Happy 30th

We got to the 30th anniversary Gala Event for The Australia Institute.  We were the unconnected ones amongst the journalism and political elite.  It was fun and interesting if somewhat unsettling.  Lots of faces that you know, some identifiable, some with name tags and that helped.  The people of our notoriety were quite obvious, looking a bit lost and not in jovial conversation and not mingling, perhaps grabbing at all the canapes and refilling glasses a little too often.  No problem there, really.  The scene was friendly enough, just that we weren't really in it.  I crossed gazes with Joseph Stiglitz sitting off to the side looking a bit out, obviously not in this crowd if known and respected, but someone started chatting before I got to.  I toyed with a chat to Jack Waterford but I remember embarrassing myself with him once before, trying to do much the same thing.  I saw faces that I must know from Insiders or Q&A or other but couldn't name.  Similarly for at least one independent.  I knew David Pope when I saw him and he was hard to miss.  We could all identify David Pocock.  Various others I won't mention.  An Intro and welcome, then later a discussion between Richard Dennis and guest Joseph Stiglitz.  I must stream Q&A when I can because of a comment on Insiders suggesting an encounter of ex-AFR Editor Michael Stutchbury and Stiglitz.  It was just a dropped comment on Insiders but it should be amusing.  I embarrassed myself with Ebony Bennett with my Manuka encounter story.  Such is life.  But I chatted with various interesting outsiders: another CIMF billeter; someone who'd attended our Beethoven Missa Solemnis; someone involved with Megalo Print Studio.  Megan chatted to an old work mate in the film archive scene.  And hidden down the bar at the end of this lovely Old Parliament House Members' Dining Room were Matthew Dennett and Andreo Esguerra switching between classical and jazz.

The Australia Institute has a 30th Annniversary Gala event at Old Parliament House Members' Bar.  Joseph Stiglitz chatted with  Richard Denniss.  Matthew Dennett (piano) and Andreo Esguerra (violin) entertained.

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.

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.

The Straighteners are at it again

It was the sixteenth Manning Clark lecture and Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute gave it and it was recorded so you can hear it sometime on ABC RN Big Ideas. RD introduced the lecture as having two parts: what can we learn from Manning Clark and what will Australia be like when it grows up. The first part was very obviously familiar Manning Clark territory: Enlargers and Straighteners / Punishers. Much economic debate preludes talk of choices and talks only of means using a simple and perhaps misleading measure, the GDP. The Punishers have, very cleverly, managed to claim the role of Straighteners while acting the role of Punishers. [I could only think of the current line, that to save Medicare we must increase charges]. RD looked back 100 years. Most occupations were different from now; GDP didn't exist as a measure; any predictions would ignore mobile phones and the Internet and fret that whalers' jobs would be devastated.. And yet we are now the richest we've ever been and in one of the richest countries (and cities) in the world. Economic forecasts are consistently wrong and many predictions are just projections of the present. So how useful is an Intergenerational Report (or political audits or other), other than to scare us and remove discussion of options. [I wonder how much climate change will be discussed in this new report; that's one thing we can predict with certainty will happen over 50/100+ years]. RD likes to put all this in earthy terms: "making crap up"; predictors out 50 years are "kidding themselves"; "starving the beast" (a US neo-con expression, meaning to starve government of funds). Think on these facts: Australian debt has been up to 150% GDP twice in our history; GDP as a measure didn't even exist until ~1940s; the ABS only started releasing summary stats after WW2; the pension has dropped from 34% of average wage (1915) to 25% (2015). RD praised the Punishers for their success, although not for their outcome. He argued that this simple story of GDP and finance is used to effectively remove the possibility of discussion of choices and ultimately benefits the wealthy. Create fear and offer a simple solution; get people to vote against their interests; when the economy slows, cut spending to the poor and when it speeds up, cut taxes to the rich. It's hard to question that summarisation given recent Australian history (unfairness of last budget; tax cuts under Howard) and the growing maldistribution of wealth across the world and the famed 1% ("There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning" / Warren Buffett quoted in "In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning" by Ben Stein in The New York Times (26 Nov 2006) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html viewed 4 Mar 2015).

I was amused by the theme of the second part of this talk, What will Australia be like when it grows up? This part of the presentation seemed weaker to me. The main themes were: we should decide our direction (our choices) and not our goal, as a goal is impossible to determine over decades anyway; We should implement policies that move towards those choices; change happens anyway, so don't worry over much about short term change (coal miners out of work? Think of those whalers from our past); don't prevent change, but support people affected by change (invest in retraining, education, support); be honest with our values and turn them into actions. Nearing the end, RB did give a prediction on the economy in 2015, despite he previous protestations: that we will have one. There was a little more, but that's the gist and I had to leave for the Gods.

Richard Denniss (Exec Dir, Australia Institute) gave the 16th Manning Clark lecture at the ANU.

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.

Homepatch

The Australia Institute’s Christmas party was on its home patch, in its own offices in Civic. It’s interesting to see how small an operation it is. Just about 12 staff, producing 27 research papers, 292 radio/to interviews (speaker Richard Denniss was interrupted for one), 92 OpEds, Facebook friends and Twitter followers and the rest. So they are a productive little outfit. But what most impressed me, and a newcomer mate who came on the night, was their practicality and democratic ethics. Richard is clearly responsive to the situation but also honestly responding within our democratic institutions. So influencing, convincing, imagining are keys to messages. There’s a recognition of the recent electoral loss, of the poverty of debate and media interrogation, of a likely loss of carbon pricing and mining taxing. There’s a ready curiosity around what the new Senate will bring us in July. Dreams are irrelevant: “we got the politicians we got”. Practical, but also ethical. Engaging in debate. Providing themes but not obfuscating or misleading or descending to vapid slogans. Good on them. I trust this wins in the end.

So what items to note. Parliamentary control can also lead to problems. Who knows what this Senate will bring for Abbott. Barnaby Joyce crossed the floor 19 times under Howard and now he’s a Deputy Leader. What are the implications for the Coalition in hard times, given that Liberals represent the richest seats and National represent the poorest? This has been a rollercoaster year with three PMs and yet Australia remains steadily democratic. This is something to cheer about. It’s possible to reduce carbon without carbon pricing but “why would you do it the hard way”. And humour: “economists sometimes are people”. You can set themes going and win over time; it takes “3 years to shift a debate”, viz, TAI’s National go home from work on time day or Affluenza as a concept. Imagining is important, so comparing Foreign aid expenditure against pet food got TAI on 60 minutes. What of Turnbull? That’s a “very real prospect”. On par for child care workers: Does money matter? The Boss says yes, but “I wouldn’t want people caring for my kids to be motivated by money”. On TPP, it increases corporatisation of Australian democracy. It binds a parliament, even though constitutionally no parliament can bind another. 85% of Australians want it public before it’s agreed to. The “entire US strategy is about IP”. There were a few questions that I missed.

It was just an informal end-of-year chat but it was riddled with thought and clear democratic ethics. Good on TAI. All done on the proverbial oily rag, too. The Australia Institute had their Christmas part in their offices. TAI head, Richard Denniss, spoke.

Autopsy before onslaught

It’s been a draining and disappointing year in politics. I attended the last Politics in the Pub session, with Richard Denniss, and it was not happy or optimistic but at least it was realistic. Political observers and operators can be like this. There’s openness and truth telling in these groups, at least in private, that you don’t get in spin-managed public statements. I find it intellectually satisfying although often disheartening. This was somewhat disheartening, but at least a commitment to politics remains.

Richard started by defending politics, which may surprise some, and identifying our problem as an absence of competent politics. Competent politics is required for good policy and public support. With bad politics, the public is just interested enough to tune in and be disappointed. Richard discussed this in the context of several broken policies. Form 2007 to now, how did we come from endorsement for action on climate change, by the public and both sides of politics, to rising denialism, a loss of support for action, a limited pricing scheme and point scoring on the issue. The message here is do it quickly, make it good enough then improve it, don’t waste time finding the perfect fix. There are less salubrious messages, too, like manage and use groups to your advantage, even divide and conquer. The mining tax was another example. It was initially well supported by the public and other businesses which would benefit from reduced corporate tax. The Government argued business needs certainty but then changed everything, so undermining its certainty message. And it collapsed under a (relatively cheap) marketing campaign, so showing one path to influencing government decisions. Think pokies. Another example was Rudd at the 2007 election and thereafter. He claimed to be more economically conservative than Howard, so Labor then couldn’t claim success from the classic Keynesian policies that were a world-breaking success with the GFC. He sees this as a bureaucratic approach to government, measuring success by legislation passed, rather than by influencing and convincing the public on big issues. Richard turned to Howard and his daily runs and cricket-tragic image and the subliminal message that politics is boring and trust your reps, but who radically moved Australia towards his image under the guise of conservative wariness of change. This is the point of delegated authority of Parliament. Rudd’s hyperactive spin just lined up work (we’ll revolutionise health; we just need to agree with state ministers first). And interestingly, Gillard is still busily legislating to implement Rudd’s agenda, scoring herself with legislation passed while politics burns and the public turns away. Why did the government seem reluctant for the Royal Commission on Child Abuse, and why are there so few subsequent announcements? It had 95% support but Labor seemed dragged to it and is squandering ownership. The message is that the main players (on both sides) are smart and sincere people, but they are just not good at their jobs. He didn’t question the political roles: governments have the advantage of setting the agenda; oppositions have the role of attacking government and promising the world. But both sides are just talking to our worst nature, playing the people and losing the issues. He likened the battle to two retired boxers: back in the ring, an ugly battle with lots of blood and no winner.

There were some questions. One on the sham that is the word “sustainable” as in sustainable growth. It pleases both sides of the argument but is uncertain so doesn’t support good policy. He discussed the responsibility and self-interest of the media as businesses. They used to take a balanced role as umpire to so as not to offend any groups and to maintain big readership. The new approach is to appeal to, so speak to and for, smaller groups in order to sell niche markets to advertisers. He noted that online news has shown unpalatable truths, that sex and trivia get the hits, so the job of pollies is to make people interested in things they might not otherwise follow. Also that we can’t always blame the media, given there are about 10 PR persons for every journo in Parliament House. He argued to be strategic in picking fights with the example that only 950 people work in forestry in Tassie, but highlighting the argument makes the group look more significant. In discussing small parties, he interested me by arguing that MPs, not party members, should choose their leaders because they are not bosses but leaders, so must be respected by their fellows. Not surprisingly, he commented on that dastardly phrase, “working families”, as cheap politics that creates “us and them” groupings and plays to dog whistles while sounding more positive than obvious old-school attack lines like “dole bludger”. So “working families” may be more polite but it’s pernicious. Talk about proving a point. Another proof appeared just the day after this event when Treasurer Swan discarded his promised surplus. I remember the good PR advice to never promise more than you can deliver. Delivering more than you promise is always well received, but delivering less isn’t, and the result is on show.

The event finished with end of year cheer: informed and opinionated political chatter and some goodies and beers. It was a pleasant respite before what we all expect will be an unedifying election year. Richard Denniss spoke at the Australia Institute’s Politics in the Pub end of year roundup session.

Information is the currency of democracy

So said Bob Brown, but of course it’s been said before.

I was at the launch of a new book by David McKnight on the political power of the Murdoch media empire (Rupert Murdoch : An investigation of political power / David McKnight. Crows Nest, NSW : Allen & Unwin, 2012). The event was organised by the Australia Institute and it occurred in the backyard of the Manning Clark House. The session was a discussion with David and Bob, led by questions from the AI’s Exec Director, Richard Denniss, and some audience questions. It wasn’t a large group in attendance and I wondered if they were disproportionately grey-haired. Perhaps the printed media is considered old hat, but they retain their agenda-setting importance and this inevitably gives political power, and this political power is very poorly contested in Australia, with only 2 major newspaper chains (News Ltd and Fairfax) and News Ltd having 70% of the overall market and several markets to itself. This allows News Ltd a great ability to share costs or cross-subsidise across its fleet of papers. There’s plenty of discussion of the power of media barons, and Murdoch/News Ltd in particular. Some interesting themes were: “everything comes down to the market” as an “emaciated view”; democracy is getting ideas out, yes, but not just selected points of view; exclusion as a key tactic in moulding political thought; big parties are restrained on climate change and politicians are “supine”; “the problem is .. you seek consistency” rang a bell; the call for inquiries by media, but the fretting over Finkelstein’s mild suggestions; more positively, the ultimate success of alternative themes in the face of media obstruction over recent decades, eg, feminism and environmentalism; the threats to media power when they break the rules and are seen to do so; the dangers for any power when it chooses the wrong side, eg, against science (Physics waits for no man); “we live in a work where wealth counts” evidenced by the ability to gain Australian residency with $250K in your pocket; “Australians are generous, good-hearted people, but fear is a great motivator” in reference to boat people; the power that comes with massive wealth is plutocracy - now in battle with democracy; the effectiveness of Murdoch as a great business person and the business-centred biographies written over the years. I felt it was an interesting encounter if sometimes disheartening. Despite the GFC, plutocracy keeps gaining, and we get closer to various emergencies: climate change, peak whatever. But I was thinking of another quote by the end: death comes to all men.

Abstract of Rupert Murdoch : An investigation of political power