The rise of political staffers: how people disappeared from policy advice

Australia represented by a prime minister and a staffer!

In October Attorney-General Senator George Brandis got into a stoush with Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson which ultimately led to Gleeson’s resignation. At one point Brandis attempted to turn the issue into an argument about what constituted ‘consultation’ but the real issue was that Brandis had decided his office should have control of what advice could be offered by Gleeson — Gleeson would not have been allowed to provide advice unless the request for advice was first approved in Brandis’ office.

The Solicitor-General acts as the first counsel of the commonwealth and in 2013 and 2014, appeared in matters involving constitutional law, extradition, migration, native title, trade practices, taxation, corporations, customs, international arbitration and criminal law.

Section 12 of the Law Officers Act 1964 sets out his/her functions:
The functions of the Solicitor General are:
  1. to act as counsel for:
    1. the Crown in right of the Commonwealth;
    2. the Commonwealth;
    3. a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth;
    4. a Minister;
    5. an officer of the Commonwealth;
    6. a person holding office under an Act or a law of a Territory;
    7. a body established by an Act or a law of a Territory; or
    8. any other person or body for whom the Attorney General requests him or her to act;
  2. to furnish his or her opinion to the Attorney General on questions of law referred to him or her by the Attorney General; and
  3. to carry out such other functions ordinarily performed by counsel as the Attorney General requests.
Part (b) does not rule out independently providing advice to people listed under (a) but simply specifically spells out that the Solicitor-General must provide advice when requested by the Attorney-General. While Brandis as Attorney-General is the ‘first law officer’ of the land, his decision to effectively control what advice Gleeson could provide, and to whom, clearly has political implications and that comes about largely through the number of political staffers who now occupy ministers’ offices.

Paul Grimes, Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, resigned in March 2015 after a letter to his minister, Barnaby Joyce, that questioned the minister’s integrity. It arose from an incorrect statement Joyce had made to the House. Joyce quickly corrected his statement (on the same day) but the issue was that changes were also made in Hansard to Joyce’s original incorrect statement. Joyce blamed a ‘rogue’ staffer. It is standard procedure that parliamentarians are allowed to amend draft Hansard records but this is meant to be primarily for grammatical and similar errors — in other words, just tidying up their sentences. It is not meant to allow substantive changes to what was originally said. As in Barnaby Joyce’s case, errors of fact are corrected by an additional statement to the parliament.

I can certainly imagine that a junior staffer may have been given the task of ‘tidying up’ the minister’s statement in the draft Hansard and taken that a step too far. The question, however, was whether or not the minister knew, or had even directed, that the substantial change be made. Grimes’ letter suggests that he thought Joyce was directly involved. Even if not, Joyce should at the very least have accepted responsibility for what was done in his office because the changes would certainly have been cleared by a senior person in the office (as would have been done in the public service, so that such a change would never have seen the light of day).

The Joyce episode shows the modus operandi of political staff in ministers’ offices, where protecting the minister is always the first priority. A classic example was the ‘children overboard’ affair. Staffers in the office of then Prime Minister Howard kept from him the public service advice (from the Department of Defence) that the original interpretation of events, that refugees were throwing their children into the water, was wrong. That allowed ‘plausible deniability’. Howard could truthfully claim he had not lied because he was not advised of the new information — his staffers had made sure of that!

Although the people in ministers’ offices are often simply referred to as ‘staffers’, as a former public servant I take the view that for the most part they are ‘political staffers’ — they are both appointed politically and provide politically oriented advice. Their first allegiance is to their minister and their primary role is to protect him or her and ensure their minister is presented in the best light (they use ‘spin’). Their increasing role since the 1990s has to a significant extent overtaken the advisory role of the public service. The old system was not perfect but neither is the new system.

Historically the public service provided ‘frank and fearless’ advice to ministers. That was possible for a number of reasons. One was that departmental secretaries had permanent tenure. There are arguments for and against that but in its favour was that secretaries could give advice a minister may not like and not feel vulnerable for having given it. Secondly, for a long time departments saw their major client as the people for whom they had portfolio responsibility — during my time in the public service that was, for the department and agencies in which I worked, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people — which meant the advice often provided to a minister was intended to assist those ‘clients’, not necessarily the minister. I can’t recall exactly when, but around 1990 that began to change with public servants being told their primary responsibility was to the minister and yet this at a time when political staffers, already with a primary responsibility to the minister, were growing in number and power. Thirdly, ministers’ offices were originally staffed by public servants from the minister’s department, many just undertaking administrative and secretarial tasks. But there was usually a departmental PPS (Principal Private Secretary) to the minister whose major role was as a conduit for two-way advice flowing between the department and the minister. They were usually up-and-coming relatively senior people and that PPS role gave them insight into the political requirements of a minister’s office, which stood them in good stead for future promotion. I had a boss during my time who undertook that role and he was later often consulted by the departmental secretary on the political implications of advice we were proposing and/or a political strategy we may need to pursue to have it accepted. So it wasn’t as though the public service ignored political ramifications but, at the time, saw them as of lesser importance than ‘sound’ advice. And after weighing the advice, or even ignoring it, the minister always had the final say.

All that changed.

It was Paul Keating in 1994 who did away with permanent tenure for departmental secretaries. He was of the view that the public service should pay more heed to ‘the will of the government’. No doubt Labor’s history contributed to that view. When the Whitlam government was elected in 1972 it inherited a public service that had known nothing but Coalition governments for 23 years. For that reason Whitlam and his ministers did not trust the public service. It could be argued that the Whitlam government may have lasted longer if it had taken more notice of public service advice but, on the other hand, that may also have slowed its reform agenda. And when the Hawke government was elected in 1983, the public service had had Coalition governments for 31 of the past 34 years — not something to instil confidence in the public service for a new Labor government.

Keating’s changes paved the way for Howard, after 13 years of Labor governments, to wield the axe when he was elected in 1996. He removed six departmental secretaries, or a third of the total number at the time. If they did not already know it, secretaries were then made well aware that their job depended on providing appropriate advice, not frank and fearless advice. Rudd did not remove any when elected in 2007 and Abbott kept it to only three on his election in 2013. While the public service has often been criticised by government ministers, of all political persuasions, for being ‘risk averse’, the uncertainty regarding the security of secretaries was only likely to make that more so.

At the same time the number of political staffers was on the rise. During the Howard years, from May 1996 to May 2006, the number of ministerial staff increased from 294 to 445. On AIMN Kaye Lee also quoted another set of figures from Adam Creighton (in The Australian’s ‘Business Review’ of June 2014) that from 1984 to 2014 the number of staff for federal parliamentarians had more than doubled to 590 — including about 420 for ministers and 88 for the opposition (which is traditionally given 21 per cent of whatever the government has). On top of that there were 925 electorate staff whose main task is ensuring the re-election of their member of parliament (including ministers) — so that is another political role. A minister then has three key sources of advice, his political staffers, his electorate staff (who can also provide information on local community views) and the public service but two are definitely political and the third, the public service, has become more political in recent years. Of course, lobbyists also come into this as another source of ‘advice’ although it comes from a clearly partisan and self-interested perspective.

At the start of his prime ministership, Howard restructured the prime minister’s office, creating his own Cabinet Policy Unit (CPU) of political appointees. He also made the Secretary to Cabinet a political position whereas previously that role had been filled by the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Turnbull has an advisory structure in his office that includes five main areas: international affairs, including foreign and national security policy; social policy; climate, water, infrastructure and cities policy; innovation and higher education policy; and economic policy. He did, however, appoint a public servant as his Chief of Staff, which was an acknowledgement of previous practice.

Since the Keating years, the prime minister’s office has grown from about 30 staff to over 50. Other ministers have between 10 and 20 staff on average.

While policy may still be determined by Cabinet and ministers, advice now comes from many sources and is generally interpreted by the political staffers before it lands on a minister’s desk. Even advice from the public service that implementation of a policy may create problems can often be ignored in favour of advice from political staffers that the policy may be a ‘political winner’.

There is no need to revisit the history of Peta Credlin in Tony Abbott’s office except to say that she portrays the ultimate power of a political staffer. She attended Cabinet meetings, advised Abbott on policy, controlled access and advice to Abbott and also exercised a degree of control over other members of Abbott’s party. Even many of those who supported Abbott thought that was a step too far.


The ‘children overboard’ affair showed one way in which these political staffers protect their ministers: politically damaging or risky information may never appear on a minister’s desk — they are basically deciding what information it may be ‘dangerous’ for a minister to know. Nowadays they also influence the advice the public service provides as advice will often not reach a minister unless it has been endorsed by the political staffers. I know from experience that, in some situations, public servants have virtually to negotiate with the political staffers what advice will go to a minister. What has advice come to when it has to be ‘negotiated’!

Operating that way, political staffers have even undermined ministers having the final say on policy issues. If ministers do not see appropriate advice, both pro and con a policy position or potential problems with implementation, how can they make a legitimate decision? Decisions simply become echoes of political views.

The Barnaby Joyce example shows, at the least, that political staffers may not fully understand parliamentary procedures (let alone public service checks and balances). Departments have people skilled in those procedures and processes of checking to ensure little goes wrong. At worst, it was an example of blatant over-riding of those procedures, whether by the minister or his office, all in the name of protecting the minister.

The Brandis situation exemplifies the efforts to politicise advice, no longer wanting independent or frank and fearless advice but only that advice suiting the political agenda or ‘the will of the government’, to use Keating’s words.

It seems to me that the changes that took place simultaneously within the public service and in ministers’ offices were the wrong changes at the wrong time. Surely the growth in the number of political staffers should have provided more scope, not less, for the public service to provide frank and fearless advice, leaving it to the political staffers to assess the political implications and advise the minister so that she or he could then make a balanced decision. Instead, the public service was also changed so that the advice it provided already took account of many of the political aspects. There seemed no one left who was considering the interests of the people for whom departments were responsible.

If voters are dissatisfied with politics, I suggest one reason is because most policy now is driven by politics rather than basic or frank and fearless advice about what may be good policy for particular groups of people. If both the public service and political staffers advising ministers now consider the minister is their most important ‘client’, it is little wonder that people feel left out. It is because they are!

What do you think?
Do ministers need as many as staff as they have when they also have whole public service departments to advise them?

Where does the balance lie between political advice and ‘frank and fearless’ advice?

Is Ken right in suggesting that the politicisation of policy advice has effectively removed people from the equation?

Let us know in comments below.


Recent Posts
Aaand it’s sold
2353NM, 16 November 2016
Housing affordability is perceived to be an issue in Australia. In some areas of Australia, the median price of a house is in excess of $1million and there is some justification in the common questions around how on earth can a young couple ever be able to afford a house in that market. There are a number of answers …
More...
Let’s welcome President Trump
2353NM, 20 November 2016
Yes, you read the title correctly. Donald J Trump will be the 45th President of the United States of America after amassing more ‘Electoral College’ votes on 8 November 2016. It doesn’t matter that Clinton won the popular vote as the ‘Electoral College’ is where you need to outperform. The …
More...
Trump’s Uncertainty Principle
Ad astra, 23 November 2016
Way back in 1927 German physicist Werner Heisenberg described the Uncertainty Principle that applies to quantum mechanics. It states that the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. With apologies to …
More...

Trump’s Uncertainty Principle


Way back in 1927 German physicist Werner Heisenberg described the Uncertainty Principle that applies to quantum mechanics. It states that the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. With apologies to Heisenberg and quantum physicists, the uncertainty principle seems to be a suitable metaphor for America’s President Elect.

Of all the nouns that could now be applied to the name ‘Donald Trump’, ‘uncertainty’ is the most plausible. Is there anyone who is prepared to make predictions with certainty about what Trump’s contribution to American and world politics might be?

Read these synonyms of ‘uncertainty’: unpredictability, unreliability, riskiness, chanciness, precariousness, unsureness, changeability, inconsistency, fickleness, hesitancy, doubt, vacillation, equivocation, vagueness, ambivalence, disquiet, wariness, chariness, skepticism, doubt, misgiving, apprehension, quandary, dilemma, reservation, query, and suspicion.

Read these antonyms: certainty, predictability, and confidence.

Are there any synonyms that do not apply to Trump?

In the June issue of The Atlantic, long before the presidential election, Dan P. McAdams, professor of psychology and the director of the Foley Center for the Study of Lives at Northwestern University, wrote The Mind of Donald Trump, a detailed appraisal of the psychological traits that govern Trump’s behaviour. It’s a long article that is well worth the time it takes to read it.

McAdams based his analysis of Trump on the five basic dimensions of human variability, which are pretty stable across a person’s lifetime (Trump is 70):

Extroversion: gregariousness, social dominance, enthusiasm, reward-seeking behavior

Neuroticism: anxiety, emotional instability, depressive tendencies, negative emotions

Conscientiousness: industriousness, discipline, rule abidance, organization

Agreeableness: warmth, care for others, altruism, compassion, modesty

Openness: curiosity, unconventionality, imagination, receptivity to new ideas.

Who would disagree that Trump exhibits hyper-extroversion and hypo-agreeableness? He seems to be low on neuroticism, but on the ‘conscientiousness’ scale he is high on industriousness, yet low on discipline; his minders had to endure his ill discipline on the campaign trail and on social media. His ‘openness’ is questionable. He is unconventional, but who is willing to predict his willingness to embrace new ideas?

McAdam analysed Trump’s traits in detail:
“Across his lifetime, Donald Trump has exhibited a trait profile that you would not expect of a U.S. president: sky-high extroversion combined with off-the-chart low agreeableness…

“A cardinal feature of high extroversion is relentless reward-seeking. Prompted by the activity of dopamine circuits in the brain, highly extroverted actors are driven to pursue positive emotional experiences, whether they come in the form of social approval, fame, or wealth. Indeed, it is the pursuit itself, more so even than the actual attainment of the goal, that extroverts find so gratifying. When Barbara Walters asked Trump in 1987 whether he would like to be appointed president of the United States, rather than having to run for the job, Trump said no: “It’s the hunt that I believe I love.”
McAdams asked his readers to: “Imagine Donald Trump in the White House. What kind of decision maker might he be?”

He concedes that it is very difficult to predict the actions a president will take:
"Research suggests that extroverts tend to take high-stakes risks and that people with low levels of openness rarely question their deepest convictions. Entering office with high levels of extroversion and very low openness, George W. Bush was predisposed to make bold decisions aimed at achieving big rewards, and to make them with the assurance that he could not be wrong…

“Like Bush, a President Trump might try to swing for the fences in an effort to deliver big payoffs – to make America great again, as his campaign slogan says.

“As a real-estate developer, he has certainly taken big risks, although he has become a more conservative businessman following setbacks in the 1990s. As a result of the risks he has taken, Trump can (and does) point to luxurious urban towers, lavish golf courses, and a personal fortune that is, by some estimates, in the billions, all of which clearly bring him big psychic rewards. Risky decisions have also resulted in four Chapter 11 business bankruptcies involving some of his casinos and resorts.

“Because he is not burdened with Bush’s low level of openness, Trump may be a more flexible and pragmatic decision maker, more like Bill Clinton than Bush: He may look longer and harder than Bush did before he leaps. And because he is viewed as markedly less ideological than most presidential candidates (political observers note that on some issues he seems conservative, on others liberal, and on still others non-classifiable), Trump may be able to switch positions easily, leaving room to maneuver in negotiations with Congress and foreign leaders.

“But on balance, he’s unlikely to shy away from risky decisions that, should they work out, could burnish his legacy and provide him an emotional payoff.”
It has been observed that Trump reads little. He relies on his gut feelings when assessing risks, even when the stakes are high.

In his article McAdams relates a story about Trump negotiating the purchase of an estate in Scotland to convert the dunes and grassland into a luxury golf resort. “The estate’s owner, Tom Griffin, recalls that Trump was a hard-nosed negotiator, reluctant to give in on even the tiniest details, but as Michael D’Antonio wrote in his recent biography of Trump, ‘Never Enough’, Griffin’s most vivid recollection of the evening pertains to the theatrics. It was as if the golden-haired guest sitting across the table were an actor playing a part on the London stage. “It was Donald Trump playing Donald Trump,” Griffin observed. There was something unreal about it.”

Donald Trump is an actor. He is a TV reality show star. He is accomplished at acting. A week after his election he has already retreated on several policy issues that were key to his success. It looks now as if Trump’s election rhetoric was an act to attract votes from the audience that he perceived would support him strongly: working, white middle class males resentful at having lost their jobs to overseas countries because of globalization and technology.

Let’s look at what’s become of some of his pre-election rhetoric.

The Mexican wall now might be made up in part by fences. There’s been no more talk of Mexico footing the bill.

The threat to deport some three million illegal Mexican immigrants is no longer a certainty, as it was pre-election. Who can guess how that threat will play out?

It seems now that ‘Obamacare’ will no longer be discontinued and replaced by Trump’s ‘superior scheme’. How much of it will survive? Will another scheme even be offered?

NATO now seems to be back in favour with Trump, and the nuclear threat that embellished his rhetoric has been toned down.

After Trump met Barack Obama, whom he had denounced repeatedly, he began to talk about seeking his counsel. His condemnation of Crooked Hillary and the criminal Clinton family has turned into words of admiration for what the Clintons have contributed, and there’s even talk of Trump seeking their advice. The threat of criminal prosecution and gaol for Hillary has evaporated, at least for now. Trump’s acerbic comments about several of his Republican rivals and colleagues have lost much of their acidity.

Already, predictions of what President Trump might do are proving problematic. Writing in the November 12-13 issue of The Weekend Australian, Paul Kelly warns: Beware of confident predictions about what Trumpism means once the man sits in the Oval Office. This is a classic Donald Rumsfield’s notion of ‘known unknowns’ – things we know we don’t know. The smartest people in the world are clueless about how Trump will govern or what he will actually do.”

Given that Trump is a consummate actor who can be whatever Trump he wants to be at any time, who can change like a chameleon from one policy position to the converse, how finely tuned are his political skills?

He certainly tapped into the prevailing anger and resentment of unemployed white males in the rust belt. Although it was a close election (Clinton won the popular vote), Trump captured 60% of the white male vote with his promises to fix their problems.

Paul Kelly wrote: “He has mobilized a new force in the country…the key was Trump's cunning in diagnosing the ‘personal grievances’ plaguing the American soul. Trump became a symbol – the fixer, the nostalgic agent, the man who shared your anger, and he depicted a political establishment rotten to the core. His victory revealed an America even more politically divided than we grasped, with its sense of moral compass smashed to pieces.”

So far Trump gets high marks in political acumen on the domestic front for winning what the pundits and polls said was unwinnable for him. But how will he fare on the international front? Nobody knows.

Kelly’s assessment is:
"Trump’s brazen capacity to impose parts of his agenda and ditch others should not be misjudged. Remember, Trump doesn’t play by the rulebook; he just tore it up and got rewarded.

“This is a time for calm and rationality. Anger at Trump’s election is as worthless as denouncing the American public. It is as true today as it was before to say Trump is unfit to be president. But it is counter productive because he is president. History keeps remaking our realities. And Trump, inexperienced in public life, must figure out how to keep remaking himself.

“If you believe that Trump’s agenda is a danger to the world – pretty much a statement of the obvious – then the only rational response is to engage, advocate and persuade.” This is how political leaders around the world should act…

“In truth, Trump is about to enter a steep learning curve. He will be more prepared to listen to friends and supporters, not patronizing leaders who think criticizing Trump will earn them electoral kudos at home. Trump, no doubt, will treat such leaders as mugs. You don’t need a doctorate in psychology to realize Trump is a vain man with a glass jaw likely to visit retribution on leaders and countries that opt for gratuitous insults.
[He is said to keep count of insults and slights and extract revenge later.]

“The most fascinating element in Trump, however, is his dual identity. There seems to be two Donald Trumps, thereby complicating how the new president will govern: the real Trump and candidate Trump.”
What motivates Trump?

Winning, success, admiration, praise and wealth top the list.

According to Barack Obama, Trump is pragmatic rather than ideological. Judging from his pre-election pronouncements, he seems not to have fixed policy positions, nor does he have many. In that case he might not find the ideologies of the conservatives and their hard right colleagues in the Tea Party attractive enough to underpin his policies when he gets round to formulating them.

Obama has reassured us that Trump is committed to America’s four international alliances, of which NATO is the most important. Former US ambassador to Australia, John Berry, in an interview on Lateline, indicated that Trump would likely honour the deal to take refugees from Nauru and Manus Island as the US alliance with Australia was so strong; Australia is “a great friend and great ally”. The ABC reported that Australia was Trump’s ‘poster boy’! Less reassuring is the talk of the US amassing a fleet to challenge China’s incursion into the South China Sea.

Trump’s commitment to the UN Climate Change initiative is more problematic. He regards all the talk of global warming as a hoax, ”created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive”, and has threatened to cut US funding for the UN initiative. Should he do so, the UN efforts to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels would be severely frustrated. Chaos in the environmental arena would result. We can only hope his advisors will persuade him not to go down that dangerous track, and instead focus on renewable energy rather than his beloved fossil fuels.

Another contentious policy area is free trade. Trump is isolationist, and threatens to put up trade barriers in the form of high tariffs on imported goods, especially those from China. The Trans Pacific Partnership, which has only lukewarm support in America, seems doomed already.

On the economic front he talks as if he is a latter-day Ronald Reagan, intent on giving massive tax cuts – from 35% down to 15% – a move that would cut federal revenues by an estimated $9.5 trillion over a decade. He lauds Reaganomics, based as it was on trickle down economics, but as Saul Eslake points out, he ignores the fact that during Reagan’s presidency “the US Federal Reserve cut rates from 17.5 to 6 per cent, and the US debt-to-GDP ratio rose from 20 to 40 per cent.” Trumponomics will do no more to benefit the unemployed and lower income workers than any other iteration of trickle down economics has. His stated intention though to build massive infrastructure might.

Writing in The Weekend Australian about Trump, John Durie noted: “The magic wand is missing, as is some magic potion. No wonder, when asked, Australia’s financial regulators were unanimous in their warning that ‘it’s too early to tell what Trump will do’ ”

All the above leaves aside the fact that the US President Elect has many personal defects. To paraphrase what I wrote in Trump is just part of the problem:
"We can see from his words and actions that on the personal front he is an ugly misogynist and a womanizer, yet is disrespectful of so many of the women who have entered his ambit, women whom he regards as his property, to do with as he wishes. He labels as liars the continuing procession of women who have accused him of sexual predation, insisting that all these claims have been ‘proven false’, and that he will sue them after the election.


“We know too that he is a bully, and has a nasty streak that shows when he calls his opponent ‘Crooked Hillary’…labels her a ‘criminal’... calls her a liar, accuses her of ‘having tremendous hate in her heart’, attacks her over her husband’s alleged womanizing, and suggests she should be drug tested before their debates.”
It’s curious that these obnoxious attributes have attracted little comment since the election; commentators are now so concerned about the domestic and global consequences of a Trump presidency that they have faded into the background. Womanizing is one thing, but the prospect that he will propel the US and the world into chaos and conflict is what Trump observers are petrified about.

’Uncertainty’ makes for anxiety, apprehension, and fear. World and national leaders are afflicted, as are international bodies, defence analysts, economists, international and national bankers, business and industry bodies, unions, refugee agencies, advocates for women, pro-choice advocates, immigration and multicultural activists, and countless men, women and even children who are now even more uncertain about the future, the future of their nation, the future of the globe as it faces multiple challenges which world leaders seem unable to manage. To add to their anguish, they now have the burden of having to deal with a loose cannon leading the most powerful nation on earth. Understandably, uncertainty and fear are the prevailing emotions.

So much depends on those with whom Trump surrounds himself, and those to whom he listens.

Isn’t is astonishing that just one man has created this extraordinary global upheaval!



What do you think?
What is your assessment of how Trump will govern?

Let us know in comments below.

Recent Posts
Inequality is an invasive global cancer
Ad astra, 9 November 2016
Inequality has been the subject of several pieces on The Political Sword. They have focussed primarily on income and wealth inequality, which afflicts massive swathes of the world’s peoples, consigning them to constrained lives where poverty, underprivilege, disadvantage …
More...
Aaand it’s sold
2353NM, 16 November 2016
Housing affordability is perceived to be an issue in Australia. In some areas of Australia, the median price of a house is in excess of $1million and there is some justification in the common questions around how on earth can a young couple ever be able to afford a house in that market. There are a number of answers …
More...
Let’s welcome President Trump
2353NM, 20 November 2016
Yes, you read the title correctly. Donald J Trump will be the 45th President of the United States of America after amassing more ‘Electoral College’ votes on 8 November 2016. It doesn’t matter that Clinton won the popular vote as the ‘Electoral College’ is where you need to outperform. The reality is that close to 45% of the population used their democratic right of not voting for any Presidential candidate.
More...

Let’s welcome President Trump


Yes, you read the title correctly. Donald J Trump will be the 45th President of the United States of America after amassing more ‘Electoral College’ votes on 8 November 2016. It doesn’t matter that Clinton won the popular vote as the ‘Electoral College’ is where you need to outperform. The reality is that close to 45% of the population used their democratic right (in the US anyway) of not voting for any Presidential candidate. It’s easy to make the assumption that a lot of people either didn’t care, didn’t like the candidates or just couldn’t be bothered. Some of those may now be regretting their choice.

The internet is awash with articles by full time and citizen journalists telling us why Clinton lost or Trump won. To be honest, there is probably a grain of truth in a lot of the discussion. This isn’t another ‘we woz robbed’ or ‘wot went wrong’ monologue, history is history and Trump may last as President from 20 January 2017 to 20 January 2021 or beyond. Despite the apparently common theme in Australia that Trump is not a good thing, are we not seeing the wood for the trees here? Michael Moore of Bowling for Columbine and other documentary movies’ fame actually tipped not only that Trump would win the election last July, but which US states Trump would pick up:
You need to stop living in denial and face the truth which you know deep down is very, very real. Trying to soothe yourself with the facts — “77% of the electorate are women, people of color, young adults under 35 and Trump can’t win a majority of any of them!” — or logic — “people aren’t going to vote for a buffoon or against their own best interests!” — is your brain’s way of trying to protect you from trauma. Like when you hear a loud noise on the street and you think, “oh, a tire just blew out,” or, “wow, who’s playing with firecrackers?” because you don’t want to think you just heard someone being shot with a gun. It’s the same reason why all the initial news and eyewitness reports on 9/11 said “a small plane accidentally flew into the World Trade Center.” We want to — we need to — hope for the best because, frankly, life is already a s**t show and it’s hard enough struggling to get by from paycheck to paycheck. We can’t handle much more bad news. So our mental state goes to default when something scary is actually, truly happening. The first people plowed down by the truck in Nice spent their final moments on earth waving at the driver whom they thought had simply lost control of his truck, trying to tell him that he jumped the curb: “Watch out!,” they shouted. “There are people on the sidewalk!”
Moore suggested:
I believe Trump is going to focus much of his attention on the four blue states in the rustbelt of the upper Great Lakes — Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Four traditionally Democratic states — but each of them have elected a Republican governor since 2010 (only Pennsylvania has now finally elected a Democrat). In the Michigan primary in March, more Michiganders came out to vote for the Republicans (1.32 million) that the Democrats (1.19 million). Trump is ahead of Hillary in the latest polls in Pennsylvania and tied with her in Ohio. Tied? How can the race be this close after everything Trump has said and done? Well maybe it’s because he’s said (correctly) that the Clintons’ support of NAFTA helped to destroy the industrial states of the Upper Midwest. Trump is going to hammer Clinton on this and her support of TPP and other trade policies that have royally screwed the people of these four states. When Trump stood in the shadow of a Ford Motor factory during the Michigan primary, he threatened the corporation that if they did indeed go ahead with their planned closure of that factory and move it to Mexico, he would slap a 35% tariff on any Mexican-built cars shipped back to the United States. It was sweet, sweet music to the ears of the working class of Michigan, and when he tossed in his threat to Apple that he would force them to stop making their iPhones in China and build them here in America, well, hearts swooned and Trump walked away with a big victory that should have gone to the governor next-door, John Kasich.
Moore also talks about ‘angry white men’ who can’t adjust to equality of race or gender, Clinton’s negatives, the Democrats who supported Sanders not necessarily supporting the Democrats eventual nominee with the same gusto as ‘their’ candidate and those who were always going to vote for Trump because doing so gives the royal finger to established politics.

And you know what, Moore is right. If you are a factory worker in Michigan who no longer has a job because the cars you used to make are now imported — or even a mining worker in the Hunter Valley or Central Queensland who has lost their job because of global markets either not requiring or finding a cheaper alternative to ‘their’ product — you too would think about destroying the system that on the face of it looks after itself, but not you.

Rightly or wrongly Clinton wasn’t a great candidate. Sure, she knew how the system worked and had the experience, as she has been a part of the system for a long time. Unfortunately, she also had made some decisions in the past that were marketed as demonstrating Clinton didn’t follow the rules when it didn’t suit her. The perception therefore is that she is there to look after herself, rather than the unemployed labourer or farm worker suffering because of changing economic circumstances.

So if you think that Clinton could refute Trump’s appeal, in the words of Moore:
… you obviously missed the past year of 56 primaries and caucuses where 16 Republican candidates tried that and every kitchen sink they could throw at Trump and nothing could stop his juggernaut.
Yes, from the other side of the Pacific, Trump is a xenophobe, narcissistic and seemingly will do what it takes to gather popularity. However, how about we look at this strategically?

Trump (and Hanson/Abbott in Australia, Farage in the UK and La Pen in France amongst others) is telling voters that if you vote for me, I will ‘fix’ your individual problem, be it health care, education, jobs, commodity prices or whatever else is the reason you are disaffected with the ‘political’ class. Trump has made that implied promise to something like 380 million people. Before he starts campaigning for his Presidential re-election campaign somewhere around 2019, he has to deliver on a lot of promises made to a lot of people. Given that it would be well-nigh impossible to understand the problems of a lot of the US population inside two years, there is Buckley’s chance of a solution being delivered. Let’s say that Trump ‘fixes’ imports, giving jobs back to the ‘rustbelt’ states that effectively elected him. Apart from the domestic replacements being more expensive and/or of lesser quality than the current import, imported products also have a supply line of distributors and resellers who would conceivably be worse off if the tap on imports is turned off. In a similar vein, a lot of those who rely on what are claimed to be ‘undocumented Americans’ to do the menial work around the home and so on would probably find themselves either doing the work or paying a lot more for a ‘documented American’ to perform the same tasks.

Trump has by implication promised to ‘fix’ the perceived personal problem of every person that has voted for him, as well as those who didn’t. It really doesn’t matter that there are a multitude of problems and, given all the good will in the world, some of the problems are so entrenched in the global economic system that they will never be ‘fixed’, Trump’s implicit promise is to ‘fix it’ and benefit all those US citizens who voted for him. When it comes time for other Republicans to challenge him for the 2020 nomination sometime in 2019, a lot of the disaffected that voted for Trump this time around will look at their individual circumstances and decide whether they are either worse or no better off. While Trump may not necessarily follow the usual political protocols, he can’t ‘fix’ everything he claimed to be able to manage in under 24 months. He is already ‘talking down’ his promise to cancel Obama’s Affordable Health initiative. Will these people (probably numbered in the hundreds of millions) accept Trump’s inevitable line that he is gradually turning things around? Or will they, to paraphrase a former Australian politician be waiting on the porch with a baseball bat?

We do have a precedent here. Campbell Newman came to power in Queensland promising to fix the state, and the people gave him a wallopingly large margin to do it (the Official Opposition, led by Annastacia Palaszczuk, could hold meetings in an eight-seater people mover and still have a spare seat). Newman instituted his vision of reform and not only did Palaszczuk form a minority government at the next election some two and a half years later, Newman lost his seat in the 89 seat Queensland parliament. You could also argue that the 2016 federal election result was a result of Abbott’s claims prior to 2013 that he would ‘fix it’ with a similar lack of actual ability to do so.

The beauty of Trump’s election is that from 20 January 2017, he is arguably the most important person in the world. The common belief is that if the US President says jump, the expected answer is ‘how high’. If Trump can’t make everyone happy in the next couple of years, do the Hansons and Farages of this world have any chance of doing so? In reality — probably not. Probably the easier question to ask is will every other political party in the world (apart from the ultra conservatives such as One Nation, UKIP, etc) be reticent about pointing out that Trump couldn’t fix it — so how on earth will Hanson, Farage or whoever else do better?

Trump in the view of a lot of people doesn’t deserve to be President because he worked outside the traditional rules of engagement. Rightly or wrongly, he convinced enough people in the right areas to trust him to deliver. While the jury is still out on the delivery of his promises, Trump is highly susceptible to claims that he is no better than the rest if each one of the implied promises he made to make things better for every American citizen isn’t happening by 2019. Trump will soon have in his command the established forces of the largest and most well-resourced democracy in the world to make the changes he considers necessary to the world’s political and economic systems. If Trump can’t do it (and the chances are he won’t in the minds of a lot of Americans) people like Abbott, Hanson and the other ‘like-minded’ people around the world have even less. Trump’s probable failure also should be concerning other political players who have been using similar arguments for a number of years — including Hanson’s One Nation Party.

Michael Moore managed to blitz the field with his tips for the 2016 US Elections. He still has one tip in play. As reported by Paste magazine, Moore appeared on American television on November 11, 2016:
During the sprawling 45-minute discussion, Moore said that he didn’t think Trump would last his whole term of office. Moore said:

This is why we’re not going to have to suffer through four years of Donald J. Trump, because he has no ideology except the ideology of Donald J. Trump. And when you have a narcissist like that, who’s so narcissistic where it’s all about him, he will — maybe unintentionally — break laws. He will break laws because he’s only thinking about what’s best for him.
In some ways, impeaching Trump would be a tragedy.

What do you think?
Let us know in comments below.

Recent Posts
Inequality is an invasive global cancer
Ad astra, 9 November 2016
Inequality has been the subject of several pieces on The Political Sword. They have focussed primarily on income and wealth inequality, which afflicts massive swathes of the world’s peoples, consigning them to constrained lives where poverty, underprivilege, disadvantage …
More...
Who invents this cruelty?
2353NM, 13 November 2016
In the past fortnight, the Turnbull Coalition government announced proposed legislation to ensure that each person on Manus Island or Nauru sentenced to the cruel and unusual punishment for no legal or moral reason since an arbitrary date in 2013, will never come to Australia. That’s never ever …
More...
Aaand it’s sold
2353NM, 16 November 2016
Housing affordability is perceived to be an issue in Australia. In some areas of Australia, the median price of a house is in excess of $1million and there is some justification in the common questions around how on earth can a young couple ever be able to afford a house in that market. There are a number of answers …
More...

Aaand it’s sold


Housing affordability is perceived to be an issue in Australia. In some areas of Australia, the median price of a house is in excess of $1million and there is some justification in the common questions around how on earth can a young couple ever be able to afford a house in that market. There are a number of answers to the question and there are also a number of inequities that are assisting to take house prices in ‘desirable’ areas out the reach of those who are not on a well above average income.

Most would attest that the choosing of a home either to rent or buy is not the stress-free experience that is portrayed in advertising for various real estate agents. For a variety of reasons, I have recently sold and purchased a home, which apart from the angst over someone paying me as much as possible and my payment of as little as possible, gave me a few insights into the current state of play in the residential real estate market.

In short, it is easy to believe that the real estate market is loaded against those who are younger, not earning that much (when compared to those who have been in the workforce for a while), with little or no deposit to contribute to the purchase of a house to call ‘their home’.

Generally, in Australia, the suburbs closer to the CBD in each capital city receive better services. There is a better variety of shopping centres, the public transport is usually better and more frequent, healthcare and education facilities are closer and accordingly easier to get to and so on. On the downside, there is a higher chance of living in a noisier environment with closer neighbours, more traffic and congestion.

Each member of the finance industry collectively spends a lot convincing you to borrow money from them rather than the mob down the road. What they don’t tell you in the glossy advertising is that if you have less than 20% of the purchase price of your future home, you will be required to pay mortgage insurance.

Normally an insurance policy paid for by a particular person will benefit that person. Mortgage insurance doesn’t. The ‘logic’ behind mortgage insurance is to pay out the financier of the home loan should the loan default. While the lender may get all their money back, the mortgage insurer is then out of pocket and chases the borrower. The insurance premium is frequently in the tens of thousands.

While there is probably some statistical reason for the requirement for loan insurance for those with what the finance industry considers to be a low deposit, it effectively penalises those who can’t for some reason save the ‘reasonable’ deposit for the area where they would like to live. The purchaser is then forced to live further away from the CBD, in an area with less services. Sooner or later pressure is applied to all levels of government for the services to improve further out from the CBD, applying upward pressure to taxes and charges so the improvements can be funded.

According to Realesate.com.au, the time it takes to save a deposit to purchase a ‘median priced’ house in each capital city varies according to the city, number of incomes and the earnings capability of the people involved. It could take in excess of eight years to save the 20% deposit to avoid the mortgage insurance. Don’t forget that while you are saving for the eight years, the house prices will go up as will your income. However, with housing prices in some areas rising faster than salaries and wages, is it any wonder that people decide that the occasional $22 smashed avo on bruschetta is more attainable? If you follow the advice in this ABC website article, you might actually have your avo while saving for the home of your own, but it isn’t guaranteed.

A considerable number of people saving for a house are renting somewhere while they ‘save the deposit’. Realestate.com.au listed the ‘cheapest five’ rental suburbs within 10km of the respective capital city CBD during October. Looking at the Brisbane suburbs listed on the website, the latter three generally have much better access to services than the first two, which probably accounts for the difference in price. So while paying generally in excess of $300 a week to rent a place to live, people have to find a way to put a similar or greater amount away to eventually buy a house.

Unfortunately the area with the cheapest rentals is not necessarily one of the cheaper areas to purchase in, leading to people either having to save a higher deposit or accept a reduction in nearby services when they choose to commence the process of buying a house.

That’s when you meet the real estate agents and the house sellers (better known as vendors). Real estate agents generally are paid on a commission basis. The seller of the property generally pays a certain percentage of the eventual purchase price to the real estate agent for the work they have put into introducing the purchaser to the property. In the past few months I have met some really nice people working as real estate agents and some that would sell their mother for five cents.

Observation would tell you that most real estate agents work out of offices with a number of other agents. As a result, you would think that if a customer of real estate agent ‘A’ is looking for a particular type of house that real estate agent ‘B’, who works in the same office had just been employed to sell, ‘A’ and ‘B’ would talk to ensure that the property owner and potential purchaser would be given an opportunity to sign a contract of sale. You might think it, but there is no guarantee of it happening as the usual arrangement would be that real estate agent ‘B’ would have to share his commission and may not want to do so.

Vendors have expectations of the price they want for their properties. These expectations could be related to what is needed to ‘move on’, what they have seen the house next door sell for, what the estate agent tells the seller the place is worth or some other completely rational (to the vendor anyway) process. It stands to reason that vendors want the highest price they can get as do the real estate agents (to maximise their commission payment). The next group don’t.

Purchasers are the people who drive around the area they intend to live in, traditionally on a Saturday morning, looking at houses that they can ‘live with’. Purchasers are usually limited by some financial impost, either the deposit they have available, ability to make the repayments on a loan or the need to keep some money aside to pursue some other goal.

The vendors employ the real estate agents to sell their property with the expectation that the agent has the requisite skills to achieve the highest price. The agent also wants to achieve the highest price, as it maximises the commission paid. Unfortunately, the purchaser wants to find a house for the lowest price. In an economic sense, the real estate market cannot be a completely transparent market as the agent and vendor are both attempting to achieve the highest price — only limited by the purchaser’s negotiation skills or the need of other vendors with similar homes who also want to sell their house at the same time.

The purchaser who is attempting to buy their first home is also up against the investor. Peter Martin, the Economics Editor for Fairfax’s The Age recently looked at what could be considered to be the constant battle between owner-occupiers and investors, noting the Reserve Bank’s comment in evidence to a recent enquiry: ‘It is a truism that if an investor is buying a property, an owner-occupier is not.’

According to Martin:
What matters for a tolerable retirement (far more than superannuation) is owning the home in which you live. If you do, the age pension is enough to get by on. If you don't, you have to pay rent. Morrison's own figures show we are condemning more and more Australians to retirements burdened by rent.
Liberal MP John Alexander started an enquiry into housing prices back in the day when Abbott was the prime minister and Hockey was the treasurer. The enquiry was allowed to lapse after the recent election but Alexander was moved on about a year prior to that.

Hockey’s Treasury Department made a submission to Alexander’s enquiry. In the words of Peter Martin:
Graph 13 in its submission shows that up until the end of the 1990s the median dwelling price stayed in a tight band of 2.5 to 3 times household after-tax income. Then in the space of three years it shot up to near four times after-tax income and has stayed there ever since.



What happened at the end of the 1990s? In September 1999, the government halved the headline rate of capital gains tax, making negative gearing suddenly an essential tax strategy. Whereas before, renting out a house at a loss for tax purposes had been mainly an exercise in delaying tax because the eventual profit made selling the property would be taxed at close to the seller's marginal rate, afterwards, with the profit taxed at only half the marginal rate, it became an exercise in cutting tax.
So those with a desire to cut their tax took the opportunity given to them on a plate by the Howard government and negatively geared a house. Howard used to claim that rising housing prices were a sign of a good economy. The problem is that the investors (and more recently those from overseas) are in a position to squeeze owner-occupiers out of the market by bidding up house prices. The vendors and agents are happy — they are getting more money at the time of sale; the investors are effectively and legally writing off tax they would otherwise have to pay; and those who are trying to get their foot in the door are priced out of the market. After all the areas that are attractive to owner-occupiers because of features such as services or the natural surroundings are also attractive to investors, as the same attractions are also valuable to renters.

Take it from me, buying and selling houses is not the easy process that is commonly suggested in the advertising from real estate agencies and financial institutions. It is apparently worse for someone who is buying a house for the first time — as discussed by Erin Munro on the Domain website.

Current treasurer Scott Morrison made a speech to the Urban Development Institute recently where he called on state governments to reduce artificial constraints on housing supply. While there are probably some constraints that do require attention, maybe Morrison should take care of his own backyard first. The ALP had a policy at the last federal election to reduce the benefits of negative gearing and capital gains tax for those who invest in residential housing — maybe they were on to something.

Peter Martin suggests:
Reinstating capital gains tax and imposing a land tax would help, as would building more houses. But there is something in our psychology that's doing it as well. We seem to want to push up the prices we complain about. Adding "supply" might do no more than give us something else to bid up.
Until some rationality is restored, if someone in your family wants to buy a first house, best of luck.

What do you think?
Let us know in comments below.

Recent Posts
The problem with conservative warriors
2353NM, 6 November 2016
A lot of employers place significant levels of trust in their employees. Retailers trust their employees to charge the customers the correct amount for the products they sell and put the money into the register; airlines trust that their employees are fit and mentally capable …
More...
Inequality is an invasive global cancer
Ad astra, 9 November 2016
Inequality has been the subject of several pieces on The Political Sword. They have focussed primarily on income and wealth inequality, which afflicts massive swathes of the world’s peoples, consigning them to constrained lives where poverty, underprivilege, disadvantage …
More...
Who invents this cruelty?
2353NM, 13 November 2016
In the past fortnight, the Turnbull Coalition government announced proposed legislation to ensure that each person on Manus Island or Nauru sentenced to the cruel and unusual punishment for no legal or moral reason since an arbitrary date in 2013, will never come to Australia. That’s never ever …
More...

Who invents this cruelty?


In the past fortnight, the Turnbull Coalition government announced proposed legislation to ensure that each person on Manus Island or Nauru sentenced to the cruel and unusual punishment for no legal or moral reason since an arbitrary date in 2013, will never come to Australia. That’s never ever; doesn’t matter if they want to visit the Great Barrier Reef before government lack of policy on climate change kills it off; doesn’t matter if the person is a famous actor, musician or movie star in their future life; doesn’t matter if the person is representing a country at the 2018 Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast; and it even doesn’t matter if a current refugee on Manus Island or Nauru is a head of state in the future — they won’t be allowed to visit Australia (or only allowed to visit at the absolute discretion of the minister for immigration at the time).

Blatantly unfair, unreasonable and un-called for? — certainly. Unfortunately, we should be used to the Abbott/Turnbull government doubling down on the nastiness and sheer hate defined by their policy on refugees. The Abbott/Turnbull government will tell you that they are stopping the people smugglers from sending people on dangerous open sea voyages using equipment that is clearly not designed for the purpose. Immigration Minister Dutton claims:
What we don't want is if someone is to go to a third country, that they apply for a tourist visa or some other way to circumvent what the government's policy intent is by coming back to Australia from that third country.
The Abbott/Turnbull government has a problem. After being given a lesson in humanity by the Papua New Guinea High Court when it ruled that the detention camp on Manus Island breached PNG law, Turnbull has to find a place to house the 1200 or so people we as Australians have illegally imprisoned by various governments going back to the Rudd ALP government. Politically, the government can’t let these people come to Australia as the neo-conservative right wing of the Liberal and National Parties will head further towards the divisive policies of the ultra-right wing parties such as One Nation. As well as that, if the refugees were housed in (say) New Zealand or other countries in the South Pacific, the argument could be made that refugees could simply board a plane to Australia after they had residency in the third country. Logically you would have to ask why anyone that had been treated so poorly by others would ever want to ‘darken the door’ of their oppressors, but according to Dutton it is a concern. While yes, that is a hole in the current arrangements if those on Manus Island or Nauru are successfully integrated into a third country’s society, they might want to come to Australia at a later date, has anyone stopped to think what we are potentially losing by not standing up to the vindictive and xenophobic policies of successive Australian governments?

The Political Sword looked at the contributions made to our society by refugees in March 2014. We looked at Michael Gawenda, the ‘ten pound poms’ (which include Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard, the Gibb Brothers (aka The Bee Gees), Noni Hazlehurst, Alan Bond, Frank Tyson, Harold Larwood, and the parents of people such as Kylie Minogue, Al Grassby and Hugh Jackman), Tony Le Nguyen and Munjed Al Muderis. All the people listed in this paragraph have made a wonderful contribution to this country, and if the governments that supported and encouraged the immigration of these Australians had the same racist policies of the current government, we would live in a much poorer place.

This isn’t solely the view of this admittedly left of centre political blog, this letter was shared around on social media in the few days after Turnbull and Dutton announced their draconian policy.



Clearly, Dr Al Muderis makes a significant contribution to Australia and the world — as people fly to Australia from around the world just to see Dr Al Muderis.

Noni Hazelhurst, the Bee Gees and even Gillard and Abbott have also made a contribution to this country in their own sphere of influence. So why are we persecuting those that are attempting to become refugees in Australia in the twenty teens? While many were ridiculing (probably with some justification) ex-Prime Minister Rudd’s contribution to the debate at the beginning of the month, Rudd does have a few points that are worth considering. Rudd claims:
This is both bad policy and bad politics: on policy, the far right in Australia represent the worst of the xenophobic, nationalist and protectionist wave that we now see raging across Europe and America; while on politics, appeasement of political thugs like Abbott, Dutton, Abetz, Andrews and, depending on which way the wind is blowing, Morrison, only embolden the far right to demand more, not less.
And:
This measure is about the politics of symbols, designed to throw red meat at the right, including the Hansonite insurgency, and to grovel to the broad politics of xenophobia. Turnbull, once an intelligent, global citizen, knows better.
Rudd claims that Gillard (his successor and predecessor) changed his policy.
It sought to negotiate offshore processing arrangements with East Timor and later Malaysia. These failed. Then in August 2012, the government announced the reopening of offshore processing in Manus and Nauru. The government also increased the number of refugees we would take from the UNHCR "global pool" of refugees from 13,000 to 20,000. Nonetheless, in the first half of 2013, the UNHCR delivered reports criticising the treatment of refugees, which the government sought to respond to.
It is also claimed that when Rudd regained power he made significant changes to the agreement around refugees that Australia had signed with PNG, including a clause that the Manus Island camp would only operate for one year. Rudd’s opinion article concludes by stating:
I have kept silent on Australian domestic policy debates for the past three years. But this one sinks to new lows. It is pure politics designed to appease the xenophobes. It is without any policy merit in dealing with the real policy challenges all countries face today in what is now a global refugees crisis. And it does nothing to help those refugees left to rot for more than three years, who should be resettled now.
While a lot of the article by Rudd is an attempt to justify his own past deeds, he is correct to suggest that refugees are not solely an Australian ‘problem’ and, to be realistic, Australia’s ‘problem’ is insignificant on a global scale. Rudd is also correct that far right political groups around the world are attracting votes using issues such as protectionism, isolationism and blatant racism. The Guardian runs a series called ‘The Long Read’. Co-incidentally, on 1 November, it published an article in the series titled ‘The ruthlessly effective branding of Europe’s far right’.

As The Guardian suggests:
They have effectively claimed the progressive causes of the left — from gay rights to women’s equality and protecting Jews from antisemitism — as their own, by depicting Muslim immigrants as the primary threat to all three groups. As fear of Islam has spread, with their encouragement, they have presented themselves as the only true defenders of western identity and western liberties — the last bulwark protecting a besieged Judeo-Christian civilisation from the barbarians at the gates.

These parties have steadily filled an electoral vacuum left open by social democratic and centre-right parties, who ignored voters’ growing anger over immigration – some of it legitimate, some of it bigoted – or simply waited too long to address it.
The move to the far right is not just a problem in Europe or arguably part of the reason for Donald Trump’s nomination as President by the Republican Party in the USA. The New Yorker recently published a stinging takedown of Trump and the ultra-conservatives noting:
Trumpism does not seek simply to make a point and pass on its genes to more politically palatable heirs, nor is it readily apparent why he would need to settle for this. When George Will announced his departure from the G.O.P., last summer, he offered a modified version of Ronald Reagan’s quote about leaving the Democrats—“I didn’t leave the Party; the Party left me.” But a kind of converse narrative applies to Trump; he didn’t join the Republican Party so much as its most febrile elements joined him. Trump is partly a product of forces that the G.O.P. created by pandering to a base whose dilated pupils the Party mistook for gullibility, not abject, irrational fear that would send those voters scurrying to the nearest authoritarian savior they could find. The error was in thinking that this populace, mainlining Glenn Beck and Alex Jones theories and pondering how the Minutemen would have fought Sharia law, could be controlled. (For evidence to the contrary, the Party needed look no further than the premature political demise of Eric Cantor.) The old adage warns that one should beware of puppets that begin pulling their own strings.
Australia too has its extreme right wing claiming far more influence that they deserve.

Pauline Hanson stood as the Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Oxley in Queensland at the 1996 election and was dis-endorsed two weeks prior to the election due to some extremely ill-advised remarks made in the campaign on Aboriginal welfare. In her 1996 maiden speech in the House of Representatives, Hanson claimed that Australia was being ‘swamped’ by Asians. On the morning of Hanson’s maiden Senate speech last September, the ABC looked at her claim from 20 years ago and looked at the immigration figures from the 2011 census. It found:
By 2011, the proportion of people in Australia who were born in Asia had almost doubled to 8.08 per cent.

The proportion of people born in Australia fell from 73.93 per cent to 69.83 per cent — more than eight times the proportion of people born in Asia.
In addition, the ABC reported that:
James Raymer, head of the School of Demography at the Australian National University, said the incidence of Asian migration to Australia was hardly surprising, given our geographical location in the region and the sheer size of the world's Asian population.

"The whole Asian population represents 60 per cent of the world's population … Europe only represents 10 per cent of the world's population," he said.

"There's a lot of Asians in Europe, there's a lot of Asians in North America, a lot of Asians in Canada, and they've all been increasing."
Undeterred by her previous prediction falling somewhat short of the mark, when Hanson made her maiden speech in the Senate in September 2016, she warned Australia was at risk of being "swamped" by Muslims.

As far back as 2011, Fairfax media was questioning the racism of politicians such as Cory Bernardi:
Independent MP Andrew Wilkie should be applauded for his stand against racism in the Liberal Party and, in particular, the recent comments by Liberal senator Cory Bernardi, singling out Muslims for denigration.

Does Bernardi think that by demonising Islam he will win votes, and is Opposition Leader Tony Abbott tacitly approving this latest attempt to play the politics of hate so he can watch where it goes?

This is a disturbing insight into the thinking of some senior Liberal figures. It comes from a party that has, in turn, used fear of Muslim extremism to lead us into two wars and then used that fear to prevent the victims of those same wars coming to Australia.
The current hatred of refugees isn’t logical, moral or ethical — it is a part of a political race to the bottom of the ocean. Ultra-conservatives such as Hanson, Bernardi, Trump, Le Pen in France and so on are using the misery of fellow humans to improve the prospects of a political career and are manipulating the vulnerable and hard done by to do so.

In the 1970’s, Coalition Prime Minister Fraser and the ALP both supported the arrival of hundreds of thousands of South East Asian refugees who came to settle in Australia. While the policy at the time was not universally popular, the benefits to Australia in the long term have clearly outweighed any problems. On a logical basis, the policy was fair enough — we had been part of a coalition of armies that had bombed much of South East Asia in an attempt to stop the expansion of communism. It is now history that the Vietnam War was unsuccessful, communism didn’t expand and the refugees that came here have largely integrated into our society. So why the difference with those from the middle east? We are a part of coalition of armies that are bombing that area of the world to stop the rise of ISIS. Don’t we owe something to those that are the unintended victims of having their homes bombed back to the stone age?

In the 1950’s and 1960’s, successive Coalition Australian governments, with support from the ALP, supported the arrival of hundreds of thousands of Europeans who were displaced before or during World War 2. The photos at the top of this article are not recent, they are from social media and portray Europeans using whatever they can to emigrate to North Africa prior to Hitler’s Germany taking over parts of Southern Europe. What goes around comes around apparently. And as The Political Sword observed in September 2014, Jesus was a refugee.

What do you think?
Let us know in comments below.

Recent Posts
Statistics are people too
Ken Wolff, 30 October 2016
On 20 October, the ABS released its labour force survey data for September 2016. The media duly reported the drop in unemployment from an upwardly revised 5.7% for the previous month to 5.6% but most also picked up that this was largely a result of a drop in the participation rate, from 64.7% to 64.5%.
More...
The problem with conservative warriors
2353NM, 6 November 2016
A lot of employers place significant levels of trust in their employees. Retailers trust their employees to charge the customers the correct amount for the products they sell and put the money into the register; airlines trust that their employees are fit and mentally capable …
More...
Inequality is an invasive global cancer
Ad astra, 9 November 2016
Inequality has been the subject of several pieces on The Political Sword. They have focussed primarily on income and wealth inequality, which afflicts massive swathes of the world’s peoples, consigning them to constrained lives where poverty, underprivilege, disadvantage …
More...

Inequality is an invasive global cancer


Inequality has been the subject of several pieces on The Political Sword. They have focussed primarily on income and wealth inequality, which afflicts massive swathes of the world’s peoples, consigning them to constrained lives where poverty, underprivilege, disadvantage, and lack of opportunity has blighted individuals, families, communities, and in some instances, whole nations. Such inequality is divisive, disruptive and destructive to civilized society.

Recently we have seen the ‘inequality syndrome’ play out more strikingly and alarmingly as a metastasizing global malignancy that threatens to invade and destroy the very foundation of the harmonious social order we crave within societies, and more widely across national boundaries. Unless national and international immune systems can counter this cancer’s spread, we are doomed to ongoing discord, conflict, confrontation, warfare, and the death of our cherished institutions.

We don’t need to think back too far to remember Brexit and the reasons for it. And in the US we have witnessed a most unedifying display of the consequences of inequality played out during the long and distressing presidential election campaign.

Inequality is a global cancer that afflicts countless societies and billions of people. Chillingly, the cancer seems out of control. No one has the cure. We feel like the patient who has been told that nothing more can be done.

I will expand on this theme later, but for those who might not have been following the discourse on inequality on The Political Sword, in April there was Inequality will be a hot button election issue. Although Bill Shorten tried to make it so, Malcolm Turnbull and his Liberals were having nothing of that, so inequality was no more than a dark shadow in the background. Then in May there was Trickle down thinking breeds inequality that described standard neoliberal economic dogma that postulates that giving tax cuts to the top end of town will foster investment, grow jobs and increase wages. Although long ago debunked as zombie economics, it remains holy writ to conservatives, and is still being trotted out here and elsewhere.

The recent visit of French economist Thomas Piketty has heightened interest in inequality. In The Picketty divide Part 1, his basic theory is delineated: “
Piketty has a basic equation developed from tax data across a number of countries going back over two hundred years: r > g That is, the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of growth of income (g). Throughout the nineteenth century and up to World War I, that greater rate of return led to high levels of inequality, with wealth concentrated at the top. In periods of high inequality, the rich can hold capital up to seven times the value of total national annual income. Thus those with inherited wealth who invest their capital will become even wealthier, and will always outperform those on wages alone.”
Piketty’s views have been widely endorsed by economists, although not by neoliberal thinkers.

One reviewer of his book Capital in the 21st Century interpreted his thesis as follows: '…inherited wealth will, on average, “dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime’s labour by a wide margin. Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice. Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable.”'

For those interested in his work there was also The Piketty divide Part 2 and Piketty Un-picked.

Inequality has been a life-long interest of Nobel Laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz, whose views were discussed in Focus on political ideology: Joseph E Stiglitz. In that piece there was a summary of Stiglitz’ thesis provided by Project Syndicate, an international not-for-profit newspaper syndicate and association of newspapers that distributes commentaries and analysis. It read:
America likes to think of itself as a land of opportunity, and others view it in much the same light. But, while we can all think of examples of Americans who rose to the top on their own, what really matters are the statistics: to what extent do an individual’s life chances depend on the income and education of his or her parents?

“Nowadays, these numbers show that the American dream is a myth. There is less equality of opportunity in the United States today than there is in Europe – or, indeed, in any advanced industrial country for which there are data.

“This is one of the reasons that America has the highest level of inequality of any of the advanced countries – and its gap with the rest has been widening. In the “recovery” of 2009-2010, the top 1% of US income earners captured 93% of the income growth. Other inequality indicators – like wealth, health, and life expectancy – are as bad or even worse. The clear trend is one of concentration of income and wealth at the top, the hollowing out of the middle, and increasing poverty at the bottom.

“It would be one thing if the high incomes of those at the top were the result of greater contributions to society, but the Great Recession showed otherwise: even bankers who had led the global economy, as well as their own firms, to the brink of ruin, received outsize bonuses.”
This brings me to the main thrust of this piece. Feelings of unfairness and inequality are corrosive. We see this the world over.

Take Brexit. There are many reasons why UK voters voted for Brexit, but prominent among them was opposition to immigration. Many British folk voted for leaving the European Union because they felt alienated from their own communities because of the influx of migrants from foreign countries. Some said they hardly recognized their local community when they walked down their main street because there were so many foreigners on the streets and in business there. They were angry that these people were taking their jobs, and more poignantly taking away their British way of life. They felt they were being left behind in their own country. Anguish is the genesis of their sense of dispossession and their feelings of inequality. Their anger persists to this day. The recent UK High Court decision that only parliament can trigger the activation of Article 50 that initiates exit from the European Union, has re-activated the hope among Brexit opponents that exit might be thwarted. Brexit supporters are furious.


All across Europe, in America, in Asia, and even in our own country, there are those who strongly resent asylum seekers and even invited immigrants arriving at their country’s borders. Pauline Hanson was unapologetic when she stridently asserted: “Refugees are not welcome here”. No doubt the quarter of a million who voted her in feel the same.

The resentment extends even to benign communities. Last week, citizens of Eltham, an outer suburb of Melbourne that is largely middle class, joined together to welcome government-invited Syrian refugees into spare accommodation in a local aged care facility. They initiated a ‘butterfly’ movement, festooning fences with welcoming words. To their surprise and disappointment, their peaceful suburb was invaded at the weekend by a group of protestors angry at the welcome being extended to these distressed refugees from that grotesquely war-torn nation. This vignette is symptomatic of the invasive cancer that can spread even into peaceful communities when resentful protestors feel that immigrants are getting an unfair share of this country’s resources and welfare. The Good Samaritan came out to assist the traveller, beaten and robbed and left for dead, while the Priest and the Levite, not satisfied with simply ignoring him, reviled him for good measure.

Resentment and anger are cancerous. The cancer emerges when there is a threat to what people and communities have come to value: security, a decent job, a family home, a sense of belonging, the respect of peers, and societal harmony.

The US presidential election has exposed even more starkly the ugly side of human nature. Donald Trump has tapped into the intense feelings of inequality, dispossession, disadvantage and despair that many feel as they see their jobs going overseas, or to illegal Mexican migrants, or to Muslim refugees. Many white men in America’s rust belt have lost their once-secure jobs; with globalisation manufacturing has moved from their home towns to overseas plants. Automation and rapidly changing technology has made many jobs redundant. They feel hopeless. They harbour deep resentment that the America that was once great is no longer so, and they have been the losers.

It is not surprising then, when Trump calculatingly stirs up their resentment and promises to ‘Make America Great Again’, they believe he can, and that life would be great for them again as jobs return and prosperity abounds! They think their feelings of disadvantage and inequality would magically evaporate.


Trump has taken an isolationist, protectionist stance. He says he will tear up trade deals that he believes disadvantage America, he will build a wall to keep Mexicans out, and he will put a stop to Muslim immigration. Because he believes global warming is a hoax, he boasts that he will scrap America’s commitment to the UN climate change initiatives, and will reinstate coal as America’s prime energy source. In classic neoliberal fashion, he promises that 'massive tax cuts' will restore lost jobs. All of these ideas are anathema to clear-thinking economists, but his followers believe his every word, his every promise. He backs his promises by referring to his business success, and on the international front by stating his intention to create a supercharged military that will ensure America's global superiority. What he says appeals and gives them hope. He is their messiah, and their messianic hope cannot be extinguished. Facts and logic are irrelevant; blind faith, akin to religious fervour, is their bulwark.

There is no point in denouncing their edifice of beliefs. They are built brick by brick out of feelings of disenfranchisement, alienation, dispossession, poverty, despair, and fear. They believe that the political establishment has no concern for them, no interest in their plight, no remedy for their desperate condition. They believe, and Trump reinforces this belief every day, that the political establishment is incompetent, and like its elite backers and the media, is corrupt and self-serving. Many agree with the general thrust of his thesis, but few believe that he has the understanding, or the skill or capacity to change the establishment for the better. Ironically, his background is as a member of a powerful wealthy elite that flouts the law and uses it for personal advantage. He is a billionaire businessman who has paid no tax for a decade, and who refuses to reveal any tax details.

His singular immorality though is that in pursuit of the presidency he is deliberately amplifying the feelings of inequality and dispossession his supporters feel so intensely, and promising what he would never be able to deliver.

Inequality is much broader than wealth and income equality. It affects all facets of life. As celebrated epidemiologist Michael Marmot has shown, health inequality parallels income inequality. Those lowest on the social scale have the worst health. Yet Trump says he will abolish ‘Obamacare’, even although it has afforded health insurance for millions of poor people who previously could not afford it.

Because we now live in a global society, we are able to see what others have, here and overseas. When individuals see others prospering in peaceful societies while they languish in poverty, when they endure conflict, war, destruction and death, they feel unequal and deeply resent it. Even if those in war-torn countries were gifted a good income, their suffering and terror would continue, and they would still seek a safer place to live and bring up their children.

Inequality is not restricted to wealth and income. Just as distressing are inequalities in job opportunities, rewarding employment and decent housing; inequalities in education, healthcare, life expectancy and justice; and inequalities in the enjoyment of a productive and peaceful family life free of political, religious and racial persecution, xenophobia and hatred. These inequalities are all sources of resentment and anger, and in extreme situations, discord, conflict and social disruption.

Every day we see the malignant cancer of inequality spreading throughout the world. It has invaded the UK, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, the US and its presidential election, and even our own country as xenophobic forces seek to shape our politics and our society. The cancer of inequality has metastasized globally. Is it beyond cure? Is there the possibility of a remission? Is it possible even to excise a local metastasis?

Every day there is one commentator or another who highlights inequality as a major issue in society. Progressives echo this, but conservatives never mention it. Equality is not part of their DNA. Indeed, they regard inequality as the acceptable norm. Their policies and actions worsen inequality. They do not see its malignancy, nor do they see that it is spreading inexorably, here and elsewhere. They have no cure, because to them it’s insignificant and inconsequential, a benign condition not worthy of a politician’s attention.

When conservatives are society’s physicians, expect no diagnosis of the cancer of inequality; expect no remediation.


What do you think?
What is your view of inequality in the world?

Do you see it as a threat to global harmony and stability?

Do you have a remedy for inequality?

Let us know in comments below.

Recent Posts
All hail the mighty banks
Ken Wolff, 23 October 2016
Banks have been in the news recently and there is a clear difference in the approaches of the government and the opposition. While some may suggest that Bill Shorten is being populist in his call for a Royal Commission into the activities of the banks, particularly the ‘big four’, it is clear that Turnbull’s approach of calling them …
More...
Trump is just part of the problem
Ad astra, 26 October 2016
There are two outcomes of the US presidential election that should horrify us all: Trump wins or Trump loses.

The horror of his winning leaves little to the imagination. We can see from his words and actions that on the personal front …
More...
The problem with conservative warriors
2353NM, 6 November 2016
A lot of employers place significant levels of trust in their employees. Retailers trust their employees to charge the customers the correct amount for the products they sell and put the money into the register; airlines trust that their employees are fit and mentally capable of servicing or flying the plane they are assigned to fly; bus and truck operators trust that their drivers will drive the vehicle along the assigned route; while health care workers are trusted to look after those in their care.
More...

The problem with conservative warriors

[The bookcases that were too big to move]
A lot of employers place significant levels of trust in their employees. Retailers trust their employees to charge the customers the correct amount for the products they sell and put the money into the register; airlines trust that their employees are fit and mentally capable of servicing or flying the plane they are assigned to fly; bus and truck operators trust that their drivers will drive the vehicle along the assigned route; while health care workers are trusted to look after those in their care.

At times, employees have to make decisions that may have an inimical impact on their employer’s business. The retailer’s staff usually have a mandate to deduct a percentage of the price of an item if there is some imperfection. External factors may delay the arrival time of the plane in Sydney or the 456 bus to the City. Obviously a number of 737s can’t land on one runway at the same time and if the 456 bus is caught in a traffic jam, the bus can’t push other vehicles out of the way. This in turn affects the operation of the other services as transport operators tend not to have a spare 737 or commuter bus sitting around at every terminal ‘just in case’ something doesn’t turn up on time. This is the greater good in operation, it is better for a plane or bus to be late than for the system to fail completely because of the actions of one person who was following their employer’s requirements regardless of the outcomes.

At times there are those who try to beat the system and there are probably a set of checks to ensure that the trust is respected and the cash register takings balance the amount of stock that has left the store; the pilot for the 8.30 plane to Sydney isn’t enjoying the free drinks in the Business Class Lounge with the passengers before the flight; the heavy vehicle driver hasn’t found a nice shady spot beside a creek and decided to wet a line and so on. The number of trucks and buses in the streets of our major towns and planes that arrive and depart about the right time would demonstrate that most employees demonstrate that the trust their employers show is not misplaced.

Just about everyone who works in a shop, flies a plane or drives a heavy vehicle is paid significantly less than Justin Gleeson, Australia’s Solicitor-General and second ranking ‘law officer’ in the land. Gleeson is a ‘Senior Counsel’ — the latter-day version of a ‘Queens Counsel’. Gleeson is having a very public argument with his supervisor, Attorney-General (and Senator) George Brandis who is the nation’s ‘first law officer’. Brandis is a ‘Queens Counsel’ — better known as a QC. Apparently, the issue at the heart of the argument is Brandis decreeing that Gleeson’s office will not offer advice or counsel to anyone in the federal government (political or public servant) unless the request comes through Brandis’ office.

The ABC’s website has given us a four-act play (probably generous, it seems more like a soap opera) that describes the situation to date. At a meeting between Brandis and Gleeson, Brandis apparently said:
… there had been a lazy practice within the Government and the public service to approach the solicitor-general requesting legal advice directly, and that his office should act as something of a gatekeeper.
Apart from the implication that a senior public servant and lawyer can’t manage his workload, why would Brandis want to know what other politicians or senior public servants need legal advice about?

It’s not the first time Brandis has attempted to influence the work of public servants in his employ. Human Rights Commissioner, Professor Gillian Triggs, conducted an enquiry with less than flattering findings for the government into the children Australia holds in detention camps in PNG and Nauru. Brandis, through a government official, asked Triggs to resign (thus reducing the ‘severity’ of the findings) at a meeting on February 3, 2015. Triggs, when recounting the matter in a Senate Estimates Committee hearing, advised that she had rejected the overture:
"My answer was that I have a five-year statutory position, which is designed for the president of the Human Rights Commission specifically to avoid political interference in the exercise of my tasks under the Human Rights Commission Act," she said.

Professor Triggs also testified that the secretary, Chris Moraitis, told her she would be offered another job if she did.

She described the offer as "entirely inappropriate".
Brandis claimed that he had lost confidence in Triggs as in his view:
… she had made a decision to hold the inquiry after the 2013 election and had spoken during the caretaker period, quite inappropriately, with two Labor ministers, a fact concealed from the then-opposition — I felt that the political impartiality of the commission had been fatally compromised.

"The Human Rights Commission has to be like Caesar's wife, it has to be beyond blemish."
So Brandis is suggesting because Triggs discussed a relevant issue with two politicians from the other political party during an election campaign, she should be sacked. Those of a somewhat cynical bent might suggest that conversations between senior public servants and politicians occur all the time during election campaigns despite the ‘caretaker conventions’ that are put into place: the real issue here was something else — potentially the contents of a report that rightly gained some publicity at the time for its criticism of the government’s policy. To be fair to Triggs, her office isn’t the only human rights organisation critical of Australian government refugee policy. Rationally, if the ALP government had been returned in the 2013 election, the Human Rights Commission enquiry into detained children would have reflected just as badly on the ALP as it did on the Coalition government.

In the 2014 Federal budget, Brandis oversaw significant cuts to the community legal sector. When asked if he had consulted with the sector, he claimed he did. Others in the sector claimed he didn’t. Shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus effectively invited Brandis to ‘put up or shut up’ by releasing his diary for the period where the consultation was supposed to have occurred. Brandis chose not to, so Dreyfus made a Freedom of Information request. As the ABC reported:
The FOI was originally blocked by the Attorney-General's chief of staff, who claimed it would take hundreds of hours to process because Senator Brandis would have to personally vet each and every entry before they could be released.
Dreyfus appealed the decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and won. Brandis appealed the appeal decision to the Full Court; which eventually found in Dreyfus’ favour. While Dreyfus (who is also a QC) represented himself, apparently at no cost to the taxpayer, Brandis’ legal fees came in at over $50,000 according to Dreyfus, as reported by the ABC. Even after that, the Freedom of Information request has to be reconsidered rather than released immediately.

Brandis was also the one that couldn’t move his $7,000 bookcase to hold his $13,000 worth of taxpayer-funded books and magazines from the office he was in prior to the 2013 election into the ministerial office. So a $15,000 bookcase was custom made for his new office.

As well as being Attorney-General, Brandis has been the Minister for the Arts; maybe he likes attending the first-night performances. The Australia Council (for the Arts) was formed under the Holt Government in 1967 and has been traditionally the vehicle whereby the Australian government funds artistic and cultural endeavours across Australia. In the 2015 federal budget, Brandis, as Arts Minister, oversaw a $110 million cut in the budget of the Australia Council to create a new arts funding body called the National Program for Excellence in the Arts. While some who have had funding applications rejected by the Australia Council in the past may argue that that body wouldn’t know ‘arts’ if they fell over it, there is a probability that in some cases the claim is fuelled more by hurt and anger than any valid criticism of the Australia Council. Like all funding bodies, there is also potentially some internal politics to overcome that could conceivably increase the chances of a successful application ‘should the game be played correctly’.

The ABC reported at the time:
Senator Brandis said there is a widespread perception that the Australia Council is 'a closed shop'.

'We would be blind to pretend that there aren't complaints from those who miss out, who have a perception that the Australia Council is an iron wall; that you are either inside or outside,' he said.

'I've heard that from so many people. That is particularly a perception held outside Melbourne and Sydney.'
Having said that, Brandis was proposing his new arts funding body was to be run by his ministry office, rather than by arts funding professionals. The logic that supports taking arts funding away from professionals in their field and handing it to a potentially highly politicised minister’s office is dubious at best.

What is it with Brandis? We have a person who isn’t afraid to spend taxpayer money on Quixotic endeavours such as custom made book shelves and legal appeals costing the best part of $75,000 while cutting the funding to those that assist those on little or no income through the legal system. When the funding was provided, it allowed the community legal providers to run on the proverbial ‘smell of an oily rag’. The government rightly employs experts in their field such as Gleeson and Triggs to manage difficult and sensitive responsibilities within the government. The government also has an established bureaucracy that has significant knowledge and experience in ‘the arts’.

Yet Brandis believes that he needs to manage the Solicitor-General’s workflow, publically suggests that the reason the Human Rights Commission brings down a report challenging the government’s behaviour was to discredit the government of the day and believes his ministerial office knows more about ‘the arts’ than those with considerable demonstrated experience.

While it is a legitimate action for a government minister to make the final call when it comes to determining policy within their department, there is a difference between policy and implementation. It’s probably fair to suggest that a number of politicians on both sides of parliaments (at all three levels of government) are factional warriors; at some stage they have pledged complete loyalty to what they see to be the objectives of the political party. Rather than seeing the world through ‘rose coloured’ glasses, the world has a deep blue, red or green hue.

The problem with these people is that criticism of their chosen position is a problem. Brandis shows this by his treatment of Triggs and Gleeson – both of whom have criticised Coalition government policies or practices, Triggs with the report on children in detention camps and Gleeson has obviously given advice contrary to the wishes of Brandis. Conservatives seem to have no problem with demonstrating double standards in cutting services to others while improving their lot in life at others’ expense.

Brandis frequently chooses in media interviews to assume the ‘conservative warrior’ persona, and while his personality is not the problem of his political leader, his actions as a minister of the crown are. Setting himself up to muzzle independent experts within his department primarily because the advice doesn’t fit the Coalition’s view of the world is a dangerous precedent — and you would think that Australia’s first law officer would have a better idea of the importance of precedents. If he doesn’t, Turnbull, who is also a lawyer, should be in a position to see the problem. This article started by looking at how sometimes various employees have to make decisions that adversely affect their employer and determined that at times these decisions were made for the greater good. It’s a pity that political warriors seem to have little understanding of the greater good.

What do you think?
Let us know in comments below.

Recent Posts
All hail the mighty banks
Ken Wolff, 23 October 2016
Banks have been in the news recently and there is a clear difference in the approaches of the government and the opposition. While some may suggest that Bill Shorten is being populist in his call for a Royal Commission into the activities of the banks, particularly the ‘big four’, it is clear that Turnbull’s approach of calling them …
More...
Trump is just part of the problem
Ad astra, 26 October 2016
There are two outcomes of the US presidential election that should horrify us all: Trump wins or Trump loses.

The horror of his winning leaves little to the imagination. We can see from his words and actions that on the personal front …
More...
Statistics are people too
Ken Wolff, 30 October 2016
On 20 October, the ABS released its labour force survey data for September 2016. The media duly reported the drop in unemployment from an upwardly revised 5.7% for the previous month to 5.6% but most also picked up that this was largely a result of a drop in the participation rate, from 64.7% to 64.5%.
More...