"Telstra's behaviour has been disgraceful" . John Howard is upset because Telstra's lagging share price is under-cutting his political ability to sell Telstra.

From the article;

After telling Coalition MPs "Telstra's behaviour has been disgraceful", Mr Howard told Parliament: "I do not believe for a moment ... that the remarks that were made by senior executives of Telstra were in any way helpful.

"I think it is the obligation of senior executives of Telstra to talk up the company's interest, not to talk them down. That is a view which I have communicated very directly to the chairman of the board on behalf of the Government."

Bizarre. The market is acting as it is supposed to, punishing Telstra for what the market sees as an inability to produce future returns.

I think the main political tension is that the government wants the share price up at $5.25 when it sells off the rest of Telstra. Is John Howard telling Telstra management and public relations to pump the stock price of the company?

cam

This time Jon Stanthorpe is the one copping it . The party room's discipline extends to the State and Territory governments - even if they are labor. Huzzah for anti-federalism .

Stanthorpe's crime was to leak the draft anti-terrorism legislation, which would be more appropriately named the federal naked power-grab bill. This is the draft document [pdf warning] that was presented to the public (not leaked).

From the article;

Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says retaliatory action has been taken by the Federal Government over his decision last week to post the draft counter-terrorism bill on his website.

Mr Stanhope says he has received an email from Prime Minister John Howard advising of the ACT's exclusion from consultation over the next draft of the bill.

My answer is; so punish the feds, deny the ACT enacting or agreeing to any part of it. Australia is a federation after all, not a unitary centrist system.

It should also be remembered that Australia has not had a terrorist attack, and that our multi-ethnic fault line is Bali, not on continental Australia. Terrorism is a foreign policy issue for Australia, not a domestic issue.

cam

A popular absurd photoshop which floats around on the internet is the dynamite monkey. The image has an aggravated monkey sitting near dynamite with plunger, and infront of a sign which has emblazoned in red and yellow, "Don't taunt the dynamite monkey". The bottom right hand corner has a human hand with the middle finger extended, and the remaining fingers closed. This is a good analogy for what can happen when the shadow state is taunted - something John Howard did when publicly claiming Australia faced a terrorist attack.

The "Shadow State" is the underground policing and intelligence arms of Australia, these include ASIO, the SAS, parts of the AFP and other opaque and hidden arms of government tucked from public view under the auspices of national security. They are often used for political purposes, as it is difficult for the citizenry to query, or discover anything about these groups. A good recent example of this is the constant imagery seen on Australian television showing SAS, in black facemasks to hide their identity, dropping from Blackhawks in anti-terror operations.

More recently, John Howard brought an intelligence operation into public view, claiming that Australia was under imminent terrorist threat. This was despite the contradiction of the threat level not being raised, and his call for calm at the same time. This was a political stunt, where supposedly non-partisan arms of government were abused for political purposes. The Navy and Australian Defence Force was similarly abused during the Tampa Affair. There is a difference however when the shadow state is taunted and abused. While the military is used to a certain amount of public and political scrutiny, the shadow state is not.

The Plame Affair which is embroiling the United States is a modern example of what can happen when the Shadow State is taunted. The prosecution was performed with the support of the CIA, who, as an entity, were outraged that one of the NOCs was outed. A NOC takes a long time to develop, as the complicity and long lead times for informants are expensive and time consuming. In essence, a great deal of funding, training and capability was permenently destroyed by the leaking of a CIA operative to the media. The CIA was not impressed.

Now there is starting to appear a backlash in the Australian shadow state over John Howard and Phillip Ruddock exposing one of their operations to the public, for no prosecutorial gain - merely a political gain to put pressure on the Industrial Relations legislation being passed without scrutiny. This is parliamentary hi-jinks, using intelligence which cannot be disseminated by the public to any large degree, making an objective conclusion from the public impossible. It is theatre for the tabloids and mass media.

Politics has a long history of abusing the shadow-state for political purposes, sometimes successfully for the incumbent, such as the Petrov Affair; sometimes poorly, such as Watergate; and other times with great suffering, such as the installing of the dictator, Pinochet in Chile. Whether John Howard's abuse of ASIO and AFP intelligence will result in a public backlash is not clear, but governments usually collapse on their own hubris, arrogance, corruption and political exhaustion. It is more likely that this will be another notch against the Howard Government as it displays the hubris that John Howard himself railed against as leader of the opposition when the Keating Government controlled the federal executive.

cam

Malcolm Fraser conducted economic policy with two broad sweeps of the brush; keep inflation low by keeping the federal budget out of deficit, and stopping trade unions increasing wages in a full employment economy. In my opinion, the recent IR legislation has Frasernomics as its driving force.

Gary Sauer-Thompson on his brilliant political philosophy site discusses the contrasts in individualism and conservatism by dissecting an op-ed from Ken Phillips. From Phillips op-ed in the Australian ;

In this respect the Howard Government's proposals [IR] are truly radical because the stark alternative offered is a belief that individuals do and can have the capacity to control their work futures. This individualism assaults the Australian conservative settlement. We have a cultural battle, between a belief in the self and a cultural fear of the self.

I don't agree with this, while there is a tension between conservatism and individualism in Australia, I don't believe the IR legislation fractures along those lines. Rather than individualism, this is an attempt to stop inflationary pressures. In the US, inflation is jumping up past four percent between energy, education, housing and other areas. The Australian CPI has been relatively stable .

The spin appears to be, this IR legislation will make Australia competitive; supposedly through deflationary pressure on wages in commodity industries. Kirby Adams is from Bluescope Steel ;

"This kind of industrial reform is required to attract and retain investment capital in this country and to ensure Australia is globally competitive in manufacturing," he said.

A good chunk of the legislation in the Workplaces Amendment places restrictions on industrial action and how Unions can interact between employer and employee.

I do not like the IR legislation because it is anti-federalist. The federal government has no right to be legislating in this area. It is another massive power grab by a federal government seeking to collapse all authority to Canberra.

From the Workplaces Amendment [PDF Warning] ;

(1) This Act is intended to apply to the exclusion of all the following laws of a State or Territory so far as they would otherwise apply in relation to an employee or employer:
(a) a State or Territory industrial law;
(b) a law that applies to employment generally and deals with leave other than long service leave;
(c) a law providing for a court or tribunal constituted by a law of the State or Territory to make an order in relation to equal remuneration for work of equal value (as defined in section 170BB);
(d) a law providing for the variation or setting aside of rights and obligations arising under a contract of employment, or another arrangement for employment, that a court or tribunal finds is unfair;
(e) a law that entitles a representative of a trade union to enter premises for a purpose other than a purpose connected with occupational health and safety.

I hope it is challenged by Queensland in the High Court, or alternatively, one of the states goes feral on the issue. The legislation also empowers Ministers to break strikes (Division 7, 112). This is like the DIMIA legislation which places undue power in the hands of Ministers, essentially making the use of such powers arbitrary.

Additionally, if I was a small business owner and had to read through all this - the amendments run to 691 pages - I would be throwing my arms up in the air in a quick WTF.

The legislation itself looks par for the course for the Howard Government; it is hostile to unions, hostile to the states, and adds a new layer of complex regulation, overhead and uncertainty to anyone (employer or employee) subject to it.

cam

In the fiscal borrowing crisis that Australia faced in the Great Depression, Joseph Lyons, then assistant treasurer of the Labor Scullin Government, saw it a failing of national character if Australia didn't adhere to "Sound and Honest Finance" and only borrow what it could repay. This directed his actions in saving the Federal Government from defaulting on its fiscal bond obligations. The principle of "Sound and Honest Finance" worked well as a popular political policy. It was easily understood by the electorate, who other than large borrowings for a house, understood the money in - money out principle from everyday experience. Advocates of Free Markets and Free Trade don't have such an easy time, the principles are often abstract, and don't fall as easily into the day to day experience of most of the electorate.

Joseph Lyons

Joseph Lyons was born in Tasmania, he became Premier of Tasmania in 1923 in a minority Labor Government, which relied on the Nationalists for support. He won majority in 1925, but by 1928, with the depression beginning to weigh in on political calculations, he lost government and resigned. Lyons decided to run for a federal electorate, a deal which was sweetened by Jim Scullin, who promised Lyons a cabinet seat if Labor won the election. It did, and Lyons became the Postmaster-General.

It was in the Scullin government where Lyons helped defuse the bond issue. but when Ted Theodore returned to Cabinet, Lyons resigned, from both cabinet, and the Labor Party. Lyons remained in parliament and took over leadership of the United Australia Party (UAP), which was a newly formed fusion of Nationalists and former Labor representatives, backed by the Melbourne based, "Group". The UAP with Lyons took the helm of government in the 1933 election, and remained in power until Menzies lost government in 1941.

Lyons was known as "Honest Joe" and he came to federal government with a name for safe and solid economic policy, which at the time was called "Sound Finance". In Tasmania he had reduced government's expenses, reduced loans and raised taxes. This bought Tasmania's economic house in order. This style was very recognizable to voters, many practised each week in their home when managing family budgets. Don't spend more than what you have, reduce you exposure to risk from loans and try to maximise your income. That style of fiscal management rings clearly in the electorates.

Default and Civil War

Lyons' principle of "Sound Finance" brought himself and NSW Premier Jack Lang to clash. The federal government with its consistent anti-federalism had under-written loans to NSW. Lang campaigned on the principle that the workers should not have to pay for the failure of the banks and the market. As a consequence, he wasn't go to pay any loan, until the banks renegotiated with the NSW government on the terms of repayment.

Lyons saw this as violating "Sound Finance", not to mention making a cash strapped federal government liable for NSW's loans, so he tried to get NSW's income tax rolls to collect tax directly. Lang had these hidden and protected. During this instability, conservative militia such as the Old Guard and New Guard sprang up. The NSW Government suddenly had its own supporting militia, as well as the sworn allegiance of the NSW Police Force - who - courtesy of the depression had rifles, steel helmets and armoured cars.

The Lighthorse was moved to protect Canberra from a NSW invasion and the Australian military in Sydney was put on alert. The Federal and NSW governments came within an angels breadth of civil war. The Governor solved the issue, by sacking Jack Lang. this was the point that civil war could have started, if Lang had denied Phillip Games' authority; instead Lang said, "The bastards have sacked me. I am a free man." There was no blood on the wattle that day.

Enid's Fiduciary Lament

Things have changed however, now Credit Cards are sent through the mail unsolicited, through low interest rates money is the cheapest it has been in a long time, household savings rates are also low , and our Current Account Deficit continues to increase . Judith Brett argues that Keynesianism, which Ted Theodore proposed as a means to spend Australia out of the depression, eroded the value of "honest and sound finance" as a guiding government principle of economic management. Brett writes;

The gradual acceptance of Keynesianism which decoupled the logic of the household economy from that of the nation's also began to decouple the stability of the personality from the stability of the financial system.

Enid Lyons, the wife of Joe Lyons, and the first woman elected to federal parliament wrote on the erosion of honest finance and its replacement with the credit economy;

Neither Joe nor the thousands who heard him speak were conscious that within a few years a new theory of public finance would be universally accepted; that by 1960 the whole world would be fidicuary ... They [those listening to Joe Lyons] cheered for the better times they longed for and for which they were prepared to pay. They would take the hard way out of the depression but the honest one.

Home Econ 101

The political narrative of the home, and everyday experience is a powerful one that politicians ignore at their own peril. I am fond of saying that I would trust a plumber with the budget before I would trust a politician; which probably stems back to the household experience of honest finance. John Howard discovered this when Pauline Hanson and One Nation rose in popularity in Queensland.

Much of One Nations rhetoric and policies were based in honest finance, the kind of practical knowledge an owner of a fish and chips shop would have in spades. John Howard got schooled in both populism and a modern permutation of honest finance, losing the political narrative to One Nation. While Howard weathered the storm, it was the refugees in Woomera, Christmas Island, Nauru and other refugee camps that bore the brunt of Howard removing One Nation as a political force . Ironically he didn't focus on the honest finance policies, but instead the anti-immigration stance.

Pauline Hanson's maiden speech included ;

This country of ours has the richest mineral deposits in the world and vast rich lands for agriculture and is surrounded by oceans that provide a wealth of seafood, and yet we are $190 billion in debt with an interest bill that is strangling us. ... We have one of the highest interest rates in the world, and we owe more money per capita than any other country. All we need is a nail hole in the bottom of the boat and we're sunk. ...

Anyone with business sense knows that you do not sell off your assets especially when they are making money. I may be only `a fish and chip shop lady', but some of these economists need to get their heads out of the textbooks and get a job in the real world. I would not even let one of them handle my grocery shopping. ...

Reduced tariffs on foreign goods that compete with local products seem only to cost Australians their jobs. We must look after our own before lining the pockets of overseas countries and investors at the expense of our living standards and future.

While the first third of the speech was focused on Aboriginal Policy, and much of the latter part of the speech focused on isolationism and anti-immigration policies, the thread is clear in the narrative. She believes her policies to come from her own suburban experiences in managing money, business, entreprenuerism and provincialism. One Nation imploded, but its message was clear, if a political party can place political policy in the terms of the household economy and suburban experience - it will gain electoral support.

Free Trade and Open Markets

Andrew Leigh recently commented on Barnaby Joyce's recent comments on "sound finance" and his practical suburban experiences being translated to international and global affairs;

Senator Joyce seems to be a bright guy, representing rural Australians, who have most to gain from open trade. Yet even he seems to think like a mercantilist: not recognising that the largest benefits that a country typically receives from trade liberalisation are from opening its own markets.

Trade liberalisation doesn't translate well to the home econ 101 experience, sound finance, or the suburban experience. To many people deregulation means the local petrol station is changing hands and getting redecorated every six months. In the US a common quip is that deregulation has meant that the local bank on the corner changes hands four times a year.

While trade liberalisation has data to back these policies up, it does not translate quickly and easily to the everyday suburban experience, and where it does, it is often in an abstract manner. It remains of greatest appeal to academics and backroom party policies. Free trade, open markets and trade liberalisation needs to adopt the language of household and suburban experience so that it gets the same populist appeal as "Sound and Honest Finance".

cam

John Howard is astonished at the concern over the sedition laws . He is "at a loss to understand the concern being expressed about the sedition provisions contained in the Government's counter-terrorism laws." The answer is simple, we don't trust government with them.

I don't trust government to make political laws, they are inevitably done with a selfish interest - the outcome is always political retribution and entrenchment of the incumbent.

Howard also said;

I regard a free press as more important to the maintenance of liberty in Australia than a bill of rights. I don't believe a bill of rights works, but I do believe in a free press, and it's a cornerstone of our democracy, but I am at a loss to understand where, in substance, the laws we are now proposing are different from the laws that have been in existence for a long time.

A bill of rights is a restriction on government. It is harder to control than a supple and pliant media. It is because of the self-serving nature of government that we don't have a bill of rights. At Federation, a bill of rights was dismissed, as the "bearded men" wanted the legislative freedom to discriminate wilfully against the Chinese.

Beazley's statement on the cabinet reshuffle included the question;

What sort of reshuffle worked on for four months would leave Amanda Vanstone still in immigration?

That is an excellent question that should be answered and not side-stepped.

Bryan Palmer has a run-down on the changes . Malcolm Turnball didn't do too well from it.

Malcolm Turnbull goes from the backbench to Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister with particular responsibility for water policy. I suspect the water policy Howard had in mind was to have Turnbull inside the tent, pissing out; rather than outside the tent, pissing in.

First stop Goulburn . A promotion but an impossible portfolio given Australia's dearth of water. Minchin also got a shove forward;

Senator Nick Minchin - keeps Finance and Administration - now Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Minchin is the main Liberal advocate for removing compulsory voting .

Peter Costello still has not done a Paul Keating and forced the issue with John Howard. Keating was sacked by Hawke and spent six months on the back bench before managing to wrest leadership of the Labor party from Bob Hawke. Costello seems unwilling to give up his Treasury portfolio.

Australian politics has become more and more Presidential, both as a result of the way the parties play politics and how the media represents their political theatre. The Cabinet reshuffle stage act kept several Costello supporters on the sidelines;

Addendum: Capable Costello supporters, George Brandis, Christopher Pyne, Bruce Baird, and Tony Smith were passed over when it came to the promotions. (Although Brough and Bishop have also been reported as Costello supporters, and they were big winners in this reshuffle).

I could not find any commentary on the cabinet reshuffle on the ALP website . The Liberal Party website has a complete list of changes and release from John Howard . The Australian Democrats have a spiffy looking new site , but no mention of the cabinet changes.

The Greens' have some commentary on the changes .

Greens Leader Bob Brown says that Tasmania has been snubbed in the Cabinet reshuffle.

"Eric Abetz is the new minister for forests, but it's a junior ministry - he gets the timber but not the Cabinet.

But it is not much.

A Bill of Rights is constitutionally explicit and brutal language which limits the ability of government to legislate. Such language does not enable rights, it prohibits government from infringing on them. Any legislation which violates the constitutional language of the Bill of Rights can be taken to the judicial arm of government who will interpret the constitutional language to determine if the legislation is valid. A Bill of Rights does not impact social cohesion, national cohesion, nor create conflict. It dictates a sphere of liberty where government is unable to trespass.

John Howard's Australia Day speech contained;

Our social cohesion and national unity is pivotal in enabling Australia to contribute effectively to the international effort to combat terrorism, and to safeguard Australia domestically. This Government will do what is necessary to protect the Australian community, but we will do it in a way that does not diminish us as a community or as a nation. This means finding the right balance between the legitimate interests of the community on the one hand and individual civil rights on the other. And inevitably this will be a matter for passionate debate.

Some Australians have argued in recent times that the balance has moved too far. They want to shift it in the other direction, principally through a Bill of Rights. I believe this would be a big mistake for our democracy. A Bill of Rights would not materially increase the freedoms of Australian citizens. It will not make us more united, indeed I believe it would lessen our ability to manage and to resolve conflict in a free society. It would also take us further away from the type of civic culture we need to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. No matter how skilfully crafted, a Bill of Rights always embodies the potential for misinterpretation, unintended consequences or accidental exclusion. History is replete with examples of where grand charters and lyric phrases have failed to protect the basic rights and freedoms of a nation's citizens.

The only political body affected by a Bill of Rights is the government of the day. It sets areas of individual and civic behaviour off-bounds so they cannot be legislated over. A Bill of Rights does not contain feel-good rubbish like the right to dignity . It is constitutionally brutal , ie;

Parliament shall make no law; the Governor-General shall pass no law; that,

1. detains an individual indefinitely without charge for a specific crime.
2. limits or removes an individuals right to have counsel with them upon arrest or questioning.
3. limits or removes an individuals right to a writ of habeous corpus upon detention.
4. back-dates punitive measures for an offence.
5. permits an individual to be detained for long than six months without trial or resolution.
6. enabling an individual to be tried for an offence more than once.
7. limits or removes an individuals right to refuse law enforcement access to their property, or permission to search their person and property, unless there is a warrant issued to search specific property for evidence of a specific crime.
8. limits, reduces or removes an individuals right to own property.
9. deprives the individual of property, or devalues an individuals property without fair exchange or consent.

Those examples were permutations of Avocadia's Australian Bill of Rights phrased in a negative manner toward government. Take the second one for example. The government can make no law which deprives an individual from having a lawyer with them when arrested or being questioned. That is simple. It is a limitation on government. That is what a Bill of Rights is for.

Earlier in the speech, John Howard appeals to the progressive nature of the Enlightenment. The American Republic was the triumph of the Enlightenment. It put many of the liberal philosophies and thought into practice. The two main innovations were the heavy separation of powers and the Bill of Rights.

John Howard's progressive support of the Enlightenment ends where it limits government and favours the individual. In this he is not unlike the Bearded Men. Apparently Andrew Inglis-Clark's first draft of the Australian Constitution contained a Bill of Rights which was removed once Samuel Griffith got his hands on it. The reason? The federal government wanted the ability to discriminate against the Chinese in Australia.

The rights of an individual are paramount. They are not a privilege, nor are they granted by accidents of birth and geography. They are the function of being human - an individual under the jurisdiction of a government. Australia needs to catch up to the political innovations of the Enlightenment, and put in place a Bill of Rights that contains brutal and explicit limits on government. Liberty demands it.

I had dinner last night at the Watergate Hotel of President Nixon scandal fame. With its sharks-teeth brutalist architecture, it is hardly an awe inspiring building, but somehow it manages to retain its aura of elite status. Watergate has come to mean a series of political scandals, synonymous enough, that scandal of any kind, is promptly given the "gate" suffix. Nixon faced two years of impropriety and bad news - he left government with the claim of not being a crook. If he was in government today, he would give himself an award, if not a promotion.

It appears to be only constant bad news that affects a government's ratings. Last year while the Liberal Government was guillotining legislation through the Senate with all the arrogance of a majority party without check, their popularity dropped drastically. There was a period of two months there where there was constant bad news from the media on their actions. There was civil unrest at the Liberal Government with Unions organizing marches and rallies. But without the focus on bad news being maintained, the Liberal Government has recovered its position .

After the Katrina Hurricane debacle in the United States, the phrase, "Brownie, You're doing a heck of a job" became shorthand for willful ignorance of incompetence. This symbolic public cheerleading has become normal media relations for the Bush Administration. While head of the CIA George Tenet proclaimed it was a slam dunk that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This was deemed a suitable cassus belli to invade Iraq but nothing has been turned up by UN inspectors, the US military or even black market traders. Tenet's punishment for this incompetence? A Presidential Medal of Freedom .

It is the highest civil award that can be received in the US. Similar in status to Australia's old George Cross . Paul Bremer received his Presidential Medal of Freedom at the same time as Tenet. Bremer demobilized the entire Iraq Army leaving the US forces to shoulder law and order. Ironically, the current sound bite for victory and withdrawal is that Iraqi troops and police are going to take over from the US military.

But this is not unusual practice in modern democracies with how government's manage the media and public opinion. Australia's Prime Minister is far more deft at handling this in an ad-lib manner than George Bush - who requires stage managed speeches, pre-planned questions and rote answers to get his message across. Howard is far more comfortable chatting away in interviews, affirming his complete and utter support for his ministers while at the same time denying any knowledge, responsibility or even awareness of the issue.

The Australian Wheat Board scandal is just the latest where this media management technique has been used by the government. There appears to be political collusion, a US Ambassador heading overseas to silence an American investigation into the kickbacks until after the election sounds very political.

I doubt bureaucrats were the driving force behind that mission, or that they have the political power to motivate the US Ambassador to Australia to embark across the Pacific on such an effort. Especially one which carries potentially personal political risks. That was definitely politically motivated. As Gary Sauer-Thompson notes Michael Hawley is a Howard man .

Corruption is one of the few ways a government can lose an election, but even with corruption and incompetence present, this is often not enough. As Adam remarked in relation to Peter Beattie in Queensland, the electorate chose criminality over incompetence. Peter Hartcher notes ;

It's even possible that it [the Cole Commission into the AWB kickbacks] will be so damaging that even Howard will have to enforce unpleasant disciplinary action on his Government. But that is extremely unlikely.

This is, after all, a Government that was prepared to accept the wrongful deportation of scores of its own citizens by an Immigration Department so incompetent that Kafka's hallways looked like a model of efficiency and sanity.

The accountability? The head of the department was given an award and a diplomatic posting, and the Minister, Amanda Vanstone, retains her job.

In the Howard Government, presiding over a national disgrace is not a sacking offence.

John Howard and Kim Beazley both are deeply intimate with the Australian political process. They are products of the Waitocracy , sharing the same triple bypass that modern Australian politics requires in Prime Ministers and Opposition leaders. Beazley will be Prime Minister one-day as long as he keeps hanging on to the leadership of the opposition, his Drover's Dog election will come, just as John Howard's did. He will also win it with his small target campaign, allowing the government to lose in the same way that Howard allowed the Keating Government to lose in 1996.

Beazley is aware that it is constant bad news which depresses polling, in the same way that Howard is aware that it is absence of the constant bad news that keeps his polling support up. They are both playing the same game, Hartcher opens with Beazley's tactic for Parliament;

Kim Beazley promises that when Parliament resumes next week he will conduct "the most aggressive parliamentary interrogation this Government has faced in its 10 long years in office".

The Opposition Leader plans to turn the national disgrace of the AWB scandal into a political disaster for the Howard Government.

Mark Latham accused the members of the media being on the drip from the Prime Minister's office. But eyeballs mean profits, so what is a mass media outlet to do, it cannot pass up a scandal. If I was Beazley, I would be hoping that one of the AWB Directors was a cross-dresser, because there is nothing the media loves more than a salacious scandal involving sex. That is the political version of Brad leaving Jennifer for Angelina.

cam

Amanda Vanstone attempts to reconcile all the inherent contradictions in conservative nationalism with the simple test case of what song to play. She ends up looking foolish.

It is not her fault. The ideology she is following is unsustainable due to its inconsistency. Nationalism is predicated on exceptionalism but the nostalgia for British heritage and anglospheric power means conservative nationalism as practiced in Australia is undercut by subservience.

Exceptionalism fails it in the constitutional system, the heraldry and protocols, as well as defence and foreign policy. That leaves the only areas that Australia can practice exceptionalism in is immigration and citizenship.

Howard, Costello and Vanstone have that area cornered.