Monday, September 1, 2014

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

A Budget Emergency

"No, I don't think you have to lie to get elected," Joe Hockey said to a ravenous pack of Panthers on the ABC's QandA program last night. The crowd erupted in jeers.

Later on in the program he admitted you could call the proposed $7 co-payment to see a GP a new tax if you wanted, but continued his denial that this added up to the Liberal Party breaking its election promises, instead saying that you could also "call it a rabbit" if you wanted.

Back in my journalist days we had a saying: "Bad news lasts a day, a scandal lasts a week". It would come up often - whenever someone chose to dig in, lie, or obfuscate when you could feel it in the air that an apology would do the trick. People can usually accept crummy news better than deception.

Hockey's meaning has been made overt in other statements - whether or not the government has raised or introduced taxes is irrelevant given the dire need to fix the budget and people should accept that.

It's an interesting study in communication. The government's belief, that they were elected to fix the economy and as long as their actions are in line with that people will understand, is clearly failing to connect with voters. Polls have slid. People have marched. Audiences have jeered. Most remarkably, Bill Shorten has turned into a person, sparked into being by community outrage. Much like the opposition before him, his fortunes rise on the government's missteps.

Why is that? No-one is surprised by the Coalition bringing a tough budget, reining in Labor's spending and pushing everything else into the back seat behind the economy. You can almost feel the bewildered frustration in Abbott and Hockey's responses these last few days: "why aren't you getting this?"

I think it comes down to three things: the (perceived at least) betrayal of trust through broken promises, the lack of articulated vision and a tendency to say random, ill-thought out stuff every day that conflicts with everything else they've ever said and get mad when people hear it.

They're all interconnected, but let's start with vision.

Abbott was an epic level opposition dude, masterfully destroying Labor at every turn. His campaign was, basically, "these guys wrecked it and are acting like children so put me in". It worked super hard but there's nothing in there that says what kind of Australia he wants. Stopping the boats was his big thing but that's arguably a fringe, populist issue designed to weaponise people's ignorance. When they took office, the Liberals remained focused on punishing Labor through things like Royal Commissions and carbon tax repeals - still no vision.

Today, their big thing is returning the budget to surplus.
Now, I know that surplus is preferable to deficit in the same way that a winter coat is preferable to a t-shirt, but my senses must first perceive the snow. Abbott and Hockey have approached our "budget emergency" as if it were as obvious and incontrovertible as a blizzard - they're staring out their frosted windscreens in disbelief while we rage against them for letting the air out of our beach balls. Now, perhaps we're inside with the heater on or maybe it's just not that cold, but we're finding it hard to listen.

Because money is a transitory thing. No (sane) person wants money because money. They want money because houses, because education, because comfort, because happiness.
This is the bit the government lacks. This hard budget will deliver a surplus, but what then? Why must we pull together for that goal? The Howard government fired surplus after surplus upon an eager populace and to what end? What did they build?
The election campaign was built on Gillard's ideals - Gonski, help for the disabled, tackling climate change. They did it poorly and lost, but there wasn't an opposing plan except for "not that" and "money". Big, abstract budgets get minimised by people - they focus on their personal situation and losing $7 if you get sick becomes the focus. The only way to combat that is with a reason why. Oddly, the Coalition has all the bits of their vision floating around out there - they want to empower individuals to contribute and be valued for their merits while helping to build an economy robust enough to provide a safety net to the true needy and withstand financial upsets - but they can't deliver it because of the other two things.

So, the other two things: Losing trust and saying weird stuff.

Lightning round of paraphrased statements and perceptions!

"The age of entitlement is over!" and 'everyone will shoulder the burden!'
This new catch-cry doesn't work when rich people will only shoulder their burden for four years and then be fine. Nor when so many effects will hit the poorest the most.

'Howard's budget was tough and they were hit hard in the polls too, so no biggie'.
Thrown out by Abbott only days ago and found to be false the next day by people who went back and looked at the polls. Further cements the idea he is making this up as he goes.

'We're on a unity ticket with Labor on Gonski'.
An example of the many promises thrown out by Abbott in the dying days of the election. Abbott is now fiddling around the edges by saying he didn't mean the Liberals would do the whole shebang as Labor had promised. This was always true, but it ignores the emotional truth of that statement. 'Unity ticket' is designed to neutralise education as a voting issue as both parties are the same. That's what people hear. You can't change that with the finer details. Further evidence of 'it sounds good so say it'.

'Australia was on notice that we would do everything to repair the budget'.
Used to imply that any broken promises are unimportant in service to a broader good and that people are cool with that. Attempts to sidestep reality of broken promises. The problem with this pitch is it exists alongside constant examples of the party refusing to answer questions of 'did you break a promise'. The two things cannot coexist.

'No cuts to ABC, pensions, SBS, dog-walking schools, etc'
Abbott bizarrely threw out a range of these promises long after it was clear the election was in the bag. They're right up there with 'no carbon tax' as so clearly articulated as to be inescapable. A prison of his own design. As said above, refusing to admit the obvious just makes one seem ludicrious.

'Y U so mad @ $7 GP payment? That's two beers! Also ciggies are totes pricey.'
Hockey's voicing the above is one of two things - a roundabout way of speaking to his base of welfare recipients as drunken bludgers or further proof of a complete lack of what words mean. Neither are good when you're trying to convince poor people to come along with you on the budget cut train. Also, please tell me where I can get two beers for $7.

I could go on for a long time, but you get the point.

Resulting perception: Abbott was elected in opposition to Labor rather than on merit or because he advocated for a society we desire.
He successfully categorised Labor as a bunch of children making it up on the run and entered a social compact with us all that he would offer maturity and "no surprises". Since being elected, he has been the opposite. His main contributions are Knights and Dames (came as a surprise, no-one asked for it) and his maternity leave scheme. His 'signature' idea, the scheme is utterly at odds with his party's entire ethos, offering assistance to people well off enough to fend for themselves. It's so gregariously apart from all other measures that it seemingly exists as originally characterised - an olive branch to the ladies in an attempt to combat perceptions that he's a misogynist. Beyond that, its very existence hamstrings the 'budget emergency - we all must help' narrative.

It's their most repeated problem: destroying their own messages. The GP co-payment is a good example. The sell is that we need to chip in to create a sustainable health system, cut the debt and reign in spending. When the budget came out, however, it was revealed that proceeds would go to funding an enormous medical research fund. There are now two competing ideas  - the one above and a "if you oppose co-payments you don't want to cure cancer" narrative which feels reflexively offensive in part due to being such a massive surprise.
The natural response is: "which is it?" If you care about a surplus you're mad at the proceeds going to a Big New Thing. If you care about medicine you're mad at the co-payment. Madness reigns and no-one created any of this save the government themselves.

There is endless evidence now to support any and all negative impressions people have of the government. Vague assertions that the Liberals hate poor people, don't believe in climate change and have a vendetta against the ABC can now be backed up with evidence they have provided. On the other hand, all positive impressions have now been betrayed. The mature hand on the wheel has found itself in a nasty skid.

None of the above, interestingly, gets in to the politics. You can believe wholehartedly with the government's ideology and still be stung by the structural problems in their communications.

All of the above adds up to an impression of a government that has no plan and is out of touch with the lives they're affecting. I'm on the record as saying politicians shouldn't make promises. This government made a lot though, and they can start digging their way out from under them with a few words, I think.

"Yes. We broke promises. We're raising taxes. We're sorry. But this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. We're all adults here and we're capable of pulling together. Now, here's what we're going to build..."

I can't imagine the next bit, but I'd really love to see it. 

Monday, April 7, 2014

Sam Simmons' Death of a Sails-Man: Review

A man walks into a bar - well, it’s a tent - where he watches a man windsurf while arguing with his subconscious about whether or not wanking directly into the ocean would be amazing.

The above is, obviously, not so much a joke as it is an accurate description on my Sunday evening just gone.

My mega-fiance Leen and I went and saw Sam Simmons’ Melbourne International Comedy Festival Show, Death of a Sails-Man, last night in The Famous Spiegeltent, which is currently pitched in Federation Square.

Leen bought the tickets and I did no investigation, so had no idea what we were walking into. Given the nature of the show, though, it was the perfect approach. I’d say you should do the same if I wasn’t currently writing a review that ruins your ability to do so.

Death of a Sails-Man is a hilarious show shot through with absurd, surreal humour, although there’s a surprising level of commitment to the premise. The DIY aesthetic keeps yanking you out of the story and reminding you that, Christ, I’m in a tent and it’s just a dude on stage with half a windsurfer, which further underlines the ridiculousness of it all and makes the whole thing jell together. It’s all anchored on Simmons’ performance, which sails a perfect line between giving it all to the character and winking out at the audience that, yes, this is really happening and yes, the sound guy exists. (Look, I’m really sorry about that last sentence, I’m really into seafaring puns right now.)
I cried enough laugh tears to fill the ocean in which Simmons may or may not have fucked a dolphin.

The show’s premise - a muesli magnate and corporate poet ‘s midlife crisis has sent him out into the ocean to windsurf, learn nothing and probably die alone without any phone reception - is quickly established. We then witness this happen through strangely-confident pelvis-based dancing, conversations with the subconscious and an endless flurry of weird props. At times this all convalescences into what I’d describe as some random and his girlfriend filming a music video they’re making up as they brainstorm the lyrics to a song they’re currently recording. It’s glorious. I won’t go much more into the content because, well, you should really see it and the current of absurd uncertainty is half the fun.

Shout out to Jennifer Wong, whose silent turn as Simmons’ prop assistant - struggling to move about unseen despite being constantly berated - is a great study in how a face can crumple from excitement into terror.

If you prefer your stand-ups to stand and deliver the jokes, this may not be the one for you. There is space here for joke-telling, and the batshit proceedings are full of callbacks and payoffs that show this has all been intricately planned by a mind that, while clearly odd, is committed to comedy and due diligence.

If you’re not into that vibe though. It’ll be hard to sway you because this thing is so hard to explain.

Though that, of course, is the whole point. Where else would this occur? How else could it? It’s so elementally exciting to watch someone create the thing they need to and get the chance to fall into that. I walked out of the tent last night inspired to get out there and create something for the sake of it, and that’s a special thing.

See Death of a Sails-Man before April 20.

Monday, March 31, 2014

Bolt, Brandis and Bad Faith: Changing the Racial Discrimination Act

Is there more to say about proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act than that they’ve been instigated by the hurt feelings of an all-powerful media commentator?

Not really. That central idea severs our ability to approach this thing from any kind of honest place.

Conservative commentator Andrew Bolt wrote a series of articles questioning people who identify as aboriginal despite their light skin, implying they did so for personal gain. The pieces were called “It’s so hip to be black” and “White fellas in the black”.

The Federal Court found Bolt had breached the act because the articles were not written in good faith and contained factual errors, adding up to a product that would offend a reasonable member of the Aboriginal community.

Bolt’s team argued the pieces represented genuinely held views, were a matter of public interest and within the laws of free speech.

In the court’s finding, it was pointed out that the breach did not stem from the subject matter, but “the matter in which the subject matter was dealt with”.

So the issue isn’t discussion of race, racism and the existence of different people but with, well, bad faith. Inaccuracy. Is that finding so abhorrent that our society needs to be legally inoculated against its menace?

The government has transparently named that finding as the motivating factor in its desire to alter the Racial Discrimination Act. They seek to repeal the bit that outlaws acting in a manner that may “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate’ someone because of their race or ethnicity and replace it with just ‘intimidate or vilify’.
More importantly, they’re adding a clause that exempts all that from any words or images “in public discussion of any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic or scientific matter”. Try to imagine any discussion of race, in any forum, that doesn’t fall into those categories. Even those creepy dudes who stand on literal soapboxes in the streets warning against the islamic apocalypse could argue it’s a religious matter. Noxious dinner party guests drunkenly banging on about brown people who ‘just don’t want to work’while paradoxically ‘stealing our jobs’ could probably shoot for exemption due to ‘publicly discussing a social matter’.

Someone who could definitely qualify for exemption is Andrew Bolt, due to the speaking being done from his privileged, influential position of newspaper columnist and television host.

So that’s the heart of it, isn’t it? Do you believe Bolt's articles, found in court to be innacurate and in bad faith, should be free to be published without accountability?

It’s important to point out that, for breaching the act, Bolt and his employers were just asked to not reprint the articles and print an apology: to say sorry to the people they’d hurt.

This is the punishment the government now seeks to eradicate - the need for the media to apologise for inaccurate articles that unfairly portray people in a negative light based on race.
A glib, tweety interpretation: The government wants to revoke people’s ability to sue because they’ve been offended or insulted to appease a man who was offended or insulted.

The Racial Discrimination Act cannot eradicate racism, as racism lives in people’s brains. These changes could enable some horrid commentary, but will likely achieve little in the grander scheme. What the act can do is provide protection to the marginalised who have no other way to have their voices heard, or at least signal to the community that such a thing exists and that, dammit, we care about this stuff. This is how we establishia cultural norm.

It’s for this reason the government’s proposed changes are so befuddling. Andrew Bolt needs no assistance in getting his point across. In this instance his power is so absolute that the Prime Minister of the country has personally intervened to alter the law to his whim. Against someone of such privilege, of course people need an external mechanism to level the playing field.

Another troubling change to the act: the “reasonable person” who will act as the cosmic yardstick on whether intimidation or vilification has transpired will be removed from the attacked community (in the above case, “light-skinned Aborigines”), to the community at large. It’s another of those indicators of the underlying philosophy at hand. On the face of it, leaving the decision to the community at large seems reasonable, but it ignores the reality of our society in which white dudes have all the power - another little marginalisation in a long line of them. Feel discriminated against? Prove it to the community at large again through the complaints process - the one currently being shaped in defence of a white media dude who argues against any recognition of racial difference.

This goes to the heart of Bolt’s philosophy here - one espoused in the fallout of this case - that protections such as these enshrine racial difference in law and inevitably divide society across racial lines. It’s a valid point if you assume we’re living in a world where racism has already been eradicated and equality is already sorted. The reality is these divisions persist and we still need to descend into the muck of sorting it all out. It’s the same fallacy underlying the debate about female representation in cabinet or companies. Proclaiming that appointments should be on merit ignores that this clearly isn’t happening. If it was, you’d have to admit there’s only one woman in the land capable of serving in cabinet, which clearly isn’t the case.

Read the comments of any of Bolt’s column and you’ll see the end result of this idea. People decry that they didn’t steal any generations, we’re all one Australia and Aboriginal people need to stop blaming white men for their failures, especially because they’ve reaped such rich rewards from white settlement. These ideas ignore that white people - and I am certainly a white person - can empathise and recognise others’ problems without turning it into a question of direct, personal fault. To ignore these issues entrenches the problem. It’s not my personal fault that I won the lottery of white privilege, but it’s my responsibility to stop ignoring it.
I feel this way just because my mum taught me to treat people well, I’ve met people who are different and Spiderman comics said “with great power comes great responsibility”.

George Brandis’ proclamation that “people have the right to be bigots” is factually correct but betrays his position - white people need protection from being prevented from offending people. That may be the case but it does not exist in a vacuum. It’s hard to believe his stance as one of equality and freedom given the DNA of his decision as outlined above. Pinning the changes to the Racial Discrimination Act to some lofty ideal of enshrining free speech is false, as this isn’t doing that and the instigating finding against Bolt was not about that at all.

As a final aside which will entirely betray my status as a left-wing loony (admittedly already on full display here), we’re constantly told that gay marriage, the welfare of possums and abortion are minor, fringe issues that we either don’t have time for or are not a priority when there are important money things to sort out. The people saying this are now fiddling with the Racial Discrimination Act, restoring Knights and Dames and wringing their hands over bias at a public broadcaster the majority of people are proven to support. There’s no such thing as a fringe issue, there’s just a big list of everything that everyone orders a bit differently. That's why we need to protect people from being discriminated against by people whose list is in a different order but never realised a different viewpoint exists, but it’s also evidence that, if we really want, we can fix, change and break anything we damn well please with enough motivation. That’s pretty cool.