By Sinclair Davidson And Alex Robson
Wall Street Journal Asia – 23 October 2007
It looks like Australia may have lost its nerve for economic liberalism. In Sunday’s nationally televised debate, Prime Minister John Howard touted his vision: a "new society" based on entrepreneurialism and individualism. Opposition leader Kevin Rudd a self-proclaimed Christian socialist, backed bigger government and expanded social spending. Yet immediately following the debate, Mr Rudd. was declared the winner by most of the popular media.
Next month’s national election result could have significant implications for Australia, the world’s 15th-largest economy and a key U.S. ally in Asia. Over the past two decades, successive Labor and Liberal governments have ripped down trade barriers, privatized industries, floated the Australian dollar and opened the country to international capital flows. The economy is in its 16th year of uninterrupted economic growth, free of public debt, and enjoying low inflation and the lowest level of unemployment in 33 years.
Mr Rudd, a 50-year-old former bureaucrat, has cleverly mimicked the government’s record, even labeling himself an "economic conservative." That tack has apparently won him support among Australia’s middle classes, who have benefited most strongly from the economic boom and don’t want to see a change in economic strategy. He’s now leading Mr. Howard by about 10 percentage points in most national polls. But a closer look at Mr Rudd’s. record reveals that he’s not a reformer, but rather an unreconstructed interventionist masquerading as a free market conservative. Call it "Ruddonomics."
Take his parliamentary record, for a start. Since coming into the Parliament in 1998, Mr.Rudd has toed the party line and opposed most efforts to further reform the economy. The Australian Labor Party opposed the privatization of Australia’s government-owned telecommunications provider, Telstra; strongly protested industrial relations reform, including Mr. Howard’s recent efforts to reduce union power and abolish unfair dismissal laws; and, most importantly, opposed all significant tax reform over Mr. Howard’s tenure, including cuts in income taxes. Mr. Rudd’s economic philosophy isn’t a secret. In a speech to the free market Center for Independent Studies in Sydney last year, he openly attacked the free market ideas of Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek, branding him a "market fundamentalist." In Mr Rudd’s. mind, it’s okay to accept "the economic logic of markets but . . . these must be properly regulated and that the social havoc they cause must be addressed by state intervention." He also argued that public policy should deliver long-term market-friendly reform tempered by "social responsibility."
In practice, a Labor government under Mr. Rudd would re-regulate economic life. Over the past year he has promised to set up no fewer than 68 new bureaucracies and establish 96 reviews if elected. He promises to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and commit Australia to a costly program of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 60% of 2000 levels by 2050. His proposed industry policy—constructed by Kim Carr, a declared socialist—would create an uberbureaucracy of 12 Industry Innovation Councils. The goal, it seems, is to promote manufacturing by "picking winners"—a policy with an appalling track record of failure both in Australia and elsewhere. To round things off, Mr. Rudd’s labor-market policy promises to abolish individual workplace agreements and to restore union power over policy making to its former glory.
Given the Howard government’s record of economic success, Mr Rudd’s dominant lead this far into the electoral cycle is a remarkable achievement. But it’s also not without precedent. Australia has been through this kind of economic soul-searching before, with an eerily similar Labor campaign pitch—and a disastrous outcome.
In 1972, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam led Labor out of a 23-year-long electoral hiatus by running the most comprehensive negative campaign in Australia’s history. His "It’s Time" platform emphasized the Liberal Party’s long stint in power without laying out a coherent alternate economic vision. He then embarked on a disastrous three-year premiership, during which time he socialized Australia’s health and education systems and unapologetically increased the size of government. Inflation soared, as did the levels of national debt. Today,
Australia is still living with many of Mr. Whitlam’s mistakes.
Mr Rudd’s 2007 campaign strikes a similar tone. His slogan—"New Leadership"—is aimed squarely at Mr. Howard’s political longevity, rather than any apparent policy differences. Indeed, an integral part of Mr.Rudd’s strategy is to mimic everything his opponent says on monetary and fiscal policy, including keeping a budget surplus and an independent central bank. Even Mr. Rudd’s Labor Party colleagues—many of whom are closely affiliated with left-wing labor unions—now cloak themselves in the jargon of economic conservatism, while touting big government platforms such as a federal government takeover of the nation’s hospital system.
At the same time, Mr. Rudd has judiciously employed the "It’s Time" strategy, carefully pointing out that his opponent has been around for an awfully long time, and is "old," "stale" and "out of ideas." To top it all off, he often cautions voters about the evils of negative campaigning, and reprimands Mr. Howard for directing any criticism at him, no matter how minor.
We’ll soon know if Australian voters will repeat their 1972 mistake, and go with a candidate who promises bigger government. When asked whom they want to run the economy, voters overwhelmingly favor Mr. Howard. Yet betting markets, which have a good track record of predicting voting outcomes, show that Mr. Howard only has a 40% chance of holding on to power. That most voters do not seem to know or care about any of this speaks volumes about Mr. Rudd’s campaign strategy and Mr. Howard’s inability to cut through the spin. For the most part, Australians do not seem to recognize that good economic policy does not require "new leadership" or "new ideas." The current economic boom has lasted so long that most citizens— including Mr Rudd, it seems— have forgotten the three main ingredients of policy success: minimal intervention, transparent regulation and broad economic liberalization.
Mr Rudd has done well to convince voters he represents new leadership, as the results of Sunday’s debate show. Yet it isn’t clear which aspect of his election platform is new. If Ruddonomics wins the day, Australia could find itself back in a 1970s mindset, with bigger government and a less competitive economy. In a modern, rapidly globalizing world, that’s not a vision for the future— that’s a vision for the past.
Mr. Davidson is a professor in the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT University in Melbourne. Mr. Robson is a lecturer in the department of economics at the Australian National University in Canberra.
I think John Howard should wait a while before calling the election.
A section of Australian voters are still infatuated with Kevin ("me-too") Rudd, who seems anxious to get this election in the bag while he still has a large lead in the polls.
The next few weeks will increase in intensity, and show up flaws in the conga-line of "wannabes" that are following Kev around. See for example Robert McLelland's gaffe on going easy on terrorists, or Peter Garret's hypocrisy about the Tasmanian Pulp Mill. In fact if you scratch more closely at any of the Labor front bench, it's easy to see the amateurish cracks in the facade that is "Kev 07".
John Howard should take a leaf out of Neville Wran's book, who espoused the idea of applying the "blowtorch to the belly" of his oponents - keeping the heat on them to really see what they're made of.
It's only when the heat is on, when the pressure is unbearable, when they wish the blowtorch would go away, that you really get to see what someone is made of.
Take your time, Mr Howard. Keep the heat on. The Rudd facade will slowly melt away, until it's pretty obvious to everyone that Emporer Kev isn't really wearing any new clothes at all.
WYSIWYG or "What you see is what you get" is an important attribute in politics.
Why vote for someone who appears to support one thing, only to find that after they get elected they're totally different to what you expected? That would be a disaster.
I will be voting for John Howard at the next election because he is definately WYSIWYG. You definately know where this man stands. He is predictable. You know what he's going to do.
I don't agree with everything he's done, but I know when he says he's going to do something, he'll do it.
Kevin Rudd is the opposite. He's Mr "Me too", presenting himself as a clayton's opposition leader. Mimicking the Prime Minister on vital issues like Economy ("Echo-Nomics"), Foreign Policy, Taxation and Indiginous Affairs, he tries to present a "not too scarey" version of the Labor Party that isn't going to frighen the voters, while placating the left with platitudes about Climate Change, Iraq, and (of course) Industrial Relations.
I.e. they dont' really stand for anything (especially if it's unpopular). All they want to do is get elected.
But ask yourself this. Why would the Labor Party want to get into office if they were just going to mimick the Liberals?
There's only one answer - they're definately NOT WYSIWYG. They want your vote, and they'll dress up in sheeps clothing so you can't see the wolf.
If you're not convinced, check out the conga line behind Kevin Rudd - the ones who he wants to make ministers in his government:
Deputy prime Minister and Minister for Industrial relations: Julia Gillard, former student radical and AUS president
Treasurer: Wayne Swan, former ALP state secretary
Attorney general: Joe Ludwig, former AWU official
Minister for Trade: Simon Crean, former president, ACTU
Minister for Transport and Tourism: Martin Ferguson, former president, ACTU
Minister for Finance: Lindsay Tanner, former state secretary, Federated Clerk's Union
Minister for Environment and the Arts: Peter Garrett, lifelong anti-American activist
Minister for Infrastructure and Water: Anthony Albanese. Former assistant general secretary, NSW ALP
Minister for Human Services: Tanya Plibersek, former student union official, UTS
Minister for Immigration: Tony Burke, former official Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Union
Minister for Resources: Chris Evans, former official Miscellaneous Workers' Union
Minister for Veterans' Affairs: Alan Griffin, former official Federated Clerks Union
Minister for Primary Industry: Kerry O'Brien, former official Miscellaneous Workers' Union
Minister for Superannuation: Nick Sherry, former state secretary, Federated Liquor and Allied Trades Union
Minister for Sport: Kate Lundy, former official CFMEU.
And waiting in the wings are:
Greg Combet, candidate for Charlton and former ACTU president
Doug Cameron, NSW Senate candidate and secretary of Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union
Bill Shorten: candidate for Maribyrnong and national secretary, Australian Workers' Union
Richard Marles: candidate for Corio and former assistant secretary, Transport Workers Union.
Get the idea?
A vote for Kevvie is a vote for the ACTU - government of the People, for the Unions, by the Unions.
That's what you get - but it's not what you saw. Sort of like the opposite of WYSIWYG.
Kev07? Not bloody likely.
I hate grubby journalism.
Here's some photos, and the text of an article in our local rag, "The Northern Times".
The full text of the article can be viewed at http://www.questnews.com.au/article/2007/08/23/19859_nt_news.html (unless they delete it).
Click on the photos for larger versions. The text of my letter to the editor follows the article.Here's the letter I sent on 29 August 2007.The Northern Times 24 August 2007.
AUGUST 24: The controversy surrounding campers pitching tents in Wyllie Park looks set to continue until the future management of the reserve is finalised.Residents have called for action to be taken against people camping in the park, in defiance of signposted rules governing the use of the green space.They say people camping in tents should be moved on, while campers themselves say they are doing no harm and just want to enjoy a peaceful stay before moving on in their travels.One resident, who asked not to be named, said the rules of the park were clear and should be enforced by council officers.
``We're not saying everyone who camps down there is a troublemaker, but there are clear rules about who can and can't stay overnight at the park and we just want the rules to be enforced,'' the resident said.``And it clearly says that camping in tents is not allowed.
''Pine Rivers Shire Council CEO Ray Burton said the land the park was located on belonged to the Queensland Department of Main Roads.
He said council did not have any power to take action in relation to camping on state-controlled land.``The legal tenure of Wyllie Park is declared as state-controlled road, however, council is currently negotiating with Main Roads to gain legal control of the park,'' Mr Burton said.
``Council will continue to maintain the facilities within Wyllie Park
which includes the collection of rubbish, cleaning of toilets and showers and
also regular mowing.``This is part of an historical agreement.''
Dear Editor
Your front page story, "Our Tent Ghetto" (NT 24 Aug 2007), is an indictment on the standard of journalism of your paper, and the level of heartlessness that exists in our community.
With no by-line, your anonymous reporter claimed that tensions had "again surfaced between residents living near Petrie's Whllie Park and people erecting tents within the grounds".
"Residents"? Which residents? You only quoted one nameless resident. Was there anyone else? One anonymous undated quote does not demonstrate that the community has "called for action to be taken". If the claims are true, surely someone (even your reporter) would have the courage to pin their colours to the mast and speak without the shroud of anonymity?
You claim these residents live "near Petrie's Wyllie Park". Have a look on a map. Wyllie park is triangular, bounded on one side by the North Pine River, beyond which is yet another park. On the other side it is bounded by Gympie Road, beyond which is a cricket field and a paper recycling plant. On the third side it is bounded by a railway line, beyond which is a football field. The nearest houses are several hundred metres away in Mundin Street on the other side of the railway line and embankment.
In the middle of winter, during one of the wettest weeks of the year, your photos show large tracts of water on the ground in what is supposed to be a camping ground. Several unfortunate people found it necessary to live in the middle of this flood in tents. A nameless journalist, and an anonymous resident claiming to live nearby (in a warm dry house, no doubt) want "the rules to be enforced". The council, who claims to be powerless to do anything about it simply turned off the hot water.
That's the real story.
How unkind.
By the way - feel free to publish my name.
Neil Ennis
Lawnton
http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1896028.htm
Kevin Rudd and Channel Seven's "Sunrise" have been caught red handed telling porkie pies about their plans to stage a fake "dawn service" at Long Tan in Vietnam on Anzac Day to fit in with prime time TV slots in Australia.
While Kevvie and Kochie might be permitted a bit of mutual ego stroking on prime-time, the problem is the mess they've made while they were doing it:
Rudd tried to convince us he knew nothing of his discussions with "Sunrise" to stage the fake service. Emails then came to light which proved Rudd's claims to be false.
He then tried shift the blame to his staff for the "oversight" - grossly hypocritical in the light of the charges of "Sergeant Schultz" behavior that he leveled at the Government over AWB ("know nothing, see nothing, ask nothing").
Most Australians have to put up with wankers from time to time, but it's a bit much to expect us to tolerate hypocritical, lying little wankers.
Makes you wonder what he'll come up with next.
Our 4 year-old, Lilly, had trouble breathing last night at about 1am.
Her lips started turning blue, she started making barking noises like a seal, and could hardly get any air into her lungs. We were very worried.
I called 000 and the ambulance arrived within 5 minutes.
They were really effective, gave her oxygen, and took her off to the Royal Children's Hospital right away.
A doctor was available to see her as soon as we arrived at the hospital, administered some drugs (Dexamethasone, for Croup), and we were able to take her home within the hour.
Everyone was very professional and helpful, and I can't praise them enough.
It didn't cost us a cent.
There's been a lot of criticism of the health system in Queensland recently, but I think that despite the problems that have been publicized, we have an excellent system. It worked for us, and probably saved our daughter's life.
To all the doctors, nurses and ambo's in Queensland - our family regards you as heroes.
See this story from the ABC
The rapacious whaling pac-men from the land of the rising sun are upset because they didn't get their way at the international whaling commission.
They failed by two votes to introduce secret ballots (to make it easier for wavering delegates to vote for whaling without the public shame), branded the IWC a "waste of time", and threatened to leave.
Joji Morishita spat the dummy. Bribing all those small third world countries for their votes is such hard work, and costs him and his grisly butcher "scientific whalers" a lot of money.
Those who have evolved beyond making sushi out of the largest mammal that ever lived need to be vigilant and turn up the heat. Winning a few votes at the IWC is not enough.
Check out Kim Beazley's budget reply speech
He uses the term "Middle Australia" 35 times. I think his polsters must have told him that they're the people who are a bit worried about him.
The only problem is most "Middle Australians" wouldn't know who a "Middle Australian" was. It's a bit of doublespeak that politicians use to tag a group of amorphous voters, but its not a term that any serious person would use to describe themselves.
"G'day my name is Neil and I'm a.... Middle Australian". Not likely, mate. I'm a father, a husband, a small business operator, a daydreamer, a wannabe musician, maybe even a battler, whatever.... but "Middle Australian"? Give me a break, Kim. If you use that term and me in the same sentence, then the only meaning I derive from it is that you're after my vote and you aren't too sure how to get it.
The other bit of doublespeak Beazer used was "Triple Whammy" - as though it was some big silver hammer that Maxwell was using to bang us on the head with as per the song by the Beatles. The Opposition Leader was referring to the recent quarter of a percent interest rise, the increase in fuel prices, and the change to the Industrial Relations laws.
Regarding his first point about interest rate rises. I'd rather be hit with Costello's quarter percent interest rise than the 18 percent rates that Beazley gave us when he was in power. Especially since most commentators agree that we're not going to need another rate rise for quite a while. And anyway you can count on a closed fist the number of initiatives Kim Beazley made in his speech addressing what he'd do to reduce interest rates.... none at all because he and his party wouldn't have a clue about interest rates.
The second point about rising fuel prices is pretty lame. Oil prices are rising around the world. Does Beazer have a magic wand he's going to wave which will bring them down? If not, is it the nasty government's fault that they're high? Who are you trying to kid?
And on the third point of Industrial Relations reform threatening the jobs of "Middle Australia", blind Freddy can see that unemployment is much lower now than under Beazley's government. When he ruled the roost it was over 10 percent. Now it's 5 percent. Which number is more threatening to you?
One initiative I have mixed feelings about is his ideas about the "Double Drop-off". Building childcare centres in State Schools is fair enough - provided the State Governments let you do it. But if you already have your kids at one child care centre, you'd still have a double drop-off under Beazley unless you pulled your kids out of one childcare centre and put them into another.
And then what happens to the other childcare centres that aren't in school grounds? If they lose customers, will they close down?
Sounds to me like the cure might be worse than the disease.
Full marks to Bill Leak for his witty cartoon about Indonesia and West Papua.
A similar cartoon in an Indonesian newspaper portrayed John Howard and Alexander Downer as amorous dingoes. Most people either smirked about it or wrote it off as a pretty lame joke.
But Bill's cartoon has got a lot of people running for cover, with Downer "disassociating" himself from it, opposition counterpart Rudd calling for a stop to the "cartoon wars", and numerous Indonesian commentators getting very worked up.
There's no need to get so upset.
The Indonesian media opposed Australia's actions over West Papua and criticized that decision.
Similarly, many Australians are skeptical of Indonesia's actions in West Papua, and are openly critical about it.
Debate between international neighbors about issues of mutual interest is a healthy thing. It would be a much less desirable situation if this sort of debate was stifled to try and appease those sensitive souls who are offended by criticism.
The debate serves a vital role - governments at home and abroad are held accountable for their actions.
If Bill Leak can have a bit of a laugh about it while contributing to the debate, then good for him!
The Indonesian Government "is surprised, disappointed and deeply deplores" the decision by the Australian goverment to grant temporary protection visas to 42 asylum seekers from Papua.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1600102.htm
As Dr Phil would say, past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.
So taking into account the thuggery that the Indonesian army committed in East Timor and Aceh, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that the Papuans were telling the truth when they complained of brutality at the hand of the indonesians.
If I had to chose who to believe between a Papuan who braved the ocean in dugout canoe, and an Indoneisan military thug with a past history of brutality, it's a no brainer.
It's good news for lovers of freedom that politicians in Indonesia are upset about this.
They know that we know what they're up to. And they don't like it. Nice of them to let us know that we're getting under their skin.
It's good to see the plight of Papua in the mainstream media too.
Full marks to Robert Richter, QC, and Brian Walters, QC.
They have come up with a plan to extradite the Bali Nine to Australia to face conspiracy charges. The goal is to get them out of Indonesia before they're charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to death by firing squad.
I hope the Department of Public Prosecutions in Victoria co-operates, as should other state / territory governments and the Federal Government.
Our government may not have the political will to lobby Asian governments to forsake Capital Punishment, but with some smart legal manoevering we may be ale to use international law to make it more difficult for them - even if it is only when dealing with our own citizens.
More info
Singing The Spirit Home
|
Opposition Immigration Spokesman, Tony Burke, and his leader, Kim Beazley are totally correct. The immigration department was wrong to deport Robert Jovicic, and they should bring him home.
Until he was forcibly repatriated, Jovicic had never been to Serbia in his life, didn't speak the language, and had lived in Australia for 35 years.
He's as Australian as I am.
If he's guilty of crimes, then we should be dealing with the problem here - not exporting our woes to Serbia.
Why does the immigration department get it so wrong so often? Consider the cases of Vivienne Solon, Cornelia Rau, and now Fatih Tuncok who is facing deportation to Turkey after spending the last 33 years of his life in Australia.
I don't think its enough to say that the Immigration Department (DIMEA) "got it wrong" or "made a mistake". These are malicious actions by a dictatorial department that is drunk on its own power.
Someone with guts has got to take drastic action and sort DIMEA out once and for all - starting with the Minister and working right down to the gratuitous gnomes who perpetrate these mean and nasty policies.
Enough is enough.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1516426.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1516691.htm
The Andrew Ollie 2005 Media Lecture was presented by John Doyle.
For those of you who haven't seen him, Doyle is "Roy Slaven" - part of the comical duo, Roy and HG.
Although John Doyle's lecture was very funny in parts, he delivered an incisive appraisal of the state of our world, with some intelligent suggestions on what could be done about it.
The text and mp3 download are available at:
http://www.abc.net.au/sydney/stories/s1476723.htm
If you ever find yourself questioning things like the "Dumbing Down" of commercial media, the future of the ABC, the facile nature of Talkback Radio, and the decline of the skeptical thought process, then you'll appreciate what Doyle has to say.
Ideas are like viruses.
They spread from person to person. If a person is infected they can pass the idea on to someone else.
Some people are immune to some ideas. Others are susceptible to them.
Ideas change the people they infect. They can turn someone into a political activist, a religious zealot, or a suicide bomber.
Some ideas (like some viruses) can cause much damage. Consider the AIDS virus, or SARS.
Epidemeology is the study of the distribution of diseases. It is an advanced science and is vital for containing the spread of infectious diseases. It teaches us how to prevent infection, and how to treat those who are infected.
I think that we need an "Epidemeology of Ideas".
It is moot whether a particular idea is "dangerous" or not. I don't want to be drawn on which ideas are "good", "bad", "dangerous" or "helpful" because each person will have a different opinion depending on their point of view.
But a society may feel threatened by the spread of a certain philosophy. For example, western societies feel threatened by terrorism.
The usual response to this perceived threat is to increase surviellence, military presence, etc - trying to prevent terrorist acts.
I think this is akin to doctors trying to stop a runny nose, or reduce a temperature. It's dealing with the symptom rather than the cause.
We need to ask more probing questions such as:
These questions raise more alarming questions about human rights, freedoms, democracy, freedom of the press, etc.
I'll try and explore some of these questions in my future postings.
Well done, Senator Ian Campbell.
The Australian Environment Minister worked tirelessly to convince some wavering delegates to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to oppose Japan's lust for whale meat.
The cetacean slaughterers have dug in for a long fight, and have indicated they will ignore the IWC and continue their hunting anyway.
The IWC motion is a start, but ultimately, someone is going to have to start playing hardball with the whalers.
Last year the Navy hunted half way round the world to catch poachers of the Patagonian Toothfish. In the same way, I hope they go hunting for whalers soon.
Greens Senator Bob Brown is right to call on Australian to close its ports to Japanese whaling vessels if they start hunting Humpbacks or increase their take of Minke Whales.
"Scientific Whaling" is bullshit. What's scientific about going out on a whaling ship, harpooning heaps of whales, slicing them up, and selling them. The sooner someone stands up to the Japanese and tells them to cut the crap, the better.
To make it worse, they're now bribing smaller nations in the whaling council to get them to either reintroduce commercial whaling, or increase the quota allowed under the terms of "Scientific Whaling".
If we let these butchers into our ports, and make it easier for them to do their grisly job, then we are complicit in their deeds.
I'd probably go one step further and suggest the Australian Navy use the whaling ships for target practice.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1379232.htm
The ALP is crying foul over the campaign run by the Coalition at the last election.
The basis of their argument is threefold:
1. The government claimed that rates would be higher under labor, but then the RBA lifted rates by a quarter of 1 percent.
2. The goverment quoted RBA figures during the election, and the RBA complained to the AEC that the government shouldn't be quoting the RBA during an election campaign.
3. The RBA complained to a coaltion staffer who authorized the ads who should have passed on the complaint to the coalition's campaign director.
Since the interest rate campaign torpedoed the ALP's chances of winning the election, they're not very happy.
Beazer's been telling anyone who'd listen that it's not fair, and his sidekick, Swannie has been repeating the message for us, just to make sure we didn't miss it.
Come on guys. Get over it. You lost. Voters decided that it wasn't smart to let you loose on the treasury benches just yet. Especially after what happened with interest rates in the late 80's.
In a footy game both teams go on the field, play hard, try a few clever tactics, and at the end of a tough battle, the stronger team prevails. If the losing side started behaving like Beazer and Swannie, the crowd would laugh at them and call them a bunch of wusses or pansies.
So we if had swallowed the ALP's bunch of porkie pies instead of the coalition, would that have been alright, Kim? Give Aussies a bit more credit than that. We're not dopes. We know the game that they play in Canberra, and we're pretty adept at sorting out truth from bullshit.
There's nothing inspiring or exciting about a potential leader crying in his beer.
It's just plain wussy.
