tip off

Rundle: shock, horror! Politicians did some actual politics

Crossbenchers have made a deal with the government to pass its legislation in return for current or future benefits. That’s what’s called politics — so why is everyone losing their damn minds?

POLITICAL PARTY IN POLITICAL DEAL HORROR!’  That pretty much should have been the headline on all media this week as the mining tax went — as we always knew it would — and some, but not all, provisions that Labor had attached to it went too.

A small party/bloc of four and two crossbench senators made a deal with the party that has government in the lower house to pass a measure that the now-governing party had campaigned on (one of the few), but to save $6.5 billion of measures for the life of the Parliament, which said government was trying to abolish immediately.

And this was treated by much of the commentariat as some measure of political dysfunction in Australia, epic skullduggery by the Palmer United Party, etc, etc.

At this point, one has to pinch oneself to see if one is dreaming. Have we passed into some sort of Lalaland, where the actual doing of politics — the negotiation between elected groups, representing interests and ideas — is a sign of political dysfunction? Is this the final result of the obsessive focus on policypolicypolicy, which dominates the imagination of the political-media elite?

More of that in a bit, but first let’s acknowledge that there are several arguments being mounted against what happened around the mining tax. The first and substantial one is that the tax shouldn’t have been abolished. Well, I agree, but the Coalition campaigned on it (with the aid of stunningly false propaganda from Anti-News Corp), so objecting is mere oppositionality — legitimate but hardly compelling. The second objection is that it’s being helped through by the personal party of a coal baron, to his immediate benefit.

True also, but that is a structural flaw of our whole political system. We have a Treasurer worth north of $10 million and a Communications Minister with an eight-figure fortune, so Palmer is hardly alone, and there’s only so much we can do about such interests except make them visible. Palmer’s pivot position has occurred because he’s the first tycoon to take advantage of possibilities within the Senate voting system. That was going to happen sooner or later, and now we have to change the system accordingly.

The third objection is that Tony Abbott made a promise that there would be no change to super arrangements under an Abbott government. Yeah, but that’s really within range of standard broken promises — Abbott can reasonably argue that the proposed super rate hike wasn’t part of current super arrangements. He’s also within his rights to look for extra revenue — which increased present taxes arising from a super rate freeze may generate — given that measures designed to reduce the deficit (another campaign promise) have been stymied. Compared to the black lying the Abbott government has done on everything else, it’s minor stuff.

No, what the real shrieking arguments seem to be about was that any deal was done at all — that the Palmer United Party and crossbench senators might pursue a strategy that allowed the government to get its legislation through in exchange for current or later deals on other matters. As an extra measure, there has been a charge of hypocrisy turned towards Palmer, suggesting that this deal somehow queers his pitch as a “friend of the poor”.

The shriek of the commentariat at this deal has nothing to do with the interests on display — it is about control of the political process slipping from the two-party-media nexus…”

Let’s deal with the second first. As far as I can see Palmer and the PUP have a  perfectly consistent position, which is to oppose cuts to the basic social welfare safety net — especially those the government sprung on us after the election — but to otherwise be a moderately centrist, mildly centre-right party. Nothing in this deal contradicts this or contradicts anything Palmer has claimed about his beliefs or course of action. Should he negotiate on the co-pay or the wacky youf dole arrangements, his credibility will be badly shot, but the deal done seems to me the sort of thing the Senate was designed to do. Had the Democrats still been around, this is the sort of deal the Andrew Murray-centrist faction of the party would have brokered. They would have then been praised for their sober political maturity. Which goes to the deep despite that large sections of the commentariat have for the current arrangements — that it is politics, not policy, that dominates.

The maddest thing was the idea that this was “a deal done behind closed doors” and therefore suspect. But where else would constituted political parties negotiate? Since most of Australian government is done behind closed doors — i.e. within a single party and then presented as a fait accompli — the fact that something was actually negotiated would seem to be more democratic, not less. The acme of this tosh was something by Lenore Taylor about the “Palmer process”, wherein Clive says something and then does a modified form of it — or dealmaking and negotiation as the rest of us call it. Or politics, even.

The real objection to a deal on super, is that politics replaces policy. Compulsory super has been ordained by the political-media-bureaucrat elite as so self-evidently good that it does not need to be sold, argued for or justified. It is good “policy”, by which is meant the management of behaviour of the masses — in this case their saving patterns — by the elite. Compulsory super is, in a way, a continuation of the depoliticised process of Australian politics vested in the Harvester judgement — it’s canny way of fixing the wages/profit split of the social surplus in favour of the former, relative to what it would otherwise be (since higher wages can then be campaigned for on top of the sequestered 9% super). But it also obscures the wages/profit split as the core political question and division between capital and labour. Thus left depoliticised, it is harder to defend when it is abolished at the stroke of a pen. And there is a good argument against the Left against compulsory super — that workers should be given the chance to collectively maximise present  income, and then individually decide how they will dispose of it.

The shriek of the commentariat  at this deal has nothing to do with the interests on display — it is about control of the political process slipping from the two-party-media nexus, which generate a shared political result, and a received notion of “political possibility”. We saw the same tantrum when the Greens gained the balance of power, and we will see it for a while to come. For the rest, people better get used to politics. If Labor wants a super hike they better, ohhhh I dunno, make it a genuine popular cause. Wouldn’t that be a shock-horror!

17
  • 1
    Mark Duffett
    Posted Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    A small party/bloc of four and two crossbench senators made a deal with the party that has government in the lower house to pass a measure that the now-governing party had campaigned on (one of the few), but to save $6.5 billion of measures for the life of the Parliament, which said government was trying to abolish immediately.

    The Abbott government is trying to abolish the Parliament now? That seems a fair stretch, even for them.

  • 2
    tonysee
    Posted Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    I generally turn off when a journalist uses such sloppy phrases as ‘much of the commentariat’ and ‘the political-media elite’. It’s usually a good indication that there’s not much substance to the story.

    Most of the time it comes from those on the conservative side of the spectrum — to put it politely — so I’m surprised that it’s coming from GR.

    You nail it most of the time, Guy, but I guess everyone’s entitled to off days.

  • 3
    susan winstanley
    Posted Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    Once again, dead right Rundle.

  • 4
    Guy Rundle
    Posted Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    Tony

    it may often come from the Right side, but thats just a smokescreen. The political-media elite includes most of the so-called anti-elitists - the news ltd crowd etc - trying to mask their own power. Thats how we got a neoliberal state.

  • 5
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    I think a lot of them just yearn for the days when Howard held a majority in both Houses and wielded it like a steam roller - without accountability?
    As well as a chance to implement some “hologram mandate” (that changed with each angle of view) the Limited News Party couldn’t get 50%+1 of the primary vote to endorse?

  • 6
    Daly
    Posted Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    Got it Klewso!

  • 7
    Lady White Peace
    Posted Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know why but nothing that you have said Rundle actually rings true.

  • 8
    tonyfunnywalker
    Posted Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    The Abbott government has deteriorated into a mob of racketeers and bootleggers.
    The rip off the ordinary punter is now the political agenda — backroom deals and the “double speak” of deception the rule of the house. The MSM media based protection racket that keeps the mobsters secure from scrutiny and accountability is reminiscent of the days of Capone and the Boardwalk Empire.
    The repeal process of deals, gags and the prostitution of Parliamentary procedure on the altar of servitude to the donor paymasters, cheer led by the plethora of right wing ideological advocate institutes, many with ethical and moral tenets verging on the extreme.
    The process of government is now the board room where multiple and cross directorships leads to an unhealthy, almost mobster approach, to ensure that the self-serving needs of the corporate sector are met- — often in spades.
    To allow Palmer to become a political force is a case in point - a self-serving oligarch as in insider serving as a direct conduit to deliver the “outsiders wishes” where there is a mutual self-serving shared “ commonality of purpose” in the offing.
    Abbott has taken it further where the process of policy development is abdicated to outsider representatives - the choice of who does what being based on their individual proclivity to the issue. This process was used to construct the budget, review the NBN, the acquiescence to the banks on Financial Planning regulations and the review of the RET irrespective of the consequences to the electorate, consumers and the sovereign risk implications as well.
    The Abbott government is a sham – subservient to ideological demands – irrespective of the electoral consequences.
    The 7th September 2013 – was the day Democracy died and Dollarocracy took control to ensure the impoverishment of the many for the benefit of the few.

  • 9
    tonyfunnywalker
    Posted Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    The Abbott government has deteriorated into a mob of racketeers and bootleggers.
    The rip off the ordinary punter is now the political agenda — backroom deals and the “double speak” of deception the rule of the house. The MSM media based protection racket that keeps the mobsters secure from scrutiny and accountability is reminiscent of the days of the Boardwalk Empire.
    The repeal process of deals, gags and the prostitution of Parliamentary procedure on the altar of servitude to the donor paymasters, cheer led by the plethora of right wing ideological advocate institutes, many with ethical and moral tenets verging on the extreme.
    The process of government is now the board room where multiple and cross directorships leads to an unhealthy, almost mobster approach, to ensure that the self-serving needs of the corporate sector are met- — often in spades.
    To allow Palmer to become a political force is a case in point - a self-serving oligarch as in insider serving as a direct conduit to deliver the “outsiders wishes” where there is a mutual self-serving shared “ commonality of purpose” in the offing.
    Abbott has taken it further where the process of policy development is abdicated to outsider representatives - the choice of who does what being based on their individual proclivity to the issue. This process was used to construct the budget, review the NBN, the acquiescence to the banks on Financial Planning regulations and the review of the RET irrespective of the consequences to the electorate, consumers and the sovereign risk implications as well.
    The Abbott government is a sham – subservient to ideological demands – irrespective of the electoral consequences.
    The 7th September 2013 – was the day Democracy died and Dollarocracy took control to ensure the impoverishment of the many for the benefit of the few.

  • 10
    Ben Lipman
    Posted Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    The maddest thing was the idea that this was “a deal done behind closed doors” and therefore suspect.”

    I’m pretty sure the objection in this one is that it was done totally out of sight - not just the cross party negotiation, but every part of it.
    It’s a repeal bill for a mining tax, that also freezes my super and in no way guarantees a rise in my wages, and yet this was never mentioned to the public as an idea being floated, never mentioned as party policy moving forwards, heck, they didn’t even want the opposition to read it before voting on it. Even Crikey didn’t have a single tip that this was in the works.
    The first the public was made aware of it was with neo-cons gloating that they had made life better for us all.
    It’s a new step for the Abbott government - after losing the budget debate with the public, as it were, they are launching a new strategy of not telling the public what they are doing until after it is passed.

    The acme of this tosh was something by Lenore Taylor about the “Palmer process”, wherein Clive says something and then does a modified form of it — or deal making and negotiation as the rest of us call it. Or politics, even.”

    Wowsers Rundle, your petty News Ltd-ish one-man feud with The Guardian seems almost as all consuming for you as it is boring and pointless for the rest of us!
    I think it’s less the sort of thing Crikey needs, more the appropriate to a one man newsletter written by your dog.

    From memory, Taylor was writing about how Palmer is playing the populist in interviews, but then voting against the values he promotes.
    It was an inoffensive piece, unnecessary reading for a political junkie, but probably informative for normal people. Not as good as the interview where he told her she didn’t understand politics, but then it’s target audience probably hadn’t read that one.
    As Fairfax and most of News Ltd was too busy praising the Super freeze (News.Com.Au had an article about how much people would lose out on, but it only lasted half a day), it’s good someone put an article out there about how this sausage was made - heck, any article even referencing the super freeze is good. There’s been very little written about it either way.

  • 11
    Guy Rundle
    Posted Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Ben

    yeah, but as I s abbott only committed to current super arrangements. And palmer didnt commit to them at all. Dont really think a govts required to honour previous govts policy commitments.
    Not saying I agree with the policy change, but I cant see any great betrayal here
    g

  • 12
    Guy Rundle
    Posted Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    As I said’

  • 13
    GF50
    Posted Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    @TFW, I’m with you, and Guy you are tapping them with a wet lettuce leaf. The changes for the increase in the super levy were legislated as far as I am aware. Please don’t start with the “we don’t understand the nuances or context of the English language” The entire LNP are blatant repetitive li*rs, nothing more than a propaganda machine.
    ICAC NSW, and the PUP’s and LNP have more than adequately demonstrated that Australian Democracy, (limited as it may be) has been corruptly bought by the highest bidder and the General Electorate is road kill, having been thrown under the bus.

  • 14
    rhwombat
    Posted Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    Well said tfw, but take heart: we survived the Rodent, and the current Thatcherspawn aren’t nearly as cunning or ruthless. Labor women will rise again.

  • 15
    mikehilliard
    Posted Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    Ben@10

    Totally agree with you here ” they didn’t even want the opposition to read it before voting on it’”.

    I watched the HOR debate & was disgusted at the process.

  • 16
    Humphrey Bower
    Posted Friday, 5 September 2014 at 2:26 am | Permalink

    Guy, your underlying sentiment is admirable - politics versus policy, class conflict versus liberal welfare statist consensus - but I fear has misled you into perversely backing the wrong horse when it comes to Palmer and his pups. This is a case of regression, not progress - from the previous parliament’s genuine if sometimes difficult process of compromise politics between Labor, Greens and independent cross-benchers to a clumsy ad hoc exercise in horse-trading between self-interested robber barons. Like the nation as a whole, you deserve better material. This will be a short-lived and shameful episode in our political history. Let’s focus on the main game: political reform, and a socially just and environmental sustainable alternative to these corrupt dinosaurs.

  • 17
    sebster
    Posted Tuesday, 9 September 2014 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    Ha ha love it. Much as I loathe how Palmer has positioned himself as an “alternative” pollie, despite being rich and relentlessly establishment, I agree with the analysis, albeit with a heavy heart. Nice one.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...