Life is similar to politics and leadership in that there are times when one must do what has to be done. Everyone in their life has to face up to some responsibility or undertake a particular action in order to survive and/or serve a higher purpose. It is probably this need for people to do the “right thing” that is a secret to the survival and success of the human species. It does not matter how apparently “unimportant” a person’s life, anyone can do what is ethically correct.
Because politics can be such a win-lose business, there are times when the victor does not do what is ethically correct. Those who are (or consider themselves to be) skilled in the political arts of manipulation more often believe that they will get away with being deceitful because politics for them is about their coming out ahead regardless of the cost to others.
Statesmen such as Sir Winston Churchill (1875 to 1965) lasted for such a long time in politics because they consistently put the public interest ahead of their own advancement. Sir Winston Churchill was that he was in one way or another, a political actor/parliamentarian for over sixty years in which his efforts were consistently orientated toward fighting for the public good.
As a consequence of the above cited approach, Sir Winston Churchill was a political survivor because he did not measure his success in terms of political advantage but rather in terms of what the impact of his espoused position on public life. Perhaps it was because of Sir Winston Churchill’s passion and understanding of history that gave him such a long-term perspective that he separated his ego from political advances and setbacks.
The extent to which Sir Winston Churchill really fought for what was ethically correct can be gauged by correlation of the respective failures and successes of his career impacting negatively and positively on world history. His opposition to the policy of Appeasement in the 1930s and refusal to capitulate to Hitler when Britain’s military position was apparently hopeless have since been universally recognised as having turned the tide of history for the better for humanity. Alternately, Sir Winston Churchill’s failure to have Allied landings occur in the Balkans in 1943-1944 enabled the Soviet Union to gain control of Central and Eastern Europe between 1944 and 1945.
Not only has the very positive legacy of Sir Winston Churchill’s life been an enduring reason for his popularity but even an implicit recognition by many “everyday” people that they can emulate his life by doing what is ethically correct. In summary, Sir Winston Churchill’s life offers both the framework and the promise that if we follow our conscience to do what is ethically correct we shall succeed. Indeed, even when we do not succeed by doing what is correct we can still take consolation from knowing that we have maintained our integrity by doing what was ethically correct.
Furthermore, Sir Winston Churchill’s life still offers an example of taking heart when we are factually wrong but are still trying to do what is ethically correct. In the 1920s this British statesman was economically incorrect as then Chancellor of the Exchequer to have maintained the gold standard but he stuck by a course of action after taking a crash course in economics from brilliant but outdated economists.
Sir Winston Churchill during the coal inspired Great Strike of 1926 took a leading role in counter-mobilizing against a Soviet backed attempt to have the British working class seize power. While anti-union steps were taken by him as the then Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Great Strike, he was not anti-union as such. This was demonstrated by his working with unions during the Second World War and later accepting the welfare state although he had campaigned against such a regime during the 1945 general election campaign.
It was the failure economists and policy makers failure to recognise that underlying economic fundamentals had changed that was an important cause of the Great Depression following the 1929 crash of the Wall Street Stock Market. Perhaps had Sir Winston Churchill known the brilliant economist *John Maynard Keynes (1883 to 1946) then he might not have been consigned to the back bench (“the wilderness years”) between 1929 and 1939.
(*A political figure who was associated with Keynes’ ideas was Oswald Mosley (1896 to 1980) who, as a young aristocratic First World War hero, seemed destined for greatness when he defected from the Conservative Party to the Labour Party to protest against British oppression in Ireland. The Labour government of Ramsay Mc Donald might have been a great success had it adopted the Keynesian economic policies which Mosley advocated.
Frustrated at Labour’s narrow-minded public policy approach, Mosley broke away to found the New Party in 1931 which had some very intelligent members and sympathisers such as Sir Harold McMillan (1894 to 1986) and Aneurin Bevan (1897 to 1960). Very unfortunately, Mosley became impatient with the New Party and broke with it to found the British Union of Fascists (BUF) in 1932 which would eventually lead to his leading a political life on the margins.
Had Mosley stayed away from fascism, he might very well have become a senior minister in the national war-time coalition government with a senior ministry responsible for planning and possibly a resurrected political career with either of the two major parties following the Second World War).
Because economics is such an inexact social science, Sir Winston Churchill can perhaps be forgiven for getting it wrong with regard to the gold standard. Ironically, the apparent radical nature of Keynesian economics in the 1930s belies the fact that this approach is now the orthodoxy during the contemporary Global Financial Crisis (GFC).
The Fundamental Threat of Public Foreign Debt in the Context of the GFC
Whatever the impact of Keynesian inspired economic policies in warding off a GFC induced world-wide collapse, there is still a danger that an economic super crisis could still occur. An area of economic policy which contemporary Keynesianism is unclear with is in regard to the impact of stimulatory policies on currency values. The Obama administration has been able to prevent a world wide international collapse due to judicious spending and the US dollar retaining its status as the world’s reserve currency.
Should the American dollar lose its status as the world’s reserve currency, then there could be a world-wide economic collapse because American Treasury bonds will lose their overall value. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a socialist market economy has the necessary central control capacity to have its currency, the Yuan, eventually displace the American dollar as the world’s leading currency.
The PRC central government has initiated major international trade agreements in which the Yuan, as opposed to the American dollar, is used as the transaction currency. There is nothing inherently wrong with this except that the basis could be established with which to render the American dollar a currency of secondary importance, which in the context of the GFC could have fatal economic consequences.
The rise of the Yuan is a phenomenon which is best not resisted but the Untied States could help its own course and that of the world by reining in spending and increasing taxes to pay off the nation’s massive public foreign debt. A steep reduction in the US public debt would stave off the potential disaster of the American dollar eventually becoming a dud currency.
The Obama administration has done tremendously well to have engineered sufficient levels of domestic demand by utilizing a broadly Keynesian economic approach that a domestic and international economic collapse has been staved-off. However, the massive levels of tremendously high public foreign debt that have been chalked up are a potential mega-disaster waiting to happen.
Hopefully, the Obama administration will pay down the nation’s massive public foreign debt while economic circumstances are still relatively favourable. Having undertaken massive public borrowing to prevent a GFC economic collapse, the Obama administration will need to utilize a super-skilful mix of generating sufficient economic activity conducive to economic recovery while still paying down high public foreign debt levels to safeguard the American dollar.
Because there are political veterans from both Reagan-Tip O’Neal (1981 to 1987) and Clinton-Gingrich (1994 to 1998) eras who currently serve either as congressmen or congressional staffers, a fiscal balance can be arrived at to reduce spending and raise taxes so that America’s dangerously high public foreign debt can be adequately reduced.
Meeting this objective will require a “win-win” combination of engineering expenditure reductions and tax increases which still somehow actually spur economic growth. This may seem too difficult a task to achieve but there is sufficient brain power in Washington that this is not an impossible objective. As Sir Winston Churchill illustrated, what is required is the will-power to do what is ethically correct.
The Rent-Seeking Threat to Australia
Australia has often not needed Churchillian type *leaders because generally sound political and economic leadership between the 1890s and the present have created the scope for Australia to be the “Lucky Country” in spite of the post-1983 onset of so-called “economic rationalism” (sic). Australia is however at the cross-roads with regard to determining whether or not the status of the “lucky country” will be retained.
(*Sir Robert Menzies, 1894 to 1978, was the Australian equivalent of Sir Winston Churchill in that he safeguarded the nation’s socio-economic interests which also encompassed important strategic considerations).
The major threat to Australia’s continued well-being is the threat of rent-seeking in which part of the nation’s socio-political elite are trying to establish their overall dominance by making Australia overly dependent upon the nation’s minerals resources and their controlling that vital sector. Gina Rinehart’s “vision” of an economic zone encompassing northern Australia will be the crucible for such a rentier state.
There are however promising signs that recent changes in senior management at BHP-Billiton and Rio Tinto are indicative that such important multi-nationals are moving away from rent-seeking. However, should Tony Abbott lead the coalition to victory in the September 2013 federal election, the scope will exist to overcome major obstacles which are emerging with regard to establishing a rentier state.
Abbott has shown himself as Opposition Leader to be a determined and skilful political actor who performs well in adversity so long as the long-term political settings are favourable, even if appearances suggest otherwise. The Gillard government has been somewhat of a frustration to him because the prime minister is an independent political actor who can wrench the ALP free from a rent-seeking agenda.
The reduction of the number of “big” companies that have to pay the carbon tax from one thousand to five hundred and exemption of fuel from this iniquitous tax staved off spiralling costs for the Australian consumer and business in general. The transformation of the Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT) into the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) with the advent of Julia Gillard becoming prime minister helped protect investment diversity in the vital mining sector even if the latter tax is still a *dud.
(*Because the MRRT is a dud tax it can probably stay on the statute books for the immediate future before being discreetly repealed should there still be a Gillard government).
The Crucial Importance of Having A Politically Independent “Actor” As Prime Minister
The prime ministership of Julia Gillard has gone beyond overcoming a negative policy direction conducive to rent-seeking to actually implementing positive policies. Under her leadership, highly competent public administration has been applied such that many Canberra public servants consider the current government when compared to its immediate predecessor to be light emerging from the darkness. The passage of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) demonstrates that the Gillard government is determined to implement policies which actually positively impact on people’s lives.
Recently announced reforms which upgrade the quality of the teaching profession are also reflective of the Gillard government pursuing a policy direction that bolsters the nation’s well-being. In relation to education, implementation of the Gonski report is also reflective of the Gillard government’s genuine intention to improve the quality of life and opportunities for Australians by establishing a new funding regime.
It is true that implementation of both the NDIS and the Gonski report will be challenging due to revenue constraints. However, should there be a re-elected Gillard government, a focus on engineering, and then harnessing an agricultural boom, in lieu of a now superseded minerals boom, could help make such policy objectives a reality. In this context, the Gillard government will have to show “the bush” more respect than what other ALP governments have done for Australia’s vital but too often undermined agricultural sector.
Should there be a re-elected Gillard government then another priority would hopefully be paying off the nation’s 300 billion dollar public foreign debt even though powerful Canberra Treasury bureaucrats insist this debt is neither an economic milestone nor a national threat. The economic unsustainability of a high level of foreign debt was demonstrated by the socially devastatingly high interest rates of the Hawke-Keating era. Such a high interest rate regime is yet to kick in but that this will eventually occur should the current debt projectorary continue.
Already, the economic ill-effects of Australia’s high foreign debt have facilitated a shift against what is termed “middle class welfare”. Due to financial constraints, the Gillard government is apparently moving away from improving financial support to the middle class which was a distinctive feature of the Howard government. Life in Australia can be difficult for the middle class even if they are on apparently high rates of salary pay.
Because of high mortgage costs, many apparently affluent Australians in one way or another financially struggle such that middle class assistance, such as health care assistance should not be forfeited. The Howard government through a combination of financial prudence and shrewd utilization of the minerals booms made the provision of middle class welfare into such a political art that the coalition would probably still be in office today had rent-seeking elements from within not sabotaged its re-election in 2007 for their selfish ends.
As a Labor government, the priority of the Gillard government must be to help those who are financially hard up but a narrowing of the welfare net will ultimately undermine the quality of life for the majority of Australians. Already, the 2013 abolition of the Parenting Payment in favour of the Newstart allowance is reflective of a contraction of Australia’s financial capacity, due to Australia being in-debted because Kevin Rudd did not honour his 2006-2007 promise to be a “fiscal conservative”.
Paradoxically, because there are many within ALP ranks who have a passion for welfare, a federal Labor government could more than competently administer middle class welfare and utilize government support, such as training programmes, to help lift socially disadvantaged (i.e. poor people) into secure and well-paying employment. The overriding questions are whether a Gillard ALP government will have the future financial capacity to do so unless the public foreign debt is paid off and revenue streams reinforced?
Why the ALP Must Keep Faith with the Australian People
A cynic might state that the more important question to ask is whether there will be a Gillard government by the end of March 2013 or an ALP federal government by the end of this year? The answers to these questions substantially depend upon the federal parliamentary caucus as to the leadership options it chooses in the coming weeks.
ALP federal parliamentary caucus members should be aware that the rent-seeking elements in the coalition intend to win the 2013 federal election. The 2007 and 2010 federal elections were deliberately thrown by the rent-seeking elements within the federal coalition for reasons that have been explained in previous Social Action Australia articles. If there is to be a rentier Australian state, there has to be an Abbott government to establish a special economic zone in northern Australia. For this scenario to occur, the coalition must win the 2013 federal election.
The ALP cannot fight the 2013 federal election on a basis that Abbott has a covert agenda to establish a special economic zone in northern Australia. However, the underlying rent-seeking assumptions of Abbott’s can be drawn out and attacked. An important indication of Abbott’s rent-seeking mentality is his strident stance on 457 working visas.
The current 457 working visa system operates well and has been particularly effectively used to fill gaps in country and regional hospitals. There is however scope that, under a rent-seeking Abbott government, 457 visas will be used to establish a cheap labour pool in a northern economic zone in the mining sector. Such a scenario would not only undermine wage levels for this sector but, depending on the volume of mine workers brought in under 457 work visas, general wage levels could be undercut to create a de facto Work Choices (No Choices) industrial relations regime.
A transition to a No Choices type industrial relations regime under the coalition would be indicative of the extent to which Abbott would be able to bring in business/ industrial networks that will transform Australia into a rentier state. The re-activation of Peter Reith’s (1950- ) industrial network via his 2011 theatrical bid for Federal Liberal Party president is indicative of how formidable an Abbott government will be in transforming Australia.
When a national transformation is undertaken, there is often a need for inter-party collaboration. The inter-party collusion which helped bring Howard down in 2007 will not continue should there be an Abbott government. This is because the practical elimination of trade unions, which are still integrally connected to the ALP, will be too much of a political priority for an Abbott government in pursuit of establishing its version of a rentier state.
There are undoubtedly still rent-seeking elements within the ALP who still believe that the onset of ‘regionalization’ (sic) will enable them to be accommodated by a future Abbott government. Should the coalition win the 2013 federal election, the only scope for the ALP to be accommodated within a rent-seeking state will be Victoria, where Labor is within two seats of forming government.
The relatively strong position of the ALP in Victoria positions Labor rent-seekers to ensure that their interests are accommodated as Australia is “regionalized”. The most vivid indication that “regionalization” will be undertaken is with regard to Goods and Services Tax (GST) revenue clawback being undertaken. The recent appointment of former ALP premier John Brumby (1953- ) as Chairman of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Reform Council establishes a basis for GST clawbacks and state governments to support New South Wales Liberal Premier Barry O’ Farrell (1959- ) in undertaking a process which essentially dis-establishes Australian states.
Why “Regionalization” (sic) Must be Resisted
The recent ascent of Dr. Denis Napthine (1953- ) to the premiership of Victoria establishes the basis for the Victorian coalition government to proceed with the complex process of ‘regionalization’ (sic). Dr. Napthine is politically closer to former Liberal premier, Jeff Kennett (1948- ) than Ted Baillieu (1953- ) was. This places former premier (Jeff Kennett) in a stronger position to decide whether his faction will support “regionalization” (sic). The state planning minister, Matthew Guy’s (1974- ) connection to both the Kennett and Kroger factions, in addition to the vital portfolio he has increases the chances for “regionalization” (sic).
The recent announcement by Victoria’s new Treasurer Michael O’ Brien (1971- ) that the state government would consider abolishing sales tax and stamp duty in return for a more just distribution of the GST revenue from Canberra to Victoria seems reasonable. However, it will be detrimental to Victoria’s long-term interests to permanently forgo long-standing state taxes. The existence of such taxes denotes Victoria’s continued viability as a state.
A real danger that will have to be monitored will the politics of GST clawback leading to the dismemberment of Australian states. Coalition premiers and state ministers have publicly complained that Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been non-communicative with regard to GST distribution. This may or may not be the case but a formidably distinguishing aspect of Prime Minister Gillard’s leadership has been her capacity to master complex technical policy detail. There is no more pressingly urgent national policy matter than that of GST revenue distribution!
Australia’s future political dynamics will ultimately depend on how GST is distributed to the states from Canberra. If Prime Minister Gillard secures “win-win” arrangements with regard to GST distribution to the states, then rent-seeking will be fatally undermined. Even though the Howard government was virulently anti-state, Treasurer Peter Costello (1957- ) in keeping with his brilliant economic management ensured that states received an equitable distribution of GST funding.
The slide toward disastrous rent-seeking first became vividly evident in May 2010 when the then Victorian premier, John Brumby established a basis for the states to surrender their revenue entitlement as part of a so-called “hospital’s plan”. Because the New South Wales and Queensland coalition *governments are probably on board with regard to “regionalization” (sic), much will depend on the Kennett faction of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party safeguarding their state.
(*There are still genuine pro-states rights state parliamentarians and state ministers in New South Wales and Queensland who can resist “regionalization” (sic) becoming a fait accompli as part of a GST clawback deal).
The policy agenda and achievement of the Kennett government are mixed, however the former premier could still establish a positive legacy in his political retirement by supporting state rights.
Liberal Party reticence regarding “regionalization” (sic) is probably reflected by the attempts by Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett (1950- ) to gain a bona fide deal for his state with regard to GST distribution. The Western Australian premier also did the ALP a relative favour in the recent state election by not winning a landslide comparable to those which the coalition won in New South Wales and Queensland.
The landslide of the Liberals and Nationals in Western Australia’s March 9th 2013 election with the ALP losing five seats was actually a respectable performance on the part of Labor because they could have been more than decimated. Premier Barnett may have decided against driving home his potential for winning a mega-landslide victory for fear of strengthening anti-states elements within his parliamentary ranks.
If a Barnett government continues to defend its state’s constitutional and financial rights, then it may encounter difficulties, to say the least, with an Abbott federal government which will try and dismember Western Australia as a state. It should not be forgotten that a sizeable proportion of the state may be given away as part of a special northern economic zone if an Abbott government has its way.
The Western Australian *Nationals will undoubtedly oppose “regionalization” (sic) because it will entail the end of the Royalties for the Regions fund in which 25% of royalty revenue goes to specific areas where mining is undertaken. Therefore, the Western Australian Nationals will probably exercise a powerful opposition to an Abbott rent-seeking agenda by insisting that state mining royalties be retained.
(*The success of the Nationals Western Australian leader Brendon Grylls (1973- ) in winning the state seat of Kalgoorlie is a warning to the ALP that a Lasch strategy can be successfully applied particularly if Labor is perceived to have cordial relations with the Greens).
Why Abbott Must Be Opposed By A Genuine Opponent
Ultimately, the best guarantee of stopping the trauma of an Abbott rent-seeking agenda is to re-elect the Gillard government in September 2013. Constructive criticisms can be made of the Gillard government: however its policy direction is positive with regard to vigorously promoting employment growth, safeguarding of employee labour rights and generally seeking to improve the quality of people’s every day lives such that its return would be an overall positive development.
The Gillard government’s sense of lateral policy direction is derived from the prime minister being an independent political actor. It is only natural that in a political party as diverse as the ALP and in a position of minority government, Prime Minister Gillard has had to make political compromises.
Be that as it may, Julia Gillard is still a sufficiently independent political actor that there is coherent ideological distinction between the ALP and the coalition. This distinction does not guarantee that federal Labor will win the 2013 federal election but at the very at least a Gillard led ALP will be independent. As prime minister, Julia Gillard will not allow operatives and senior officials within the ALP campaign to collude with the coalition to mitigate the extent of a coalition victory so that some Labor seats are held.
The federal coalition will not throw the 2013 federal election. Nor will there be any generosity of spirit to allow selected ALP members of parliament to hold their seats as part of some collusive inter-party deal making. Grass roots sentiment within the Liberal and National parties is too strong to allow there to be any “freebies” which allow for selected ALP seats to be retained. This rank and file feeling aligns with the determination of the Abbott camp to win a federal landslide so that their version of a rentier state can be established.
There may well be a belief within ALP federal parliamentary ranks that a Rudd return will bolster the ALP’s stocks to avoid a coalition mega landslide. As is well known the Liberals have a negative campaign contingency in which they will run a savage campaign against the ALP based on Rudd’s perceived personal weaknesses.
The Australian electorate is not so gullible as to vote for a party that believes that it will lose the election and is only really interested in mitigating the extent of its loss by briefly reinstalling a former leader as prime minister. For the ALP to stop a possible Abbott landslide and even win the 2013 federal election, it is a must that Julia Gillard be retained as prime minister.
Julia Gillard has competently led the government since becoming prime minister in 2013 and, despite opposition claims to the contrary, is widely perceived as having done so. The prime minister is verbally articulate and has a philosophical/policy set which is coherently distinguishable from the coalition that the ALP can remain viable and credible in the 2013 federal campaign.
As important as Julia Gillard will be to the ALP holding its own in the 2013 federal election and possibly wining that poll, the prime minister is not so egocentric that she will run a campaign based on herself as the ALP did in March *1996 when Paul Keating was prime minister. The current prime minister is personally courageous and honest enough to lead a campaign which addresses the nation’s important issues such as employment generation and an overall *“fair go” for everyone.
(*The ALP’s 1996 campaign was so bad with its focus on “Leadership” via reference to Paul Keating (1947-) that one could almost believe that party HQ wanted Labor to lose in a landslide.
*Whitlam successfully campaigned on the slogan of a “Fair Go” for the May 1974 federal election. His re-elected government then betrayed the public’s trust by entering into covert rent-seeking arrangements concerning mineral ownership).
Memo to Senator Conroy: Why The Maynes Model is Still Relevant
The gist of the federal coalition campaign for 2013 is similar to its very successful 1996 campaign, in which the slogan was: “For All of Us’. These two slogans implicitly convey that the ALP ultimately governs for specific sectional interests. It must be admitted that, during the Hawke-Keating era, this assertion was essentially correct as public policy reflected the ideological orientation of senior economic rationalist bureaucrats with political correctness thrown into the mix.
The *Gillard government is led by a genuine social democrat who respectfully listens to differing perspectives such that the nation has a responsive and lateral government. Consequently, the impending passage of the Communication Minister Senator Steve Conroy’s (1963- ) proposed media legislation are a potential disaster not only because ultimate media independence is threatened but because this buttresses the popular perception that the ALP ultimately governs for the interests of a narrow caste of power interest regardless of the public good.
(*I personally have philosophical reservations concerning the Gillard government but this does not negate its bona fides with regard to fighting for the genuine national interest).
The above cited laws are reflective of the general problem that the Gillard government has contended with since being a minority government – powerful interests utilizing their power by exploiting the government’s vulnerable political position. Regardless of the spin that Senator Conroy places on his media legislation, the creation of a government funded “Public Interest Media Advocate” to enforce the Press Council’s standards for print and on-line media - by removing a journalist’s rights under the Privacy Act - amount to establishing a viable framework for a censorship regime.
The Communications Minister has previously shown that he has a formidable political-business network which has been vitally utilized to make the National Broadband Network (NBN) into a virtual corporate monopoly that will eventually control the nation’s fibre broadband connections. The speed and ruthlessness with which Senator Conroy introduced the NBN in June 2010 is now being replicated with regard to the passage of his media regulation bill.
The potential adverse electoral consequences for the ALP probably do not concern Senator Conroy because he erroneously believes that his connections to the corporate sector will enable him to survive a potential change in the ALP’s federal leadership and/or Labor losing the 2013 federal election. Indeed, it was with such indecent haste-when a question mark over Kevin Rudd’s prime ministership emerged in June 2010- that the Communication’s Minister quickly moved to establish the NBN as a fait accompli.
The substantial difference between what occurred in June 2010 with the establishment of the NBN and the impending passage (March 2013) of the current censorship framework is that the rent-seeking elements within the coalition do not intend to lose this year’s federal election. At worst, Senator Conroy will have done dirty-work for the rent-seeking Abbott Liberals with regard to establishing a press censorial framework.
The devil will be in the detail with regard to how a “Public Interest Media Advocate” will operate and is appointed to hold such a position. Although the Opposition’s Communication’s Spokesman Malcolm Turnbull (1954- ) is undoubtedly *sincere in his wanting to later rescind Conroy’s media laws should the coalition win the 2013 federal election, Abbott may not actually do this. An Abbott government may very well implement the Conroy framework to its benefit to promote rent-seeking so that media giants such as News Limited (whom Conroy probably despises) will be the ultimate beneficiaries.
(*If Abbott is really sincere in opposing Conroy’s media legislation then the practice of a coalition MP absenting so as not to vote with Craig Thompson should not be applied in this instance because the stakes for freedom of the press are so high).
Senator Conroy’s perception and exercise of power have undoubtedly been shaped as a Labor Right factional activist in the1980s and early 1990s when he tenaciously fought to help keep Socialist Left of the ALP from taking control of the Federated Clerks Union (FCU).
For a range of reasons at different levels, John Maynes’ (1923- 2009) effective loss of the leadership of the FCU in 1991 was a disaster for Australia. Had Maynes maintained his leadership of the FCU, then a swag of craft based unions could have maintained their independence and, in doing so, prevented the de-unionising ramifications of union amalgamation. In such an industrial-political context, Conroy might have positively exercised his power as a political actor to defend the interests of craft-based unions and small business instead of becoming a cipher for the Australian business corporate sector which should know better than to now promote rent-seeking.
Due to cross-bench support, including the Greens, Senator Conroy’s probably unconstitutional media legislation will pass the federal parliament. Such a parliamentary passage would reflect the ALP’s overall failure to defend the genuine national interest by failing to resist rent-seeking.
Dr. David Paul Bennett is the Director of Social Action Australia Pty Ltd.