Peter Hartcher also thinks that Costello’s best option for becoming PM is to go to the backbench (thanks to Jack Strocchi for the link).

I was discussing Costello’s prospects of making it into the Lodge last night, and it struck me that they were not very good. The only way Howard is going to falter badly enough to be sackable is if the economy goes sour, but then Costello will share the blame.

The optimal strategy, and also the standard one, does not seem to have been discussed as an option (feel free to correct me). If he wants the top job, Costello should resign from Cabinet, head for the backbench, and deliver a dignified speech about Howard’s shortcomings. In this scenario, a downturn in the economy hits the trifecta for Costello: his reputation as a masterful economic manager would be enhanced, whichever of his rivals took on the Treasury portfolio would be discredited and Howard would get the blame for alienating the only man who could run the economy properly[1].

If you look at Australia’s political history over the past 25 years, this approach has been pursued with success quite a few times: Peacock, Keating, Latham and Beazley all retired to the backbench to await the call, and none did so in vain, though only Keating (so far) has gone all the way to the Lodge.

fn1. I don’t think the correlation between economic performance and the competence of the Treasurer is all that great, but my opinions on this matter aren’t really relevant.

The news of yet another broken promise from the Howard government is notable only for the degree of inflation we’ve seen in these things.

Asked in September last year if the Howard Government was giving a “cast iron” commitment that bills would be rebatable at $300 or $700 after the election, Mr Abbott replied: “That is an absolutely rock solid, iron-clad commitment.”

It’s hard to see how you could get more emphatic than that, and while the government as a whole has long since lost credibility, Abbott had something of a reputation as a straight-talker[1].

Most politicians lie occasionally and nearly all governments break (or fail to fulfil) some promises, but the Howard government goes well beyond anything in Australian experience. Whatever successes he may achieve, the debasement of the coinage of public honesty is something Howard will never live down.

The result of all this is, I think, a government that can hold on to office as long as it keeps on bringing home the economic bacon, but one that will never earn really strong public support and will leave a poisoned legacy for the Liberal Party in the long run.

fn1. Of course, breaking the promise was not his idea, but if he’d been willing to put his job on the line he could no doubt have faced Costello down.

Online Opinion is running a series of articles about online media, and has just published mine. Comments would be better here than in their forum, which I probably won’t have time to join. Lots of other interesting articles as well.

And in an illustration of the benefits of blogging, I got a call from the ABC asking for comment on the latest skirmishes in the federalism battle. I was able to draw on the debates here and also pinch from Ken Parish the suggestion that the states could look at reimposing income taxes. Radio doesn’t allow for acknowledgements, but blogging does, so thanks Ken.

The Gunns case, in which the world’s largest woodchip exporter is suing critics it accuses of ‘corporate vilification‘ is a typical instance of companies wanting to have it both ways. On the one hand, advocates of the corporation deny that corporations can have any moral or ethical obligations, other than to their shareholders. On the other hand, they want all the protections available to a natural person, including protection from defamation[1]. An individual who acted the way a company is supposed to act in the standard theory would be a sociopath, incapable of being defamed because of the absence of any justified reputation.

In this case, of course, we have the equally important issue of defamation laws being used to suppress free speech on political issues. I doubt that Gunns will prevail, but they don’t have to – a corporation with deep pockets will always win at this kind of game, unless the courts come down hard. I hope that they not only lose but are forced to pay a full accounting of the costs they’ve imposed.

fn2. On the third hand, to mangle the metaphor, the officers and shareholders expect to be protected from any sort of liability for their corporate actions, relying on the sanctity of the ‘corporate veil’. I had a go at this topic here

Reader Graeme Bond pointed me to this ABC radio Ockham’s razor special on the way Australia deals with mental illness, especially the Cornelia Rau case, also dealt with on last night’s Four Corners. The Rau case brought into focus how awful it is that places like Baxter detention centre exist, but far more mentally ill people end up in prison. An obvious question is whether the closure of mental hospitals in the 1970s was a bad idea, or a good idea taken too far. Graeme writes

Instead of updating psychiatric institutions, as is done with hospitals, schools etc, we have replaced them with ‘community based neglect’ and another institution, prison.

No one suggests ‘community care’ for other serious illnesses requiring hospitalisation. It is sometimes akin to suggesting open heart surgery on the kitchen table.

Not all mentally ill require a high level of expensive care, many, such as the homeless on the streets would have their lives vastly improved by little more than hostels with a low level of supervision and assistance with Centrelink forms so they were not reduced to begging. It is preferable to jail and probably cheaper.

Others simply need occasional brief periods of hospitalisation during a crisis and otherwise live relatively normal lives with their families.

and this seems pretty convincing to me. We’ve had a string of inquiries into this issue, without, it seems, making much progress.

According to this ABC report, the Rann government in SA is trying to scrap parliamentary privilege against defamation actions, as a direct response to a political crisis in which the former Speaker, Peter Lewis, who resigned yesterday, has made accusations that a number of prominent people, including MPs, are pedophiles[1]. Although it appears that Mr Lewis named names, and that publication of these names would be protected by parliamentary privilege, the reports I’ve seen don’t give names.

In defence of the legislation, Rann is quoted as saying that there’s nothing to fear from making statements if they’re true, but this claim is itself false. His objection to Lewis’ statements is not that they are provably false, but that they are unsubstantiated. The fact that MPs can make allegations that are true, or at least plausibly grounded in evidence, but not provable in court is the essence of Parliamentary privilege.

There are some changes I’d like to see made in defamation law as it relates to MPs. First, and conversely with Parliamentary privilege, I’d like a strengthening of the principle that criticism of MPs by members of the public should be protected free speech under the Constitution. Second, I’d like an expansion of the existing rights of reply (I’ve never used this mechanism in response to criticisms of me in Parliament, but I think Clive Hamilton has). Finally, the Parliament itself, through the Speaker, ought to be more rigorous in calling MPs to account for abuses of privilege[2].

One thing is for sure. Making radical changes to fundamental institutions in the heat of the moment is a very bad idea.

Update 6/4/5 The Bill has been withdrawn

fn1. This Advertiser report isn’t exactly consistent, suggesting Lewis stated “that a serving MP had been involved in homosexual acts in the south parklands.” This might, I suppose, include violations of age-of-consent laws.

fn2. Given the dominance of the party system, I’m less sure about this last item.

Having established that the idea of ‘regional government’ makes no sense in the Australian context, let’s look at the real issue of centralism versus federalism. Would we be better off without a unitary system in which a single national government controlled everything [1]? I don’t think so[2]. I’ll present my case over the fold. You might also like to look at Ken Parish, Gary Sauer-Thompson and Andrew Norton. The Currency Lad disagrees, endorsing Keating’s view of the Senate, and Whitlam’s view of the states.
Read More »