When Anthony Albanese is asked what his government’s Indigenous affairs policy is after the referendum’s failure, his response boils down to: watch this space.

On Tuesday the government will present its latest implementation plan for Closing the Gap, when it brings down its annual report on the progress (or lack of) towards the multiple targets.

Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney says Tuesday’s statement will “commit to new actions that focus on making a practical difference”.

Albanese told the ABC this week: “The priority [is] very much on employment. How do we take the [Community Development Program] – which is essentially a work-for-the-dole program – and make it real, so it creates real jobs with real skills for Indigenous Australians?”

History and evidence tell us incrementalism is not enough to make a big difference to the parlous condition of Aboriginal people in remote Australia. Equally, ambitions to transform how decisions are made and delivered have so far proved beyond governments.

This week’s blunt report from the Productivity Commission on the 2020 National Agreement on Closing the Gap told governments (federal, state and territory) real progress requires a massive change of ways and mindsets.

The agreement, dating from Scott Morrison’s time, is centred on power sharing and partnerships. But the review’s “overarching finding” is that there’s been “no systematic approach to determining what strategies need to be implemented to disrupt business-as-usual of governments”.

The commission heard from Indigenous people that barriers to reform included “the lack of power sharing needed for joint decision-making and the failure of governments to acknowledge and act on the reality that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people know what is best for their communities.”

“Unless governments address the power imbalance in their systems, policies and ways of working, the Agreement risks becoming another broken promise to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people,” the report says.

According to the review, the commitment to shared decision-making is rarely achieved; government policy doesn’t reflect the value of the Indigenous community-controlled sector; the required transformations of government organisations have barely begun; governments are not enabling Indigenous people to own their own data; and there are issues around accountability.

Deirdre Howard-Wagner, director of research at the Australian National University’s Centre for Indigenous Policy Research, says the commission’s final report is stronger than last year’s (already forthright) draft report.

For example, it says the agreement “needs to be changed to recognise self-determination as the ultimate goal”. It is also “very clear on the desirable path forward” on data governance, shared decision-making and having an independent mechanism to oversee the implementation of the agreement, Howard-Wagner says.

Tuesday’s statement will not provide a response to the review. Burney says it will take some time to work through it with the Coalition of Peaks – the umbrella group for Indigenous organisations – and state and territory governments.

Much has been said about the Albanese government’s caution in pushing a robust reform agenda generally. In Indigenous affairs, it has been badly burned on the Voice, the defeat of which has also produced a more negative climate, seen for instance in the political debate about treaty and truth telling. As Indigenous rights advocate Frank Brennan notes in a Eureka Street article this week, “There is a need to realise that the referendum loss now places the assimilation debate back on the national agenda.”

The Albanese government is likely to find some of the meat in the commission’s report too difficult. If it is to leave any mark on this vexed policy area, however, it must take more responsibility.

Michael Dillon is a former federal bureaucrat with extensive experience in Indigenous affairs who also served as an adviser to Labor minister Jenny Macklin. He points out that the 1967 referendum was about giving the Commonwealth power to make policy for Australia’s Indigenous people. But, he says, the 2020 agreement has, if anything, pushed responsibility back to the states and territories.

“The Commonwealth should step up and take a driving role in this agreement – and, indeed, in national Indigenous policy generally,” argues Dillon, now a visiting fellow at the ANU. Key areas for reform include education, remote housing and remote employment, he says.

Specifically on the reform of the Community Development Program, which is about both income support and getting people into jobs in remote Australia, Dillon says the government should pick out several specific areas for development.

For example, jobs could be created to assist Indigenous people in managing the enormous swathes of land they own under native title. Much of this land, in remote challenging parts of the country, can be a liability for them, because of feral animals and weeds, rather than the asset it should be. This employment would massively build on the existing successful rangers working-on-Country program, Dillon says.

Another initiative he suggests is expanding the Indigenous workforce in the community services sector, including the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Thirdly, in relation to remote housing, Dillon sees opportunity for creating Indigenous maintenance teams to repair houses and facilities in remote communities.

Potentially, the energy transition could present prospects for Indigenous people. Energy Minister Chris Bowen is co-developing a First Nations Clean Energy Strategy. Bowen points to projects in Canada involving Indigenous people.

“A big proportion of Canada’s renewable energy is actually owned by their First Nations people, much, much bigger than in Australia. Now can we turn that ship around overnight? No, but do we have things to do? Yes. And are there some early signs of growth and encouragement? Yes. There’s been some big First Nations involvement in some big renewable energy investments, and I want to see much more of it,” Bowen told The Conversation’s Politics Podcast.

Dillon is emphatic that a very large injection of funds is needed to tackle employment and other areas of need in remote communities. “In remote Australia it’s a poly-crisis,” he says. “Every rock you pick up, there’s a scorpion.”

In his submission to the commission’s review, Dillon called for an assessment of the financial investments required to close the gap over the next decade or two. “Without such an estimate, the community at large are left in the dark, forever thinking that the incessant tinkering around the edges by governments are in fact contributing to closing the gap, whereas in fact mere tinkering contributes to and sustains the maintenance of the status quo,” he wrote.

“While the estimated cost will be substantial, so too are the costs of not closing the gap; costs that will continue to fall regressively on the most disadvantaged segments of the Australian community.”

Next week’s implementation plan will be a test of whether the Albanese government can produce policy muscle in Indigenous affairs.

On another front, Albanese has it in his power to make one desirable gesture. The governor-generalship comes up soon, and an Indigenous appointment would be appropriate and welcome. This should not be regarded as consolation for the referendum debacle. Rather, it should be seen as an overdue acknowledgement of our First Nations people.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Can the Albanese government show muscle in Indigenous policy? One test is coming next week appeared first on Women's Agenda.

The projections say in four decades’ time Australians will be living longer, with more years in good health – but the larger cohort of aged people will increase the need for care.

By 2062-63, life expectancy for men is projected to be 87 years (currently 81.3), and for women 89.5 (85.2).

Australia’s population is expected to grow at a slower rate in the coming four decades than in any 40 year period since federation, according to the report, prepared by the federal treasury. By 2062-63 Australia would have a population of 40.5 million.

The Intergenerational Report puts a long lens on the nation’s future, looking at the implications of demographic changes and covering a broad range of economic and social areas. The first report was done under the Howard government and the most recent in 2021. While these reports are important for policy makers in identifying trends and signposting looming problems, they are also limited by the extended time frame and the inevitability of changing circumstances and different policies.

This year’s report again highlights the economic and budgetary issues presented by an ageing population. The combination of increased longevity and low fertility means Australia will continue to age over the next four decades. “The number of people aged 65 and over will more than double and the number aged 85 and over will more than triple,” the report says. This will make for “an ongoing economic and fiscal challenge”.

“The average annual population growth rate is projected to slow to 1.1% over the next 40 years, compared to 1.4% for the past 40 years,” the report says. “Australia’s population is projected to reach 40.5 million in 2062–63.”

Present projections are for the number of health care and social assistance workers to increase by 15.8% from 2021 to 2026. The former National Skills Commission projected the demand for aged care workers alone was expected to double by 2050.

Chalmers said the report showed growth in the care economy “is set to be one of the most prominent shifts in our society” over the period, with the care sectors playing a bigger role in driving growth.

“Whether it’s health care, aged care, disabilities or early childhood education – we’ll need more well-trained workers to meet the growing demand for quality care over the next 40 years. The care sector is where the lion’s share of opportunities in our economy will be created,” he said.

The report projects population growth to fall to 0.8% in 2062–63.

Both migration and natural increase are expected to fall relative to the size of the population. Net migration is assumed at 235,000 a year.

“The 2023–24 Budget forecast that net overseas migration will recover in the near term due to the temporary catch‑up from the pandemic. It is expected to largely return to normal patterns from 2024-25. Even with the near‑term recovery, on current forecasts, cumulative net overseas migration would not catch up to pre‑pandemic levels until 2029-30,” the report says.

“Over the next 40 years, net overseas migration is expected to account for 0.7 percentage points of Australia’s average annual population growth, falling from 1.0 percentage points in 2024–25 to 0.6 percentage points by 2062–63.”

On budgetary pressures, the report follows a familiar theme. “The main five long‑term spending pressures are health and aged care, the NDIS, defence, and interest payments on Government debt. Combined, these spending categories are projected to increase by 5.6 percentage points of GDP over the 40 years from 2022–23 to 2062–63.”

On the crucial issue of productivity, which has languished for years, the report downgrades the assumption for productivity growth “from its 30-year average of around 1.5% to the recent 20-year average of around 1.2%.

“Placing more weight on recent history better reflects headwinds to productivity growth, such as continued structural change towards service industries, the costs of climate change, and diminishing returns from past reforms. This downgrade is consistent with forecasts in other advanced economies.”

The report points to areas where there are opportunities to lift productivity growth.

These include reforms to reduce entry and exist barriers for firms, facilitating the diffusion of technology, and encouraging labour mobility. It also highlights the potential of digital innovations, including artificial intelligence.

On human capital, the report says, “The jobs of the future will require increasingly specialised skillsets and there is potential to support Australians at all stages of their human capital development. Promotion of foundational skills – such as in literacy and numeracy – at an early age will facilitate participation in the expanding knowledge economy over the next 40 years.”

Chalmers said the report “will make the critical point that the trajectory or productivity growth in the future is not a foregone conclusion, and it will depend on how we respond to the big shifts impacting our economy”.

Meanwhile the Business Council of Australia is unveiling a reform plan, titled Seize the Moment, for ways to reverse Australia’s “productivity slump” and boost competitiveness. It claims if implemented the reform package would “leave each Australian $7000 better off a year after a decade”.

Among its multiple proposals, the BCA says there should be “broad-based reform of the tax system to minimise distortions and increase incentives to invest, innovate and hire”.

It also says federal and state governments should commit to a “10-year national net zero roadmap based on a whole-of-system approach to decarbonising the economy to 2050”. It calls for more action to increase women’s economic participation, a more flexible industrial relations system, “a coherent system of lifelong learning”, and an agenda for microeconomic reform.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post ‘Care’ economy to balloon in an Australia of 40.5 million: Intergenerational Report appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Their prime targets are “soft” voters – including those who are undecided, uncertain, sceptical, just tuning in.

Earlier, the government was putting much faith in “the vibe” to carry the Voice – a general appeal to righting the wrongs of the past and giving Indigenous people the opportunity to be heard. “Closing the gap” was part of the pitch but it was cast in general terms.

Now, with polling showing support for the Voice slipping, the government is desperate to arrest the slide. Probably its best chance of doing so is if it can convince people the Voice will bring tangible improvements on the ground for Indigenous people.

With this in mind Burney, the minister for Indigenous Australians, on Wednesday gave the proposed Voice a work program.

“From day one, the Voice will have a full in-tray,” she told the National Press Club. “I will ask the Voice to consider four main priority areas: health, education, jobs and housing.”

This was a new slant on how the Voice will operate. Previously, the emphasis has been on it taking the initiative. Now Burney is dealing herself actively into its work. “Bringing the priorities of local communities to Canberra will be incredibly important,” she said, “so will be the requests government makes of the Voice.”

The new emphasis is also designed to reinforce the message the Voice would concentrate on core issues – it would not be running out of control or distracted.

The issues in the areas Burney nominated are massive. If the Voice were to live up to the government’s hype about helping to close the gap, it would have to give well-based advice on broad policies as well as feedback from local communities. It would require sufficient resources to provide the former, while how well it did the latter would depend on the calibre of its individual members, whose precise methods of selection are yet to be determined.

In her just-released Australian Quarterly essay, Voice of Reason, Megan Davis, co-chair of the Uluru Dialogue, writes: “The quality of representatives, whether elected or selected by community, is essential to its success. At the end of the day, the success of the Voice will rise and fall on the men and women who represent the voices of the community.”

Davis also warns the Voice must be “sharply focused and driven by community interests”, and not spread itself too thin.

The government is wise to recalibrate its messaging, but it does risk adding to the confusion and widening the scope for more questions about the Voice’s operations.

In the contest over the Voice, the government is relying on having time for the “yes” campaign to ramp up. But arguably, the long timeline may be working against the government and for the opposition leader. The government’s honeymoon is over, and the pressures many voters are under are worsening.

On Wednesday Dutton declared that, in the last year, “the prime minister’s obsession with the Voice means that he’s taken his eye off the ball when it comes to economic policy – and that’s why you’re paying more for your mortgage, it’s why you’re paying more for every element in your family and small business budget”.

Factually, this link is nonsense. But it may hit a few exposed nerves among voters.

Kos Samaras, from RedBridge consultancy group, says, on the basis of extensive focus-group research: “There’s growing resentment in some parts of Australia that this Voice issue seems to be on the minds of politicians in Canberra while these voters want action on their existential problems at a personal level – interest rates, rising rents, cost of living.”

Samaras (who formerly worked for the Labor Party) believes the cost-of-living crisis is a “punch in the guts” for the “yes” campaign.

Bearing in mind the referendum must win four states as well as a national majority, Samaras also warns that Western Australians are “starting to develop a view this is an east coast thing”.

A survey in June by the ACM newspaper group of more than 10,000 (self-selecting) readers found only 38% support for the Voice, and 55% opposition (7% undecided). More than seven in ten people felt the government hadn’t done enough to explain the voice to the community. The survey does not have the statistical rigour of a poll, but its base of 14 daily newspapers taps into major regional centres in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania (including Canberra, which is more progressive than elsewhere). So its finding is concerning for the “yes” case.

The Voice has backing from an impressive range of sporting, faith and community organisations, and strong support in the business sector, including from mining companies. Initially, this seemed a significant plus. But now there are doubts, with some fears ordinary people might react to what they see as “elites” telling them what to do.

Dutton has doubled down on his attacks on businesses that have endorsed and in some cases donated to the “yes” campaign. Homing in on Wesfarmers’ donation, he said: “I think the $2 million would be better off reducing prices in their supermarkets or reducing prices at Bunnings. When I go to Bunnings, I want to pay less for my goods, not more. […] Every time I hand over my credit card or cash at Bunnings, or at Coles, I don’t want part of that money going to an activist CEO.”

Whether Wesfarmers or similar firms donate to the Voice campaign is not going to make any difference to their prices. But that doesn’t mean the line won’t resonate with some voters.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has yet to announce the date for the referendum vote, continuing to repeat that it will be in the last quarter of the year. It’s a moot point whether the intensifying campaign will be to the advantage of the “yes” vote. Will the “soft voters” become increasingly irritated by anything that doesn’t relate to cost-of-living issues?

In retrospect, the referendum vote ideally should have been held earlier, even if the government had to face accusations of rushing it. Prospectively, the race is still there to be won by the “yes” case, but the government would also be wise to have a plan for handling the serious consequences of a loss.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Linda Burney fills the Voice’s in-tray, as the government battles to stop slide in yes vote appeared first on Women's Agenda.

As Labor’s recent period of extraordinary internal harmony shatters, former cabinet minister Nicola Roxon has excoriated Kevin Rudd, forensically detailing his bad behaviour and declaring he should leave parliament for Labor’s good.

Delivering the John Button lecture, Roxon said that removing Rudd in 2010 “was an act of political bastardry, for sure. But this act of political bastardry was made possible only because Kevin had been such a bastard himself to many people already”.

His colleagues had “got overcome by politeness” and thought it would save him pain to move quickly and say as little as possible, but this “polite white lie” turned to poison. “It was something that Julia Gillard wore as a heavy chain around her neck for her entire prime ministership,” said Roxon, a former health minister and former attorney-general who quit parliament at the election.

“In the absence of a more accurate explanation, Julia was painted as a treacherous deputy, although it was unfair and way off the mark,” she said.

“If Kevin was an employee … he would have won his unfair dismissal case, not because there wasn’t cause to dismiss him but because we didn’t explain the reasons properly to him, let alone to the voting public.”

Roxon warned that the “bitter truth” was that as long as Rudd remained in parliament, “irrespective of how he behaves, pollsters will run comparisons with him and any other leader.

“For the good of the federal parliamentary Labor party and the movement as a whole, Kevin Rudd should leave the parliament, otherwise the actions of any Labor leader will always be viewed through the prism of popularity compared to him.”

Rudd has also come under criticism from Maxine McKew in her just released update of her book Tales from the Political Trenches.

McKew, who beat John Howard in his seat in 2007 but lost in 2010, was close to Rudd. But she writes he was off his game in the 2010 election and had created confusion around his own persona.

While the leadership ballot, which elected Bill Shorten, kept the ALP together and in good spirits, this week has been marked by infighting over the frontbench, a bitter outbursdt from former speaker Anna Burke about the influence of the “faceless men”, and the obvious fact that the factions are still having massive influence, which has stopped as much new blood coming into Labor’s front line as would have been desirable.

Roxon, who criticised Rudd at the time of the 2012 challenge, in tonight’s speech painted him as appalling to other people, a treacherous leaker and stalker of Gillard, unable to deliver on commitments and with a shambolic method of governing. She documented his behaviour in an address framed around “practical tips” for the next Labor government and ALP MPs on how to conduct themselves.

She recounted that when Rudd was barnstorming the country visiting hospitals, on one occasion “over 20 hotel rooms had to be paid for, as the hospital we were scheduled to visit the next day was changed en route in the PM’s plane” and it was too late to cancel the booking.

Several times she, Gillard, treasurer Wayne Swan and senior staff were as told on Friday or Saturday to be at The Lodge on Sunday.

“On one occasion staff spent the whole day on the lawn playing handball, not allowed in but not allowed to go home and rest or be with their partners or family. More than one relationship was destroyed by this relentless disorganisation.”

In 2007 “Kevin was great at the cut through and then struggled at the follow through. In contrast, Julia was brilliantly thorough at delivering but couldn’t always deliver the message.

“Kevin had a fatal attraction to everyone else’s problems. He never saw a problem that he didn’t believe he should try and fix.” Two examples were his interfering and demanding approach to the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster and the Victorian bushfires. “Neither of these were situations where the Commonwealth could have much of a direct role and these excessive meetings called by Kevin in the middle of a crisis took up valuable time of the frontline officials.”

Rudd had “a terrible habit of attending meetings not having read detailed papers that he had commissioned at the last meeting, often very complex ones at short notice.

“I remember one meeting only days before Christmas in 2009 when a total rewrite of health policy was demanded before Christmas. Despite many hours of work into the night, I do not believe that paper was ever to this day read by the PM, let alone over a Christmas holiday he had already ruined for others.”

Roxon said that some issues seemed to run for months, even years without them able to be brought to a head. There was no avenue for ministers to bring legitimately tricky issues to cabinet for real discussion.

“Kevin as PM simply refused to list contentious and often strategic items for cabinet.” She admitted she and other ministers should have insisted on bringing on those discussions.

Rudd had “an overwhelming inclination to focus on the minutiae as a way of avoiding the big, harder decisions”.

Roxon said the outcome from the Copenhagen climate change conference could have been prepared for differently if Rudd had allowed then climate change minister Penny Wong to bring a proper discussion to the full cabinet.

“In addition to the lack of cabinet engagement on some big strategic calls, cabinet was misused by being asked to deal in enormous detail with material it could never hope to be fully across.”

Roxon said that because of Labor’s leadership tension since 2010 “and the relentless stalking of Julia by Kevin’s supporters” every substantive policy issue or decision was viewed through the unhelpful prism of personality or leadership. The leakers and those playing kamikaze politics used issues day in and day out “to keep the leadership issue burning”.

Even if one accepted that the method of Rudd’s removal was unfair “nothing excuses persistently destabilising and leaking against your own team during an election or as a senior minister or as a backbencher.

“I don’t think anyone can any longer be in doubt about how trenchantly and continuously this occurred at both Kevin’s hand and his supporters.”

“Although his removal was dramatic and brutal, it was his refusal to recover with dignity, to rise above the treatment he was meted out … that in my view showed his true nature.”

Urging in one of her tips the need to be polite and “keep yourself nice”, Roxon recalled TV footage of Rudd ignoring the then NSW premier Kristina Keneally during the health negotiations, which had given NSW the upper hand for the first time. “Disparagingly calling her Bambi behind closed doors was silly when in fact she was whip smart and went on to run rings around us.”

She said the Garden Island announcement in the 2013 campaign – when Rudd disparaged NSW premier Barry O’Farrell – “underscored this lesson hadn’t been learned”.

Rudd had always treated her respectfully, Roxon conceded. “Although I was frustrated beyond belief by his disorganisation and lack of strategy, I was never personally a vitim of his vicious tongue or temper. I did however see how terribly he treated some brilliant staff and public servants.”

Roxon said Labor had become risk averse, trying to avoid ballots rather than recognising “it is good to have a go and you will win some and lose some”. She said local members should be given more autonomy to raise and campaign on issues for their community.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published at The Conversation.

The post Nicola Roxon scathing about Kevin Rudd appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Tony Abbott is no doubt enjoying former minister Nicola Roxon’s blast against her old political boss Kevin Rudd. It has brought the attention back to Labor in an uncomfortable way for the opposition.

Abbott knows Roxon well. They went head to head when he was health minister and she was Labor’s spokeswoman. Nicola can be sharp. In the 2007 campaign she ticked Tony off for being late for a debate, to which he said “bullshit”. He was the loser in that exchange. She’s one of those “don’t mess with me” kind of people.

In Wednesday’s John Button Memorial Lecture Roxon (who did not contest the election) took an axe to Rudd, accusing him of being a “bastard”, treacherous, and a hopeless manager of prime ministerial business; she said he should leave parliament ASAP.

Her account of Rudd could have been titled “A study in how not to be a PM”. She cast it as providing “housekeeping tips”. Her advice (directed to a future Labor government but also good for this government and PM) includes: don’t do too many things at once; keep your focus high level, on the things that really matter; delegate; welcome debate, rather than fearing it; be polite and be persuasive; have the diary tidy; and “accept you are not always right, and cannot always fix everything”.

Prime ministerships always start in hope and almost always end in tears. Consider those in recent memory (and put aside Gough Whitlam – to be sacked by the governor-general is beyond disaster). Malcolm Fraser, Paul Keating and John Howard lost at the polls; Bob Hawke and Julia Gillard were toppled by their parties; Rudd had the distinction of being rejected by both party and voters. We have to go back to Robert Menzies in 1966 to find a benign ending – and he’d had a miserable first one in 1941.

If you are PM, the challenge is not so much the way you will end, because that will almost certainly be badly, but in delaying that end and doing as much as possible before it comes. Hawke and Howard both look back with equanimity because they and others feel they achieved a lot.

Abbott understands that what’s needed in power is different from what’s required in opposition, where, as he’s put it, one is “the leader of a tribe”. But knowing and doing are different. Bashing the other side is easy and addictive. A PM still has to don the warpaint periodically, but a government that is preoccupied with scoring political points against the opposition years out from the next election risks annoying voters, particularly now, when they are sick of all that shouting.

Abbott should concentrate on just governing. The election is over. Keep the attack dogs (Christopher Pyne, Scott Morrison) in the kennels more. Send out some of the milder mannered ministers. When parliament starts, remember which side of the chamber you are now sitting on; turn down the volume. Voters know you think Labor was doing a poor job – they thought so too and that’s why they threw it out.

It’s a similar story with discipline and control. Arguably the more the better in opposition. In government a balance needs to be struck. Abbott has said he wants ministers to run their own races, with him intervening when circumstances demand. (This comes partly from his own experience; when a junior minister he demanded his senior minister, Peter Reith, give him space.)

But the PM has ultimate responsibility, so walking the line is always tricky. Fraser wanted to be into everything; Howard understood the balance pretty well, as did Hawke.

Abbott needs to be careful that his office (run by his formidable chief of staff Peta Credlin) accepts that in an “adult” government, as this one likes to style itself, you get further by treating the colleagues and their staffs like grown ups too.

In managing cabinet, Abbott has had the advantage of seeing a good chairman (Howard) in operation, so he starts ahead.

Everyone in cabinet needs to be given a genuine say; ministers should be encouraged to speak up when they disagree and the PM should listen carefully to them (WorkChoices mightn’t have been so politically lethal if Howard had taken greater heed of Abbott’s reservations, expressed in cabinet, but industrial relations was a Howard blind spot).

There are salutary stories of Rudd both failing to bring important matters to cabinet and drowning it in unnecessary detail. Fraser’s practice of exhausting ministers with endless cabinet meetings is also to be avoided. It’s the same with the staff and public servants. Roxon’s account of Rudd demanding work before Christmas is a reminder that in normal times it is best to let these people follow ordinary routines. Their complaints will get you a bad name.

Kitchen cabinets, except in emergencies, are dangerous, as Rudd discovered: they may be an answer to “leaks” (though not always) but they narrow the advisory stream and create jealousies. A PM is managing senior colleagues who have in common big egos but often, also, surprising insecurities. Sensitive to the vagaries of politics, if they feel left out they can become unsettled or resentful.

Two of the most difficult areas for a PM are enforcing propriety and dealing with the backbench.

Howard started by imposing strict standards on frontbenchers but when they started falling like ninepins, he abandoned those standards and held onto people at all costs. In the current controversy about MPs’ entitlements (where he was among those ensnared) Abbott has resisted toughening the system. More positively, he has banned members of party executives from being lobbyists. Whether he will be Howard Mark 1 or Mark 2 on propriety remains to be seen.

Managing the party room will be a test for Abbott. There are a few obvious stratagems, which he adopted to an extent in opposition, such as keeping the up-and-comers busy – committee work and the like – and feeling involved.

And it’s crucial to tune in to what the backbenchers have to say. It’s better that they let off steam, even if it leads to a few embarrassing media stories, than bottle up grievances. Rudd had the most quiescent caucus one could imagine. Unfortunately for him, it was equally quiescent when asked to go along with an extraordinary coup.

Fraser, Hawke, and Howard all had some difficulties with backbenchers over policy, and Abbott could well encounter the same thing. For a Liberal PM even the occasional floor crossing is not so serious. Coping with a degree of dissent needs to be part of a prime ministerial skill set.

It goes without saying that so does managing their own behaviour. In retrospect, given all we now know about Rudd’s conduct, it’s hilarious that when his then backbencher Belinda Neal had a hissy fit in a restaurant, he told her to get anger management counselling. Abbott mostly has a good temperament but there has been the odd incident in the past (such as the Roxon moment).

All PMs are prone to an impatient outburst but these carry far more political risk than a couple of generations ago, because of today’s intense media cycle. It’s the trivia that’s remembered and repeated – such as when Rudd had a tantrum over the food, or lack of it, in a VIP plane.

The trials of being PM are endless. Abbott is said to have been frustrated when, after appearing for his rural fire brigade duties last Sunday, he sat in the truck for the day, rather than being called out. Reportedly, he was complaining in the VIP on the way back to Canberra.

Abbott is trying to keep himself grounded by doing what he did when he wasn’t PM. That might be as tough a challenge as any of the others. There are whole industries – from spinners to security details – that attempt to cosset a prime minister. Good luck to Abbott if he can sometimes break away from them. It will make him better at his day job.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published at The Conversation. 

The post Nicola Roxon’s advice for Tony Abbott appeared first on Women's Agenda.

With the 44th Parliament opening on Tuesday, the next phase of the Abbott government begins. Already we’re seeing its early modus operandi, including its sometimes losing battle to control and often hide information and to keep discipline, and the first indications of good and bad performers.

There are two narratives currently running about the government.

One is that not much is happening. This bobs up from time to time in the media, still weaning themselves off the hung parliament. The other is how everything is orderly. That’s the government’s story line, maintained even when there is blinding evidence to the contrary.

In fact, quite a lot is happening, and some things are going awry.

In style, Tony Abbott appears genuinely consultative with his ministerial colleagues. While there is a formal leadership group, there is no sign of a Rudd-like preference for a small “kitchen cabinet”. Abbott is said to work the phone a lot with senior colleagues, including those he knows might have a different view on issues.

Addressing the West Australian Liberal state council on Saturday, Abbott highlighted a rather arcane point about process: that he is imposing the “Westminster tradition” (often previously honoured in the breach) that cabinet submissions must be in 10 days before they are discussed. “If the various experts don’t have time to chew over all the consequences of these proposed decisions, invariably you end up getting important details wrong.”

Although senior colleagues’ influence rises once in government, particularly on policy, Abbott’s chief of staff Peta Credlin retains her great clout. Combined with her high profile, this makes Credlin a dartboard for ministers, MPs and staff with grouches, especially about process issues.

The government’s aim has been to start quite a lot moving, while projecting an image (as Abbott said in WA) that “we are calmly, purposefully, methodically getting on with doing exactly what we said we would do in the campaign”.

Abbott is preoccupied with being seen to be delivering on election commitments, most notably repealing the carbon tax, the first legislation to be introduced this week.

In a social media message on Sunday night he said: “This is my bill to reduce your bills”. In his constant references to the carbon tax he also wants to score to the maximum off Bill Shorten and Labor for holding up the repeal.

Much-remarked features of the new government are its tight control of the information it provides and its penchant for secrecy. But these are proving more troublesome and difficult than expected.

“It’s more important to be involved in governing our country than it is simply to be giving endless interviews which are all about glorifying politicians rather than about doing the right thing by the people of Australia,” Abbott told the WA Liberals.

In fact, the issue has become not the number of appearances but what the government is refusing to address in those appearances, and what information is denied in other contexts (such as FOI).

The Prime Ministerial Office’s attempt to keep control of who goes out when into the media has created some resentment in the ranks.

And some situations have been beyond control.

Nationals leader and deputy PM Warren Truss is presumably outside the PMO’s reach. Truss a week ago fired a rocket at those supporting the foreign takeover bid for GrainCorp. It was a bit late when the following day Abbott said at cabinet that people should keep quiet on the matter. Anyway, Treasurer Joe Hockey returned fire regardless.

On another front the PMO’s control, involving an elaborate vetting process, of ministerial and even electorate staff appointments has meant some ministers and even ordinary MPs have had to wait a long time to get their offices sorted out. (There’s always a happy medium here – scrutiny is needed to avoid problems later.)

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has become the poster boy of official secrecy – and testament to how it can bite the government on the behind.

With the asylum seeker boat arrivals slowing, it would have been more savvy to continue Labor’s practice of just putting out a release about each boat, rather than have weekly briefings and an attempted silence in between.

Morrison and Angus Campbell, the military head of Operation Sovereign Borders, have become easy targets for refusing to talk about so-called ‘’operational’‘ matters at the briefings, and when particular issues have arisen between briefings, Morrison has been forced to say something anyway.

With last week’s stand off between Australia and Indonesia over a boatload of people that Canberra wanted Jakarta to take back, the secrecy policy left the Abbott government outsmarted.

The blackout imposed by Morrison and Abbott on Friday became almost as embarrassing as Jakarta’s rejecting the boat people, because the Indonesians were the ones talking.

The Jakarta Post quoted an Indonesian government spokesman saying that the policy was that Indonesia should no longer accept asylum seekers from Australia, and that Indonesia had declined to accept the last three requests for transfer of people that Australian ships had rescued.

On Sunday Morrison said in a statement: “For the sake of correcting the public record, our post had made four such requests, under Operation Sovereign Borders, two were accepted and two were not. These requests have been for at sea transfers in response to a Search and Rescue incident (SAR). They are not a ‘turn back’ operation, although they do achieve the same result.”

“We are in constant dialogue with Indonesia on these issues and we will continue to work with and discuss these issues with Indonesia directly, and not through the media.”

Unfortunately for the government, the Indonesian government seems to have decided that it can be in its best interests to get its stand out through the media.

The takeout from this saga is twofold: information came out regardless of the Abbott government’s efforts to stop it, and there was a political cost to the unsuccessful attempt at secrecy.

As people start compiling early scorecards of ministerial performance, Treasurer Hockey appears to be among those taking to government competently (although he has been getting some flak for adding to the deficit when the Coalition in opposition talked of a “budget emergency”). But for Hockey these are the easier days: the big tests will be his first budget, and before that, his decision on the GrainCorp takeover bid.

Truss is already signalling that he won’t be muzzled on issues that are core for his party. Again the real questions are ahead: most immediately, will he win or lose on GrainCorp?

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, caught awkwardly in the problems with Indonesia over boats and spies, looks to be finding that heavy going.

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, while beavering away at the considerable challenge of restructuring the NBN, gives the impression that he will let be known what he thinks on various issues, within the broad confines of cabinet government.

The stand out bad performer is Morrison, whose public arrogance has shocked even some of his colleagues, especially as it has on occasion been accompanied by getting his basic facts wrong and having to correct them later.

He has not taken note of Abbott’s exhortation about “tone”.

Abbott puts a lot of emphasis on that word. He told the WA Liberals: “I think all of you have noticed there is a new tone and a new style in Canberra”.

With the new parliament commencing, the PMO says it will have a different “tone” from the last one.

One would expect the volume and aggression to be down. It’s not hung and Abbott is not opposition leader. Last time he set as much of the tone as did Labor.

Bill Shorten’s style and circumstances as opposition leader will be different. There is more in it for him (most immediately) to be forensic in questioning the government and (in the medium term) to build new constituencies (he already has an eye to women voters) than to be a brawler. (How the opposition will use Anthony Albanese, the natural brawler, will be interesting to see.)

Abbott said in his social media message: “The Parliament is coming back and I want to assure you that as far as the government is concerned the adults are back in charge.”

The parliament is likely to see, however, a good deal of that child’s game of hide and seek.

Listen to Brendan Nelson on the Politics with Michelle Grattan podcast, available at The Conversation, by rss and on iTunes.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post What is the government really doing? appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Almost all the politicians sworn in today for the new Parliament are much constrained, glued to the parties that put them there.

That imposes disciplines at multiple levels. Clive Palmer, as he showed again in today’s appearance at the National Press Club, is neither constrained nor disciplined.

He built his own party and, though he would insist otherwise, it remains substantially his personal possession. With at least two senators-elect (whether there is another is hostage to what happens in the West Australian Senate imbroglio) and an alliance with the Motoring Enthusiast Party’s Ricky Muir, he will from mid year have huge power.

Palmer gives the impression that he doesn’t give a damn about his critics (though his frequent reference to The Australian newspaper – which has pursued him relentlessly – suggests he might care rather more than he acknowledges).

We are used to politicians who dodge and try to avoid the difficult balls. Palmer just picks up the ball and throws it off the field. Asked today about his business interests, he declared, “I’m a retired person in business. I’m a politician now. I’m not in business.

“I haven’t run most of my businesses recently. That’s the reality. We’ve got an executive team that runs our businesses. I’m just an investor. I might be on the team, but I’m not certainly in charge of all that – no more than Rupert Murdoch runs The Australian”.

As to whether his company should pay its $6 million carbon tax debt, especially now he is a legislator, Palmer was equally dismissive. “We’ve got a High Court challenge to the validity of the law”, he said. Anyway, “you should be asking the ATO [Australian Taxation Office] why aren’t they issuing writs against us?”

“It’s not me complying with anything. Companies I own are not me. I’m a different person. Companies are not flesh and blood. We can justify it to our shareholders.

“The government, if they think they’re owed the taxes … should commence legal proceedings against us. We’ve commenced legal proceedings in the High Court of Australia against them”.

Palmer is no respecter of persons and those who criticise him are derided. Independent senator Nick Xenophon has become “Xenophobia”.

But his tone when talking about Tony Abbott is interesting. The two had a big row over Palmer’s push for a ban on party officials being lobbyists, and Abbott did not want Palmer to become an LNP candidate (a decision he may regret – that would have at least avoided a PUP party).

Now Abbott is PM and Palmer has parliamentary power, the relationship has moved on. Abbott can’t be cavalier about Palmer. Palmer will be negotiating with the government in situations when it will want things and so will he. He praised Abbott for “courage” in adopting the lobbying ban. “I think political courage in politics is a very rare commodity and Tony Abbott showed great political courage by doing that”.

With Labor and the Greens determined to give the government a hard time on core issues including the repeal of the carbon and mining taxes, Abbott will want PUP (including ally Muir) on side not just to get key legislation through the new Senate but to do so quickly if possible, especially to minimise business uncertainty over the carbon tax.

More routine discussions with PUP will be handed by others, notably Senate leader Eric Abetz. But Abbott acknowledged today: “I certainly expect that from time to time he will want to see me. From time to time, I may want to see him”.

Palmer boasts that his party’s polling is showing support of more than 10% nationally. On state elections he said that “it’s very possible based on our polling that we can win the balance of power in Tasmania, and also in Victoria”. Both elections are next year. ABC election analyst Antony Green believes this is a possibility in Tasmania but unlikely in Victoria.

More immediately Palmer claims that if there is a fresh WA Senate election, “our polling is showing we’ll win two senators … you might start to consider that as a real possibility”.

PUP got a WA seat in the first count and lost it on the recount. If the High Court decided a fresh election was needed, it would be a critical moment for PUP.

Only occasionally, in the odd byelection, do voters get a chance quickly to review their decision.

Second time round, they could decide they really were impressed by the man with a political swagger, or that voting PUP had been a bad idea.

If PUP’s support crashed in a rerun WA election, it would not change materially the power it will have in Parliament. But psychologically, it would prick the balloon. On the other hand, if PUP’s vote grew noticeably, there would be some sharp intaking of breath in all sorts of places.

You can be sure, if there is another WA Senate poll, that Palmer will be throwing massive resources at the challenge.

Footnote: the chef at the National Press Club cooked Filet Mignons Lili for today’s lunch, the fourth course for first class passengers at the last dinner before the Titanic sank.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published at The Conversation.

The post Clive Palmer: ‘I’m a politician now. I’m not in business’ appeared first on Women's Agenda.

The Abbott government has been firing rhetorical bullets at friends and enemies alike in the last few days. Some employers are weak-kneed. The ABC is unpatriotic.

On the face of it, there’s little in common between the Coalition’s industry policy salvoes and its assault on “Auntie”. Look more closely and you’ll find a couple of threads.

Both are attempts at strong-arming. In each case, there’s internal division on the issues.

As the political year begins in earnest, the economic “dries” have again shown they are in the ascendancy, with Thursday’s decision to refuse SPC Ardmona’s bid for a $25 million handout. Coming on the heels of the government’s tough line on Holden, Liberals who feared Abbott would be a soft touch for companies must be reassured.

The Prime Minister did indicate early on that his government wouldn’t be inclined to corporate welfare. Saying no still comes hard. In the news conference on the SPC Ardmona decision he went on and on without actually spelling out that there wouldn’t be any money. That was left to Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane – who’d been sympathetic to the company.

Abbott declared the decision laid down “an important marker”. The government would set the best climate for business but business itself must lead restructuring.

The government has done the right thing in resisting the cannery’s call for aid; it has made a convincing argument that parent company Coca-Cola Amatil has the responsibility and wherewithal to deal with the situation. But the hard line is politically difficult because the fruit cannery is an iconic Australian brand.

It wasn’t just on SPC Ardmona that the government sent out its stand-on-your-own-feet message to business. It announced it would intervene in court to back Toyota workers being given a vote on changes to their conditions.

And Workplace Relations Minister Eric Abetz bluntly told employers generally they need to do more of the heavy lifting in industrial relations.

Addressing the Sydney Institute, Abetz said that as shadow minister he’d been disappointed “to see weak-kneed employers caving in to unreasonable union demands and then visiting me, advocating for change in the system. And now as minister this phenomenon has unfortunately become even more frustrating.”

The government not only believes in principle that employers should take greater responsibility and say no more often. Having promised to make only limited changes to the workplace law in its first term, it also needs them to behave more robustly in an effort to lift productivity and employment.

As it tries to stiffen employers’ backbones and influence their behaviour, the government praises as well as exhorts and criticises.

Abbott dwelt at length on what Coca-Cola Amatil had already done to restructure SPC Ardmona, while also saying the cannery workers’ over generous conditions (but not their wages) needed to be cut back by redoing the enterprise agreement.

It was rather ironic to hear Abbott more than once put the weights on David Gonski, chairman of Coca-Cola Amatil, to get things sorted. That would be the David Gonski whose school funding scheme has given the Coalition some grief.

“David Gonski is not going to let the workers of SPC Ardmona down,” Abbott said. In other words, if everything goes wrong and people lose their jobs, it won’t be Tony’s fault. It will be David’s fault. It’s a nice try but politics doesn’t quite work like that.

With the ABC, where the government would also like to see a change in behaviour, there is no encouraging talk, just what amounts to sledging.

“A lot of people feel at the moment the ABC instinctively takes everyone’s side but Australia’s,” Abbott said on Wednesday, when sympathising with shock jock Ray Hadley’s dubious claim that he had to endure tougher rules than the national broadcaster.

“You would like the national broadcaster to have a rigorous commitment to truth and at least some basic affection for our home team, so to speak,” Abbott said.

The government is still furious at the ABC partnering Guardian Australia to publish the revelations about Australian spying in Indonesia, as well as angry at its recent reporting of asylum seeker claims that they had been mistreated by the Navy. More generally, there is a strong anti-ABC feeling in sections of the Coalition, with critics condemning it as left leaning. This is despite the high level of community trust in the ABC shown in surveys.

So what can the government do? It can cut the ABC’s funds. It can seek to cancel, as it is signalling it wants to do, the ABC’s Australia Network contract to televise into Asia.

Beyond that, with jawboning it can try to affect ABC editorial decisions by creating a climate in which the decision makers and journalists become more cautious.

Crudely put, it can try to get change by intimidation. Its efforts are backed by a virulent anti-ABC campaign from Murdoch’s News stable in particular. Sydney’s Daily Telegraph reported Abbott’s comments under the front page headlines “The ABC of Treachery. PM brands national broadcaster un-Australian”.

Now the ABC and SBS are to face a study of their efficiency, announced on Thursday by Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull emphasised that this would not be looking at editorial matters but at cost effectiveness and the like. It will be done by the Communications department assisted by Peter Lewis, who formerly worked for Seven West. Turnbull has had the review – to report in April – in mind for some time.

Turnbull does not agree with the Abbott public onslaught on the ABC. He made that clear in comments to Fairfax Media and told the 7.30 program: “I’m not going to be drawn into a discussion about the Prime Minister’s remarks yesterday,” although he did note “there is nothing in [provisions governing the ABC] that says it should be nationalistic”.

Although he has been critical of some editorial decisions, especially the ABC partnering on the spy story, Turnbull is a friend of the ABC – its most highly placed friend.

Superficially, the review looks like the prelude to a funding squeeze, and it may well end up being that. Turnbull concedes that the broadcaster would be caught up in an across the board government cut.

On the other hand, if the review comes out basically favourable to the broadcaster, it could strengthen Turnbull’s hand against those in the government who would like to give the ABC a big haircut. That is, if he is up for the fight.

Michelle Grattan has a regular spot on ABC Radio National breakfast.

This article was originally published at The Conversation. 

The post Michelle Grattan on Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott and the ABC appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Tony Abbott has been in office six months, and this week marks 20 years since he was elected to parliament. On Thursday he sat down with The Conversation in his Parliament House office to talk about settling in to the most demanding job in the nation’s political life.

Abbott admits being prime minister is fatiguing but with six hours sleep a night “I can survive indefinitely”. It’s a “very collegial” and “like-minded” government, despite some senior members being in a “slightly different philosophical space to mine”. “The outliers are not very far away from the mainstream,” he adds. His cabinet often makes changes to items coming to it – “that’s what cabinet government is all about”.

He expresses confidence that his one ministerial casualty, Arthur Sinodinos, who has stood aside because he’s before ICAC, will come through – “I will be amazed if any significant adverse finding is made against him”.

He canvasses his formal and informal advice networks, and mounts a spirited defence of his controversial chief of staff, Peta Credlin. Discussing the accelerated political process, he says anonymous social media can be much more vitriolic and extreme than “normal media”, likening it to “electronic graffiti”.

Abbott explains his failure to take his surprise “knights and dames” initiative to cabinet and the party room by saying this was a matter between him and the Queen.

On proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, he says the government is not “impervious to a further argument”.

Looking to the new post-July 1 Senate, he promises the government will keep the crossbenchers “very much in the loop” as it tries to get its bills through.

And what has he really, really enjoyed in the job? “The contact with the military at every level.”

The interview started on the subject of whether a PM can have a life apart from the job.

Michelle Grattan: How are you managing the work-life balance?

Tony Abbott: No senior politician can expect to have work-life balance. I’m afraid there are some jobs for which work-life balance inevitably goes out the window. If you want work-life balance you just have to accept that you can’t be a senior member of a government, or for that matter a senior member of an opposition.

So I’m not really managing the work-life balance, I’m just accepting that the work increases and the ordinary life has to decrease when you’re the prime minister.

Michelle Grattan: You did try to hang on to a few things. Have you given that up?

Tony Abbott: I haven’t, but inevitably the space for “self time” decreases even further when you become PM and that’s just the way it is. I’m not complaining, it’s just a fact of life.

Michelle Grattan: Have you hung on to anything?

Tony Abbott: I’m still getting my exercise at five o’clock in the morning, that’s good. So far I’ve managed to hold on to a bike ride on Saturday or Sunday morning, probably at least two weekends out of three. But there has been bugger-all surfing since the election. For the first half of January I got a surf in most days, but that’s really the only surfing there’s been since the election.

Michelle Grattan: And the fire brigade?

Tony Abbott: I got one night and one day with the brigade up in those Blue Mountain fires in October and I think I’ve done two duty days since then. So just enough to stay an efficient firefighter and I’ll try to get another Sunday in some time between now and the budget.

Michelle Grattan: Are you still in your Sydney house?

Tony Abbott: Yes.

Michelle Grattan: Are you going to stay there?

Tony Abbott: Look, the security people are anxious, but there has been no definitive decision made. That one’s still being weighed.

Michelle Grattan: How different is the prime minister’s job from what you expected?

Tony Abbott: Again, Michelle, I should stress that this isn’t all about me. This isn’t about me and my experience, it’s about the people and their experience of the new government. Hopefully the people’s experience of the new government will be that it’s competent and considered, trustworthy and candid, in a way that the former government wasn’t.

There’s a sense in which lots of things help prepare you for this job, but nothing can completely prepare you for the job. I was a very senior minister in the Howard government and I sat around this particular table [in the prime ministerial office] in many discussions. The difference between being a senior minister and the prime minister is that ultimately the buck does stop with the prime minister and in the end the prime minister has to make those critical judgement calls and that’s the big difference.

It is a very heavy responsibility to make, but someone has to make it for our country and I am thrilled and honoured to have that opportunity and that responsibility.

Michelle Grattan: I’ve heard it said that you believe the political process has speeded up considerably since the Howard days. Do you think the PM’s job has changed since those days?

Tony Abbott: I think there is no doubt that the advent of 24/7 news channels, which are voracious in their demand for constant new content, has accelerated the political process. The rise of social media, in addition to talkback, I think has intensified the political process.

The thing about social media is that it is anonymous, so it can be much more vitriolic and extreme than normal media and yet it is there for everyone to see. It is kind of like electronic graffiti. The political process is accelerated and intense in a way that I don’t believe it ever really has been before.

Michelle Grattan: And that’s changed the prime minister’s job?

Tony Abbott: It is just an added element of pressure, that’s all.

Michelle Grattan: Is the job very fatiguing?

Tony Abbott: Yes, but I’m lucky in that I’ve got quite a bit of stamina, Michelle. I don’t need more than six hours sleep a night – if I get six hours sleep a night I can survive indefinitely. I can bound out of bed at five o’clock in the morning, get my hour of exercise and feel very refreshed for the day.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t periods during the day when you don’t start to feel like the odd yawn, but nevertheless I find I can go through the day till about ten o’clock pretty comfortably.

Michelle Grattan: How would you rate your start in the job?

Tony Abbott: Well, Michelle, I’ve always avoided those sorts of self-assessments because if you give yourself a 10 out of 10 people think you’re a big head, if you give yourself a 6 out of 10 they think you’re plagued with self-doubt, so I’m just not going to rate myself.

Michelle Grattan: When we spoke before the election, you said the prime minister should be somewhat more than first among equals, but leave a lot to his ministers. Now you’re in the position do you still think this is the appropriate formula?

Tony Abbott: I do. There are some issues where ministers should come and talk to the prime minister, if the prime minister hasn’t already talked to them. Any issue which a minister thinks is going to be profoundly controversial, where we do not have a clear existing position, it is important that there be a conversation between the minister and the prime minister. I think they all understand that and I think it is working very well.

Michelle Grattan: Have you had to intervene with ministers more than you expected?

Tony Abbott: No. It’s a very collegial government. The media – and I’m not blaming them – obviously like to seize on the differences between people and, sure, there are some senior members of the government who are in a slightly different philosophical space to mine. But do not underestimate the substantial single-mindedness of this government.

We are a very like-minded group, the senior members of this government. The outliers are not very far away from the mainstream.

Michelle Grattan: How difficult for you personally was the Sinodinos affair?

Tony Abbott: I have a lot of respect for Arthur. I’ve known Arthur for a very long time. I’ve worked closely with him over a very long period of time. Arthur is a fundamentally decent man and I will be amazed if any significant adverse finding is made against him.

Arthur is also a tough political professional and he realised that it was going to be difficult for the government if he simply toughed it out and that’s why he came to tell me what he told me.

Michelle Grattan: What are your various sources of advice; do you maintain an informal network as a sounding board?

Tony Abbott: Every prime minister has a whole series of networks, and there are official formal networks and there are unofficial informal networks. I’m lucky in that I have good official formal networks, starting with my own office, the leadership group, the cabinet and the party room.

But I’ve also got some informal networks. I guess the people I cycle with are inevitably a bit of an informal network. The people up at the fire brigade are inevitably a bit of an informal network. My wife and daughters are inevitably a bit of an informal network.

I’m confident that there are plenty of people who have the strength of character and the presence of mind to warn me of difficulties and alert me to opportunities.

Michelle Grattan: You didn’t mention the public service in that list.

Tony Abbott: Of course I should have, but in the end the public service is there to implement the policies of the government as well as to offer frank and fearless advice.

Michelle Grattan: Your office has got a good deal of flak, particularly your chief of staff [Peta Credlin], for being too controlling. Does this concern you at all?

Tony Abbott: I think it is curious, Michelle, that when a female chief of staff is strong the term “controlling” is used, whereas when a male chief of staff is strong “decisive” is the term used. I think she is doing a terrific job and I’m very proud of my office.

Michelle Grattan: What have you found the most rewarding areas of the job and what have been the most difficult?

Tony Abbott: It is such an honour and a privilege, and most of the time such an exhilarating honour and privilege, that I’m reluctant to single out any particular aspect. Like the Governor-General, when asked what you enjoy most about the job my tendency is to say “today”, because of the insights you get into our nation and because of the privileged contact you have with so many people.

It’s nearly all been good. I suppose, being a fairly traditional person, the contact with the military at every level, from the service chiefs to the squadies that I’ve been lucky enough to do PT with, has been a special highlight.

Michelle Grattan: And the downsides?

Tony Abbott: It just goes with the territory, but no one likes criticism which they think is completely unjustified. Although as a mate of mine said to me once, unfair criticism is a compliment in disguise.

Michelle Grattan: Is there a particularly egregious example of this you can give?

Tony Abbott: No, if I start going into details I will be thought to be whinging and I don’t want to be thought to be whinging because as I said it goes with the territory.

Michelle Grattan: You were hit in the early days by some really tough and unexpected issues, notably the revelations about spying in Indonesia and the announced closure of the Australian operations of two car manufacturers. How tough were they to deal with and did you feel prepared to deal with them?

Tony Abbott: They were both tough issues and I think the government has handled them both, in the end, as well as they could have been handled. Whenever you’re in a very difficult position it is important to have principles and values to fall back on.

In respect of Indonesia, I am determined to be the best possible friend of Indonesia that I can be, consistent with my overriding duty to protect our country. We would never do anything that was damaging to Indonesia, because we want Indonesia to flourish. We want Indonesia to take its rightful place as one of the really important countries of the world, as it will, sooner or later.

So I’m never going to do anything that’s damaging to Indonesia. I want to be a very good friend to Indonesia, but there are some things which are non-negotiable. Border protection is just non-negotiable. Maintaining a strong security network is just non-negotiable. I think the Indonesians understand that. I just think it is a pity that the inevitable domestic politics of Indonesia, the inevitable sensation-seeking of the media here and there, turned what was always going to go the way it went into some kind of a big storm.

Michelle Grattan: You blindsided your colleagues this week with your plan to bring back knights and dames. Why didn’t you take that to cabinet and the party room, especially after the criticism when you bypassed the party room in opposition on paid parental leave?

Tony Abbott: In the end the relationship between the prime minister and the monarch is very much a personal one and when it comes to the constitution of the Order of Australia, which is headed by the monarch, this is governed by letters patent, which are a matter between the prime minister and the monarch.

I think the prime minister is entitled to make these sorts of decisions with the monarch. I took a few soundings. In fact I took some quite widespread soundings on this and, as you’d expect, some people were more in favour than others. The soundings that I took obviously didn’t deter me from a particular course of action.

Obviously I know there has been a predictable reaction from the usual suspects, but I think it will quickly settle down. Under the new arrangements we’re not going to have a flood of new knights and dames; there will be four a year and I think that is appropriate given the very single honour that a knighthood or a damehood is.

Michelle Grattan: Do you care that a lot of fun is being made of the initiative at your expense?

Tony Abbott: I’ve seen some amusing cartoons and I’ve had a bit of a chuckle about it. So be it.

Michelle Grattan: Is this a return to traditional Tony – was it a case of letting your instincts off the leash?

Tony Abbott: I want to stress that in the same week that this announcement has been made, I gave quite a significant foreign policy speech, we had red tape repeal day in the parliament as part of our deregulatory agenda, we announced the sale of Medibank Private, we had important legislation such as the mining tax repeal bill dealt with in the Senate.

So the idea that I’ve spent most of the last week thinking about this is simply wrong. But nevertheless, as I said the other day, I think that this will be a grace note in our society and I’m pleased that it has happened.

Michelle Grattan: You are losing a lot of skin over your planned changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. You feel strongly that a legal injustice was done to columnist Andrew Bolt, but is the course you are taking worth the flak? Do you understand the fears of ethnic communities and the Jewish community [about the proposed changes]?

Tony Abbott: This was an election commitment. In the aftermath of the Bolt case there was quite a fierce debate and we said any number of times, orally and in print, that we were going to repeal section 18C in its current form. What we’ve done is entirely consistent with that commitment.

We’ve removed “insult”, “offend” and “humiliate”, we’ve kept “intimidate” and we’ve added “vilify”. I think we’ve produced a stronger prohibition on real racism, while maintaining freedom of speech in ordinary public discussion. So I’m very comfortable with where we’re at. We’re not dogmatic or impervious to a further argument, that’s why we released it as an exposure draft rather than simply releasing it straight into the parliament.

Michelle Grattan: Is the Fairfax story today about George Brandis being done over in cabinet essentially correct? [The report said cabinet this week forced Brandis to water down his original proposals for changes to the Racial Discrimination Act.]

Tony Abbott: Without commenting on that story, what’s the point of having a cabinet if from time to time proposals that are taken to the cabinet aren’t modified and improved? That’s the whole point of having a cabinet surely, so that a minister can bring a proposal forward, the cabinet discussion can ensue and the proposal might be amended because of that discussion.

There are very few things that come to cabinet that aren’t changed in some way and there is nothing wrong with that. That’s what cabinet government is all about.

Michelle Grattan: On economic matters – in your tough line on SPC Ardmona and the car industry, we’ve seen a very “dry” line from you. Some of your colleagues are surprised. Do you feel your thinking on economics has shifted? When did you “dry out”?

Tony Abbott: This is where putting labels on people is so counter-productive. Most of us on some issues could be considered conservative, on other issues could be considered progressive, on other issues might be thought of as being moderate, on other issues might be thought of as being rather forthright.

I think all senior politicians tend to be rather more subtle then the commentators would have it. It is a natural tendency for human beings to try to classify. We all have this classification urge – so and so is such and such, that person is in that camp – but look, most sophisticated people defy stereotype.

Michelle Grattan: One of the government’s major tasks will be dealing with the new Senate after July 1 in which Clive Palmer’s party will be very important. You two have had your moments in the past. Will you be meeting regularly with him, or leaving the negotiations mainly to others?

Tony Abbott: This is something that will evolve. What will most certainly happen is that there will be very clear and full communication between the government and independents and minor parties. The precise mechanisms will evolve over time, but we certainly intend to keep the minor parties and the independents very much in the loop. We have to if we want our legislative agenda to have a reasonable chance of success and that’s what we intend to do.

Michelle Grattan: You’ve already done quite a bit of travel and you have a substantial trip coming up in April to China, Korea and Japan. Then you will be off to the United States. How hard is it to juggle the overseas travel with keeping a grip on domestic priorities in these early days? For example you will be out of the budget process for a week or so when you go to China and the other countries.

Tony Abbott: I don’t think anyone should overestimate how out of the loop people are these days. In the era of mobile phones and emails, you’re no more out of the loop in China than you are in Sydney. There’s not even much of a time change. In terms of the time change, the time change is no different to Perth. So I’ll be staying in close touch.

Michelle Grattan: Nevertheless, your mind has to be on what you’re doing there and it is a bit different when Joe Hockey can just pop into this office and say “look I want to talk about this for five minutes”.

Tony Abbott: If we were in the pre-budget month and I was in Western Australia for a week, for instance, I’d be just as much out of the loop there as I would be in China. It is very important for our long-term economic future that the relationship with Japan, Korea and China, who are our three biggest trading partners, be ever stronger. That’s why I’m making this trip.

I think the fact that I am making this trip quite early on in the life of the new government is a sign that we understand the importance of these relationships to our long-term economic security.

Michelle Grattan: Just speaking of Western Australia, you’ll be there next week, which is the last week before the Senate election. Do you think you’ll hold your three senators?

Tony Abbott: I think we can and should, but I don’t presume to prejudge what the electors will do.

Michelle Grattan: Just finally, if you were to fast forward a year, what are the three things you would most like to have achieved by this time 12 months on?

Tony Abbott: We’ve got to stop the boats, get the budget under control and repeal the carbon tax and the mining tax. They’re the things that we have to get done in these first 12 months.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post Michelle Grattan in conversation with Tony Abbott appeared first on Women's Agenda.

The Productivity Commission has issued a challenge to Tony Abbott by saying that some funds from his expensive proposed paid parental leave scheme should be redirected to child care.

In its Childcare and Early Childhood Learning draft report, the commission urges changes that would scrap the non-means tested element of the present childcare system, hitting the better off, and giving more assistance to those on very low incomes.

It proposes replacing current multiple subsidies with a single child-based subsidy that is means-tested and activity-tested.

The subsidy, with a rate varying between 90% and 30% of the deemed cost of care, would be paid directly to the family’s choice of approved service, for up to 100 hours a fortnight.

One of those services would be nannies, who would have to meet quality standards. Au pairs would not be covered but the commission advocates changes to working holiday visas should be made to facilitate families employing them.

The PPL scheme, while unpopular in Coalition circles, is Abbott’s signature policy. For budgetary reasons, he has already had to trim it from a maximum payout of $150,000 to $100,000.

The commission says that “it is unclear that the proposed changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme – which is more generous than the existing scheme and that recommended in the commission’s 2009 report on paid parental leave – would bring significant additional benefits to the broader community beyond those occurring under the existing scheme.

“There may be a case, therefore, for diverting some funding from the proposed new scheme to another area of government funding” such as early childhood education and care (ECEC), “where more significant family benefits are likely. Such a move could add up to a further $1.5 billion per year to federal government assistance for ECEC”.

Federal spending on ECEC has risen to about $7 billion a year, but the report says that many parents say it is difficult to find services at a place, price, quality and hours they want.

“To better meet the needs and budgets of families, the range of services approved for assistance should include approved nannies and the cap should be removed from occasional care places. All primary schools should be directed to provide outside school hours care for their students, where sufficient demand exists for a viable service.”

The present system has a means-tested childcare benefit, a non means-tested childcare rebate, and “jobs, education, and training childcare fee assistance” for eligible parents who qualify for the maximum childcare benefit. For the vast majority of families, subsidies from the federal government cover more than half their fees. But the commission says that the design of the current measures means that a declining proportion of assistance is going to lower income families who are least able to afford the services.

Presiding Commissioner Wendy Craik said means testing the child care rebate “will mean that more families on very low incomes will pay less for their childcare than they do now. We expect low income families would see around 90% of their reasonable childcare fees paid by government”, she said.

The report recommends that children with additional needs should have access to a “top up” subsidy beyond the basic subsidy. The federal government should also continue to support the states for all children to attend preschool in their year before school.

The commission points out that given the broader welfare settings, changes to child care assistance and accessibility “can only do so much” to increase participation in the workforce. The proposals, according to modelling, would increase the supply of labour by an estimated 0.4% – an extra 47,000 full time workers.

The cost to government of the commission’s preferred scenario would be $8 billion a year, slightly above the current forward estimates, although the commission also gives more modest scenarios, where high income earner would not be subsidised.

The commission says it is possible that additional benefit from providing a minimum subsidy to higher income families may be small but “a minimum payment for every child may … help stem any reductions in parental workforce participation associated with the removal of the non-means tested childcare rebate, particularly for middle income families”.

The government has projected that its childcare spending will rise from $6.7 billion in 2013-14 to $8.5 billion by 2017-18.

The effect of the commission’s recommendations on GDP would be “at most”, a small 0.4% – an extra $5.5 billion.

Submissions on the draft report are invited by September. The Assistant Minister for Education Sussan Ley said the Abbott government believed “there needs to be greater choice in child care options for parents. Australian families should be able to plan child care around their work life, not their work life around child care”.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post Use some of PM’s parental leave money for childcare instead: Productivity Commission appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Two characteristics of this government are that it regularly overreaches and that where possible it shies away from transparency and accountability.

Very different issues in the news this week highlight these features – the proposed new requirements for job seekers and some shocking revelations in relation to asylum seekers.

One would have thought, after all the trouble over its budget measures, that the government would have been careful in calibrating its new model for employment services. But instead it has again gone too far.

The argument that work-for-the-dole can help get and keep people engaged may be fair enough – although the hard evidence doesn’t support the conclusion it helps them into jobs. The government produces anecdotal accounts rather than empirical data to back up its belief that having the under 30s complete 25 hours a week for six months each year is the way to go.

And while obviously people on unemployment benefits should have to show they’re making serious efforts to apply for jobs, the proposed requirement to undertake up to 40 job searches per month seems absurd.

The small business sector is complaining it will be swamped with applications. Peter Strong, executive director of the Council of Small Business of Australia, said: “It’s not workable. It won’t really achieve anything. You know, it’s classic tough talking from governments that they do now and then”.

Employment minister Eric Abetz says people can do one application in the morning and another in the afternoon. The government is putting more emphasis on quantity rather than quality, which suggests it is driven more by ideology than common sense.

Answering criticism that the plan would increase red tape, Tony Abbott recalled his days as employment minister in the Howard government. “There was a requirement for people on unemployment benefits to make contact with potential employers and in those days, all you had to do was call or knock on the door and make a diary entry” which was “occasionally” audited by Centrelink. That sounds like tokenism.

The government points out its employment services blueprint is out for consultation, and it will be listening to feedback.

But what it has put up tells us a lot about its mindset. Go for the more extreme, rather than the moderate, approach. And assume that people who are unemployed are very likely to be so because they are not trying hard enough to get jobs.

The fact is that in some areas and for certain cohorts jobs will be hard to find.

The government encourages the option of people moving to where there is more work but even for the young, this is often not as easy as it suggests. And for both younger and older workers, there are particular problems in the labour market. While the government has some initiatives directed to these issues, its dominant attitude towards the unemployed – especially the young unemployed – seems punitive, most notably demonstrated by its imposition in the budget of a six months waiting period for the unemployment benefit for those under 30.

Saul Eslake, chief economist for Bank of America Merrill Lynch says: “The main reason for relatively high unemployment among young people is not that they don’t want to work but that there aren’t enough jobs for them.

“Employers in aggregate have almost completely stopped new hirings since the global financial crisis. Almost inevitably the brunt of that will be felt by new entrants to the work force – who are bound to be predominately young people.”

If it’s negative towards the young jobless, the government’s approach to asylum seekers is to try to dehumanise them in the public mind. They are labelled “illegals”. Immigration Minister Scott Morrison pronounced the 157 Tamils he was forced to finally bring to Australia as “economic migrants” before they have been processed.

After Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs visited Christmas Island and said most of the children were sick, and highlighted the self harm among them, Morrison on Wednesday rejected her account, essentially accusing her of giving an untruthful picture.

“I don’t think there is evidence of the claim that the Human Rights Commissioner has made in the way that she has made it,” he said. “I think they’re quite sensational claims that have been made. She herself is not a doctor and we have medical people who are there who provide that care on a daily basis.”

But on Thursday doctors with experience on the ground, who appeared before the Human Rights Commission’s inquiry into children in immigration detention, backed up her account in spades.

Psychiatrist Peter Young, former director of mental health services for the private provider International Health and Medical Services that has the immigration detention contract, made the very serious allegation that the Immigration department, presented with figures showing the significant mental health problems among child detainees, “reacted with alarm” and asked for the figures to be withdrawn from the reporting.

The department’s head, Martin Bowles, who also appeared at Thursday’s hearing, could not shed any light on this.

Two doctors who worked on Christmas Island in 2013 told the inquiry how inappropriate the conditions were for treating children. The inquiry heard that asylum seekers had medications taken from them when they arrived, including a three year old girl with epilepsy who started having seizures.

Asked about the children, Abbott told reporters: “They will be dealt with in the ordinary way and the best thing that we can do for children in detention is to ensure that this whole people smuggling business is ended as swiftly as possible and that is the commitment of this Government”. In other words he defaulted to the old mantra, which is not the present issue.

In a strong statement outside the inquiry, Triggs said Morrison “has a responsibility to be much more transparent about what is happening.

“We’re trying to get facts right when frankly it would be much simpler for the minister to provide the Australian public with this information in the first instance.”

She followed this up later with a call for Morrison to get the children out into the community “because a lot of damage is being done”.

Morrison, whose commitment to secrecy has been most recently shown by his refusal for weeks to disclose where the shipload of Tamils was, has said he will appear at the inquiry but this week gave the excuse of the High Court case over the Tamils to avoid doing so.

It is worth remembering that we are only hearing what is happening to the children in detention because of the independence of the Human Rights Commission and the willingness of Triggs to take on Morrison, refusing to be bullied by his attempt to discredit her. The onus is on Morrison to answer the latest claims and evidence. He is responsible for what is done by his department.

What this week has made clear above all else is that the call in a just-released report from a church taskforce for the guardianship of asylum seeker children to be removed from the Immigration Minister is absolutely spot on. The conflict of interest is blatant.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post Michelle Grattan: Government must be held to account for what’s happening to children in detention appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Four years after her famous “misogyny speech” attacking Tony Abbott, and when an extraordinary American presidential campaign is featuring gender in both a good and a bad way, Julia Gillard reflected this week on her experience as a woman at the top.

Speaking in London at a memorial for Jo Cox, the British MP murdered outside her office at the height of the Brexit campaign, Gillard warned young women contemplating a political career that they would face sexism and misogyny.

She reprised the references to her being childless, the “gender stereotyping” with its attention on her clothes and hair, the “ditch the witch” placards at rallies, the “pornographic cartoons circulated by an eccentric bankrupt”, and the “vile words on social media”.

“Beyond sexism, there are other very real risks that women in public life must face,” Gillard said. “Threats of violence have become more prevalent for women in public life.”

“Threats of violent abuse, of rape, are far too common. A woman in public view may expect to receive them almost daily.”

In the United States gender is obviously front and centre in the struggle for the presidency. As Fairfax correspondent Paul McGeough has written, the campaign “is fast narrowing to a decision about women – about how they are treated by men and about whether one of them is suitable to be president and commander-in-chief”.

We are struck overwhelmingly by the appalling features. But look again, and there are some positives to be found among the muck.

Most obviously, this contest – unless the polling is dramatically out – is headed to giving the most powerful country in the world its first woman president. If elected, Hillary Clinton will join the female leaders of Britain and Germany – Theresa May and Angela Merkel – in a trio of unprecedented female international heft.

In Clinton’s battle for the presidency the repugnant sexism of her opponent has actually worked to her advantage.

Clinton targeted Donald Trump’s sexism in the first debate, including homing in on his calling a beauty contest winner who gained weight “Miss Piggy”. The emergence a week ago of the video in which he brags in the explicit and disgusting terms about his pursuit of women, and subsequent revelations and allegations of atrocious behaviour have led to widespread condemnation, including from fellow Republicans.

Critically, female voters have taken to the political hills.

There would be many factors in a Trump loss but the increasing and intense focus on his sexism would be a major one.

The worst of Trump’s direct sexism has been against women other than Clinton. His labelling of her as “Crooked Hillary” who should be in jail, and innumerable other over-the-top insults, could have been made against a male or female opponent.

As women have gained greater political power, sexism has become more obvious and overtly obnoxious, while also more likely to be called out and condemned by its victims and the community.

Thus the sort of sexism encountered by the first women in Australian federal politics was different in kind from that faced by Gillard. They weren’t critiqued on their figures and their clothes, or referred to as witches. It was the sexism of marginalisation. These women were often regarded mainly as voices for what were dubbed “women’s issues”. The challenges they faced were paternalism and tokenism. It was harder for them to climb the ladder of advancement.

The virulence of some of the contemporary sexism against female politicians reflects the unrestraint that characterises the social media age.

Social media delivers connectedness and many other benefits but it has degraded public discourse, especially in politics. Tony Abbott, always a big target on social media, described it as “kind of like electronic graffiti”.

It is widely documented that women come off worse than men; they are disproportionately victims of the trolls.

Gillard told her audience: “Our community would not consider it acceptable to yell violent, sexually charged abuse at a female politician walking down the street. Why is it OK to let these voices ring so loudly in our online worlds?

“These voices weaken, ridicule, humiliate and terrify. Not only do they challenge the resolve of the women who cop the abuse, but they deter other women from raising their hand to serve in public life. For all the structural barriers to women’s participation in politics, and for all the gender bias and sexism that must be addressed, so too must we challenge and defeat the online abuse.”

Social media abuse desirably needs to be confronted, indeed on behalf of both women and men. But when it comes to the sphere of politics, how do you do that?

In all the debate about the scope and limits of free speech – focused extensively but not exclusively on Section 18C – we don’t hear a great deal about what, if anything, could or should be done about the hate on the internet that blights our political culture.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post Michelle Grattan: Sometimes, sexism gets the reward it deserves appeared first on Women's Agenda.