Good afternoon.
It was a big week in politics, and one that shows the direction of travel towards the next election.
One Nation revealed its policy to allow renters and people with mortgages to access some of their superannuation. Labor announced digital duty of care rules and plans for social media users to be able to opt out of algorithms.
The Coalition complained about infrastructure grants, including $6m for a golf club in Anthony Albanese’s electorate. Andrew Hastie hit back at Pauline Hanson for a cartoon that called him a “traitor” and the Senate passed carbon offset rules for the New South Wales koala national park. Penny Wong defended Labor’s position on sanctions for Israel and at the high court neo-Nazis fought for the right to form a political party.
It turns out a week really is a long time in politics.
We asked for your questions on our big stories, and you wrote in – in droves! Below Ben Doherty and I answered a selection. Please keep them coming.
One Nation
Charlotte Burns asked: From the Guardian’s perspective, what do you think is the most likely factor contributing to the recent rise in One Nation’s popularity in Australian polls?
Tom McIlroy writes: Charlotte, your question is one that political reporters are being asked a lot this year. I think broad dissatisfaction with the major parties and the state of politics generally has been good ground for Pauline Hanson and One Nation, matched with tough economic times and pressure on household budgets. Hanson benefits from not sounding like a traditional politician, and attracts loyal followers among people who usually hate political correctness and spin from parliament. Pollsters also say the higher the party’s support, the more licence some people who would usually be embarrassed to say so feel they can be honest about publicly endorsing Hanson’s party. It will be fascinating to see if Hanson’s support turns into big wins at the next election.
Staying on One Nation, Dennis had a question about the democratic process, asking: Politicians say that we can express our support or displeasure about a party at voting time. At this time this democratic right to show displeasure might result in a questionable outcome. That leaves voters like me with a real democratic problem.
Tom McIlroy writes: Dennis, it’s great to hear from you. Paul Keating once said that when you change the government, you change the country. I think he was right, but it shows the high stakes for voters, especially as support for the major parties ebbs so much. Already we have a more fragmented parliament, and I think voters looking to show displeasure might give both Labor and the Coalition a good whack at the election. Your challenge, like for all of us, is to the pick the person to represent your interests. And you don’t need to wait for a poll to take action: tell your local MP or the federal government what you think and how you’d like them to face up to the big challenges.
Israel
On the topic of Australia not joining the UK in banning trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Heather in wrote in to say: I understand that it is very difficult, but I do agree that we have – by recognising Palestine – actually been ahead of the world. I appreciate Penny Wong enormously. Sanctions coming soon perhaps.
Tom McIlroy writes: Thank you for this contribution, Heather. Wong has flagged consideration of more sanctions already, and she is working closely with the family of the killed Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom. I think announcements might not be too far off, and whatever happens will surely reflect Wong’s calm and considered modus operandi. But the government did face strong criticism this week for not moving in concert with the UK on the issue of Israeli settler violence. Whatever Australia does next is sure to prompt a big response from Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, ahead of elections in Israel in October.
US bases and Aukus:
Ian Bowie asks: Are we not (on all sides of the debate) ignoring something about Aukus: is it about much more than nuclear submarines? Looking through detail in the last federal budget I find that a heck of a lot of that $368bn has nothing to do directly or indirectly with provisioning for the boats themselves and much of the budgeted infrastructure expenditure might actually be useful for things with no connection to submarines of any kind.
Ben Doherty writes: I think the actual cost of Aukus is extraordinarily important, and one that is under-interrogated. Even rusted-on supporters of the Aukus deal concede that military projects of this size and scope never – and they really mean never – run on time or on budget. The $368bn, massive though it is, has only ever been an estimate (it’s kind of the only figure we’ve been able to grasp on to), but the chance of Aukus costing this is almost zero. When was the last time we heard of a massive defence project being cheaper than we thought it was going to be?
The associated issue is what economists would describe as opportunity cost. What else aren’t we getting? For every dollar we commit to Aukus (include the billions already sent to the US and UK to boost their shipbuildings industries, without any guarantee of anything back), that’s a dollar we can’t spend on something else. Be that a different defence capability or in completely different budget areas.
On the same topic, Mick asks: How do we begin to disentangle ourselves from this one-sided alliance and how much will it cost?
Ben Doherty writes: Decades of unswerving commitment to the US have made this a very difficult proposition. Just walking away from the world’s superpower is not feasible, but I think Australia can certainly push back against American expansionism to say “we want to chart a more independent course”. Perhaps Australia could insist that the US does not port through this continent carrying nuclear weapons. There are ways Australia can demonstrate its independence and agency: its ability to say “no”. Otherwise, I think the government and defence need to make the case why enmeshment with the US military is in this country’s national interest. How does it make Australia safer?
If Australia was to hedge against reliance on an unreliable US, I think at the same time it would need to “thicken” its relationship with allies in the region, such as South Korea, Japan and Pacific nations. Australia is doing this, but I think an Australia less dependent on the US would need to do even more to strengthen our regional ties. Sam Roggeveen from the Lowy Institute wrote a fine book called The Echidna Strategy: that strategy is designed to make Australia (like an echidna) “spiky but unthreatening”. Through a combination of air, underwater, missile and cyber detection capabilities, the Australian continent (particularly its north) could be made fiercely hostile to any potential invading force, without an overdependent reliance on the “great and powerful friend”.
And something entirely different
Kristen from Canberra asked: I’ve been living in Canberra for nearly 40 years now – and I’m so tired of journalists constantly referring to Canberra rather than the government, or the Labor party. I know that many Canberrans would really appreciate some journalistic leadership to stop this misrepresentation of Canberra as being totally responsible for all of government failures. A great time to be more accurate with your language.
Tom McIlroy writes: Kristen, as a proud Canberran myself (I moved more than 10 years ago from Melbourne), I have often heard from readers in the Bush Capital who are frustrated that the city they love is lumped in with the mess of federal politics. I have also been told that “Labor” or “the Coalition” is not a good synonym for the federal government. One challenge for journalists is that we try to avoid repeating the same words over and over in news writing, but it is a good thing to reflect on.
Photograph: Bec Lorrimer/The Guardian
