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 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.

Chris Bowen's 'gotcha' moment

If you have been paying any attention to Australian politics over the past few days, you will know that Chris Bowen, the Shadow Treasurer, got 'caught out' by Alan Jones on Sky News. Jones asked Bowen what the tax-free threshold was, Bowen didn't know and tried to dance around the fact that he couldn't remember.

Jones knew the answer ($18,200) and was more than happy to crow about it. But as Bowen pointed out, he wasn't on the show to do a 'pop quiz'.

Unfortunately for Bowen, the media seems to think that was exactly what he was on there for.

Every news outlet you can think of ran a leading story on his 'gaffe'. The Australian, Fairfax, ABC, Ninemsn, Yahoo!7 and SBS all ran a story. Piers Akerman felt it necessary to tell us that it was a 'huge dent in his credibility'.

So should we care?

No, no we should not.

While it would be nice for a potential Treasurer to remember the tax-free threshold on demand at all times, his inability to do so when it was not the topic he was planning to discuss does not reflect on his ability to be a Treasurer. A Treasurer should be able to envisage a good path for the economy in the short, medium and long term. Bowen's forgetfulness of a number does not mean he is incapable of pursuing a fiscal goal over six years.

Furthermore, Bowen doesn't really need to know this. Not only is it not particularly relevant to a Treasurer's broad fiscal plans, he also will have people remind him of it should he become Treasurer. The people in the Department of the Treasury will know these things, because it is their job to know. So, should he forget again, and should it actually become important for him to know (unlikely as it is), it still won't really matter that he didn't know on a television show in 2015.

So why did his slip-up feature in various parts of the media for days? Well, presumably the media thinks it is more important than it is. Or they think that the public will genuinely perceive it as a sign that Bowen is unfit for the role of Treasurer. It's an absurd notion, but in today's world of instant media and ever-shortening attention spans, it's one that will keep getting pushed.

Bowen was on Sky for a discussion on superannuation. No-one cares about that now, because there was a 'gaffe' to focus on instead of boring discussion that may have been important. 

This pattern will keep repeating, and we are poorer for it.

Author stunned by headlines following Irish victory

Actually, that isn't true.

The headlines following Ireland's not-shocking win over the West Indies in Nelson aren't even remotely surprising. But the win wasn't either, which means headlines that mention how the result is 'shocking' and 'stunning' and 'an upset' are wrong, and also quite unfair to an Irish team that deserves much more than it gets.

Among those using these sorts of words in their headlines are the BBC, Guardian, Australian, Sydney Morning Herald, Independent, Wall Street Journal, TVNZ, along with numerous others. The Daily Mail did have an analysis which pointed out that this was not, in actual fact, a surprise, and The Telegraph did likewise.

So why does Irish captain William Porterfield agree that his team's win was not an upset? It comes down (on his end) to the fact that Ireland is actually a pretty good team. There is also the issue of the West Indies, but that is for another time. For now, let us focus on Irish cricket.

When Ireland won their first World Cup match in 2007, that was a genuine upset. They fell agonisingly short against Zimbabwe, but Pakistan was meant to be better than them, and Ireland were meant to be just one of those easybeat teams the ICC had invited along. Instead a team full of amateurs took full advantage of a green tinged pitch and an opposition prone to brain explosions to produce a memorable win.

When Ireland beat another full member nation at the 2011 World Cup, it took a mammoth effort from one man. Kevin O'Brien scored a remarkable century to carry his team to their target of 328. By this time Ireland was not just another group of amateurs. Cricket Ireland had brought in central contracts, and Ireland had been regularly winning the Intercontinental Cup for years. But England, their arch rival, were undoubtedly favourites, especially after putting up such a large total. The idea of Ireland winning wasn't as foreign as it was in '07, but it was hardly expected.

This time around, it's different. Ireland is even more experienced than it was in 2011. The core of the team, particularly the batting, is still mostly the same, and they're had four years to gain experience (not that the full member nations have been much help there). The central contracts have expanded. Cricket Ireland has set up what is essentially a first class system. Phil Simmons is still in charge. Possibly most important of all, many of players in the squad are playing county cricket. In the long run that may be an issue, as Ireland tries to balance its own system with the lure of the county system, but right now it means that Ireland has a wealth of experience and talent to draw on. As it stands, the only players without county experience are Cusack, Mooney, Sorensen and Thompson. Sorensen replaced Middlesex's Tim Murtagh, and of the remaining three only Mooney is a regular first XI player.

This is without two other notable Irishmen who have been lured across the sea - absentee Boyd Rankin, and English captain Eoin Morgan. So, then, the Irish squad is brimming with experienced, talented players, playing for the best Associate nation going around. They are playing against an opposition who are disinterested, not at full strength, full of internal squabbling and being led by a 23 year old captain, who was only appointed a couple of months ago. What, exactly, about this scenario screams 'stunning upset'?

It seems the biggest battle Ireland faces is their perception amongst the casual cricketing public. There are (apparently) many who still think that the nation is question has no interest in cricket, and isn't even aware of there being a cricket world cup. But why is it necessary for the headline writers to pander to this supposed audience? Surely said audience will be just as surprised by a headline like 'Ireland cruise to four wicket victory over West Indies'. Perhaps it suggests something about how much attention the journalists in question are paying to Ireland that they think it is a shock.

Thankfully, there are those who know what they are talking about.

As Sambit Bal put it: "I am afraid Michael Holding will have to wait for the first upset of the World Cup. West Indies aren't likely to pull this off."

The Five Minute Cricket World Cup Preview

With the Cricket World Cup upon us, there are countless previews out there online and in print. But in this all too fast world of ours, who has time to read those wordy, well-though out previews? Instead, let me offer you this easy to understand, quick to read guide that will tell you everything you need to know about the longest sports tournament ever. Please note there are three teams listed as making the final, and five as making the quarters. This is because they are impossible to split.

Afghanistan

Batting: Flaky

Bowling: Match-winning

Fielding: Poor

Position: Group

Australia

Batting: Good

Bowling: Good

Fielding: Good

Position: Final

Bangladesh

Batting: Confused

Bowling: Spinning

Fielding: Okay

Position: Group

England

Batting: Prepared

Bowling: One-paced

Fielding: Fine

Position: Quarters

India

Batting: Uncomfortable

Bowling: Thumped

Fielding: Hmm

Position: Quarters

Ireland

Batting: Starters

Bowling: Promising

Fielding: Acceptable

Position: Quarters

New Zealand

Batting: Striking

Bowling: Watchable

Fielding: Sure

Position: Final

Pakistan

Batting: Misbahesque

Bowling: Lacking

Fielding: Eh

Position: Quarters

Scotland

Batting: Learning

Bowling: Surprise

Fielding: Yes

Position: Group

South Africa

Batting: Wow

Bowling: 4/5

Fielding: Proven

Position: Final

Sri Lanka

Batting: Top-heavy

Bowling: Heralinga

Fielding: Affirmative

Position: Quarters

United Arab Emirates

Batting: Tries

Bowling: No

Fielding: Exists

Position: Group

West Indies

Batting: Careless

Bowling: Demoralised

Fielding: Athletic

Position: Group

Zimbabwe

Batting: Possibly

Bowling: Hopeful

Fielding: Re-energised

Position: Group

In a decade six weeks from now, once the tournament finally finishes, we will know how accurate these words are.

But if we're wrong, we won't post a correction, because who has time for that in today's world? Who cares? We can just say whatever we like without any consequences, because that's how the media works, right?

Right?