Nathan Hauritz and what could have been

This week, Nathan Hauritz retired.

It was not an announcement that many were surprised by, or even took notice of. Most Australian cricket fans will have barely remembered that, for two years, he was our number one spinner. History will probably not remember him fondly, perhaps as little more than a footnote between Shane Warne and Nathan Lyon.

But I will.

To be fair, even I don't remember his Test debut in 2004, a one-off in the 4th Test of a series against India that Australia had already won. Hauritz took five wickets playing as the first spinner, an impressive performance for a young tyro. This came of the back of eight ODIs played over 2002 and 2003 which were more nondescript, and was followed by a return to domestic cricket which was similarly quiet. It took a move from Queensland to New South Wales, the retirement of Warne and Stuart MacGill, and the trying out of Dan Cullen (prior to Warne's retirement), Beau Casson, Jason Krejza, Cameron White and Bryce McGain before he managed to find himself back in the baggy green, but this time, he was there to stay.

Or so it should have been. The reason I will not forget Nathan Hauritz is because I was, and still am, consistently amazed by how poorly he was treated by the media, by the public, by his captain, and - above all - by the selectors.

Hauritz's Test career is punctuated by the three times he wasn't selected. The first was his aforementioned non-selection between 2004 and 2008, mostly justified until MacGill left the scene, after which it is difficult to understand why it took so long for him to return. The second was in the 2009 Ashes, when he was dropped for Stuart Clark for the 4th Test after solid returns in the first three. Australia won by an innings, with Clark taking an impressive 3/18 in the first innings. But it is difficult to imagine Australia wouldn't have done well with three seamers at Headingley, as Peter Siddle took five wickets in the same innings, while Mitchell Johnson took five wickets and Ben Hilfenhaus four in the second innings. In what should've been a warning to the selectors, Clark went for 74 runs off his eleven overs in that innings, taking no wickets. But instead the panel continued their tradition of never changing a winning team, regardless of individual performances. This allowed England an easy, Ashes winning victory at The Oval, as the pitch was a raging turner and Australia had Marcus North as its frontline spinner.

Alas, the selectors did not learn their lesson. The career ending non-selection for Hauritz was the third occurrence, coming a year later in the Ashes squad for the first Test in Brisbane. Hauritz had performed poorly, but not unexpectedly so, against India in India, while the opposition spinners led the wicket taking charts in the two Test series. That this should lead to the humiliation of being dropped for Xavier Doherty and Michael Beer in the same series seems remarkably unfair. After picking Doherty for the first two Tests, he was dropped for Mitchell Johnson, who performed well in Perth, delivering a match-winning spell in the first innings. The selectors, though faced with a different pitch than the one in Perth, left the bowling attack unchanged, leaving Stephen Smith as the frontline spinner as England romped to an Ashes winning victory. Sound familiar?

Alas, the selectors did not learn their lesson. Michael Beer, after a decent season with the ball for Western Australia, got the call up for the fifth Test in Sydney, presumably because they were too proud too admit their mistake in dropping Hauritz. In any case, Beer played his one and only Test and didn't do a great deal in it, while Hauritz continued plugging away at domestic level. The selectors then tried to make up for it by selecting him for the ODI series, only to dislocate his shoulder in the second ODI.

And that was the end of that.

So far, I've only really focussed on the selectors, but the other parties I mentioned earlier deserve some time under our gaze as well. The media and the public worked seemingly in tandem to sap Hauritz's confidence as often as possible. The aftermath of the Warne/MacGill years were harsh for Australian spinner, and Hauritz, a naturally private person whose off-spin was more about variations and bounce than about turn, was especially susceptible to this. He quickly became a player who appeared to be just one game away from being dropped, as the media questioned his ability and the public cried out for someone who fit their ideal of an Australian spinner more closely, seemingly not realising that he was quite literally the best the country had to offer. The selectors, of course, did nothing to help in this when they managed to find such crucial moments in which not to pick him, forcing him to start from scratch again and again.

As for his captain...while Ricky Ponting was a better captain by the end of his time in the role than he was at the start, he never seemed to get the hang of how to use spinners. Being blessed with Warne and MacGill, spinners who knew what they wanted and could back it up with results, turned into a curse as spinners with less confidence, experience and ability rotated through the Australian dressing room, rather like the most daunting job interviews on Earth. Here, Ponting decided to take on the role of deciding when to bowl the spinners and what fields they should bowl to, and his decisions were not conducive to the confidence of his spinners, with a defensive mindset dominating as he tried to hang on to a legacy of dominance that no longer matched his squad.

What would Hauritz have looked like under Michael Clarke? I imagine much like his replacement has managed. His fellow Nathan, of the Lyon variety, has become Australia's highest off-spinning wicket-taker in Tests, despite starting at a similar base to Hauritz, and being of a similar personality and bowling style. But Lyon received the support he needed at the time he needed it, despite a few bumps, and is now reaping the benefits. 

This is not to say Hauritz would've succeeded to the same extent, or in the same way. I suspect he wouldn't have taken quite as many wickets, simply due to the slight differences in their bowling style. But the similarities of their records are hard to ignore, and Hauritz was decent with the blade as well.

Hauritz's career can perhaps be summed up in the story of him selling his cricket gear in a garage sale. Why? Because it was a factually inaccurate and misleading story, perpetuated and used by the public to attack him, emblematic of a lack of support from his team and the result of being wrongfully dropped. Despite its falsehood, it felt at the time like the sign that his Australian career was over. Now we know it is, and can only ponder what could have been.

'We have lost 30 Newspolls in a row'

Of all the things that have been and will be said about the latest in our cycle of prime ministerial changes, it is this quote by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (get used to that) that defines what this is all about. 

Read it again.

'We have lost 30 Newspolls in a row.'

If you need to know how politicians treat their position, there it is. It is not about serving in office, as decided by the people; it is about 'winning power', about being in front at all times, regardless of what that means for the nation in the long term. It is about style over substance, even if that requires using the idea of substance as your style, as Turnbull seems eager to do. 

There is plenty more that can be said about this event. As I type, the Prime Minister has claimed that he is 'humbled' by his party's choice. This is hardly a shining example of humility. But, also occurring as I type, Turnbull is making clear that he desires a traditional Cabinet style of government. If he manages to balance the modern stylism with traditional Cabinet government, he will have done well.

But it is curious to claim that this was not about leadership style tonight, but instead about internal culture, after claiming only hours ago that the Australian people had pronounced judgement on the government...which is primarily, today, a matter of style.

'We have lost 30 Newspolls in a row.'

I suspect Turnbull will be hoping this quote disappears into the ether. He must demonstrate that his government is not purely guided by the polls, if he is truly about 'the future'.

Malcolm Fraser, media confounder

The sudden passing of Malcolm Fraser, Australia's 22nd Prime Minister, has resulted in journalists across the nation scribbling away furiously in their attempts to summarise the man's political life. 

These summaries have all covered similar ground in trying to explain Fraser. 'Fraser transformed himself from the patrician Liberal...to a vocal proponent for progressive causes often at odds with his own party.' said the Guardian. News stated that he 'a public transformation occurred after he lost office,' as did the Conversation, more than once. Yahoo7 claimed he became 'an unlikely hero of the Left.' InDaily called him a 'paradox'. 

So, what is it about Fraser that seems to have confounded the media? Why did Miranda Devine describe him as having moved 'from extreme right to extreme left'? Well, I can't explain all of that, as I do not know how anything Fraser did could be described as either, but the gist of what she is saying is what they're all saying - he was a PM on the 'right', and once he retired he became 'left'.

So, what did Fraser do?

Firstly, let's look at his record as Prime Minister. Economically, Fraser was expected at the time to be part of the emerging neo-liberal dominance across the West, and criticism of him at the time was along these lines. In hindsight, this didn't occur. In actual fact, Fraser was a moderating force against neo-liberal elements within his party and the public service. Fraser, like many politicians of his immediate post-war era, had a Keynesian economic view, which he blended with classic liberal beliefs. This kind of in-between position meant that his public service cuts were too big to some, and not big enough to others. Medibank was not eradicated, but slowly dismantled. Family benefits came in as tax rebates for dependent children were abolished. Government spending slowed, but never deliberately shrunk.

On deregulation, Fraser's government was more pliant. Exchange rates, interest rates, foreign bank entries and control over capital movements were all deregulated under Fraser's government to some degree. None of these were total, and in actual fact it took until the Hawke/Keating duumvirate came into power before these were completed. But it was under Fraser that these plans got going, before the Treasury and Reserve Bank thought it was necessary.

By today's standards, none of this can be considered especially 'right'. Furthermore, even at the time he was at odds with younger members of his party (including Treasurer John Howard) who wanted harder cuts. The gently, gently approach to economics has been argued as one of the reasons the economy collapsed in Fraser's later years. But the fact that it was a Labor government who managed to push through deregulation, and a Liberal government avoided doing so, suggests that perhaps the difference between the parties isn't as clear as it often stated.

When it comes to social policies, Fraser's strengths were in areas that weren't overly politicised at the time. Human rights (especially for Aborigines) and immigration issues were not a source of political division. For the most part, Fraser carried on where the Whitlam government had left off, who had in turn carried on from the previous Liberal governments. In fact, immigration and human rights had never been a particularly partisan issue. After all, the union movement was a strong supporter of the White Australia policy. As the policy was removed, the parties moved as well. It is only in recent years that it has become an issue that the parties heavily disagree on.

That's not to say there weren't elements who disagreed with the open immigration policies of the Fraser government. But, interestingly, those elements didn't come from his party, but from the public service. It was the Department of Immigration who first became alarmed about people arriving by boat, and suggested that the boats either be stopped before they arrived, or that those arriving be sent to a 'reception centre', as they were 'queue jumpers'. Cabinet did not take these suggestions up.

He was also an early environmentalist, successfully protecting Kakadu, Fraser Island and the Great Barrier Reef with certain policies. This, again, is supposedly at odds with today's 'right'. He also pushed for the Franklin River to be protected from damming, although this was also something not completed until the Hawke government. 

These economic and social policies followed Fraser into foreign policy. He pushed for free trade, which Australia needed as an raw material exporter, while also taking the forefront in promoting majority rule in Rhodesia.

Fraser's time as Prime Minister, then, may actually be a bit confusing for anyone trying to view it under the lens of the left-right spectrum. Economically, he attempting to walk the line between liberalism and Keynesianism. Socially, he focused on issues that were, at the time, bilateral, and today are arguably leaning to the 'left'. Despite this, it's claimed he was just another typical 'right' politician. This suggests either collective memory loss, or a failure in the portrayal of our politics.

But there was more to this. Fraser was meant to have moved from 'right' to 'left' after leaving the Parliament. We know he already wasn't 'right' in Parliament, but did he change his beliefs after leaving anyway?

Put simply - no. Fraser rarely commented on economic matters after he left office, but his foreign policy beliefs suggested that nothing changed. But on social issues, he was vigourous in his support of human rights, working for various think tanks and becoming particularly involved in South Africa's transition away from apartheid. He became increasingly critical of the politics of Australia, especially that of his own party, regarding immigration. By 2009, he had had enough, and left the Liberals after Malcolm Turnbull lost the leadership.

One area that he did move on was his policy towards the US. During the Cold War, he was suspicious of the USSR and not a supporter of detente, allying himself to the US and previous governments had. But in later life he began suggesting that Australia move away from its close ties with the US, instead being a more independent nation. In actuality, this fits in well with his foreign policy in office, which attempted to place Australia in a greater position in world politics. This is also about as close as it gets to a movement to the 'left'.

There have been suggestions that the Liberal Party moved away from Fraser, which is a reasonable argument. Neo-liberalism has slowly taken root without the party, though there's always the sense that there are plenty of members that aren't huge fans of it. Human rights issues, on the other hand, have become major partisan issues, which has changed the nature of politics in this country.

But this does not account for the initial description of Fraser as being of the 'right'. Fraser's classic liberalism meant he was, at the time, a natural member of the Liberal Party - but the Liberal Party was not always 'right' in the same way it is implied. That Fraser should be suggested to be such is a failure of the left-right spectrum, and as long as it is used, the media will be unable to grasp the nature of liberalism correctly.

The value of politicians from all walks of life

Last week, with only a little fanfare, Senator Ricky Muir gave his maiden speech in the Senate. He took nearly eight months to get around to delivering it, which may (or may not) be a record. Prior to that, he had only spoken three times in the chamber. This may suggest that Muir someone who clearly shouldn't be in the parliament, someone who doesn't belong, isn't well educated enough and doesn't have the right qualifications.

Certainly, that is the impression that has been given of Muir since his election. When it became apparent that this unknown candidate was going to gain a seat in the Senate with only 17,000 votes going to him off first preferences, the media naturally set about finding what they could about him. The first thing they found was a video of him flinging kangaroo dung around on a camping trip.

This set the tone for the way his image was shaped in the weeks following. There was precious little else to go on, so the media happily took this as proof that Muir was just some Aussie larrikin that really shouldn't be in the parliament. His first television interview, done with Mike Willesee, was also more or less a disaster. But Muir kept his head up, and continued his preparations.

As it turns out, the image of Muir as some uneducated, incapable Aussie bush bloke is, ironically, rather unrefined.

The first indication we got of this was in this piece by Sophie Morris in July last year. Muir is - surprise - a car enthusiast, but he is also more than that. He is a strong family man, he understands the value of employment to the average person, he is thoughtful, and he is independent.

He also calls himself 'just an ordinary bloke'.

Then, last week, all of these things were confirmed in his maiden speech, which you can see here:

Muir bought his first suit just for the speech. For the most part, like most people would in a similar situation, he read the pre-prepared speech word for word. There was nothing slick about it, and there wasn't any sense that Muir was there for his own interests. He was there because he cared, and because he felt a duty towards people like him.

If you read the comments below the YouTube video, you'll find that they are overwhelmingly positive, praising Muir for being authentic, humble, real and, above all, an average Australian. How many politicians would get that kind of response to a speech of theirs?

Not many in our Parliament today. Certainly, not many from the major parties. One other 'average' Australian comes to mind, though, in Jacqui Lambie. Lambie's performance in public since being elected could not be further removed from Muir's, but she receives similar positive responses for being real.

To the public, they are just ordinary Aussies.

Muir has also given every indication so far that he intends to make informed decisions in the parliament. He has sought to learn from those in the know, and he has learnt quickly. He needed to. Of all the people elected to the Senate last year, he was the one being held up as the clearest example that the Senate was not representative.

But, thanks to the way our political system works, it often turns out that those elected with the smallest proportion of votes can actually truly represent the largest number of voters. When we vote for our Senators, we vote for individuals. If we were able to meet all the people running for the Senate face-to-face, chances are it would be people like Muir who would be most positively received.

There's no doubt that a system that allows people to be elected with 0.03 of a quota on first preferences isn't quite working correctly. But it also happens to be those same quirks that allow us to have representatives who aren't beholden to behemoth parties, and who genuinely care about their constituency.

If the Senate is ever the 'unrepresentative swill' Paul Keating claimed it is, it will be when people like sawmill worker Muir, military policeman Lambie and boilermaker John Madigan are barred from entering the parliament. We must ensure this never happens.

The problem with Q&A politics

Q&A has been a staple of Australia's media and political landscape since its inception in 2008. Based on the BBC's long running Question Time, the show has seemingly given the public a stronger voice regarding important political, economic and social issues. It consistently rates well for its timeslot (around 900,000 in total), and every Monday night, like clockwork, #QandA will be trending on Twitter.

So, it sounds like the show is a win for everyone, right?

Wrong.

There are many people who could potentially benefit from a show like this. In theory, all Australians should be reaping the rewards of such a show, in some way or another. Holding politicians to account, and bringing important community issues and opinions to the forefront should be a good thing.

But in reality, Q&A simply is not the broad ranging, powerful and interesting place of discussion that it attempts to be. It does not benefit all those it should. Most importantly, it quite often cannot break through the increasingly bland political discourse this country is full of, instead being a vehicle for it.

The ABC loves Q&A. And why wouldn't they? It's one of their highest rating programmes and isn't particularly expensive to produce. In an era when they (unfortunately) need to keep justifying their existence, the ABC can point to Q&A as one of their great successes. It also keeps them 'in the conversation' on social media, which is of ever increasing value.

The other people who quite enjoy Q&A are the major parties. Specifically, the more prominent members of these parties, some of whom can attribute their prominence directly to their almost constant rotation into the show. Gone are the days of Rudd and Hockey, Gillard and Abbott being all jovial on morning television to get people to pay attention to them. No, these days Q&A is the lightning rod for political discussion instead – something surely confirmed by Today host Lisa Wilkinson appearing on the show last Monday. We've gone from politicians making small talk on morning shows to morning show hosts having serious discussions about politics.

And when I say constant rotation, I do mean constant rotation. Of the top ten most frequently appearing guests (to the end of 2014), nine of them were part of either the ALP or the Coalition. Of the top twenty, seventeen are from the two majors. The remaining three are two journalists from The Australian (Janet Albrechtsen and Greg Sheridan) and the leader of the Greens, Christine Milne. Of the 44 episodes to air in 2014, 28 featured a member from both of the major parties. Of the remaining 16, three were one-person specials (of which two of those featured government ministers) and eleven were specials focusing on a particular topic, mostly featuring people relevant to the topic. That leaves a whole two 'regular' episodes of five panellists talking about the big issues of the week.

To be fair to the ABC, they do seem to have tried a bit harder in recent years to make sure that people outside of the major parties are the focus of episodes from time to time. Thirteen episodes with a member from each of the major parties is a significant step up from 2010, where only four of the 41 episodes featured a five member panel and did not include two major party politicians. But it's still not enough. By making the specials into the episodes without the majors, it places the episodes with the majors as the status quo, and, politically speaking, that is the problem.

There is not necessarily anything wrong with having politicians on the show regularly. In fact, it is a good thing that they are willing to show up and answer questions, especially members of the government. But there is something wrong with having one from each party on the show basically every week. The problem is this: it reinforces the idea of two parties in total opposition to one another. Q&A is not at fault for this idea gaining traction – it is embedded into the current Australian political system – but the programme does little to challenge it either. For example, last week's show saw Jamie Briggs (Assistant Infrastructure Minister) and Chris Bowen (Shadow Treasurer) sit either side of Tony Jones. The two of them managed to degenerate into petty arguments a number of times, which is business as usual between the two majors on the show. Furthermore, the two nearly managed to speak as much as Alan Jones, which is quite an achievement in itself. Normally, when someone not so happy to talk until the cows come home is on, the two pollies will be the ones with the most airtime. Neither of these things are healthy for political discourse.

By placing them on either side of Jones and allowing them to snipe at each other, they become the centre of our attention, and our attention is being drawn to whatever political point they want to score. How can we have good political discourse when the dominant parties' idea of discourse is stale one-liners and repeated talking points? All that the viewer sees is that a) these are our only choices for government and b) our choices aren't very good. What is even more problematic is that these tired talking points are inevitably the things that get the most airtime. On a typical five person panel, there will be these two politicians, an expert of some kind, an artist/comedian/writer type, and a wild card (could be a journo, another expert, another politician, another artiste, anything really). The other three may all have something interesting to say, or only some of them, but often they only get one or two chances to properly answer a question. The two politicians will almost always take up the most time, and the result is a diluted discussion.

There is another problem. I said earlier that it was specifically the prominent members of major parties who like Q&A at the moment. The reason for this is that the show is all about individuals. Individuals are asked questions, individuals answer the questions. How they answer the questions, and not necessarily what they actually say, will determine how people think about them. The more important the individual, the more weight is put to their answer, and the more focus is paid to their answer after the show is over. Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, the more members of parliament the public is aware of, the better. However, when you're trying to engage in important political discussion, is a televised forum the best place to do it? Does the policy remain as the focus? You may have heard of the classic debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, where those listening on radio believed Nixon won, but those watching on television believed Kennedy performed better. The latter was, quite literally, about style over substance, and that is what the medium of television is built for. If you can combine the two, great, but time and time again we see politicians picking style first. A pithy soundbite for the evening news will be more effective at grabbing attention, after all.

So when you bring two politicians from parties vying for government and put them in front of a television camera, and you tell them to speak freely, do you really expect them to go into any great, significant detail about their vision for the country? Because as it stands now, you probably shouldn't. The style wins over the substance, and such is the media cycle of today that the style has actually become the substance.

But how can I say that Q&A sets the tone for political discussion in this country, and that it turns the focus from the parties and their policies towards the individuals and their image? Well, let's look at a recent example. One of the people joining Wilkinson on the panel on Monday was Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull has been at the centre of leadership speculation since the spill motion was called against the Prime Minister recently. He was meant to appear on the show as the Minister for Communications, which he did, but for many in the media in the days since, his appearance was really about presenting himself as 'alternative Prime Minister', a nonsense title that is endemic of the focus of personality that the media so loves.

For the next couple of days, his appearance on the programme was a major talking point for the media. David Crowe in The Australian claimed that his performance offered an alternative to Abbott's leadership. Mark Kenny for Fairfax proclaimed that the fight between potential Prime Ministers was the most interesting part of federal politics. Catherine McGrath from SBS called Turnbull a flirt. Most importantly, News Ltd proclaimed his performance as being 'Prime Ministerial', which is basically meant to be our version of 'Presidential' (even though the PM is not like a President). Here we see how easily Q&A set the tone for discussion in federal politics for the rest of the week. And what of this is not about image? What of this is not focussed on the individual? 

What of this does not, little by little, weaken our political system every time it happens?

So, how do you fix these problems? Well, I have a few ideas, but I'm sure there are more. I'm also sure the ABC isn't that interested in them, but no matter. First, don't have a pollie from each major party on every week. When you do have one on, you don't have to have one from the other on for the sake of 'balance'. Make Jones, or whoever is moderating, clamp down on the soundbites that they so love. If you have two on (which will be fine occasionally), make them sit next to each other. Put them on one end of the desk. They're not going to be as likely to have a go at each other if they are physically next to one another, and they won't be the centre of attention if they're way down one end.

Television's place as a visual platform means that it is difficult to change the focus back to being about policy instead of image. This means that it is up to the media to stop focusing so much on what does and doesn't look good, and to instead hone in on the substance. Ultimately, Q&A can't change too much. Not because it's so great that it shouldn't be changed, but rather that it's a difficult format to change. These little changes would be positive, but you're not going to suddenly improve the quality of discussion tenfold. The show simply isn't designed for anything too high level. It's a fine balancing act between levels of acceptable style and substance, and I'm sure the ABC will have many more years to tweak it.

Well, as long as the government doesn't privatise it.