The Saturday Paper, editorial 21st March, 2020, edited:
"Panic! At the Costco". Really,
we should not be surprised. Panic buying isn’t an aberration – it’s the logical extension of a political system based entirely on selfishness and indifference, on the hoarding of wealth and property. It is what happens when government persuades
the public that it is the problem. It is difficult to remain credulous as Scott Morrison says hoarding is one of the most disappointing responses to coronavirus. “Stop doing it,” he says. “It’s ridiculous. It’s un-Australian …
That is not who we are as a people.” Perhaps Morrison doesn’t remember his election campaign launch last year. He’s not alone. Few lines proved enduring, although this one is: “I will not punish Australians for taking responsibility
for themselves and their families.” Morrison’s promise has always been lower taxes. More money for you, and less for them. He says life is not about what you accumulate, then outlines the simple, honest and decent aspirations of people who want
more than what others have. And then, a year later, having triumphed on the promise of greed, he says: “Stop hoarding. I can’t be more blunt about it. Stop it. It is not sensible, it is not helpful.”
are greeted by the best and worst in people, and the worst in people is what put this government in power. They won on grift and seem surprised the country doesn’t trust them. You cannot reassure a public you’ve never succeeded in leading. This
isn’t just Scott Morrison. The contraction of government services across decades has left people isolated and mistrusting. They have been told to depend on themselves, and that is what they are doing. A government that won’t promise healthcare
or education can’t be expected to guarantee groceries. The ungenerous spirit that empties shelves is acting on the absence of leadership we have been offered. Morrison believes his success is in being an everyman. It is an everyman who goes to the football
when the prime minister shouldn’t. It is an everyman who addresses the nation and says “stop it” like he is scolding a child. Everymen go on the holidays they’ve planned. They make promises to their children. Their choices are simple
because they believe their lives are simple. Everymen are ordinary, like Scott Morrison promises to be ordinary. The problem is ordinary people cannot lead countries. They don’t have the capacity, don’t have the insight or the empathy. They cannot
reassure because they have nothing large enough – intellectually or emotionally – to draw on for reassurance. Scott Morrison is proof of that. Panic buying is proof of that. The many people who suffer from this virus will be proof of that. We shouldn’t
judge the people lining up outside supermarkets or fighting in grocery store aisles for toilet paper, but we should judge harshly the celebration of greed and selfishness that put them there.
The stakes could not be higher by Craig Collins, edited. Food for thought? "Economic growth is the product of an industrial civilisation that has pillaged and polluted the planet to produce temporary progress for a growing middle class and enormous
profits and power for a tiny elite. Two centuries of fossil fuel combustion have saturated the biosphere with climate-altering carbon that will continue wreaking havoc for generations to come. The damage to Earth’s living systems - the circulation
and chemical composition of the atmosphere and the ocean; the stability of the hydrological and biogeochemical cycles; the biodiversity of the entire planet - is essentially permanent. Human civilisation’s collective capacity to confront its mounting
crises is crippled by a fragmented political system of antagonistic nations ruled by corrupt elites who care more about power and wealth than people and the planet. The more catabolic industrial capitalism becomes, the greater the danger that hostile
rulers will fan the flames of nationalism and go to war over scarce resources. Warfare is not new, but modern warfare is so devastating, destructive, and toxic that little would remain in its aftermath. This would be the final nail in civilisation’s
coffin. Can we put the survival of our species and our planet first, or will we allow ourselves to become hopelessly divided along national, cultural, racial, religious, or party lines? Can we foster genuine democracy, harness renewable energy, reweave our
communities, re-learn forgotten skills and heal the wounds we’ve inflicted on the Earth? Or will fear and prejudice drive us into hostile camps, fighting over the dwindling resources of a degraded planet?"
By David Pledger; edited.
On the fifth day of the last month of the last year of last decade, Australia’s conservative government
erased the Federal Ministry for the Arts. Erasure is emblematic of ideologically-driven systems regardless of the wing, left or right. Some person, idea or practice hitherto considered vital seems suddenly to lose value and is airbrushed from history. But
in truth, the practice of erasure increases by stealth. Because, in truth, the erasure of Arts Ministries began in our country five years ago in the State of Victoria and again in South Australia last year. The erasure of
the arts from the public consciousness of government is as damaging as deep funding cuts. In 2011 when 25% of The Netherlands arts and culture budget was slashed leading to the closure of 24 cultural and arts organisations, a fate that awaits Australia’s
small-medium and independent arts sector in February. Across the Western world, the evisceration of the arts is integral to a programmatic approach that cuts welfare, health and public services. It is consistent with a worldview that creates and accentuates
division, inequity and social injustice, unspoken policy that fits squarely within the trajectory of neoliberal governments worldwide, governments creeping – sometimes sprinting – towards authoritarianism through downward pressure on civil liberties,
direct attacks on the media, the ‘militarisation’ of the public service and a perceived state of permanent crisis. It is a corollary of neoliberal capitalism that it disables these instrumentalities of democracy in order for it to fulfil its essential
ambition, the maximisation of the profit of all things – goods, services, people. Whilst neoliberalism has no centre, it is visible by the dots that, once connected, characterise each region or nation’s variant. In Australia, these include the
persecution of citizens (Robodebt), the prosecution of whistle-blowers (Witness K), the intimidation of journalists (ABC, Newscorp, Assange), a brutal asylum seeker policy, the militarisation of police, the politicisation of the public service, climate-denialism
and the diminution of the arts and the national broadcaster. This is the shape of Australian neo-liberalism. We need to understand that external forces will always determine the conditions under which the Arts operate.The Arts sector has struggled to read
and adjust to this shift. It continues to behave as if politicians’ primary motivation in government is to represent the interests of their elected constituency, and for Ministers, their portfolio constituency. This is no longer the case. Politicians’
primary motivation is to remain in government. In opposition, it is to return to government. The political mind-set is risk-averse, it’s hardwired to not
committing to anything or anyone in case that commitment exposes them to criticism, worse still, a loss of power. It’s time to change our action settings to deal with this change in political culture.
The Arts sector’s main strategy has been to have a seat at the table to ensure access to politicians. It’s ingrained a politesse that has dominated and diluted advocacy for a generation. Sitting at the table is irrelevant
unless you can turn tactics into parliamentary muscle, signatures into votes, individuals into community, outrage into practice. How do we do this ? In the political space, we need to shift our historical focus on major political parties and forge a cross-party
alliance of individuals who can represent the interests of the Arts in all areas of mainstream political culture in every policy discussion. Special attention needs to be afforded to independent and micro-party politicians in the Senate who are critical to
passing legislation, and so carry real power. In the social space, we need to understand that external forces will always determine the conditions under which the Arts operate. The reality is, there is not a deep, sectoral understanding of how the Arts intersects
with, relates to, and is affected by other parts of society. The sector’s tendency to see the Arts as an isolated thing to which singular stuff happens, only re-enforces its perception as elite. We, in the Arts, need to engage meaningfully with familial
sectors such as environment, media, welfare, health and education, and lift our eyes from the path we are walking to join those in other countries facing similar travails. We need to see ourselves as part of a whole rather than a whole, apart.
In the artistic space, the generation of artists in our post-emerging, pre-established artist category is beginning to understand that being in control of one’s content and medium in dialogue with an audience is a discipline that can be
seamlessly applied to protest, rights and power. It can be playful, disruptive, artistic – and they don’t see you coming, ‘cos they don’t see you. Practising artists need to be activists, and cultural institutions need to find courage
to support them. Advocacy and activism need to be an extension of every artist’s practice. These tactics can be deployed by artists, arts workers and cultural operators. They comprise a strategy to combat a government committed
to keeping the Arts in check as opposed to embracing the Arts at the democratic table. Here, the two, best examples are our neighbour, New Zealand – whose Prime Minister seamlessly integrates the Arts in her nation’s vernacular – and our
friend, Canada – whose arts budget will have doubled in 2021 on its 2016 figure. Our government is more aligned with the European variant that fears the Arts for its potential to reveal its duplicity, negligence and vested interest. Time to build a new
John le Carré, edited, on winning the Olof Palme prize: "So why isn’t the threat of nuclear war today as present or
terrifying to us as it was in Palme’s day? Is it simply that the nuclear threat is so ubiquitous, so diffuse and irrational? North Korea? Isis? Iran? Russia? China? Or today’s White House with its born-again evangelists dreaming of the Rapture?
Better to invest our existential fears in things we understand: bushfires, melting icebergs, and the uncomfortable truths of Greta Thunberg. The cold war was anything but irrational. It was two players facing each other across a nuclear chessboard. And for
all their clever spying, neither knew the first thing about the other. If Johnson and his Brexiteers had their way, it would be declared St Brexit’s Day. Church bells across the land would peal out the gladsome tidings from every tower. And good men
of England would pause their stride and doff their caps in memory of Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, Trafalgar, and mourn the loss of our great British empire. Empires don’t die just because they’re dead. We Brits are all nationalists now. Or so
Johnson would have us believe. But to be a nationalist you need enemies and the shabbiest trick in the Brexiteers’ box was to make an enemy of Europe. “Take back control!” they cried, with the unspoken subtext: and hand it to Donald Trump,
along with our foreign policy, our economic policy, our health service and, if they can get away with it, our BBC. So Boris Johnson with our blessing has taken his place beside two other accomplished liars of our time: Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. If Palme
were trying to get the truth out of them, which of the three would he turn to? Or none of the above? One day somebody will explain to me why it is that, at a time when science has never been wiser, or the truth more stark, or human knowledge more available,
populists and liars are in such pressing demand. But don’t blame the Tories for their great victory. It was Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party, with its un-policy on Brexit, its antisemitism and student-level Marxism-Leninism that alienated traditional
Labour voters and left them nowhere to go. They looked to the left and didn’t recognise their leader. They looked to the centre and there was nobody there."