The Commentariat: Singer, Craven, McGuinness and Edwards

Jill Singer Herald Sun False tears amid orgy of opportunism If you can believe the glut of commentary across our electronic and print media, Australia is widely populated with politicians who “utterly abhor the death penalty,” says Jill Singer. But the sad truth is that Australians have once again been witness to an orgy of […]

Jill Singer Herald Sun False tears amid orgy of opportunism	If you can believe the glut of commentary across our electronic and print media, Australia is widely populated with politicians who “utterly abhor the death penalty,” says Jill Singer. But the sad truth is that Australians have once again been witness to an orgy of political opportunism. This week, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, “proudly wearing his little Amnesty International badge,” told us he would personally be affected by the execution of Nguyen Tuong Van. But this is the same Philip Ruddock who publicly endorsed the role played by the Australian Federal Police in exposing the so-called Bali Nine to the death sentence. Similarly, John Howard has made a sincere and concerted effort to save Nguyen from the gallows – but when Bali bomber Amrozi was sentenced to death, he applauded the decision, going so far as to suggest that Victoria’s Liberal Opposition might like to put capital punishment on the agenda. In a classic piece of political opportunism, John Howard stated that while he was personally opposed to the death penalty, he respected the fact that a lot of people were in favour of it. And the Labor Party is no less hypocritical, with Mark Latham and Simon Crean publicly supporting the death penalty for foreigners. We might at the very least expect consistency from our politicians. Swinging between opposing and supporting the death penalty according to the whim of public opinion is “as barbaric as capital punishment itself.”	Crikey says: It’s all well and good to campaign for the life of a young Australian, but as Singer exposes, there’s more at work here than morals and compassion. Political opportunism might be a better description. Rating:
Greg Craven The Financial Review Safe rights, sick fantasies (not online)	During the recent debate on Howard’s anti-terrorism legislation – admittedly poorly drafted and containing some highly questionable features – some rights activists could scarcely conceal their pleasure, says Greg Craven in the Financial Review. In thrilled tones, they told the ABC that they hourly anticipated arrest for sedition, treason and overacting. The implicit message being that Australians’ human rights are as vulnerable as the numbat. But the depressing truth is Australia is one of the most rights-conscious countries, less in need of a bill of rights than another good spin bowler. In fact, creating one would cause nothing but problems – handing the power to decide society’s important questions to well-educated judges. But the average judge – a 60-year-old private school-educated bloke whose hobbies are cleaning his BMW and boring his kids – knows as much about issues of policy and morality as Martian etiquette. At least Parliament has its leavening of women, ethnics, and members of the working class. And its members are elected and have at least some nodding acquaintance with democracy. As for those who believe Australia is a sunburnt concentration camp, where people are beaten for reading Noam Chomsky, only in a country whose rights are overwhelmingly safe could you have fantasies as sick as these.	Crikey says: The hysterical overreaction to Howard’s anti-terror legislation from human rights “fetishists” shows they don’t know how good we’ve got it in Australia, says Greg Craven. And they’re crazy if they think a bill of rights, handing more legislative power to judges, is a good idea. Well, that’s one argument. Rating:
P. P. McGuinness The Australian The rise of localism	Conventional wisdom in the press describes electoral outcomes such as the result in last Saturday’s by-election in the NSW seat of Pittwater as a punishment of the political party that normally holds it. In this case, however, the result indicates a far more profound shift in our voting patterns. It is the triumph of localism and parish-pump politics over the wider concerns of federal or state politics, says P. P. McGuinness. It is not just that electorates are tending to vote more and more for independents on account of their personal qualities and popularity. Even though these attributes may be useful, far more important for a growing section of the electorate is that a local representative should be seen to be placing themselves at the direct service of their electorate and locality, placing its interests and concerns above those of the wider polity and community. That is, the trend represents the triumph of nimbyism, the “not in my back yard syndrome.” For it is not just a matter of advancing one’s own local interests but of defending them to the exclusion of the interests of the wider community, or simply narrow-minded selfishness. The reality is that the Pittwater result has little to do with Liberal factionalism. It has a lot to do with the victory of nimbyism over serious policy considerations and good government.	Crikey says: McGuinness gets stuck into the nimbys, arguing that local interests are increasingly being placed ahead of the “wider concerns of federal or state politics.” Rating:
John Edwards The Financial Review Time to review central bank processes	The board of the Reserve Bank is given power to make decisions that directly and immediately affect all Australians, yet none of the non-executive members is elected to the office, or expected to publicly explain or defend the decisions of the board. Consequently, says John Edwards, the effectiveness of the bank depends, “to an unusual degree,” on public trust in the integrity of the board. That’s why it’s doubtful it occurred to Paul Keating or the treasurer to “propose members who were valued for their financial contributions to the Labor party.” And they certainly would not have knowingly appointed anyone whose business interests were the subject of such a “long and unfavourable investigation by the Tax Office as those of Rob Gerard.” Moreover, if they had “by mischance” done so, I doubt either of them would have “vigorously” defended the decision to parliament while “cheerfully implying” that tax disputes on the scale of Gerard’s were “so usual as to hardly be worth their attention.” They would have regarded that as “poor policy, and worse politics.” With the Reserve Bank’s policy objectives becoming more various in recent years, and its board valued because it “brings business experience and common sense to the making of monetary policy” and “can be made to stand between the governor and the treasurer,” there is a stronger case for it to provide more information on the currents of policy discussion on the board. It would also be an incentive to appoint board members whose contributions wouldn’t embarrass the treasurer.	Crikey says: Paul Keating’s former economic adviser explains why his PM wouldn’t have become embroiled in a Gerard affair. He also argues for greater access to the Board’s thought processes. Rating: