Q&A, August 22, 2011 (Click to access the ABC page)

Doug Cameron. Labor Senator and ex trade union official.
Daniel Pipes. Conservative American political commentator.
Hanifa Deen. Pakistani-Australian author.
Nick Minchin. Former Liberal Minister.
Suelette Dreyfus. Whistle-blowing researcher and Wikileaks co-authour.

By popular demand I present my final Q&A commentary. I disclaim any in-depth knowledge of politics but it might provide a springboard for discussion. Or not as the case might be.

Daniel Pipes came across as well informed and able to present a coherent argument, which ability I for one found a blessed relief. Where I found him most impressive was on the issue of the “African Spring”. His analysis is that so far it has resulted in no tangible move towards democracy, and in some States the result is tending towards Islamism. He explicitly expressed an opinion that Islamist is a derogatory term, ranking it together with communism and fascism as one of the three ugly radical utopian philosophies of our time. But he made a clear distinction between Islamists, who he clearly defined (I think I’m in love, what a pleasant change) as people who wish to apply Islamic law in its entirety, and Muslims in general. In answer to an audience question he expressed a belief that Islam is not inconsistent with democracy, that there is clearly a democratic faction in the African Spring countries, and expressed hope that Islamic democracies might develop.

It later became clear Pipes is not only a conservative commentator but a conservative advocate. He extolled the virtues of Israel as a model of democracy and defended its military record, including civilian killings, refusing to admit fault other than that it wasn’t what he would have chosen personally. This led me to question whether his assessment of the African Spring had a hidden agenda. Later he blamed the GFC on over-regulation. He advocated for less market regulation in general and refused to address the specific issue of financial regulation, claiming lack of knowledge, an approach I found disingenuous at best.

Curiously enough, it turns out that at one stage there Obama was indeed a Muslim. But not in an interesting way. He was listed as Muslim at his Indonesian school by his mother when he was six years old. Dreyfus made a fair fist of challenging the relevance and intent of this revelation, rather than denying the facts, effectively nullifying it.

This issue had been raised by Tony Jones, was of no importance, and attracted the populist sneering that Jones must have known would be inevitable. One of several occasions on which I have felt that Tony Jones needs to restrain his tendency to switch into insider gossip mode.

Hanifa Deen came across as a Nice Person. As charming as this is, I eventually found myself wishing that she would respond to Pipes by raising coherent arguments rather than by raising her eyebrows. She totally lost me at the information level when she expressed the belief that Turkey would join the EU within the next ten years. With the EU still struggling to absorb its Eastern members, and grappling with twin financial and immigration crises leading to rising inter-country rancour, the last thing it needs is a member with yet another refugee entry point on its border with Syria, and with relatively low cultural compatibility. However Deen did successfully project a positive image of what she called the Islamic diaspora, of which I gather she is a member. (This is why I included her ethnicity in the brief description by the way, it seemed directly relevant to her comments on Islam.)

In his dual capacities as Labor Senator and ex union official, Doug Cameron had the job of defending Craig Thomson. Thomson is the Labor backbench MP accused under parliamentary privilege of misspending union funds, back when he was a union official, in a variety of ways, the most salacious of which being to pay for prostitutes. Cameron presented the innocent until proven guilty defence well. After having heard from all the other panellists though I am of the view that this counts for little when a crime has clearly been committed against the Union, although not necessarily by Thomson, and yet the Union has made no police complaint. This smacks of cover-up and I concur with the chortling Minchin that Thomson’s only chance of re-election is to be exonerated by a full investigation, not protected by a cover up, regardless of where the truth lies.

As an aside, my conclusion was quite clearly the one that Tony Jones was promoting in his promptings of various panellists. While this is cause for some unease, they were speaking freely. It makes me wonder sometimes how used politicians are to discussing issues in an insider echo chamber, rather than explaining their views to the general public who are not always au fait with the latest developments. Minchin should have filled in the background facts about lack of police complaint, instead it was left to Jones.

Cameron was likeable but there was little substance behind his rhetoric. He expressed a belief that I felt was totally sincere that the Australian government has a clear responsibility to maintain manufacturing, but discarded protectionism as a solution and had no alternative suggestions other than convening a meeting.

Nick Minchin expressed this same belief, but had no more idea what to do about it than Cameron, agreeing with him that protectionism is not an option. Bye-bye Australian manufacturing. Jesus wept. Minchin expressed fairly standard conservative Australian views on all topics. One point where this varies from the standard American conservative viewpoint is that our conservatives back more effective regulation of the financial markets. Again, little substance.

Suelette Dreyfus mentioned the importance of social media and Twitter at least twice that I noticed. I felt her most effective moment was her aforementioned addressing of the ‘Obama as one-time Muslim’ issue. What should have been her moment was the final question about whether Wikileaks’ exposure of behind-the-scenes diplomatic communications served the public interest. Instead this was the moment at which Tony Jones’ previous excursion into irrelevancy came home to roost. Each panellist gave a brief sketch of their predictable views, but any elaboration or in-depth discussion was precluded by time considerations. Not happy Tony.

Q&A Aug 8, 2011 (Click to access the ABC page)

Wow! Are good looking younger female politicians being given preferential treatment on the ABC’s Q&A TV program?

Last week they had Tanya Plibersek seated next to a fairly unsympathetic control freak member of and apologist for the right wing press. She is well spoken and only had to make Nice to look good. This week they had Kelly O’Dwyer next to Graeme Richardson. She only had to make a few remarks about behind scenes manoeuvrings in the Labor Party to look good.

But Kelly did more than that. She dominated the discussion. Usually Tony Jones prevents any individual taking control, but her interjections were done so smoothly and always courteously, particularly towards the host. Lesson there for future panellists wanting extra time. (Was there also a bit of that good looking younger woman factor?) Kelly exploited every little slip of her opponents, on one occasion ably assisted by Mark Dreyfus who actually handed her an opening on a platter by addressing a (probably intended as rhetorical) question to her. You have to watch it to see how she used this to absolutely demolish him from a debating point of view. Later she’d gathered so much rope she was in danger of hanging herself with it. But she redeemed her performance by neatly avoiding the trap of dissing Noni Hazlehurst’s views/actions outside the political sphere (unlike that Tom Switzer fellow) even supporting her with a personal story, which always goes down well. Look out Malcolm Turnbull.

By contrast Mark Dreyfus seemed to be wearily going through the motions. Moreover he came out saying Malaysia is a better solution than Nauru because almost everybody sent to Nauru was accepted into Australia! Oh dear. So much for Tanya’s Niceness the week before.

Tom Switzer supported Kelly’s financial pronouncements, sandwiching Mark Dreyfus between them. His borrowed quip about Wayne Swan’s budget demonstrating his adhesion to the Dolly Parton School of economics was rather good although as Tony Jones, who had tried to cut it off, said, no doubt well rehearsed. (An unbelievable figure, blown out of all proportion, with no visible means of support.) Proved he’s no politician however by attacking Noni Hazelhurst’s morals and hence alienating every Australian woman who became a mother in the final quarter of the twentieth century.

Does anyone know whether Richo still holds Labor Party membership BTW? From the little I watch of politics he has positioned himself in the media market as a well-informed honest commentator on Australian politics with insider understanding of the Labor Party. The resultant picture of Labor is not pretty. For example, Richardson said that the reason why Gillard will retain the Labor Party leadership is that the agreement with the 3 independents is a personal agreement between them and herself, not an agreement between them and the Labor Party. He also said “I think Labor has already lost the next election”. Notably he came out in support of onshore processing of boat people (pardon the shorthand). Perhaps he’s trying to destroy Labor in order to build them back up in a reformed version? Or is he just trying to redeem his image?

Now, from the point of view of understanding Australian politics from the inside, we need a Liberal equivalent of Richo. Maybe there is one but I can’t call them to mind.

Noni Hazlehurst tediously established her credentials as a Labor supporter by making a remark about budgie smugglers and big ears. But her remark linking Abbott with two year olds who always say no was at least original, appropriate in the context of her professional background, and got a laugh. Loved her featured reading of the Go The F**k To Sleep book and her background on why she got involved with it. And gotta love her Playschool insider bean spilling on Big Ted.

In the context of a broader question about denigrating the office of Prime Minister, the panellists were asked whether they believe Gillard is being particularly denigrated because she is a woman. Switzer ignored that part of the question. Richo and Dreyfus agreed. Noni agreed but couldn’t make a cogent case as to why, rather disastrously implying that Arabs aren’t good people along the way. I was disappointed that Kelly first ducked the issue then characterised it as a non-problem. But apart from dutifully seizing the opportunity to highlight legitimate political criticism of Gillard, it is risky politics for a female politician to support the ‘female politician as victim’ story. Particularly when the younger female politicians are performing so well on Q&A.