House of cards

Our political system is unstable

It is but a day after the coup which saw the fourth change of PM in but just over two years, and the third time a PM was replaced within their first term. These are unprecedented events, more akin to a television drama than real life. But alas that is politics today.

Many are coming to terms with the events of the past 24 hours, some readily accept the change others more reluctantly do so. Time will tell how this drama ends.

Like many outside observers I find these blatant 'full frontal' challenges a rather brutal and brutalizing process. It hearkens back to the animal kingdom where the leader of the pride has to maintain leadership by mane to mane combat against all challengers, in a fight sometimes to the end. My preference would be for a more gentlemanly behind-the-scenes arrangement where leaders would be changed from time to time by handshakes-and-nods when the numbers favoured a new nominee. Alas today that seems so naive and idealistic.

Is any of this the media's fault?

While I don't want to go into the specifics of this recent coup I am concerned about the process which uses the media as a tool of the dissatisfied.

As the recently deposed Tony Abbott noted in his concession speech ;

".... a febrile media culture has developed that rewards treachery.

“And if there’s one piece of advice I can give to the media, it’s this – refuse to print self-serving claims, that the person making them won’t put his or her name to. Refuse to connive or dishonour, by acting as the assassin’s knife".

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/09/15/13/26/abbott-makes-final-speech-as-pm#ikzRdGplb5WGbhAQ.99
It seems that the recent instability within our political system has come hand in glove with several trends in our modern media, including; -

• the oft cited 24 hour news cycle requiring ever increasing content
• the frequency of polling
• the increasing number of commentators and media sources
• a social media background that has an ever greater appetite for commentary

For all these reasons any political decision or indecision receives the most detailed scutiny.
Opinions abound and too often the trivial takes precedence over stories of greater import. I guess everyone will have examples but consider the kerfuffle about a 'wink', or  the number of flags on a podium.

As a consequence our media amplifies and extends these sometimes serious, sometimes trivial, issues way beyond what would have been the case but a decade ago. (See my earlier comments on media  Mass media moving masses , Mischievous media magnifies mayhem)

So by its nature the media will amplify dissatisfaction.

But wait there is more...

Add to the ready-to-report, ready-to-amplify media, the treacherous, underhanded, conniving politician, eager to undermine their current leader, whether for venegeance for a past wrong, to gain a more senior role, or some rationalised 'noble' reason. We now have a secret cabal whereby Mr Treachery becomes the anonymous source for leaks to a compliant journalist, or two. The information is thrust into the public arena anonymously to wreak havoc with public opinion and to undermine the leader. This process is not new, we have seen it all too often. Indeed it is now a tactic well proven.

Moreover since it has worked in the past no doubt it will be used in the future.
Reluctantly I accept the reality of human nature; naked ambition, the bitterness of wrongs past, and the ability of otherwise good people to rationalise dishonest behaviour.

My question is about the media. Is the media ethical when publishing anonymous sources?

Is the media's use of anonymous sources ethical?

The very juxtaposition of the two words 'media' and 'ethics' seems to generate a smirk, but I continue.

Media ethics is indeed at the very foundation of media studies and rightly so. Of course anonymous sources are an integral part of the profession.

My, admittedly limited, readings indicate the appropriate use of anonymous sources is not clearly defined. Indeed the Society of Professional Journalists advises care in their use and tellingly advises;

"2. Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

The information-gathering business is a give-and-take practice with a lot of public officials. Some are willing to provide information only when it benefits them. When someone asks to provide information off the record, be sure the reason is not to boost her own position by undermining someone else’s, to even the score with a rival, to attack an opponent or to push a personal agenda. Media outlet practices vary, but journalists should not overlook the danger of legal problems and credibility damage from publishing anonymously sourced information that is not confirmed by public records or credible sources. Before journalists allow themselves to be used by an anonymous source they should be sure to question whether the news value warrants whatever the source hopes to accomplish." (my emphasis) http://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-anonymity.asp

It seems SJP is advising not to use anonymous sources if any one of the following apply; -

1. the motivation behind the anonymous information is for some 'political advantage'
2. there is a possibility that the information is untrue
3. the news value does not warrant whaterver the source want to achieve

Looking at the recent white-anting of Tony Abbot, the leaks seem to have broken all of these criteria. Lets look at each in turn.

The motivation behind the anonymous information is for some 'political advantage'

Clearly, the leaks from the cabinet room have been for a political advantage, ie bringing instability into the government in order to initiate a coup. 

Consider these; - 

SMH June 16,2015 - Leaked briefing paper shows divisions in Tony Abbott cabinet over cancelling citizenship

SMH August 19, 2015 - Leaked talking points tell ministers to say our cabinet is functioning exceptionally well

These headlines speak for themselves.

Most significantly the leak about the planned reshuffle of senior ministers triggered the events of yesterday.

Herald Sun Sep 11,2015 - Cabinet leak is very messy

There is a possibility that the information is untrue

There have been several recent stories which relied on anonymous sources that have proved to be untrue. The one that comes to mind is the story that Mr Abbott had refused to meet with the same sex partner of Australia's ambassador to France. 

SMH May 5,2015 - Ambassador to France offers resignation after bizarre Abbott airport incident

And then proven to be false; -
The Australian May 6,2015 - Abbott had dinner with ambassador in Paris after snub

The news value does not warrant whatever the source want to achieve

Most of the above stories carry no news value other than to show that there is internal division in the cabinet. This is of course news, but it is in fact the very objective the source is trying to achieve. In other words by printing the story the journalist is providing no more information than what the source wants to achieve.
It is clear that, by the criteria outlined by the SJP a professional journalist would not have published these stories. Indeed a professional journalist should never use anonymous sources in these political 'white-anting' situations.

Oh, for a more ethical media

It seems a lonely cry into the ether, but I implore our professional media to look at their role as reporters of truth, without fear or favour. Do not become become the 'assassin's knife', do not accept anonymous leaked stories from treacherous MPs. By doing so you would not be failing your journalistic profession , on the contrary you would be practicing what the Society of Professional Journalists suggest is ethical best practice. 

Where are the voices against corruption?

With but a few hours to go before we find out Dyson Heydon's verdict on himself, what more can be said?  Everyone has been at it over the past few weeks.

In all the outrage about possible 'perception of apprehended bias' by the Royal Commissioner much of the commentariat has lost focus. As a result I feel a need to re-iterate what I believe are the core issues and why a change in commissioner at this time would not be in our common interest.

• The TURC was set up to find Union corruption and it has succeeded. Several Union officials have already been charged and some 60 specific complaints against unionists are now under investigation with many likely to lead to charges. The TURC under DH has uncovered extensive criminality in many of our largest Unions.
• The corrupt practices of their officials has had substantial impact on Union members. In cases where member funds have been misappropriated (HSU, CFMEU), members have no doubt borne the costs through membership fees. But even worse, in those cases where through 'sweetheart deals' Union(AWU) leaders negotiated away their members' benefits, members lost income. It is clearly not in members' interests to have corrupt Union officials. 
• It has been argued by some, that the TURC was not necessary since 'criminal acts' by Union officials would have been picked up by existing law enforcement agencies. However the fact is that there has been no action by existing law enforcement bodies despite these offences stretching back over decades.
• The Union movement has been trying to sabotage the TURC even before it started,  initially calling it a witch-hunt then more recently attacking the Royal Commissioner. Doesn't the Union movement and the ACTU want to eliminate corruption in its ranks? Where are the voices of the honest Union leaders who don't want corruption in their organisations? 
• Similarly, ALP elected representatives in both state and federal governments, who always claim they are on the side of the workers, have joined if not preceded Unions' calls of 'witch-hunt' and bias. Aren't ALP MPs on the workers' side? I know of only one ALP ex parliamentarian, who has spoken out in favour of the TURC, and Martin Ferguson should be applauded for it. Nevertheless it begs the question why haven't we heard any current ALP MPs admonishing corrupt Union leaders and supporting the work of the TURC? 
• Had the ALP taken an anti-corruption stance they would have earned the respect of the electorate and indeed the Unions' members. By not supporting the TURC, by calling for its commissioner to recuse himself, by calling for the TURC to be disbanded the ALP are siding with corrupt officials, against Unions' members and against the best interest of all Australians.
• So too our media. While they see themselves as the objective last stand in the defence of truth, our collective media seem to have fallen far short of this ideal. Except for a handful of 'Right' leaning commentators the media have failed to stand in support of Union members and against Union corruption.
• An attack on the 'umpire' during a game is unforgivable in any sport. Legitimate questions of bias can be, and often are, raised after the game is over when judgement is made in a objective manner. The attacks on DH should have been raised after the commission had completed its work. There would have been no downside in this, as DH's rulings are only the first step in the process and will always be tested in either parliament or in a court of law (see post 4 reasons why DH should stay).

No matter which way the decision by DH the tactic of attacking a serving Royal Commssioner while the commission is active will have consequences, including; -

• As a direct result of the perceived success of the 'mass-media-outrage' tactic the commentariat, comprising mass media, social media, politicians and vested interests (Unions in this case), are more polarised than ever and more willing not to look objectively at any issue if it goes against their leanings. 
• No Royal Commission into any matter which has a political implication will be able to do its work without loud open claims of bias. This tactic has been shown to work and therefore will be used again. This will be true even if DH stays. The laws related to criticism of Royal Commissioners has to be enforced to prevent this happening in future.
• If DH leaves and a new RC is appointed, expect to hear the claims of bias again and again.

Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

Footnotes - on MP expense rorts

• The term 'Entitlements' as Malcolm Turnbull and others have noted, is a complete misnomer that seems to have set the manner in which MPs feel entitled to drain the public purse. Drop the name 'Entitlements', call it what it is 'Expenses'.
• It may be acceptable for longer trips for MPs but business class travel for the children of MPs is definitely out of kilter with community expectations 
• Occasional trips by family to Canberra to spend time with their MP seems legitimate, but trips by MPs family around Australia are also out of kilter with expectations
• The community will accept greater leniency for travel expenses given MPs workload and role in our community but MPs have shown they cannot be trusted when rules are so 'open-ended'
• Enterprises often provide executives with an expense allowance. Why not do the same for MPs. Within some defined limits the MP can decide where to use the allowance but never above the limit. The allowance should cover ALL claims by MPs for re-imbursement, ie study tours. The allowance should vary by status back-bencher, minister, etc., and be generous but not unreasonable. I suggest something in the order of 10-15% of their salary may be a guide.
• Contrary to many voices in the media I believe expenses related to party fundraisers should NOT be eligible for claims. The parties can pay these expenses themselves, if they want their MPs to attend.
• Despite some specious arguments to the contrary, it is not difficult to differentiate between a fund-raiser and a public meeting. It is ALWAYS a fund raiser if the money collected goes to a political party.
• We should not have to wait for 6 months to get this sorted out. It seems like a delaying tactic, hoping the controversy will die down. An interim report and actions should be available before the end of the year.
• Having experienced the venom from the electorate the pollies and some 'friends' are now trying to put the issue 'back in the box'. Watch for specious arguments about the difficult working hours, the disruption to family life and all the other hardships our poor MPs suffer. Before you accept any of this gumph, apply Joe Hockey's 'smell' test. How does the MPs role compare to other workers in our society; ambulance drivers, nurses, defence forces, and what benefits do they enjoy?

Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

Conflict of interest

Politicians work hard to project the image that they always strive to fulfill the needs of the people and the community they represent. But is this always so?

There is no doubt room for argument about what effectively represents a community whose views are, lets say, less than uniform. But this is a mere quibble when we look at some of the conflicts of interest they face in fulfilling this image.

The most obvious is that of parliamentarian remuneration,. While there is always a 'misalignment' between the community and its representatives, here at least, there is a credible argument that 'you get what you pay for'. As many have argued that given what we get, we should be paying more.

But it is hard to think of a case where politicians interests are less aligned with the people they represent than with our pollies' travel expense claims. These are a veritable cesspool of iniquity. There are all too many cases where the peoples' representatives seem to only represent themselves. From their profligate travel-style one would think they lived on a different planet, totally out of touch with their constituency.

When brought to our attention, we all rail at the magnitude and mindlessness of such excess. What in the remotest corner of her brain would have concocted the notion that spending $5,000 for a helicopter to travel half an hour to a Liberal fund-raiser was reasonable, let alone acceptable to the people she represents? It is non-sense. It cannot be justified! And we all know it. Lest you think I am being one-sided, consider our recent past PM claiming expenses for her partner's jaunt around Victoria promoting hair-care goods.

There are of course more subtle abuses where an MP will sort of 'tack on' a claimable event to what is in large-part un-claimable. While this is generally accepted by MPs, and a compliant media I add, as 'fair', we, the public, see it as a rort.  It would not be acceptable to our employers so, as employers of these MPs, it is not acceptable to us.

"a total failure of our political class, in the face of a clear conflict of interest, to set proper standards of behaviour"

It does not matter one iota that when caught the MP pays it back. It does not matter that there is a bit of a penalty when a mis-claim has been identified. The public, the people these MPs are meant to represent are outraged. We don't accept such egregious conduct as a simple 'error of judgment' from those we select to represent us.

The lack of scrutiny, the lack of clarity, and the lack of visibility of MPs' expenses is a serious issue. It demonstrates a total failure of our political class, in the face of a clear conflict of interest, to set proper standards of behaviour. No corporate entity would accept an open-ended expense system. Commercial operations clearly define the scope of claims, the means of travel allowed, and set and review budgets. Indeed where expenditure by a company has been seen to benefit an individual it is a 'Fringe benefit' which is taxable.

Expense claims must be Reasonable and Accountable

I guess this is just a rant unless I add a few suggestions. So here goes.

All politician expense claims must be reasonable and accountable.

'Reasonable' simply means a claim must be consistent with accepted norms within commercial and non-commercial enterprises. This is just the 'sniff' test. Many travel claims, by our MPs certainly fail this 'sniff' test. If an MP has some doubt about what is reasonable, they should submit an application for pre-approval (see below).

A suggested set of guidelines for what constitutes 'reasonable' is provided below;

What constitutes 'reasonable' travel claims?

MP will be reimbursed for travel expenses when directly connected with their role as a member of parliament

Actual costs incurred for air or road travel subject to; -

- travel by most direct route

- travel at lowest cost

- travel with approved carrier

- Business class (but not first class)

Actual out of pocket costs with supporting receipts subject to a per day limit of $1000, or $700 per day if claimed on a per diem basis when no receipts are required

Spouse/partner/family can accompany but any additional costs to be paid by MP

Where only a part of a trip is claimable as being a necessary part of MPs role, the reimbursement for carrier costs will be pro-rated for the proportion of travel which is claimable. The out-of-pocket costs will be for those full days which qualify as claimable Any claims which would breach these rules must be submitted and pre-approved in writing

Accountability requires all claims to be managed formally by an independent body and for the public interest they should be visible. If the MP's work on behalf of their constituents then they should 'report ' to their constituency. What better way to shine a light on the excesses than to publish all claims on a website.

A suggested set of rules for accountability are provided below;

How to ensure accountability for travel claims

Expense claim policy to be fully documented and provided to MPs.

All claims must be submitted on the appropriate form together with supporting receipts and be signed by the MP within 30 days of costs being incurred. MPs can submit 'pre-approval' requests for a future claim, if they seek certainty that a claim will not be rejected. Such requests for pre-approval are processed as normal claims and if approved a pre-approval authorisation is provided

All claims to be vetted against the policy by the nominated department (Finance?) and rejections notified to the MP

All approved AND rejected claims,are to be published on a web-site to provide full visibility to the electorate

Its about time!

Unfortunately, like a bad dream the looseness of MP travel expense policy keeps coming back. Indeed past and current PMs seem to rely on our short memories. The media change focus to the next drama and we are easily distracted. Screaming headlines earlier this week have been replaced by the ALP annual conference. The ALP's proposed turn-back of asylum seeker policies drowning out the cacophony of 'helicopter-gate'. So the circus moves on. 

But lets face it. Unless we address the vagaries in the current policies, the next travel rort drama is just around the corner. It is not only about time to address these policies, it is long overdue.


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved