALP, citing single parents moved to Newstart and HECS in place of free education. Albo defended strongly: we love Gough but some people have "rose-coloured glasses". He listed later positive changes by Labor; he claimed pride in the achievements of Rudd and Gillard and argued that they "will be regarded well by history"; he admitted some errors and policies that he didn't agree with, but "only the impotent are pure". It was a strong rebuttal and reasonable. Another questioner had also attacked Labor/Albo on public housing. Again, Albo stood his ground: he denied denigrating public housing; he argued for social housing being good not just for the poor, but also for the richer by maintaining a good social mix; he argued that it's inconsistent that individuals invest in housing but Government says it can't afford it (I thought that individuals are actually sponsored by Govt to invest in housing; they might not so invest on the mythical level playing field). Again, a strong rebuttal. It's interesting that Labor is having to defend itself so strongly, even from its supporters, but not surprising. Albo did a good job and restored some faith. Otherwise, what did he say?

He's now Labor's spokesman on cities. He argued that Commonwealth Government must be involved in cities (planning, transport, infrastructure, etc) as 80% of population and GDP are in Australian cities. Australia is exceptionally urbanised. Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane will number 8 million each in 2050. Infrastructure and jobs growth must be matched; big cities must function with multiple centres; urban design is essential for quality, livable cities. I was interested in the concept of a "30-minute city" meaning work, education, most necessary functions, are accessible within 30 mins. In its first day in office, Abbott abolished the "Major Cities Unit" and moved all funding from public transport to roads. Albo quoted Abbott's Battlelines that there are not enough people to warrant other than private motor vehicles, and the (perhaps a rough quote) "in the car the individual feels like he is king". Good planning promotes efficiency and sustainability and it's good economics: "it saves money". [Can't argue with that one!].

Albo had started by praising the previous day's Parliament (the honour session for Gough) and specifically esteeming Warren Truss' speech, but then passing to Abbott's government as ideological, promoting withdrawal of the State and individualism as a philosophy and seeking to institutionalise it. This was "unexpected at election" and the Budget was a "concrete indication of these principles". The Right argues that class doesn't exist, but this was a "class-based budget". Roughly, the poor electorates are impacted $1,000 against $150 for richer. We need a debate on equality in Australia. He ended by saying "enormous opportunities are presented by this Government", meaning opportunities for Labor to capitalise on very real hardships. [This is one to wait and see. I don't see much capitalisation yet].

There was a question on trams in Melbourne. Apparently Howard bemoaned the loss of trams in Melbourne under Menzies. Albo didn't specifically reply on our own tram, only to argue that public transport (and roads and other infrastructure) must be justified over time and this requires analysis. He lambasted the Left for NIMBYism and Abbott for withdrawing funding from well supported (public transport) infrastructure and placing it, with poor analysis, into roads. Another question was on the East-West Link in Melbourne in the context of the election. He argues the Benefit Cost ratios don't add up and that the Federal Government has hog-tied the states through access to funding, and had already transferred $2b to Victoria to improve the books for the coming election . [Mmm, I hadn't heard anything about that, but politics and reporting can be local]. There was another question on ANU divestment and the Government storm in reaction in context of Abbott's "coal is good for humanity" claim. Albo said it's this government speaking for a sector of the market, not for the economy. Then a touch on the Shakespearian tragedy of Greg Hunt's role "driven by an objective that is so small", especially given his thesis (A tax to make the polluter pay : the application of pollution taxes within the Australian legal system / Greg Hunt & Rufus Black). "We [Labor] may not always get it right but we think to the future". This was a rough quote but a positive theme to end on.

We are experiencing a radical right government. Like Gough, it's crash or crash through, but unlike Gough's, it's got small vision, prefers ideology to evidence and serves a small class of society. "Coal is good for humanity" only joins a string of ignorance like "climate change is absolute crap" or goodies and baddies or invisible substances. You can't argue with physics. You shouldn't argue with class.

Anthony Albanese spoke at Politics in the Pub organised by the Australia Institute.

Capture

Scott Ludlam spoke at the Australia Institute’s Politics in the Pub. The topic was the new Senate and its challenges, but of course this goes broader, to the nature of politics in Australia today. One line of thought that felt right to me was his analysis of the Abbott Government as not so much ideological (easier to respond to because more consistent) as captured by a branch of society, here the big industries and a certain media empire. As evidence, he noted that the government is instituting IPA reforms, but ignoring some libertarian suggestions such as data collection and internet monitoring, and implementing some outlying conservative changes, not least knights and dames. This leads to a volatile, tumultuous period in Australian politics. Changes are sudden, eg, funding for public transport projects is suddenly removed and roads supported (strange, this). Scott joked that “every child gets a freeway under this government” but noted more ominously that decisions are being made outside the independent expert guidance of Infrastructure Australia. He also stated that three transport companies had donated $1.8b (yes, billion) since 1998 to the Libs. But there’s hope. The government doesn’t appear to be tactically smart and they are clearly in trouble with serious fights on multiple fronts. The standard political response is to change the subject; MH370, Iraq/Syria, the ongoing saga of refugees all serve. The small and conflicting media environment also helps, eg, changes that assist one media empire may damage another. The budget was “appalling and hostile” (I can only agree) and will lead to an “immense increase in homeless people”. He argued for building a movement, supporting many voices, looking beyond the next election. He noted the latest requirement that asylum seekers must prove >50% chance of torture/murder (not sure of the terms here) to avoid being returned and he expressed the concern and frustration of many: “God help us, we should be able to do better than this”. He argued that there’s “cynical manipulation of a market” noting that “you can eliminate your fuel bill for the rest of time [with renewables]”, but that “Abbott is a unifier” as he causes so much angst in so many different communities. There was musing over Clive Palmer’s speech on the day, beside Al Gore. There was a question on factionalism in the Left, but he queried just what was meant by the Left these days. [I agree, but presumably from a different POV. I’m distressed by identity politics, as real as its issues are, replacing key political issues of wealth and power.] He spoke of having allies in business, at least from renewable industries. There’s lots of money to be made there, and this government is just protecting the dinosaurs. Delays will cost Australia (see Stern and Garnaut). [There’s endless frustration here. It’s not at all clever to build the biggest coal port in the world now or to prevent the rise of a new industry with no input costs (sun and wind are free) while subsidising the dinosaurs. And to deny science (which they do in essence if only hint at in words) is the path of folly: we won’t win in a battle against physics.] He mused on Clive Palmer as a tactician. He gave the argument for the Greens voting against indexation of petrol excise [a decision of idiocy in my view]. He touched on language around “occupied” for East Jerusalem and 18C. He talked of the TPP and other attempts at investor rights treaties and took heart in the previous failures and the delays this time around. He touched on Murdoch and phone tapping in the UK and suggested electoral reform would suit Lib/Lab but is unlikely at this time given it’s just opening another battlefield. [Too bad: here’s a good change lost while fighting for the bad].

He’s a good looking bloke with a touch of Pierce Brosnan and a celebrity of sorts and he’s got the confidence and nonchalance that goes with that territory, but he’s on the right track. I was not too taken by his style of argument but what he promoted was OK. We’ve all lost some confidence in government recently, but democracy requires trust and I don’t like the alternatives. Capture looks real enough to me. Ex-Liberal PMs are coming out on issues including foreign affairs, asylum seekers and climate change. This is a radical government, but radical for the benefit of the few while ignoring the truly existential crisis of climate change. This is a time of 1% politics that requires 99% response. In the meantime, God help us all.

Scott Ludlam (Greens senator) spoke at Politics in the Pub for the Australia Institute. PS, excuse the delay; Scott actually spoke on 26 June.