Scott-the-Announcer
A moniker not as frightening as those of your lineage like Vlad-the-Impaler or even Attila-the-Hun, but Scott-the-Announcer fits you Sco-Mo. You’re fond of making announcements, not so good at action. I recall that, as a child, I formed the view that, with their apparent readiness to leave the field of play during test matches for trifling excuses, that English test players were cricketers that didn’t really want to play cricket. I muse that you are a politician that really doesn’t want to govern, aspiring only to be there. I thought of you when reading Bleak House by Charles Dickens (1853) today with this description: “I cannot imagine a countenance and manner more singularly expressive of caution and indecision, and a perpetual impulse to do something he could not resolve to venture on.” (p236) His name, ironically, was Mr Crook.
Low expectations are usually met in abundance. You promised nothing in the way of an agenda and you have duly delivered on your promise. Thanks. I sense you are quite impressed with your latest three-word slogan of “technology not taxes” to take to the next election. However, the reality is more like “cudgels not counsel” as you search for political tools to combat every threat that fails to disappear from your rear-view mirror, while ignoring the claims for just treatment of individuals. Those problems are only framed in arrears because you didn’t see them coming and responded too late with a political band-aid.
When you thrust your paucity of leadership upon us, Scott, we knew two things about you that may have given rise to some reasonable expectations as to how you might operate as a Prime Minister. One claim to expertise was your engagement in marketing, so much so that many refer to you as Scotty from Marketing. Imagine our surprise and dismay then when you so badly mis-handled messaging for our Covid19 crisis. The second aspect of your personal profile was that you had a passionate engagement with Christianity. Again, surprise and dismay when it became clear that you encouraged and operated within an ethics-free zone. You are a self-made man clumsily constructed.
While you say you don’t wish to give oxygen to “the politics of envy” you are exposed as one who clearly favors the interests of the wealthy. Indeed, you have sought to give them an even greater share of the common pool. There would be benefit in adopting a more plausible rationale to justify this inequitable wealth transfer. We couldn’t target criminal banks because it might diminish trust in them (and so their malfeasance should continue). Now companies rorting Jobkeeper can’t be named because it may reduce confidence in the Australian Tax Office (so the transparent rip off should continue). Extend this logic to other areas and you might appreciate its absurdity. Again, for me as a small child I bought the logic of the efficacy of elephant repellent (clearly it kept them away) and spectacle-wearing rabbits as self-evident (they ate their carrots so didn’t need glasses). When I grew up I was able to distinguish between correlation and causation. Clearly you and Josh did not eat your crusts as kids as evidenced by a lack of curly hair. You want to dumb us down to accept ridiculous flaws of logic.
You are ever ready to point out negative behaviors you regard as un-Australian while never offering any insight as to the positive characteristics bound up in being an Australian. One hint for you, however, is that Australians have great crap-detectors and they know how to use them. Your guiding mantra seems to be preferment and deferment, advancing the cause of the wealthy and delaying consideration of the concerns of other citizens. We need a government that will pursue grand theft and petty theft with equal vigor, not skewed towards the impoverished and powerless, as with robodebt. Why no Integrity Commission yet Scotty? (surely your chums would never do anything naughty). Why sneaking in a lower cap than promised on compensation from victims of failed financial schemes? Why act so tardily on recommendations for women’s safety?
I now offer you a winning formula so listen up Scotty. If you want to win the next election you need to start placing yourself on the right side of history in relation to climate change and at least fake some sincerity about combating corporate malfeasance. You need to purge some of the dead weight of imbecilic conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxers from the loony right. Respect expertise and encourage your colleagues to do likewise. It is a tough ask for a government without integrity to establish an Integrity Commission but go on, have a crack. Claw back Jobseeker largesse from companies that didn’t comply (remember, you do that with ordinary taxpayers) and pursue corporate tax dodgers.
Look ahead to problems rather than through the rear-view vision mirror as they pass you by. You don’t seem to see issues coming. You really need to fix that, perpetually late as you are to ah ha and playing catch-up, administratively and ethically. You’re doing it again by not releasing the names of companies who fraudulently claimed Jobkeeper. Don’t just open your mouth to change feet, go beyond system one thinking (Kahneman) before you speak. Get on the front foot on issues of particular concern to women (to be “fair dinkum” is definitely Australian) and initiate reform. Our attention might then be drawn away from continuing rorts long enough to vote for you, but I hope not.
David Muscio
9 September 2021
Awesomely Astute 