Allan Fels is all class. What a way to retire: do an Australian Story drawing out the joys and pain of your family life and your work philosophy and modus operandi, and then, once the context is fully drawn, tell the camera you won’t seek another term as head of the competition and consumer commission.
As the face of the commission since 1995, he’s educated us all on our rights as consumers and stuck up for us when the big and not-so-big boys tried to con us. He’s forced business to obey the rules. Unions too – he said he and his family had lost Bill Kelty as a long-time friend when Fels threatened action against the unions during the wharfies dispute. A hard decision, he said, but the rules are the rules.
Throughout the program he reinforced the impression that he stands aside from the corruption of power and that he plays by no rules but the ones he’s been given in law. I knew someone like him years ago, Decree O’Connor, who headed the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and took Alan Bond on over his $400,000 payout to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen.
Until O’Connor no head had interpreted the law as it was written – winks and nods were the game. After she gave the Broadcasting Act teeth, the Labor government – Kim Beazley in fact – gutted the tribunal, turning it into a largely closed-door, powerless shadow. “Light touch regulation,” Beazley called it. In fact, it simply stripped the public of any power to hold TV stations accountable.
Fels has protected the commission from that fate, so far, partly because he is a star media performer – ever-present, considered, tough, a true believer in competition policy and in public service. As someone said on the show, he became “a brand”, sometimes more powerful that the big-time politicians because unlike them, he had the trust of the people, and unlike them, was unafraid to stick it up big business when necessary.
I reckon he was doing much more than a unique retirement statement last night. With just under two years to run in his term, he’s setting himself up to have influence in the choice of his successor. He’ll now groom his preferred successor, in an attempt to stop the government putting in someone who’d say yes to big business more often. If his preferred successor is working for the commission, I’d expect him or her to take over some of Fels’ media duties over time. An endorsement by Fels would be hard for the government to resist. Damned hard. And an Allan Fels ensconced in academia would be a powerful critic if the new head locked his doors, did his deals in secret, or hung back on consumer protection.
When Fels said he wanted to write on his experiences as commission head to impart what he’d learned “to future leaders in the public service”, he looked up to the camera ironically, as if he wondered whether there’d be any left sometime soon.
Whether you hated his zeal for competition policy or not, Fels oozed integrity. He said last night: “I don’t see myself as a hero, just someone determined to do the right thing.” And, I should add, without earning a super-huge paypacket. I hope his last big play to preserve the commission’s culture and his legacy will be successful. The Commission is one of our last bulwarks against big business running the country on their own terms.
***
Today’s issue:
1. Darren Spain, Noel Hadjimichael and Max Phillips on whether we really need a new political party and Darrell Rigby on why the Greens are the go by default.
2. Elizabeth Wertheim asks us baby boomers to become activists again.
3. James Woodcock and Ron Jones on John Crockett’s decision to stop reading the Herald.
4. Richard Moss, Polly Bush, Claude Mostowik and Elen Seymour on Tam Long’s critique of Tony Kevin’s SIEV-X analysis.
5. Dr Aaron Oakley responds to his critics on radiation and global warming.
1.NEW PARTY NEEDED?
Darren Spain in London
I’m a regular Webdiary reader. I left Australia in January 1994 and have since lived and worked both here and in New York City, USA. I’ll be 36 years old next month and expect to return to live in Sydney soon.
I’m approaching my eighteenth anniversary of working in the financial markets, the past nine of them out of the country. During that time the Australian political landscape has shifted, nay convulsed; Labor has lost power and later direction, we’ve witnessed the rise and fall of One Nation, the rise of the Greens and, it seems, the start of the demise of the Democrats. The policies that the Coalition Parties and Labor now hold also seem to have shifted such that I’m not too sure who their core voters are anymore.
Like many others I have no idea who represents my values now.
Over the past few years I’ve become more and more politically minded and willing to “Take A Stand” on some of the big issues that currently confront the country of my birth. I’ve never been a member of any political party, yet now that I’m financially secure I find myself considering joining and working for one, or perhaps becoming a political lobbyist on my return to Sydney in the not too distant future. The problem is I see no party or special interest group with a platform that represents my views and values.
Last Federal election I broke with my pattern of the previous seven elections of voting Democrat with a Labor preference, and became, in equal parts, both a reluctant Green and Democrat voter. (In the UK I tend to vote Liberal Democrat with a Labour preference).
This year your Webdiaries of March and mid-December 2001 have continually come back into my consciousness. There were a couple of days back then where we all played “Identity Politics” trying to define where we stood in the post-left/right world. Peter Parker’s piece which divided the landscape into Social Liberals, Social Conservatives, Economic Liberals and Economic Conservatives and attributed these characteristics to prominent people has stayed with me the most.
Using those labels I am best described as a Social Liberal and Economic Conservative. Mr Parker used this label to describe both Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam.
Where are the rest of you and is there a party of us?
Margo: I pulled together Webdiarist’s attempts to to work out new political categories in Defining your politics, at webdiary2001. There’s also a great exchange of views between One Nation Webdiarist Greg Weilo inRetrospective Hansonism at webdiary2001 and Christopher Selth in Left, right … how politics will march forwards at webdiary2001
***
Noel Hadjimichael in Camden, Western Sydney
Your analysis of the potential for a “party of five” Senators to emerge from the Democrats’ self-destruction (The Leeway Party) is challenging. Many voters in regional and rural localities would argue that there is space in the market for some “liberal-progressive” opinion in the Parliament.
Whilst the majors continue to be the main game – and people like me choose Liberal over today’s Labor – the desire for choice is strong. The German Liberals have generally played a coalition partnership role to the conservatives (in the main) or the social democrats (before the greens) on the basis of articulated policy demands, progressive social policy and pure support for marginalised constituencies (small farm holdings, professionals and anti-left civil servants). There are working precedents.
You have received many serious contenders for the name of the new party – I will throw in my commentator’s choice: Progressive Federals.
The tag “independent” has been seriously damaged by either shonky local government candidates or outcasts from the majors (read members sacked or pushed out for personal conduct).
The term “progressive” appears to be well received by the Webdiary contributors and would likely make the link to liberal values.
The term “federal” may appear reactionary – but this is not so.
Australia is and is likely to continue to demand a federal compact – national government with significant powers; state governments with both jurisdictional power and service delivery responsibility; and local governments able to innovate. Also, a strong feature of conservative voter support, especially outside the Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne triangle of power and privilege, is an acceptance and approval of effective federalism.
I am not saying to the “party of five” that they should become a party. However, the conditions appear to be favourable for such a development. If they became another carping critic of “everything” the Howard government stands for, a faction of the pre-1990s Left, then they would fail from the outset.
The political spectrum is not just left and right – ala the cold war – but complex and interesting.
On the social policy questions, we have seen the government take broadly described conservative directions. But the stem cell research debate has also opened up true distinctions between fundamentalist and practical liberal viewpoints.
On economic issues, you are correct to discern a conservative government that is more likely to protect economic assets from foreign interests than a Labor leadership committed to globalised capital. (But, hey, don’t even consider a McDonalds or Starbucks for the inner city strip frequented on Saturday…unless the Party machine gets a really good incentive).
There is no mandatory dogma for this potential new party – beyond maybe a commitment to liberal values, environmental stewardship and human rights. There is no demand that it espouse fashionable rhetoric for just publicity’s sake.
You can be a promoter of landcare, a small town conservative voter opposed to many of the results from privatisation, an opponent of the big-city Republic push and a cynic when it comes to the poor outcomes achieved by many aboriginal corporations and still remain a thinking liberal.
***
Max Phillips
So the Independent Progressives are to be born out of Lees’ treachery, Murray’s hissy fit and Ridgeway’s rejection. The ‘gang of five’ steal party status from the Democrats and assume the balance of power in the Senate. Meanwhile they establish a party front – structured so they retain absolute power and enrolling a bunch of powerless members to look legitimate. Why does this all sound like the script to a third world coup?
What kind of mandate does this new party have?
The representatives have all been elected by voters, but 95% of those votes were above-the-line for their former party. So they could possibly claim a mandate of 5% of the total Democrats vote.
They could claim their mandate stems from the “small l” Democrat voters and members. But this claim can not be quantified or easily identified (until the next election), and therefore can only have the same credibility as Sadam Hussein claiming to represent the Iraqi people or Stalin’s claim to represent “the workers”.
They could recognise that as the new party does not have a mandate. This choice would leave them with four options for action:
1) Resign from the Senate (allowing the Democrats to appoint new representatives for their seats) and run as their new party at the next election.
2) Exist as a separate entity, but vote with the Democrats in order to respect the mandate granted by voters at the last election.
3) Abstain from all votes.
4) Ignore any need for a mandate.
Options 1 and 2 respect democratic principles. Option 3 dis-enfranchises Democrat voters, but is a compromise that does not affect the balance of power. Option 4 is a blatant abuse of democratic principles.
Their decision will be a big test of their “small d” democratic credentials, (something most “small l” liberals consider important). If Lees’ and Murray’s delusion of grandeur continues and they decide to wield power devoid of a mandate, then they are as low as all those corporate fraudsters who’ve destroyed their company (party) while stealing money (votes/power) from their employees and stockholders (members and voters).
***
Darrell Rigby in Kiama, NSW
I have had the uneasy feeling since the Howard government’s ascension that we have lived a period of lost opportunities, of fear mongering ignorance promoted by an administration which has no serious grip on current Australian life. On things that give ordinary Australian’s lives meaning.
With Keating we had the vision of a united Australia , free and independent. By 2001 we’d have been a republic in control of our own destiny. We may well have achieved reconciliation , and may I suggest we would not have had the craziness of the Pacific solution and all the lies that has been born out of it.
Our country today is leaderless, and on both sides of politics there appears to be no-one with conviction and foresight who can grab the reins. I have been a long term supporter of the Democrats, but I’m afraid they have fatally injured themselves. So now we have the situation where a vote for labor is irrelevant, a vote for Howards libs is a giant step backwards and there is no Democrat party left to vote for.
My vision has settled amongst the smoke and ruins upon one person who has a firm and consistent view in step with the social attitudes of a majority of Australians. It’s Bob Brown. He’s the last one left standing.
2. CALL TO ACTION
Elizabeth Wertheim
Dear Baby-boomers and all those who were politically active in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, I feel the time has come to remind you all of your radical student years and youth. To ask you once again to stand up and speak out and support and encourage the youth of today in the crucial need for social and political voice and activism.
You the youth of the 60s, 70s and 80s know what change your voice and activism brought. Many of you who are now politicians, journalists, high profile artists, academics, government officials and social commentators began your careers in the universities. You believed in your right to speak and demanded you were heard. It is time to tell your stories to the youth of today and help to activate their energy and passion.
For this generation beneath their enforced silence have insights, ideas, passion and energy that will benefit us all. Their lives are far harder in many ways than yours. They will walk out of universities with HEC debt, low paid jobs, with substandard education and far less social welfare fall backs than your generation did.
Once their energy, passion and voice begins to heard you the may find that your generation’s loss of passion and commitment to justice, equality social and political engagement may be reinvigorated and you can once again stand tall and reclaim your lost right to the name of the Radical Generation.
Funnily enough I think a good reminder may come from one of the artist heroes of your time, Bob Dylan. I believe his words are most relevant but they, at this time also contain an ironic twist. For you are now the mothers and fathers, the congress men (politicians) who might well be “standing in the doorway and blocking up the hall”. Once again ” the times are a changin” but unfortunately in very different direction to the one that occurred in the 60s, 70s and to some degree in the 80s. I fear we will all “sink like stones.” for there is most definitely “a battle outside” and “the order is rapidly fading”. It is time for us all to “start ragin”.
3. STAY IN THE GAME, JOHN
James Woodcock
John Crockett’s comments on the SMH in The Leeway Party are not fair, as Fairfax has actually provided very balanced coverage on the whole asylum seeker issue. And it is not the SMH’s fault that “right wing intellectual” is an oxymoron in this country. With the possible exception of Mr Henderson, the other writers do more than rehash the shrill that they hear around some white trash front bar without even checking details or adding anything new to the debate.
Miranda Devine’s recent hysteria on gays destroying “the family” is a fabulous example. I do not blame the SMH for publishing such stuff as 1) it is really funny and 2) it is not the SMH’s fault that there are no Australian conservative commentators with any brains
PS: Thanks for publishing my rant on the ALP and the children overboard inquiry. Channel 9’s Sunday program on Australia’s “disruption” of asylum seeker boats in Indonesia has stirred up Faulkner again, although the bleeding obvious response to his call for a judicial enquiry is, “Why don’t you get the Senate to try harder???”
***
Ron Jones
Talk about puffery! Poor old Padriac, Imre et al dare express an opinion contrary to the pious views of of John Crockett and he promptly appoints himself a member of the “intelligentsia” and decides to take his bat and ball and go home and play with himself (ie boycott the S.M.H.)
Don’t worry Margo, there are plenty of us dumb-wits out here who, despite your moralistic finger wagging, will stay and play the game. I wouldn’t miss it for quids.
4. TAM LONG ON SIEV-X – REACTION
Richard Moss
I can’t recall enjoying anything in Webdiary so much before as Tam Long’s utter demolition of the disgraceful conspiracy theories about SIEV X, flimsily constructed from negligible evidentiary material on a foundation of bias and malice, and peddled by Tony Kevin and you, Margo. He leaves no more to be said on the subject, except to ask whether there is any possibility of you now dropping the subject, preferably in the nearest rubbish receptical.
His last lines also eloquently express a concern held by others, including myself, about the one-dimensional direction of Webdiary, which offered so much at the outset as a forum for a genuine cross-section of views.
**
Polly Bush in Melbourne
I’m trying to swallow this critique on Kevin in SIEV-X: Right of reply, and already I’ve hit a stumbling block. What is this “would-be-asylum-seekers” definition on about? Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the term asylum seeker meant someone who was applying for refugee status? Is Long arguing they wouldn’t be applying for refugee status? (were they going on a fucking cruise?)
Surely it is acceptable to assume they were heading to Australia to apply for refugee status which would make them asylum seekers. Bugger this “would-be” or “passenger” crap. Angry. Confused. Thank christ for Peter Mares: “The failure to distinguish between asylum seekers, refugees and unauthorised migrants means that all are brushed with the same tar of distrust and illegitimacy and ultimately results in patently nonsensical constructions such as “illegal asylum seekers” and even “illegal refugees”, terms that have appeared with surprising frequency in recent media reports.”
***
[Father] Claude Mostowik in Erskinville, Sydney
Tam Long seems to be way off the mark when s/he critiques Tony Kevin’s article on SIEV-X in SIEV-X: mystery unsolved. This article was originally a talk given at the Tampa One Conference at the University of Technology August 24-25. I was one of the conference organisers. I heard him give the talk in a very tempered manner. Tony was never at any time emotive.
Tony has been researching this issue for some time and thank goodness for his tenacity and perseverance in keeping this issue alive. 353 people are dead who wants to know why? I am sure that the Government and it seems even the Opposition would like this issue to die.
Tam Long criticises Tony Kevin for not taking on the people smugglers. I know that Tony Kevin is very critical of them but his intention was to get to the truth of why the people on the SIEV-X seems to have been abandoned. This is the point – and this is what we need to establish.
Tam Long seems to be emotive and needs to devalue and depreciate Tony Kevin as person to make a point rather than look at the facts and how we as Australians might be complicit in a criminal act. If we do not want to find out what happened and why it happened then we are complicit.
***
Elen Seymour in Sydney
Tam Long ends an interesting piece with the following quote: “Margo, may I close by suggesting that the credibility of your online column depends on broadening the contributors you publish and keeping them to accepted standards of objective scholarship. Reinforcing the prejudices of a sectional interest is surely not professional journalism or in keeping with the AJA code of ethics.”
Oh Margo! No no no no. Not accepted standards of objective scholarship! I will defend with my last breath the right for anyone to be an elitist wanker, I’m one myself. But please this is a forum for discussion, observation and occasional wit.
Objectivity, scholarly or otherwise, is of course welcome, but I don’t want would-be contributors to feel intimidated into not contributing. One of the things I love is the sheer volatility of the mix of scholar and non-scholar, wanker and pragmatist, right and left.
Please don’t close this down. If I want scholarly debate I’ll walk across the road to the University. If I want opinions from a wide range of people with a wide range of experiences and a wide range of viewpoints I’ll log in here.
***
5. AARON OAKLEY FIGHTBACK
Dr Aaron Oakley
Max Phillips in his rejoinder to me (see Puffing the Greens, The Leeway Party) displays the kind of dishonesty I complained about in my original post. Firstly he misrepresents the original Watson claim: She talked about spreading Plutonium evenly around the world, not lining up everybody and injecting plutonium straight into their lungs. Secondly, his hypothetical is patently absurd.
Lets look at what he has said: “A couple of micrograms of Plutonium inhaled is sufficient to cause lung cancer. There are half a million micrograms in half a kilogram of Plutonium. 500,000,000 divided by 2 is 250,000,000. Therefore half a kilogram of Plutonium is sufficient to kill only a quarter of a billion people or only 1/24th of the Earth’s total human population (twelve times Australia’s population).”
Lets assume for a moment that the initial statement about plutonium toxicity is correct (it is not). In order to deliver the kind of dose Mr Phillips is talking about, we would literally have to line everyone up (that’s one hell of a queue) and inject just the right amount of plutonium into their lungs. Based on this level of reasoning, we could say that one sledgehammer is enough to kill everyone on earth! Just line ’em up and whack ’em on the noggin. Mr Phillips is treating a ridiculous hypothetical situation as though it was real (this is one of many dishonest green tactics I have encountered).
Mr Phillips claim about the actual toxicity of plutonium is untrue. The idea about cancer resulting from a microgram of plutonium comes from the discredited “hot particle” theory, where a single speck of the substance was eventually supposed to cause a cancerous lesion. This claim is shown to be false from the observation that following the 1963 Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty, there was no epidemic of cancer. (Prior to the treaty, several tonnes of plutonium were dispersed in the atmosphere. Needless to say, we’re still here).
Since 1963, we have witnessed one of the most dramatic increases in longevity in human history. Furthermore, followup studies of plutonium workers has shown that they enjoy better health that the general population!
Damian Shaw-Williams provides further examples of green dishonesty. He tries to tie global warming sceptics to the fossil fuel industry. This use of the “guilt by association” tactic says nothing about the truth or otherwise of global warming. Scientific truth is determined by evidence, not by political allegiance. For evidence, well-controlled ground stations and weather balloon radiosonde measurements show no warming since about 1940.
Mr Shaw-Williams says: “When the field is dominated by two such morally bankrupt players it seems a bit rich to level this accusation at the only party with a clear statement of purpose.” That purpose apparently being to decimate living standards.”
“On nuclear power, unless I missed a meeting there has not as yet been discovered a satisfactory method of storage of waste, let alone reducing decommissioning costs to the point where nuclear power is economically viable and the inherent risk associated with such facilities.”
Since when did the greens care about “economic viability”, Mr Shaw-Williams? Wind and solar energy are definitely not economically viable alternatives to conventional energy generation. Yet these methods are exactly the ones that the greens are pushing. For the record, I would say that there ARE low-risk methods for dealing with nuclear waste, it’s just that the Greens will never accept them.