tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/chris-evans-3599/articlesChris Evans – The Conversation2023-05-02T20:00:20Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2027202023-05-02T20:00:20Z2023-05-02T20:00:20Z‘We’d be getting it from both sides, which was horrendous’: Australian political players on our brutal refugee policies<p>In September 2017, I interviewed a senior figure within the Australian Labor Party in his office in Canberra. At one point in our discussion he told me: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The biggest contest in Australian politics is essentially around which issue you can make ascendant, so if you’re [a] conservative Opposition leader, you want to make border security or the lack thereof and debt and deficits the issues that are ascendant in people’s minds, and then the carbon tax. But certainly in 2010, prior to the hung parliament and the cross-party agreement on climate, it was all about border security and debt and deficits.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He continued, explaining: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>So what you’re doing every day, the whole contest is about can you make sure that that’s the story in the newspapers the next day, and then if it’s the story in the newspapers the next day, is it what the radio’s talking about in the morning, and then if it’s what the radio’s talking about in the morning, is it what the TVs pick up or it’s what the leaders get asked about at their media events and therefore that informs the TV news in the evening, and then you have a new revelation at some point in the afternoon that you push out or that someone uncovers that starts the cycle again.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This, he argued, was a tactic the Liberal Party embraced in the “latter period” of Chris Evans’s time as Immigration minister, when “every time [Labor] thought they had been successful in moving the conversation on to some other topic, either events would catch up with them or Abbott or Morrison would go out and say something really outrageous that would inflame the conversation about border security and it would shift the conversation back onto that”.</p>
<p>He described this as </p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/fattened-pigs-dog-whistles-and-dead-cats-the-menagerie-of-a-lynton-crosby-campaign-60695">the Lynton Crosby thing</a> of if you drop a dead cat on the table in the middle of a dinner party, no-one’s going to like it. Everyone’s going to think you’re a bit weird, but they’re going to spend the rest of the night talking about the dead cat on the middle of the table in the dinner party.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Lynton Crosby being referred to here is a former federal director of the Liberal Party, who, with Mark Textor, co-runs a political campaigning consultancy firm, C|T Group. Crosby oversaw the Liberal Party’s campaigns for the 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2004 federal elections, all of which were won by the Howard-led Liberal–Nationals Coalition.</p>
<p>People who have worked for C|T Group also played a role in more recent Coalition campaigns: the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/11/the-nerve-centres-inside-the-coalition-and-labor-election-campaign-headquarters">2022 federal election campaign</a> included someone from C|T Group as a pollster, and an “alumnus” as a consultant.</p>
<p>And so many did not feel it was a coincidence that on the final day of that campaign, with clear signs that the Coalition would lose, there was an announcement that <a href="https://theconversation.com/officials-resisted-morrison-governments-attempt-to-have-them-amplify-election-day-boat-arrival-187546">Border Force had intercepted a boat</a> carrying refugees which had been heading towards Australia.</p>
<p>Crosby himself has subsequently run elections for the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom, including for <a href="https://theconversation.com/boris-johnson-says-his-time-as-uk-pm-was-mission-largely-accomplished-how-does-that-actually-stack-up-187273">Boris Johnson</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/where-does-theresa-may-sit-in-the-hall-of-fame-for-disastrous-prime-ministers-118347">Theresa May</a>, where his “dead cat” strategy gained some notoriety thanks to a Telegraph column by his former star politician.</p>
<p>Writing in 2013, <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9906445/This-cap-on-bankers-bonuses-is-like-a-dead-cat-pure-distraction.html">Johnson revealed</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Let us suppose you are losing an argument. The facts are overwhelmingly against you and the more people focus on the reality the worse it is for you and your case. Your best bet in these circumstances is to perform a manoeuvre that a great campaigner describes as “throwing a dead cat on the table, mate”.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He continued: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The key point, says my Australian friend, is that everyone will shout “Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!”; in other words they will be talking about the dead cat, the thing you want them to talk about, and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While at times the strategy is used to distract from potentially more damning political conversations, in Australia we have also seen controversy being created to direct attention to the political games being played over matters related to national security and our borders. </p>
<p>Creating a crisis is a means of controlling the media and the narrative, controlling people’s emotions and controlling people’s lives. For we should never lose sight of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-moves-to-copy-australias-cruel-asylum-seeker-policy-and-it-will-have-the-same-heavy-human-toll-201390">asylum seekers at the borders</a> whose lives are subjected to these political games.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-asylum-seeker-policy-history-a-story-of-blunders-and-shame-118396">Australia's asylum seeker policy history: a story of blunders and shame</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Crisis controlled and refused</h2>
<p>On 15 December 2010, a boat carrying asylum seekers <a href="https://theconversation.com/stop-the-deaths-rescuing-asylum-seekers-is-an-integrity-issue-13071">crashed at Christmas Island</a>, in a maritime tragedy that made news around the country. Janga was carrying Iranian, Iraqi and stateless asylum seekers, as well as an Indonesian crew, when its engine failed and propelled it towards a dangerous outcrop, where it was dashed against the rocks. </p>
<p>Both those on board and residents on Christmas Island had called the Australian authorities to report a vessel in distress, but the authorities were remarkably slow to respond.</p>
<p>Christmas Island residents watched from the cliffs as passengers screamed for help when the hull broke apart and they were catapulted into the water. Residents threw lifejackets and safety equipment into the water to help the drowning passengers, but for many, it was to no avail. Janga, which the Australian authorities labelled SIEV 221, was carrying 92 people, and only 42 survived.</p>
<p>Footage captured by Christmas Island residents was shown widely on Australian television. It is horrific. One survivor, Hassan, <a href="https://us16.campaign-archive.com/?u=6f3de369e336fc0ecd343cc25&id=c95b629c82">told researchers</a> Linda Briskman and Michelle Dimasi:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If the Navy could have come a little bit closer to the rocks to save people […] </p>
<p>I don’t know what happened but one speed boat it came to save only one of the people, one person, then going back to the Navy boat, smoking and looking, but then staying there for a while before they came back. They could have picked up seven or eight people at one time [but] they didn’t do so. It seems they didn’t care about us. If they had been quicker, only by two or three minutes, they would have saved the people […] </p>
<p>We owe our lives to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-27/christmas-island-shipwreck-survivor-slams-rescue/2812682">the people of Christmas Island</a>, not the Australian Navy. The life jackets they threw us made us to survive.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another survivor lost his wife and three-month-old son: <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-27/christmas-island-shipwreck-survivor-slams-rescue/2812682">he told</a> the 2011 coronial inquest into the disaster that he saw his son’s body floating in the water six metres away from him, but his wife had disappeared. Her body was never recovered. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We have suffered enough and we can’t sleep during the night because as soon as we shut our eyes, all these scenes and memories come to our eyes … Who’s going to answer for that?</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523395/original/file-20230428-20-yj587j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523395/original/file-20230428-20-yj587j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523395/original/file-20230428-20-yj587j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523395/original/file-20230428-20-yj587j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523395/original/file-20230428-20-yj587j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523395/original/file-20230428-20-yj587j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523395/original/file-20230428-20-yj587j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523395/original/file-20230428-20-yj587j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">SIEV 221 being forced against a cliff during the Christmas Island boat tragedy in which up to asylum seekers died.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">WA Coroner</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When I discussed this crash with a former ministerial adviser, she told me, “You can’t underestimate how shell-shocked [government] people were. Some of the ministers that went up to Christmas Island were just traumatised by what happened.”</p>
<p>Numerous other interviewees mentioned this to me as a key event that shaped their feelings about refugee policy. It has had a profound effect on those in the Australian Labor Party in particular, as Labor was in government then. </p>
<p>Matt Thistlethwaite, Member of Parliament for Kingsford Smith, told me he was deeply affected, as someone involved in the lifesaving community.</p>
<p>“I was just looking at it thinking, geez, get in there and save them,” he told me. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>You could just see these people drowning. Jump in and bloody well save them. That’s the natural reaction that someone as a lifesaver has. But I understand that that couldn’t be done because it was quite a dangerous situation and a lot of those people wouldn’t have had the skills that a lifesaver has or the devices that a lifesaver uses … but that really changed a lot of my view of that. It was just a tragedy that so many people could drown in front of everyone’s eyes really, in front of the nation’s eyes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This moment, he told me, had “a massive effect in changing a lot of people’s views”. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>It certainly did within the Party. So, we then started to try to work on well, how do you – how do you still become compassionate, how do you take your fair share of refugees, given what’s happening internationally, but stop people from putting themselves in those dangerous situations, because a lot of the evidence that we were receiving was that they’re vulnerable people. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>“Because they might get to Indonesia, they’re told that – [by] the UNHCR – that well, you’re going to have to wait eight to ten years if you want to go to Australia. If you’ve got kids that’s your kids’ education, gone,” he said.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>So they’re vulnerable and they’re manipulated by people who can say, “Well, I can get you there in the next six months.” They don’t tell you that it’s going to be on an overcrowded boat and you’re going to – there won’t be lifejackets, travelling across a rough stretch of sea, you don’t swim, you don’t know how to swim, and you’re risking your life. So that was the policy dilemma really for us: how do you make it safe but still show compassion and generosity?</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/like-primo-levi-at-auschwitz-behrouz-boochani-testifies-for-the-people-who-lived-and-died-in-a-prison-camp-195927">Like Primo Levi at Auschwitz, Behrouz Boochani testifies for the people who lived and died in a prison camp</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The work of feelings</h2>
<p>I am not aiming to adjudicate on whether claims to emotional stress, sadness and desperation on the part of those in power are genuinely felt. But I am trying to understand what work the description of these feelings – whether they are being discussed in an interview with a historian, or in a caucus meeting, or with a journalist – does.</p>
<p>Here, the problem is identified as people (including children) boarding boats and risking death on the seas – “putting themselves in these dangerous situations”. And the solution is understood to rest in the governmental management of people’s movements and access to border crossing, to balance restriction with “compassion and generosity” in a formulation determined by the policymakers.</p>
<p>It is always a government’s ideas, a government’s understanding of the events and the possible solutions, which become pre-eminent. We need to question why governments are so rarely seen as being responsible for creating the conditions that allow for such tragedies to occur.</p>
<h2>Moments of crisis, refused</h2>
<p>In 2017, I discussed with a former ministerial adviser in the immigration portfolio the role of ministerial decisions in removing people from detention, or other forms of ministerial intervention into people’s claims for asylum. </p>
<p>She explained some of the different situations and factors. There was a reluctance in both the immigration minister’s office and the department to release those who were self-harming, as they believed this would be considered a “reward”. The best response was a refusal to engage, they believed.</p>
<p>For her, this constituted a particularly difficult part of the job: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>[T]he hardest job in the office were the people who answered the phones: people would be ringing up abusing you saying, “You’re all hard arses and you’re this and you’re cruel and you’re horrible,” and other people are ringing up and saying, “You’re not being hard enough,” and you didn’t know which phone call you were taking every day, and that would happen. When there was something blowing up it would just come in. We’d be getting it from both sides, which was horrendous.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I have thought a lot about this comment. She had been incredibly welcoming: hosting me in her home, buying lunch, looking through her files for information, talking with me at length and generally being engaged, interested and supportive of my research. We were two white, middle-class women chatting.</p>
<p>Yet in this moment she describes <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/48649058">people self-harming</a> – inscribing on their bodies the depth of their need for asylum in ways that those of us who have never experienced such trauma can scarcely imagine. She describes the dreadful emotional impact of allowing people to self-harm and the effects on staffers of taking phone calls. And reiterates the wisdom of doing nothing. I think of this as a moment of crisis refused.</p>
<p>Many of those who are self-harming are also attempting to force a crisis, but this crisis is of a fundamentally different nature to the notion of crisis described by Milton Friedman: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some policymakers work to institute this kind of crisis, which Naomi Klein critiques in her book <a href="https://www.penguin.com.au/books/the-shock-doctrine-9780141024530">The Shock Doctrine</a>. Klein explains some crises (like the 2001 Tampa affair, where the Howard government refused to let a Norwegian freighter carrying 433 rescued refugees enter Australian waters, on the cusp of a federal election) are created in order to “shock” things: to take control and change conditions. </p>
<p>In the case of refugees self-harming, they are attempting to force a response that recognises their claims. But those with the power and authority to intervene too often turn away.</p>
<p>The department refuses to see an epidemic of self-harm as a crisis, denying the historical context and discourse these asylum seekers and refugees claim. Instead, senior staffers tell a story of suffering also endured by politicians, advisers and staffers.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/asylum-seekers-and-the-dignity-of-work-28502">Asylum seekers and the dignity of work </a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A brutal society</h2>
<p>We see this pattern again and again. In 2016, the so-called “Nauru files” – a collection of “more than 2,000 leaked reports from Australia’s detention camp for asylum seekers” in Nauru – were published <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/nauru-files">by The Guardian</a>. The journalists explained: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Guardian’s analysis of the files reveal that children are vastly over-represented in the reports.</p>
<p>More than half of the 2,116 reports – a total of 1,086 incidents, or 51.3% – involved children, although children made up only about 18% of those in detention in Nauru during the time covered by the reports, May 2013 to October 2015. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The release of these documents, some of which “contain distressing examples of behaviour by traumatised children”, led to a parliamentary inquiry, but no substantial policy or practical changes. The desire to provoke a crisis was clear, but the cry went unheeded.</p>
<p>The former ministerial adviser informed me that she cannot imagine any government allowing asylum seekers who arrive without permit to be granted free entry on arrival any time soon. She has “had arguments with plenty of advocates”, and her view is: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>get over mandatory [detention] … no government’s ever going to get rid of mandatory detention … particularly in the current environment. </p>
<p>No government is going to put themselves in the position […] that someone has arrived on a boat or arrived on a plane and three weeks later blows up the Sydney Opera House. They’re just not going to do it. </p>
<p>They’re not going to leave themselves wide open for that. And that’s actually what the Australian people want, so, that’s the political reality […] It’s a really challenging space.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Stories of national security – that is, of the “risk management” needed to avoid a potential “crisis” – dominate the media headlines. Yet my interviews also tell of the brutality of the society in which this border regime exists. </p>
<p>They tell of <a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/emotional-communities-in-the-early-middle-ages/oclc/63178839">the fundamental problem</a> that is woven into the fabric of a settler-colonial government.</p>
<h2>‘He is killing us’</h2>
<p>In 2015, paediatricians Professor Elizabeth Elliott and Dr Hasantha Gunasekera conducted a “monitoring visit” to the detention centre at Wickham Point in Darwin, in order to report to the Australian Human Rights Commission on “the health and well-being of children in immigration detention”.</p>
<p>As part of their visit, <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/publications/health-and-well-being-children-immigration">they asked</a> children and their parents what they would like reported to the AHRC. One 16-year-old boy told them, “The Prime Minister of Australia says he is saving our lives but at the same time he is killing us.” </p>
<p>A 15-year-old boy said, “I honestly don’t see [a] future. I wish I had died in the ocean.” An 18-year-old boy told them, “I think for dying. I don’t see any future. I feel sadness I see no future.” A father of three teenage boys said, “I have not come to this country to teach my children how to commit suicide.”</p>
<p>When I interviewed Elliott in November 2018, she distinctly remembered the father telling her this. She related more stories of what she had seen, and the conversations she had had, impressing upon me, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is not normal for a woman with a young baby to try and kill herself. It’s not normal for a seven-year-old child – or not just one, many seven-year-old children – to say they want to kill themselves. It’s not that these people realise, you know, what might be manipulative behaviour.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>People become, in queer theorist Sara Ahmed’s <a href="https://www.dukeupress.edu/queer-phenomenology">formulation</a> of the work of emotions, orientated towards certain other peoples, histories and ideas.</p>
<p>In my interview extracts with the government staffer, we can see she is broadly sympathetic to those ringing in with complaints and to those who self-harm, but she identifies strongly with the members of the department who provide advice on how to respond, or with the staffers in the offices receiving the angry phone calls. </p>
<p>She expresses sympathy for them while remaining keenly aware of the broader tragedy of the situation. But this may create a false equivalence, whether intended or not.</p>
<h2>A direction maintained</h2>
<p>According to the most <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-statistics/statistics/visa-statistics/live/immigration-detention">recently released government statistics</a>, there are now fewer than five children living in so-called “Alternative Places of Detention” (such as hotels, hospitals, and the like) and another 132 children who are living in community detention. </p>
<p>All of these children are in Australia: those who were in Nauru have been brought to Australia for medical treatment. </p>
<p>The Labor government <a href="https://theconversation.com/changes-to-temporary-protection-visas-are-a-welcome-development-and-they-wont-encourage-people-smugglers-199763">announced in February 2023</a> they are granting permanent residency to a cohort of people currently on temporary protection visas or safe haven enterprise visas. But they are keeping temporary protection visas on the books – and have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/07/david-pocock-blasts-labor-over-bid-to-reauthorise-nauru-offshore-immigration-detention">recently re-authorised</a> the use of the detention centre in Nauru. They also maintain the policy of turning back boats of asylum seekers who enter Australian waters. </p>
<p>The direction this government maintains towards refugees and asylum seekers seems clear. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>This is an edited extract from <a href="https://publishing.monash.edu/product/cruel-care/">Cruel Care: A History of Children at our Borders</a> by Jordana Silverstein (Monash University Publishing).</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/202720/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This material was researched and written with funding provided by the Australian Research Council (FL140100049, ‘Child Refugees and Australian Internationalism, 1920 to the Present’). </span></em></p>Why are governments so rarely seen as being responsible for creating the conditions that allow asylum seeker tragedies to occur?Jordana Silverstein, Historian, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/811982017-07-19T16:02:55Z2017-07-19T16:02:55ZUnveiling BBC talent’s pay is a deliberate attempt to undermine a great British institution<p>Anyone who seriously believes that a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37365718">government dictat</a> obliging the BBC to reveal salaries of its top talent was genuinely driven by concerns about accountability should look carefully at those who champion the cause. </p>
<p><a href="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/reports/pdf/annex_annual_report_201617.pdf">The report</a> which <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40653861">details the salaries</a> of those high profile presenters, newsreaders and journalists who earn over £150,000 will prompt wholly predictable denunciations in the columns of the right wing press about overpaid luvvies being subsidised by licence payers. </p>
<p>They will be illustrated with choice quotes from the usual political suspects whose loathing for the BBC is just about exceeded by their contempt for supporters of the European Union. </p>
<p>They are the same publishers, politicians and critics who for decades have used any excuse to rail against an institution <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/01/4-percent-agree-ofcom-regulate-bbc">held in deep affection</a> by the vast majority of licence payers and commanding huge admiration around the world. For newspapers like The Sun, Daily Mail and Telegraph, there is barely disguised commercial self-interest in wanting the most trusted and popular purveyor of free journalism scaled back to insignificance. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"887687668758347776"}"></div></p>
<p>For the right wing of the Conservative Party, there is a deep ideological conviction that private is always better than public, and only the market can deliver value – not to mention a passionate belief in the BBC’s left-wing bias, despite <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-beeb-the-bias-and-the-bashing-45661">clear evidence</a> to the contrary. </p>
<p>For politicians across the spectrum, there is the discomfort of being interrogated by the likes of Eddie Mair and John Humphrys. This is a measure foisted on the BBC by its enemies, and has nothing whatsoever to do with holding the corporation to account for public expenditure.</p>
<p>Consider for a moment the real argument about transparency and accountability. It is eminently reasonable that licence fee payers should have information about high earners, escalating costs, and gender, age or minority inequalities. But it is perfectly possible to achieve all of those objectives with anonymous data which do not identify specific individuals. </p>
<p>Yes, there is a gender pay gap – which Tony Hall has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jul/19/evans-lineker-bbc-top-earners-only-two-women-among-best-paid-stars">pledged to eradicate</a>. He and the BBC will rightly be held accountable for that commitment, as they will for ensuring that overall top earners’ pay goes down rather than up. But we really do not need to know how much Laura Kuenssberg earns to make sure the BBC exercises proper stewardship over our money.</p>
<p>Now consider the real damage that these disclosures could inflict. </p>
<p>Competitors will be gleefully scouring BBC salaries for precise information on how they might lure away top talent. That in turn will inflate talent salaries across the board. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the BBC becomes a less attractive place for star presenters who may not enjoy having details of their pay plastered all over the tabloid press. So the BBC starts to lose some of its popular presenters, which is then reflected in ratings, which is then used by BBC detractors to attack a universal payment. The BBC becomes diminished.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, BBC journalists interrogating politicians on, say, their expenses or austerity policies, will be challenged about their own salaries. That would be fine if <em>all</em> journalistic salaries were published – without discrimination between commercial and public sector, print or broadcast. But this puts the BBC at a significant disadvantage when compared to their colleagues at ITV, Channel 4, Sky or in the printed press. </p>
<h2>BBC trust</h2>
<p>The rest of the world looks to the BBC as a trusted, independent source of information, when investment in journalism is being undermined by the major tech companies. Yet one of the BBC’s most cherished characteristics – its independence – is being undermined by a government determined to do the bidding of the corporation’s longstanding enemies.</p>
<p>If any more evidence is needed of how we got here, just consider the history of the new BBC Charter which brought today’s disclosures. The former culture secretary, John Whittingdale – long wedded to the notion of a smaller, market-gap BBC – pushed for a disclosure threshold of £150,000. But after personal intervention by then prime minister David Cameron, the BBC White Paper published last year set the minimum at £450,000. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xIKOYy0N7kw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Then came the referendum, Cameron’s demise and Theresa May’s elevation. In September last year, just before <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/29/theresa-may-meeting-rupert-murdoch-times-sun">May visited Rupert Murdoch</a> in New York, her new culture secretary <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37365718">Karen Bradley announced</a> that the threshold would, after all, be £150,000. Cue much rejoicing among those newspapers and columnists who had done so much to assist Mrs May’s rapid rise to the top. </p>
<p>At last year’s Edinburgh TV festival, ITV’s programmes chief Kevin Lygo <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/publishing-bbc-star-pay-would-be-a-waste-of-time-2016-8">called the proposal</a> “mean-spirited”. Tony Hall has said that it will “not make it easier for the BBC to retain the talent the public love”. Conservative peer and one of the most experienced broadcasters and talent impresarios in the country, Michael Grade, has called it “disgraceful”. </p>
<p>The BBC, the talent and licence payers will all lose out. It is a wholly unnecessary and spiteful idea born simply out of political expedience.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81198/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Barnett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The political and commercial motives behind revealing stars’ salaries.Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/602682016-05-31T11:06:24Z2016-05-31T11:06:24ZTop Gear’s wheels did not come off … but there were some bumps<p>An episode of Doctor Who, one of the BBC’s other flagship shows, once saw <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDxPGQQyD4g">Clara Oswald jumping into the Doctor’s time stream</a>, getting split up into multiple versions of herself across the fabric of time and space. “The soufflé”, she explains in her moment of self-sacrifice, “is not the soufflé … The soufflé is the recipe.” In other words, the makings of a person are not some pre-formed, defined absolute. It is the little components of life all added together that make us who we are.</p>
<p>With <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11494513/Jeremy-Clarkson-sacked-by-the-BBC-official.html">Jeremy Clarkson unceremoniously sacked from Top Gear</a> after a notorious “fracas” with a producer last year, the same approach might apply to the motoring show’s future. Was the success of Top Gear a result of some pre-formed, defined brand, or was it the chemistry of its hosts that made up its secret recipe? Based on the <a href="http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-05-30/everyone-had-much-more-fun-watching-twitter-than-top-gear">initially scathing reaction from viewers</a>, we can certainly hazard a guess. And although viewing figures were <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/may/30/top-gear-revamp-watched-by-just-44-million-viewers">lower than hoped</a>, new host Chris Evans responded by tweeting a more positive set of numbers. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"737278291346903041"}"></div></p>
<p>Those criticising Evans for sticking too closely to the rhythms of the Clarkson, Hammond and May version, may be forgetting quite how much is at stake for the BBC. Top Gear is indeed a brand, and a global one at that. The magic formula so famously fronted by Clarkson et al has spawned not just high-rated television, but successful stage shows, high-selling toys and games, and popular magazines and DVDs. Heck, there’ll even be a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11284388/BBC-to-open-theme-park-to-exploit-Doctor-Who-and-Top-Gear-brands.html">BBC theme park with Top Gear attractions in 2020</a>.</p>
<p>Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, this new Top Gear is not very new at all. Less of a reboot or re-brand, Evans’ Top Gear is a <em>re-launch</em>. Like a new chef using the same recipe to try and make a dish that will taste much the same as the old one. </p>
<p>Familiar staples such as The Stig, chases, tests, reviews framed against scenes of spectacle, celebrities racing around tracks, and even talk of “Gambon corner” and “the producers” are all back – as are, of course, an idolising of stylish sports cars. </p>
<p>But the problem is that cars were never the main ingredients of Top Gear. The recipe was really one of male comrades being silly, with its peppering of banter, competition, races and pithy, blokish humour arguably what made the motoring show a global hit and one of the BBC’s biggest exports. It was more sitcom than car show.</p>
<p>So hiring Friends star Matt LeBlanc – one of the most globally recognised sitcom stars – as co-presenter makes some kind of sense. Many of the ingredients that make up the Top Gear brand are still present and correct, and yet some are clearly absent. The pre-broadcast publicity emphasised the “bromance” and sense of camaraderie that was often so infectious in the days of Clarkson, Hammond and May. But the relationship between Evans and LeBlanc seems forced, stilted and, well, unnatural. </p>
<p>LeBlanc does improve when he’s on his own. The short film during which he races to avoid the snaps of the paparazzi is fun, lively and, as a Top Gear segment, business as usual. But the new duo of Evans and LeBlanc do seem rather content mimicking the style and mannerisms of the three stooges of old, whether it’s the attempts at pithiness in the intro or the emphasis on jokey one-upmanship during the films – it’s hard not to picture Clarkson et al saying these lines, and doing these challenges. </p>
<h2>The road ahead</h2>
<p>Evans is clearly having fun in his new role, bringing an almost puppy dog level of enthusiasm. In the studio setting, he’s often funny, and is at total ease during the refurbished “Star in the Reasonably Priced Car” section. Now, we have two celebs interviewed rather than one, with off road sections added to the track as Gordon Ramsay and Jesse Eisenberg both competed against the clock. </p>
<p>Evans arguably comes across as far more natural and polished in this segment than Clarkson ever did – his organic, well-versed interview skills here providing Evans with a moment to calm down and stand apart from his predecessor.</p>
<p>And yet the notably strange mismatch of the episode’s two celebrity guests is itself emblematic of the mismatched presenters, with the lack of on-screen chemistry between Evans and LeBlanc ultimately tainting the enjoyment of the admittedly well produced and beautifully photographed film segments, one of which sees the duo embarking on a series of UK vs US-themed challenges across Blackpool. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bTWcEjj0w3s?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Evans drives on.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But whether it’s down to LeBlanc’s sleepy voiceover delivery, Evans’ slippage into Clarkson imitation, or even the <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/chris-evans-matt-leblanc-at-7743042">rumoured reports of behind-the-scenes fall-outs between the pair</a>, it’s hard to imagine Evans and LeBlanc enjoying a pint together. And without that natural charm and infectious company that was surely the key ingredient behind Top Gear’s success, it remains to be seen whether the cars themselves can really carry the brand. The soufflé is not the soufflé – the soufflé is the recipe.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60268/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Freeman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The BBC hopes that keeping much of the Top Gear recipe will appeal to viewers’ tastes.Matthew Freeman, Senior Lecturer in Media and Communication, Bath Spa UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/585542016-05-24T08:33:16Z2016-05-24T08:33:16ZWhat Top Gear needs to keep the engine running<p>The much anticipated <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/top-gear-bbc-episode-1-when-guests-cars-chris-evans-matt-leblanc-gordon-ramsay-jesse-eisenberg-a7038926.html">return of Top Gear to the BBC</a> raises a big broadcasting question: is the post-Jeremy Clarkson version doomed to fail or will it help sustain the brand’s success? </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/top-gear-why-the-bbc-is-right-to-motor-ahead-with-popular-profitable-shows-58453">The stakes are high</a> for the corporation. Top Gear is widely acknowledged as one of the world’s most successful TV shows, with a weekly audience of <a href="http://www.topgear.com/show">350m viewers</a> across 212 territories. The brand expands well beyond TV screens and is a multi-platform entertainment franchise valued at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9oJ0EU-v48">US$1.5 billion</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbcworldwide.com/media/109098/annualreview2014-15.pdf">Brand expansions</a> include a magazine, website, road trip DVDs, mobile games (7.9m downloads), Top Gear Track Experience and Top Gear Live. All that seems to be missing is a Top Gear cruise. Its <a href="http://www.topgear.com/">social media</a> has gathered 21m Facebook fans, 1.9m Twitter followers, and 4.8m YouTube subscribers. The show is also a popular TV format that has been adapted in seven countries so far, including Australia, China, France, Italy and the US. </p>
<p>But a change of team does not need to be traumatic as the key to intellectual property is who owns it, not who creates it. The world is full of entertainment franchises that have thrived long after their founder departed. The latest example is Star Wars, with new owner Walt Disney <a href="http://variety.com/2015/film/news/george-lucas-star-wars-films-1201643895/">not bothering to consult George Lucas</a> for the franchise’s latest instalment. Many have speculated on the key ingredients behind Top Gear’s popularity, but much of its success resides simply within the mechanisms of factual entertainment. </p>
<p>The genre was invented by British TV producers in the 1990s who transformed dull lifestyle shows on cooking or gardening by carrying over rules and format ideas from light entertainment programmes in order to engineer drama, excitement and comedy. The two prime examples are MasterChef and Top Gear. Similar to MasterChef – once a pedestrian Sunday afternoon cookery show – Top Gear started
life as a mundane automotive programme in 1977 and was given a makeover in 2002. </p>
<p>As with any good TV format, Top Gear has rules and segments designed to deliver gripping stories. These include a news section, an interview with celebrities that concludes with a lap in an “affordable” car, a power lap that times some of the world’s fastest cars around a track, The Stig, the nameless racing driver, and a few catchphrases. All these elements are part of the fabric of the show can and be used and adapted by the incoming team. Equally importantly, some of them are proprietary and non-transferable when presenters who deliver them then leave.</p>
<p>The new presenting team is certainly more inclusive than three white British males, but above all the choice of presenters is commercially shrewd. From German racing driver <a href="http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-12-24/which-woman-could-present-top-gear">Sabine Schmitz</a>, to Friends star Matt LeBlanc,
the selection ensures renewed interest for the series from two of the world’s wealthiest media markets. </p>
<p>However, the departure of Clarkson, Richard Hammond, James May – and executive producer Andy Wilman – means the BBC has lost something precious. Gone is the extraordinary chemistry between three friends “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9oJ0EU-v48">who genuinely loathe each other</a>” which gave the show an all-important feeling of authenticity, intimacy and freshness. Scripted jokes sound much better when delivered among mates than facing a camera. And despite the despondency of social critics, an all-male cast gave the show an entertaining twist and a perspective which resonated with fans. As Wilman explained: “It is a journey into the male mind, which I believe is potentially a very funny place, because let’s face it, nothing happens there.”</p>
<h2>Left in the dust</h2>
<p>Without Clarkson, BBC executives will face <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/01/top-gear-jeremy-clarkson-top-10-controversial-moments-bbc">fewer sleepless nights</a> and save
tons of cash on lawyers fees, but they are also losing a gifted journalist with a good eye for a story. And without the departed team, the BBC may have lost the taste and hunger for stunts that may have been controversial (such as <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/11309075/Top-Gear-Christmas-Special-What-really-happened-in-Patagonia.html">driving around Argentina</a> with a number plate which appeared to make reference to the 1982 Falklands conflict) but were spectacular and added an element of unpredictability to the show. The BBC also faces hostility from large sections of the British tabloid press, notably the Daily Mail and The Sun, both of which <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3567982/Control-freak-Gear-host-Chris-Evans-swamped-new-controversy-former-staff-claim-sh-y-work-thinks-trample-everyone.html">rarely miss an opportunity</a> to malign the revamped Top Gear and its new host, DJ Chris Evans.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rur6a9QKmi4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Top Gearing Up.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But the real secret to Top Gear’s success probably lies in its unique combination of elements and its ability to combine intimacy and familiarity - viewers tuning it to see household names and friendly faces - with unpredictable elements that keep viewers returning to be kept on the edge of their seats. </p>
<p>The new Top Gear will just need a bit of both in order to retain its allure.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58554/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jean Chalaby does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The BBC favourite returns with new bodywork. But will the ride on the wild side continue?Jean Chalaby, Professor of Sociology, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/584532016-05-03T12:56:49Z2016-05-03T12:56:49ZTop Gear: why the BBC is right to motor ahead with popular, profitable shows<p>The BBC is revving up for the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03plr2r">return of a reformed Top Gear</a>, one of its most popular and profitable programmes, with new cast of presenters. The revamped show will be broadcast more than a year after Jeremy Clarkson left following his <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/25/jeremy-clarkson-top-gear-contract-bbc">verbal and physical assault</a> on a producer. A fresh start? Well, so far things have not seemingly gone well for the BBC. </p>
<p>Clarkson and his co-presenters James May and Richard Hammond have signed a three-year deal <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jeremy-clarksons-amazon-deal-worth-6335059">worth £160m</a> with rival service Amazon Prime, providing greater competition for one of the BBC’s flagship programmes, and the real prospect of the BBC losing viewers and commercial revenue to the online insurgent. The trio’s brand of laddish banter will presumably continue, as a tried and tested product with surprising international appeal. </p>
<p>And the production of the new Top Gear has reportedly not been smooth. Lisa Park, the executive producer, departed after <a href="http://metro.co.uk/2016/02/27/top-gear-producer-lisa-clark-was-driven-away-by-control-freak-chris-evans-5721246/">reports of disagreements</a> with new presenter Chris Evans, hence his new unique title as “creative lead”. Then there was the appointment of actor Matt LeBlanc as a presenter – a decision reached apparently because of LeBlanc’s international profile, particularly in the US. LeBlanc doing a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35800187">doughnuts round the Centotaph</a> shoot, left the patriotic Evans visibly fuming. </p>
<p>Most of these stories have been pushed by the <a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028">anti-BBC press</a>, which seems to be willing the new Top Gear to fail spectacularly. While it is the personalities who dominate the headlines, these stories are much more broadly political and are fundamentally about the future of public service media in the UK.</p>
<p>In July 2015 John Whittingdale, secretary of state at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, published a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/bbc-charter-review-public-consultation">Green Paper on BBC Charter Renewal</a> a few days after having agreed with the BBC that it would no longer receive money for licence fees for the over-75s, effectively reducing BBC revenue by around 20% per annum. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120999/original/image-20160503-19549-179o83a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120999/original/image-20160503-19549-179o83a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120999/original/image-20160503-19549-179o83a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120999/original/image-20160503-19549-179o83a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120999/original/image-20160503-19549-179o83a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120999/original/image-20160503-19549-179o83a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120999/original/image-20160503-19549-179o83a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">John Whittingdale.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>He has since been accused of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36182046">planning to “meddle”</a> with the BBC’s peak-time scheduling. The Green Paper asks whether the BBC is too big and produces too many popular programmes that could be made and shown equally well by commercial producers and broadcasters. </p>
<p>The clear implication is that if the answer to this question is “yes” then the BBC should be smaller and have a lower licence fee. In other words, the BBC in the future would be asked to do less (fewer popular, commercially viable programmes) with considerably less funding, to the benefit of commercial competitors. Opponents of such a change have argued that popular BBC programmes, such as Dr Who, Strictly Come Dancing and the Great British Bake Off, are distinctive from those produced by commercial television and encourage commercial broadcasters to up their game through providing competition. They also help to build a BBC audience for less popular programming such as current affairs, and assist in financing public service television by making profits for the commercial subsidiary of the BBC. </p>
<h2>Driving success?</h2>
<p>The Clarkson-led Top Gear was not only one of the most-watched BBC2 programmes (with an audience of around 6m in the UK) but also one of the BBC’s most profitable. The programme and its spin-offs were seen by an audience of 350m in <a href="http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2012/9/top-gear-drives-its-way-into-into-guinness-world-records-2013-edition-44693/">212 countries</a>. It generated revenue of around £50m per annum for BBC Worldwide (more than Dr Who or Strictly), which could be spent on new content.</p>
<p>The regular attacks on the new Top Gear by some of the national press should be understood, in part, as coming from newspapers with quite different political beliefs from what they perceive as a socially liberal cosmopolitan BBC, and also as media institutions with a vested financial interest in reducing the size and popularity of the BBC. Ideally, as far as most of the right-wing commercial media are concerned in the UK, the BBC should resemble public service broadcasting in the USA.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bTWcEjj0w3s?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>While such an extreme change is unlikely to occur in the UK in the short term, it is highly likely that the prominence of the BBC in the UK’s media landscape will decline over the next decade or two in the context of funding cuts and powerful new competitors such as Netflix and Amazon Prime. It may become harder and harder for the BBC to justify its licence fee, especially to younger generations. </p>
<p>One of the many problems associated with this is that <a href="http://www.unesco.org/webworld/publications/mendel/compana.html">research shows</a> that countries with strong public service broadcasters competing with strong commercial broadcasters have the most news and current affairs output, and the best informed citizens, thereby making a fundamental contribution to the quality of democratic culture. So while the new Top Gear might not be everyone’s cup of tea, we should hope that Chris Evans and Matt le Blanc go on to enjoy many series of wheelspins together. Otherwise we may all end up in reverse.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58453/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Downey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We all need the BBC’s new version of Top Gear not to stall.John Downey, Professor of Comparative Media Analysis, Loughborough UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/119252013-02-03T21:02:34Z2013-02-03T21:02:34ZWould Roxon and Evans have resigned if Labor had greater purpose?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19805/original/n7npwd6b-1359873124.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Nicola Roxon, Julia Gillard and Chris Evans leave the stage after the press conference announcing the departure of the two former senior ministers.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Much of the commentary surrounding the resignations of Nicola Roxon and Chris Evans <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/roxon-evans-shock-resignations-prompt-cabinet-reshuffle-20130202-2dquv.html">has interpreted the departures</a> as yet another episode in the neverending disaster that is the Rudd-Gillard government.</p>
<p>This is Tony Abbott’s “constant crisis” narrative. As government MPs have been at pains to point out, not just this week but this term, the government has been nothing if not stable and will likely run full term, or close to it.</p>
<p>Talk of “crisis” seems hyperbolic. There has, however, been a consistent sense that the government is teetering on the brink. It’s a sense which can largely be put down to the inevitably precarious appearance of minority government, especially when voters and commentators have had few experiences of it, at least at the national level.</p>
<p>Abbott’s crisis narrative has been actively encouraged by business groups and right-wing media particularly hostile to minority government. The common charge from the self-interested corporates is that minority government forces too much “uncertainty” into the system. Not for them parliamentary democracy, it seems. </p>
<p>Given that Labor and Liberal party polices are rarely radically divergent these days, it’s difficult to know what business means by “uncertainty”. It seems likely that minority government has given business just enough rationalisation to go to war on its natural enemy – Labor – despite remaining uneasy about Abbott’s capacities.</p>
<p>Even as the government has strenuously denied accusations of crisis, at least since the alleged source of the crisis, <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1629769/Julia-Gillard-easily-defeats-Kevin-Rudd">Kevin Rudd, was eliminated (twice)</a>, the government has done its best to otherwise feed into the narrative with its own occasionally bizarre behaviour.</p>
<p>An obsessive focus on Abbott has led the government more than once into making reactive decisions, motivated by the need to neutralise the threat. To observers such a focus has been odd, given that Abbott has done little other than bandy about negative slogans. </p>
<p>But from the moment it backed away from its carbon emissions reduction commitment in response to some negative populism from the new Opposition leader, the ALP has lurched from one panicked reaction to another.</p>
<p>It worried about Abbott’s appearance among crazies at a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-03-23/abbott-speaking-at-the-anti-carbon-tax-rally-in/2646170">carbon tax rally</a>. It tried to out-flank Turn-Back-the-Boats Tony on the right with its Pacific Solution Ultra, first by negotiating an unenforceable people-swap with Malaysia and then by making traumatised people not convicted or charged with any crime languish indefinitely on remote Pacific islands. It even decided to announce the election date early in a weird attempt to neutralise Abbott’s campaigning and shift the focus back to “policy”.</p>
<p>Julia Gillard’s <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-rallies-frontline-troops-for-election-20130203-2ds69.html">early announcement of this year’s election</a> date seemed to highlight the government’s dysfunctional internal consultative processes. That was the rationale given for Rudd’s elimination. The question left hanging in the air then was how the Labor party had been hollowed out to the point that one person was left with the capacity to mess up internal processes in the first place. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19804/original/4cg9snsx-1359872568.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19804/original/4cg9snsx-1359872568.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19804/original/4cg9snsx-1359872568.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19804/original/4cg9snsx-1359872568.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19804/original/4cg9snsx-1359872568.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=681&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19804/original/4cg9snsx-1359872568.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=681&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19804/original/4cg9snsx-1359872568.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=681&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her much remarked upon glasses at a Vietnamese New Year festival in Fairfield, Sydney.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Damian Shaw</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Complete with new glasses eerily similar to Rudd’s, Gillard is now being tarred with a similar brush: she did not exactly bring her party with her on her recent decisions to announce the election date six months early and to draft in Nova Peris as the party’s Senate candidate in the Northern Territory. That decision should have been applauded as a commendable instance of affirmative action. That it was not is surely evidence of the lack of respect Gillard has within the party. John Howard made executive decisions all the time, but his team took those decisions on faith. Labor has not been prepared to do that for either of its leaders.</p>
<p>Speculation about Roxon and Evans’ resignations is natural, especially given the circumstances surrounding previous high-profile exits. Lindsay Tanner, it seems, became so disgusted with internal dysfunction that he made a swift departure, wrote one book projecting ALP dysfunction onto the media’s 24-hour “news cycle”, and then wrote the book he should have written the first time, complaining of the lack of fundamental purpose behind much of the government’s activity.</p>
<p>Indeed, far more damaging to the government as we kick off this election year is <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-31/craig-thomson-arrested/4493722">Craig Thomson’s continuing presence</a> in the media for all the wrong reasons, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/keeping-up-with-the-obeids-the-media-and-corruption-claims-in-australia-11896">Eddie Obeid’s appearance</a> at a NSW corruption inquiry. It’s difficult to escape the conclusion that this is the sort of thing that happens when a social democratic party trades away most of its social democracy for the ideology of its opponents – free-market capitalism – and then attracts and rewards highly ambitious numbers-men.</p>
<p>This government enters its second re-election year justifiably proud that it has defeated Abbott’s attempts to bring the house down with his brand of vacuous populism that trades on fear and uncertainty. But what of the once sparkling white, red and blue hopes of <a href="http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2007/08/07/1186252664122.html">Kevin07</a> tshirt wearers, now faded to a dull neo-liberal grey? </p>
<p>The hopes of Kevin 07 were largely those of a competent, social-democratic government which would change the conversations of John Howard’s Australia, and invoke pride in a nation of good global citizens. </p>
<p>The Labor party’s structure since the 1980s has not allowed for the promotion of men and women able to run such a government. When a party is struggling to articulate its purpose, it’s no wonder some of its key agents run out of puff early.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11925/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Russell Marks works for the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service Co-operative Inc, which is primarily funded by the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department. The views expressed in this article are entirely his own, and are written in his capacity as a freelance writer and an Honorary Research Associate with La Trobe University.</span></em></p>Much of the commentary surrounding the resignations of Nicola Roxon and Chris Evans has interpreted the departures as yet another episode in the neverending disaster that is the Rudd-Gillard government…Russell Marks, Honorary Research Associate, School of Social Sciences, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/119202013-02-02T03:12:29Z2013-02-02T03:12:29ZRoxon and Evans resign - much ado about nothing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19800/original/mvthswcn-1359766998.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former Higher Education Minister Chris Evans announces his resignation in Canberra.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porrit</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Gillard government has lost two important figures that contributed much to the Labor administration. Chris Evans, leader of the party in the Senate, and Attorney General, Nicola Roxon, both announced that they would not contest the election on September 14.</p>
<p>Furthermore, Roxon and Evans immediately relinquished their positions in Cabinet. Mark Dreyfus will replace Roxon as Attorney General while Chris Bowen moves into the higher education and small business ministies. Gillard favourite Brendan O'Connor takes the problematic immigration portfolio. A <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillards-new-front-bench-20130202-2dqwt.html">series of other appointments</a> have been made to fill various parliamentary secretary roles.</p>
<p>This has sparked commentary about whether the government is now in a <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/labor-shock-minister-chris-evans-and-attorney-general-nicola-roxon-resign/story-fncynkc6-1226567059814">full-blown crisis</a> and [speculation](http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-in-turmoil-20130202-2dqut.html](http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-in-turmoil-20130202-2dqut.html) about the two ministers’ motives.</p>
<p>Evans’ resignation will deprive the party of significant parliamentary experience. He was first elected to represent Western Australia in the Senate in 1993 and became leader of the Labor Party in the Senate in 2004. He was the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in the Rudd Government and has been in charge of the challenging Tertiary Education portfolio since 2011.</p>
<p>Arguably, however, Nicola Roxon had a higher public profile than Evans, even though she first entered parliament in 1998. Representing the Victorian district of Gellibrand, Roxon was appointed by Kevin Rudd to serve as the Minister for Health and Ageing. She was later appointed by Gillard to her current role as Attorney General - the first women to hold the role - in 2011.</p>
<p>Roxon was credited with pushing through the plain packaging of cigarettes and withstanding the subsequent legal challenges brought about by the major tobacco companies. Furthermore, Roxon weighed into the Rudd-Gillard leadership battle of early 2012, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-23/roxon-says-she-couldnt-work-with-rudd/3848056">joining the line</a> of ministers claiming they could not, and would not, work with Rudd as prime minister again.</p>
<p>Moreover, a former minister, Robert McClelland, has also announced his resignation after 17 years in parliament. McClelland, who staunchly supported Rudd’s tilt at a second term as prime minister, will not contest his Sydney seat of Barton.</p>
<p>Adding a further dimension of interest are the machinations within the Labor Party in deciding who will replace the outgoing MPs. McClelland held Barton with a 6.9% margin which would usually be considered safe, but may be in danger if Labor suffers big swings in NSW.</p>
<p>Roxon’s 24% margin in Gellibrand makes it the second safest seat for Labor. This makes it a crown jewel of a seat and will be sought after by many parliamentary hopefuls within the party.</p>
<p>The resignations of ministers and backbenchers in the lead up to an election is not unheard of in Australian politics. Ultimately ministers will, at some point, have to leave parliament.</p>
<p>Prior to the last federal election 14 Labor MPs and 12 Coalition MPs resigned before going to the polls. This group included Lindsay Tanner and Jenny George from Labor and Petro Georgiou and Nick Minchin from the Coalition. In 2007 there were 16 Coalition and 12 Labor MPs that went before the polls.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19801/original/z42ggpfh-1359773377.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19801/original/z42ggpfh-1359773377.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19801/original/z42ggpfh-1359773377.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19801/original/z42ggpfh-1359773377.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19801/original/z42ggpfh-1359773377.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19801/original/z42ggpfh-1359773377.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19801/original/z42ggpfh-1359773377.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Julia Gillard faces an uphill battle to retain office but the resignations of Evans and Roxon do not constitute a crisis.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porrit</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some departures were potentially more politically damaging that the current crop of resignations. For example, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/campbell-quits-over-meeting/2007/03/03/1172868803543.html">John Howard saw his Human Services Minister</a>, Ian Campbell, resign some eight months before the 2007 election under intense pressure from the top.</p>
<p>According to Howard, Campbell’s improper action was having met with former WA Premier, and convicted fraudster, Brian Burke. At the same time, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/santoro-set-to-resign/2007/03/16/1173722720321.html">Howard also had to deal with the resignation of Senator Santo Santoro</a> who had failed to disclose his financial interests in over 70 companies.</p>
<p>The current resignations of Labor MPs is not necessarily a symbol that the government is in crisis. These MPs have not left over questions of impropriety, nor have they been sacked by a prime minister who seeks to uphold Westminster conventions.</p>
<p>Furthermore, their resignations now give those who will replace them significant time to get on top of their portfolios and make a stronger contribution to the business of government before the election.</p>
<p>Their departures, however, cap off a week which saw the PM take the unusual step of announcing the date of the election so early in the year. The week also saw Craig Thomson arrested.</p>
<p>Combined with the minority government situation, as well as the lingering fallout from the Peter Slipper affair, the Gillard government has been fighting an uphill battle since the 2010 election.</p>
<p>This means that the resignations of Evans, Roxon and McClelland will elicit suggestions the government is in meltdown, even though it is not.</p>
<p>It is simply business as usual. But, in politics, when is the business ever really usual?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11920/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zareh Ghazarian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Gillard government has lost two important figures that contributed much to the Labor administration. Chris Evans, leader of the party in the Senate, and Attorney General, Nicola Roxon, both announced…Zareh Ghazarian, Lecturer, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/102152012-10-18T04:44:25Z2012-10-18T04:44:25ZResearch funding falls victim to short-term politics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16681/original/yyskbdd6-1350534936.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tertiary Education Minister Chris Evans says it's a "ridiculous proposition" to suggest funding freezes are driving research overseas.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Federal Government’s freeze on research grants is damaging investment and recruitment by universities, and is part of a broader trend making funding predictability a thing of the past says Universities Australia chief executive Belinda Robinson. </p>
<p>“This short-term, stop-go approach to funding and public investment decisions is becoming an increasingly alarming feature of the modern budget process and is seriously eroding confidence in the policy-making process,” Ms Robinson said in a statement.</p>
<p>Questioned during Senate Estimates hearings yesterday, Australian Research Council chief executive officer Aidan Byrne said the Council had not been able to progress linkage program grants, with programs that were meant to have closed, not yet able to be opened.</p>
<p>Tertiary Education Minister Chris Evans, under questioning from Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, argued it was a “ridiculous proposition” that the funding freeze had sent research overseas. “To suggest that there is an outflow of researchers is just wrong,” Mr Evans said.</p>
<p>However University of New South Wales vice-chancellor Fred Hilmer told Fairfax top researchers lured to his university from overseas were close to leaving the country and not coming back as a result of the funding uncertainty.</p>
<p>The government is expected to release its Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) next week, at which time the sector is hoping to gain some clarity on the issue.</p>
<p>“Clearly universities are worried about this particular MYEFO process, but there is a deeper issue around the recent and concerning trend towards ever diminishing budget certainty. Unfortunately, forward estimates are becoming progressively meaningless and funding predictability a thing of the past,” Ms Robinson said. “We are now at the point where not only is everything up for grabs once a year through the budget process, but every six months through MYEFO.”</p>
<p>The government had created a rod for itself by promising it would return to surplus, said Graeme Wines, accounting professor at Deakin University.</p>
<p>Professor Wines said it was a continually reoccurring thing for the government to <a href="https://theconversation.com/accounting-tricks-behind-the-federal-budget-surplus-6822">manipulate spending patterns</a> in order to meet political commitments.</p>
<p>“You get a short-term budget benefit but adverse effects down the track such with ongoing research programs being put into jeopardy,” Professor Wines said.</p>
<p>“It’s not like you can just turn the tap off and on and expect there not to be consequences.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10215/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The Federal Government’s freeze on research grants is damaging investment and recruitment by universities, and is part of a broader trend making funding predictability a thing of the past says Universities…Charis Palmer, Deputy Editor/Chief of StaffLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/88292012-08-16T04:08:02Z2012-08-16T04:08:02ZThe sad politics of the Houston Report on asylum seekers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/14238/original/q5k6c3zb-1344920914.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prime Minister Julia Gillard meets with the Chief of the Defence Force General David Hurley in Canberra.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Greeting the findings of the Houston expert panel on asylum seekers, The Australian front page exclaimed “At last, people put before politics”. </p>
<p>This is, of course, ridiculous. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/malaysian-solution">Malaysian solution</a> would not have been an issue had it not been plucked out of the air by Julia Gillard. The insistence on restoring Nauru to its previous role as a remote prison would not have survived, had Tony Abbott not refused to budge. </p>
<p>Finding a solution to the problem of maritime asylum seekers would not have been so difficult if the advantages of blowing the issue up into a major political story had not been attractive to the conservatives and so frightening to the Labor Party. </p>
<p>Whatever policies are adopted and whatever compromises are reached among Australian politicians, this dilemma will not disappear in the foreseeable future. In fact it may well become worse as the Muslim world continues to erupt politically. </p>
<h2>The political calculus</h2>
<p>Labor represents the great majority of Commonwealth and State electorates with large concentrations of immigrant populations. It might be assumed that these populations would be favourable towards refugees, who make up a significant number of their voters. But this is not necessarily the case. </p>
<p>Many of these populations contain Christian refugees who have fled Muslim regimes. Most of the electorates have large Catholic communities who might be hesitant about Muslim refugees in general. But even more important is that there are very few electorates in which immigrants form a majority - just four Commonwealth seats in western Sydney. </p>
<p>Their voters are drawn from many different backgrounds. This means that even in so-called “ethnic” areas, the largest bloc of voters are Anglo-Australians, who may not wish to see the addition of newcomers. This has been particularly relevant in Sydney where there is a major “ethnic boundary” west of Bankstown, Liverpool, Blacktown and Parramatta. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/14236/original/9cs92jvs-1344920830.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/14236/original/9cs92jvs-1344920830.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/14236/original/9cs92jvs-1344920830.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/14236/original/9cs92jvs-1344920830.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/14236/original/9cs92jvs-1344920830.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/14236/original/9cs92jvs-1344920830.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/14236/original/9cs92jvs-1344920830.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prime Minister Julia Gillard announces at a press conference that Asylum seekers could be processed on Nauru and Manus Island within a month.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Politicians, such as immigration minister Chris Bowen, sit right at the edge of this major social divide. </p>
<p>For various reasons electorates in Western Sydney have been turning against their previous loyalty to Labor, often in quite large numbers. The influence of popular media and talkback radio is especially strong. </p>
<p>While a similar situation does not exist in Melbourne or Adelaide, it is this shift which has fuelled Labor’s willingness to take the harder line visible on asylum seekers. The reaction on the “ethnic frontier” (which replicates former reactions in the United States) has been little researched but has to be taken into account by ALP strategists. </p>
<p>In other parts of Australia such as Queensland or Western Australia, the “boat people” debate is influenced by older traditions such as the “opening of the floodgates” - a term used for over a century. </p>
<p>This provided a transitory basis for Pauline Hanson’s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Nation_(Australia)">One Nation</a>, which was strongest in those two states and had no following in Sydney or Melbourne. This is essentially a conservative constituency, unlikely to swing to Labor (notwithstanding the brief career of Kevin Rudd). </p>
<p>There is nothing politically to be gained by the Liberals in moving from their rigid stance. Even if they compromise on the “Malaysian solution” they have won most of the other issues. </p>
<p>The hope for Labor is to hang on to electorates they once regarded as safe. The hope for the Greens is that former Labor voters in inner city Melbourne and Sydney will sustain their currently unmoving 12% of the vote. </p>
<p>They, too, aren’t moving on offshore processing - in other words using the mandatory detention system to cull out asylum seekers before they reach Australian soil. </p>
<p>This opposition has its uses in the Senate with the courts as a last resort. But The Greens no longer have the appeal to Labor of allocating enough preferences to stay in office. On current evidence that will not work next time, especially in the Sydney marginals. As usually with political arguments the negatives outnumber the positives.</p>
<h2>Re-aligning immigration policy</h2>
<p>The expert panel has provided a well documented report, tackling what has become an intractable problem. Had the problem not been inflated by conflicting political interests it would not have become so intractable. </p>
<p>Most asylum seekers deserve protection from the oppressive governments and destructive political forces of their own country. Most are educated, young and valuable potential Australians. </p>
<p>The sad fact is that immigration is reaching record heights while humanitarian admissions have remained at the same level since the 1990s. Changing this is one of the most acceptable aims of the expert report. </p>
<p>But it can only be implemented if Australia acts to deal with the realities of its neighbourhood rather than with the local demands of its political parties.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/8829/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Jupp does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Greeting the findings of the Houston expert panel on asylum seekers, The Australian front page exclaimed “At last, people put before politics”. This is, of course, ridiculous. The Malaysian solution would…James Jupp, Adjunct Associate Professor, Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.