Tag Archive for 'brendan nelson'

Acknowledgement of country ‘culture wars’

They’re at it again:

Members of the Liberal Party have been creating a minor storm about the matter of Indigenous recognition. In statements made to the Adelaide Advertiser yesterday, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott implied that formal recognition of traditional owners at the beginning of significant events is superficial and unnecessary. ‘I guess this is the kind of genuflection to political correctness that [Labor ministers] feel they have to make’ he said. ‘Sometimes it’s appropriate to do those things, but certainly I think in many contexts it seems like out-of-place tokenism.’ Liberal backbencher Wilson Tuckey weighed in a few hours later, claiming such recognition was a ‘farce’, while Senator Eric Abetz called it ‘outdated’ and a ‘fad’.

One of the more eye-opening things to come out of this, for me, was learning on Q&A that the soporific Peter Dutton had actually offered his resignation to Brendan Nelson, so strong did he feel about not attending the Apology.

These sorts of culture war debates are, of course, plagued by false dichotomies. They’re also plagued by sneaky elisions of meaning – if something is ’superficial’, that doesn’t imply that it is ‘unnecessary’, but rather that the meaning embodied in the words should provoke thought, stimulate reflection, change minds, incite action. To that degree, there’s a sort of validity in the criticism, as Stephanie Convery says, but not of the sort that Abbott and co. think:

But the problem is not in the act of formal recognition but in the assumption that lip service is all there is to it. The truth is, there is a disconnect between political symbolism and action on Indigenous issues in Australia. The recognition of traditional owners, the welcome to country, is essential if only because it draws attention to this disconnect. It reminds the non-Indigenous listener of the fact of their colonial heritage, of the continued existence of Indigenous people and culture, and their direct relationship to everyone who calls themselves Australian. Or at least, it should.

Continue reading ‘Acknowledgement of country ‘culture wars’’

Higgins by-election (and Bradfield by-election)

Tomorrow sees voters in Peter Costello’s old seat of Higgins (and Brendan Nelson’s seat of Bradfield) go to the polls. Labor is not running in either by-election. That seemed like an arguably justifiable decision at the time nominations closed, but it’s looking, in the eyes of some observers, like less of a smart roll of the dice in the wake of the Liberal #spill madness, and what might be charitably described as a very scrappy start to Tony Abbott’s leadership. It’s interesting to ponder the remarks attributed to Anthony Albanese, who apparently was telling MPs to pencil in the last scheduled Liberal party room meeting of the parliamentary year as the day the leadership would change hands. Whether or not that’s so, or it’s a claim made or inflated with the benefit of hindsight, Labor would have been anticipating the likelihood of the ETS defeat this week, but probably a Hockey leadership rather than the ascension of the Mad Monk to such ethereal realms.

Reports of the amount of money the Libs have been spending suggest that they must be seriously worried about Higgins. It’s difficult to say from this distance, but a number of observers suggest that The Greens’ Clive Hamilton has not run much of a grass roots campaign. That could be scuttlebutt, and I’d be very interested in any views from those closer to the action. But the prospect of the Liberals losing Higgins to The Greens is quite an extraordinary one, and the converse to the ‘Labor should have run’ argument is that it would be an even greater reverse for the opposition than the seat falling to the ALP (though, as Hugo Kelly and Rebekka Power argue, it could be a case of Labor strategists being too clever by half in handing The Greens an inner city Melbourne base).

If Hamilton runs Kelly O’Dwyer close, it will highlight the absurdity of the argument that the Liberals, in rejecting the ETS and elevating Abbott, were playing to their ‘base’. If Higgins isn’t a blue ribbon Lib seat, it’s hard to think of one. As Antony Green observed, while the margin has sometimes been deceptively narrow, the consistency of the Liberal hold on the areas that make up the core of the electorate is what counts.

The other fascination about these by-election contests is that they represent the first test of the new Liberal leader in seats held by one of his two predecessors this term (both of whom now hold sinecures courtesy of Kevin Rudd and the Labor government), and of course, the former electorate of the Great Pretender to the Liberal crown. A loss in either one would be a devastating blow. I wonder how the results will be called, and if there’ll be a bit of bar raising by the commentariat, but serious reverses on the primary vote in either or both seats should speak for themselves. Again, the case for Labor not running candidates in by-elections in Liberal seats is that the focus will be all on the opposition, as opposed to the usual media predictathon when governments lose traction at by-elections.

It should be interesting to watch both unfold. Please feel free to add any reports and links to this thread throughout the day!

Update: The Liberals have retained both seats, it would appear with increased margins on the 2PP. Looking at Higgins, the key is the fact that the Greens’ primary vote is less than Labor’s at the 2007 general election. [Update: That previous comment was made with a number of booths still outstanding. But see also this analysis from Rebekka Power.] It’s evident that there are a fair few ALP voters who won’t vote Green, something I noted on a number of occasions. No doubt these results will be spun as a great victory for Abbott, but the missing element in the equation is the absence of a Labor candidate.

Having said that, I still think The Greens made a big mistake by nationalising the contest, and running a candidate like Clive Hamilton. Kelly O’Dwyer’s ‘Mayor of Higgins’ campaign capitalised on his outsider status well, it would seem. I suggested previously that The Greens might have done better to run a well known local – parochialism always plays well in by-elections, particularly against blow-ins, as the Liberal research no doubt showed. As I intimated in the post, there may have been an element of expectations management going on, with the Libs talking down their chances in advance of the vote.

But I think it’s fair to say that The Greens won’t, and shouldn’t be, happy with the outcome.

But the Libs shouldn’t be all that happy either, as they know full well they ran defensive strategies avoiding the big issues of national politics. These seats should be a total shoo-in for anyone with the Libs’ label on the ballot paper.

The final verdict – the whole thing is probably a bit of a side show.

Women in close-combat roles in Australian Army?

We haven’t had a defence-related thread for a while, so it’s worth rounding up some of the more interesting stories.

Brendan Nelson, in his extended “I was right about everything” valedictory speech, included the much-debated Super Hornet purchase in the collection of things he was right about. Frankly, I remain unconvinced. If it was such a good piece of planning, why didn’t we make sure that the legacy Hornet and the Super Hornets fire the same missiles? That said, the cruise missile we are intending to fit to the legacy Hornets is suffering severe reliability problems, and some reports claiming that the missile might be cancelled (though it’s hard to know how credible those are).

But the big story doing the rounds at the moment is Greg Combet’s announcement of a plan to conduct a new study of performance requirements for various roles in the armed forces, with a view to removing outright gender bans and placing restrictions based on the physical demands of the role:

Mr Combet, a former ACTU national secretary, told parliament yesterday the Defence Science and Technology Organisation would develop a new set of physical employment standards for the army that would accurately measure a person’s ability to perform the broad variety of jobs in the modern defence force. “A priority of the government is to improve the recruitment and retention of women in the ADF,” he said. “My own view is that all categories should be open to women. The only exceptions should be where the physical demands cannot be met according to criteria that are determined on the basis of scientific analysis, rather than assumptions about gender.”

Continue reading ‘Women in close-combat roles in Australian Army?’

Turnbull one year on; Emo Man’s revenge

Malcolm Turnbull has been opposition leader for one year.

That anniversary has been marked, among other things, by an impassioned speech in the Coalition party room by his predecessor, Dr Brendan Nelson. Nelson argued against any compromise on emissions trading before Copenhagen, and all this has been tied in with a theme that the opposition has to stand for something – the tried and true Liberal verities of individual workplace contracts, of course, being one of those…

Nelson, however, says someone whom he diagnosed as having narcissistic personality disorder can still become PM.

Update: Nelson’s off to be ambassador to NATO (and Kim Beazley to the US).

Malcolm Turnbull is the new Brendan Nelson

… with less Emo. The poll that News Limited owns is out. Possum reports:

In fact, this whole poll is pretty much identical to Nelson’s last…

On the beauty contest that is Preferred Prime Minister, Turnbull’s PPM rating has, for the first time, ducked below Undecideds.

Possum subtitles his post “Perpetual Honeymoon Edition”. In fact, the media seems to have finally given up (at least for now) the claim that Kevin Rudd and Labor are enjoying a somehow undeserved or ephemeral honeymoon. The prevailing press gallery assumption has shifted to the next election being a Labor cert and a Liberal rout, and I’m not sure that only a double dissolution over climate change would see 20 or so Coalition seats topple.

Is Rudd’s only enemy now complacency?

Newspoll: Labor 59-41

… and Malcolm Turnbull is approaching Brendan Nelson territory with the PPM at 66-19 in Kevin Rudd’s favour. Of course, political scientists know leadership isn’t that big a factor (and Turnbull’s inability to patch over the same divisions that plagued Brendan Nelson demonstrates that) and this poll may be a bit of an outlier anyway, but in the world of perception, this is the measure the press gallery have anointed. I imagine that it’ll allow them to play their favourite game of leadership speculation over summer. Last Christmas holidays, the Liberals were (supposedly) giving some attention to their long term structural problems. Maybe that was the shock of defeat, a defeat that as they regained their cockiness, they seem to have forgotten. Far too prematurely.

Live by the sword…

Julie Bishop’s been copping it from unnamed “senior Liberals” for her poor performance as shadow Treasurer, who’ve helpfully implied Malcolm Turnbull shares their worries, and suggested a few names to replace her (Dutton, Robb, Hockey) for good measure.

While Bishop has been massively unconvincing in the Treasury portfolio, it’s not only the Deputy Leader who should be concerned over this latest outburst of leaks to The Australian. Malcolm Turnbull and the rest of the Libs should also recall that Brendan Nelson was brought down as much by the constant dripfeed of negative stories to their mates in the press gallery, as by his own hapless efforts as Leader. What is now being done to Bishop (and the articles have been cleverly framed to keep the “narrative” alive for quite a while – by forcing her putative replacements to deny an interest, and thus further fuel the story) could be done to Turnbull tomorrow. As if to lay down a few markers, Peter Van Onselen published an otherwise bizarre op/ed on Saturday praising Peter Costello as the best available leader.

I’ve observed before that the opposition’s coziness with the press gallery does them no favours. It shouldn’t be too difficult to find a way of resolving problems internally rather than in newspaper columns.

The polls, Malcolm Turnbull and the economy

There’s a Galaxy and a Nielsen poll out this morning, both of which show Labor with a 55-45 lead on 2PP, and Kevin Rudd on better numbers than he enjoyed a year ago – and these are some of the last polls (Essential Research follows tonight) before the first anniversary of Labor’s election.

This is quite interesting:

Coalition attacks on almost every aspect of the Government’s response to the crisis have had no impact.

Possum on Malcolm Turnbull:

These ratings trends differ slightly from Newspoll (conveniently seen over at the Polling Charts page) with Nielsen suggesting that Turnbull is failing to convince those that were initially undecided about his leadership to the point of slowly alienating them, while Newspoll is continuing to show slight growth in Turnbull’s satisfaction.

Intuitively, I suspect Nielsen is right about Turnbull. We might be a better barometer here than might be expected, unrepresentative sample that we no doubt are. If you cast your mind back to the reaction of LP commenters when Malcolm became opposition leader, a lot of us were prepared to cautiously welcome his election, having in mind his performance in the past and his social progressivism.

Continue reading ‘The polls, Malcolm Turnbull and the economy’

He’s tanned, rested, and ready to lead!

Newspoll has Labor on 55% 2PP (up 1 point, within the MOE). Kevin Rudd is on 62% (up 3) on the PPM to Malcolm Turnbull’s 22% (down 3).

Brendan Nelson peaked at 16%.

The Opposition Organ says:

But it remains substantially higher than his predecessor Brendan Nelson.

How substantial is substantial, I wonder?

Continue reading ‘He’s tanned, rested, and ready to lead!’

The perils of celebrity: Julie Bishop, Peter Van Onselen, MUP and plagiarism

One of the minor notes of the political narrative last week was Julie Bishop’s half-hearted fessing up to publishing a book chapter containing numerous instances of plagiarism under her name, though (in a move quite reminiscent of the Howard government’s attitude towards ministerial accountability) she sought immediately to deflect responsibility onto the staffer who “dashed something together” for her in a spare moment, recycling and paraphrasing eight year old banal neo-liberal nostrums from the New Zealand Business Roundtable’s Roger Kerr. The news didn’t get any better as the week wore on for the editor of Liberals and Power: The Road Ahead, Peter Van Onselen, as it emerged that Brendan Nelson’s chapter had been ghosted by Tom Switzer, whose ruminations turned up in a column under his own name in The Spectator:

“It must have been subconscious … I have just regurgitated [what] was my line.”

Pushing a “line”, of course, comes naturally to the opinionistas of the punditariat/thinktank interface. The big surprise in all this, probably, is why an increasingly furious and perhaps naive Van Onselen ever thought that he could solicit contributions which actually represented the reflections of “some of the finest minds of liberal and conservative thought”. The notion, apparently shared by Van Onselen and Melbourne University Press Publisher Louise Adler, that Liberal politicians are in “a reflective period, a phase of rigorous self-criticism and reassessment” was always risible. All we’ve seen from the opposition since November 24 2007 are the fruits of a sense of frustrated entitlement, manifesting alternately in vicious infighting and empty and cynical populism.

Adler’s commentary on the book is yet another instance of blame shifting. Andrew Elder nails it:

If Adler was concerned about morality she’d pull the book and wear the financial consequences of doing so, to protect the intellectual integrity of MUP. Instead, the next Melbourne Uni student who gets busted lifting an essay straight off the internet should get Adler to brush away any nasty consequences (“so old hat!”).

Exporting the Melbourne Model

As Luke Slattery observes, a significant number of universities are moving to emulate either the whole of or aspects of the Melbourne Model – generalist undergraduate degrees followed by vocational postgraduate degrees. UWA and Macquarie are the latest off the starting block, with Macquarie VC Stephen Schwartz stating:

Of course we will continue to teach professional skills – accounting students will still learn to keep books – but we will also ensure that each of our students learns how to analyse scholarly papers, criticise research methods, solve problems and integrate information into coherent arguments.

Some universities which are not going down this route are moving to a broader focus on core subjects and workplace learning for undergraduates – in generalist as well as vocational degrees. Sometimes this is driven by a desire to find a point of differentiation – for instance with Griffith’s emphasis on social enterprise as part of its Arts degree – which is, in part, a recognition that QUT and UQ have the vocational and sandstone/comprehensive humanities angles covered in the eyes of many students. Griffith Arts students also do first year courses like “Great Books”, which must gladden the hearts of the educational traditionalists (I don’t know what’s actually on the curriculum, I should add). And at ACU, all students must do “mission” units – particularly in ethics and to expose them to aspects of the Catholic intellectual tradition (as well as fostering social responsibility).

Slattery notes that some of this is driven by the international market – including the 3+2 Bologna Process for standardising tertiary qualifications across the EU where a bachelors degree is followed by a masters degree as a matter of course. There is probably some benefit – aside from considerations of the international export market – in maintaining the standing of Australian higher education, reducing the over proliferation of degree courses (itself driven by now superceded marketing considerations) and in fostering scholarly and critical skills across all disciplines in the academy. Continue reading ‘Exporting the Melbourne Model’

Government moving too slowly on IR; Essential Research 57-43

…45% of Australians think so, according to this fortnight’s Essential Research poll. As a bit of an addendum to my earlier post about Julia Gillard’s speech last week to the National Press Club on the detail of the Forward with Fairness bills which will shortly be introduced into parliament, I should also note that many Labor MPs have been concerned by reports they’re receiving from constituents about continuing abuses of workplace power. This is more the everyday bastardry that WorkChoices encouraged, rather than the headline anti-union moves of big corporations like Telstra. A lot of voters assumed that WorkChoices had already been “torn up”, and there’s significant pressure on Gillard to bring forward some of the implementation dates for aspects of the new legislation.

The whole “keep business satisfied” implementation agenda might have seemed like a good idea last year. It’s not looking so flash now, particularly as the ACTU finally wakes up to the fact that they’ve effectively been locked out of the policy making process.

Elsewhere: More discussion of the poll at The Poll Bludger. Also interesting is the comparison with ratings of attributes between Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd (with the proviso that the data on Rudd dates from June). Turnbull will be worried at the 47% “out of touch” figure. How do you actually turn that around? Brendan Nelson didn’t do so by emoting and going trucking.

Turnbull poll bounce? ACNielsen 52-48, Newspoll 55-45

ACNielsen has Labor behind the Liberals on primaries 42-41, the first time the Libs have been ahead of Labor in the Nielsen poll since September 2006. Labor leads in the 2PP 52-48, and Kevin Rudd leads Malcolm Turnbull on PPM 56-33. Rudd led Brendan Nelson 65-19 in the August poll.

The Liberals have gained 3% on the primary vote and 3% on the 2PP since the August Nielsen poll.

I observed the other day that Possum had calculated opposition leader change bounce averages. It’s for Newspoll, but here it is for purposes of comparison:

…the average Coalition bounce from a leadership change was 5.7% on the primary and 6% on the TPP.

Speaking of Newspoll, The Poll Bludger reports rumours of an early release for the one that normally appears first on Lateline tomorrow night. I wouldn’t be at all surprised, as otherwise the OO will be reduced to writing their new narrative on the basis of a story in The Age. So get in quickly for Possum’s guess the Newspoll bounce competition.

Update: That was quick. Dennis gets to write his story on the basis of the poll he owns. Newspoll has the primaries favouring Labor 42-38 (down 2 and up 1 respectively, and within the MOE as Shanahan notes). The 2PP is 55-45 in Labor’s favour. It was 56-44 last time. Without mentioning the ACNielsen poll, Shanahan has actually written a story that would fit its findings better than Newspoll’s, having to construct his narrative out of the frippery of the PPM where Rudd leads Turnbull 54-24. As The Poll Bludger observes, this matches the Galaxy Poll in the News Limited tabloids on the weekend.

So if we do the comparison with Possum’s calculations, the Turnbull bounce is almost non-existent. Heh.

In reality, we should wait before passing judgement, but it’s fair to say that the previous trend is still very much apparent. Rudd’s losing some of his shine, but Labor’s vote is holding up well.

Continue reading ‘Turnbull poll bounce? ACNielsen 52-48, Newspoll 55-45′

Labor’s game plan for Malcolm Turnbull

Tony Abbott trotted out the line on Q&A tonight that the ALP is scared of Malcolm Turnbull, hence the attack on him. This meme – which I think originated with the claims that the government were trembling in their collective boots at the spectre of Peter Costello becoming Opposition Leader – is dumb. It was hardly worth going after Brendan Nelson – he did a good enough job on himself. But what politicians do is attack their opponents. It’s hardly rocket science.

So what’s Labor up to? A lot of it has to do with Turnbull’s persona. As Kim observed the other day, Turnbull won’t be anywhere near as well known among the general public as he is among political junkies. When there’s so much attention on him, you get in quick to define his persona. The line has already morphed – from rich dude to out of touch Eastern suburbs silvertail who represents, you know, latte sippers and Sydney Morning Herald readers. Which, after all, he does. “Vaucluse”, “Point Piper”, and “Western suburbs” (by way of contrast) are words carrying huge symbolic weight. It’s a tie in with the “right to drive a Porsche” jibes and will be a better fit with Turnbull than with truckin’ Brendan.

Turnbull’s possibly doing himself no favours by talking about himself so much, a point that a conga line of Ministers have made. It’s the downside of having to define yourself. To the degree that Turnbull does have an image as egotistical and arrogant, he reinforces that by dwelling on his own qualities. And the press does part of the job for the ALP by writing about him in terms of his stellar intellect, heroic qualities, his temper and “inability to tolerate fools”, blah blah. If there’s one image that Australian voters don’t like, it’s of someone with tickets on themselves and a sense of entitlement. Just ask Peter Costello.

Thirdly, while the press may have been suggesting Turbull is some sort of “crazy brave” choice and will provide sparks and excitement, that’s probably a negative. Continue reading ‘Labor’s game plan for Malcolm Turnbull’

Big L or small l leader?

There’s something of a paradox there, because, as I’ve been arguing, Malcolm Turnbull’s best chance at making an impact (beyond the born in a log cabin dingy flat narrative personal stuff) is to move towards the centre, and particularly given his obvious understanding of the issues, move the Coalition towards a responsible position on an ETS. John Hewson, interviewed in today’s Crikey, thinks he could do himself and us all a favour by putting some steel in Rudd’s very weak climate change spine:

What I would hope, I guess, is that Turnbull should take a harder line on climate change. The suggestion from Garnaut that we can start softly, softly, with 10 or 15 per cent for his target in 2020 is nonsense, against the sort of targets Australia has to meet by 2050. In those terms, I think Turnbull should be taking a harder line, pushing Rudd to do more, setting a high jump bar if you like, against which Rudd will be measured and they would have more significant consequences for business.

Business is great at sort of putting off adjustments, whether it was workplace safety or training or any of the other issues that have dominated the last 20 years. They’ve always shirked them. Business response to climate change has been “fine for everybody else, but not us” and really the adjustments have to be made, the big issues have to be addressed and you can’t play catch-up. The whole process is front-end loaded, so I think it will be an interesting debate, if Turnbull goes out there and argues a stronger case in that area and pushes Rudd to do more, but he may just sit back as Brendan Nelson was doing and say “we won’t lead the world” and so it will be an interesting debate.

John Quiggin doesn’t think Turnbull will depart from the current position, based on his ministerial performance and his failure to take any sort of consistent policy position as Shadow Treasurer. Continue reading ‘Big L or small l leader?’