Blog Archives

The Politics of Stupid Rules

It would appear that we are going to continue heading down the road out of Policy Town, hurtling toward Lameness and Hypocrisy City. The political car has been accelerating out of Policy Town for some time now. However, since the deplorable comments from Alan Jones about the Prime Minister’s father recently, the vehicle seems to have found some extra horsepower.

On Tuesday came that speech from Prime Minister Julia Gillard, now a worldwide sensation, accusing Tony Abbott of hypocrisy over the Coalition’s calls for the former Speaker Peter Slipper to be sacked over offensive text messages. Of course, just hours later, the embattled Speaker fell on his sword, resigning after what Rob Oakeshott claims was not an ultimatum, even though it sounded extraordinarily like one.

But it was the Alan Jones speech which established a precedent that the Labor Party said should be followed. That precedent said that when you are at a function of your own party as a parliamentary representative you must walk out when there is offensive remarks made. Failing that, you must at least interrupt the act or speech to register your disgust. Then you must at least condemn and ideally apologise on behalf of the party for the stupid remarks. Finally, you must accept responsibility for those remarks because they occurred at an event involving your party and because they happened at your party, everyone in it is responsible for them.

In the characteristic style of hypocritical politicians, some or all of the elements of that doctrine are bound to be broken from time to time. But it probably would have surprised many that in this particular case the rule was broken so quickly.

Last night, at a CFMEU function, senior Labor MP’s and Ministers in attendance, a comedian made offensive remarks about Tony Abbott’s Chief of Staff Peta Credlin.

The Prime Minister who was in attendance, had already left before the comedian began the act. Craig Emerson, another senior Labor Minister walked out once the offensive remarks were made. Unsurprisingly, Wayne Swan, due to make a speech after the comic finished his piece, no stranger to immaturity and bad judgement, remained behind. Not just that, but not until today did the Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister say a thing about the remarks.

S0, the ALP member’s of parliament still in attendance failed elements of their own test. The CFMEU, as much as just about any number of unions, is a part of the Labor Party. Not only did all bar Craig Emerson fail to walk out, it is reported that an awkward silence fell upon the crowd, no annoyance was directed at the person up on stage.

Where the ALP member’s of parliament passed the test, just, was their condemnation of the remarks, albeit slow, given that they had chosen to take the moral high-ground in the first place. Yet the apology for the remarks was not as slow as the response of the Leader of the Opposition after the function at which Alan Jones spoke.

But did things really need to get this absurd? Certainly not. Aspects of the precedent invoked by the ALP are just utterly ridiculous. Sure, if someone makes utterly offensive remarks, condemnation of the hurtful words is a reasonable response, if only to calm the charged nature of politics. An apology is just a little silly. To walk out or register discontent mid-act? Again, reasonable, but it is completely arguable that it is not necessary. But to accept responsibility as an act of and on behalf of the party? That’s an entirely laughable concept dreamed up with absolutely no degree of rationality.

This would not be the first time that politicians have painted themselves into a corner. It will happen again.

How Not to Apologise, Hypocrisy and Sponsors Running

Alan Jones is no stranger to controversy. Foot in mouth disease is a common affliction for the Sydney radio talkback host, but so far the ailment hasn’t proven fatal for the guy who seems to have nine lives. His most recent indiscretion, stupid, offensive, drongo-like comments made at a recent Sydney University Liberal Club function where Jones was guest speaker. These comments as you will have already heard, said that the Prime Minister’s father “died of shame” because of his daughters’ lies.

The offensive part of the equation is of course the use of the recent death of Julia Gillard’s father. It is often said in political discourse that if you make comments about a politician you leave the family out of it. That is certainly the only way to go and you certainly never, not even when it’s your worst political enemy, never ever use the death of a family member to make fun of or even make a political point, it’s common decency.

The “lying” part of the equation is fair game, but not when used in the same sentence or the same breath as the death of a family member of any politician or even any person you are talking to or about. Surprise, surprise though, all politicians lie- Labor, Liberal, Nationals, Greens, Independents, that’s politics even though we hope against all hope that it doesn’t have to be that way. But in talkback radio you’ll generally only ever hear about the lies of one side of politics, that’s the nature of  the beast.

On Sunday, when everyone was going about their weekend activities, Alan Jones decided he would come out and apologise, but apologise he did not. Instead we had close to an hour of a speech, followed by questions which felt more like “sorry I was caught” rather than “sorry, I was a bit of an arse to the Prime Minister and I apologise.”

The largely compliant media in attendance at the Sunday media conference sat there and allowed Jones to drown out his “apology” with more attacks on the Prime Minister and her government, fair game in the normal course of politics, but not when you are supposed to be showing contrition. What was needed was an unqualified apology, no nonsense, instead we got 98% rubbish and two percent “well I was stupid.”

When the events came to light, social media went into a spin, with people quick to air their displeasure at the incredibly wrong comments uttered by Alan Jones at the function. That escalated fast, as it has a tendency to do on social media, into a viral campaign urging both listeners and sponsors to boycott the station that airs his program, 2GB as well as those radio stations that syndicate his program.

One of the loudest proponents of  the hashtag #boycott2GB was outspoken political and social commentator and comedian Catherine Deveny, whose own comments in the past have caused mass offense among those on the opposite side of the political spectrum and even to a former employer. In no way should this legitimise or draw away from the truly despicable comments made by Jones. However, the involvement of Deveny drew some of the attention away from Alan Jones’ words and unfortunately in the minds of some, would have legitimised the comments of Jones.

At the very least it was a distraction from the cause and abject hypocrisy from Ms Deveny who is more than capable of giving it to public and political players. The point is, nobody, not Jones nor Deveny should say such horrible things about other people. Both will no doubt continue to do so.

Despite this, the campaign at least as far as targetting sponsors and advertisers on the program and calling for them to withdraw financial support, has continued to gain traction and support. Also, some stations that syndicate the program have today decided to drop future broadcast of the show.

Mercedes Benz, Challenger, Lexus Parramatta, Freedom Furniture and Woolworths have pulled sponsorship or advertising from the program since yesterday’s insincere apology. It seems unlikely that sponsors withdrawing will lead to Mr Jones being taken off the air. Keep in mind the similar example of Kyle Sandilands, no stranger to heinous comments, who’s still on the radio talking trashy rubbish, even if ACMA’s restrictions have made the show slightly less absurd.

So far there’s been no luck and there is unlikely to be any hope  that 2GB will sack the broadcaster, nor should he be sacked, forced or feel the need to resign. Also, he owns part of the commercial radio station and is their most popular host so it would prove very difficult, though not impossible to show him the door.

The only other hope, and it is a vain one, is that enough people decide to tune out from tomorrow when Alan Jones returns to the airwaves after the long weekend. Most of his audience are rusted on who wouldn’t tune out for just about any sum of money that could be imagined. There too will always be a market for the majority of his comments which are not controversial.

In the most unusual phenomenon, there will also be a number of people, no fan of Alan Jones and what he has to say, who will continue to tune into the program for the simple purpose of being able to bag the guy when he says something they don’t like. The funny thing is that they are contributing to keeping him on air.

It’s unlikely that Alan Jones’ program will collapse. He won’t lose all the sponsors of the show and there’s even a strong likelihood that the sponsors lost will be replaced. The social media campaign, as successful as it has been in garnering numbers to both get Jones off air and get sponsors to cancel commercial deals, will most likely amount to nothing.

Oh, and that non-apology will remain in perpetuity one of the worst attempts at saying sorry in the history of Australia. People will be dusting off the archives in 100 years and it will have pride of place among the absurd.

The good thing is that Alan Jones has another opportunity to apologise on air tomorrow. But do you think he will take it? Don’t hold your breath.

Could Senator Bernardi Have Been Sacked for Something Sooner?

So, South Australian Senator Cory Bernardi overnight said something incredibly dumb and offensive, the second time in just a couple of days in fact. He’s been hauled into the office of the Leader of the Opposition and offered, or was perhaps in reality nudged, to offer his resignation as Parliamentary Secretary to the Opposition Leader himself and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families. That would be a huge relief to a great majority of the party who might share some of the same general beliefs on the matter of marriage equality, being against it, but not for the frankly both hilariously stupid, but at the same time downright offensive reasons offered up in the Senate last night.

Senator Bernardi in speaking on marriage equality, which has just been through the lower house where it was soundly defeated, last night said that allowing marriage equality would lead to polyamory and bestiality. This echoes some of the more insane and hurtful thought-bubbles that people from the Australian Christian Lobby and the like offer up as pseudo reasons for masking, though not successfully, their downright bigotry and hatred of same-sex couples.

If Senator Bernardi had not been sacked for this latest indiscretion, the outcry would have been massive. These were not only highly discriminatory comments, but as many have pointed out before and indeed after this entry into the debate by Senator Bernardi, they were also based on fairy tale assertions, they are urban myths. No government is going to ever, no matter how progressive, legalise bestiality and even the lesser of the two evils, polyamory. Those changes to marriage simply will not be tolerated by anyone in the Australian community, let alone those that represent or will ever represent us in the parliament.

But this whole matter raises another interesting question, a question that could have been answered with the sacking of Bernardi prior to these remarks, though he certainly would have made them as a lowly backbench MP too. The question that is raised is of vocally condemning what is largely bipartisan policy, though the extent of the agreement from time-to-time faces small tests and the policy does face questions, however brief.

Multiculturalism, since its official adoption as government policy in the 1970s has been largely bipartisan policy though the strength and depth of that commitment has come into question briefly, particularly in response to violent events like the Cronulla riots and the scenes in Sydney at the weekend as well as in the ongoing asylum seeker debate. But largely and broadly, that commitment to continuing a policy of a multiculturalism in a broad sense has never really disintegrated.

Early in the week, along came Cory Bernardi with ill-thought out comments, lacking any critical thought as he often does, about multiculturalism. He used the events in Sydney at the weekend, the truly horrific and disturbing actions as proof that there is a problem with the official government policy. This is plainly not the case and as has been pointed out by a number of commentators, it is a problem with society and human nature. His was, as argued yesterday, a crass generalisation, painting a violent few as representative of the whole of Islam and the Muslim community in Australia.

So could Senator Bernardi have been sacked over his insensitive comments in relation to government policy, a policy that mostly enjoys some level of support from the Coalition? The answer is yes. Generally, you could sack someone that didn’t agree with party policy, even if commitment to that policy within the party is a little iffy. It is especially the case that he could have been sacked or forced to resign on this matter alone for making those views known publicly in parliamentary proceedings, official government business. This is especially the case as Senator Bernardi  was effectively a junior minister in a shadow portfolio.

Certainly, as Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and responsible therefore for sensible commentary in the area of familial relationships, his decision to stand aside was the right one. This is true whether he was quietly pushed to save what little face he had left or made the decision for himself.

Again in politics, the question is asked- ‘did it really need to come to this first?’. The answer is at worst, not really and at best, definitely not. But then parliamentary processes and traditions are well and truly blurred now.