Perspectives on Life: Loyalty

Disloyalty is like catching the train to nowhere or Tasmania

In with anger, out with hate.

It’s a meditation I use most days, but this week has just about seen me wear it out. It’s not the day-to-day burdens of power. They are something you become used to – a daily grind as certain as the smell in a toilet in the four hours after Joe Hockey has been in there (eight hours if it’s any of the Greens).

It’s the constant media speculation on leadership, the terrible display from the Opposition in Question Time this week and the unreasonable criticism of Julia personally have combined put me close to the edge.

It really throws into the most extreme focus the issue of loyalty and how little of it seems to be moving around the current Parliament.

So yet again, here’s some objective information on the shenanigans of recent days and how showing loyalty may have led to things coming out a little differently. Actually, that’ about as likely to happen as our popularity rating moving above 30% by Christmas, but you get my drift.

Leadership speculation

It’s a well known fact that the majority of the Canberra Press Gallery will only truly come alive if one of four prospects are on the cards:

1. An election announcement
2. Barnaby Joyce singing karaoke
3, There’s someone within a 4500km radius of Canberra willing to engage in leadership speculation
4. Laurie Oakes reciting the poetry of Philip Larkin

That’s why it only took one ALP parliamentarian present at Barnaby’s last gig (his rendition of Katy Perry’s Firework was actually not bad) to make an off-the-cuff remark to a News Ltd journalist, and the whole shitfight started up again. Now we’re back at the stage of Kevin allegedly counting the numbers (he’s not – Therese is doing it) and Julia allegedly feeling even more pressured on polling and leadership (ok she is).

More loyalty could have occurred at three junctures here. First, the ALP parliamentarian should know that any silly comments will be misconstrued by any journalist, let alone a News Ltd one. Therefore, he should have kept his mouth shut. Second, the News Ltd journalist should have been more loyal to his own common sense by believing anything Kevin says. Third, both Kevin and the journalist should have shown more loyalty to the confidentiality of the karaoke sessions. Next we’ll be getting news reports direct from the Nationals’ quarterly swingers parties or the Greens’ Bicycle Geocaching, Porn and Prawn nights.

Opposition Performance in Question Time

Question Time receives plenty of criticism at the best of times, mainly for its inanity and immaturity. This past week, thanks to the Opposition, we’ve seen things hit a new low. Whether it’s the hypocritical questions from the Libs on offshore processing, or their hypocritical rejoinders on the Government’s hypocrisy in accusing the Opposition of being hypocritical on the asylum-seeker issue, the whole process just got mired in negativity.

A standout for me was Joe Hockey’s sneering dismissal of Wayne Swan’s award as the worldwide Finance Minister of the Year by Euromoney magazine. Aside from the overt racism of his remarks in belittling previous recipients from Nigeria, Slovakia etc, it was the lack of loyalty Joe showed to his own history as a Finance Minister that appalled me. Back then I remember him going around every Parliamentary office selling Euromoney subscriptions in order to increase Costello’s chance of getting the gong. Now suddenly it’s a trashy magazine, and not just because it isn’t published by News Ltd. It’s petty, pointless point-scoring from a bitter Opposition.

Personal Criticisms of the Prime Minister

Four words: At Home With Julia. I have as good a sense of humour as the next power-wielder, but I fail to see how pap like that show is showing respect to an incumbent Prime Minister. Satire is fine, but not when it demeans the subject, and that’s what At Home With Julia is doing. It’s also worth noting the plethora of factual inaccuracies in the show that could have been avoided, whilst maintaining the alleged humour. Here’s just a small list of them:

1. The Lodge does not employ a janitor type called Jesus. He’s actually a 61 year old man called Jim, who loves orienteering.

2. Tim is not a stupid, bumbling idiot who everyone sees as a burden or irrelevancy. I for one would say Tim is far from stupid – semi-intelligently gullible is a better descriptor.

3. The sex under the Australian flag scene is just plain wrong. They used a bunch of Parliamentary tea-towels once, but the flag is bloody well grafted to the wall.

4. Bob Katter is not allowed to enter The Lodge after his nude mechanical bull-riding stunt during John Howard’s tenure.

5, Paul Keating is not a boring old windbag at key ALP functions. He’s an entertaining and bitchy orator in reality. He also makes the best Lemon, Lime and Bitters I’ve ever tasted.

So where does loyalty come in? The ABC should show more loyalty to the people who sign its cheques. They’ve theoretically done that with their endless beatification of my efforts as the actual hand that signs the cheque, but that’s a cop-out.

Julia deserves more respect than she’s getting, and if it doesn’t start happening soon you’ll be seeing a shitload more episodes of Sylvania Waters repeated on a Wednesday night.

Perspectives on Life: Personal Lives

I don’t think you need me to tell you how precious family and friends are. They are the reason we do what we do and it’s no different for anyone, punter or power-broker. The last thing you want is the people you love exposed to the trials of public life unless you can’t avoid it. One of those occasions occurred this week with the announcement of an imminent arrival. I don’t mean GFC 2 or a positive Opposition Leader (which isn’t imminent anyway). I mean something more productive than either: a baby.

A pregnancy is not the sort of thing that regularly makes the news, but in a country where more than half the population consider taking your socks off to procreate is kinky, then any ‘non-mainstream’ pregnancy story is going to get lots of attention. To minimise this, I took the tack of preempting speculation with an announcement, rather than some sewerage-imbibing tabloid journalist driving the story.

That’s all you’ll be hearing from me on the topic, but I wanted to use the opportunity to discuss the impact of public service on private lives. It’s the largest toll the job takes and clarifying some boundaries for both punters and media alike, will give some people pause before wrecking yet another day for someone trying to move the country forward.

The Do’s and Don’ts of Private Lives and Politicians

Do: ask a politician what they like to do when they’re not working.

Don’t: be surprised if they answer Scrabble and American Civil War history. Do you think they are going to answer “Ball gag connoisseur with a penchant for snuff films”?

Do: approach a politician in a public place if they’re formally dressed and have at least one staffer with them.

Don’t: expect a smiling welcome if we’re wearing jeggings and a Stevie Nicks t-shirt whilst looking for plastic storage containers in Bunnings. Jenny Macklin still talks about this incident six years after it occurred.

Do: expect your local member to buy a raffle ticket off you when they visit your school or nursing home on official business.

Don’t: be offended if you get a knock-back for your ‘Send little Lisa to the 2012 World Child Tart Championships in Idaho USA’ guessing competition outside the newsagent on a Saturday morning. It’s not just because you’re a bogan – MP’s just don’t carry money. That’s what staffers are for and all our leisure activities are pre-paid and pre-organised.

Do: compliment an MP on their attractive suit / skirt / dress / kilt.

Don’t: get upset if the AFP taser you after asking a MP if they are wearing any underwear. Bob Katter, Barnaby Joyce and Stephen Conroy are exceptions: they’ve gone commando for years and will happily discuss it in as much depth as you’d like.

Do: feel free to have a chat with any MP at Party events.

Don’t: expect more than 12 seconds of their time if you’re from the wrong faction, are wearing a Gough t-shirt or have written more than one letter to the Labor Herald / eHerald.

Do: ask hard questions at a press conference.

Don’t: get all precious if afterwards we share photos with your colleagues of your shenanigans with a hairbrush and three bottles of vodka the previous weekend.

Do: send get-well / condolence / congratulations cards to your MP if you feel the need.

Don’t: turn up to family funerals with a camera / petition / placard calling for reconsideration of your Centrelink determination. Did I mention tasers already?

Do: feel free to buy a drink for an MP if they do a pub whistlestop.

Don’t: expect them to drink it. Unless there are cameras in which case the AFP will get you to drink a small amount first -in another glass obviously. The last person who truly shared a drink with a punter was Bronwyn Bishop and look what happened to her.

Australian Politics Collective Noun Glossary

What a week it’s been: the past seven days have shown me how bone ignorant most punters are on stuff that actually matters. Point in case is the collective noun. Most people know it’s a school of fish or herd of cattle, but beyond that their slack jaws loosen that little bit more.

Therefore, it’s time for some more widespread altruism with the publication of the Australian Politics Collective Noun Glossary below. It’s for any decent member of the public who doesn’t understand this stuff – and News Limited journalists if they ask permission first.

Part 1: The Electorate

A waft of activists

A prim of senior citizens

A burnout of bogans

A seek of business people

Part 2: Party Politics

A gag of Liberals (anything left of Joe Hockey)

A scum of Liberals (anything right of Joe Hockey)

A superlative of the ALP Left

A sussex of the ALP Right

An excrement of Greens

A dim of Nationals

A punch-line of Family First supporters

Part 3: The Parliament

A whine of staffers

An apathy of school kids

A swill of Senators (if they’re Liberals)

A flop of Members

Part 4: The Media

A coven of News Limited journalists

A flatulence of tabloid journalists

A commune of ABC journalists

———-

There you go – feel free to add any others I’ve missed.

A dream realised: carbon tax perfection

One of the reasons I went into politics, aside from a desire to be able to have as many new staplers as I wanted, was to deliver a truly world-changing piece of legislation. It’s taken a number of years but that’s just what I’ve delivered today. Nothing has made me prouder in my years in Parliament than seeing Julia, Wayne and Greg start to implement my work in such a comprehensive way.

Like any landmark announcement, there’s such a swathe of initiatives that some of the smaller ones can be overlooked. Here’s a snapshot of some that you won’t hear on tonight’s news:

Business Toasted Sandwich Pooling Scheme: large businesses able to reduce the amount of sandwich toasters used across their operation will receive a rebate for each sandwich toaster removed. With some simple rostering and pooling arrangements, all staff can still toast their sandwiches whilst reducing carbon emissions. Companies able to demonstrate a simultaneous reduction in use of ham on sandwiches will receive a 12% increase in the rebate.

Burnout Reduction Regulations: nothing personally shits me more than bogans doing burnouts in their cars. Aside from the pollution caused and excess fuel burned, burnouts bring to the forefront of public perception that Australia still has a cohort of Australians that believe in cigarettes stashed under the flannelette shirt sleeve, the right to expect car parades with topless checkout chicks and a firm passion for the lighting of farts. Electric cars and scooters will be exempt from this regulation.

Fast Food Drive-Through Prevention Strategy: we’ve done modelling that shows that 3% of total small vehicle emissions come from idiots too lazy to get out of their car and go into Fish Milkshake World to buy their crap for the day. Closing down the drive-throughs isn’t feasible. Instead we’ll be installing an Australian Tax Office worker at the entrance to each drive-through, with a compulsory spot audit required prior to placing an order. If you want your Lard Nuggets handed to you direct through your car window, then just have your last seven years of tax returns and receipts in the glove box.

Cross-Stitching and Irrelevant Lace-Making Transition Authority: a small government authority of less than 500 public servants will be established to look at the amount of carbon emissions generated by old ladies continuing to insist on doing cross-stitching or doily construction. Wool production is a necessary part of our national output but not for the sake of pointless needlework that generates nothing more than stock for future generations of Op Shops.

One last word on Abbott and his fellow climate sceptics. Your no-policy, small-target strategy is now more terminal than Richard Wilkins’ career. Once people (aside from bogans, non-community minded toasted sandwich consumers, lazy lard guzzlers and doily addicts) realise that our proposals aren’t going to be the end of the world, questions will quite rightly be asked of the Opposition on why they blocked progress for so long.

Nothing makes me happier than seeing the Libs squirm – except for the approaching milestone of my 500th stapler.

Photo courtesy of Wade Griffith

Perspectives on Life: Parliamentary Negotiations

Before I commence an in-depth look at a very meaty topic, I wanted to thank all of you who have provided such glowing and accurate feedback on the value of these ‘Perspectives on Life’. I have to admit I’ve been a little surprised at how positive the feedback has been, given the usual dictum that 97% of the electorate couldn’t give a rat’s arse about politics and the other three percent are nutbags, sociopaths and political staffers (with most senior staffers covering all three descriptions). It shows that my reluctant tendency to provide substantive transparency into the workings of government is resonating in a big way. I can probably only take 95% of the credit though: our education policies are obviously kicking in, meaning there’s more of you dragging your eyes and knuckes away from Today Tonight and That’s Life magazine to get involved in some public debate. Well done.

Speaking of knuckle-draggers, the past few weeks have seen Parliament in a bit of a frenzy around the carbon tax, immigration and the NBN to name just three issues. It’s again highlighted the delicate nature of the current parliament – although even with a big majority things can still get very heated. The media as always have a lot to answer for. They tend to focus on Question Time and selected leaks from those with a grievance and then tout it as the full story. I’ve lost count of the number of times my leaks have been ignored by journalists who’ve decided an angle on a story and don’t want it complicated by the truth.

To illustrate this more comprehensively, I’m going to take the issue of the carbon tax. It’s one close to my heart for obvious reasons as it’s primary architect, but it also has a great deal of nuance unreported by the media. I’m going to illustrate it in a way that most of you will understand: as a TV script. Think CSI Miami with a dash of Dancing with the Stars and Little Britain. The only difference is that all details are factual and most characters can dance better than half of the arseclowns on Dancing with the Stars (you haven’t lived until you’ve seen Julie Bishop and Stephen Conroy do the Lambada). The below descriptions are based on the factual accounts of moles we have in the Opposition’s ranks and the happily provided, unvarnished accounts of my own staff.

SCENE: LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION’S OFFICE – PARLIAMENT HOUSE CANBERRA – 19TH JULY 2010

It is two days after the announcement of the 2010 Election. The room is tense. Lots of half empty coffee cups, rolled up sleeves and unused self-flagellation inventory. Tony Abbott sits behind his desk with a stricken look on his face. Standing in front of him is the Shadow Environment Minister, Greg Hunt. Assorted advisers stand at the back of the room.

Abbott: (rubbing his temple with one hand) So we’re going with a direct action approach?

Hunt: (shrugs his shoulders) Apparently. It’s seen as a way for us to have a stance without selling out the country to do it.

Abbott: Didn’t you do some study in this area?

Hunt: Yeah sorta. It was a bit different though, as it was funded by a Government research grant. I felt the need to skew it to policy priorities of the time. At least now with the research funding coming from Fortescue and Rio Tinto, I’m confident we can take a more objective view and come up with something that will actually work.

Abbott: Ok – so how does the direct action thing work?

Hunt: Pretty simple really – we put shitloads of carbon dioxide underground so it makes more room for oxygen above ground.

Abbott: Isn’t Carbon Dioxide a gas though? I remember Superman once made diamonds from squeezing carbon between his hands – is that the sort of carbon you mean?

Hunt: (looks to adviser for confirmation – adviser hesitantly nods) It’s a bit like that yeah – it shuts the carbon away so it doesn’t effect the atmosphere.

Abbott: Can you make diamonds out of it? Imagine delivering a budget where you introduced a Diamond Tax Benefit A.

Hunt: (looks to adviser for confirmation – adviser shakes head) Unfortunately no. We’re not all Superman (laughs).

Abbott: I still often wonder how Superman and Lois Lane made love you know. Ok, so we know this approach will work and won’t cost too much? We need to take the lead on the debate by showing we take this stuff seriously, without breaking the bank.

Hunt: Yeah the researchers say direct action works. Once the titanium holding tanks are constructed and placed underground, the carbon dioxide is collected by trucks and pumped into the tanks. It also has the advantage of promoting rural jobs as we’ll locate the tanks in remote areas due to their size.

Abbott: (starting to look more optimistic) Ok good, that sounds like a policy. We just need to be careful during the campaign as your opposite number is probably the most incisive policy-maker the ALP have had in decades. The rumour is Combet will be given the gig after the election, so that will make things a bit easier, but in the meantime keep me in the loop and I can step into the debate if things get heated in the media.

Hunt: No problems.

DEPARTMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY – CANBERRA – 20TH JULY 2010

A very busy Minister’s office. There is an air of efficiency and organisation. The Minister is convening a staff meeting to discuss tactics for the election campaign. It is obvious the staff present are aware of being part of history and the need to step up to the mark to be able to match the intellectual weight of the Minister. 

Minister: (leaning forward in her chair) Ok let’s get this started. I’ve got the documents from the National Secretariat on the overall campaign strategy, so let’s start confirming our approach over the next few weeks.

Minion 1: (standing) I believe we need to go in strong with our commitment to deliver a carbon trading scheme that leads the world.

There is silence until the Minister laughs loudly, with those present then joining in.

Minister: Thanks for that little bit of light relief but let’s focus on the task at hand. (Minion 1 starts to sit down but the Minister indicates he is to stay standing) The fact is we’re running on a platform of no implementation of a carbon scheme until at least 2012. I know that irks some of you – I feel the pain as the architect of the best scheme every devised. The reality is however,  that the Australian public aren’t with us on the issue at present. Our Government has never been poll-driven but the stark reality of a tight election forces some serious decisions. Do we want to lose Government and kill off a decent scheme for a decade or do we get pragmatic and get ourselves elected so we can convince the window-lickers in the electorate we’re right after the election?

Minion 2: (standing) Well my view would be….

Minister: (interrupting) Um, that was a rhetorical question: we’ll be going with the latter option. Julia has the raw charisma to be able to turn public opinion around after the election. Winning will totally legitimise her as PM and polling shows she’s loved by the public a little like Princess Diana was.

Minion 2: (still standing) I think little is the operative word there.

There are gasps from amongst the staffers. The Minister just nods once and Minion 2 turns and leaves the room, never to be seen again.

 

A CORRIDOR IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WING – PARLIAMENT HOUSE CANBERRA – 21st JULY 2010

The Minister and the Shadow Minister Greg Hunt are walking down a corridor toward each other .

Greg Hunt: Dipshit

Minister: (raises middle finger) If I want to hear shit, I’ll fart.

———-

See the difference to the media portrayal? There’s two large differences. First, you see the rigourous debate that can occur behind the scenes before a policy is announced. Second, there tends to be a media-driven perception of politicians being partisan and unwilling to work together for the common good. It’s a terribly stereotypical and watered down perception that doesn’t reflect the actuality that we hate each other with a passion. Passion that gets shit done. Just ask Senator Bushby.

Perspectives on Life: Budgets

Budget. It’s a word that causes consternation to all but a few touched individuals – primarily Treasury and the 20% of accountants in the profession who like their jobs. For the rest of us, budgets are either necessary evils for continued survival, or something to be denied whilst buying the eighth handbag for the day using shopper dockets and change taken from the ashtray in the car. Speaking of Sarah Hanson-Young, I’ll talk more on the Greens’ approach to Budgets later, but there’s some other more important stuff to cover first.

The Budget Process

In Australian politics, the Budget is the fourth-most dominant object of media and public attention (the second-most obsessed about are elections, with Julia’s fashions and Tony Abbott’s mental state tied for first). It’s also the only aspect of politics where specific leaks are encouraged, where the media actually talk about an issue for more than a day, and where there is iron-willed unanimity within the Government on the need for belt-tightening / discreet purging / limb amputation for the sake of the country.

The Budget process itself is of course mostly done behind the scenes and is an arduous process that essentially never stops. Once one Budget is delivered, planning for the next one starts pretty much straight away. It’s not a linear process either: changes in the economy happen every day and it all needs to be factored in.

On the expenditure side there’s the never-ending tussles with colleagues over their Department’s budgets. Lindsay Tanner left me a great document summarising Ministers’ tactics from the previous year and it’s proved invaluable. Whether it was Garrett claiming he needed a further 2500 staff for audit and risk management activities or Stephen Conroy claiming the internet needed more RAM, they soon backed off when I showed them Lindsay’s notes showing they’d asked for the same things last year and that in both cases they’d been delivered (the internet now has 64GB more RAM apparently).

On the revenue side, there are no shortage of challenges either. There are the more obvious examples like natural disasters which have an enormous impact on the Budget bottom line. That said, events like those are relatively easy to incorporate into updated forecasts as Treasury have models covering those contingencies. It’s the more unusual events that can be difficult to factor in and they explain most of the Budget discrepancies that can occur. Some examples:

• Bronwyn Bishop goes on a six week parliamentary junket and goes on a makeup shopping spree whilst overseas. Dozens of David Jones cosmetic staff are made redundant, counsellors report a downturn as there are less kids traumatised by seeing Bronwyn in the (undead) flesh while she’s OS and our balance of payments are affected by the amount of makeup imported on top of the now excess David Jones inventory.
• Today Tonight decide to run a week of stories based on old-fashioned journalistic rigour. KFC and Harvey Norman report huge downturns in sales as their advertisements are suddenly seen by less than 10% of the usual bogan cohort.
• It is revealed that Bon Scott has been cryogenically preserved and that the CSIRO have worked out a way to revive him. Alcohol sales increase 700% within a week and every third Australian buys a ninth AC/DC shirt for their collection with a direct mining resources / T-Shirt trade agreement signed with China.

Of course, only two of the three above are real examples (Bronwyn has a Customs embargo on her importing cosmetics) but I’m sure you see the point: Budgets are a highly nuanced process.

The Greens

One of the more frustrating parts of the current budget process is the accusation that our priorities are being driven by the Greens’ demands. It’s a claim that’s so ridiculous that I shouldn’t need to even take the time to refute it, but I will anyway. When we signed the agreement with the Greens to support Labor to form government, we had the foresight to put in a Budget clause. As a trade-off for unlimited criticism of the Immigration portfolio and an agreement to Bob Brown’s request for Lee Rhiannon to be put in an office the furthest away from his own, they agreed to not make any direct requests for Budget funding and that any criticism of the Government’s Budget will be limited to community radio and ABC 3.

The arrangement has worked well primarily because the two parties are united in their dislike of Lee Rhiannon, who I predict will be the first Senator to make the overhead microphone in the Senate Chamber explode through the use of her voice alone.

Perspectives on Life: Fashion

My 2012 election campaign launch outfit is already chosen

After an appearance on ABC’s Insiders one Sunday morning, I had comments from people that I’d obviously made some changes to my ensemble. On the face of it, it’s a vacuous comment you’d expect from some chauvinist with a limited world view, but that’s not the only reason Wayne Swan said it.

Like any politician, Wayne recognises the strategic underpinnings of fashion in politics. It’s a fundamental part of the game, with a lot of the key political events of the last 80 years or so being directly related to fashion. Here are just a few of the more notable examples:

The Colour of Underwear – 1950

At the height of the parliamentary debate over the Communist Party dissolution Bill, Bob Menzies was having a slash standing alongside  a Labor colleague (to this day no self-respecting Lib pisses in the same trough as a National). Glancing over to answer the colleague’s observations on the day, Menzies noticed he was wearing a pair of red Y-fronts. Appalled at the undergarment iconography, Menzies ordered an audit of parliamentarian clothing and the newly formed ASIO was able to report finding a range of red underwear in drawers and stashed under bedding. This led to Menzies coining the term ‘reds under the beds’, which was later stolen by Joe McCarthy and used to great effect.

Tight Fit – 1972

Billy McMahon tends to cop a lot of flak for his Prime Ministership, although when you compare him to modern day Libs like Sophie Mirabella and Greg Hunt, the shadows fade quite a bit. Putting aside ideological differences I hold with his approach, I believe the criticisms of his short tenure are based on ignorance, even from those that worked with him.  I recently had the privilege of reading through a pile of letters my hero Don Dunstan had written. A number of those letters fell during the period Don was Premier of South Australia and Billy McMahon was PM. Aside from the usual policy debates and niceties, there were many discussion of safari suits and Don had actually sent on a few to McMahon as a gesture of goodwill across the political divide. There’s a letter from McMahon acknowledging receipt and commenting on how fashionable they were.

Looking back at photos, and after confirming some data with the Parliamentary Library and the Government’s Chief Scientist (we do consult  that office), I can confirm Don measured up two sizes smaller in safari suits. That means that a great proportion of the decisions McMahon took were likely affected by reduced blood flow to critical organs. That’s one hell of a silent burden for any leader to bear. I also believe their potential tightness is why the safari suit fell out of favour in spite of its inherent attractiveness as an outfit.

The Hairpiece Catalyst – 1975

No piece of Australian political history has been more dissected than the 1975 constitutional crisis. I’ve read all the substantive analyses over the years and have always felt there was a missing piece to the puzzle. It was only after a fascinating discussion with Gough in 1999 that the penny dropped. He mentioned that at one of his earliest meetings with Governor General John Kerr, he asked the GG who his wig-maker was. Gough states that the relationship was never the same after that and only worsened when he asked the same question at a subsequent meeting.

Surfing The Wave – 1983

Sometimes an outfit or a hairstyle can make a groundbreaking statement on its own. More commonly though its the combination with a strong personality that makes the difference. A perfect example of that was Bob Hawke, who I still argue is one of the most charismatic leaders this country has ever seen (alongside greats such as Julia Gillard and John Gorton). A secret to his success was the amazing hair wave he had going above his forehead. It was a gravity-defying force of nature that relied on nothing but Hawke’s own hair strength. I know of dozens of acquaintances and colleagues of Hawke’s who tried to straighten the wave and failed. Hawke used its appearance to great effect in two ways. First, when engaging in serious debates or policy discussions one-on-one, people would lose their way due to staring at the wave and Hawke would win the day. Second, it gave Hawke a great opportunity to look down blouses as the subject of his attention would be transfixed.

The Accords of the Eighties and early Nineties were a direct result of The Wave. If you’ve seen pictures of Bill Kelty’s hair during that time you’ll see he never had a chance. I do need to put one myth to rest though: Hawke’s hair is definitely his own and The Wave is not a graft of Kerr’s hairpiece provided by the disgraced Governor General feeling guilty for his 1975 behaviour.

The Fashion War on Terror – 2002

Recency of events prevents me from going into much detail, but suffice it to say there was an agreement amongst Western Allies that we needed to make key targets undesirable from a terrorist point of view. There was a view that if particular terrorists saw how large the gulf was between their beliefs and those of the countries they were trying to paralyse, that they may give up their fight. If you look at photos of Amanda Vanstone from 2002 onwards you’ll see her choice of colours and styles shifted radically to the bright and voluminous, even by her standards. I have doubts about the underlying theory, but my gut tells me one reason we’ve thankfully not  experienced significant terrorist acts on home soil is due to the Floral Blouse Effect.

There are a bunch more obvious examples, from Keating’s suits, Stott-Despoja’s Doc Marten boots and Kevin Rudd’s nipple ring. Next time you think someone’s being ignorant by making comments on a politician’s fashion sense, you might like to think again as there can be a lot more to it than you think.

Election Diary 2010: now on iBooks / iTunes

If you own an iPhone / iPad / iArseclown, you may be interested to know you can get my 2010 Election Diary on iBooks now.

Here’s the link and like the hardcover/ebook, 100% of proceeds go to charity. The iBooks version costs $4.99, so it’s only the cost of a carbon-tax inclusive cup of coffee, so get downloading.

One thing: the iBooks version doesn’t contain the filler at the end (my tweets over 2009-2010) – if you want that you’ll need to buy this version.

Perspectives on Life: Substance

Dennis has beautiful feet

One of the most regular criticisms of politicians and politics more broadly, falls around the issue of substance. The 24-hour news cycle, the complexity of issues facing Australia and the base lack of intellect in the Liberal Party mean that politicians are guilty of talking in sound bytes that don’t allow for debates of substance. When substantive debate is an option, it is seen as a delaying tactic or avoidance of producing decisions and/or outcomes. It’s a vicious circle that has worsened over the past decade, with two key components:

1. The ‘Instant Decision’

The enemy of most substantial debate is the media-driven view that politicians are elected to make decisions, and that those decisions are required to be made with a camera jammed in your face (preferably whilst you’ve been caught sitting on the toilet, smoking, shagging an animal, or all three simultaneously as occurred with a Nationals MP once). The incident recently where Tony Abbott was ambushed with only three hours notice and a heads-up from Channel 7, shows how things have devolved to expecting on the spot proclamations of policy.

Part of this expectation is also driven by ignorance from younger journalists. They tend to believe that someone like Bob Hawke would make statements off the cuff that had substance. The reality was a little different. During those days, Bob would invite each of the key Gallery journos for drinks and cards at The Lodge every month or so. It was a great way for Bob to build rapport with the hacks, whilst avoiding a lot of stress for his staff trying to organise poker partners without an inappropriately lengthy criminal record. These sessions, combined with the more relaxed news deadlines of the day, meant that any hot issue would take a good week to fire up, giving plenty of time to formulate an ‘off-the-cuff’ response. That system broke down somewhat when Keating became PM and invited journalists over for one wine and a Philosophy Open Mike night, but even then Keating usually got plenty of warning on issues bubbling under the surface.

Nowadays, the relationship between the media and politicians has broken down to a point where the ‘gotcha’ moment is the thing sought above everything else. Sadly, some politicians have towed the line and gone down the route of the vacuous platitude sound byte in guise of a decision, but I’m pleased to say that’s mostly Joe Hockey, Tony Abbott and Stephen Conroy. Julia is leading the charge to avoid this pitfall, by demonstrating a balance between being an authoritative leader able to make snap decisions when they’re needed, whilst being willing to take a longer tack with critical decisions affecting the country.

Aside from the Mark Latham incursion during the 2010 election campaign, you won’t see Julia being ambushed on much, even though our monthly invites to journos to come to The Lodge for West Coast Cooler and a choice of pedicure or hair consult from Tim, have gone largely ignored. The only exception is Dennis Shanahan who I can report loves fizzy beverages in a glass bottle and has some of the prettiest toes I’ve seen on a bloke. That said, you don’t see that many toes on blokes in the ALP, so it’s a little hard to compare.

 

2. The ‘Consult and Debate’ conundrum

On the other side of the coin, lobby groups and the Opposition endlessly scream for consultation before decisions are made. Taking the vexed issue of a climate change as an example, we commissioned Ross Garnaut (who you never, ever want to invite over for dinner – he’s the most boring man since Bert Newton went back to Channel 9) to look at the issue and he delivered in spades. From the moment that report was released, the Opposition and key industries (or what Bob Brown would call The Evil Polluting Overlords from Non-Theological Hell) have run a concerted campaign against any policy we’ve put up.

Whether it is the CPRS, our current policy (both substantive masterstrokes authored by me) or the one we end up getting through the Senate, the only certainty is the war the Opposition and some industry players will wage against things, even in the face of overwhelming levels of consultation and broad public support. The short-term drive for headlines by the Opposition and shareholder returns by companies are seriously risking Australia’s future and also risking my health as I sit in endless meetings babysitting Greg Combet and listen to Ross Garnaut present graphs for days on end. He uses the default Word graph colour scheme and hasn’t responded to numerous written Departmental requests that he try something different.

We have tried to get the Opposition and key industries involved in the process. Some have come to the party (it was a Fondue night in Perth back in January 2010) but most are content to throw stones from the sidelines. Even Malcolm Turnbull has stepped back a little. Whilst privately acknowledging the sense of our policy and bemoaning the fact his PA put the wrong party’s membership form under his nose to sign all those years ago, he now publicly backs Tony Abbott’s stance.

It all feeds into the perception that by consulting and investigating an issue in detail, we are stalling or avoiding producing real results. Ironically, the effect of the nay saying and scare campaigns risks the chance of even longer consultative processes and the subsequent impact on timeliness in decision-making. That helps no-one unless you count ex-politicians who are now consultants – they’re always up for a longer process to bill for.

 

The way forward

The effect of the ‘quick decision’ pressure I talked about earlier exacerbates the perception that politicians are driven by short-term priorities and polls. As true as that perception may be, it makes life a hell of a lot harder having it exposed publicly day after day.

So is there a way out of the vicious circle? I believe there is. As I mentioned, Julia is starting down that track with her approach of what we call Substantive Brevity. By providing some substance up front, then undergoing a decent level of consultation afterwards, it makes it difficult for the arseclowns on the other side to have a field day. Instead of a seven-second soundbyte for the news, we’ve mandated a 12-second statement as default. We’ll front load the detail into the first three seconds, the sixth second, ninth second and then the last two seconds to stop the TV news editing things out.

At a broader level around consultation and policy, we’ll always offer the opportunity of input to everyone who wants to do so. That includes the Opposition and associated nutbags and rabid haters. Most of it may be ignored by the Government, or worse stolen by One Nation and used holus bolus as policy, but at least everyone gets a say. That’s the real substance of a vibrant democracy.

 

My first 153 days as Finance Minister

I’ve written an article on my first 153 days for New Matilda. Read it so they feel like they’re still part of the independent media landscape.