Whenever I see Tanya Plibersek interviewed or profiled, I think, “Does she believe she’s one of the goodies?” Yes, asking whether the environment minister sees herself as a “goodie” is innately stupid, but I am an innately stupid person, shaped by a lifetime of innately stupid politicians and politics.
The media, Labor and its supporters have long framed Plibersek as “the good cop” in a party framed similarly. Since Kevin ‘07, modern Labor’s point of pride hasn’t been its policy achievements, but rather its ability to differentiate itself from the Coalition and its fringe associates (like the Nationals) — a differentiation it leaned heavily upon while in opposition.
But when in government, it’s much harder to spin yourself as the underdog white hat in a shootout with black hats. Plibersek has the unfortunate role of being the face of a party that enjoys the idea of “climate-friendly” policymaking while being wholly at the beck and call of the mining industry.
It’s an unenviable position, especially for someone who likes to come across as a climate progressive, yet is fated to rattle off gibberish talking points to bolster the loopy logic of “nature credits”, “green corridors” and environmentally conscious fracking. Just last week she tweeted a picture of herself sorrowfully gazing out the window of a private jet at the devastated Murray-Darling Basin, like a war widow with stocks in land mines and mustard gas.
Her response to any criticism — valid or otherwise — is, naturally, defensiveness, as the truth of her situation would open up an undeniably existential line of self-doubt that would cannibalise her public image just as surely as it would cannibalise the party’s.
What has emerged in Labor is “the radical centre”: a viscerally reflexive and rabid moronitude wielded by the party and its rusted-ons, a force field to shield it from the psychic shock of a simpler truth, that its members are no longer the goodies, and perhaps never had been. With the “L” in ALP having drifted away from “Labor” to something closer to “Landlord”, the party has positioned itself as little more than the opposition to its cartoonishly corrupt and culture war-pilled counterpart, taking on a two-faced stagnancy, disregarding the banal evils of its past and present to settle into a shrugging, contemptuous beatitude, insisting on its essential goodness while enacting policies that say otherwise.
Needless to say, this goes beyond environmental policies. Labor’s recent housing scheme is a bureaucratic birdbox kept together by duct tape, expired nicotine patches and compromise. Likewise, its approach to Centrelink and pension payments hinges on distancing itself from the murderous intent and criminality of robodebt, while skirting around the obvious yet politically dicey fix (see: giving a columnist at the Oz an aneurism) that is raising the rate.
So many of Labor’s policies are developed to address a problem by circling it as if caught in a dying star’s gravitational pull — orbiting action, without ever committing to it, hoping no one minds or notices when you finally drift off into nothingness. Perhaps it is the stark, doomstruck reality of environmental collapse that makes the optics of the radical centre seem laughable.
When Bernard Keane talks about Plibersek and the government following the “law” regarding a new mine, it’s hard not to let one’s mind drift into fantasies of going “Bickle-mode” as we’re politely asked to ignore the now thumping ticking of mother nature’s doomsday clock. The problem with “pragmatic” and “sensible” plodding policy responses to the equivalent of a rapidly incoming apocalyptic meteor strike is that they can’t help but come off as a bit silly, or worse, cruel.
The idea of a government rendered powerless by the law — coerced into making decisions that will hasten devastating ecological collapse — is farcical when you think about the countless barbarous policies it employs in spite of the law. Labor’s refugee policy is one egregious example, presenting itself as the humane alternative to the Gulag archipelago private prison death march that was the Coalition’s modus operandi, while being all but identical (if a tad more shamefully hush-hush) and just as illegal. When this point is raised, we’re offered a gaggle of media-savvy circular babbling, dribbled out by people who can’t reconcile which side of history they’re on with their paranoid mewling about being a “Good German”.
We have a party gagging on an identity crisis as though it were a particularly troublesome post-nasal drip. The ongoing response to Labor’s inability to merge its lore (Albanese is the son of a single mum who grew up in public housing) with its reality (pension support below the poverty line in the worst housing crisis in the nation’s history) is a hissy-fit of arm-folding, self-imposed stasis — a self-perpetuating tantrum that demands obsequiousness from the beholder and titty-time from a base that itself is becoming ossified, wandering around the empty halls of its hallowed past like Miss Havisham in an oversized, tattered It’s Time shirt.
The only way to discontinue the daily whiplash is for the government, the ALP and its zealots to stoop down, dust off and finally don the black hat. The main source of Labor’s discomfort seems to be its unwillingness to look in the mirror. It’s painful and tedious to watch. Say what you want about Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton, but they’ve long known who and what they are and always act accordingly. The government’s confusion about who and what they are only serves to make them look daft.
It’s time for Plibersek, Albo and Labor to embrace their villain era. After all, they’ve been in it for some time.
Is it time for Labor to come to terms with its true nature? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
We are living in a period of rapid and dramatic geographic and geopolitical change. The old verities are crumbling before the eyes of any who choose to look. In the light of these monumental changes, the comforting fables we like to tell ourselves about the world and our place in it are absurd. For our political classes, any deviation from the narrative catechism is simply unthinkable. However, for vast and increasing numbers of our people, the contradictions between the official narrative and their lived experience are irreconcilable.
It is long past time to impose term limits on our parliamentarians. Being an elected representative is a service and a duty, it should never be a career.
We kind of do that with the abuse we subject them to on social media. Fewer and fewer decent self-respecting people are willing to put their hand up to be a candidate any more.
Absolutely agree. Fixed terms would help. Abetz is a prime candidate, now gone after some 25 years of nonsense, and contributing SFA in the arena of sensible debate or policies. The following comment from “Thuc..” is particularly appropriate. Shoot a few of them, especially the likes of Howard, sending our boys off to prosecute fraudulent invasions, based on lies, to advance the murderous US global pillage. Are they all so pitifully stupid? Yep..shoot them!!
Conscript the sons of warmongering politicians before those of others who oppose unjust wars.
The problem with limited terms is that nobody even knows what is going on, there is no experience except in the party room. The elected politicians are but dogs to bark on cue. This problem is already with us, but limiting the terms only gives the back room faceless ones more power.
It is precisely that “experience in the party room” which is the worm in the bud of democracy.
The ‘back room’ & basement vermin would have NO POWER whatsoever without that of denying preselection to those with any inclination to think for themselves and act in the best interests of their constituents.
Without unlimited tenure there would be no “power brokers”.
The backroom guys are a feature of “big church” parties – we need to shatter the big parties into their constituent parts then elect them via PR. Deals then need to be done in the glare of media scrutiny not at 2am in the BBQ King restaurant.
The goodies vs baddies narrative becomes harder for folks like Murdoch to push when there are half a dozen parties on a spectrum.
I guess I can dream.
This is what the Public Service, as it should be – the repository of expertise and deep knowledge, should do – advise the elected representatives. The problems we face are beyond our politicians alone to solve, but we do need representatives of various interests.
Even better, draw a name out of the hat and spare that one.
Shoot the rest of them at the trough.
Its a duopoly stacked and corrupt – we need to vote Greens and progressives.
No. We need to vote Sustainable Australia Party.
And switch all our banking accounts to Bank Australia (founded by the CSIRO & other learned agencies back in the day) which actually supports community groups doing environmental works with grants!
As well as paying top interest rates to savers, currently 4.5%.
All very well and good, but as in any other job, you don’t come to it with years of experience behind you. It would take a term in Parliament to learn the ropes.
Perhaps we need to borrow from the Chines system, where you need to work to prove yourself capable of good local governance, before you’re allowed to work your way up to positions of national power.
Do you think that maybe all those local government folks are doing it because they love their municipality?
It takes practice to be able to screw people over by day and sleep soundly at night.
Yes. Their neo-Confucian way of sorting the chaff from the hay has enabled some very talented people to rise to positions of power within China.
Learning the ropes at the moment currently means learning how to rort the gravy train and cosy up to lobbyists which is the current problem. We need them to be coached by proper public servants who know whats supposed to happen not corrupt spivs operating for their own benefit. Give me an inexperienced pollie any day.
While the Greens refuse to discuss a sustainable population policy; they too are part of the problem.
SAP are the only political party willing to engage with ‘first order’ issues.
Great article, Patrick. Nice to see you are not mincing your words.
Yes Labor has veered far from traditional Labor values, and is proving to be very uncourageous in taking any positive action on Climate, Housing, RAISING TAXES – no stage 3 cuts for a starter. And what are they doing about negative gearing, CGT, direct investment again in State Housing? Yes just a “nicer” version of the corrupt LNP, unfortunately. Don’t get me started on AUKUS . .. .
Yes fAUKUS is a big one. Zero transparency, zero accountability. Taking us all for mugs. Disgusting.
Thank you for this article and this priceless comment; “What has emerged in Labor is “the radical centre”: a viscerally reflexive and rabid moronitude wielded by the party and its rusted-ons” amongst many other gems.
A recent article reminded me that in Labor’s “stop the boats” era, with Bowen at the helm, his department apparently ordered that young children and young looking children, should be sent to Manus as part of the advertising campaign to deter asylum seekers from taking to the water. For me, this behaviour was every bit as nauseating as anything the Libs did when Howard was in power.
I see nothing to make me believe that Bowen or Plibersek care about anything more than their own power and keeping their party in power for as long as possible.
I sincerely hope that Crikey will sink the boot into Labor a bit harder in the future as I completely agree that “the law” is not preventing them from taking Climate Action, rather, they have no intention of doing anything more than looking green while acting black.
I agree. Bowen is full of it. Plibersek ain’t much better. And I thought removing Morrison was a start. The momentum has fizzed out.
And any hint of red is long gone.
I long for a bit of red (sighs).
Yes, but…. similar complaints are being levelled at the Biden Democrats and Starmer’s Labour, the latter are not even in government, while GOP and Tories, like the LNP, are often ignored by RW media cartels?
Australia is a conservative nation where innovation and creativity die…, then keeping in mind that Australia’s population ex. temporary residents, is ageing via skip cohorts, esp. above median age vote, conditioned by media for Howard’s Oz, LNP implemented imported US corporate authoritarianism, masquerading as ‘libertarian’ or ‘free market’ policies and proxy white Oz nativism (using US tropes) for bipartisan bigotry; surprisingly weak environmental laws and constraints on fossil fuels?
Further, Labor, like US Dems and UK Labour, are always being wedged and denigrated by overarching RW media cartels, with guess whom centre?
It would help if the media, including Crikey, focused less on personalities and more on policies and portfolios, that inform society, policy and supports voting for policies vs. US style religious like ‘leadership’ obsessions.
Albert Camus had the idea post WWII to have an afternoon newspaper that analysed, rebutted and countered the morning media, on policies, as opposed to obsessing about non core agitprop and personalities.
quote Drew:
“Australia is a conservative nation where innovation and creativity die”
On and off I’d say. There have been times in history when we’ve been world leaders in various fields and equally, times when there has been public appetite for change. There’s been a lot of talk about Whitlam in this thread but the period before that Labor government, like now in many ways, had been deeply conservative for so long that a significant percentage of the population really did think there were areas where the need for change was glaring.
I’d say there’s similarities with our current position but then, as now, it takes a leader who can fire up support for a future that offers some brightness and hope, not some dreary pragmatic numbers man. I even see potential for positivity in taking on climate change rather than trying to pretend it doesn’t exist.
At times yes, good example, before the rot set in was the Vic Liberal Party under Rupert ‘Dick’ Hamer, with genuine branch based members & constituents, whose policies were about attracting younger voters, that would now fit more comfortably with the Greens and Labor inc. environmental, social etc. progressive change; that came to a screaming halt with the emergence of Howard’s war on ‘wets’ (nowadays ‘woke’?).
Significant difference nowadays is demographics i.e. fewer young people in permanent population or electoral rolls vs. increasing numbers of influential above median age voters who are catered to by media and parties; this will soften over the next couple of decades once baby boomer ‘bubble’ departs…. though evidence is mounting that with more educated, as they age, fewer emerge as conservative voters later in life.
Yes, Bowen lost all credibility when immigration minister. Some of us don’t forget.
As Fremantle de-industrialised and came to be dominated by hipster cafes and an expensive uni, it doesn’t surprise me that a select group of residents start to forget the importance of “dirty jobs”. I say “select”, because a 57% local primary vote to Labor is nothing to sneeze at.
Perhaps instead we could discuss how the Australian public emphatically rejected major changes to the housing market, welfare, refugees, and climate change (2013, 2016, and 2019) and how alternative policies can address these issues while not guaranteeing a return to Dutton?
“Emphatically rejected”??…………………
…….or grudgingly allowed a bare majority to the LNP under the sustained onslaught of right-wing nut-baggery from He Who Cannot Be Named.
If the MSM had done it’s job none of those would have occurred.
Either way, the ALP have chosen NOT to learn the obvious lesson from the implosion of the LNP at the last election…………….
…………they may be the lesser of two evils, but unless they get their act together fast, the Teals will be coming for them at the next opportunity.
Waffling about trying not to frighten the horses will not be enough to save them……………………
That will require a suite of authentic ALP policies (and AUKUS ain’t one of ’em).
I believe they have learnt the lessons from previous elections, and that’s why they hold government now. Labor promised big in the previous cycles and lost big, or perhaps is should say, impotent rage was still impotent.
Also to this and others – I don’t understand why people think that (or suggest that) MSM opposition to Labor is a new thing, it has been the case consistently for over a century now (“so monstrous a travesty”) and is not going to change just because Morrison lied a bit. That is the governing framework for Labor – every policy deviation will be communicated with the worst possible MSM spin no matter how righteous.
“Labor promised big?” Seriously?
I’ve been on this green and blue earth for half a century and I have no conscious memory of Labor ever “promising big.”
Labor has won government from opposition three times since I was born: Hawke (who introduced neoliberalism to Australia, before being deposed in a leadership spill while serving as Prime Minister), Rudd (who made most industrial action illegal, before being deposed in a leadership spill while serving as Prime Minister) and Albanese (who remains in high office, but doesn’t seem to want to do anything with it even though the obvious things are so easy to win)
That’s my entire lived experience of Labor government: Infighting, moralizing, Calvanistic enemies of workers, a bunch of pre-pensioned seat-polishing middle managers eternally befuddled by the forced realization that they can’t be in government forever.
Every election is pitched as a high-stakes generational battle, but when the dust settles afterwards it’s almost impossible to discern any step-change in the material conditions of Australians’ lived existence decided by a vote. I’ve never seen an election result cause a rich person to be poorer or a poor person to be richer; The only real difference from one government to the next is that they have different enemies for their daily Two Minutes of Hate.
I just can’t get excited by any of it. Be gone with it all. Give me sortition. Give me almost anything but this.
Sorry you missed Gough. He actually did stuff.
The things that Gough did were undone by Fraser, like Medicare, and only made perminent under Hawke. Time and again we see in history that quiet Labor governments get things done, while loud ones quickly get replaced by the reactionaries. Impotent rage is still impotent.
Also I can’t take seriously a comment when I see “neoliberalism” – basically code for “something I don’t like”.
I think you’ll find that while many of Gough’s reforms were later watered down, his was a government that changed our social fabric forever from what had been essentially Menzies era conservatism. As another example [of which there are many more], while Whitlam didn’t manage to achieve a complete reform in our approach to indigenous affairs he certainly got the ball rolling. Hawke would never have brought in Medicare if the groundwork had not been laid by Whitlam.
I said nothing about neoliberalism so why did you?
‘Also I can’t take seriously a comment when I see “neoliberalism” – basically code for “something I don’t like”.’
The hell you say – it’s a widely recognised term, and you’re free to familiarise yourself with its definition. The reason you may get the above impression is that neoliberalism has been an unstinting project of the powerful for many decades, and its foul influence has pervaded our society like so many uncountable trillions of nanoparticles of PFAS.
As such, it’s a pretty huge thing that we should all despise with all our might. Where do you get off, claiming anyone speaking of it isn’t worth listening to.
I’d be curious of your definition of “neoliberalism” then.
Well it’s our politics and media which is an extention of vested interests intent on stripping public assetts and milking fossil fuels.
And we are very deeply impacted by it which is likely why you don’t see it . I don’t understand why it is so barely acknowledged, that this type of corporate ideological greed has a name
Maximising profit and minimising the public service by privatising which means less independent oversight as the media works on rationalising or ignores each decision, is another way of pinning neolibearlism down. Stacking boards that have oversight for the good and safety of the public is part of the process.
Cool, so with this government committing to keep the NBN public, fund the NDIS, cap gas prices, invest in renewables, and create a dedicated housing fund, it confirms they are not “neoliberal”?
More that these are temporary sweeteners that will be reshaped when the media arm ..public relations..deems the public ready to accept that profits are suffering because of these new measures/proposals, and therefore “we” are. Expect relentless attacks on anything publicly owned or legislation that impedes corporate growth in any way.
I don’t have a personal definition of neoliberalism – you bust one out from a reliable source and I’ll agree with it.
I’m more likely to have a personal definition of fascism, which is perhaps a more contentious term, such that it encompasses neoliberalism as a distilled extension of it meant to slip under the radar and infiltrate all our institutions.
Really ! Have a look at history and tell me how many terms it took for Whitlam to flip the Australian malaise.
Current govt are lazy and it cowards.
If they only reinstated half of what Gough achieved we would be inching forward.
Another possible reason for you to deny the term any currency could be that the whole concept is all but entirely blacklisted by the MSM; it’s conspicuous by its absence from our public discussions. I imagine not many folks who aren’t indy/Green voters read the Guardian.
Funny how education correlates with left-ness like that… Almost as if reality has a bias away from those who habitually deny it.
You beat me to it…but Gough did pay a very high price for his powerful improvements to our society.
There will be no further major improvements to our society until we are all knee deep in water, dropping dead like flies from heat exhaustion, and fighting for scraps of food with millions of refugees.
Then action will be taken, but way too late to be effective. Capitalism 101.
“There will be no further major improvements to our society until we are all knee deep in water, dropping dead like flies from heat exhaustion, and fighting for scraps of food with millions of refugees.”
It rather looks that way, though I take some hope from a book by an ex Green [who’s name escapes me for the moment] which makes the case that major change often happens suddenly.
If we’re going incremental, which seems to be a path favoured by many respondents here, our children will be faced with the full horrors of climate change when it’s too late to act and their children will be immersed in it up to their necks and cursing us.
Yes I agree. Made the same comment as I had not read down to yours.
My political awakening was when HECS was introduced by the ALP when I was a uni student.
I have no personal experience of the ALP ever actually helping. Not even once.
I also have no personal experience of the Coalition helping, but at least they don’t try to convince me that they will. They’re true to their values, we all know exactly how they’ll behave.
It’s hard to imagine this, but before Whitlam was elected Murdoch and The Australian briefly supported Labor. Once they were in power Murdoch became displeased, to the extent that Labor and Hawke decided it was in their interests to make policy shifts that would please the power of money. With that change of thinking came HECS and the logic that we couldn’t afford indulgences like free education. What we’ve got instead is that rather than money being used for the social good it all somehow trickles up into the pockets of the rich where it does nothing for anyone except them.
I think we’re all a bit starry eyed when it comes to free tertiary education. In the early seventies barely one third of students completed secondary school, of whom one third failed matric, hsc or whatever. Most of those who passed and went to university came from private schools. This a very small percentage of people/students benefited from free tertiary education.
The purpose behind free tertiary education was to try and change the socio- economic make up of those who went to university, that is – get more from the poorer socio-economic and working class groups in there. Whilst this no doubt assisted some, by the time Hawke got into government the socio-economic make up of university students had hardly changed and thus it had not achieved what it had set out to do. In fact, the main beneficiaries were the same group who went to university prior to the program, only now they didn’t pay!!
Im not in favour of HECS or any version of it, and as I I said, no doubt some individuals got to university who may not have. But the benefits for ALL have been greatly over stated.
+1,000.
But he also paid for it. Kerr did him in – with some US support.
Please stop telling me about Whitlam, or trying to make me care about Kerr.
It all happened before I was born, more than half a century ago. It’s completely irrelevant to me; You might as well be telling me about Tsar Nicholas for all the impact it has. Only boomers get mad about Gough, and they’re all dying now anyway.
Throughout my entire conscious memory, ALP rusted-ons have been crapping on about how great Whitlam’s legacy was, and the only reaction I can have is, “Oh yeah, I wonder what that was like? Pity I’ll never know because the ALP has spent my entire life trashing it,” and the only thing I’ve ever been served up is unimaginative boring neoliberal centrism peppered by leadership spills.
That’s what the ALP is. They’re not “The Party of Whitlam,” they’re the party of Hawke, Keating, Rudd and Gillard, the party of mandatory detention, poker machines, drunken wife beating and concentration camps.
If you’re in an old folks home, I’m sure you can have very fond memories of the ALP. But your stories won’t resonate with anyone younger than their mid 50s. Why should we get excited about Labor for god’s sake?
They’re also the party if the the NDIS. Embracing the Uluṟu Statement. Gender equity & trans rights. Decriminalised Howard-Morrison worker restrictions. Protecting abortion rights. Committed to equal opportunity. Making some ( not adequate enough) movement on climate. Have made Superannuation contributions go up. Need more. Opposed robo debt as early as 2017. Are committed to superannuation unlike LNP. Are committed to universal health care unlike LNP. Delivered a surplus.
Of course, re elect the other mob. Life will be so much better.
We seldom ever hear such talking points in local media…..Labour UK are dealing with the same negative personal RW media messaging, especially targeting Starmer.
Suggesting that he is a ‘Tory’ &/or authoritarian so don’t vote Labour, unless Corbyn is reinstated (gifting Tory victory) or don’t vote; the latter replicates the Steve Bannon strategy for Trump to have Clinton lose votes.
However, the left is not helped by too many ageing ideologues and purists, or those talking down their own side, along with Anglo RW media, libertarians and authoritarians?
“ They’re also the party if the the NDIS. ”
Yes they are, but they wrote it in such a way that it’s a perpetual shit fight between the states and the Federal Government.
They also changed all the levels of disability required to be eligible for the Disability Support Pension – and therefore the NDIS- so that almost half of the previously qualifiying disability levels no longer were so individuals wouldn’t get the NDIS or the Disability Support Pension going forward. Great humanitarians, the ALP.
And don’t get me started on Gillard and the sole parent pensioners she threw on Newstart, or try to tell me she had no choice. She was the Prime Minister and Labor were the government. What’s more, she led a minority government and the Greens would have supported Labor in stopping it.
“ your stories won’t resonate with anyone younger than their mid 50s”
Nah they don’t resonate with us, either. I’m 58, Mark. I was 10 in 1975. Whitlam doesn’t mean anything to me. I was 18 when Hawke was elected. What Labor is now is all I’ve ever known. A so-called “centrist” party in an anglosphere world that lurched to the Right and stayed there from the late 70s on.
There does seem to be a persistent view amongst Labor voters that the ALP’s attempt to tap the brakes at the 2019 election was a platform of radical reform.
Though these tend to be the same folks who simultaneously attack the Greens for trying to make Labor implement more traditional left-wing policies, while denouncing them as “tree Tories”, so they’re generally not thinking particularly clearly.
The superiority of sortition (eg jury duty) in dealing with the unpleasant task of, (minimal) government is demonstrated by the nature of the/any/all political hacks – anyone willing/eager to be one is ipso facto totally unsuitable to be allowed anywhere near power.
Until the 70s the ALP was made up of people who had experience of the real world, often hard won in laborious (sic!) jobs but since the overthrow of Whitlam the MPs have, like Louie d’Fly, gone straight the garbage pit of student politics to spads & ward heelers before getting their soft backsides on the leather benches for decades of polishing.
Their only expertise is smarming, toadying, lying and backstabbing colleagues – those are their less appallingly reprehensible attributes, their usual, far worse proclivities do not bear description.
Too bad that some of the policies might have actually done some good.
Agree and like elsewhere, till nativist RW media cartels and oligarch donations or think tank political influence are constrained, any centrist party needs to keep a low profile for damage control, as they will be the target of intense focus and criticism, inc. confected online campaigns across multiple issues and policies.
I heartily agree. They should look back to the Whitlam years and adopt its social policies and to hell with the whingers
Just for interest, the Whitlam government ran surpluses every year.
At a planetary scale there is nothing important about “dirty jobs”. Actually most of our everyday concerns are starting to look pretty piddling by comparison.
We all need to get familiar with the possibility that our lives may become a little harder for a while while we deal with this thing.
“Dirty jobs” are going to become a lot more important if civilisation starts to go south because of climate change.
That world in that future will need plumbers and builders not dog walkers and baristas.
Gardeners, gardeners and more gardeners.
why not with the propagandist media of non -competition and missing, a Journalism Ethics Institute with teeth.
A good idea, but we may have to deal with certain media before anything resembling a sensible and nuanced conversation can be had with the conservative-leaning members of the electorate.
And stop kowtowing the Murdoch press and shock jocks
The ALP is similar to the COALition in that it’s full of careerist hacks who have never had a job outside politics Thus one gets industrial strength greenwashing a housing policy that’s an unfunny joke and resistance to raising job seeker above the poverty line With a substantial budget surplus Treasurer Jim has signalled no additional aid for battlers