All posts by oeconomuse

About oeconomuse

Humanist and atheist. Mother, singer, strummer, reader, happy camper and furious feminist who thinks the mob running the planet are doing a terrible job.

THAT bomb. What was it dropped for? Absolutely nothing

Is anyone else disturbed by how the decision of the USA to drop a Massive Ordnance Air Blast  on Afghanistan has disappeared from the news?

A week later (20 April 2017), Malcolm Turnbull said of Donald Trump and the Republican administration: ‘I trust the judgement of the American government… I trust the judgement, the wisdom, of the president’. That is a verbatim quote. How could anyone trust the judgement of President Trump; or surmise he has wisdom?

Even to a hardened politics watcher like me, waking up to the MOAB news on Good Friday was so shocking I spent much of easter scrolling through Trump tweets seeking clues. It is worth noting in this context that Trump will host Palestinian President Abbas at the White House on 3 May. This may be consistent with the observation that Trump’s domestic rhetoric is isolationist, while if anything he is escalating American military interventionism.

War hardware and war software: Bombs and propaganda

The MOAB is horrendous in scale. The Pentagon says it is the largest non-nuclear weapon in the US arsenal. It sucks the oxygen from the air and sets the rest on fire. It weighs 10,000 kilograms. It flattens everything within a one-mile radius in every direction. It costs US$16 million just to build. Like most such monstrosities, it was ‘originally’ built ‘as a deterrent’.

‘The goal is to have the pressure be so great that Saddam Hussein cooperates,’ said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2003.

Predictably, US and other western news sites fawned breathlessly over its size and power; and dutifully reproduced the White House message about precision and firsts (in combat, was the claim) and avoiding civilian casualties.

But the reasons offered were entirely vacuous. Not just strategy-free, like the 59 missiles dropped on a Syrian air-base near Homs on the chemical weapons pretext. The chemical weapons ‘red line’ at least had a history of failed multilateralism and Putin-Obama negotiations. It was anchored in something of substance. In contrast, the two reasons put forward for detonating the MOAB were entirely without substance.

‘The US takes the fight against ISIS seriously’ said White House press secretary Sean Spicer. Well, yes, but our leaders have been saying that for years, with no apparent thought to how this plays for ISIS. But what had changed in Afghanistan? Nothing anyone was telling the public. The case is empty. Caves and tunnels. An American soldier was killed in the area last week.

One soldier? ISIS-K? Caves and tunnels?

Who outside of foreign policy circles had heard of ISIS-K before now? It is apparently two years old and operates in country bordering nominal American ally Pakistan. The same ally who sheltered bin Laden and for its trouble saw a US Forces raid on the bin Laden compound in Abbottabad, complete with extra-judicial assassination and reported dumping of the body at sea. The same bin Laden who video-taped his ramblings in those caves and tunnels when they were populated by Taliban fighters, like the caves and tunnels fitted out by the CIA courtesy of the American public.

So the usual dishonest and violent American interventionism is present.

But the MOAB is not just another American mess, a real-life scene out of Team America: World Police, the one where Gary the actor is kidnapped in Egypt and US Forces swoop in and blow up half of Cairo, knocking the head off a sphinx. The MOAB is more than disproportionality, a war crime, although it is that. The MOAB is ‘use of force’ so out of all proportion as to be in another category of crime, on another level of wrongness.

There are echoes of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but without the preceding 6-year global bloodbath. That is not to deny the extent of slaughter America brought to Afghanistan and Iraq, but to point to the sheer scale of this horror at this time. Even in the world of an American president who rarely says what he means or means what he says, the MOAB drop seems incomprehensible.

Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai called out Trump for using Afghanistan as a bomb testing ground. While Karzai is not of clean hands when it comes to brinkmanship, on this occasion he articulated the major issues associated with such an extreme and destructive weapon. Unlike the breathless bomb-porn that dominated coverage in the west, Karzai pointed to Afghani sovereignty – imagine how America would respond to such an attack on its soil – and to the soil itself, to the environmental and inter-generational consequences.

This was an inhuman act, a brutal act against an innocent country, against innocent people, against our land, against our sovereignty, against our soil and against our future… A bomb of that magnitude has consequences for the environment, for our lives, for our plants, for our water, for our soil – this is poison – Former Afghani President Hamid Karzai, 16 April 2017

We could use more truth like this over the endless ‘analysis’ from the no-choice-but-to-bomb school of war journalism, an inherently biased approach which showcases the violent views of military ‘experts’ while ignoring conflict resolution approaches and peace scholars.

One other disturbing observation is that the MOAB has all but disappeared from our airwaves and newsfeeds. The (predicted) North Korean missile ‘test’ (explosion, detonated by North Korea), the Turkish referendum which Erdoğan could only have scheduled for Easter Sunday well in advance, eclipsed the horror in Afghanistan.

Less than a week later, the Pentagon is claiming that ISIS used a ‘chemical attack’ on an Iraqi contingent that included US and Australian ‘advisors’ in Mosul – but they are all unhurt. What even is this? Did the MOAB not warn ISIS off using chemical weapons, then? Oh no, that’s right, that was Assad? Will Trump bomb Mosul back to the stone age too? Oh no that’s right, he bombed caves and tunnels – stone age technology – back to the stone age.

How to make sense of it all?

My instinct was to return to Trump’s words and deeds. Trump is Commander-in-Chief. It is Trump with whom the buck stops for the MOAB, no matter what is reported as to which general gave what order. If Trump really did delegate that level of authority to someone else, that is an abrogation of his responsibility, but it is still his abrogation and his responsibility.

The most obvious Trump characteristic is that his decisions appear largely random, or, if there is any method at all, his decisions tend to further his personal rather than the national or global interest. How to test whether Trump is issuing orders at random? Does he just like blowing up people and their lands, their homes? The record is opaque, and we must assume deliberately so, given the conventions Trump has flouted, the rules he simply ignores, the failure of institutional checks and balances to curb his excesses.

This is not to suggest that Trump is some kind of evil foreign policy genius. Quite the opposite. It is to observe that Trump is doing what he has always done: operating in the interests of Donald Trump.

Abridged Timeline: on Twitter and in real life

It is a truism that the Trump Twitter timeline is as good a window as any into the thinking of the President. I do not follow either his personal or POTUS account, but trump Twitter, and reporting about Trump twitter, is impossible to avoid.

The first thing I noticed was the contrast between domestic and foreign policy tweets.

In the past fortnight, Trump has met with Egyptian President Al Sisi (4 April), Jordanian King Abdullah (6 April), Chinese President Xi Jinping (9 April) and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (12 April). Given the general purpose of such meetings, there would be some agenda with individual countries, and some with the relevant region. In other words, Trump here is skirting around Syria, North Korea, and Turkey.

Each foreign policy tweet is interspersed with what in Australia is called feeding the chooks, although in Trump’s case he is feeding the Fox [News]. These domestic nonsense tweets contain shallow statements, heavy with exclamation marks. Each bears the hallmark of Trump self-expression: his unquantifiable relationship with truth. Trump is less reliable than the proverbial stopped clock: he might be right twice a day, but he might not. Whether he is being serious – whether he means X or will change his mind on Y – is so randomised that it is impossible to tell with any confidence.

But those are the domestic tweets.

The tone and spacing of the foreign policy tweets indicate some oversight. There is a whiff of daughter Ivanka about it (see this by Anne Summers on her role). Her husband, Jared Kushner, continues to be promoted. According to the not-credible source Eric Trump, it was a ‘heartbroken and outraged’ Ivanka who persuaded dad to order the 59-missile attack on a Syrian air base. Certainly the missile attack near Homs lacked strategic coherence – the calls for Trump to ‘reveal his strategy’ assume he has one, or one he would reveal to the media and the public. Meanwhile, Jared headed off to Iraq wearing a flak jacket over his Ivy League uniform outfit.

The only real certainty is that Trump is not operating according to conventional priorities. As mentioned, he is in all likelihood operating according to self-interest rather than global or American interests. This is not to say that a Cheney- or Rove-style Washington Consensus is a force for good in the world; only that it is knowable in a way that Trumpism is not.

It was the 6.5 minute Trump speech addressing King Abdullah from the Rose Garden podium – the link posted to Twitter at around 5:00pm on 5 April – that contained the most chilling clues to the MOAB drop. The speech is irredeemably awful, repetitive and garbled. It is also – with hindsight, of course – quite chilling. It is worth analysing even in retrospect, I think, because we now know that the failure to take Trump seriously, to really listen to the meaning of his words, was a major factor in his electoral success.

Annotated transcript, Trump speech addressed to King Abdullah of Jordon.

“…before we begin let me say a few words about recent events. Yesterday chemical attack, a chemical attack that was so horrific, in Syria against innocent people including women, small children and even a beautiful little babies their deaths was an affront to humanity. These heinous attacks by the Assad regime can not be tolerated…”

Trump then gets back on script, although it seems unlikely the author included quite so much repetition, notably of these terms:

  • Very very
  • Many many
  • I can tell you that
  • Tremendous
  • Believe me

He also co-opts the King into his implied future actions several times. Can we assume the King agreed to this beforehand? That the King knew this co-option would later include dropping the largest non-nuclear US bomb on Afghanistan? For example:

“Your majesty, Jordanians are known …and I have to say this, for their fighting ability. And you are a great warrior, and we appreciate it, thank you.”

Trump goes on: “[The US] has looked to Jordan as a valued partner, an advocate for the values of civilisation, and a source of stability and hope.” This is standard western chauvinism, where civilisation has long signalled the ‘othering’ of the East (or the ‘Orient’), and implies a range of imageries especially barbarism, going back to at least the crusades.

“As you know”, says Trump, “the Middle East and the entire world is faced with one of its gravest threats in many many years. Since the earliest days of ISIS Jordan has been a staunch ally and partner and we thank you for that.”

This is standard wartime propaganda but Trump is also locking Abdullah into a pro-American corner. He goes further:

“In King Abdullah, America is blessed with a thoughtful and determined partner. He is a man who has spent years commanding his country, special forces. He really knows what being a soldier is that I can tell you. And he knows how to fight… The King has been a leader in calling for a plan to defeat ISIS once and for all. And I am with you on that, we’re both leaders on that, believe me. That’s what we speak about today and that is what we are going to do. And it will be a shorter fight than a lot of people are thinking about believe me we’ve made tremendous strides as we discussed.”

These are the key MOAB hints. Trump then brings together the tropes and the hints: “We will destroy ISIS [pause] and we will protect civilisation. We have no choice. We will protect [pause] civilisation. King Abdullah and I also discussed measures to destroy the evil, and ideology, that inspires ISIS and plagues our planet.”

Unless it is referring to an actual disease outbreak, plague is always a red flag term, long used by génocidaires.

Trump then uses the opportunity to speak to his domestic audience: “we also acknowledge the vital role that Jordon has played in hosting refugees from the conflict in Syria. We’ve just announced that the United States will find additional funds to Jordan for humanitarian assistance. This funding will help countries like Jordan host refugees until it is safe for them to return home the refugees want to return home I know that from so many other instances they want to return back to their home and that’s a goal of any [emph] responsible [emph] refugee policy.

Here, Trump is telling his voters that violent raids on undocumented migrants in the US will continue, and that is what the undocumented migrants – ripped from their homes, children left without parents – want.

Jordon is not only host to an enormous number of Syrian refugees. It has a huge Palestinian refugee population, and has had since 1948. This is how Trump segues onto his next chilling hint:

Finally, as we discussed, to advance the cause of peace, in the Middle East, including peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and I’m workin very very hard on trying to finally [emph] create peace between the Palestinians and Israel. And I think we’ll be successful, I hope to be successful I can tell you that. The king is been an entire, a really tireless advocate for a solution. He is gonna help me with that, at the highest level, and we will be consulting with him very closely in the days ahead.”

Trump separates the words ‘finally’ and ‘solution’ by a single sentence.

“King Abdullah I wanna take this opportunity to thank you for your partnership, working together, the United States and Jordan can work together, to help bring peace and stability to the Middle East and in fact the entire world and we will do that. Thank you very very much for being with us.”

Not that this analysis is especially revelatory. The US has brought violence and war to bear on the Middle East for as long as I can remember. We already knew Trump is aggressive and dangerous; that he is limited in his thinking, that his central organising principle is self-interest, that he is reckless and highly susceptible to being manipulated by less public characters.

But I am saying this: while the tone and syntax are quite similar, there is a sharp contrast between shallow Trump messaging on domestic policy (Jobs! I won! MAGA!) and his apparently garbled, but deathly serious, pronouncements on foreign policy. As the new week dawned, confirmation of US military aircraft intercepting Russian planes off Alaska was being reported by all major outlets.

The emphasis on confirmation is for a reason. As CNN notes in the first four sentences of its online report – above the fold, as it were – ‘Fox News first reported the intercept’. Maybe Fox just got the scoop, who knows. But I suspect that rather than looking for strategy on missile strikes, this is closer to what Trump strategy looks like.

They do not speak for me and they shit me to tears

This weekend, the Sydney Morning Herald showcased three conservative ‘young’ white women aged 28, 31 and 37 years. Most definitions of ‘young’ fall short of all these ages (and end at 25), but whiteness has long bestowed a peculiar time-machine effect which bears no relationship to reality, although it is closely associated with the shifting goal posts strategy perfected over centuries.

Anyway, the profiles of Daisy Cousens, Helen Andrews, and Georgina Downer generated a lot of comment. Daisy started a twitter campaign using a hashtag inspired by a dead white bloke who drew despicably racist and transphobic cartoons.

Into the fray leapt Caleb Bond, a 17-year-old white boy who has been propelled into the spotlight by Murdoch editors and publishers who for reasons of their own – such as disseminating patriarchal norms via shallow, ill-informed, feminist-hating trash – prefer a proportion of their misogyny and hate to be churned out from behind the face of an arrogant and ignorant school kid.

Where to start with this mess?

Nowhere, some would say. Stop, no more takes, the neocons are just building their brand on lefty outrage. Never feed the trolls.

But I disagree. These women are trolling, but they are not operating from anonymous, 50-follower twitter accounts. They are on our televisions, in our living rooms. And their viewpoints are used in specific ways to troll women like me, because I share a demographic – white, privileged (although a feminist and, as a single mum, not that privileged).

It reminds me of how Mark Latham loves to pretend he is the voice of working mums in western Sydney, as though we could not, given his platform, make a perfectly good case for ourselves.

The kind of cheap, crass argument goes like this: but Ingrid, what about the thing Daisy Cousens said and she is a woman, therefore you are wrong/extreme/isolated in your view. The ‘just ignore them’ school of thought is often said to children who are victimised by bullies, too. It doesn’t work. The same claims also imply that each new crop of nasty conservatives is a product of the left, and that our response determines their position.

These implications are false.

So I will refute the thing Daisy Cousens said as often and wherever I like. Producers and editors provide platforms to Daisy and Georgina to espouse their harmful views irrespective of whether I blog on the topic. This is mainly because our media is inherently conservative, as I wrote during the 2016 federal election campaign.

The racists and the misogynists, the climate-deniers and religious bigots, are not our mess. We did not make them and we can not make them go away. These people are a product of conservative right wing ideology. Their high-platform opportunities to broadcast narrow-minded nonsense are a product of conservative right-wing legacy media (and not of progressive, left-wing, social media).

So why the darling of panel shows status?

Perhaps these people are representative, or popular, or a brave new hybrid of youth representation via social media popularity, savvy and reach?

Nope. Even I have more followers on Twitter than any of the three women profiled. And even with the 100 new conservative trolls and attention-seekers Daisy gained this afternoon (who found her via other conservative trolls and attention seekers, not us), their reach is in the thousands at best. The women I saw who called out her nastiness, who share her demographic but not her politics, women like Asher Wolf (49.3K) and Erin Riley (6.5K) and Clementine Ford (66.7K), have tens of thousands of followers. Their reach is in the millions.

So there is no rationale for conservative white woman elevation there. What about representation?

Nope. As the Jane Cadzow article in Good Weekend reported (and I am not dissing the article, I think the journalist portrayed the three subjects well), the Australian National University found that almost 60% of women aged 18-34 years vote for Labor or the Greens. This is as good a measure as any as to whether an ultra-conservative Trump supporter like Cousens or Andrews is representative of their demographic.

Voting patterns of women in Georgina Downer’s age group were not mentioned, but the short answer is no, these women are not representative. We just hear their views anyway.

Downer claims that more conservatives is a more balanced approach to political discussion, thus simultaneously demonstrating her ignorance of the Australian mediascape, of political discussion, and of the English language.

Then again Downer also says we have an overly generous welfare system of a system which is literally killing people. So she either has no idea how the welfare system operates, which in a rational world would disqualify her from commenting on it; or she thinks life itself is too good for the unemployed, for carers, for people with disabilities, which would indicate that Downer has no humanity and in a rational world – did I mention? – that would disqualify her from commenting.

Andrews says it is a matter of supply and demand. Young conservative women are rare, and value is scarcity. In addition to being founded in free market tropes and lies based on false assumptions, the illogic of this idea is twofold (at least). First, Andrews assumes that their views are of any value at all, when nothing they say stands up to the most cursory scrutiny. Second, predictable and basic conservative views are supposed to be somehow of greater value when voiced by a privileged white woman.

In fact, conservative tropes which bear no relationship to fact or common humanity are a dime a dozen. It is almost impossible on any given day to turn on the television or radio, to open a newspaper or newsfeed, and not be exposed to dishonest and nasty conservative viewpoints.So again, the only rational justification would be if Andrews (or Cousens or Downer) were representative of a much larger population, which we have established they are not.

As old as the hills

There is one other dynamic I want to point to here (and I am using the first person as an iteration of an aggregate progressive experience). I might go on social media and say that Georgina Downer has taken a disgusting stance, that being entirely ignorant of the welfare state, of its origins and purpose, that knowing nothing, absolutely nothing, of hardship or her own privilege, that saying life itself is too good for the poor is repulsive, and that she is repulsive for accepting gigs where she disseminates this heartless, ignorant, arrogance.

In this context, Downer is commonly framed as a perfectly reasonable conservative observer, who is entitled to her view. In contrast, I am framed as part of an online outrage machine (which only exists in the conservative imagination). This framing is itself inherently conservative: it benefits cruel, and wrong, ideological positions. Her view – a view which lacks all moral compass and compassion – is elevated, normalised and validated. My view – which is ethical, logical, and humane – is seen as a bit flaky because – and this is key – my position is coded as emotional.

Coding us as ‘emotional’ – activists for peace, or climate action, sovereign Aboriginal rights and marriage equality, to name a few – is a specific form of gendered garbage that even prominent male thinkers have known is garbage since forever. Military campaigns always include a propaganda component that speaks to ‘hearts and minds’. Every patriarchal political machine plays to emotion, usually fear, while simultaneously holding itself out as the only, the rational, the common sense solution.

David Hume is remembered for his deconstruction of the naturalistic fallacy (and I do not thank him for his role in the rise of positivism) but in some ways he was a proto-feminist. It was Hume who pointed out that, far from the claims of natural law thinkers, men do not make decisions based on a perfectible human reason but are driven by passion. This is true: it is men who bash and kill and maim and stalk at the slightest slight, on the wounded ego. Nowhere is the reality of men driven by emotion more obvious than when it comes to the emotion of anger.

Same conservatism, different year

Yet here we are in the 21st century, with a dominant public discourse which uncritically reproduces and broadcasts untested claims of reason and facts and evidence and Turnbull’s favourite, common sense. These unquestioned claims are made by conservatives who have no knowledge of the subject matter but are entitled to their opinion. It is a central imperative of conservativism to devalue responses based on compassion and empathy, on equality and justice and meeting the human needs of all in a wealthy society. It is central because it is the only way ideological adherents know how to elevate their own cold and inhumane world view (they are not very bright, and are – by definition – unoriginal).

Conservatives quite literally hate the poor: they can not be bothered finding out how the poor live; and they do not care if poor people die as a direct result of their ideology. But they do not want to be seen to hate the poor, or displaced persons, or women and children. In other words, conservatives do not have the courage of their convictions, either. Millions of hours, and dollars, and column inches, and airtime, are poured into dishonestly obscuring the obscene immorality of their ideas.

This is why cashless welfare is called healthy welfare. It is the source of ludicrous posturing on caring about deaths at sea. It is why the label snowflake is applied to those who express concern about the impacts that graphic content – such as stories on rape – may have on rape survivors. It is not humane to care about the damage done by Centrelink, it is ‘social media outrage’. It is not compassionate to express disgust at indefinite detention, it is ‘political’ or pressuring people to self-immolate – an actual claim made by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, so desperate is he to push the line that conservative cruelty is neutral and normal and valid.

We might live in a world run by heartless demagogues who enthusiastically profiteer from misery and death, propped up by a conga line of nasty cheerleaders who are continuously amplified by legacy media. But the real problem, according to neocon ‘commentators’, is that the progressive left are perpetually outraged, we are snowflakes who are easily triggered.

This language is specifically gendered. For over 2,000 years, reason has been attributed to masculinity, while emotion is framed as feminine. And that is why, as a feminist and a woman, I choose to refute the horrible and harmful ideas espoused by the likes of Daisy Cousens, Helen Andrews and Georgina Downer.

Here we go again: Race, racism and 18C

Yesterday I went to March Australia (Sydney), an event which began in March 2014, six months into the Abbott government. The movement was established to mobilise against the destructive policies of a newly-elected Coalition government and the dishonest Liberal Party campaign.

In September 2013, Tony Abbott cruised to victory on a slew of lies (such as no cuts to public broadcasting, and not butchering Gonski, NBN and the NDIS); and his trademark aggression, misogyny, racism, religious bigotry, homophobia and climate denialism.

The line-up this year began with an acknowledgement of country by Shaymaa Abdullah, an Aboriginal and Muslim woman, a single mum of three and midwifery student. Shaymaa spoke eloquently about the domino effects on nutrition and mental health caused by housing inaffordability in Sydney; and by government dismantling the welfare safety net.

Next, Aboriginal man Daniel Taylor from Kunnunurra spoke of his life under the oppressive cashless welfare regime. He read out a long list of government agencies with access to his personal details through the scheme. He described the humiliation, the daily hardship, not of being poor but of the system imposed by government on the poor, in violation of fundamental human rights.

The following speakers spoke on cuts to penalty rates for the lowest paid and most insecure workers; on the continuing expansion of fracking in Queensland and NSW, and the inherent risks to food and water supply posed by this destruction of country and obscene pursuit of profit; cuts to university funding and increases in the cost of degrees through fee deregulation; and the ongoing horror that is our immigration detention policy.

These critical issues, which go to the heart of well-being in community, and to who we are as a nation, are rarely addressed or debated in good faith by the political leadership and those who report on policy and government politics. Instead, a deeply conservative, woefully inept, morally bankrupt government goes the same rounds on the pet obsessions – tax cuts, free speech, attacking unions – of the elitist few.

The Coalition is no better on economics, or science and technology, or education, or foreign affairs, of course. They invented a budget emergency in Opposition, and then promptly created economic malaise in office. They sabotaged climate policy in Opposition and destroyed any meaningful action in office.

The Liberal Party pre-selected, disendorsed, and then appeased Pauline Hanson in 1996; and re-empowered her twenty years later. It falsely conflated asylum seekers with an ostensible terror threat under John Howard in 2001; and hyper-militarised our response to people fleeing persecution ten years later.

This is from the Sydney Morning Herald letters page, 18 September 2001:

The parliamentary secretary to defence Minister Peter Reith, Peter Slipper, said today: “There is an undeniable linkage between illegals and terrorists and it is absolutely vital in my view to ensure that we don’t have illegals entering Australia inappropriately because given the fact that some of those people come from the country that is the centre of terror, I would be particularly concerned if those people were allowed to enter Australia.”

Have we shifted from this position, a full fifteen years later?

That our federal government prefers to raise, over and again, discussions which cause demonstrable harm to identifiable communities – marriage equality and LGBTQIA people; 18C and Aboriginal people, Jewish people, Muslim people, all people of colour – demonstrates a paucity of vision.

It also showcases a hegemonic bigotry that has prevailed for centuries.

The cultural backwardness, the stagnation, the absence of innovation, the dearth of ideas or solutions or creativity or competence – these are not mere embarrassments. These are the inevitable result of abuse of incumbent power by conservative elites; and of the moral vacuum in which neoliberalism operates.

A potted history of racism

The ‘debate’ on s. 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and racist Australian values more generally has been thoroughly covered by Aboriginal journalists and writers such as Amy MacQuire here and Luke Pearson here. It is tedious and exhausting for Aboriginal people to keep educating the wider populace on this.

What I want to add is some history of a white scholarship which contextualises the purpose of those who insist on perpetuating their racist views. How racism is done in Australia is simultaneously a product of a divergence and development in racist thought in England; and a founding feature of the white Australian state.

It is only 170 years old.

This is both good news and bad news: as something so recent, it can and should be reasonably easily dismantled. As a founding principle, coded into our Constitution, racism is constitutive of the laws, culture, and society of the federated Australian nation.

So.

First, race is not a real thing. It is a social construct, made up by white men who invented a hierarchy of humanity and placed themselves at the top. Less well known is the historical fact that the odious pursuits of poly-genetics, phrenology, craniology and eugenics were prompted and accelerated by the English in the wake of their ‘empirical’ observations of Australia – of First Peoples, of native flora and fauna, of country.

The English refused to see this continent, her islands and Peoples and languages and law, as simultaneously diverse and integrated; a cosmology and a reality; physical and metaphysical. Their eyes and ears did not transmit to their brains that they were looking at, and being told of, the oldest and most successful societies on earth.

As Kombumerri/Munaljahlai woman and senior research fellow at Charles Darwin University, Dr Christine Black (2011), writes,

But then I ask how can people who come from such young cultures as those of Europe comprehend the sophistication of a continuous culture that goes back more than sixty thousand years? To be truly “of the great southern continent” a newcomer needs to engage with the ancient history of the continent through the intellectual traditions of one or more of the two hundred clans in language, song, dance, and localized common law. Otherwise, newcomers are forever grafting themselves onto a landscape about which they have no real historical understanding, let alone a sustained relationship with, other than as a pit from which to extract resources to sustain the consumer lifestyle of the coast-bound capital cities. In other words, they are devoid of stories from the land. The land is silent, mute to their efforts, belligerent in its continued extremes of flood and drought.

In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in the Americas, the colonial invaders perceived First Peoples and their lands as different, but comprehendable through the lens of European norms.

According to De Vattel (The Law of Nations 1760)

though the conquest of the civilised empires of Peru and Mexico was a notorious usurpation, the establishment of many colonies on the continent of North America might, on their confining themselves within just bounds, be extremely lawful. The people of those extensive tracts rather ranged through than inhabited them.

This stipulative nonsense rationalised the extreme violence of imperial projects throughout North America, and was taken to even greater extremes here. In Australia, everything seemed so vast, so alien – to the northern aliens – that whole disciplines were dedicated to shoe-horning what they perceived of Indigenous life on the Great Southern Land into the twisted rankings and arrogant imperatives of ‘enlightenment’ theorists.

Before they saw Australia, northern concepts of race were a made-up hierarchy of humanity, but we were still ‘all children under god’. After they reached Australia, the farthest flung continent from their anglo-centric and euro-centric world, the monogenecist (one species) approach was deemed insufficiently racist. Now, said these learned men, a polygenecist view of more than one species of humanity should prevail.

Hiatt (1987) explains: ‘to the European mind, accustomed as it is to positions of authority and hierarchies of command, a state of ordered anarchy poses a set of intellectual and emotional problems’.

The shorthand for this observation these days is white fragility. The vibrancy, wisdom, social order, and above all the survival of Aboriginal people continue to pose intellectual and emotional problems to many a white Australian mind.

Racism is an objective moral wrong

While race is a made-up thing that is universally rejected by every credible institution and thinker on the planet, racism and racists remain, in law and in life. A key problems with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) is that race is simply not a legitimate organising principle for a statute. The problem is not race, because race is not real, so the legislation can not achieve its purpose.

Similarly, racism is always wrong. This is because the harm racists cause is real; while race itself is not. Speech and actions which harm people are moral wrongs, while voicing and acting on opinions which are based on a known falsehood are epistemologically wrong. This is so irrespective of how flowery the arguments, how earnest the white folks, how repetitively we wax lyrical on free speech.

The intellectual and emotional problems white people experience in the face of Aboriginal survival – and excellence – is evident in the huffing and puffing of a racist populism into which the likes of Malcolm Turnbull and Pauline Hanson and Andrew Bolt and Rowan Dean (or whoever) tap – for their own benefit.

Their arguments are always the same, and never specific. Instead, these people drag out big picture abstractions like free speech and democratic principle and balance and Rule of Law to rationalise the same creepy obsessions [content warning] that motivated their phrenologist and eugenicist forefathers.

The politics of a racist polity

Regular guest and Liberal party apologist Niki Savva was asked this week on Insiders (Sunday 9:00am ABC1) whether the Prime Minister had ‘his heart in it’. This was in regards to Turnbull arguing for law reform which would retrospectively safeguard the emotional well-being of a dead man, because he was (accurately, in my view) called a racist – a prospect so absurd that only fellow ideologues could argue it with a straight face.

Savva said yes, and she is right.

It is true that Turnbull put his heart into prosecuting a case that could be seen as arguing to ‘make Australia more racist again’. This is a living example of the ‘emotional problems’ identified by Hiatt, above. Turnbull was emotional, but I doubt it was the emotion of conviction. After all, he made no secret of being mates with a dead cartoonist who produced an undeniably racist body of work.

Turnbull also experiences the emotional confusion that is spawned by the intellectual incoherence of conservative ideology and its denialist imperative. For people like Turnbull, and those who share the same demographic privilege and worldview, this confusion and denialism tend to manifest in aggression and abuse of power. The dynamic can be seen in the conflicted and conflicting Turnbull rhetoric on 18C.

For example:

Political correctness did not silence Bill any more than terrorists did, declared Turnbull, in his favourite faux-gravitas tone, weirdly conflating two fear-mongering favourites of the far right. And indeed, being racist and seen as racist did not stop Leak or his publisher from producing and publishing racist material.

The suggestion those people who support a change to 18C are racist is deeply offensive, Turnbull told the Parliament, simultaneously trolling himself, the current wording of the section (‘insult or offend’), and the Australian people.

In sum, what was perceived and accepted on Insiders as a personal and political prime ministerial emotion over commitment to free speech and legislative reform was in fact situated in two other places entirely.

One is grief at the loss of a friend – always an emotional moment, no matter who we are or where we work. The other was classic triumphalist Turnbull, the ‘conviction’ of lording it over former colleague Cory Bernardi, who campaigned against 18C for years before deserting the Liberal ship (with an emotional, lip-quivering performance of his own).

Bernardi has rattled Turnbull throughout his Prime Ministership, so what better revenge than to cede to the cause after Bernardi left the Liberal Party, and introduce the changes in the Senate, where Bernardi sits? This has the twin Turnbullesque benefits of getting under Bernardi’s white skin, and avoiding a vote (in the lower house) on the obnoxious thing himself.

We know this is how it will play out, because Nick Xenophon, in the fine tradition of two-faced conservatives masquerading as moderates, has declared he will support the procedural but not substantive changes in the bill. We know this also because Turnbull represents the seat of Wentworth, and his constituency has a significant proportion of Jewish voters.

Every time this debate is dragged out again, Jewish community groups put in hundreds of hours defending the law as it stands; Jewish and Muslim and Aboriginal leaders stand side by side to argue against any weakening of the provisions. Nevertheless, this is where the Orwellian nonsense Turnbull sprouted about strengthening the act – by weakening it – was directed. As if such incoherent rubbish would be palatable to Jewish or any other intellectual traditions.

The disproportionate impacts of racist ‘debate’

It can not be overemphasised that the legacy of nineteenth century polygenetic racism lives on in Australia sui generis. This is because of the twin phenomena of First Peoples here inspiring white science to invent a polygenetic humanity; and because this invention was – and still is – codified into the Australian Constitution.

This is not to minimise or obscure the racism directed at African Australian communities, Jewish communities, Muslim communities, Arab communities, Chinese and Vietnamese and Indian and other Asian Australian communities, against all people of colour.

It is to point to the status of Aboriginal people as the First Peoples of this country, to their specific rights and interests as First Peoples. It is to underscore the intellectual dishonesty and scientific bastardry used to rationalise generations of laws and violence on the black body by the Australian polity – the white state and society – and which continues to be so used.

This is evident from the ‘killing that was the political economy of Australian settlement’ (Davis, 2016) as described by Cobble Cobble woman Megan Davis, Professor at Law and Pro Vice Chancellor at the University of New South Wales.

It can be seen in the material connection between harmful stereotypes of Aboriginal people (such as those depicted in cartoons published in The Australian) and medical neglect, as articulated by Kamilaroi woman and barrister Louise Taylor on the death of Ms Dhu.

It has been said over and again, year after year, such as in the work of Tanganekald and Meintangk-Bunganditj woman Irene Watson – Professor at Law and Pro Vice Chancellor of Flinders University – who writes of laws which ‘construct all aspects of our being, even the construction of our death and the displacement of our bodies’ (Watson, 2005).

This tradition, the jurisprudence of colonisation, continues today – by Turnbull and the Liberal Party, Hanson and Bernardi – and backed by the law-making power of the Australian Parliament. The magnificent self-sufficiency of First Peoples here so confounded the invaders that whole new sciences were invented to rationalise cruel and violent laws. The young culture of the aliens is still beset by the intellectual and emotional problems posed by our failure to comprehend the sophistication of a continuous culture that goes back more than sixty thousand years.

Meanwhile, in the real world, we are talking about the harm caused by racists, and by dehumanisation of welfare recipients, and indefinite immigration detention, and the increasing cost of degrees, and penalty rate cuts, and housing insecurity, and CLIMATE CHANGE.

Conservatives really do fiddle as the world burns.

 

On the dangerous dishonesty of Rule of Law

With an outbreak of interest in and ignorance of two legal precepts, Rule of Law and the 1500-year-old lex iniusta non est lex an unjust law is no law at all, here is a bit of background on origins, authors, influences, and adherents.

The bones of the debate are this: the highest placed union leader in Australia, Sally McManus, was asked by Leigh Sales on 730 (ABC1) if she “believes” in the Rule of Law. McManus based her reply on the natural law philosophy that laws must have a moral dimension and a relationship to justice – and ought not cause injustices.

Over the years, philosophers have disagreed on the correct response to an unjust law, and have attempted to codify types of injustice. Do we leave the state which makes unjust laws for a more just society which does not? Do we obey the unjust law for the sake of some greater social good, such as stable government? Is an unjust law nullified by its unjustness, is it neither valid nor authoritative, because it does not meet an essential criterion for being a law? Are we justified in disobeying this unjust command which is not a law? Are we morally obliged to resist the command that is not a law?

Surely participating in and contributing to injustice is an objective moral wrong?

It will surprise nobody that these nuances were lost in the ensuing debate, which has (rightly) been overshadowed by the strategically brilliant and intelligently articulated reply from South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill to yet another poorly-conceived federal government thought bubble on energy supply.

But as I was writing a jurisprudence lecture on Aquinas and friends today anyway, I decided to post an explainer on the debate, and the origins of its false assumptions.

The incoherence of conservatism, then and now

Despite their fondness for identifying longevity with authority – the longer a principle has been around, and survived, and invoked through the ages, the greater legitimacy it carries – conservative thinkers reacted to McManus with predictable clickery and conformity.

Like most conservative incoherence, these people reject identity politics, yet judge a clear statement of principle not on what is said but who is saying it. So when McManus says that unjust laws can and should and will be challenged, your local conservative reporter frames her sentiment as imminent anarchy. This is despite the fact that McManus is drawing on an ancient (in European years) tradition found in the works of Augustine, Aquinas and Locke, works which provided the rationale for the American War of Independence, ideas which inspired Martin Luther King.

In contrast, when laws which do not suit the conservative agenda are challenged – such as the mining industry campaign against a perfectly sensible and just attempt to establish some kind of sovereign wealth mechanism – the ‘news’ is merely ‘reported’. As though vested advertising from the mining industry is impartial and reasonable, rather than an affront to principles of equality, democracy, and justice.

Following the 730 interview, prominent voices and high traffic sites – Buzzfeed, Fairfax, the ABC – immediately started peddling the angle that challenging unjust laws is some kind of unprecedented call to arms. In fact, it was the top union leader in the country sensibly discussing workplace safety and the human cost of employer negligence that sees human beings killed on construction sites. (And shout out to Crikey, who lined up left of Buzzfeed, and to Guardian journalist Paul Karp, who took on two Fairfax heavyweights.)

Workplace safety and union solidarity sit squarely within the remit of Sally McManus’ job description. A philosophy that rejects unjust laws also lies squarely within her expertise. Yet she does not enjoy the faux-neutral reportage – acceptance – that is enjoyed by the mining industry, for example, or the passing of profoundly anti-democratic laws by conservative governments. These laws are specifically designed to safeguard mining industry interests; and massively increase fines and maximum custodial sentences for protestors. Additional laws dramatically reduced the maximum penalties for toxic spills and other forms of destruction of country caused by big mining.

Conservative commentators could draw the most rudimentary and relevant comparisons between huge fines for striking unions and insultingly small penalties for employers who create conditions which kill workers. The edgy performative crew of political writers and editors could read a book, or google, before tweeting out ahistoric ignorance (and clumsily walking it back, complete with auto-correct error). But they do not.

Their hegemonic response relies on Hobbesian authoritarianism, which is coded into all Australian Constitutions. This tradition says the lead task of the political leadership is ‘peace, order and good government’. While the US chose Lockean revolutionism to throw off English colonial rule, Australia chose Hobbesean order. We are not the loveable anti-authoritarian larrikins we like to think. We still have a foreign national as our head of state.

Both Hobbes (1588-1679) and Locke (1632-1704) were deeply influenced by the English civil war from which the version of liberal democracy that is practiced here sprang. This model relies on the doctrine of separation of powers for power-sharing arrangements across the executive, the parliament, and the judiciary. Those fighting for a sovereign parliament – where sovereignty is the legitimate authority to make laws governing over a population in a defined territory – prevailed over the absolute monarchy that preceded it.

Theology and theory for population control by church and state

Social contract theory thus has its origins in a period of turmoil and bloodshed, of the English people rising up against tyranny. It was also an age of secularisation and the declining influence of the church as the lead source of moral authority. The theory proposes that citizens are born into a social contract with the state. The social contract replaced original sin as the prevailing belief system imposed on new born babies by members of the ruling classes, the academy, and the judiciary – none of whom ever gave birth to a baby.

If Rule of Law is closely associated with the social contract, original sin was a favourite fetish of Augustine of Hippo (354-430). The earliest coinage of lex iniusta non est lex is attributed to this famously sexually confused man of god, a man who rejected the pleas of Pelagians seeking refuge from the fall of Rome. The ‘reason’ was that Pelagius rejected the Augustinian cult of baptism.

It is beyond me (as it was Pelagius) how anyone could hold a new-born baby and think ah yes, so sinful, best get a self-hating turned-celibate man to half-drown the wee one before she can grow into a professed christian who refuses asylum to refugees fleeing imperial violence. Augustine thought it necessary to cleanse new-borns of the taint of the fall in the Garden of Eden. This kooky nonsense prevailed over the sensible and obvious truths of the innocence and blessings, the beauty and joy, of a living, breathing baby.

Aquinas (1225-1274) came along around 800 years later. He, too, made his name by theorising the norms imposed by a patriarchal and cruel church on the most precious and demanding (and life-threatening) imperative of humankind: birthing new humans. In a common technique, Aquinas looked to the works of Augustine, and re-interpreted that with which he did not agree.

He also christianised the philosophy of Aristotle, and retrospectively justified the rampant slaughter of Muslims that was the Crusades. For this immensely immoral rationalisation of the seemingly endless violence of the christian west, Aquinas was canonised by Pope John XXII in 1323. His jurisprudence continues to be taught today as a reformist and enlightened force for good (an altogether different take is taught in my classes). His Summa Theologica is quite literally part of the western canon.

Because the men who theorised our relationships with church and state were confused and deluded, the contemporary discourses which draw on their legacy also tend toward a confused babble of mostly conservative white blokes bickering over how best to govern (regulate/control) various sectors of the population.

There is nothing new under the sun, as my grandmother was fond of quoting from Ecclesiastes, a book which, fittingly, also gave us vanity of vanities, all is vanity! For the enthusiasm of some journalists to happily make themselves the story is not only an exercise in vanity, it is in breach of first principles of their own profession.

Rule of Law, in the news and in real life

Speaking of first principles, the Rule of Law is one. Do you believe in the Rule of Law? is a question by and for simpletons, which does not (or should not) fit any description of a host or guest on the national broadcaster. It is tacky gotcha journalism, it is joining the outrage machine, it is creating and participating in manufactured controversy. This is dismaying at best coming from 730 and the ABC. It shows bad faith, and displays zero intention for a nuanced and meaningful dialogue which will educate rather than divide an already divided populace.

The interview was immediately and, I suspect, unspontaneously disseminated across social media by journalist colleagues with significant followings. The posts gave every impression of their authors being on notice to make the 730 program the story. The technique is getting old: tried and tested at QandA, and to a lesser extent on The Drum, it seems 730 and Insiders have boarded the clickbait bus – which (I hope) is in decline.

Meanwhile, the robust defence of Rule of Law from conservative quarters came with deep ignorance of its content, origins, meaning, and status. If there is an upside to this embarrassing clamour, it is that people with a clue will be invited to speak clearly on the biggest lie of common law legal systems. The claim that all are equal before the law; and no-one is above the law is not true, and was never true. Maybe we will get to learn about this in the wake of McManus’ comments.

The noble idea of equality before the law – symbolised by a blindfolded Lady Justice – is what lawyers call the content of the Rule of Law. It travels alongside its blue blood cousin, which describes democracy as a government of laws and not of men. Both principles perpetuate mythologies of objectivity, neutrality, and impartiality to which conservatives earnestly subscribe. White law tends to look impartial to white people. But neither principle bears up under the most cursory, let alone critical, scrutiny.

Our jail populations reveal the truth of a violent and racist patriarchal state: a government of propertied white men, for propertied men, by propertied white men. Our jails are full of Aboriginal people, of poor people, of illiterate people and people with intellectual disabilities and mental illness, people who are survivors of child sexual assault.

You will not find Rule of Law in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), the authorising legal instrument for the creation of the federated nation. That is because Rule of Law is not a law. It is a foundational principle of the common law, and the common law is a product of the class-riddled imperial mind set of upper-class Englishmen.

These same people traversed the globe, slaughtering whole populations, claiming ownership of vast tracts of land, plundering the resources of territories which were sustainably managed for millennia. Backed by military force, they attacked the institutions and traditions of First Peoples, of Indigenous governance and learning, spirituality, and law-making – and then told them everyone is equal before the law.

All this was also backed by the soft power of theory and principle, of tropes and lies like Rule of Law, produced by the complacent and comfortable men of god and state and the academy.

Their descendants, and direct beneficiaries, are a dominant minority to this day. A demographic elite who overwhelmingly constitute the executive (highest decision-making power and authority) of every institution in our society: private and public, government and political parties, corporations and industry, universities and religions and the fourth estate. This lot are still out in force promulgating the lies and violence of yesteryear. Like their forefathers, they deploy positional privilege to belittle and oppress those who speak truth to, and challenge, and make visible, inherited and unmerited power.

This is not some social media storm in a teacup. Aboriginal people killed in custody and workers killed on construction sites are real people, in life and in death. And if there is one thing every culture treats seriously, it is the taking of the life of a fellow human being. But in our culture, not all humans are seen as fully human by the dominant group. It is members of this group who ensure that when it comes to the errors and horrors of their own, there is still nothing new under the sun.

Tax sugar, they say, but no price on carbon emissions

The story this week is climate change. Not that we can forget the catholic church is responsible for crimes against humanity; or our collective responsibility for destroying lives on Manus Island and Nauru; or the dangers of our government and its new best friends One Nation building up racism and other forms of bigotry, off a very high base.

Conservative (adj): averse to change or innovation

But the real story this week, and every week of every summer from now on, is climate change. Our political leadership is not up to the job. Conservative governments are not, by definition, equipped to deal with new challenges, being composed of people who chose to join a conservative political party. They do not like to concede this obvious point, because they are also people who seek the power to control others (to govern); and who yearn to appear masterly and successful.

Hedged in by these inherent incompetencies and ambitions of their own making, the options for dealing with the ‘new’ challenge of irrefutably irreversible man-made climate change are limited. Turnbull or Joyce, Pyne or Frydenberg, Ciobo or Morrison, they are all the same. They represent, and only represent, a monoculture of material comfort, of limited life experiences, and the narrowest of narrow perspectives.

Their choices are to lie and dissemble, to distract and deceive, to derail and delay and deny. Oh, and to bully. In a homophobic way. Simpering sycophant. Sucking up to Dick. Tucking his knees under the rich man’s table. Sucking hard in the living rooms of Melbourne.

‘Sucking hard’ on what?

These are the tools in which the current front bench is trained. Like the blinkered horse, they stare straight ahead, at the Labor Opposition, and to their own re-election chances. This is all they see. The horse is blinkered to minimise distraction, but we can not blinker our politicians in real life. So in addition to their narrow, limited outlook, we get distraction after distraction.

We get a piece of lacquered coal passed around the government benches in the Parliament. We get the Prime Minister shouting sympathy for those who can not turn on the aircon due to a blackout. It does not occur to him some of us do not have aircon at all, blackout or no. Does not cross his mind. Limited. Blinkered.

Turnbull says the problem is renewables, and Labor. To the latter end, we see Peta Credlin – former Chief of Staff to former Prime Minister Abbott and former COS to former Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull – telling Sky News that the 2013 Coalition campaign against a price on carbon was never anything but a giant scare campaign built on a mountain of lies and yes of course they would and will do it again anytime anywhere. This is moral bankruptcy of the first order. The implications for Abbot’s Stop the Boats campaign are unspeakable.

Such is the integrity of the conservative parties in Australia. And because conservatives weaponise everything, this garbage rhetoric is all wrapped up in the language of security. Border security. Energy security. But there is no security for anyone – not for you, not for me, not for our grandchildren, not for the planet – while the only solution on offer is to use public resources to subsidise more coal – while the earth burns.

Turnbull makes Nero look statesmanlike.

Politics and Policy 1: Politics

Speaking of conservatism and distraction and lies, it is barely more than a week since the ABC ran saturation coverage of What Cory Did Next. There is no excuse for multiple replays of Bernardi’s querulous slow-mo mumble, whining that climate debate took a terrible toll, poor fellow, not just on him but on his family. Ah, yes, how Bernardi and family must have suffered as papa B went about the toll-taking toil of scuppering any and all efforts to implement global warming mitigation policy.

Fellow homophobe and religious extremist George Christensen is also attracting all sorts of attention. His opposition to a proposed sugar tax would be straightforward retail politics – lots of sugar cane plantations in the Christensen electorate – except that Christenesen sits in the Lower House. The Turnbull government lost 14 seats last July, leaving it a single seat majority. (This, incidentally, is why the party room will not scupper Turnbull – in case he throws a sulk and leaves).

In the USA, institutional checks and balances are proving woefully inadequate at putting any meaningful restraint on the excessive bigotry, dishonesty and bullying, the moral bankruptcy and dangerous incompetency that are the decades-long hallmarks of the man who is now President.

There are similarities here – the greed of crony capitalism, the erosion of assumed base line principles – which will excite some sections of the commentariat. But this doesn’t mean much. These are people who get excited by the national leader engaging in homophobic bullying on the floor of the Australian Parliament.

Neither a rat in the Liberal ranks of the Senate nor a shift from a one-seat majority to minority government will make much difference here. The conservatives will keep blocking anything remotely resembling sensible climate policy. Legislation will keep failing in the Senate until Turnbull throws enough public moneys at the cross-bench – in that irresponsible, chaotic, megalomaniac way of his – to get what he wants.

In other words, it is business as usual. Turnbull never articulated a policy agenda anyway: he rationalised toppling Abbott by citing opinion polls. He never had command of his party room – few of them even like him. He has no record of sound leadership or judgement (see Australian Republican Movement, emissions trading circa 2009, non-existent marriage equality) or successful negotiation. The ABCC bill he used to trigger a double dissolution was negotiated out of all recognition AFTER Turnbull squandered tens of millions of public dollars recalling the parliament and running an eight-week election campaign. He could have just as easily done that BEFORE wasting so much public money (and quite a bit of his own).

If George moves to the cross benches, yes the government will be nominally a minority government. Perhaps George will not guarantee Supply, but that seems unlikely. The government is still trying to pass measures from the 2014 Hockey budget, and government has not shut down. If George goes, the constitutional lawyers will be rolled out for comment, interviewers will nod earnestly, but so what? The nation got a crash course in the mechanics of minority government – from a master of the art, the most effective Prime Minister in the history of federation – four years ago.

And Turnbull will keep bullying Labor to back his agenda, which is largely payback for Rudd convincing Turnbull to back his ETS (and subsequently losing the opposition leadership to Abbott). In Turnbull world, his 2009 compromise was not his error to own, but something to be blamed on others, specifically Labor. Whatever. It will not work. Like Rudd was, Turnbull is a factional outsider, which Shorten is not.

So the Senate cross-bench rabble is slightly more rabblish with Bernardi, but ultimately he remains a crashing irrelevancy. In contrast, climate policy and the failure of the political press to ignore the distractions and to instead analyse the pressing issues of our time, are relevant to everyone, including those yet to be born.

Politics and Policy 2: Policy

While it is not all about the politics, or should not be, Coalition climate policy is about nothing but politics and an ideology founded on the false claim that self-interest is rational. Understanding policy direction requires an understanding of ideology, because policy is the codification of ideology.

This is in fact how democratic government works. A party founded on a set of ideas (an ideology) runs an election campaign based on its policy platform. If it wins, those policies are drafted into bills and passed into law (my more detailed explainer here).

To think the law is impartial, or that laws are free of partisanship or ideology, is to ignore this most basic of civics lessons. If the citizenry are without critical skills and civics knowledge, that is the responsibility of education governance. But there is no excuse for self-identified expert commentators to overlook these fundamentals of liberal democracy.

The Coalition policy, Direct Action, is a dog’s breakfast of a thing. It transfers public resources – tax collected from the public and redirected via fiscal policy – to high pollution-causing profit-seeking private sector enterprises. How could such a policy be perceived as rational by anyone?

The answer is ideology: because ‘rational self-interest’ is the central tenet of free market liberalism. For everyone who profits from the mining industry, and for everyone who benefits from mining industry donations, giving public resources to the mining industry is in their self-interest. Ergo it is rational.

This sounds daft, because it is daft. Nevertheless, it is a dominant organising principle of free market capitalism, and operates in tandem with the hyper-individualist ideology of liberalism. This is political economy as it was once understood, before conservative promotion of wilful ignorance disaggregated the two.

Even now, commentators speculate in faux wonderment as to how Hansonism is on the rise again. Is anyone analysing why Hansonism does not rise when Labor is in power? No. Self-interest directs the conservative mindset to treat her unoriginal brand of bigoted opportunism as random happenstance, even as the Coalition parties enthusiastically fan the flames of – and normalise – religious and racial bigotry at every turn.

This is partly a function of the make-up of the Coalition parties. The constituent parts include old-school authoritarian conservatives, nominal liberals who can not apply the most basic tenets of their ideology to policy or governance, and former agrarian socialists turned client spruikers for the mining industry. Each member of each group operates in a moral vacuum filled by greed, aggression, and bigotry.

All this is underpinned by selfishness (‘self-interest’) being encoded into their ideological values as ‘rational’. Similarly, to not pursue one’s own individual self-interest is judged to be irrational. The link was conceived three hundred years ago by propertied white men who excluded everyone else from the franchise. The same group then universalised their values through dominance of public discourse; and continue to do so today, through the mechanisms of dominating legacy.

Human beings are a social species, but patriarchal societies reward aggressive individualism. This is called ‘competition’. In a sensible world, competition is for games, for tennis or chess, for entertainment and recreation. It is not the key to human survival. The keys to human survival are co-operation, reciprocity, mutuality, and love.

We may be all born equal in dignity and rights, but who gets to exercise those rights, or who gets to live a life free of governments deliberately violating those rights, is very selective indeed. And the selection criteria are bigoted nonsense: race and ethnicity, gender and sexuality, religion and dis/ability, wealth and class and the access to education and health services that capitalism ensures is correlated with income.

In sum, rational self-interest is a terrible organising principle. It informs the decisions and actions that have brought about irreversible man-made climate change. And it can be found everywhere across the liberal democracies, in every institution: government, media, universities, corporations, religion, everywhere. These institutions are rigidly hierarchical. The executive is invariably monocultural and rationalises self-serving decisions which cause purposeful, demonstrable harm to those outside their elite and exclusive group. This toxic norm infects all decisions and actions, from the top down.

High-taxing, high-spending, big government

One of the most profound analyses Paul Keating offers of the Coalition is that its claim to a commitment to markets is in fact a commitment to business. This illuminates the Coalition rejection of a market mechanism-based price on carbon (which successfully reduced carbon emissions), for a policy which transfers public resources to high polluting industries (which does not).

Similarly, conservative political leaders routinely express a commitment to small government. If the rejection of a market price on carbon in favour of subsidising polluters is high- spending big government, the proposed sugar tax is high-taxing big government. It is a distraction, of course, but a harmful one, because the arguments ‘for’ attack the poor.

A distraction with collateral damage to low-income Australians is par for the neoliberal course.

The sugar tax was borrowed from David Cameron, the failed British Tory Prime Minister who stood down after losing an expensive xenophobic campaign which was designed to settle conservative scores but which instead now poses an existential threat to the United Kingdom. The sugar tax proposal has the same flaws as the Coalition climate policy; because it comes from the same ideological place.

Paternalistic do-gooders are trotting out the usual lies of liberalism in support of a sugar tax: that a market mechanism (making sugar more expensive to dampen demand) is the correct policy approach to rising rates of obesity and diabetes.

The fastest rising diagnoses in the western world are anxiety, depression, diabetes and obesity. What does this say about the toxicity of our societies? Or about the cognitive dissonance of being fed, year after dreary year, the message that we are free, and autonomous, and have liberties and rights, when government interference in what you put in your shopping trolley is based on your income.

A sugar tax, goes the paternalism, will be good for the poor. It is only fair. The poor are irresponsible with the below-poverty-line income we so generously provide. In fact, poor people are the least profligate with public moneys – they have to be, or they die. In contrast, politicians throw the stuff around with merry abandon, a hundred million on entitlements here, $2.2 unauthorised billion there, squillions to private sector contractors over decades to the failed Job Network, ABS outsourcing, off-shore camps run by the incestuous web of Wilson Security, G4S, Serco, Transfield.

What is the return on our investment in shipping Joyce and Bishop around, in paying those profiteers in human misery to employ rapists on Nauru, in spending tens of millions on automated extortion of welfare recipients? How is the national interest served?

The answer is that the national interest is not served. This is not investment. It is toxic dilettance. The claims of liberalism, so tediously reproduced – selfishness is rational, reward is commensurate with merit, public accountability is the norm, lack of accountability is an exception –  are demonstrably false. Yet instead of a ‘small government’ that listens to the people in a nominal democracy, we get ever-increasing government surveillance and erosion of democratic rights: an inept and expensive data retention regime, criminalisation of democratic participation by protest, higher taxes, higher spending (evidenced by a deficit doubled since 2013), big brother big government.

And still, and still. What about the climate?

Jingoistic white nationalism stops with me

With 26 January looming, it is that time of year in Australia when the gatekeepers of the national narrative go into overdrive.

Where I live, in western Sydney, it is easy enough to look around the train carriage or campus or shopping centre and celebrate diversity. It is equally easy to forget, unless venturing into the large and poorly-conceived social housing estates, that western Sydney has the largest Aboriginal population in the country.

And on 26 January, it is impossible to ignore the social fact that white Australia relentlessly, aggressively promotes the dominant agenda: whites are nation-builders, we ‘let’ the migrants in, we obscure the violence of our own ‘entry’, we are the arbiters of what is, and of what is not, Australian.

An early salvo from DIBP

One example of the dominant narrative is how junior minister for Immigration and Border Protection Alex Hawke stopped Freemantle Council holding a citizenship ceremony on Saturday 28 January. His is the department which the Australian National Audit Office reported has spent $2.2 billion on off-shore detention without authorisation.

This shambolic, cruel, militarised, and eye-wateringly profligate branch of executive government is designed to manufacture and disseminate xenophobic hate. And its 2IC (from the wealthy white northern suburbs of Sydney) confidently told a local government in Western Australia that its citizenship ceremony ‘has got to be apolitical, non-commercial, bipartisan and secular’.

Given the rabid politics in which white Australia engages around 26 January, these criteria would be met by changing the date of the first Freemantle citizenship ceremony for 2017.

At no point did Hawke articulate what exactly is ‘political’ (or commercial, or partisan, or religious) about 28 January. Unlike 26 January, which is obnoxiously white and hideously commercial, 28 January is just another day on the calendar. There was no mention that 28 January is the saints day of Thomas Aquinas, although Hawke is a former Opus Dei adherent and, given his position, likely to be as unapologetic an Islamophobe as his boss. Such mention would have been quite fitting: Aquinas christianised the philosophy of Aristotle while developing retrospective justifications for the christian west to invade Islamic countries and slaughter Muslim people. His just war theory (!) is embedded in the contemporary law of war (which, typically, is called humanitarian law) and invoked to this day.

But Hawke did not have to win his manufactured controversy on the merits or in the marketplace of ideas

He just threatened Freemantle Council with the power of the Commonwealth to revoke authority to hold citizenship ceremonies. Hawke backed this threat with an insupportable interpretation of the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code. The code does not stipulate that citizenship ceremonies be held on 26 January. In fact, such a directive would breach the code:

In keeping with government policy that ceremonies be held at regular intervals, local government councils should hold ceremonies at least every two to three months, regardless of the number of candidates available to attend and more frequently if necessary (ACCC 2011: 6).

It is par for the neoliberal course to label a decision to make a public ceremony more inclusive as divisive. Freemantle Council put up a decent fight, but was ultimately forced to move its scheduled 28 January citizenship ceremony.

A junior minister threatening to unilaterally operationalise federal power to bully a local government was widely reported, but without analysis of why Hawke got so worked up about a local council events calendar.

Why intervene? The strength and longevity of Aboriginal Australia

There is more to the wrongs of 26 January than whining hypocrisy and dishonesty from the likes of Alex Hawke. He is a mere microcosm of how incumbent conservative power is abused to retain dominance. Hawke was successful on his own terms: he got his mug in the press, playing to a racist constituency. Other councils will now resist change which could mitigate some of the harm caused by ‘celebrating’ 26 January.

And the nation is the poorer for it. Every time new Australians are sworn in on 26 January, they are co-opted into the colonial project. To become an Australian on 26 January is to become part of ongoing dispossession, of the goals and narratives of the colonial settler state, and to participate in the endless whitewashing of a violent history.

Surely new Australians do not want to erase the 50,000+ years of over 300 sovereign nations, their populations, their societies, their law and languages and traditions, which are the oldest continuing cultures in the world? Traditions that, as journalist Amy McQuire writes, include a slew of firsts from astronomy to bread baking to burial rituals to art to the most sophisticated and sustainable agricultural practices ever devised.

If we are seeking to redress dispossession, as we say in another dishonest narrative, we would not frame 26 January as a day of national pride. But in its current form, the Recognise campaign is as likely as every other white Australian agenda to further erase Aboriginal people and their sovereign rights.

At best, Aboriginal people are expected to show gratitude for crumbs from the white table, when an entire continent and her islands were taken by force. At worst, constitutional change will be interpreted by future governments and the courts as Aboriginal people collectively ceding sovereignty to the colonial settler state; something no Aboriginal nation has ever done nor stated any intention to do.

People like Hawke are deeply threatened by the fact that Aboriginal people have survived and maintained so much of their culture and traditions. During his crusade against Freemantle Council, Hawke did not once mention the meaning of 26 January to Aboriginal people. Instead, he relied on the inherent racism of the non-Aboriginal population to fill in the gaps around his false claim that  28 January is somehow a political/divisive date for a citizenship ceremony.

Inclusion and collusion

Speaking of crumbs from the table, this phrase was used more than once to describe a commitment by a crowd funding campaign which raised over $120,000 to donate leftover money to Indigenous organisations.

The money was raised to reinstate billboards and publish print ads depicting two girls wearing hijabs and waving Australian flags. The original digital billboard, funded by the Victorian government and developed by QMS media, showed a rotating series of images. It was taken down following threats of violence by tiny but well-known (because well-covered by legacy media) white supremacist groups.

A #PutThemBackUp campaign quickly gained traction. New billboards have since appeared with the same image of the girls, and the words ‘Happy Australia Day’.

That many Australians put their money where their mouth is for the purpose of addressing racist violence against Muslims is not an incontestable social good, although it did prompt some nuanced conversations about the implications of the billboards, the day itself, and another campaign: #ChangeTheDate. Conversations, I should add, that have been had many times over many years.

This generous post by Nakkiah Lui was widely shared and applauded. I say ‘generous’ because while racist threats by white supremacists are easy to spot, many Aboriginal people are still taking the time and effort to explain the ways in which self-identified political ‘progressives’ erase Aboriginal people, history and culture.

My own reaction was to cringe at the fact that the campaigners failed to consider Aboriginal perspectives until prompted.

Does it matter that the campaign was instigated by a director of Creative Edge, the advertising company that is reinstating the billboards? Or that the alliance offered ‘leftover money’ to the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre before CEO Kon Karapanagiotidis turned their minds to Aboriginal perspectives – well after the initial target was reached?

Does it matter that many Aboriginal people were once again compelled to expend valuable time and emotional resources on educating white and multicultural Australia on what is wrong with celebrating 26 January? Or that a commitment to ‘deliberately not mention 26 January’ morphed into billboards saying Happy Australia Day?

HAPPY AUSTRALIA DAY? Would you say happy Israel independence day to Palestinian locals on the anniversary of the catastrophe? Would you, in the month of May, donate to fund billboards of Aboriginal children wearing ochre to ‘celebrate’ Al-Nakba? In Bethlehem? Naqab? In Ramallah?

Moral relativism and the national character

Commentary on such issues tends to draw on specific philosophical traditions, whether proponents are aware or not. For instance, concepts from classical economic theory, such as cost-benefit analysis and utility, are often applied to moral questions. This is a legacy of the enlightenment: Jeremy Bentham applying (half) of Adam Smith’s ‘free market’ theory to the (im)morality of the carceral state; Herbert Spencer butchering Darwinian evolution to justify the racist violence of imperialism.

Where an event or series of events produces feel-good benefits to one section of the population and tangible harm to another, it is justified by utilitarianism, the short hand for which is ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. The problem is that we can reliably predict to whom the harm will be done and to whom the benefits will flow.

In Australia, with just about any political or social movement, the harm will disproportionately impact on the Aboriginal population.

So the claim is that the campaign did more good than harm, or produced a net social good. This is to succumb to JS Mill’s tyranny of the majority, which in turn relies on hyper-individualism for coherence. The thing to remember here is that for Bentham (and Kant and Rousseau and the rest) only property-owning white men were fully human.

This is the real root of identity politics. The corrupted version is used by opponents who have a vested interest in continuing to obscure the role of demographic privilege in life outcomes. We know who will benefit and who will not from any top-down policy or action. The evidence speaks for itself.

For example, the rate at which the state imprisons Aboriginal people has increased since desegregation freed people from mission managers and dog tags and town-limits curfews; since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. The rate at which Aboriginal children are forcibly removed from their families has increased since the Bringing Them Home report, increased since the Apology to the Stolen Generations.

And these are policies which were said to be redressing past crimes against Aboriginal people. More commonly, Aboriginal peoples, and their sovereign rights as First Nation peoples, are not taken into account at all.

Inevitably, the response to critics is: what have you done? Is doing nothing better? At least we are doing something.

Implicit in this response is the utilitarian calculus: this action is better than the actions of white supremacists (and armchair activists). But also embedded is the value of change for its own sake. Like other nonsensical values such as extending government control over the citizenry for its own sake (data retention is an expensive hotch potch of IT amateurism; cashless welfare, at huge public cost, has no discernible benefits to people on welfare) this unquestioned assumption is dangerous.

Its economic manifestation is growth for the sake of growth, a capitalist value which has brought us to the brink of extinction. Its social manifestation is progress for the sake of progress, where a dominant minority defines progress: bigger houses? Smaller telephones? Greater connectivity? Labour market ‘flexibility’, rising inequality and income insecurity? Incessant, endless, unwinnable wars?

The not-dominant narratives

There are various reactions to the billboard campaign. Members of the many Aboriginal and Muslim communities have spoken out against a campaign which celebrates a day marking the start of colonisation, and their voices should be amplified: the links above to Amy McQuire and Megan Davis and Nakkiah Lui, the IndigenousX platform created by Luke Pearson for unmediated Indigenous perspectives; Aamer Rahman saying the billboard campaign is an ‘expensive way to throw Aboriginal people under the bus’.

It is also important to note commentary which emphasises the well-meaning motivations of the well-intentioned. This trope is a sop to whiteness. It is routinely trotted out to obscure the genocidal policies which caused monumental harm to the Stolen Generations and their descendants. When supposedly good intentions are so profoundly damaging, the crime should be treated as one of strict liability: absolute legal responsibility for which mens rea (the intention) does not have to be proven in order to convict the guilty.

From my point of view – and I speak only for myself, a white Australian and feminist (and graduate economist) – the billboard campaign is a misallocation of resources. It is exhausting for Aboriginal people to keep explaining how Happy and Australia Day do not go together. It re-traumatises, it marginalises, it causes fatigue, it takes up valuable time and effort, it drains energy from the struggle to see Australia recognise and redress its ongoing colonial crimes.

Where could these resources have gone instead? To Aboriginal women’s refuges, to Aboriginal legal and health services, to Indigenous literacy, to a trust fund pending consultation.

But there is also a missed marketing opportunity. The billboard could have featured the words Change the Date. And the billboards could have had a message which foregrounds the fact that white and multicultural Australia share something profound: we are all on stolen Aboriginal land.

The Centrelink system is working to plan

It is in you, he said, gesturing to his heart. It never goes away.

Last Thursday a mate and I had a few quiet drinks and a post-festive season debrief on my back veranda. He grew up in poverty, in cars and refuges and low-income neighbourhoods, his education disrupted, his parents often absent – to shift work, to incapacity. He holds a university degree, a steady job, and a mortgage with his partner.

Inevitably we got talking about the federal government policy of sending 20,000 letters per week to past or current welfare recipients demanding repayment of past or current or – with an error rate of at least 20% – non-existent debts.

It is difficult to remember when I started earning enough to stop reporting my income to Centrelink, as a sole parent raising three children in western Sydney while working part time and studying law. But I will never forget the process. The dehumanisation, the penalties incurred on utilities bills due to Centrelink errors, the time, the ‘voice recognition’ which could never identify my employer correctly, the stress, the humiliation, the look on my children’s faces as I yelled at the phone, their avoidance behaviours around excursions and other expenses, the cost, the cost, the financial and emotional and personal and family cost.

Being poor is hugely and unnecessarily expensive, and it does not have to be like this.

Our government has gone out of its way to make what is already a horrible and inefficient and expensive process much worse than when I reported fortnightly, first on paper and in person and later by telephone to a machine. It is horrendous for income support recipients, for Centrelink staff, and for the budget bottom line.

According to Appendix E – Data matching of the 2015-16 Annual Report, the Department of Human Services spent $19.5 million in 2013-14, $25.5 million in 2014-15 and $8.3 million last financial year on its data matching program. That is, our government has allocated over $50 million in the last three years to produce the outcomes reported in the first week of 2017: outcomes so appalling that a government agency is making blanket referrals to the suicide prevention service Lifeline for hardships caused by its own actions.

Let that sink in: Centrelink is using social media platform Twitter to refer income support recipients to Lifeline, because some ‘customers’ are suicidal after receiving letters sent by the agency demanding repayment of debts that people have not, in fact, incurred. This is the return on a $50 million investment of public moneys.

Many were letters stamped with the Australian Federal Police logo demanding information under the code name Operation Integrity.

It will surprise no one who has observed the Turnbull government that the operation has no integrity. The link above does not provide a breakdown of Operation Integrity costs. But it offers this:

“From 1 July 2016, $45.1 million will be invested in the myGov digital service over 4 years, to ensure people can continue to interact with the Australian Government online, ensuring access by all tiers of government. … the next phase of improvements to myGov. $5.4 million will be invested over 2 years to modernise this service and ensure it continues to deliver on the government’s commitment to make services simpler, clearer and faster.”

From what I can tell, and I may not be reading it correctly (the reporting methods are oblique at best), this amounts to an additional $50 million for a total of $100 million for the years 2013-20. Again, to use the government-preferred econospeak, this ‘investment’ has a return. In the first week of 2017, the dividend included driving some low-income Australians to suicidal despair. And causing incalculable hardship to other welfare recipients across the country.

To put that figure in perspective, the politician expenditure for the first half of 2015 – this is above and beyond their $200-500K+ salaries, and does not include the cost of their staffers – was $48 million. That is for six months, so a reasonable guesstimate is that yearly expenditure would be around $100 million. More recent figures do not include total costs.

Welfare recipients have 21 days to respond to a threatening letter, but political expenditure disclosure is delayed by at least six months, as are political donations reporting requirements. For example, next month we apparently find out whether Turnbull threw in around $2 million to his own re-election campaign, the one where he lost 14 seats and claimed a mandate, including for these kinds of nasty policies.

Remember, Scott Morrison told us in the dying days of that dreary campaign that a re-elected Coalition government would continue to hate n the poor while cutting company tax rates (although a tax cut for entities which pay zero tax still generates zero revenue).

So from a government preaching fiscal restraint and sound economic management, we have seen a) $50 million spent over four years (2013-16), with another $50 million slated for the next four, to persecute the poor; and b) $100 million spent in one year (2015) to ship Barnaby Joyce and Julie Bishop and their ilk around the country and the globe. The return on that ‘investment’ by the Australian public – over which we had no say – is a) harm to welfare recipients up to and including contemplation of suicide; and b) Who knows? Presumably contracts to client donors, but if there is a discernible benefit to the nation I have yet to see it reported.

Independently wealthy politicians, people who have never missed a meal in their lives, are an enormous drain on the public purse. They are born into families that can afford to choose expensive educations which set the kids up for life. They grow up to be blind to their own privilege, yet make decisions which further marginalise and oppress identifiable groups in society, groups to which they have never belonged, and for whom they are utterly unqualified to make decisions.

Turnbull and Porter and Joyce do not understand that the entire point of fiscal policy, of a civil society, of collecting taxes and allocating resources to essential services, is to provide for those who – due to age, disability, parenting responsibilities, labour market conditions, whatever – can not always meet basic human needs such as food, housing and utilities.

And this is in a wealthy society whose shape and values are determined by people such as themselves, by the beneficiaries of inherited wealth. A society which in the 21st century means that ICT and metropolitan transport are necessities – for job-seeking – on top of food and shelter. A dominant culture which refuses to value reciprocity, mutuality, sharing, love. A government which co-opts these values to spout nasty and abusive rhetoric on mutual obligation and correct entitlement.

A government which pretends that a system which data-matches welfare recipients to Australian Tax Office (ATO) records is somehow acting on behalf of some special category of taxpayer, by persecuting some other category of taxpayer. People who paid taxes and received income support in the same year are the people receiving these letters: they are, by definition, taxpayers. As is anyone who has bought anything other than fresh food since 2001.

But that would be putting facts in the way of this government’s favourite pastime, which is to demonise welfare recipients (when it is not persecuting people fleeing persecution, or trolling women, and migrants, or ignoring Aboriginal rights).

This is a government entirely composed of people whose luxurious taxpayer-funded lifestyle falls outside of welfare categories. Its support base is also made up of people who enjoy private school fee subsidies, the medical advances borne of public teaching hospitals, immediate $20K write-downs on small business costs… but these are not classified as welfare either.

Under this value system, those who want for nothing are worthy of hundreds of millions in public moneys. Yet receiving and spending public moneys on food and shelter (rather than, say, mining truck diesel fuel) is somehow unworthy.

What a way to run a country which has been skilfully and beautifully managed for upwards of 50,000 years. A place of pristine rivers and verdant soils, of generosity and beauty and bounty, if only those who seized it for themselves could see.

The senior Minister, Christian Porter, insists that the system is working incredibly well, that it is a gold star system, that no better system could be designed. The junior minister, Alan Tudge, is nowhere to be seen or heard. The agency mouthpiece Hank Jongen consistently reiterates that he has complete confidence in the system. To date, the Prime Minister has not commented on the fact that a government agency is systematically driving low-income Australians to despair.

The evidence shows that the system is causing enormous harm to the poor. The minister and the mouthpiece say the system is working as it is supposed to work, operating as it is designed to operate, producing the outputs it is programmed to produce.

I believe them.

MYEFO mutterings: casual workers have heard it all before

This week I had the very familiar experience of listening to a neoliberal ideologue treat his audience as economic dunces.

It is symptomatic of neoliberalism that its public faces are well-remunerated to take economic claims at face value. Their task is to reproduce these messages to an audience of staff or readers or students or voters. The audience members are in turn expected to meekly be co-opted into the neoliberal project, just like the boss.

The boss prosecutes the case for increasingly precarious employment (for others, not for himself), for abolition of penalty rates. He may or may not understand that his claims rest entirely on ideological grounds, rather than actual economic efficiency measures.

The exorbitant cost of executive salaries – staff cars and subsidised fuel, business class travel, sabbaticals, superannuation – are invisible in these speeches. Yet the cost of paying casuals by the hour for work completed is framed as an expense to be economised. Meanwhile, high staff morale, reduced inequality, and the creativity and innovation that comes with a diverse workforce and social cohesion, lead to higher productivity. This is in contradistinction to neoliberal messages delivered by the boss to causal staff.

The causal work force

Neoliberal messaging is founded in a specific value system; and based on criteria developed by people who are very expensive to retain. For instance, an unspoken assumption is that paying an executive to travel to a conference is of value to the organisation; while penalty rates are a cost. No evidence is demanded for this kind of calculation.

It is not impact-neutral for the causalised worker to listen to this at our Christmas drinks event. The executive may benefit from delivering the message, but the worker does not. To be treated as expendable, to see our pay packets shrink, to be told our rates are unaffordable by people on hefty 6-figure salaries: such experiences are dissonant, and unpleasant, and take a long-term toll.

The causal worker can not ask whether another overseas trip for the boss is really better value for money than properly remunerating those who do the frontline work. The casual worker can not point to the efficiencies, the productivity gains, the savings in staff turnover that would stem from income security and basic conditions for the frontline workforce. It is much easier for senior management to denigrate young people as flighty or fickle than to recognise the unproductive privilege to which executives are accustomed.

And because it is easier, which is the opposite of hard work, that is what the executive does. This dynamic can be seen across the private sector; and its equivalent in public life.

The public sphere

People like Treasurer Scott Morrison and Finance Minister Matthias Cormann – and Barnaby Joyce and Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott – give every impression of being economically illiterate. They are a huge cost on the public purse. Yet these men have no hesitation in telling, say, welfare recipients how to live on a tiny budget in deeply unnecessary poverty.

A neoliberal government will characterise welfare recipients as a social problem lacking money management skills. In reality, people who rely on welfare to feed and clothe themselves and others – sole parents, carers, unemployed people, aged pensioners – are very adept economic managers. There is nothing unskilled, or lazy, or immoral, about maintaining a household on a pittance while the government of the day continuously attacks your very existence.

That government of the day, by contrast, is comprised of highly remunerated members who enjoy every social and financial structural advantage of a wealthy western nation. Many have been paid from Treasury coffers their entire lives. I have no personal knowledge of how ex-police officer and current Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Peter Dutton has amassed a $20 million property portfolio. But we can be sure Mr Dutton would claim this wealth is a product of hard work, or savvy investment or risk management.

Whatever risks Dutton has taken on behalf of himself and his family, it is only with money, and only while his base salary is paid – and thus the risk underwritten – by the state. The risks taken by Dutton on behalf of asylum-seekers, by contrast, are life-and-death matters: his decisions have directly resulted in mass human anguish, provided access for rapists to rape women and children, have triggered self-immolation, overseen forced child birth. We have paid upwards of $10 billion to see these lives destroyed on our watch.

Misallocation of resources

Organisations which propagate falsehoods such as an individual’s financial reward is commensurate with their hard work are really terrible economic managers, because the propagation of such messages requires resources. Every resource – time, money, labour, raw materials – allocated to the lies of liberalism could be spent on some other project, with some other return on investment.

It is a simple concept. Economists call it opportunity cost. Every dollar spent on one consumer choice is not available for every other possible spending decision.

The return on investment might be concentrated in the hands of the few, or it might produce long-term social good. Or harm. The $10 billion spent on Wilson Security and other interests to destroy the lives of asylum seekers has the return of electoral victory for a Coalition government.

Free market principle says that if people can amass vast private wealth through innovation and hard work – JK Rowling, say, or Bill Gates – they can do this without being subsidised or underwritten by the state. Similarly, public investment is for the long-term social good, or at least it is under principles of social democracy.

In contrast, principles of neoliberalism… just kidding. Neoliberalism has no principles, unless it is power (and wealth) for power’s sake.

The NBN is an example of the difference between social democratic principles and neoliberalism. The NBN is a national infrastructure project, conceived with a strong social justice component. High speed affordable internet for all would see delivery of knowledge and expertise to rural and remote areas, producing direct dividends in health and education; and indirect dividends in equality and social cohesion.

The NBN has since been transmogrified into a hotch-potch of inferior technology, private interests, and badly-managed compromises. It is costing more, for less social good – and more returns on investment concentrated in private interests (such as highly paid executives). Malcolm Turnbull has overseen this reallocation of resources from social good to private interests. While many insist he is innovative, is tech-savvy, those commentators ignore the fact that a man who amassed huge wealth from business decisions (and joined the Liberal party) is unlikely to be committed to, let alone skilled at, public-sector economic management.

Despite the dividends to rural, regional and remote areas, Turnbull’s deputy Barnaby Joyce is no more committed to the public good. Joyce was famously demoted by Tony Abbott for conflating household budgets with national fiscal policy. But while Barnaby was expendable on the point back in 2010, the current Treasurer has a tendency to do the same thing.

On top of his salary, Joyce claimed over $1 million in entitlements for the first half of 2015. Politicians together claimed $48 million for the same period. While welfare recipients must report any income within a fortnight, or suffer severe exacerbation of their existing poverty in the form of payment suspension and cancellation, the delay in expenditure reporting means we do not know yet the cost of politicians for 2016.

This year the costs will include most of that horrendously long election campaign. The one where Malcolm Turnbull gave himself 8 weeks, most of it on our coin, to secure the approval of the electorate to stare down his conservative back bench but instead lost 14 seats. It is unlikely the 2016 politician expenditure bill will come in under $100 million.

Again, that is on top of their $200-500Kpa salaries. Those 226 federal government MPs do not come cheap. But like the senior executive railing against the causal workforce payroll bill, this cost is all-but-invisibilised while a man with the morals and judgement of Scott Morrison is sent out demonise the unemployed, the carers, the sick and the aged.

It really is the most disgusting spectacle.

If the Coalition in government has grossly mismanaged the economy and can not maintain a triple-A credit rating, it should set out the causes, and the solutions. That is what agile innovative thinkers would do.

Warning: MYEFO ahead

Instead, Scott Morrison will come out tomorrow and tell lies about the state of the Australian economy. He will pretend all is almost well or sort of okay but what is wrong has nothing to do with him, the Treasurer, and his complete lack of any credentials for the job. He will resort to mumbo-jumbo on seasonal adjustment and commodities prices. He will claim there are international factors. He will say economic head winds are inevitable. He will put on his serious voice to say these are serious matters. Over which, alas! he has no control.

Morrison might mention globalisation as though it occurred recently – which it did, in conservative years. Conservative years are like dog years (with apologies to dogs) – one human year to seven conservative years. When you hear a mainstream commentator blathering about the problem of social media as space where people can comment? When facebook has been mainstream since at least 2009 and it is 2016? He is conservative.

Anyway. Morrison will lie about the dismal results of four years of Liberal economic management and wash his hands of his own gross ineptitude before turning to his favourite pastime: blaming Labor and demonising welfare recipients.

Australia avoided recession during the GFC under Labor, but looks unlikely to do so under the current Coalition government. Australia retained a triple-A credit rating under Labor, but seems less likely than ever to do so under the Coalition. No matter how nonsensical or the overwhelming evidence, Morrison will spend the time and expertise made available to him on the MYEFO to blame his political opponents and hate on the poor.

This is what economists call misallocation of resources. Morrison could be seeking and implementing solutions but instead, with the backing of the Coalition leadership, will decide that Labor-blaming and poor-hating is a viable option. There is no positive return on this to anyone but – surprise – the Coalition leadership team. Our polity is diminished by it. Welfare recipients are further disempowered.

Time and expertise, ever more so in the digital age, are subject to the same economic realities as any other resource. These public goods – Treasury officials, infrastructure investment, air time on the national broadcaster – continue to be misallocated by our government. To an economist, misallocation of resources is evidence of poor economic management.

The problem with White Ribbon Day: Everything

White Ribbon Day causes harm to women who have survived men’s violence.

Seeing a man like Mike Baird wearing a white ribbon, a man who ripped apart women-run services, re-traumatises women who have survived domestic violence. This is a man who, with great fanfare, announced the appointment of a Minister for the Prevention of Violence Against Women, while homicides by men against their intimate partners – that is, women who they lived with or who were trying to leave – increased by 40 per cent.

So the Baird strategy is an abject failure, with which women have paid with their lives.

Baird treats our safety from men who bash and kill women as an asset-stripping exercise. Baird and Abbott and Turnbull take women’s services, strip us of everything that has been built up over 40 years, and defund us on hyper-ideological pretences.

As a religious man, Baird then hands what is left – the social services equivalent of a shell company – to client donors, to organised religion, to Mission Australia and the Salvation Army and St Vincent de Paul aka the Catholic Church.

These are organisations which, on the evidence, should never be given responsibility over the lives of women and children. These organisations take children from mothers who have been traumatised by men; these organisations have, for centuries, been staffed by men who rape and otherwise mistreat children. And women.

In my household, where I alone have been responsible for feeding and clothing and educating and keeping safe three children, White Ribbon Day is a day to take a deep breath and remember that my society, and my government, sees us as an opportunity for a fancy breakfast and a lapel pin.

I remember back then, fourteen years ago now, wondering what it would be like to get through an entire day without thinking about safety first, without obsessing over where we had been, about what we had escaped. I remember wondering if I would ever live a day without the flashbacks every hour, the horrors every night.

But time really does heal all wounds. Through soccer seasons and camping trips and social media connections and being our fabulous selves, we have become people who are not defined by a man’s violence. Time and love and family and friends and music and having a job and education and sport and safety – all of these together healed the wounds.

Above all, safety.

Every time I unlock the front screen door, fourteen years later, there is still that tiny moment. I take a breath, and remember past fears, and give thanks for being able to walk into my front yard without checking for potential danger. It is a muscle memory thing, a bodily reminder. Moving into a house with a lockable screen door and a gate was a revelation. A gate! I could not believe how safe I felt. I had never felt so safe.

We are still safe. Due to eternal vigilance. Due to my strength and resilience, and that of my children, and to family and friends who supported us through hell and high water – where hell and high water is a euphemism for the violence and the threat of violence perpetrated by an adult man who said he “loves” us.

In those years, I completed a law degree. I enrolled in post-graduate study. I had the benefit of a comprehensive social safety net that allowed me to parent and to work. I bought the house with the gate. I have seen one child into the adult world, with two more on their way. I do this with enormous privilege, with tertiary-educated whiteness, with family support, with friends who praise and do not judge, with the universal education and universal healthcare – and income support when needed – that are the cornerstones OR SHOULD BE THE CORNERSTONES of our society.

And every year, I shed furious tears and shake with anger and pain when White Ribbon Day comes around. At this organisation made up of members who know nothing, absolutely nothing, about men’s violence against women and children. This organisation which causes trauma, by minimising and trivialising the cause, the source, the problem. This organisation which paralyses my otherwise normalised existence, which reminds me again, as though I needed reminding, how little our society cares about people like us.

White Ribbon compels women to mobilise, to donate free research, to volunteer valuable time, to combat the myths and victim-blaming which it unreflectively reproduces. White Ribbon is white patriarchy, it is men dominating the message, it is damaging and harmful to women and children. Like the organisations to which women’s services have been handed, the corporate interests and organised religion (same thing), White Ribbon does enormous harm and precious little good.

Dear White Ribbon. Please get out of the public sphere. Shut yourself down. Forever.

The gold plated ABCC bill, or who is counting the damn cost?

As duly noted by headline after headline, interpersonal relationships in the Pauline Hanson One Nation (PHON) party are dysfunctional.

Yeah, we know.

If the focus must be on internal party dysfunction, maybe take a look at the governing Coalition: conservative homophobes Cory Bernardi and George Christensen; dangerous and confused racist Peter Dutton and opportunistic wingman Michael Sukkar; sadistic prosperity theology adherent Scott Morrison, who shouts from both sides of his mouth.

It is dissonant (at best) to ignore ongoing internal government strife while simultaneously and enthusiastically projecting Turnbull as an innocent yet besieged ‘moderate’.

Take a look at the National Party backbenchers who voted against their senior Coalition partners this week. Or the Nat ministers who exited the chamber rather than be seen to abstain. Looks like a governing Coalition in strife, no?

No, because we take what the governing leaders say at face value. Floor-crossing is all good, Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce assured airily, gurgling about individual rights. No problem. No, he will not say whether he supports the position of the no-shows, although he is completely free to, should he choose to be accountable to the electorate.

What’s that Skip? Accountability? Westminster principles, you say?

Nothing to see here, confirmed the boss. Turnbull was supposed to be speaking, statesmanlike, on free trade discussions at the Peru APEC meeting. But instead, he was side-lined from his own agenda by the racist rabble in his own ranks. As usual.

By a stroke of luck, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection had once again cleared the air for Turnbull to wax lyrical on our successful multicultural nation while carefully conflating migration with a non-material terror threat.

Just kidding. This is what passes for strategy in the Liberal Party ideas room these days.

Dutton did the usual thing, went on Sky News, made nasty racist remarks about refugees. He defamed hundreds of thousands of Lebanese Australians, presumably including much loved parents and grandparents who have passed away. He did this by implying that Lebanese Australians who arrived here in the 1970s are responsible for 21st century terrorism in Australia, which has not in fact occurred. Dutton referred to charges, not convictions: like the plod he is, our man remains wilfully ignorant of basic principle such as innocent until proven guilty and all equal before the law.

Dutton’s implied premise is that ethnicity is a determinant of criminality. This is the worst kind of social Darwinism, and does not stand up to basic scrutiny; although it does remind us that science can be, and has been, racist. Dutton defamed a dead liberal Prime Minister in the same breath, but whatever. Turnbull was probably not a Liberal during the Fraser years anyway.

A nasty and harmful routine

This bad cop-worse cop show that Dutton and Turnbull routinely perform is getting old. It goes like this. Dutton says something grossly racist. Turnbull is asked to repudiate it. Acres of column inches, volumes of airspace, open up for Turnbull to play his besieged moderate character.

Our diversity is our strength … we must guard against extremism, Turnbull lectures paternalistically, for the purpose of appearing pro-multiculturalism while conflating migrants with terror threats.

Malcolm loves this stuff. He must. Why else would Dutton be sent out to perform the opening scenes of the act every other week?

Hard to say.

The smart money is on another atrocious MYEFO. Such cynics. Causing actual harm to actual Australians is obviously better governance than addressing yet another looming MYEFO mess. Has this Coalition government passed a budget since regaining power in September 2013? Three years and two months ago? Why do you ask?

Everything old is news again

Speaking of racists, the story of embattled Senator Rodney Culleton looms large for all the wrong reasons. What does it matter that he and his leader are not talking to each other? Surely this is a last order issue. Perhaps the fourth estate is holding to account those federally funded extremists who deny climate change and peddle race hate on our coin?

Nope. The Culleton case does matter, but not because of internal PHON disunity. Along with bankrupt builder and former Senator Bob Day, Culleton matters because his status as a Senator is potentially unconstitutional.

This is costing us an enormous amount of money.

The cost has blown out as a direct result of the government seeking to secure the Culleton vote for its double dissolution (DD) bills despite what they did or did not know about the validity of his election. The bills had to be voted down earlier this year, to give the PM his bold, Turnbullesque double dissolution announcement. Nine months later, the bills can not be allowed to be voted down, because that would deprive Malcolm of oh who knows. Some triumphalist nonsense.

It is all about Malcolm. And it is costing a small fortune (or what is a very large fortune to most of us).

The phony grounds for the DD election are at stake, the election in which the government lost 14 seats and still claims to have a mandate. Naturally, no amount of taxpayer funds is too great, no plotting or dealing too dodgy, up to and including accepting the vote of potentially ineligible Senators. The alternative would be…well. The alternative would be more egg on the face of Malcolm, to which he is presumably becoming accustomed.

But men like Malcolm do not think like that.

Recall that in the tedious, dying days of that 8-week campaign, the Treasurer started shouting false and nasty claims about welfare recipients. Again. This is par for the course. Identify any group in society already oppressed, violated, impoverished and disempowered by the state – as well as by the dominant social classes which benefit from state oppression of others – and the Liberal Party will hitch its wagon to further crushing their life circumstances.

This is a government that demonises children who care for sick parents. Why?

I mention this because internal Coalition campaign polling would have shown One Nation gaining momentum. It is axiomatic that the Liberals tell lies to woo (back) One Nation voters. It was the Liberal Party that first pre-selected Hanson. The Liberal party created her name recognition. They gave her a platform. John Howard accommodated her racism for base political gain, no matter the cost. Turnbull, Morrison, and Dutton are doing so too.

But there is trouble in dystopia.

Hanson’s brand of sexist racism and xenophobia has always attracted nasty opportunistic men. We have been here before. Hangers-on like David Oldfield and John Pasquarelli rode her coattails to government salaries, before crashing and burning in a blaze of incompetence. Hanson and a new loopy-bloke coterie rise phoenix-like from the ashes.

A few sums

And all the while we fork over millions to fund this vicious brand. We pay these people to hate on welfare recipients, to tell lies about Aboriginal people, to whip up anti-Islam sentiment.  From 11 Queensland parliamentary salaries in the 1990s, to four Australian Senate salaries now, One Nation does not come cheap.

Queensland MPs are paid $166,621 base salary. Those 11 Queensland MPs would have cost $5.5 million in today’s dollars. Think what that funding could do for Queenslanders escaping domestic violence. These are people who claim that governments pay ‘more’ to Aboriginal welfare recipients on the basis of their Aboriginality, a blatant lie. Yet all this cash was for nothing – except it created a latent platform for One Nation to return.

Today, on top of Australian Electoral Commission per vote funding ($1.6 million in 2016), the cost of PHON senators begins with base salaries of $190,550 (three years for three of them, six for Hanson). That amounts to $2.85 million, to which we can add at least another $1.5 million for entitlements and other costs (at $100K per senator per year). Add in time spent spreading hate and climate change denial on our national broadcaster.

And tell us again about welfare recipients, Scott.

Imagine if Aboriginal women who have a clear vision for treaties, land management, the arts, migration, social justice, health (to name a few), were speaking instead of Hanson and Roberts sitting on high-platform panels. This barely happens. While across Australia, Aboriginal people are doing this work: Aboriginal rangers, caring for country; Aboriginal lawyers working for justice; Aboriginal doctors, artists, academics, journalists.

And what we get in the public domain is One Nation. Backing an inquiry into racial discrimination law, pushing onto an NBN committee. The NBN. Hanson. Appointed with Turnbull’s blessing.

These people add nothing to the social good. They cost us tens of millions of dollars. In return, we get further damage to what social cohesion Australia can claim. It is because of this massive cost and damage, rather than any mealy-mouthed accommodation and normalisation, some cup of tea, that One Nation has to be taken seriously.

The cost, the damn cost, and the legal dimension

Culleton is now before the High Court, which is far from cost-neutral. This follows a murky trail, the seeking or circumventing of legal advice on the eligibility of Culleton or was it Bob Day, by Attorney General George Brandis. Former Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson reportedly sought further QC advice on the matter – which again, is not cheap (my post on the AG abomination re the SG here).

All this came under scrutiny in the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which – did I mention? – is not cost neutral. Senate Committees cost thousands of dollars, in transcribing and livestreaming and approvals, in the time of highly qualified and highly remunerated individuals. As though SG Gleeson or chair Louise Pratt could not be doing something more useful than mopping up the mess made by the Commonwealth Attorney General’s misleading claims? (Full findings on Brandis misleading parliament: here).

Whether Culleton was legally elected under s.44 of the Australian Constitution is yet to be determined. Only the High Court has jurisdiction to decide this, irrespective of Culleton blustering, embarrassingly, about recognising it. This is no more Culleton’s decision to make than it is for the Solicitor General to determine – rather than advise the government on – the legality of Culleton’s election to the Senate.

The transcript of Culleton addressing Chief Justice French is not just excruciating but enraging. Hearing the Chief Justice schooling a racist oaf like Culleton contradicts every basic principle I teach to future lawyers.

Where I come from, first year tutorials are run by income-insecure post-grad students in overcrowded classrooms; and incur HECS debts which burden many students, particularly women, into middle age. Yet this blustering fool, who we pay $200K pa to air his rough-n-ready racist views on the national stage, a man riding the coattails of the most outspoken hater in Australian politics, refuses to reach into his pocket for a lawyer. He gets a one-on-one tute from the Chief Justice while handing us the bill, while hating on the poor.

Disgusting.

Who knew what, about the potentially unconstitutional election of Culleton, is yet to be fully exposed. What we do know is that Turnbull and Brandis will disregard cost and throw any amount of other people’s money at dubious political strategy for dubious political gain.

And it may yet all amount to nought. To money down the drain. Wasted, by a profligate government which touts itself as superior economic managers to their predecessors. Their predecessors who, by the way, recession-proofed Australia from the GFC.

Post-truth indeed.

Despite Culleton and the shadowy role of the Attorney General, chewing up resources across the most expensive political and legal processes in the country, despite the cost, the damn cost, who is counting the cost? If Culleton is ousted, by law or by volition, we may never know.

The disappearance of Senator Bob Day

Many would say Who cares? And fair enough too. Day is gone. By all accounts, Day is a charlatan and a spiv, a man who rips off home builders and leaves tradesmen unpaid, while seeking high office, while indulging in dodgy deals, quite possibly in breach of s 44(v) of the Australian Constitution.

But Day does matter, because he is a type, he is a pattern; and those who unashamedly courted his vote are still running the country.

Like Pauline Hanson, Day is a former Liberal party candidate. Having failed there, Day was elected as a Family First candidate. He failed there too – as mentioned, he is now gone from the Senate. He is also a bankrupt building company founder – on any measure, a failure. So a man whose public profile alone amounts three ignominious failures. Yet the government tapped Day to herd up cross-bench votes to get its bills through the Senate.

Talk about reward for merit in a liberal democracy.

And here is a government which actively wooed this bankrupt building boss to shepherd in the Senate vote for the Australian Building and Construction Commission Bill 2014 which massively empowers building bosses to disempower workers. The law will result in on-site, legally sanctioned, government-endorsed deaths of construction workers, most likely the youngest workers with the fewest employment options.

Yes, it will. Tell us again about youth unemployment, Scott.

As has been analysed at length on this site and by independent media, the government productivity claims for the ABCC are not merely erroneous but disproven. Academic and bureaucrat economists have demonstrated that the false claims arise from errors in an Econtech (now part of KPMG) report (Allan, Dungan and Peetz, 2010).

Yet still Turnbull wrote to His Excellency:

‘The government regards this bill as of great importance for promoting jobs and growth, improving productivity, and also promoting workplace safety through taking measures to deal with widespread and systemic criminality in the building and construction industry.’

What Turnbull says to Cosgrove, along with 13 pages of legal advice (from George Brandis!), does not change the findings that the claims are wrong.

Nevertheless, the Prime Minister made the claims, in writing, to the Governor General; who duly repeated the falsehoods when he recalled the parliament, presumably misleading it.

Which brings us to where we are today

Turnbull is now negotiating and compromising on a bill that he refused to negotiate without a double dissolution election which delivered Culleton to the Senate, potentially unconstitutionally; an 8-week campaign, most of it paid for by the public; and a loss of 14 seats, which he calls a mandate.

As I write, news came in that a government bill failed in the Senate because Hanson and PHON colleague Brian Burston, on whom the government was relying to get the legislation through, failed to show up to vote. Presumably these two people were sorting out their internal party problems. This presumption is based on audio: the Hanson and Burston audio grabs on Culleton. He had some personal issues. He needs to better communicate.

Oh never mind, said the government. The bill will be presented again in the morning. Like running the Senate is a game. Or cost neutral. Which – did I mention? – it is not.

How many services could have been provided for the cost that One Nation meetings just cost the Australian people in wasted Senate time? And will again tomorrow? How many life-saving dialysis sessions, how many life-changing literacy classes, how many places to escape from violent men?

Of course the racism, the hating on welfare recipients and women escaping domestic violence, the abuse of process, the piteous nodding from the national broadcaster – all these things are top-order issues; and these are real costs.

At the same time, the hypocrisy, and the lies, and the harms – these are not unrelated to the financial cost, the eye-watering financial cost. The money. The dollars. Just quietly, I want what I pay in tax to go on universal healthcare and education. Carers. The unemployed. Women and their children escaping violence. Not Senate games. Not schooling idiots in the High Court. But maybe that’s just me.

Who is counting the costs?