Political debate seems increasingly unhitched from a normal, factual
understanding of the concept of truth, and it’s a much more complicated
problem than whether the Coalition’s
pre-election whopper about maintaining four years of Gonski funding is comparable with Julia Gillard’s
lie about not leading a government that introduced a carbon tax.
“Truths” now seem to be things most people can be convinced to
believe rather than arguments or assertions that can be factually
proven.
And a fast, shallow news cycle, with ever-more splintered sources of
information, favours simple claims over complex arguments and rewards
endless repetition.
Julia Gillard, for example, clearly broke her no carbon tax promise.
But her bald statement – so neatly adaptable to a meme or a ringtone –
amplified the factual breach (she began the promised emissions trading
scheme with a three-year fixed price, or tax) into the widely held, but
false, belief that she’d gone back on a pledge not to have any carbon
price at all.
Since 2009, Tony Abbott has promised to increase Australia’s 2020
greenhouse gas reduction pledge above 5% under a specific set of
conditions. After the election
he insisted 5% was the outer limit,
and claimed, despite ample contrary evidence, that this had always been
his stance. Reneging on a promise about the end target of the country’s
entire greenhouse gas reduction effort – the point of the whole
exercise – would seem like a bigger deal than reneging on a promise
about the first three years of your chosen mechanism to get there, but
apparently this was too complicated an argument to cause much of a
ripple.
And as he cranks up the argument over the next few weeks that
parliament should pass his carbon tax repeal, Abbott will undoubtedly
repeat his line that it “doesn’t even work anyway” because under the
carbon tax Australia’s emissions will go up in 2020, not down.
The fact is that unlike, say,
direct action,
an emissions trading scheme is guaranteed to meet its target by its
very design, because the whole point is for the price to vary to make
sure it does so. The modelling, now outdated anyway, which showed
domestic emissions would be higher, was
based on the forecast
that to achieve the 5% reduction, 58m tonnes of emission reductions
would occur domestically and 94m tonnes of cheaper emission reductions
would be bought offshore, which is something the business community is
desperately pleading for the Coalition to also do, in order to try to
salvage something affordable and workable from direct action. But see
how long it took to explain all of that? That’s why it’s so hard to
contradict the misleading “doesn’t work anyway” claim.
Similarly, education minister Christopher Pyne is
trying to use the complexity of education funding arrangements to get around the clear fact he has broken a promise to keep at least four years of Gonski-level education spending.
Yep, Labor shovelled $1.2bn back into general revenue when a bunch of
states didn’t sign up to its deal, but we already knew that.
Pyne is resolutely pointing to this old news and insisting we all
“look over there”, but the Gonski signatory states are refusing to budge
from the main point – that they’ve been dudded.
That’s making it harder for Pyne to divert attention from the fact
that he promised parents before the election there would be no
difference in funding levels for four years, and now he isn’t.
Making the whole pinning down the truth thing even more difficult,
since policy and promises no longer seem to have to match a clear set of
ideological dispositions.
Kevin Rudd was happy to ditch the entire free market legacy of the Hawke and Keating years with a late-election campaign
foray into “economic nationalism” and professed “discomfort” with the whole idea of too much foreign investment.
Tony Abbott had had some years to practise his own obfuscatory
tactics in the same policy area, using discussion papers and appeasing
words to simultaneously satisfy the free marketeer Liberals and
protectionist Nationals.
But in government the contradictions are harder to paper over.
The Business Council and the Australian Industry Group were straight on to the inconsistency
between declaring the country “open for business” and refusing a
foreign takeover bid that the competition watchdog said was fine, but
which the National party really didn’t like.
Abbott claimed on Friday that Labor had no right to make accusations
about truthfulness unless it voted for the repeal of the carbon tax,
which he labelled “the most fundamental commitment of all”; presumably
on the basis that he says it is.
“How can Labor accuse the government of breaking a commitment if it
tries to stop us from keeping the most fundamental commitment of all:
the commitment to repeal the carbon tax?” he asked, rhetorically.
Well, prime minister, because one broken promise does not cancel out
another, and both sides of politics keep bending the truth. And that’s a
fact.