text:
The politics of extremes is hurting our democracy
In going for "shock and awe" rhetoric at every opportunity, politicians have debased their own political currency and hindered their ability to lead under a democracy, writes David Forman.
There is, once again, no doubt who dominated the media coverage coming out of the last fortnight of parliamentary sittings.
And who will continue to dominate as the new Senate is sworn in.
There is really only one story in town - Clive Palmer - and it is drowning out any hope the Government has of getting its message back on track and through to the public.
Likewise, Labor is being increasingly sidelined as the voice of opposition.
Both sides should be asking themselves why it is that the public and media are so ready to get on board with Clive, and so unwilling to listen to the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition.
It seems there is a deep and persistent political credibility crisis that threatens to make Australia increasingly ungovernable.
This is a credibility crisis so severe and widespread that it might not be overstating matters to suggest that a dangerous malaise is now infecting the very heart of confidence in the democratic system of government.
It is also a crisis that politicians have made for themselves, with collaboration from the media.
In short, they have made themselves look like blowhards.
Paul Keating famously shocked Australians out of their complacency about our place in the world 28 years ago, when he warned that the country risked becoming a banana republic unless we embraced painful, economy-wide economic reform.
Australians were not used to hearing that type of intemperate language from political leaders.
Indeed, we were more used to hearing soothing, calming language as we struggled to overcome the trauma of the Vietnam War, the ructions of the oil crisis, and the constitutional crisis following the dismissal of the Whitlam Government.
But so profoundly did Keating's apparently unscripted remarks (and the following recession) focus the minds of Australians, that political leaders from all sides of politics were able to propose, advocate and implement nation-changing policies.
Further, it provided a template for the generations of politicians that have followed.
The recipe seems simple; if you want Australians to take tough medicine, convince them of a crisis that means the status quo is not an option.
Peter Costello did it with tremendous success by painting a convincing picture of "Beazley's Black Hole" to justify the deep cuts in his first budget.
Why, then, has the present Government's mantra that it has inherited a "budget crisis" and a "debt and deficit disaster" flopped?
Partly because the crisis is not immediate enough to mobilise third party experts to provide support; rather, they have mostly used more moderate language, arguing there is a very serious medium term problem that needs to be addressed, starting now.
And partly because politicians have, in the past five years, all but abandoned moderate language and gone for shock and awe at every opportunity.
They have, in doing so, debased their own currency and the value of their own strident statements.
This is evident not just in Australia, but also in other great democracies, most notably the United States.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was based on the insistence of the most important democratic leader in the world, the US president, that there was no doubt that weapons of mass destruction would be found.
It was not true. This breach of trust has never been mended.
Indeed, the decision by commercial media companies to increasingly take political sides as advancing communication technologies erode their markets has levered even further apart the electorate from the political class.
This polarisation of debate has paved the way for shock outcomes such as the primary pre-selection defeat of US Republican House Leader Eric Cantor by an anti-government Tea Party-backed candidate.
These events point to a perverse outcome of the growing credibility crisis.
As the distance between politicians and the community has widened, politicians have used even more extreme language which has contributed to the rise of more extreme parties and personalities.
It is also a trend that runs at odds with the very nature of democracy as a successful system of government.
Democracy is about compromise, consensus, checks and balance, evolution not revolution.
It is a system where changes might be slower to effect than some other political models, but are more enduring because they are more representative of community views and aspirations. Governments are drawn toward the centre, away from extremes.
It seems that it has become the received political wisdom that calm, moderate and medium-term persuasion is out, and shock and awe is in.
But if no one is buying it because every statement is suspected of being exaggerated and can therefore be ignored, what tools are left to policy makers and leaders to bring about change? And if the system can't deliver change, how effective can it be?
Perhaps another way of looking at the situation is to ask, have successive generations of politicians effectively trained their populations to be ungovernable?
It is an uncomfortable thought, but perhaps one our leaders need to be asking themselves as they consider their communications techniques.
If they choose not to contemplate that, perhaps they can consider this: if there is an election of the House of Representatives and half Senate in two years, it is possible that we could see at least five PUP Senators and it's not impossible that Clive may lose his seat.
Five PUP Senators without their leader: What could that mean for a government and its ability to deliver change?
David Forman is managing director of government relations at issues management firm CPR Communications and Public Relations. View his full profile here.
Topics: clive-palmer, federal-government, forms-of-government
First posted
Comments (223)
Comments for this story are closed.
27 Jun 2014 8:36:42am
AH! the old boy who cried wolf fable. it has reached the stage where people have stopped believing the polititions. Just waiting for the wolf filled endgame.
27 Jun 2014 9:16:35am
That is with good reason, they do not represent there electorates, they represent their gangs and their corporate donors.
We all need to ask what is a real democracy and what does it look like? What does the constitution say about having 226 independent members?
This current system is just a capitalist monocrazy and a fraud. It has been re-designed to deliver corporate outcomes for election donors by the ALPLNP Corporations.
27 Jun 2014 9:46:41am
If politicians themselves won't bring in laws to stop political donations and have elections funded to a cap from the public purse who can make them? A federal ICAC? With all the corruption scandals going on around the country it's such an obvious place to start cleaning up.
27 Jun 2014 10:27:39am
Virgil and referenda are right.
The people of Australia have lost control of the democracy, it is that simple. Our Democracy is now in the hands of the ALPLNP Corporations. This is why the people are unhappy with politicians and the parliament in general.
If we value our democracy so much, why is that our sense of what a democracy is so underwhelming. Things will not get better under the ALPLNPGr'sPUP corporations. They are all there for special interests, nony of which represent Australian Public interest. They will never do anything real about corruption, political donations, the cancer epidemic or the political control of the constitution until the people stop voting for them.
The time of ALPLNP power is nearly over thankfully. They only attract 65% of the vote so another 15% of people awakening will mean there conglomeration and eventual obsolesces. People go for them at the moment on the basis of less lesser of 2 evils and for what they say, not what they do and all young people have seen what these gangs are like. When the older generation are passed, more and more people will vote these corporations out.
Once they are voted out, then they could all very well end up in jail, that is if the future independent parliament decide to investigate the results of all these political bribes. We r going to have to stop sending victimless criminals to jail to make way for the silver spoons ruling elite.
27 Jun 2014 11:47:07am
Did we ever have control of our democracy? Have we ever had democracy?
We have in turns been too fawning, too otherwise interested, and too self-obsessed to have ever held up the public end of democracy, I think.
Now we have a politics that thinks foremost within a blinkered view of Political Economics (a view that has next to nothing to do with 'pure' economics but that orders things in favour of the outcomes ordained by their narrowness of mind).
One of our reactions - as the reality of our masters' conception is demonstrating some of its simplest deficiencies in ways that affect the people formerly-thinking-of-themselves-as-safe - has been to play 'wild' cards: we have elected some.
This is just an early symptom of a system that would remove itself from ordinariness, but that is tethered to it by occasional general elections, and of an ordinariness that has lost sight of the merits of society and sociability by taking on self-serving choices instead.
If we want to turn this round, WE have to raise our own game - not to be Australians as the warped ideas of politics and the political- economics of selfishness would train us in, but as the Australians WE would want to be. Then the governments we might choose may be democratic. WE would would make it so.
Such governments are unlikely to include politicians and parties such as we have known for 100 years, but neither will they include such rabbits as we have recently put among the fat cats.
WE have to grow up.
27 Jun 2014 12:32:32pm
right on, we need to stop and compare a constitutional democracy against the present system. A system controlled by political gangs/corporations dependent on $'s is always going to be skewed and corrupt.
We may of had a democracy after federation for a couple of years, but the capitalist knew exactly how to restructure it in their favor, because they have done it the same all over the capitalist world. Money talks BS walks. The gang with the most loot wins and if you own both gangs, you can't loose.
27 Jun 2014 11:22:20am
An article entitled "the politics of extreme" and not one mention of the Greens. Seems like the ABC isn't even trying to hide it's blatant and disgraceful bias any more.
27 Jun 2014 12:13:35pm
It might be a little shrill to call the Greens 'extreme'. According to their comprehensive policy documents, they are certainly progressive, probably too progressive for the majority of Australians who tend to be conservative.
27 Jun 2014 1:15:44pm
'comprehensive policy documents'
Where? Not on their website where each 'policy' comprises one page of 'principles' and 'aims' which amount to no more than a list of motherhood statements.
The country would be broke in a very short time if they were let loose!
27 Jun 2014 2:29:30pm
Why is the word progressive used to describe left wing policies? There must be another definition for this word that I have not heard of
27 Jun 2014 12:40:09pm
It pretty extreme in my opinion for the ALPLNP to both be open to foreign government bribes and multinational control. As soon as someone lets the cat out of the bag, its all of a sudden labeled extreme. No, its the ALPLNP that are extreme.
What do you call making changes to the Constitution every year at COAG without a referendum?
27 Jun 2014 1:19:08pm
No direct mention of Liberal, Family First, Christian Democratic, Pirate Party or Coke in the Bubblers party either. Your point being? Or are you continuing the shock & awe? BTW, just because you don't agree with their policies doesn't make them extreme, you are merely demonstrating your bias.
But it's a bit harsh to blame the pollies only. It's hard to read a news article that does not try to create shock & awe. Examples being: the worst day of trading in 3 months (we've being trading for a long time); the worst cyclone in 3 years (we've been experiencing cyclones for quite some time as well).
It's as if the media & pollies can't explain themselves without exageration and comparison, because truely, Australians are clueless when it comes to natural disasters, financial matters. We cannot grasp the concept that a cyclone might cause damage. These things are so foreign to us so we need to have a comparison!!
27 Jun 2014 1:39:06pm
You are using it out of context. The article is about communication. The Greens aren't half as extreme as you like to think. Their policies are transparent, you can find them on their website. The others don't seem to want us to know what their intentions are.
We have a few senators that have some extreme views. One reckons carrying guns would reduce crime. What's your bias????
The nose:
27 Jun 2014 3:17:13pm
Greens extreme? What a bizarre thought.
27 Jun 2014 5:36:21pm
Why should I not be able to donate money to whomever I like?
The Greens claim they received many, many small donations. That does not mean they are beholden to those donor's wishes - rather all it says to me is that there are many, many fools out there.
The only one I disagree with is the ALP getting funds from Union members who may not wish to have money given to Labor. Remember, this is not the ALP of old - it is a Left Elite party that has changed it's identity considerably from a worker's party to something more akin to the Greens. Therefore, while many may still want Union representation, they may not vote Labor and would certainly not donate to their campaign. This is a party whose leader called Australian men misogynists. This is a party that recently put a ridiculously high (highest in the World) excise on tobacco (only one of FIVE 15% increase has come in just now). This is a Party that taxed alcopops - which includes your JB & Cola and your Jacks & Cola etc. These kinds of policies are a kick in the guts for the bloke down the pub in his hi-vis. What was next? A ute and iced coffee tax? I also believe that is why they have lost votes too, but that's another matter.
For now, I say Union fees should not be able to be given to the ALP. I fully support the Union running events etc whereby members are able to directly donate to the ALP. The main thing for me is consent of the donor and I think it is a little lacking at the moment. Personally, I know some blokes (ex-Labor) that would rather have seen Thompson tuck their fiver into a G-string than see it go to support the like of Plibersek who jacked up the cost of their drinks, and put their ciggies up - I take it upon myself to point out that Labor did that, even though the Libs will be in power when the majority of the increases hit the averasge battler. They didn't know that - I guess that was rather shrewd of Labor - but it's still a kick in the guts - even if they think it's Abbott's boot, not Gillard's.
27 Jun 2014 9:53:22am
A first step to clean out the rot would be to initiate a series of Referenda to accompany each State & Federal election.
Give voters a direct input into the process of government.
I am completely over voting in political parties that run their own agendas within months of gaining power.
If they are going to continue to corrupt the evolution of a just and fair socio-economy, they do it against the background of our stated collective preferences as summarised by a series of Referenda.
27 Jun 2014 11:27:00am
If disengagement is the problem, and 0.3% of Australians joining 2 main parties suggests it is, why would more elections (what a referendum is) be a solution?
Mike (the other one):
27 Jun 2014 10:35:01am
@ Rabbithole,
Yes, but the people obviously want what the corporations are selling, that is all the product and 'goods' that will be delivered by endless growth (on a finite planet).
There's plenty of support for the plan to open up Northern Australia to create a food bowl to feed Asia and also create mega-cities.
So there you go, we can't possibly have any problems or bad leadership because we keep feeding the problems and the problems (AGW, species loss, reef bleaching, loss of fish stocks, desertification, pollution, etc, etc) must be figments of our imagination.
27 Jun 2014 9:23:38am
The political credibility gap is widening on a daily basis. Australian politics reached a whole new environment with the election of Tony Abbott as leader of the opposition. Vitriol and aggression and personal attacks never before experienced has become the order of the day and it is an environment from which politics may never recover. Endgame? Where closer than we think and the fragmentation of political representation with groups like PUP emerging will only accelerate from here. The major parties should be worried.
27 Jun 2014 10:15:50am
Clive Palmer and his mining companies stand to benefit substantially from the repeal of the Carbon tax.
I understand that he declared an interest and abstained from entering into the debate on the tax in his MP (House of Representatives role). This was the right thing to do: what is totally improper is that his PUP Senators are going to support the abolition of the tax in the upper house. These Senators indirectly represent Palmer's interests and should likewise declare an interest and refrain from voting on the repeal of the carbon tax.
Neither Abbott or the Opposition parties are insisting that the conflict of interest protocol be followed so one can only assume that they are all for burying the carbon tax issue as deeply as they can because none of them have the guts to risk losing votes by backing up the need to properly address the climate change issue.
27 Jun 2014 11:08:07am
Thats a good point Trev,
If the ALP or LNP had to call our PUP on CoI, then they may have to prescribe the same blow torch to themselves. Thats would mean no one would ever be in parliament for a vote, which would be a good thing for the public interests, however make a mockery of an apparent democracy.
The whole notion of an Opposition and a PM is contrary to the Constitution anyway, its been redesigned by the ALPNP to deliver different outcomes to attract corporate donations/bribes, not to benefit the public interest. A small number of groups/gangsg are far easier to control than 226 independent members.
We can kiss democracy good bye thanks to the ALPLNPGrPUP corporations/gangs.
27 Jun 2014 12:05:42pm
Some of the posts talk about the superficiality of the media and no where are they more guilty than with respect to Clive Palmer. He is portrayed as a mining magnate but his companies do not directly mine a thing. His carbon tax liabilities were accrued from a nickel refinery bought at a knock down price. The nickel processed does not come from any mines owned by Clive.
Clive is obviously a very successful entrepreneur. He owns the right to mine iron ore in WA which Chinese interests have developed at great expense and also owns the right to mine coal in central-north Qld - no progress with respect to making this happen to date.
27 Jun 2014 12:09:10pm
I disagree with your statement Australian politics reached a whole new environment with the election of Tony Abbott as leader of opposition. Whatever he said was tame when you consider the vitriol which used to come out of Paul Keating's mouth. I personally think the rot started with him and it has been downhill since then.
27 Jun 2014 12:15:40pm
Actually John, I don't think Abbott has the monopoly on vitriol, aggression and personal attacks. How quickly we forget Latham and Keating; to name but two. Although Keating could at least be a bit entertaining at times.
I certainly agree this government appears to be doing nothing to improve the quality of the debate. All rather disappointing and bit embarrassing that this is the best we have in this country.
27 Jun 2014 12:48:30pm
Yes I agree with you JohnC, well said.
Sir Robert of Lindsay:
27 Jun 2014 4:44:59pm
@ John C
Major parties should be worried????
It's US that should be worried!!!
When a mob like the PUP become the party de juex, considering the way our electoral process has been corrupted to allow them to be elected in the first place, WE should ALL be worried - VERY worried.
How is we see fit to elect a group we KNOW to be interested in only ONE mans well being? How is we see fit to elect a group with policies that are not only non-sensical, in most cases are also contradictory. How is it we elect a group that know so little about the government processes in this country the first thing they do is start threatening the elected government with all sorts of nasties unless they provide more staff to teach them how to to the job they were just elected for? How is we elect a group that thinks poo throwing the height of intellectual pursuit?
For over 100 years now this country has done quite well out of the two (occasionally three) party system, with at least one reasonably level headed minor party as arbitor, such as the Democrats or Greens. Right/Left, Conservative/Socialist never mattered as long as there was a group who held the balance that moderated the excesses of either.
God knows it is far from perfect, but it has served us well. Despite what you may think of this current government, the biggest problem we gave ourselves during the last election was to hand the balance of power to a rag-tag group of semi morons with a scatter gun approach to policy.
27 Jun 2014 10:18:05am
MY first thoughts as well.
27 Jun 2014 8:43:20am
"Both sides should be asking themselves why it is that the public and media are so ready to get on board with Clive, and so unwilling to listen to the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition".
Who said the public are so ready to get on board with Clive, what rubbish.
The media are dictating what we hear and what is thrown in our faces on TV and on th air. The public have NO choice but to put up with what the media want them to hear and see.
While Clive runs around the country sticking it up Abbott and the Libs the media are more than happy to have him doing it and running his stories as headlines as they do.
The public don't keep him in the headlines.
It isn't the public, it's the media directing things.
Time to get real here.
Mitor the Bold:
27 Jun 2014 8:55:12am
People like palmer wouldn't have prominence if not for the paucity of ideas from the Establishment. He is a symptom of the failure of our political elite to be elite.
27 Jun 2014 9:20:13am
Having someone other than the traditional ALPLNP corporations in power is the power of democracy. Some people hate it. Others believe that our democracy is based on having 226 independent members of parliament that are thee to direct the public service in the public interest.
The public interest does not factor into a capitalist monocrazy where the gang with the most money for election brainwashing wins.
descend the maelstrom:
27 Jun 2014 9:03:44am
Clive appears to be in the game for the benefit of himself.
And that differs from the rest of the politicians in the country, HOW?
Clive may be a self interested fool. but at least he has finally found a profession where he fits right in with the rest of self interested fools which dominate politics.
I have never seen a politician I thought was in the game for the benefit of aust people. They would be as rare as unicorns.
27 Jun 2014 9:24:11am
U r right. Clive is a part of this monocrazy now and he is their to represent his business interests, but at least they are Australian Business Interests as opposed to the ALPLNP who will take money off any corporation or foreign governments to sell out the public.
The ALPLNP do not work for Australians or Australia. If they did, perhaps our cancer rates would not have increased by 300% in 30 years, perhaps they would of banned all of Agent Orange and they would not of flogged Australia off on the US Stocky back in 86.
Its a sell out...thats the name of the game.
27 Jun 2014 9:58:06am
Clive is just making the system more efficient. Previously big business payed pollies (sorry - donating to the parties) and offered them plush jobs on retirement to get what they want.
That is inefficient.
Much more sensible to have big coal directly making decisions.
27 Jun 2014 10:20:02am
Bob Brown and Tony Windsor excepted.
descend the maelstrom:
27 Jun 2014 11:15:41am
The greens are no different to the major parties. Just look at the way they carry on.
Tony Windsor just went the way the wind was blowing. He had no principles. He was also in it for himself.
There may be some independent pollies out there with a conscience, but I'm yet to identify one.
I used to think pollies on my side were good honest people. But eventually I could no longer ignore reality. They are all crooks.
Lawrence of Bavaria :
27 Jun 2014 1:22:47pm
We are all frustrated, descend. But there are some lights on the hill: I'd vote for Nick Xenophon any day, Andrew Wilkie is a principled guy and for sheer grassroot power you can't go past Cathy McGowan.
But if the traditional parties wonder why no-one is listening anymore - we did. For a while. But what they said was nothing but self-serving drivel and mate-serving excuses dressed up as "the common good".
Clive Palmer does the same thing but like all incoming populists he still has that new car, or better new truck smell. It'll wear off quicker than you can say Al Gore. And then we are left with a generation or two of disenfranchised youngsters who either go Green (why not ?), go totally Independent (why not ?) or hopefully found a new party that shakes things up and reconnects people again with politics.
27 Jun 2014 12:17:52pm
@ Descend
If you haven't seen a politician who is 'in the game for the benefit of the people of Australia', then you ought to get involved more!
I was involved in politics for some considerable time (including NSW President of the Australian Democrats about 25 years ago, when they were main-stream reformists). I spent many years on the Committee that vetted candidate pre-selection to ensure no low life tried to stack a local branch (or the party as a whole) to gain pre-selection. I stood for Parliament, State or Federal, at least eight times, but I might have forgotten a couple. So I have personal experience.
I have seen and personally talked with literally hundreds of candidates who were honestly and sincerely 'in the game for the benefit of the Australian people'. And not just from my camp, either! Even the One Nation types I spoke to were sincere; I just happened to think their policies were appalling.
If you want to vote for someone with honest intentions, regardless of policy, then you can't do better than vote for the common, average citizen who stands for a minor party (and give preferences to other similar candidates, with your choice of Li or Lab last). With very rare exceptions, these minor-party guys and Independent guys are not career politicians! They spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars in what they know will not get them elected, but purely to try to influence the direction of the debate. And for the Greens and the Democrats at least, even their top Senate candidates (still no sure thing to be elected!) are/were pre-selected by such idealists, and not by party apparatchiks.
I can even say that of many Liberal and Labor candidates I have met; but they tend to be rarer in those circles. Nothing destroys idealism as profoundly as a career path!
27 Jun 2014 9:08:03am
I agree with JamesT that the broader public have not fallen for Clive. In fact, as documented in a Drum article this week by Peter Lewis and Jackie Woods "More than any other attribute, voters see Clive Palmer as arrogant, aggressive and erratic."
But the problem is he has money and ability to get attention and he has a very vocal following even if it is small.
I do despair at the constant hyperbole and over-statement of problems followed by politicians from all parties. It is a dumbing down of discussion that seems linked to the 15 second sound-bite and the large bolded newspaper headline, usually an awful pun, that bears little connection to what is actually reported. It is all about grabbing attention and rubbishing the other side rather than engaging.
I suspect a part of the reason for it is that the pollies don't want public discussion. Public debate and discussion simply get in the way of the conflicted deals they do with their favored union / industry / entrepreneur. That's how diesel fuel rebate stays while we get a medicare charge. That's how Obeid's family got the mining leases. That's how the mining resources tax became so watered down that it collects nothing. It's how the FOFA reforms are being derailed by the banks. It is intentional by the pollies, they don't want public debate and scutiny of their policy decisions because so many of those decisions are made in favor of narrow interests rather than the national interest.
Artful Dodger:
27 Jun 2014 10:47:54am
The problem is that his back pocket interests of profit at any price are in tune with the LNPs free market ideaology of business at any price.
Unless a couple pf PUP Sneators and maybe one other change their minds and vote AGAINST the repeal of the carbon tax we shall be one of the few countries NOT having a price on carbon.
Both Palmer and the LNP are salivating at the thought that in Australia they can soon go out and pull out as much environment destroying stuff as they like- destroy the Barrier Reef and other natural assets =in the name of 'business'.
We have become the world's pariah.
27 Jun 2014 11:53:19am
Enough of phoney overseas condemnation of anything you disagree with. We are not the 'world's pariah' in any way. That is just your wishful thinking. The Barrier Reef is over 2300 km long. I think there is plenty of room for both industry and the natural environment. Without growth in national wealth we cannot afford social welfare improvements.
27 Jun 2014 1:15:21pm
27 Jun 2014 6:22:12pm
APM , UNESCO disagrees....The reef is a World Heritage listed area...that means we have an obligation to look after it and the threats from dredging spoils are seen as bad enough for UNESCO to be considering changing the reefs status to being "in danger".
This government is not wanting to make social welfare improvements, only social welfare cuts. And any growth in the mining industry, especially if they axe the mining tax, will be going to overseas pockets, not building national wealth.
Sir Robert of Lindsay:
27 Jun 2014 4:59:51pm
"I agree with JamesT that the broader public have not fallen for Clive"
Fortunately, knowing this gives me a re-newed faith in my fellow citizens.
Unfortunately, this won't stop reality biting our exposed rear ends. Even his money isn't to blame for his election, although it certainly helped.
It was the slip up made by those guys writing the constitution all those years ago that thought no one would be so crude as to corrupt our electoral system. Even though the vast majority of people see Clive and his moronic lap dogs for the absurdity they are, Clive and his minders knew full well that the handful of un-thinking voters that would vote them would be more than enough to hand them the balance of power.
Despite my misgivings about Abbott, the amount of power Clive now wields is far more worrying. It is way out of proportion to the percentage of voters that supported them.
All we can hope is they use it responsibly. Somehow with a man so obsessed with his own worth at the helm I'm not holding my breath.
27 Jun 2014 9:12:32am
"The media are dictating what we hear and what is thrown in our faces on TV and on th air. The public have NO choice but to put up with what the media want them to hear and see."
Are you living in North Korea or Australia? Of course you can choose what media you want to take in, have you ever tried changing the channel. The local media is a product of the Australian people, 90% are city dwellers that have nothing to do but obsess over celebrities and occupy themselves with meaningless distractions like the labor-greens party.
Stuffed Olive:
27 Jun 2014 10:52:34am
The Labor Party and the Greens Party are not meaningless distractions Tim. Do you want a dictatorship or a democracy, PUP, warts and all?
27 Jun 2014 12:18:43pm
Well not the Labor party but the Greens???.
27 Jun 2014 6:47:21pm
The Greens have been on the receiving end of a smear campaign in the media which has been ongoing. The Greens are all for the abolishing of political donations. Stopping political donations and having a cap on campaign funding would level the playing field too much some think.
27 Jun 2014 12:22:52pm
Even allowing for personal bias, you'd have to say the recent behaviour of the Greens shows them to be little better than the rest. It would appear that Bob Brown must have taken the principles with him when he left the executive of the party.
27 Jun 2014 12:19:57pm
Bit hard to get away from it when all media report the same thing, the difference being how it is reported is governed by their own particular political alliance. Of course, this doesn't apply to the Royal Commission into Unions, the coverage of which you will not find on the ABC.
27 Jun 2014 6:41:08pm
"the difference being how it is reported is governed by their own particular political alliance"
Spot on with that statement...and guess what? at least two-thirds of our media in Australia is owned by one company, run by one person with conservative political views.
Evan and pw1,
The Greens were subjected to very negative media criticism in the election campaign....the same media very happy to have Clive Palmer holding the balance of power, so he didn't receive any criticism.
27 Jun 2014 9:34:28am
Easiest way to get real is to ban all political donations.
Our "democracy" is no longer about who has the most votes it is now about who has the most money.
The issue being what deals must be done to get that money.
27 Jun 2014 10:43:25am
I agree. Donations are what gives the lobbyists the power to make or veto policies.
Problem is, the politicians have circled their wagons and only they can ban donations. That won't happen until we get a political party in with the will and ethics to do it.
We need to vote out any party that will keep this corrupting influence. That's both Libs and Labs. And we need to do it asap before they make doing that even impossible, they've got a headstart.
27 Jun 2014 12:49:49pm
If you ban donations the only pollies to win will be the already rich ones. Is that what you want?
I get it that what you probably want is to end the -influence- that donations bring. No argument there, but outright bans are not the answer.
27 Jun 2014 1:19:37pm
"Easiest way to get real is to ban all political donations".
And all of those bloody lobbyists - corporate, religious and those interfering political (USA, Israeli, UK ad nauseam) existential influences to boot!
Brian Francis:
27 Jun 2014 10:46:04am
It needs to be reiterated that Mr.Palmer is not the problem here, nor are the collective of Pollies that go to make up the Parliament. The quality that is, exists because we, the public put them there. The fault of bad communication lies squarely with the public given the inability of the public to disseminate correct information through the desire to be socially current.
The public are not getting on-board with Mr.Palmer, the public are simply re-acting to the information supplied to them and that information contains large doses (inordinate levels) of Clive Palmer this and Clive Palmer that!
The fact is that Mr.Palmer being the enigma he is, fascinates many of us. The media know this and they are aware that a story is a story and it is on the minds of people at the present.
We need to lift our game and educate ourselves to be capable of determining the difference between things that are required to conduct the business of Government, and things that simply entertain us and give us instant gratification.
Judy Bee:
27 Jun 2014 11:58:55am
Hello Brian Francis,
I agree with you that various organs of the media will feed the demographic it addresses. We are all aware that journalists will push an editorial line that suits the E.I.C., and media bosses. We have grown cynical and mistrustful when too much misinformation is headlined, tabloid style. But with Clive Palmer, we are stopped in our tracks, and we listen. It might be called hope. Maybe we are hungry for some honesty, and looking for it from newly elected politicians. Some politicians in the past, a few of them independents, have rewarded us with wisdom and good judgement, and honesty.
N.B. Cathy McGowan is one courageous politician who deserves more media coverage.
27 Jun 2014 1:13:49pm
Lindsay Tanner belled this cat in his book "Sideshow". Media & Politics is the ultimate reward-driven system. The reward is attention and money. Whose? Ours ultimately.
At the moment we are rewarding a fellow who - to judge by those with prior experience like the Coolum resort co-owners and his Chinese partners - is likely to disappoint. However, showmen and charlatans are not new. The histrionics of our more established leaders have opened the space for this one. But they were not born histrionic...(well hopefully not)
If "our" preferred leader ever said "OK, this idea of theirs is not too bad, we can work with it" would our reaction be joy or yet more confected outrage? Would the leader granted unexpected bipartisanship be rewarded for being quietly grateful - or would be required by his barrackers to rub salt into the wound?
Brian Francis:
27 Jun 2014 2:57:46pm
Excellent point Gordon
This is a problem far beyond the capabilities of our population to comprehend. We are encouraged to wage war and take sides, against another Political Party, thus inoculate ourselves with a sense of distrust and skepticism so as to not recognise a sound idea coming from the other side.
The very fact that the Opposition has that description, tells us exactly what they represent. Regardless of the soundness of an idea, it is criticised and opposed because that is said to be doing the job and representing the ones who haven't a voice.
This, traditional system, has problems and whilst more and more the country wants to be considered as mature, it is being held back by out-dated concepts of Democracy.
Business and organisations throughout the world, operate efficiently and substantially well under the regime of Directors. They have problems and disputes, but fundamentally, they get on with the job and develop hopefully in a positive way. Governments, because they need to wait for the population to catch-up before implementation of ideas, are hamstrung and often mired in red tape and silly argument about who is getting more than whom.
Governments, good Governments, are there for the people and are willing to incorporate new systems as the population allow. But we are not allowing anything to proceed and are being stopped on every turn by a rampant social media,that is primarily a new phenomenon, holding the floor on every issue. This is like a war fought with sling-hots against cannon.
the yank:
27 Jun 2014 5:18:57pm
Agreed, Clive is a media invention with little substance.
Funny yes, but relevant,no.
27 Jun 2014 8:46:09am
Clive Palmer dominates the media and whose fault is that?
The real important news is only briefly mentioned if at all or distorted or incomplete. The propaganda that the news media spoon feeds us is mostly irrelevant or an attempt at emotional stimulation for the masses or sport which, is emotional stimulation for the masses.
Australia is not becoming ungovernable, it is becoming unmanageable because, our inglorious leaders have no idea about the physical realities of finite resources and rely solely on the advice of economists and corporations who, are the ones that have got us into this debt fuelled climate change and environmental decay.
Philip Howell:
27 Jun 2014 9:12:47am
I agree with your criticism of the media. The article lets them off the hook too easily.
A huge part of the problem is that the media is lazy. It is easier to report rubbish than research policy and present informative news.
So they fill a 90 second storey with a couple of the more outrageous sentences from politicians, book-ended by their own comments all designed to show that they, the media, are more wise and sensible than the people they have just misrepresented. This is just one element of how this generation of journalists have departed from being reporters, in favour of being commentators; commenting from their unique perspective of never having had to run anything and deliver a something tangible in difficult circumstances where you don't have full control.
I disagree though when you say Australia is not becoming ungovernable. I think it is. The media is playing its part, by refusing to report in depth on intractable problems. But the High Court is doing its best too. Its recent school chaplains decisions throw a huge spanner in the workings of Australia's government, workings which all major parties have supported. But just like the media, the judges are never accountable and never have to run anything and make it work.
Brian Francis:
27 Jun 2014 9:55:52am
Well written Philip!
You have hit the problem front on and exposed the situation for what it is.
I don't necessarily think that the media is the great big bad contributor, however it is guilty of laziness. The media will,if given the opportunity, take the easiest road to fill the job requirements. This is an un-fortunate quality of much of the present work-force mentality. It is up to every person who consumes the junk that can be generated, to say they want and expect better.
Laziness is the key here. A story is a story is a story! We control the quality by us demanding, through our own education, a better standard of journalism and political outcome.
We are on a road to failure as a quality nation. A nation which can have intelligent discourse about subjects, is a quality nation and at present, this is in jeopardy through our need to be fed tripe when celebrity tweeters /film stars / comedians and rock bands; take over the airwaves. Our response to the tripe offered should be swift and decisive.
27 Jun 2014 10:37:25am
"But the High Court is doing its best too. Its recent school chaplains decisions throw a huge spanner in the workings of Australia's government, workings which all major parties have supported."
Youch. In our system with a non-active executive, I'm grateful at least some institution can hold these tools in check. It's not the pollies who are trying to protect the constitution as a number of recent decisions indicate.
There may be something good to arise out of this disorder anyway. Machiavelli came to the conclusion that highly centralised political systems could implement change faster, but were less resilient. We're a little more decentralised like Feudal France, than, say, the Persian Empire.
Just because the ALP and LNP are getting on the nose doesn't mean we're becoming ungovernable. Just that those in government are going to have to do things differently; which is good.
chipinga :
27 Jun 2014 9:19:00am
Sadly that is what politics has become... Shorten went to the last election supporting Rudds dump the carbon tax, yet now won't simply for political reasons. Why Shorten does not negotiate with Abbott to supporting an ETS IF other major emitters all sign up is beyond comprehension. I'm very confident if the playing field was levelled Abbott would come on board, under labors current position of supporting the worlds biggest carbon tax is only helping destroy our economy and jobs of which a great many would have been union members working in the manufacturing industry.
That is politics in 2014!
27 Jun 2014 12:12:50pm
Chipinga, Rudd's dumping of the CT also urged the adoption of an ETS. That ETS is in the legislation and due to begin from July next year.
The reason, of course, why Shorten did not want to dump the CT now is because Abbott has no intention of bringing in an ETS. Palmer is now trying to force Abbott into adopting an inert ETS, one conditional upon other countries adopting an ETS.
But what if all the countries nominated by Palmer were to adopt an ETS soon? That would really cause the Coalition a problem - having to adopt a policy they once held and now reject. Even The Australian newspaper - after years of anti-climate Change rhetoric - is claiming that it has wanted an ETS all along.
As for the CT destroying the economy and jobs, the reasons are other than the influence of the CT. And people losing jobs are not just union members (remember that we are told how union membership is very low). When the car industry closes down, it is not the CT which is the cause.
The CT has been successful in reducing emissions. It has not cost taxpayers $550 pa. There is no guarantee energy prices will reduce. The Direct Action plan (now dead?) would have cost taxpayers (but the cost would not have appeared on the energy bill).
What we have seen in recent days is how self-interest rules. Palmer and the coal industry win, while politics across the board is smashed by the Palmer wrecking ball.
And while we are at it, ask ourselves what Gore was doing there supporting a scrambled policy which delays action on climate change.
Chris L:
27 Jun 2014 2:25:08pm
Chip old mate, I'm not that big a fan of Shorten but I think it's unfair to misrepresent him so. He has said many times he'll support removing the carbon price if an ETS replaces it (not Mr Palmer proposes an ETS of nil, which is a middle finger raised toward the idea of carbon reduction). Shorten has also said he'd support other measure in the budget, the few that don't exact harsh retribution on the poor and infirm. He's already shown more cooperation as an opposition leader than Mr Abbott did in four years.
27 Jun 2014 2:42:02pm
Our economy is growing. It is not being destroyed. The lies spread about the effect the carbon tax would have on the economy are already proven to be false.
Renewable energy is already dropping the wholesale price of electricity and so the effect on manufacturing has been somewhat balanced out. No company has claimed the carbon tax put them out of business but several have claimed the high dollar was the final straw. Again your claims have already been proven false.
Do you really think that repeating proven nonsense is way to run a country? It might be a good way of gaining and maintaining power by fooling enough people but intelligent people realise that eventually you need evidenced based policies not mindless fact free sloganeering.
27 Jun 2014 2:34:18pm
There is a laziness in the media. So easy to report 'he said, she said' and call it balance but what if what 'he said' is a total load of old cobblers that can be debunked with easily available facts? Allowing the nonsense to be 'reported' gives it credence if it goes unquestioned as it so often does. It is a false balance.
Forrest Gardener:
27 Jun 2014 8:51:10am
As if to ilustrate the author's point, the editor uses the sensationalist words "hurting our democracy".
It is worth taking a step back to remember that Australia's democracy is quite robust. There is no doubt that it will be entirely unaffected by Palmer or any other present player.
The greater the scope for stupidity and irrational decision making in one period, the greater the scope for sense and rational decision making in the next.
27 Jun 2014 9:55:07am
Fact is Forrest: some in politics are getting 'hurt' more than other just now (hence the bleating headline from the left).
They lose another goal, they blame the referee.
Old Timer:
27 Jun 2014 1:44:35pm
They lose another goal, they blame the referee.
So, after the previous 3-4 years of bleating headlines from the right, nothing much has changed, has it Alfie?
27 Jun 2014 7:09:43pm
"Clive Palmer....is drowning out any hope the Government has of getting its message back on track and through to the public."
Sounds more so that the writer supports the government and it's message. Seems you are seeing left-wing bias that is not there.
Judy Bee:
27 Jun 2014 1:19:05pm
Hello Forrest Gardener,
I would not agree that 'hurting our democracy' is sensationalist, especially as it stikes a chord with many of us. What is alarming is how much (unelected) behind the scenes power is shaping policy which affects us all. If we continue to just keep looking the other way, our democracy becomes very fragile.
We have the democratic right to vote and elect a selected representative into government. But how well informed is that vote, if the mainstream media feeds us tabloided misinformation? How well informed is that vote if big corporations are funding that representative (favours to be delivered later)?.
In 2007 K Rudd was elected with a mandate to behave humanely towards asylum seekers, and to address climate change. In 2007, News Limited endorsed K Rudd. We were not to know then that the combined forces (islamaphobes and the resources industries) would pressure the government, through the media, to form policies that are cruel and in the case of the mining tax, ineffective. The carbon tax should stay, its effect on the economy has been negligable, but in a fragile democracy, vested interest is going to win out yet again.
Forrest Gardener:
27 Jun 2014 3:14:29pm
JB, life in a democracy means you get stuck with decisions you don't like (but others do) made by governments you don't like (but others do). Just imagine how rational thinkers thought about Rudd/Gillard/Rudd.
Quality of decisions is another issue, as is the misguided twaddle spouted by the Labor Fan Club each day.
Chris L:
27 Jun 2014 5:36:09pm
"Just imagine how rational thinkers thought about Rudd/Gillard/Rudd"
We were mostly fine with it ;-)
27 Jun 2014 7:17:08pm
Judy Bee, Well said, and I would add that the media tide turned on Rudd when he announced the NBN. Plans for a full optical fibre broadband network which would be publicly owned asset upset someone who would be affected by that.
Sir Robert of Lindsay:
27 Jun 2014 5:31:52pm
"It is worth taking a step back to remember that Australia's democracy is quite robust. There is no doubt that it will be entirely unaffected by Palmer or any other present player."
Are you so sure about this??
The rise of PUP, who a very small proportion of the population voted for, who a very large proportion of the population believe to be semi moronic, is a lesson we should all take note of.
Our "robust democracy" is also one easily corrupted by men like the notorious "Election Whisperer".
How is we hand so much power to people so few vote for????
Robust? Only if you believe people ALWAYS act honourably, otherwise the word "fragile" would be a better descriptor.
27 Jun 2014 8:59:07am
More likely we just don't trust either of our current teams and would like an alternative.
27 Jun 2014 8:59:52am
Clive has balance of power and sway over the nation because Labor could not even select candidates properly in WA senate election.
Unless they can respect the good people in their party, we can not respect the party. It is a totally different matter that the other side is even worse gutter party.
James in Brisbane:
27 Jun 2014 9:43:07am
If you believe that, then you're clutching at straws. The tribalism and loyalty that used to attach to the Labor and Liberal parties has been dwindling for decades. PUP is an expression of disaffection against the majors, people lashing out because they feel that both parties just play games and are caught up in an infantile partisan jihad against the other. The careerism of the majors, where student politicians go on to become real politicians without ever having exposure to the 'real world' has caused politics to descend into student politics. People are sick of the 'us' v. 'them' mentality of partisans, and just want a sensible conversation.
Chris L:
27 Jun 2014 2:43:52pm
The tribalism is still there James. There's plenty of people commenting here who are just mindlessly barracking for their team and worrying about scoring goals and their side winning.
The people abandoning the two majors are the ones who follow their conscience and who care about policy. I suspect (as Duniya seems to be suggesting) that these people would return to the majors if they started acting like the adults they claim to be and put some talent at the forefront.
Brian Francis:
27 Jun 2014 9:00:08am
Thankyou for pointing out this pending crisis.
In business,we have our own terminology for the situation at hand. We call it the point of 'Grossness' whereby everything is up for sale and reached its throw-out date. All of the marketers have sucked the product dry for all it is worth and there is nothing left but to advertise the biggest sale of all time.
You make this point regarding the selling of messages in the political world that is is today.
Gross language and softly - softly, pandering to the public, has become the norm.
We are on course for problems of our own making unless the public begin to put politics into a field of educated people. We presently are letting the authentic politic be confused with the celebrity sell. We see actors,whom are great actors and have held up some really strong performances, being listened to on political points when they have had no real coaching in the field. They are using their celebrity to get points across at the cost of authentic discourse.
The Climate Change argument was lost as soon as Professor Tim Flannery all of a sudden became a television celebrity. This is a man with great credibility in his own field and to see him flown into a selling job was pitiful to say the least.
Clive Palmer is a man who can sell. If you needed a car, Mr.Palmer would have you going home at night in a vehicle that was both fitting for your needs and at the right cost. He is a salesman and the public need to know that selling is a different field to academic fields.
It is important for the public to realise that as our laziness in the thinking department increases, then the quality of our purchases decreases. If Mr.Palmer thought he could sell the public a lemon and that the public would be happy, then that is what he would do. He will respond to the needs of an ever-increasing dumbing-down of public thinking and research.
Jon Jermey:
27 Jun 2014 9:00:42am
You can add the cynical way in which politicians on the left have attempted to turn an interesting but debatable finding about climate into a global 'crisis' that can only be cured by taxpayers parting with both their money and their rights. Having witnessed the extent to which even reasonable and talented people like Barack Obama are willing to twist the facts in order to secure the apocalyptic loony vote, it's not surprising that most of us are unwilling to suspend our disbelief any further.
27 Jun 2014 1:30:39pm
This is the "new austerity" that the neoCons have wrought upon most of Europe, the UK and the USA.
To what end?
NeoFuedalism for the masses and extreme wealth for the 1% of the 1%!
And a return to fascism as well for Europe and the Ukraine!!
27 Jun 2014 5:47:24pm
I think you have totally missed the point Jon, and fail to perceive what has happened in the climate change arena. Science is all about understanding reality......finding the truth. Findings which do not accurately portray reality, sooner or later get thrown out as greater understanding develops. A scientist's credibility and reputation are determined by how well he/she is able to understand and pursue reality. Our climate scientists are telling us quite openly and honestly about the evidence that shows that our climate is warming and that we are heading for disaster if we do not change our ways.
The problem for the science of climate change is that politicians have turned the science into political ideology. Nick Minchin in particular, linked an understanding and acceptance of climate science to Labor and the Greens. It then became a political issue, not a scientific one and the extreme concern about the situation in which we find ourselves was dismissed as being part of the political exaggeration and distortion to which this article refers. Many of those "on the right" have successfully neutered the issue by making out that what one thinks about CC is related to one's political stance. This, of course, twists cause and effect.......very often it is one's understanding of the climate science that causes people to vote a particular way, particularly when the conservatives in power have publicly stated that climate change is "crap" and are doing their utmost to allow business to go on damaging our climate and our environment at the cost of future life.
In short, many are suffering from delusion......we have let lies, untruths and distortions become reality, and call the truth a distortion and exaggeration. We need to get back our ability to differentiate between truth and falsity, and to see which "emperor" it really is, who wears no clothes.
the yank:
27 Jun 2014 9:04:54am
At this point it is not the public that is keen to get in bed with Palmer but the media. Maybe you guys are bored I don't know but I don't see a lot of in-depth reporting going on.
All Palmer has done is given you a wiz bang show and you are gobsmacked. Get over it and please do it quickly.
We now have NO plan to deal with climate change and no idea when if ever we will have a plan. So Abbott has gotten what he wants and this is good? The Greens fell all over themselves patting Palmer on the back and for what? Nothing much that I can see.
Labor is quiet as a door mouse and maybe with good reason. At some point people are going to look at Clive and see a emperor with no clothes.
27 Jun 2014 9:07:03am
"Why, then, has the present Government's mantra that it has inherited a "budget crisis" and a "debt and deficit disaster" flopped?"
Because its a lie! Moody's consider Australia economic strength as "very high" and that we are low risk.
27 Jun 2014 9:44:37am
Precisely, and really just like everything else that Abbott claims. If there is a problem with our democracy we need look no further than the fact that we actually elected the LNP government - that alone suggests that the author of this article may have a point.
Peter of Melbourne:
27 Jun 2014 11:05:51am
the lnp have hit the nail on the head, however it is for all the wrong reason.
there is a debt and deficit crisis in this nation and it will keep getting worse.
- 40% youth unemployment in not just country towns but many suburbs of our cities and a major reason is because the onus has been taken off industry to provide training for these people.
- practically all of our heavy and medium industrial output has been offshored to nations which have the advantage of having no minimum wages nor minimum working conditions - thailand has 2 million undocumented cambodians working within its borders, how do you expect australian industry to compete with that?
- our core infrastructure has been sold off by the LNP and Labor to the international market meaning hard currency which could be circulating within our nation is offshored almost immediately. Current Federal LNP policy is to reward such behaviour at us, the taxpayers, further expense.
the list goes on and is so bloody depressing. why do australians have no faith in our politicians, because it is extremely clear that they have sold the nation out for their own little 30 pieces of silver.
better we hold plebiscites on every major action Federal and State Governments take at each election cycle killing off the idea of "presumed mandates" once and for all.
27 Jun 2014 2:24:30pm
We are all complicit it is too easy to blame the politicians (eg. how many Australians are quite happy to benefit from "cheap" Thai made 4wds??
The GFC should have been a call to action for a major re-think of how the world (and individual countries) conducts business but it has been more of the same on a rapidly expanding scale. It would be a brave country to tell global corporations to start shaping up or shipping out but I am sure it could be done. I suppose I am a luddite but I would much rather pay 40% more for a toaster proudly made in Australia that actually works and last longer than 6 months than the absolute sh** passed off to us by Philips etc. produced in low cost countries. May be it needs a consumer uprising??
chipinga :
27 Jun 2014 9:07:09am
"It seems there is a deep and persistent political credibility crisis that threatens to make Australia increasingly ungovernable."
Sadly that is what politics has become... Shorten went to the last election supporting Rudds dump the carbon tax, yet now won't simply for political reasons. Why Shorten does not negotiate with Abbott on supporting an ETS if other major emitters all sign up is beyond comprehension. I'm very confident if the playing field was levelled Abbott would come on board, under labors current position of supporting the worlds biggest carbon tax is only helping destroy our economy and jobs of which a great many would have been union members working in the manufacturing industry.
27 Jun 2014 9:35:05am
You're being a bit cloth eared there chips, the Carbon Tax collapses into an ETS under the Labor model, you know like we have at the moment. It isn't much different to what Parmer is proposing. That is what Labor took to the last election.
The thing is Chips the Carbon tax isn't destroying jobs anywhere. There is simply no evidence for this. The other thing is it actually works.
The problem for the Government is they appear to be backed into a corner here, they aren't bright enough to work out how to get out of it.
27 Jun 2014 1:33:52pm
27 Jun 2014 9:57:03am
chipinga: Abbott is the problem. Your rather erratic statement "I am sure Abbott would come on board" is so far from his actions over the last six years, it is laughable.
The farcical nature of Australian politics is due in no small way to Abbott's personality and negativity, which was so lauded by the Murdoch press and its minions. It seems that any actions or promises were in order to achieve his aims, a conservative government.
The public have taken till now to realise that he will say and do anything to achieve these ends, but no one really knows what they are because his policies are so inconsistent.
It seems inconceivable, that because Abbott has been apparently convinced, possibly by his religious mentors, that climate change is "All crap" that he will be quite happy to sit back and nothing.
Australians generally are not like that. Most would accept that as a nation we should pull our weight. Instead we are beholden to industrial interests of the same magnitude as the mining industry which history will show has ripped off our natural resources.
Abbott, and his government will, down the track become but a bad dream
27 Jun 2014 9:09:21am
With the advent and growth of new media, the lies that both MSM and politicians have been feeding us are exposed. This causes anger and reaction. Hence: Clive.
Is Clive the solution? Maybe, probably not, but the process of getting off the addiction of voting for the 2 major parties IS the solution.
This is the political shakeup we had to have.
27 Jun 2014 10:01:08am
Fair point.
Labor & Liberals have walked away from being responsible for a viable economy.
Australia, the wealthiest country in the world as measured by mineral resources per head of population, now survives on debt.
Unbelievable, but true.
The attraction of Clive is that he exposes the major parties as hypocrites, and therefore gets the protest vote. More power to him.
If the majors cannot be straight with the electorate, destroy the majors and start again.
Brian Francis:
27 Jun 2014 12:37:03pm
I agree with you on this and it is unfortunate that it is true.
The so-called 'Protest vote' is not rank stupidity.Fancy actually voting to have a person disrupt the Parliamentary system simply because the Parliamentary system is already struggling. It is just crazy!
Mr.Palmer would be attractive because he talks the talk. Bur like all of the 'Appealing Politicians' they really have nothing to lose. They are never going to form a Government, never need to draw up a Budget, never have to act on important Defense issues and never have an effect on Social issues. All they do is disrupt and present an easily digestible meal of tripe that the dear un-aware public swallow.Thinking is our least regarded asset but our most profitable, it may be time to start some thinking classes.
27 Jun 2014 9:09:58am
Culpability for media driven politics has to weigh heavily on the shoulders of the ABC. In its attempt to manipulate the political agenda, it frequently espouses one side's ideology over all the others'....this has lead to a dumbing down of debate and results in political opportunists making up policy on the run in order to appease the political leanings of journalists.
Oh ...to have an impartial media.
27 Jun 2014 9:29:49am
Like the day after the budget was handed down, all over the media we were hearing how the public was outraged and thought it was unfair. How can that be true when the budget had only just been handed down the night before.
The media was lining up pensioners in clubs and putting questions to them like "how do you feel about having your pensions cut" and putting it to air around the clock.
I mean seriously, the day after the budget.
More media directing.
The media need to stop being so cute and pretending it plays no role in pushing it's own political agenda.
marcus aureilius:
27 Jun 2014 9:12:04am
I think we expect them to be true to their word, criticize constructively and recognize issues of benefit to us that deserve bi-partisan support not left behind because of some indefensible party ideology.
Tony "trust me" "people skills" has been the epitome of deceit, and the shattering of trust either side of the 2 party system shows how desperate we are for a credible alternative.
One day.....until then "GO THE INDEPENDENTS"and stick it to them hard.
27 Jun 2014 9:12:50am
All this stems from the massive decrease in the time taken for information,moods,ideas and movements to be spread by new technology which really shouldnt be a negative but voters,politicians and their parties cant keep up let alone get ahead of it.
It has gotten to a point where the access to information is so fast that local (state and federal) issues can be just as easily influenced immediately by developments on the other side of the planet,again not a real negative but it can make planned and well thought out responses from governments and populations almost out of date before they are enacted.
As for Clive,I dont think that a majority of voters consider him to be the new messiah,but more the naughty boy,who can be used to club the mainstream major/minor parties around the ears.
My guess is Clive and his PUPs run a real risk of catching a terminal case of Democtratitis when the realities of doing deals with governments via the Senate dawn on them and they are forced to settle for less than what they have previously sprouted a'la Meg Leas/Democrats and the GST.
27 Jun 2014 9:13:04am
I am sure there are other factors involved in making people tune out beyond some politicians being sensationalist. For instance, we know before we hear it that any LNP spokesperson will sprout spin to cover up that once again they are doing something to pander to their big business backers. We know that Labor has things to say about this and it has intelligent and articulate people to do it, but instead it rolls out the current leader who has taken a degree in boredom. The leader of the Greens will just look grumpy and self-righteous.
I am sure that when someone decides to say something genuinely significant, people will listen. As James notes, we have to hope that the media reports it. In the meantime, we have Clive to provide the entertainment.
27 Jun 2014 9:13:08am
Thank you for a thought provoking article David. I totally agree that we are becoming ungovernable democratically and the risk then, of course, is that we lose our democracy to an authoritarian regime. Indeed, one could argue that our current government has all the hallmarks of such a regime.......secrecy, propaganda, lies and no tolerance of discussion or disagreement within their own ranks.......unity is everything and dissent will not be tolerated.
As for the causes, they are everywhere and include the ones you discuss. There are more though. In particular, it is not just our politicians who have trained the population to be ungovernable......it is the whole ethos of our current society. The notion that we are all individuals whose interests are best met by serving ourselves; that personal wealth, possessions and lifestyle are the key to celebrity status which is the goal in life; and that we are not part of nature and natural systems, that we have control over them and that there are no consequences to our actions. In short we have lost touch with reality, we have gone completely mad.
In our current political situation we are seeing the consequences of such belief........individuals trying to take control of power and wealth for their own ends, their own interest. To these people, others in society are of no matter, no consequence.....to them we are all individuals fighting for our own interest and others not only no longer need to be considered, they are to be rendered powerless, impotent and barely allowed to exist.
Do we let this fight play out to the bitter end or do we start to realize that this is not a solution and the problem is inherent in our view of the word? That we need to realize that we are not separate from each other and the world around and that care and co-operation are essential to well-being and survival of us all?
Parasitic behaviour kills the host and humans have become a parasite, a cancer, on other life and the planet. We need to live symbiotically and that means co-operatively. Our egos have reached their "use by date."
Ann McNamara:
27 Jun 2014 9:14:46am
I think political parties are getting frightening. They are all out for themselves. Of course Palmer went with Abbott, even against his new best friend Gore, to get rid of the toxic tax. Gina now has doubled her wages in the bank, now $20 billion. She needs to work so she can pay all her court costs fighting her children over a little $5 billion trust that they want to get their hands on. Palmer is a miner first, and you wouldn't call him a politician next? There is no honor amongst our gov members and I fear for this wonderful country, that won't be wonderful much longer.
27 Jun 2014 9:17:11am
Good piece David there could be many factors at play here but for me the catalyst of the new political front was rock and roll politics by Kevin Rudd.
All politicians use the media as vehicle for their message but Rudd embraced and involved the media in a way not seen before he loved the attention and the media particularly the ABC with their extra Rudd endorsed funding loved the easy news Rudd fed them.
27 Jun 2014 12:02:01pm
gbe: What a lot of tripe. News Corp got into Rudd mercilessly, to the point that he was overthrown. The ABC did their share. Get with the facts.
With correspondents with as much of a facts of the facts as you have, why should our politicians be any better?
27 Jun 2014 9:21:30am
I think we have to be careful about what is meant by extremes here. There is a frightening shift to the right in politics across the world...authoritarian, militaristic, ready to demonise minorities(refugees, Muslims, the other), an insistence that the worth of something is based on its price, not its value or quality; and an incessant drumbeat of fear and terror to keep the populace from questioning. What used to be considered left, such as the Labor Party, is now at best centre right, and the greens, who we are expected to believe are dangerous leftist radicals, have policies that would barely have raised a ripple in centre left labor circles in the 1970s.
Yes there is a trend to an extreme, and it is to what many of our young brave men and women fought and died to stop in the the Second World War.
27 Jun 2014 12:21:52pm
Well said!
27 Jun 2014 9:25:03am
"But so profoundly did Keating's apparently unscripted remarks (and the following recession) focus the minds of Australians,"
What a strange thing to say Keating made the comments on a radio program in 1986. They weren't unscripted. The recession happened in 1991, There was a stockmarket crash with a restructure of the economy in between.
We now have more than half the workforce who have never worked through a recession.
With this current government who have no idea how far away the next recession.
27 Jun 2014 9:27:30am
The Palmer "phenomenon" is as contrived as the Hansonism that the media both created and fed off years ago.
The next phase will probably be about building Clive up some more and then tearing him back down.
In the end it's all about engaging the public in order to sell media and advertising and little to do with advancing the quality of public debate.
Politics has become little more than some sort of reality TV show.
27 Jun 2014 3:18:17pm
Quite a valid view.
If mainstream media was utilized with intelligence, and I mean at the level of Editor and above, most so-called problems would have very short shelf lives.
Unfortunately, vested interests seem to steer public opinion, often by omission of pertinent facts, so that few issues are rarely solved.
What we get is vapid gossip - he said that, she said that; cover-ups in the area of legislated tax avoidance (think Glencore paying zero tax); and outright tom-foolery - Liberals trying to pass off the national debt as proof that pensioners, students and the unemployed should be attacked rather than the real drain on the economy - middle class welfare (eg. negative gearing for existing homes & shares costing $4B/yr and generous super concessions costing $39B/yr).
27 Jun 2014 9:28:11am
How funny - a spin doctor not mentioning spin as a problem, possibly THE problem.
27 Jun 2014 9:28:28am
"Perhaps another way of looking at the situation is to ask, have successive generations of politicians effectively trained their populations to be ungovernable?"
I think it is, in fact the opposite. I think all the greed and nest feathering has resulted in politicians who do not care for "governing", but instead only care about advancing their own intersests. As or PM says "We are open for business". That is obviously true, but we should be "open for the people" instead. Somehow politics seems to have degenerated into a sporting contest, as evidenced by certain contributors to the Drum who blindly barrack for their team, rather than evalute each policy announcement. Left or right doesn't matter when we are all being shafted by big business, but I am sure some pretend lawyers will argue otherwise...
Scotty A:
27 Jun 2014 9:28:53am
"Democracy is about compromise, consensus, checks and balance, evolution not revolution."
The Greens should be meditating long and hard on this statement as they block the increase to the fuel levy.
There is no ETS in place because of the Greens and now they are blocking the reindexing of the fuel levy which should be a no brainer environmental policy.
They are the problem not the solution.
Michael E:
27 Jun 2014 10:17:27am
Yes Scotty A, the Greens political party has failed its voters.
There was a time when we may have had a Turnbull government & an ETS.
Instead, the Greens "principled" opposition to the first ETS has given us no ETS, an Abbott government, & an Abbott-lite opposition.
Who knows what the Greens stand for.
27 Jun 2014 11:28:26am
The Greens have a problem with kicking own goals that unfortunately rebound to the detriment of this country. The ETS blocking led to the Abbott ascension which has been a disaster for this country. The Greens are a political party not some collection of high minded saints and like any political party they make idiotic mistakes.
27 Jun 2014 10:23:32am
Sadly the Greens lost their way after BB pulled out.
Whether they will ever find it again remains to be seen.
Michael E:
27 Jun 2014 9:29:02am
It is not the politics of extremes but the failure to argue properly that is hurting our democracy.
Our politicians rarely if ever engage seriously in argument.
Instead, they play the person rather than the issue and attack one another's credibility.
The populace are presented with slogans, smears, and diversions, not argument built on reasons and conclusions.
Clear thinking may be in short supply but it is not completely absent.
The populace know they are being taken for a ride and resent it.
Our politicians need to wake up & start arguing instead of posturing.
27 Jun 2014 9:29:49am
Why is "Democracy Hurting" when the left gets hurt?
What about the $39.3b in budget savings that Labor is blocking...and, the $300b debt that is costing us $1b a month in interest alone?
That is hurting every Australian family. Labor needs to get over petty politics and do what is right for the country for once.
27 Jun 2014 9:39:45am
More fiction writing alfie, They are being blocked because the vast majority of electorate sees them as unfair.
Any how would you know "That is hurting every Australian family." does parroting the party line make the statement correct or is it just spin.
27 Jun 2014 12:46:33pm
"They are being blocked because the vast majority of electorate sees them as unfair. "
Yes the people that thought/think you can fix debt without saving money.Now the reality has sunk in they don't like it.
27 Jun 2014 4:50:30pm
Evan there isn't a budget problem find me a creditable economist that says there is. The only one saying there is is Hockey and his band of myopic followers.
27 Jun 2014 6:51:56pm
"Evan there isn't a budget problem find me a creditable economist that says there is."
Oh I think you can. Plenty of economist who will tell you the budget needs repairing.But I do realise that the ALP think you can put it all on the never never.So our children and grandchildren can pay it off.
27 Jun 2014 6:39:01pm
EVAN you've been reading the LNP Handy Hints to Confused Supporters Guide again haven't you. The truth is that there isn't a financial or budget crisis just a short term drop in mineral exports which has now begun to go away so do try and keep up.
27 Jun 2014 6:54:40pm
"The truth is that there isn't a financial or budget crisis."
Of course there isn't thats why Wayne the Wonderful is still the treasurer.Whats that you say he's not?.
27 Jun 2014 11:30:37am
" ...do what is right for the country for once."
Well if you are serious about that then you should be advocating that Abbott should be removed by whatever means allowed. This country is going backwards under his reactionary government.
the working man:
27 Jun 2014 1:30:15pm
Alfie, if you check the debt is exactly the amount tax receipts have
fallen since the GFC. Yet Labor kept many in work, avoided a recession,
maintained growth while introducing great reforms like the NBN, paid
parental, an ETS and the NDIS. These are reforms something Abbott has
little knowledge of in any way. Medicare, compulsory super, native title,
uni scholarships etc are all labor reforms that were opposed all the way
by the coalition yet now are accepted.
27 Jun 2014 9:30:17am
What has damaged democracy in Australia is the extremes that the current government undertook to be elected.
The Australian public is cynical. We expect our politicians to camouflage their intentions to use soothing words so that they can follow their own agenda
This time the Coalition made honesty an issue, they professed they would keep their promises and sought to differentiate their selves from Labor on that basis. Indeed they succeeded in severely damaging Labor on that basis, magnifying any discrepancy in what was previously said and actions undertaken such as the carbon tax
The budget clearly shows that whatever the Coalition said beforehand has no relevance whatsoever to many of the policies they are seeking to implement
The Australian public are feeling a deep sense of betrayal.
Democracy cannot function effectively if voters do not know what the people they vote for intend to do.
It would cost less just to enter the candidate's names into a barrel and drawing out the winning candidate. Or having the candidates compete on the basis of general knowledge.
In recent times the independents have functioned with a great deal of integrity and efficiency. Little wonder that the public looks to the fringes, even rampant egos such as Clive.
Peter the Lawyer:
27 Jun 2014 9:57:28am
The extremes were the disastrous policies of the last government. A Carobn tax that does nothing to reduce emissiopns that aren't really harmful anyway. That's an extreme policy. Building school halls? Commonwealth governments had never got involved in school construction in the past. So that program was extreme.
The regional cities plan that wasted hundreds of milions on pork-barrelling in marginal electorates, is another extreme program. The there was Plibersek's affordable housing scheme that blew $4B without any impact whatsoever. That too was extreme. And I shan't even mention the extreme attempt to stamp out fee speech by licensing journalists or the NBN debacle.
All Abbott did to get elected was to point out such silly and extreme policies of the Gillard Government
27 Jun 2014 1:04:55pm
You have seized on one word (extreme) I have used to sprout propaganda to distort my argument
I used extreme in the context of honesty and the lack thereof and its consequences for democracy
One can argue about the Labor party's spending re the GFP but the issue in the article and in my response concerns democracy.
If the voting population go to an election knowing that the policies espoused by their candidates are just deceptive nonsense how can democracy work? Voting becomes meaningless.
Carried to extremes, in may even be possible to become elected on the basis of making promises that the electorate wants to hear such as "NO new taxes" NO changes to education funding" and "NO changes to pensions"
Electing such politicians and then see them blatantly disregarding their promises makes a mockery of democracy and ruins trust not only in those that make such promises but the political system in general
27 Jun 2014 9:32:55am
Is it any wonder that their credibility is questioned when you look at the infantile behaviour of both the leaders and senior members of both parties in Parliament. They shouldn't wear suits they should be in rompers and nappies!
27 Jun 2014 9:33:23am
I think the reason that so much notice is being taken of Clive Palmer is that he provides a ray of hope that he will do something to get the govt. to realise that their current policies are not what is needed at present.
The current govt. is seen to have a definite bias towards the big end of town & heavy cut backs on the small end of town. They have instigated a great unfairness, which has almost become a class war of the "haves" & "the have nots".
Corruption is raising its ugly head in lots of areas as we have seen with the NSW ICAC investigation & I think everyone is justified in thinking this goes to the very top.
The CBA bank has now been accused of some very corrupt behaviour within its financial investment section & the govt. is moving to have the FoFA legislation watered down, which it is was designed to prevent. So you don't have to be rocket scientist to think there could be collusion here.
The electorate has become disillusioned by the behaviour of politicians, who they believe are only interested in their backers & not the Australian electorate as a whole.
The only people who are responsible for the failing of the political system are those that run it & that is the politicians themselves.
Joe Hill:
27 Jun 2014 9:35:27am
"Likewise, Labor is being increasingly sidelined as the voice of opposition."
That is undoubtedly the case, it also leaves the field full of extreme right wing contenders. This bodes no good for Australian society given that they all are class warriors determined to increase their onepercenter advantage. As far as I can see the only function PUP is serving is one of irritation to get its very narrow interest groups wants attended to in the general onepercenter wealth shunt.
However, it may not be a bad thing for Labor to be faced with the need to actually come up with something in personality, presence and policy that means something instead of being content with appearing ever more to be a retirement plan to ancient Union big wigs.
This business of Labor being the Menzies Liberal Party because the LNP is being the Tea Party is as ridiculous here as it is in the USA . It is time Labor actually got off its stubbied behind and got active in the community for the community.
27 Jun 2014 9:35:40am
Maybe its because Clive makes himself accessible to the journalists.
Abbott and his cohorts certainly don't. Their few media appearances are all stage managed so they don't get asked difficult questions. Government news is selectively leaked to News Corp by intermediaries.
Shorten and his cohorts are no better as they try to avoid providing ammunition to the Liberals for their denigration campaign against Shorten and the Labor Party.
What has been lost in the last 5 years is trust in journalism. Journalism is paying a heavy price for its failure to do its job properly. Reporting gossip as if it is news and slogans as if they are facts is not good enough.
The journalists of Australia need to look into their hearts and ask themselves what they stand for. Are they just patsies easily used for propaganda purposes or are they real journalists willing to investigate and report without fear or favour?
We can hope for the latter but I fear the former is more likely.
Wining Pom:
27 Jun 2014 9:37:15am
Rather than the people getting the government they deserve, the government have got the voting public they deserve.
27 Jun 2014 9:43:29am
Palmer's 'Party' institutionalises populism in the parliament which in a superficial sense adds to democracy, but it comes without coherent values and realistic plans about ruling for all. Usually, flaky voices are absorbed into mainstream parties and their influence limited, and this gives space for governments to get on with governing effectively without endless distractions, concessions, and uncertainty. Palmer represents gridlock and chaos and mocks parliament and democracy. Voting to punish the major parties by electing a clown who promises all things to all people just hurts everyone.
27 Jun 2014 2:39:54pm
But surely anyone who sends the conservative trolls into fits of apoplexy cannot be all that bad!
27 Jun 2014 9:48:09am
Totally ignores the fact that distrust in the current Government is very much due to recent behaviour of the party in government and its leader.
Also, ignores the fact that in compromising with Palmer the Coalition is readily abandoning want has been a fundamental policy disagreement with the opposition; namely, Direct Action as opposed to an ETS. Well, we still have to see that happen but they are going along with the broadcast of that perception.
Good Gosh:
27 Jun 2014 9:48:16am
Your Democracy gave us Stalin Hitler Churchill and Bush. If there was a true democracy of the people we would be given a vote on Multiculturalism. But they know it would be defeated so they force it on us instead. Great Democracy isn't it?
27 Jun 2014 9:51:12am
I agree with this article in principle , it's very true to pinpoint P Keating as the instigator too. PK was also the first to talk in primarily economic terms
and initiate policy which was not really labor ground, he began to blur the lines.
The difference for the current govt. is they are pulling policy from places that no party has advocated before.
After the years of purely destabilisingly negative opposition [and the distracting leadership crisis that was Rudd] the coalition can hold itself responsible for the current climate.
What is critical is that Labor do not play[ yes you Albo] the same game even though it has been proven to work.
With traditional areas of Labor concern such as housing , health, education and the disadvantaged, there is finally clear air for point of difference. [refugees needs more work].
They must almost ignore the govt and appeal to the public by requesting media space explaining their alternative policy,just like Palmer but with unselfish substance.
The most dangerous card to play because the coalition would be stupid not to adopt it,is to re establish the old taxes Howard dropped.
The greens are gaining ground for all this except SH-Y has to be more careful.
The Palmer/media cheap thrill are just made for each other, When that bubble finally bursts it is important that the media has some of the entrails stuck on it[Mr Creasote anyone?]
Peter the Lawyer:
27 Jun 2014 9:52:03am
Won't it be wonderful when Australia becomes ungovernable?
Then we can all get on with our lives and stop worrying about politics and politicians.
It is always amazing to me why so many people buy into the soap opera that is politics. By giving it such importance you will the politicians on to interfere more and more in our lives. And what good does a lot of this interference do? Hardly any at all.
There was a time when government action was useful. But that time really has passed.
All we need now is administration. That will go on whether we are 'ungovernable' or not.
As the great Tom Paine said: "Government is a necessary evil."
27 Jun 2014 10:00:59am
I yearn for the type of moderate leadership that inspires a vision for our nation; one with balanced views that don't infect the population with fear, hate, paranoia and division. Seems that leadership for some time now is about exaggerating circumstances to create great fear and anger; characterise all those those from the other side as always being wrong; bad; evil; and idiots; and that only one party has the entire wealth of knowledge to lead us out of the abyss. Just so tired of this divisive approach to our nation, a nation of diversity, opportunity and overwhelmingly a lucky place to live.
Peter the Lawyer:
27 Jun 2014 2:34:42pm
That moderate leadership is all around you in society amongst business people, scientists, artists and all other soprts of people.
We don't governments to lead us, we need them to follow us.
27 Jun 2014 10:04:04am
I recognise that we haven't seen or read too much from the leader of the opposition of late. Is that a function of him not actually saying or doing much or, as I believe, that the media has elected to allow the PUP circus to dominate the news? We might be told that we get the news we want but in reality we get the news the media organisations elect to give us.
27 Jun 2014 10:43:32am
Agree with you. What we need are more independent journalists giving us the facts and not trying to entertain us. We can get that from reality TV.
27 Jun 2014 10:05:49am
The problem is that most of the voting public don't look further than their own interests. What is good for the national interest isn't on their radar. I point to Tony Abbott, Kevin Rudd and his cohorts in the Labor Party and the Murdoch press for creating the atmosphere we have now. Julia Gillard's Government was actually "the adults in charge". Yes, she watered down the super mining tax, their position on asylum seekers, and emissions trading. However she also put much legislation in place that was good for Australia. Along came Tony Abbott and his wrecking ball, helped by Murdoch and Rudd and co. What do we have now - a complete debacle with a weak leader.
27 Jun 2014 10:09:49am
"...why it is that the public and media are ...so unwilling to listen to the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition."
Firstly because no one believes anything the PM says and secondly, Labor picked the public's second choice as leader.
Sir Trent Toogood:
27 Jun 2014 12:05:39pm
Shorten wasnt 'the publics' second choice.
Only Labor members could vote for the leader.
However I do agree that Albo would have been a better choice as leader.
Shorten is doing well in the polls, probably on the back of Abbott being such a disaster, but as long as he remains PM, Shorten would be feeling relaxed and comfortable, I'm sure.
27 Jun 2014 10:22:59am
Politics at the moment is far too tribal. We have laws about tolerance which in my view are far to intolerant but so are our politicians. Those who are supposed to be at the centre whether centre left or centre right call each other liars and cheats and seem to have forgotten the art of compromise. They are mostly career politicians who started life as student politicians or union heavies or both and the gang warfare of their early days continues.
It seems that at least 1/3 of the electorate is over the tribalism. David L of the Liberal Democrats and Bob Day are now seen as the rational centre right reps even though they are on the libertarian right or partly libertarian right along with Nick Xenephon who is more wet in his politics. Xenephon in spite of being cold shouldered by Liberal and Labour in the rigged game of Senate preferences almost managed to out poll the Labour Senate team and almost cracked 2 senators.
PUP almost looked attractive (but didn't quitemake it) as a pox on both your houses vote. Some of the senators on his team are not teribly sophisticated but from what little we have seen so far they probably are not 'Clive's Senators in spite of being called that by the ABC. We will see.
27 Jun 2014 11:13:43am
The PUP senators are not idiots and they are PUP senators which is a party. They don't belong to Clive Palmer but respect him as leader. The attempts to denigrate them will simply see them deal with the Senate and the media accordingly.
27 Jun 2014 10:26:44am
Clive gets favourable media attention mostly from the left. The ABC, Fairfax, Guardian and co. They see him as a thorn in Abbotts side. They are anti Abbott, so Clive is their hero. Your enemy's enemy is your friend. This will fade in time.
Clive is a clown, a shrewd one at that.
Selling major reforms is more difficult today than in the past. Vested interest groups opposed to change can play the media, and there is no shortage of lazy journalists that will give them coverage. Abbotts reforms will take time to evolve. I think he is heading in the right direction. If the economy starts to pick up and unemployment is contained, then time will be his friend.
27 Jun 2014 10:27:59am
"Why, then, has the present Government's mantra that it has inherited a "budget crisis" and a "debt and deficit disaster" flopped?"
Perhaps because the multi-billion direct action program, the PPL program and a range of other proposed budgetary measures weren't consistent with this narrative?
The whole premise of your argument is wrong. As if our democracy is in trouble if we don't shop at Coles or Woolies. If we're not all meek little neo-liberals arguing on the allowed talking points? Give me a break.
There's constituents with more extreme views out there and they deserve representation as well. In a real democracy at least.
New World:
27 Jun 2014 10:32:22am
It seems Clive at this stage will be Ok for he is talking of blocking some of the budget that would have hurt many.
We may lose the Carbon Tax, but Clive is keeping alive the Renewable Energy Target for 2020, so Renewable Energy is still going to be part of our future. This will mean that different plans need be made by the Liberal Government.
I trust Clive will chose a middle road path that will help protect us from the Liberals pushing too far to the right. If this is so then we have good democracy in action.
27 Jun 2014 10:33:25am
perhaps it is time to end the era of political parties and party lines. They are the biggest part of this problem the author speaks of. A person is elected to serve their electorate but they spend the whole time in parliament serving their party, which is usually run by people with self interests. They become servants to a different master, not the public who elected them. And quite often these masters are unions or powerful companies. So people swing against parties to extreme parties or fringe parties in order to be (allegedly) heard and served.
While i can pre-empt the outrage of making politcal parties illegal....i dont think it is that radical. Imagine a parliament of elected representatives that all need to consider each bill properly and carefully and serve their electorate in the mean time. A govt could still form by a parliament vote. You would still have leaders and allegiances, only that there's no party line and therefore no fringe issue or extremist views would have such a big impact. I know there are probably some holes in this...but i think it is worth exploring as a concept...instead of throwing our energy at whinging about our politics all the time.
Political parties and the party line are threats to democracy.
27 Jun 2014 10:34:09am
"...so unwilling to listen to the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition."
So unwilling to listen to the Prime Minister because he has lied so consistently over the past six years.
He lied about the Labor Prime Ministers, he lied about his own intentions, he lied about the facts of the economy and the science of anthropogenic climate change.
A majority are unwilling to listen to the leader of the Opposition because there's been a hundred-year propaganda campaign against the ALP and its inherent and indissoluble links to the Union Movement.
That's intensified in the last twenty years in the Murdoch press and the extremist radio broadcasts.
Mr Shorten hasn't said much yet to be listened to, anyway although his parliamentary performances have been reasoned and moderate (but who apart from us tragics listens to those anyway, eh?).
He has some party internal reforms to manage which will be taking up most of his attention.
I'd wait for another couple of years before the real horror of the present government penetrates even the befogged consciousness of the thoroughly propagandised people who don't pay a lot of attention to politics until an election campaign comes along.
27 Jun 2014 10:37:21am
The major problem with Australian politics today is that there are too many lawyers being elected to both houses. This imbalance has resulted in Parliament becoming an adversarial rather than conciliatory place. The people of Australia should be represented by a wider cross section of professions and skills. All political parties are doing a great disservice to Australia by continually preselecting predominately people from the legal profession.
27 Jun 2014 10:40:55am
David you seem to inidcate that the sales pitch is the issue.
But the real issue the is that we are sick of sales pitches.
We want honesty, accountability and an end to the smoke and mirrors tactics that dominate politics in this country.
27 Jun 2014 10:44:26am
Listen to Question Time from the Reps and see just how puerile the debate has become. Members from both sides (and there's a problem right....two sides?) have lineage that goes back three generations. All they have known apart from school in its various levels is Politics...Seriously change the system so that like the US President, members can only serve a maximum of TWO terms and their loyalties come first to the country , then their electorate!! Strip away the obscene pensions and concessions as well ... I despair for our country listening to this rubbish that flows from the mouths of our representatives!
27 Jun 2014 10:44:51am
It would help considerably if there was no preferential voting system, first past the post would remove the opportunities for candidates who do not attract the most votes to win on the preferences directed to them by other candidates who do not have a majority of votes.
Surely the most popular candidate should be the winner?
Peter the Lawyer:
27 Jun 2014 2:50:31pm
Preferential voting was put into place to ensure that the most popular ideas really did win and candidates with ideas that appeal to a minority didn't win on a split vote.
Think of a constituency where are three candidates of almost equal popularity. Two of them have similar policies and the third policies are totally different. Under a first past the post system the third candidate could win with 34% of the vote. Just under 2/3 of the voters would then not have endorsed the policies of the winner.
However, if the electors know that there will be in efeect an instantaneoud runoff election they can then at least be assured that it is more likely that the winner will espouse policy prescriptions broadly in favour amongst more than 50% of the voters. This is because, a candidate tends to direct preferences (via how to vote cards) to other candidates in order of how close each other candidate is in political philosophy to the preference giver.
Not Such a Golden Oldie:
27 Jun 2014 4:49:17pm
I agree with the idea of preferential voting, it's the particular form of preferential voting that I have a problem with. First of all I think it should be optional and secondly we should have an option to allocate only the number of preferences that we wish. The present system of preferential voting with it's insistence that we must allocate a preference to every candidate is as close to insane as a voting system that I can conceive.
At present we have no ability to NOT VOTE for any candidate or party that we do not wish to vote for, to be valid we must allocate a preference.
It cannot be beyond the abilities of the Electoral Commission to count less preferences than currently need to be counted.
I'm willing to bet that just one election, in which we had a choice to NOT ALLOCATE A PREFERENCE to either of the major parties, would shake up both of the majors into taking notice of the electors. At present they know that the votes will flow through to one of the two and thus they can perpetuate the duopoly.
Let us continue the tradition of compulsory voting, which at least keeps us coming to the ballot box, but make the allocation of preferences a genuine choice. It is a meaningless choice, when we have a ballot paper containing the names of candidates, whom we have no wish to allocate a preference and yet we are forced to allocate a preference, by a stupid voting system.
27 Jun 2014 10:44:54am
Its all the reality TV. People now like to believe others can be something they are not.
So Clive gets a run. Media love it because it sells.
Cooks can be chefs. DIY's can be tradies. Karaoke singers can be Stars. Fat can be slim. Look at how many are turning up for auditions.
TV is making people believe in fantasy and fantasy figures.
27 Jun 2014 10:47:04am
Spot on post, thanks.
27 Jun 2014 10:47:26am
The problem with politicians goes far further than their hyperbole/linguistic inflation. I've spoken to individual politicians on a number of occasions, and found the experience frustrating to say the least. What we have is politicians who are incapable of individual thought. Every utterance has been mentally checked against current party policy, which cannot be examined or challenged. Thus, instead of a meaningful exchange of ideas and perspectives, such a conversation consists of the politician mouthing a rehearsed mantra that you've read and heard a thousand times in the media. I realise that, according to current thinking, disunity is death in politics, and, should an individual party member speak from the heart or query party dogma, she/he will be attacked by both the opposition and her/his own party. The problem remains, however, that when individual politicians join a party, they become part of an inflexible machine that cannot question itself or respond to new evidence. Sounds like Startreck's "Borg". No wonder the electorate is searching for independents who just might respond and be accountable to those who elected them.
Timothy T:
27 Jun 2014 11:01:11am
I think It was John Locke, often referred to as the father of modern democracy, who claimed that the politically ignorant need to be educated before allowed to vote - otherwise democracy will bring everyone to its lowest common denominator.
The voters who elected someone like Clive Palmer, as their elected representative, should not complain about the chaotic and unpredictable government. We also should not be surprised if our navy starts building Titanic II and our Future fund start financing a Jurassic Park. That is democracy - Australian style.
27 Jun 2014 11:06:24am
"Likewise, Labor is being increasingly sidelined as the voice of opposition."... Ha, ha... Not at all!... As expected, Labor is UP in the electorate's preferences as are the Greens (just check the opinion polls since at least December 2013). The Greens are attracting Labor (or potential Labor) voters who want Labor to shift much further to the left (something that Labor won't do). But Labor is attracting disaffected, moderate voters who voted for the Coalition at the September election but now have realised the Great Betrayal and the Great Con they have been the victims of. Palmer is just further bleeding the Coalition of those voters who will never vote for Labor or the Greens in their first preference but who are outraged by the disastrous policies of the Coalition. Palmer has, in fact, the keys to destroy the Coalition at the next Federal election by, for instance, diverting second preferences from the Coalition to Labor in Queensland and perhaps NSW, even when preferencing the Coalition elsewhere in the country.
27 Jun 2014 11:10:33am
We stopped believing the politicians when their lies became routine and their strident hysterics showed they had no idea and were in the pockets of lobbyists and unions and other interest groups. The Coalitions failure to call n royal commission into the Banks Not just the CBA and ASIC after this recent report is a classic example of the corruption among us. The attempts to water down the financial regulations in spite of the scandal in the CBA is indicative of the corruption.
Palmer is taking centre stage because they are incompetent and ideas are gold. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
27 Jun 2014 11:15:34am
"And partly because politicians have, in the past five years, all but abandoned moderate language and gone for shock and awe at every opportunity."... This was Tony Abbott, not "politicians" in general. The People are now realising the manipulative scaremongering used by the Coalition in the past 6 years to: a) hide the disaster of Neoliberalism represented by the GFC and by the massive tax evasion and tax minimisation that are the true root causes of both the EU debt crisis and our deficit. b) Try to introduce a draconian and ideological Neoliberal model of society that nobody wanted but that some Liberal ideologues and their masters in Big Business are determined to force on the People of Australia.
27 Jun 2014 11:20:10am
Iraq war hardly the relevant in todays politics . PUP voters care more about their entitlements, and handouts than what happened in Iraq. The problem for Australia is the Senate the unrepresentative swill as Keating put it. The majority will always be disillusioned when the minority pollies get the last say and cripple directions of government. The Senate has got worse since Keating days with corresponding increase in frustration by the majority voters. The Democrats were bad enough with endless silly negotations giving them more relevance and power than they should have , today it is all much worse. The daily turn up of corn ball Independents and the like of PUPS just pumped up vacuous show ponies at news time with their inane world view drives the majority insane. They have power they do not deserve and have never earned.
27 Jun 2014 11:22:59am
"These events point to a perverse outcome of the growing credibility crisis."... You are referring to a USA example, but in that country the only Party facing a serious credibility crisis is the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party. The same is about to happen to the Liberal Party of Australia as their Neoliberal Revolution will be rejected by the People of Australia (starting at the State election in Victoria) and continuing with the incoming debacle at the Federal level.... After the Neoliberal Revolution has been rejected, it'll be back to scratch for the Liberal Party. At that point they will have three options: a) a take over by the Libertarians, pushing Neoliberalism through other means; b) a takeover by the Conservatives, trying to revive some adapted version of the 1950s Australia; c) a takeover of the moderate, intelligent, modern small-l Liberals.
27 Jun 2014 12:09:16pm
@Alpo - neoliberalism is bipartisan, both here and in the US.
27 Jun 2014 1:21:16pm
graazt, what Labor introduced here with Hawke/Keating was a light version of Neoliberalism. Abbott/Hockey's Budget from Hell goes well beyond what even Howard/Costello did and it's far closer to the real deal in terms of Neoliberal ideology. What's amazing and totally anachronistic, is that this desperate attempt is happening now that Neoliberalism has been proven bankrupt. To me, it looks like a completely lost rear guard battle, the last spasm of a dying body....
Shorten and the current version of the Labor Party are not expected to fight Neoliberalism by denying the basic pillars of capitalism such as private property, or the important role of private investment, or even the concept of "competition". Those are good and positive aspects of capitalism (broad sense) that, however, must be "domesticated" in a modern Social Democracy so that, in conjunction with the role of Government (in charge of taxation, public investments, and of running public services), the additional important issues of cooperation, sustainability, opportunities for all, can be also emphasised and together help in producing a more just and successful society.
27 Jun 2014 3:29:13pm
I agree Alpo. Hawke, and to a lesser extent Rudd, understood that there was still a role for the government in tempering the inequality and volatility that markets engender; they were mindful of social equity; despite the crowding out effect.
The Liberal party also sees a role for government, but that's in social regulation; which is then preferred to be implemented by private concerns.
The economics itself has the good and the bad, but it's how it's been married up with various political ideologies that's contributes to what we have now (for example neo-conservatism).
A good example is how, under neoliberalism, illicit drugs would be legal. That's what Friedman envisaged. However governments have not done that, but rather used neoliberalism to incarcerate drug-users/dealers in privatised jails instead.
Another one is the increasing use of private defence contractors in the delivery of military policy.
For me, it's just become an orthodoxy used to justify crony capitalism. It has led to quite a selective application of what the Chicago school had in mind.
27 Jun 2014 4:38:40pm
I agree with what you are saying especially about cooperation and sustainability, but aren't you underestimating the power of the media to sway opinion? (I'm amazed at the number of people who still believe the Abbott government's lie about there being a debt crisis, when our debt is only 11% of GDP, and the OECD average is 50%.)
The media in Britain (majority owned by News Corp)were after all able to help keep Thatcher in government a very long time despite Britain having to come to terms with Thatcher's idea of "no such thing as society".
27 Jun 2014 7:15:54pm
"aren't you underestimating the power of the media to sway opinion?"... Hi ayjay, I am usually accused of "overestimating the power of the media", so I am fully with you in pointing the accusatory finger straight at those who can control the mainstream media..... Hopefully, in the near future, the free internet may become an antidote against such toxin.
27 Jun 2014 11:28:06am
"Five PUP Senators without their leader: What could that mean for a government and its ability to deliver change?"... No, it's not "without their leader", it's "without their leader in the Lower House". Palmer is totally irrelevant in the Lower house and could be able even to direct the policies of his alliance from the outside, but there is no evidence that he could lose his Lower House seat, given than in Qld the LNP is definitely on its way down.
27 Jun 2014 11:45:20am
Ron Boswell said this week that everyone knows that Rolls Royce's like Clive Palmers don't break down. From a family that has owned several older Rolls, I can say with confidence that while these are generally reliable cars, when they give trouble it is often difficult or complicated to fix and very expensive.
27 Jun 2014 11:56:06am
It is the left wing media that is fascinated with Palmer because it sees an opportunity to cause damage to Abbott. The same thing happened after 1996 when the media gave Pauline Hanson oxygen in order to cause damage to Howard.
The Australian is scathing of the way the left wing media is being manipulated by Palmer. Hedley Thomas who has the runs on the board over the Dr Haneef, AWB and AWU matters says today that the media should just follow the money. Just like watergate! He says it isn't that hard if you try.
Keating may have stirred things up in 1986 but he invented the modern day scare campaign over the GST in 1993. A tax which he himself had proposed a few years earlier. The ALP has been employing populist politics ever since, in both government and opposition.
The ALP will never take a hard or unpopular decision ever again.
Stephen W S:
27 Jun 2014 11:58:21am
There will be more grubby deals done with vested interest groups looked after. But with his own version of a hung parliament now with some unknown players to jump this way and that Tony Abbott will be a lot older and wiser by the next election or he won't be there as PM.
We have now had two consecutive elections where neither the ALP or the LNP have been trusted by the electorate enough to give them the power to govern as they like. This is the legacy from John Howard's last term where the LNP went beyond what the people thought they would do.
ALP and LNP need to learn they are elected to serve all of the people of Australia and are not given a carte blanche to implement all of their sometimes extreme political and economic ideologies.
Palmer's senators and the other cross benchers must do the job they were elected to do and that is to keep the Abbott/Hockey LNP government honest. However, I fear they are in the main not up to that job at present.
27 Jun 2014 12:11:18pm
I kept a copy of my comment regarding debt, deficit and budgets to forward on for information purposes.
27 Jun 2014 12:14:13pm
'The politics of extremes is hurting our democracy'
Wow! Hyperbowl much??
'In going for "shock and awe" rhetoric at every opportunity, politicians have debased their own political currency'. I would argue that it is the journalists rather than the politicians who are guilty of this. Clive Palmer is merely a pimple on the face of parliament but he gets to dominate media coverage because the media always needs a story and will sensationalise anything to manufacture one.
I don't think Australians by and large think anything much about Palmer but the media is obsessed with him at present. The quicker they find some other distraction to get themselves into a lather about the better for all of us.
27 Jun 2014 12:15:47pm
A well thought out and reasoned artcile which shows us how over the past 2 decades that our "democracy" is failing because of the media spin cycle and the politicians race to the bottom
27 Jun 2014 12:25:06pm
I am trying to work out how exactly more participants in the democratic process is "hurting our democracy". I don't see it.
Sure, it's different, it's sometimes painful to watch, but it's still democracy in action.
People complain about Clive Palmer being a rich bloke who bought power. Don't forget that he built all that wealth from scratch, the hard way. Now he wants a piece of politics and to have his say. Why the hell not? He's as eligible as any other candidate.
Love him or hate him, he's part of our democracy.
27 Jun 2014 1:03:40pm
Democracy is where elected reps work in the best interests of its people.
It was never in our best interest to fall head over heels for Chicago School economics where public assets and funds are syphoned off to the privileged 0.01%.
I do not hear Clive or any of the others talk about expanding the middle classes. All I hear is if you cant afford it then tough luck and if you are not already middle class then we reserve the right to put barriers in your way to make it harder to get there.
27 Jun 2014 1:43:55pm
No. Democracy is where we elect reps. Then the job is to hold them to account or elect alternatives next time around.
Clive was duly and fairly elected. He's part of the democratic process.
I don't much care for him and his style but he is part of a democratically elected parliament.
27 Jun 2014 3:11:21pm
I am afraid there is a whole more to a functioning democracy then just electing people and letting them free range.
27 Jun 2014 1:56:13pm
'It was never in our best interest to fall head over heels for Chicago School economics'.
But Australia blindly absorbed the teachings of the Frankfurt School in social policy. Why not a change of mentor in the context of economics? Variety is the spice of life.
Len Heggarty:
27 Jun 2014 12:26:08pm
We here in Australia live in a time warp of a boring existence of the same old, same old politics inside the square, but Clive Palmer thinks outside the square and is dynamic and radical, literally. Just who would think of bringing Al Gore into Australian politics when not even the Greens would think of it concerning the political climate and any change. And then Al Gore in turn congratulates Clive Palmer at the lectern for all the Australian public to see on the Australian broadcaster, the ABC. Who would even contemplate it? Clive Palmer. This polly deserves a few ticks. And in the Senate he will give a few, a few licks.
Peter the Lawyer:
27 Jun 2014 3:04:26pm
Thinking is usually s outside the square because it's wrong.
Lehan Ramsay:
27 Jun 2014 12:53:49pm
They took the women out of the political game because they're part of the New Paradigm. They didn't want them interfering. Also most of those who were not assimilated. No going forward now.
Lehan Ramsay:
27 Jun 2014 2:58:47pm
It's a generational battle. Going back to empty politics. Only the old guys can do it.
27 Jun 2014 12:53:57pm
All our problems started with the ascension of K Rudd Brisbane.
At the time of causing the demise of serious policition K Beazley Perth, Rudd represented the swap of a poltician for a celebrity as leader of the ALP.
Damn if the celebrity didn't win the 2007 election!
Then, being a celebrity, he held a big chunk of the nation in in hands. With the exception of the extreme right journalists most of our political journos are bent to the left.
All these journalists were dazzled by the celebrity PM and afforded him the most generous and extended honeymoon from scrutiny in the history of Australia. No journalist even hinted at the dysfunction, chaos, psychopathy,narcissism etc that we subsequently had to learn from within the ALP.
The extended honeymoon fed into the narcissism and gave the celebrity the belief that he could spin his way out of any situation.
When the house of cards fell, the poor journalists realised they had been duped and scorned the once loved celebrity thus creating a situation ripe for confrontational politics. Chuck in a very effective opposition leader and a subsequent hung HoR and a carbon tax brought in under unfortunate circumstances and you end up with our present situation.
Fear not this too will pass. The ALP has been removed with their celebrity and a politician is leading the party. The boats have been stopped and when the carbon and mining taxes are removed and a CREDIBLE pathway to surplus is chartered the reset button will have been hit.
One day soon we will return to the serenity of the Howard years when the bulk of the population could be politically disengaged and content that the nation was in safe hands.
27 Jun 2014 1:20:38pm
I can't see what is wrong with a mining tax so long as it is fair.
I can understand why any policy with Rudd "stamped on the handle" should be immediately tossed out, but the idea of the MRRT, where the super profits only were taxed, seems quite sound to me.
What about a tax that is recalibrated to be fair to the miner and the country that hosts the resource?
If that is not a goer in your eyes, do you advocate that international mining companies walk straight out the door with their profits and our non-replenishable resources, and all after bringing in their sweat-shop labour. If so, how can anyone think that we're getting a fair deal?
As a middle-of-the-road Australian, I can't see how that is good for us.
27 Jun 2014 1:55:14pm
"...I can't see what is wrong with a mining tax so long as it is fair..."
Yes, there is always temptation to tax profitable businesses, as it appears 'fair distribution of wealth'. The problem is that we are now part of a global economy - i.e. '..capital will always go to where it can create most profit', - either by getting cheap labour or low taxes. We don't have cheap labour and if we increase taxes, there is real possibility of the capital moving to the countries where it can get more profit. What or whom do you tax then?
I am actually great supporter of the profitable businesses. The profitable businesses pay large sums of money (30% of their profits) to our tax revenue which contributes to the welfare of the whole community. If you overtax them - you may kill the goose that lays golden eggs.
The history has shown that Communism and 'fair distribution of wealth' simply does not work.
27 Jun 2014 2:27:59pm
Thelma, I said nothing about the fair distribution of wealth. That is a completely different debate. I'm not talking about socialism either.
I'm talking about extracting a fair amount of duty for a per-tonne extraction of minerals.
It's just a trade and it's been happening in the commercial world for thousands of years. Both parties can do it if they're prepared to put the effort in.
27 Jun 2014 3:27:43pm
Your position is a bit confusing RobP.
The charge for a tonne of extracted minerals is what we call royalties. Under the constitution only the states that own the minerals can charge royalties.
The MRRT was a tax on profits above the normal company tax rate that every other company pays.
One wonders why the states bother recruiting and paying for expert treasury officials to pitch royalties at a rate that maximises revenue without scaring off the miners when all they have to do is ask the contributors to the drum how much royalties should be.
27 Jun 2014 2:32:24pm
Once again it comes down to the way the original MRRT was introduced under the leadership of K Rudd albeit W Swann was treasurer.
As budget night approached swann tweaked here fiddled there but could not model a return to surplus. Out of desperation he flicked through the dust gathering Henry tax review and spotted the MRRT. You can imagine the pulse rate and anticipation as he plugged the theoretical tax into the models and pressed the button to recalculate.
Oh the joy when some time off in the forward estimates there was a surplus. Save and print the document and announce it on budget night.
Did the miners feel ambushed when they heard the announcement on budget night? Did he discuss his plan with state traesury officials or the premier given that the minerals are owned by the states?
All Australians should support the concept of maximising income to the nation from minerals. Achieving this is a complex matter due to the state's ownership of the minerals giving them sole power to directly tax the minerals (royalties) and how royalties influence GST distribution. There also needs to be recognition that mining generates the need for huge funding of infrastructure that has been traditionally been funded by the states. Creaming money off mining without making an adequate contribution to the upfront infrastructure to support mining is not fair.
As a nation we should be able to chart a path through this complex matter by consultation with federal treasury, the states and the miners. Contrast that with the way the MRRT was introduced.
Scrap the mining tax and start the process again so we actually get something set up properly. Alternatively just scrap the tax and hope that we can re attract high levels of mining investment into Australia. Because there is only one thing worse than a mining tax that damages our reputation and that is a mining tax that damages our reputation and raises little or no money.
exploation is down, share market floats (IPO) are at record low levels, 70% of IPO are for non Australian ventures which is a record high. Typically it is 10 - 15 years from discovery to extraction so we are a long way from feeling the damage done by the MRRT but it will come if the matter is not resolved to the miner's satisfaction.
27 Jun 2014 3:04:38pm
"All Australians should support the concept of maximising income to the nation from minerals. Achieving this is a complex matter due to the state's ownership of the minerals giving them sole power to directly tax the minerals (royalties) and how royalties influence GST distribution."
Agree to the first sentence and believe the second is true. I also agree that having second-raters in Government during the Rudd/Gillard years exacerbated our revenue situation. As they say, "a little bit of knowledge is dangerous" which is so true in the case of Labor.
I vote for the current Government to make a professional effort to get the right amount of tax by liaising with the miners after taking into account the costs for them in setting up their infrastructure, etc. If we can't come to an agreement on a decent MRRT, or equivalent, another form of dividend should flow back to Australia. Maybe, it will just be national security in our part of the world by becoming an integral part of the Asian economy??
27 Jun 2014 4:04:11pm
Well then RobP we are in pretty much agreement however the matter has become politicised so it is unlikely to be tackled in this term of Government.
Perhaps rather than a special higher tax rate for miners we might see a reduction in depreciation allowances or fuel rebates which will have the same effect without giving the impression of introducing a new tax. Once again heavy consultation with the miners so they don't take flight.
In the meantime we actually do pretty well out of the miners. The line that they "don't pay their share" was just another piece of politics.
Peter the Lawyer:
27 Jun 2014 3:20:17pm
Where did Esteban mention the mining tax?
In any case you are wrong about mining companies. First of all they do not use sweatshop labour. People in the mining industry are paid well.
Secondly, miners pay royalties to the State governments, so they don't get the minerals for nothing.
Thirdly, a lot of the shareholders are in fact Australians so they pay tax on the dividends that the mining companies pay.
Company tax is but a downpayment of tax that is paid in the end by the shareholders of the companies.
Australia doesn't own the minerals each of the States does.
27 Jun 2014 3:38:57pm
Peter, taken together you seem to be saying that the whole MRRT was a beat-up.
I am not in the mining field and have assumed that there must have been a grain of truth to Labor's claims. If there isn't, then that needs to be spelt out loud and clear. Where does one get unbiased information about this?
"Where did Esteban mention the mining tax?" - In his/her 2nd last sentence.
"Australia doesn't own the minerals each of the States does." - The Australian Government still coordinates things in some way, though? They are hardly uninterested bystanders.
27 Jun 2014 4:08:22pm
RobP. The effect of the MRRT was to put the Australian Govt at the head of the que for collecting money and at the back of the que (as uninterested bystanders) when it came to contributing to support infastructure.
27 Jun 2014 3:47:27pm
"the idea of the MRRT, where the super profits only were taxed, seems quite sound to me"
It is a good idea! The Abbott government are fudging figures on this one to ensure they have support for axing the mining tax.
The government has repeatedly told the public that the mining tax will cost jobs and investment in Australia. Job losses in the mining industry have been due to the mining boom ending and the introduction of automated trucks, drills and so on. Gina et al do not want to have to pay wages, and the mining industry only provides 2% of our jobs as it is.
The mining tax is set to bring in $3.4 billion over the four years of the forward estimates.
Yet the government is telling us we will save $13.8 billion dollars by getting rid of this tax. This "saving" includes a mixed bag of unrelated spending cuts which they are passing with the same bill. This includes things like the School Kids Bonus which costs $5.5 billion a year.
The government is being very creative with how they make out the mining tax is costing the public....BS, it is only costing their big mining industry friends. It's costing us $3.4 billion in revenue over the next 4 years to get rid of it!
Have a look at the figures for yourself on the Fact Check on mining tax. You may be as amazed as I was at the difference between the truth and what the government and commercial media is telling us.
27 Jun 2014 2:14:45pm
Well summarised. I speak to many people and they lament what the Rudd phenomenon caused.
We wasted six years. The countries finances were ruined. A large chunck of us became medicant softies. Every crazy leftist fashion thingo was pursued. And the list goes on.
I look forward to serenity also, one day soon.
27 Jun 2014 1:00:45pm
Liberal loyalty is to the ideal of individual rights & Labor's is to a group of individuals. Don't care & can't be bothered is no loyalty.
Undiscriminating confidence in your own opinion more about ego than either loyalty and of little value in political discourse.
Our political system needs the involvement of engaged individuals seeking the best possible governance - but evidence and reason must be paramount.
27 Jun 2014 2:03:58pm
Let's start by having a democracy.
Only with proportional representation can the real voice of the people be heard. New parties , new ideas, new hope.
Sandra S:
27 Jun 2014 2:08:52pm
Did anyone really consider that Clive Palmer could have ever voted for the retention of the carbon tax?! After all, would any of you support a legislation which would cost you ten million dollars annually? Come on, be reasonable and realistic. Therefore, how can we be disappointed that Clive Palmer will support abolition of Carbon pricing?!
What we should think about is our political system, which allows people, with such obvious vested interests, to be in such powerful political position, to decide such contentious, political and economic issues.
27 Jun 2014 2:23:57pm
"And partly because politicians have, in the past five years, all but abandoned moderate language and gone for shock and awe at every opportunity."
That is the nub of the problem. The Coalition while in opposition could find no lie too big or too small to hurl at Labor. So we ended up with Labor bringing us through the GFC with flying colours yet the public view had them tainted by claims they were 'the worst government ever'. They believed that the best performing economy in the OECD with the third lowest debt and continuing growth was on the brink of collapse.
When such and enormous and easily disproven lie gets public traction it results in the Labor party abandoning fact based debate as well, because it doesn't work. We have truly entered a world of post-truth politics care of the Liberals. They have smeared everyone in the major parties by their words and actions so people look in hope at the new faces.
27 Jun 2014 6:06:49pm
Another spot-on comment Graeme. When the majority of our society lose their honesty and integrity, when truth no longer matters and one can say what one likes with impunity, then there is no sensible basis for interaction and our connection with reality is lost. When we lose touch with reality, we are then in the realm of madness.
Our current government is leading the descent into chaos and lying all the time, of course, that they are the adults, that they are the only ones who can manage our economy and that by ignoring our climate and environment, they are leading us to prosperity (along with all the rest of the lies).
27 Jun 2014 7:02:37pm
Honesty and integrity flew out of the window with free market economics Rosie A.
The LNP dogma is- Australia is open for business- at any price-even it it means the loss of our sovereign borders.
Ture Sjolander:
27 Jun 2014 2:36:25pm
Both the Australian journalism and politics are living in the past.
No one have the smallest idea how the current Australian population really looks like today.
They don't wanna know either.
It is a tiny very small bunch of "inbred" people on a treadmill.
A cue system of Anglomaniacs in the news media and in the parliament.
27 Jun 2014 2:42:39pm
So the population is becoming ungovernable because Australians are resisting change not outlined in the election. Australians are resenting Abbott's proposed ' some see draconian' measures to fix the so called budget emergency that could simply be fixed having the rich pay their taxes. Maybe re-introducing the top tax bracket Howard removed or closing some tax lop holes. But don't worry from it seem from leaked details of free trade 'Trans-Pacific Partnership', the full details won't be made public till 5 years after it comes into effect, will get around pesky Australian democracy.
27 Jun 2014 2:45:37pm
27 Jun 2014 2:51:20pm
Dear persons in charge of the polls. The call is for a Royal Commission into White Collar Crime in general, not just the Commonwealth Bank.
Your other 'contact' doesn't work.
27 Jun 2014 3:30:35pm
Everything is now a political football, and the LNP has now produced a polarized country, just as these blogs are totally polarized. Politicians have vacated the centre. The behaviour of the LNP whilst in opposition set a new low in terms of behaviour. Hypocrisy and corruption is now rife in both the LNP and the ALP. The LNP is moving the country to the right and is now trying to implement policies which were never discussed before the election. The LNP talk about a fair budget, but what they mean is it's not fair for the wealthy to support the poor, so let's take away the entitlements for the less well off. The LNP will only speak to big business and and business people - self interest and greed is alive and well, and in fact is being encouraged by the LNP. The worry is that democracy is about society, people and the environment in which we all have to live - three topics which the LNP seem to have scant regard for.
27 Jun 2014 3:46:39pm
"It seems there is a deep and persistent political credibility crisis that threatens to make Australia increasingly ungovernable.
This is a credibility crisis so severe and widespread that it might not be overstating matters to suggest that a dangerous malaise is now infecting the very heart of confidence in the democratic system of government."
If you replace the word Australia with Germany in 1932 /33 then you have the same political scenario. The so called big parties had lost all credibility then too. People desperate for a solution turned to a charlatan, who promised work for all and peace on the streets.
We haven't got a depression yet, but this can change any day. Mass unemployment would accelerate the decline of democracy.
The Abbott opposition was successful in declaring the Labor government illegitimate. Now they themselves struggle with their own credibility.
Clive Palmer has entertainment value and Australians love a stirrer, but above that he is dangerous.
Grant Spork:
27 Jun 2014 4:42:13pm
The credibility crisis is a direct reflection of the lies which politicians tell us to get elected. The contempt with which the electorate are held is mirrored in their disillusionment with politicians.
We know that any "Financial Crisis" which is over in 4 years in no crisis at all. We know too when we heard Abbott say, "No changes to the Pension, no cuts to education or the ABC."
We heard Gillard say there will be "No carbon tax" under a government I lead, and we heard Mr Rudd was a "Fiscal Conservative!" All lies and all deceptions which were told to the electorate before an election.
Then they smile at us while describing the viscous cuts to welfare, education pensions and youth. These vacuous politicians need a wake up call and they are illegitimate.
At the same time buddies of these politicians, the banks, announce record profits, unconscionable bonuses, and no enquiry into Comm Bank? Australia needs a new breed of politician, which have integrity and are held to account for their election pledges.
Eva :
27 Jun 2014 5:32:49pm
The world is ruled by aggresive simpletons, if you remember this then it all falls into place! Why is it so surprising that politicians aren't trusted? They don't deserve it because as it has turned out time and time again it's weasel words and hubris, anything to get into power and once you're in, then it's time to make sure you stay there as long as possible. Never mind about the mess you create, the lies you tell, just sing from the same song sheet over and over and never own up to anything.
27 Jun 2014 5:43:48pm
Interesting article David. However your references to Paul Keating, a couple of times, requires comment . He "shocked Australians out of their complacency about our place in the world 28 years ago, when he warned that the country risked becoming a banana republic, unless we embraced painful, economy-wide economic reform " & that he " provided a template for the generations of politicians that followed".
Whilst Keating certainly introduced many important & badly needed reforms.
Many important questions should be asked, however, about the road that he & Fred Hilmer set for the country back in 1991-92, in their enthusiasm to corporatise/privatise many public services & utilities.
Look where we are today ? Governments , both State & Federal , squealing poor because of their shrinking revenue base ! What a nice little earner such assets like the CBA, AIDC, CSL & the Moomba - Sydney Pipeline would be today !
Look at the stench surrounding the CBA & their financial planning arm. Would that have happened under OUR ownership ? We also learn that Glencore ( formerly Xstrata) paid zero tax over the past 3 years on income of $ 15 billion. This on top of many other corporations using intricate offshore price transfer transactions to avoid their tax obligations in Australia.
Sorry, but Keating set us down this road & the others have followed.
We truly get the governments we deserve & Keating's "template" is not the one I embrace.
27 Jun 2014 6:57:10pm
I agree IEH- the huge mistake Keating did was not to consider, plan and introduce counter policies of and for the downsides of globalasition and privatisation- he made the same mistake Greenspan did- trusted the 'market' to self regulate.
Your excellent post covers the rest. Well said!!
27 Jun 2014 6:16:45pm
I wrote a fairlly long comment but I thought with the parameters of why I think there is such a political credibility crisis and explained why my personal cynicism has grown exponentailly from Vietnam- thorough to Keating-the Howard debt driven conomy- the gyrations of the last ALP Goverment and the deceit of the current Goverment.
Seems it did not get through, Hope this one does because Abbott's refusal to call a Royal Commission into the Finance Industry (which my considerable experience tells me is the most corrupt industry in the country) and the regulators is eacatly why that crisis is growing.
We all see the cabal of bankers-multinatioanal and compliant Governments. This one wants to remove what little protection the ALP Government out in and invite more overseas bankers and hedge funds into the country- many of which courts have found to have acted fraudently.
88% who responded to the ABC poll say we should have one- it will be interesting to see what a general poll would say.
Democracy starts with you and me=never believe anthing vested interests say- check if out for yourself.
27 Jun 2014 6:58:40pm
The media is to blame more than the politicians. Demands are pressed for instant answers and instant actions. Instead of media organizations laughing at instant ideas with questions of whether the report had been read/understood there is a demand for instant gratification.
If we want less showmanship we need a far more patient media.
Mike (the other one):
27 Jun 2014 7:22:41pm
Extreme politics or extreme idiots in light of the challenges we face as a country and as a planet (that is overpopulation, over crowding, diminishing resources, destruction of the natural world, species loss, pollution, AGW, desertification, Etcetera)???
Comments for this story are closed.

subset: commoncrawl