PM Scott Morrison's leadership: The devil's happy when the critics run you off

 

Scott Morrison, Prime Minister of Australia. Eesan1969/Wikimedia [CC BY-SA 4.0]

Political leadership is challenging at the best of times, but for Prime Minister Scott Morrison to have done so well for so long reaffirms the notion of the "lucky country", a term that has found renewed applicability lately. 

His legacy will be the National Cabinet, a form of executive federalism that has seen greater federal-state cooperation than ever before. Indeed, it replaced COAG with little ceremony and barely a hint of journalistic interest.

Meanwhile, the ABC has done its best to undermine the government in ways I have never seen before. Some of their senior journalists seem to relish in their own activism, taking centre stage and creating an opinion fog that often blurs the ABC's emergency information role.

And if you were to use Twitter's #auspol as the barometer for political leadership in Australia, you would think that things were going to the dogs. Yet, and despite the bushfire debacle and the tenuous Trumpism of the early stages of the pandemic, Morrison is still "booking for smoking concerts".

Even if one were to turn to The Conversation, that so-called bastion of "academic rigour, [with] journalistic flair" for their daily news intake, Morrison has destroyed everything that Australians hold dear and we are all going to die horribly because our government is incompetent. Unless we look to the facts.

Now don't get me wrong, the Liberal Party went so far right that it has left a gaping hole in Australia's political spectrum, especially for those who agree with market liberalism but shun conservatism. That doesn't change the fact that during one of the worst periods in recent history, Morrison is presiding over a period of extraordinarily good fortune in Australia.

If we had good political intelligence systems, we could analyse cause and effect and determine how good policies might be predicted. Instead, ideology gets in the way and policies are judged by people (on both sides of the political spectrum) who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about but are hogging the microphone.

There has been focus on the performance of political leaders in the media, judged by journalists and other unqualified commentators. There has been little talk about the structure of Australia's blood market or the vaccine manufacturing capabilities of CSL, or whether such an important capability should be nationalised or have more competition introduced for future responses to pandemics.

Instead, the PM and state premiers are good/bad, competent/not competent, doing the right thing/doing the wrong thing, and a host of other things that have, quite simply, led to the collapse in confidence of the AstraZeneca vaccine and Australia's ability to deliver the vaccination within our capabilities.

The more I scratch the surface of reported "facts", the more I find the anti-post-truth movement perpetuates as much nonsense as anyone else. Journalists have a lot to answer for once this pandemic is under control. Take for example the infographics being used by the Twitterati to bag out Australia's response and blame the PM.

I have had my first shot of the AstraZeneca vaccine, and I will have my second shot in early August as per the medical advice I have received. Like the many others who have had their first shot, the poorly framed infographic will see Australia leap ahead of other countries in the region once the full vaccination has been delivered. 

I am really getting sick of poorly framed infographics being used as "evidence", especially by people who ought to know better but instead retweet others' nonsense to support their own ideological agendas. 

For example, photos emerged recently of PM Morrison arriving at RAAF Williamtown (and apparently only the New Daily, a wannabe news media site, and The Guardian, who are as [differently] biased as any other Australia new media masthead and are both clearly green-left ideological mouthpieces - reported the photograph) where an honour guard and a red carpet awaited the PM. 

The claims by the two media sites were blown all out of proportion. While the RMIT ABC Fact Check investigated beyond the obvious agenda of the previous reports, the major newspapers showed no interest yet The Guardian didn't report on the fact check until another two weeks later.

RAAF Brass called this "protocol creep", but who really cares? It's what the ADF does for the PM.

Apparently, the original photo was posted on the PM's Instagram site then deleted later. The Prime Minister of Australia arrives in one of 34 Squadron's VIP 737s to a handful of RAAF personnel in ceremonial uniform and suddenly Morrison is Trump? Obviously the media sites were playing up to their respective echo chambers.

To put Morrison's RAAF Williamtown visit in perspective, in 1994, when Albert Reynolds, then Prime Minister of Ireland, arrived at Parliament House in Canberra, I was the gun position officer for the 19 gun salute fired in accordance with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet's protocol for a visiting head of government. Some 50 Royal Australian Artillery personnel plus the guns of the Royal Australian Artillery Historical Company in addition to some 50 members of the Federation Guard, among others, made a big deal about the Irish PM's visit.

Yet our Prime Minister arrives at RAAF Williamtown to some ten personnel and a few metres of red carpet and two short-term PMs, Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull, do not recall getting the same treatment and suddenly we have a dictator on our hands. Has the country lost its collective mind?

Well not really. The polls show that Morrison is still leading the pack. The whole point of a liberal democracy is that Morrison, under our Westminster system, has been chosen to lead and the polls continue to show his government is in a strong position to win the next election. 

But with all the noise against the current PM, one could be forgiven for thinking this wasn't the case.

The reality is that there is no alternative leadership proposition from Labor, and recent moves by the Greens' Adam Bandt to offer a coalition with Labor will only destroy Labor in the long run. And when that time comes, the Greens are unlikely to survive their first budget if they ever get into power.

When the Greens cannot afford to give everyone a free unicorn and a daily rainbow, their hollow promises will prove the point that it is only when you are unlikely to gain power that policies can be based on fairy dust alone.

At the Sydney Institute a few weeks ago, I asked Dr Kevin Donnelly about those of us who are small l liberals and small l labour who seem to be caught in the middle of the "culture wars" or mucking it out in the "Twitter sewer".

Donnelly stated how it was important for political leaders to "speak" to  their "base". John Howard did this, as did Bob Hawke before him; and of course Menzies spoke to "the forgotten people". It makes sense because if you don't, well, Malcolm Turnbull can tell you all about it. But what about Twitter?

In The Australian today, Janet Albrechtsen stated that:

Twitter is a putrid trough of polarisation where angry people sup for repeated hits of unplugged outrage.

I couldn't agree more. That doesn't make me a conservative, but I am limiting my engagement with Twitter because it really is dominated by the self-appointed culture police and I have no interest in that nonsense. 

Unlike what are clearly left-leaning outlets such as the ABC, The Guardian, The Conversation, and wannabe media outlets like the New Daily, I am finding The Australian and the major Fairfax papers clearly label their conservative commentary as commentary, and not to mix up ideology with opinion. 

And I don't care what the Twitterati says about that.

When the life of the average Australian is pretty good given the global COVID-19 social, health, and economic crises, you'd think that the positions of the prime minister and the state premiers would be given due respect. But according to the Twitterati, Australia is a complete shithole. It is so much nonsense I intend to ignore it from now on.

Although if there was one journalist I have deep respect for, it is Michelle Grattan. In her piece on The Conversation today, Grattan's middle-ground insight may prove to be the undoing of PM Morrison, in that he is encouraging young people to take up the AstraZeneca vaccine, however:

[Morrison's] break with the experts i[s] a move that, if it were to backfire, would leave the government facing the heat without the “shield” of its advisers.

That is, of course, if there is any realistic alternative government. At this point, there doesn't seem to be. But with competing ideologies driving news media coverage and journalism ethics now obviously driven by a cult of cultural warrior fame, it brings to mind a stanza from the poem, ...For the Forgotten, by Criss Jami in his book Venus in Arms:

But remember, the devil's happy when the critics run you off.

Better the devil we know (for now at least). 

Stop comparing Australia's EV uptake with Norway's

 

REVAi electric vehicles in Oslo, Norway, in 2010. Photo by Mic via Flickr [CC BY 2.0]

Numerous lobby groups, transport journalists, academics, and even political satirists have argued that Australia should follow Norway's example in encouraging the take-up of electric vehicles. 

But even the Secretary General of the Norwegian Electric Vehicle Association admits it would be difficult for other countries to emulate Norway's approach:

Despite the success of Norway’s methods, she doesn’t believe other countries can replicate it like-for-like because their circumstances will be different.

From an Australian perspective, Norway's uptake of electric vehicles is similar to Switzerland's uptake of broadband: a geographically small country with a small population able to quickly take advantage of local particularities - what I have referred to in the past as "varieties of particularism" - which include:

the unique social, political, economic, technological and geographical peculiarities that exist at the nexus of government, business and... technolog[y].

My concept is derived from what Thomas P. Hughes referred to as regional "cultures" in his work Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930, which looked at how different regional characteristics led to different systems for generating electricity.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to have a point of view that differs from what I reluctantly refer to as "green-left ideology" about EV policy at the moment, especially when it comes to comparing infrastructure policy with other jurisdictions. I suspect there are powerful industry groups encouraging these approaches, too. But for the green-left, at least, aspiration trumps evidence in all things except tradition and religion, it would seem. 

Nonetheless, there is much more to the EV story.

The front page of The Sydney Morning Herald on 12th May 2021 quotes NSW Planning Minister Rob Stokes, warning:

Although [electric vehicles] are powered by more efficient and sustainable power sources, they are still cars. Painting them green does not change that reality.

Stokes also mentioned that heavier and more "torquey" EVs could potentially release more non-exhaust particulate emissions than conventional vehicles. This issue has been identified by the OECD as an increasingly important public health policy issue as the number of vehicles in cities (of all types) continues to rise.

I am not suggesting that EVs are as polluting as conventional vehicles - far from it. But in addition to particulate emissions, overall emissions depend on how the electricity is generated. 

The majority of Norway's electricity is generated from hydropower (93.4%) with the remainder generated by wind and thermal power. Whereas coal accounts for 75% of Australia's electricity generation, with gas at 16% and the remaining 7% provided by hydro and wind power.

Further, Norway is much smaller than Australia and much wealthier on a per capita basis. Canada provides a much better "fit" in terms of the "most similar" method of comparison on geographical, cultural, and political grounds. The table below indicates the differences between all three countries on these measures:

Comparison of Norway, Australia and Canada. Data sources below.

Australia and Canada are similar on the most basic demographic statistics, and Norway is no bigger or more densely populated than greater Sydney but it is substantially wealthier with greater access to Europe's EV market. 

Canada has its own EV manufacturing industry and is not subject to the same restrictions that Norway is likely to face in the near future if Europe's EV market contracts. On the other hand, Australia has an issue with supply and consumer choice in EVs which is likely to be exacerbated by important issues arising from the pandemic.

Can the less than 1% uptake of EVs in Australia and Canada be the result of a lack government incentives? Canada has introduced federal cash rebates to promote EV sales, yet the uptake in Canada is not expected to meet federal targets set for 2025. To argue that government incentives alone is the problem is to draw a long bow.

One of the major issues for the EV industry, especially in large, sparsely populated countries like Australia and Canada, is consumers' perceptions of EV's range. 

Research conducted by KPMG in Canada found that EV purchases were motivated primarily by environmental concerns and lower operating costs. While incentives for purchasing EVs were desirable, other concerns about the higher purchase cost, reliability of batteries, long charging times, and doubts about the ability to travel long distances and access to relevant charging infrastructure were the major reasons motorists were reluctant to purchase an EV. 

The Electric Vehicle Council of Australia arrived at similar findings to the Canadian experience. Of note is "range anxiety", with some 79% of consumers estimating the average range of EVs to be well under 400km. The EV Council suggests that ranges can vary from 260km to 650km. But this is significantly less than the ranges of most modern conventional vehicles.

Range anxiety is very real in Australia and Canada with both countries ranking in the top five longest national highways in the world. 

Most importantly, however, is that traffic congestion in Norway is still a major concern, with the supply of roads confirming the old adage that increasing the supply of roads leads to increasing demand. This issue alone more than justifies NSW Planning Minister Rob Stokes' concerns about EVs.

I am not against EVs and I have no interest in hindering their uptake. But comparing Australia with Norway is oversimplified, unjustified, and inherently lacking in rigour. If we were to take Canada as a more appropriate example, then there is much more than just policy at play.

Until "range anxiety" can be ameliorated by improvements in EV technology and EV-ready infrastructure (especially for fast recharging), then those who rely on long-distance car travel are unlikely to be persuaded to buy an EV.

The logical conclusion in the short run, then, is that government subsidisation is likely to benefit the relative few by contributing to traffic congestion at taxpayers' expense (and indeed without contributing to the fuel excise) until EV technology improves.

In Australia, EVs are not the panacea for greenhouse gas emissions and may actually contribute to them if EV charging increases demand on Australia's predominantly non-renewables electricity generation system.

To add insult to injury, subsidising EV ownership without incorporating an appropriate road user charge will only exacerbate the problem of traffic congestion. In this regard, Victoria is on the right track.

For NSW, Transport Minister Andrew Constance is in a difficult position and must deal with the EV lobby while also fitting in with Planning Minister Stokes' and NSW Treasurer Dominic Perrottet's plans to introduce a distance-based tax on EVs.

Politics will decide the outcome and it will not be neat and tidy. In the meantime, looking to Norway is unlikely to address the real reasons behind Australia's slow uptake of EVs. 

Data Sources

Australian Statistics: 

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2020). Motor Vehicle Census, Australia. See: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/tourism-and-transport/motor-vehicle-census-australia/latest-release.

Schmidt, B. (2020). How many electric cars are there in Australia, and where are they? The Driven. See: https://thedriven.io/2020/12/23/how-many-electric-cars-are-there-in-australia-and-where-are-they/.

Canadian Statistics:

Electric Autonomy (2021). New Canadian EV sales figures from Statistics Canada show strong recovery in Q3 2020, following sharp lockdown dip. See: https://electricautonomy.ca/2021/02/11/canadian-ev-sales-data-q3-2020/.

Statistics Canada (2020). Automotive Statistics. See: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/topics-start/automotive.

Statistics Canada (2021). Zero-emission vehicles in Canada, third quarter of 2020. See: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2021012-eng.htm.

Norwegian Statistics:

Statistics Norway (2021). Registered Vehicles. See: https://www.ssb.no/en/transport-og-reiseliv/landtransport/statistikk/bilparken

On Finding One's Tribe

Percy Family Coat of Arms, circa 1067.

Twice now I have entered a random question into Google. And twice now Wanderlust has produced the result I needed. Last time I was searching to reset my inner compass. This time it was about finding my tribe.

It isn't so much about finding a group of people to hang out with, but rather to feel that my work is valued and not subjected to unwarranted criticism from people who live by their ideology.

I am talking about writing an article for a journal where the topic is controversial. The point of such articles is to stimulate debate. But only if that debate is in the "correct" direction as stipulated by the ideologues, it seems.

I had a similar situation in the examination of my PhD, where one examiner suggested that I resubmit my thesis that compared the impact of the institutional frameworks that govern communications technologies (the independent variable) with the outcomes in terms of penetration (the dependent variable) in Canada and Australia. My examiner suggested that my "new" thesis should be on why the NBN was the most innovative thing ever. My findings disagreed.

Then I had my other examiner who took my major finding, modified it, and published it before my thesis had even been accepted. At least it was acknowledged but WTAF? These people are not scholars. They are the same people who give my students 5/10 with feedback like: "A bit bland". I am getting sick of it.

And then to have two reviewers who obviously disagreed so much with my controversial ideas that instead of allowing the article to stand as a controversy, decided that they would write their own responses to my controversial article as part of my rejection feedback. 

I know that being rejected is par for the course but in this case it was so clearly a case of ideological difference that I won't bother submitting to this journal ever again.

So where to from here?

I have asked for some guidance from my mentors, and this has led me to reflect a little more on where I want to go. I realise that I want my work to matter in a practical sense and to contribute to my sense of a "virtue proposition", along the lines of my teaching practice, which has become more focused on developing my students' social capital. 

To do so, I will have to rethink where I associate. To find my own tribe, so to speak.

The first thing is to realise that where I get my ideas from does not have to conform to traditional left-leaning sources. Indeed, I am finding more and more solace in the great books of the western world the more I read for myself. Much like Harold Bloom, I am no longer interested in apologising for this approach.

Seneca would take it where he could get it. Here is his approach in Letters from a Stoic, Letter II:

My thought for today is something which I found in Epicurus (yes, I actually make a practice going over to the enemy’s camp – by way of reconnaissance, not as a deserter!). ‘A cheerful poverty,’ he says, ‘is an honourable state.’

I have often followed Seneca's approach subconsciously but there is a point where we either back ourselves, or continue to bend in the wind of others' stuff. I've had a long run of not trusting myself for whatever reason, at least intellectually, while at the same time stubbornly backing myself subconsciously and only realising afterwards I was reaping the rewards for sticking to my guns.

It is interesting that these issues have arisen at a time when I am encouraging my students to make their subconscious habits more conscious so they may live the Socratic ideal; or, the examined life. I tend to learn the most from teaching and this time is no exception.

As I approach the end of the semester where I will finish by encouraging my students to become "reflective practitioners", I find myself (yet again) learning my own lessons.

What strikes me about the advice on finding one's tribe presented on Wanderlust is that "trying new things" doesn't have to mean yoga or tree-hugging; it can mean trying a free market think tank. It can mean returning to my conservative roots challenged long ago and now but a distant memory. 

It doesn't have  to be politically correct and it can even mean listening to Jordan Peterson if I choose to.

While it may be a case of coming full circle, I realise that I have only one life. And the purpose of that life is to live it. I've tried the unicorns and lollipops way, and it is not for me. It pretends to do good while doing nothing. 

I've listened to others' views about how certain politicians are "the hope for our children" while these same politicians do nothing but complain. I've also seen politicians working themselves into the ground while keyboard warriors sit in the stands and troll and critique.

From now on, I am the man in the arena. And I will choose the arena. If the audience doesn't like it, that is none of my business.