quadrant.org.auquadrant.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/quadrant-text... · 2018. 11. 15. ·...

May2015No.516VolumeLix,Number5

Letters 2 Mike Fogarty, Frank Long, Matthew Arkapaw, Shan Stevens, Derek Allan, L. Peter Ryan

Chronicle 5 John O’Sullivan guestcolumn 7 Barry Maley law 9 LosingFaithinDemocracyJeffrey Goldsworthy society 18 MustWeBlameSociology?Christie Davies politics 24 Budgets,BoreConsandtheDoctrineofDullnessRebecca Weisser 27 MalcolmFraser:ErrorsandMisconceptionsPhilip Ayres themiddleeast 32 WiserMenontheIranianDealDaryl McCann economics 35 TheUndoneTasksofDeregulationChris Berg bioethics 41 Eugenics,ReadyorNotFrank K. Salter history 52 The“BoatPeople”andthe1977Election(PartII)Hal G.P. Colebatch defence 60 AWell-AimedShotThatFellShortRoss Babbage firstperson 64 HowIBecameaPoliticalConservativeJohn Carroll art 70 BrianSewellandtheRiseofState-ApprovedArtGiles Auty music 74 SculthorpeRememberedR.J. Stove theatre 78 HumpbacksinLoveandOtherPlaysMichael Connor literature 82 TheWorldaNewLeaf:D.H.LawrenceonAustraliaDaniel O’Neil film 85 TudorFilmNoirbyCandlelightNeil McDonald stories 88 SomebodySean O’Leary 94 WellingtonValleyBob Wright books 98 One of Us byÅsneSeierstad;UtøyabyLaurentObertoneAnthony Daniels 102 The Children Act byIanMcEwanAlan Gould 104 Anzac’s Long ShadowbyJamesBrownRobert Murray 106 Ludwig Wittgenstein editedbyMichaelNedoIain Bamforth 108 This Tattooed Land byDerekParker;The Digital ApocalypsebyDavid

GrovesGeorge Thomas guestcolumn 111 Jenny Stewart Poetry 23:WaitingfortheWoodman;FiveFineFrogsRod Usher;31:Service

RecordsElisabeth Wentworth;GraceRod Usher;40:ThirdPartySelfiePeter Jeffrey;51:ReflectionKen Stone;59:IXHaikuGary Hotham;Hog;ItGotLostSaxby Pridmore;63:SoIfYouKnowMyInmostAlan Gould;68:AmongtheLeavesPaul Williamson;69:OnBraveryElisabeth Wentworth;KrankyPeter Jeffrey;73:InstructionsMyra Schneider;76:ASatisfyingAnswerImmanuel Suttner;77:AttheSheridanFoodPub;WindKnute Skinner;TheDawningofSadnessC.R. McArthur;87:TheSwedeMyra Schneider;110:TheCloseDistancePaul Williamson

QuadrantMay20152

Le t ters

Sir Paul HasluckSIR: Philip Ayres has written aperceptive review of GeoffreyBolton’s biography of Sir PaulHasluck (April 2015). HavingattendedtheCanberrabooklaunchin December, and on reading thebook thoroughly, I concur withyour reviewer. The launch had acertain piquancy as it was distin-guished by the presence of theGovernor-General, General SirPeter Cosgrove, who gave morethan official authority to the pro-ceedings. Sir Peter served as ajunioraide-de-camptoSirPaulin1972.

As a former diplomat, I havekept akeen interest in thehistoryof Australian diplomacy. TheNationalArchiveshavesurrenderedmany off icial documents onHasluckwhichexplainhispoliticalpsychology and his relationships(personal and off icial) withsome key players in the nascentDepartmentofExternalAffairs.

Arthur Tange served withPaul Hasluck in the period.Hasluck betrayed Tange overa trivial function of diplomaticrepresentation. Tange trumpedHasluck when he was appointedas thesecretaryof thedepartmentin 1954. Sir Arthur, as he soonbecame,probablystayedtoolongatthehelm.HavingbeenadiplomatinaformativeperiodofAustralia’spolitical history, Hasluck thenassertedhisauthorityoverhisnewdepartment.HisanimositytowardsTangehadnotabated.Bothprovedobdurate. Hasluck ’s weaknesswas in governance, for he resistedteam-building which might haveadvanced his claims for real lead-ership. He neglected to foster anyworkablerelationshipwithTange.

Hasluck controlled ExternalAffairs from a distance and arro-gated the sole authority to speak

for and of the department. Indoing so, he stifled initiative andhis dead hand alienated many ofhis officers. Hasluck monitoredpublicopinionandinterferedwithhis department’s ability to shapeandinfluencediplomacy.Yetpara-doxically,hecouldbeawarmandkindly fatherly figure. One seniordiplomat remembers him withaffection,forhisbenignside,find-ing him considerate, appreciativeof briefings and effective. In con-trast, another officer who workedfor Hasluck found the experiencediminishing.

His official gate-keeper, thelate Ellestan Dusting, assumed aconduit role in any communica-tions. She was appointed for herpersonalloyaltytoHasluck,ratherthansupportingthewiderinterestsofExternalAffairs.Tangeresentedthis off-hand treatment because itdemeanedhisauthorityandstatusasaseniormandarin.Forhisimpla-cabledefenceofthisremit,hesoonfell out.Tange earnedhis passageto India for a five-year exile. Hisreplacement, Sir James Plimsoll(Jim the likeable), was an oblig-ingandcharmingspiritwhoisstillremembered for his consummatediplomacy.YetheturnedouttobetheantithesisofTange, inthathewasanunreflectiveadministrator.

Paul Hasluck was captive tohis odd personality. At times hecould be over-sensitive, aloof,arrogant, petty, vengeful, hyper-criticalandinflatedwithasenseofself-importance that a more con-fident man or woman might havesubdued.Self-conscious to a fault,he was obsessed with his place inhistoryanddidhisbest towhittledown his putative parliamentarycolleagues who did not equal hisperceived intellectual command.His churlish pen portraits, pub-lished posthumously in 1997, The Chance of Politics, demonstratedinherentcharacterflaws—hecouldbe uncharitable and small-mindedwhenhewasonthecuspofbeingastatesman.

Edi tor

JohnO’[email protected]

Li t Er a ry Edi tor

LesMurray

dEpu t y Edi tor

GeorgeThomas

Con t r ibu t i ng Edi tor s

Books: PeterColemanFilm: NeilMcDonaldTheatre: MichaelConnor

CoLu m n is t

PeterRyan

Edi tor, Qua dr a n t on Li n E

[email protected]

Edi tor-i n-ChiEf

KeithWindschuttle

Subscriptions

Phone:(03)83178147Fax:(03)93209065Post:QuadrantMagazine,LockedBag1235,NorthMelbourneVIC3051E-mail:quadrantmagazine@ data.com.au

Publisher

Quadrant (ISSN0033-5002)ispublishedtentimesayearbyQuadrantMagazineLimited,Suite2/5RoseberyPlace,BalmainNSW2041,AustraliaACN133708424

Production

DesignConsultant:RenoDesignArt Director:GrahamRendoth

Printer: LigarePtyLtd138–152BondsRoad,RiverwoodNSW2210

Cover:ColoursofAustralia“Eucalypt”

www.quadrant.org.au

QuadrantMay2015 3

He lacked an ability to engen-deraffectionandfeltthatmeritwasitsownreward.Fellowpartymem-berscouldonlyagreewithhimforhis perceived lack of it, and didnot regard him as an appropriatesuccessor on Harold Holt’s death.Colleagues had to be courted andobliged,whereasHasluck felt thatthis was an unseemly activity tobeavoided.JohnGortonpresided,winningtheleadership.Australianscan be thankful that Hasluck,along with not a few other politi-cians, was denied the prime min-istershipwhich,forhisinsecuritiesanddiffidence,hewouldhavebeenpoorlyequipped.

Remember him as one of thefinest to assume the titular andfunctional position at Yarralumla,where he could enjoy the pompand circumstance it afforded. Hehadarefinedsenseofprotocolandassumed and exemplified the dig-nitywhichisexpectedinanyvice-regalrole.

Does this critique seem toocritical?GeoffreyBoltonhasgiftedus ameasured testimonyof a sto-riedandinfluentialfigure.Hasluckhasbequeathedanenduringlegacywhich rises above my ungeneroustribute.His assured stature, ifnotstatue, dwarfs us. Sir Paul, this isanother pen portrait of yourself.Historywoulddemandnoless.

Mike Fogarty Weston, ACT

On Two WritersSIR: IhavebeentakingQuadrantforanumberofyearsandhavefre-quentlydistributedarticles thereintomyfamilyandfriends.Theissueof April 2015 is very disappoint-ing. The story titled “Love” byBradJackelendswithanexcellentlast paragraph about fatherly love.However,onehastowadethroughpagesoffoullanguageforwhichitis impossible to see any good rea-son. In most cases, fathers do notspeak to their sons in that way

becausetheyarehopefulthattheymayturnoutbetterthanthefather.ForMrJackelitshowsaninabilityto express himself except by thatverythird-ratemeans.

The review by Philip Ayres ofthebookPaul Hasluck byGeoffreyBolton is also a disappointment.It is not difficult to see the anglefrom which Mr Ayres is viewingthebook.Earlyonhe states: “Hisparents were in the SalvationArmy,anunpromisingbackground…” which would seem to expressMr Ayres’s views rather thanthose of the thousands of people,including servicemen during thewar, who have been cared for bytheSalvationArmy.

He quotes Hasluck ’s viewson Molotov: “He is easily theoutstanding person of theconference, in fact the mostimpressive figure I have met—Churchill or the King or anyoneelse included.”A little later in theparagraphAyressays,“butwhydidHasluckput‘theKing’inthere?Aniceguy,but...”Whateveronemaythinkofkings,anditisnothardtoimagine what Philip Ayres thinksofthem,theyarestillimpressivebytheirrankifbynothingelse.

In regard to Mr Ayres’scontribution it is just a matterof making sure not to read anyfurtherwritingsofhisinQuadrant.However,inregardtoMrJackel,Ifeel thatanotherarticlebyhimoranyoneelseusingsuchobjectionablelanguage will result in my notrenewingmysubscription.

Frank Long Mawson, ACT

Religion in Public LifeSIR: I write regarding AnthonyO’Hear’sarticle“ReligioninPublicLife” (March 2015). I don’t knowwhat the professor’s own religiousconvictions are, but his treatmentofChristianity,anditsrelationshiptothestate,hadawisdom,histori-calawarenessandsympathythatis

rareinsuchdiscussions.Hiswarn-ingstoboth,aboutthewayadesiretoeradicatetheotherwillactuallycompromise the essence of each,areprescient.Asaclergymanintheconservative Protestant traditionI felt respected, and respectfullychallenged, by Professor O’Hear’ssuperbarticle.Ithankyou.

Matthew Arkapaw Riverwood, NSW

The Quadrant Line-UpSIR: Are you aware of the male-dominated top-down layout ofyour read? From the Editor,Literary Editor, Deputy Editor,Contributing Editors, Columniststo the Editor-in-Chief—all aremale.Oftheforty-sixauthorswhocontributedtotheMarch2015edi-tion,onlysixarefemale,andacou-plehavenamesthatdonotlabelagender. And astonishingly, all let-terstotheeditorarefrommen.

What does this tell us aboutQuadrant and its perceptions ofthe world around it? CatharineA. MacKinnon, in her analysisof the Universal Declaration ofHumanRights,titled“AreWomenHuman?”, notes that Article 1 ofthe Declaration encourages us to“acttowardsoneanotherinaspiritof brotherhood” and questionswhether or not women must bemenbeforeitsspiritincludesthem.

Tothisday,womenenterhumansociety assigned roles that havealreadybeendrafted.Aswegrow,womenhavetolearntheintricaciesoftheserolesinordertobeabletounderstandhowothers respond tous and how our response to themwillbeconstrued.Andso,womenbecome a product of their sur-roundings.Manywomenputtheirdreamsandaspirationsonthebackburnerinordertobirthandnurturechildren, and to allow their malepartnertocontinuehispatriarchalrole in the family unit. Certainlythere are women happy with thisrole, but what of the women who

Letters

QuadrantMay20154

Letters

arenot?Societyneedsfullyfunc-tioningandautonomouswomeninordertocreateafuturegeneration.Manywomen’sdreamsandaspira-tions lie unfulfilled because theychoose not to have a voice, strug-gletofindtheirwaybackintotheirdreams and aspirations, but mostimportantly, their structural socialsurroundings do not allow themtodoso.Womenneedfullhumanstatusinsocialreality.

Is Quadrant fostering such astructural social surrounding? Oris it living in ignorant bliss? Orarewomenreallythatabsentfromthispartoflife?ItishardtoseeinQuadrantthevisionofhumanityinawoman’sface.

Shan Stevens Hong Kong

André MalrauxSIR: I refer to the article in yourApril issue on Simon Leys byAnthonyDaniels.Danielsrepeats,apparently with approval, Leys’sclaimthatMalrauxwasa“phoney”.I amvery familiarwithMalraux’slife and work and, in my view,Leys’sassessmentisnonsense.

Daniels’s comments are, as faras I can tell, based on the essayon Malraux in Leys’s recent bookThe Hall of Uselessness.Leys’s essayincludes no discussion whatsoeverofMalraux’sworksbutreliesinsteadoncherry-pickedcommentsfromasmall number of selected second-arysources—allofwhich,predict-ably,arehostile(and,Ishouldadd,mostly out of date). Despite thereputation for reliable scholarshipthat Leys seems to have attractedinsomequarters,hisessayisinfactanexcellentexampleofpoorschol-

arship. Daniels claims that Leysprovidesa“reasoned,informedandirrefutabledestructionofMalraux’sreputation”.Nothingcouldbe far-therfromthetruth.

Malraux led an amazing lifewhich included active involvementin the anti-Fascist Popular Frontin the 1930s, combat on the sideof theRepublicans in theSpanishCivilWar,servicewiththeFrencharmy in the Second World War,participationintheResistance,andaveryactiveperiodasFrance’sfirstMinisterforCulturalAffairsinthepost-war years.His literaryoutputwas extraordinaryand includedLa Condition Humaine, which wonthePrixGoncourt, and a seriesofbrilliantwritings on the theory ofart suchasThe Voices of Silence.Hecontinues tobe regarded asoneofthe outstanding figures of Frenchtwentieth-centuryliteratureandarttheory. If Malraux was “phoney”,let’shavemanymorelikehim!

Derek Allan Canberra, ACT

Language StandardsSIR: Dr Robert Solomon’s“Lang uage: Evolut ion orRevolution” ( January-February2015)showsakeenearfor“Englishasshe isspoke”.It isatruismthat“assheisspoke”isnotsynonymouswith “as she is writ”, as the nownotorious pronunciation of hyper-bole as hyperbowl hilariouslyattests.Such howlers should not be tooharshly judged, since correct pro-nunciation stems fromhearing theword correctly pronounced in thefirstinstance,andtimeswerewhenone such arbiterwas “Aunty”.TheBBCacquiredthisnicknamefrom

the prudish “Aunty knows best”attitude it exhibited when its pre-senterswererigorouslyschooled incorrect grammar and pronuncia-tion,aswerethoseofitsAustraliancounterpart, which inherited thenickname.

When freedom of expressionsupplanted elitist pedantry it putan end to all that and modernpresentershaveloweredtheirsights.Now errors rooted in inheritedignorance abound as described byDrSolomon. Sopervasiveisitthatinthisveryjournal“begs”insteadof“raisesthequestion”canbefound.

Many a young televisionpresenter tends to mumble andbumble through ungrammaticalitems in a patois in which manyviewers, particularly in the oldercohort, are not fluent. Older andwell-trained readers meanwhilehave been transferred to radiowhere theirdiction stands in starkcontrast to callers and untrainedpresentersalike.

As Dr Solomon notes, theAmerican siren song can muddleour once distinctive lingo. Anold favourite is a good example.When a visiting GI inquired at ahotel receptiondesk, “Are you themanager?” to be answered, “No, Iam just a clerk,”he rejoined, “Youaclahk?Ahdon’thearyougoticktahk.”

L. Peter Ryan Clayfield, Qld

This project has been assisted by the Commonwealth Government through the Australia Council, its arts funding and advisory body.

Quadrant welcomes letters to the editor. Letters are subject

to editing unless writers stipulate otherwise.

QuadrantMay2015 5

We imagine we know everything thatWinston Churchill thought. He wrotevolumes of history, reminiscence and

currentcontroversy.Quotationsfromhimfillbook-casesofbooks.Someofthemarejustlytitled“TheWitandWisdomof...”Andbothhisbon motsandsolemngeopoliticalwarnings are littered through-outthewritingsofothers.SoitisapleasantsurprisetocomeacrossaChurchillquotationthat is fresh,memorable, and seemingly directed to our currentconcerns.

Such a quotation appears in the Winter issueof the American Interest in an article by ProfessorEliot Cohen, himself a distinguished historian,whoseworksincludeanimportantstudyofpoliticalleadership inwar.It is takenfromanaccountofa1935 luncheon-partydiscussionbythethenfamousAmericanforeigncorrespondentVincentSheean.ItshowsChurchill,relaxedbutcombative,respondingacrossthetabletocleverpeoplewhothoughthewasattachingtoomuchweight toMussolini’s invasionofEthiopia.Hedemurred:theproblemwasneitherItalynorEthiopia.

“It’snotthethingweobjectto,”hesaid,“it’sthekind ofthing.”

WhenaskedbyhisshrewdhostessiftheBritishhad not committed the kind of thing many timesbefore,Churchill responded thatBritainhaddoneso in “an unregenerate past”. But since the GreatWar a large fabric of international law had beenestablished to restrain nations from infringing oneachother’srights.Thatwasnowatrisk:

IntryingtoupsettheempireofEthiopia,Mussoliniismakingamostdangerousandfoolhardyattackuponthewholeestablishedstructure,andtheresultsofsuchanattackarequiteincalculable.Whoistosaywhatwillbecomeofitinayear,ortwo,orthree?WithGermanyarmingatbreakneckspeed,Englandlostinapacifistdream,Francecorruptandtornbydissension,Americaremoteandindifferent—Madame,mydearlady,doyounottrembleforyourchildren?

Churchill’s prescience was, as always, remark-able: what followed was the Second World War.WhetherornotthechildrenofChurchill’shostesswereamongitsvictims,Mussoliniendeduphang-ingupsidedowninaMilanpiazza.

Like Churchill, however, Professor Cohen islessconcernedwiththethingthanwiththekind ofthing—inhiscasenotsomuchPutin’sde factoinva-sion of Ukraine as its impact upon the post-ColdWarstructureofinternationalorder.Whatevertherights and wrongs, or risks and gains, of NATOexpansion, the Soviet-era transfer of Crimea toUkraine, and the Maidan revolution, the rules ofinternationallifeclearlyprohibitsubverting,invad-ing,occupyingandultimatelyeitherconqueringordismembering a sovereign state. Such actions are“thekind ofthing”thatsignalawiderbreakdownincivilised international conductand increased inse-curityforallstates.

Ukraineisaparticularlyinstructiveexampleofthiskindofthingbecauseitssovereigntyandbor-ders were guaranteed in the Budapest Treaty byRussia,theUnitedStatesandtheUnitedKingdomin return for its handover of nuclear weapons. Ineffect Ukraine decided to entrust its security tointernational law rather than to its own mili-tary resources.But international law is in the enddependent upon the decisions of sovereign statestoobserve,supportandevenimplementit.EvenifRussiahadlegitimateclaimstoCrimeaorinsomewider“sphereofinfluence”—whichishighlydubi-ous—ithadacceptedadutytosettlesuchclaimsbypeacefulmeans.Asweknow,however,RussiauseditssovereignpowertooverridesuchlawbyinvadingUkraine.Whatofotherstates?

In the last two decades, especially since the USinvasion of Iraq, there has supposedly been a

semi-philosophical division in the West on atti-tudes to international order. Americans were saidtobeHobbesiansfromMars,EuropeansKantiansfromVenus; theformerreliedonmilitary forcetoprotectboththeirinterestsandinternationalorder;thelatterplacedtheirtrustinlawandultimatelyin

C h r o n i C L e

John o’suLLivan

Quadrant May 20156

chronicle

non-military sanctions. This contrast was drawn too simply and too

harshly—Kant should not be blamed for European foreign policy, and the eminent Hobbes scholar Noel Malcolm points out that Hobbes was not especially tough-minded in his remarks on foreign relations—but it was not entirely false. In the writ-ings of the two principal theorists, Robert Kagan (for the Hobbesians) and Robert Cooper (for the Kantians), it was presented clearly and its implica-tions worked out persuasively. My own sympathies are largely with the Hobbesians. But a common-sense reconciliation of the two attitudes might be that the Kantians are the first line of defence against aggression, subversion and other international vio-lations and the Hobbesians are the fall-back team that takes over against recalcitrant violators.

Neither team has covered itself with glory in the Ukraine crisis. The Hobbesian United States, though committed by its Budapest signature to defend Ukrainian sovereignty, has yet to decide on something as elementary as whether to provide Ukrainian forces with lethal weaponry. That may be attributable to the fact that the Obama admin-istration is a largely Kantian one, as its policy on Iran among other issues demonstrates. If so, it would reveal a serious fissure in the theory: if the Hobbesians can’t be relied upon to save the Kantians’ bacon, then the latter must show that their non-lethal weaponry alone is effective against formida-ble opponents whether Hobbesian or Kantian.

Their record so far is more than disappoint-ing—but in an unexpected way. Economic sanc-tions, which have been imposed by both the US and European Union governments, are proving more effective than observers thought likely from earlier crises. In part that is because the formal sanctions have been augmented by a fortuitous collapse in the price of oil—together they are inflicting real pain on the Russian economy. But it is also because the US government, international banks and interna-tional agencies have developed sophisticated finan-cial sanctions that impose heavy costs on both the violator-state and on “targeted” individuals and companies within it. Given time such sanctions might well work; they are a serious disincentive to any ruler contemplating aggression; and in the case of Iran, they are overwhelmingly the reason why the Iranian government has come to the negotiat-ing table.

If sanctions can be effective, then, why are they disappointing and even fragile? The answer is that very few nations want to impose them, to main-tain them once imposed, or to return to them once lifted—and Kantian-minded nations (which should be the most willing to impose them) are more reluc-

tant to do so than others. Sanctions disrupt trade, as they are intended to do, and make the nations imposing them poorer too, which is not intentional but happens to be their inevitable consequence.

Democratic republics from Ireland to Romania have a free press, open debate and disagree-

ments about every issue; authoritarian states con-trol their media and, in the case of Russia, whip up their populace to a hyper-nationalist frenzy in which their nation plays the role of eternal victim. Commercial republics such as modern Germany (or pre-1940 Britain) are risk-averse, driven by economic imperatives, and have a tendency towards pacifism; despotic states are driven by imperatives of power and regime stability, over-arm themselves, and take calculated risks. It is not hard to understand why despotic regimes might sometimes attack vulner-able states and outlast democracies over sanctions.

Here is the great Kantian self-contradiction: the risk-aversion that prompts European states to prefer lawfare over warfare also prompts them to ignore or paper over violations of law if it seems likely to lead to conflict or economic downturns. When Russia occupied Georgia—which was a kind of low-budget trailer for the same kind of thing in Ukraine—President Sarkozy of France rushed to the Kremlin and, on behalf of the European Union, agreed on a compromise that left Russian troops occupying large parts of the country. Somehow Kantian respect for a peace based on law didn’t fig-ure in his calculations.

This no more means that Putin can sweep all before him than that Hitler could do so. For action prompts reaction, threats invite resistance—at least eventually. Twenty-two political leaders from Central and Eastern Europe, channelling Churchill, responded to the Russian occupation of Georgia with a letter to President Obama seek-ing America’s re-commitment to their region in 2009. That letter was attacked by former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and ignored by a US administration then naively entranced with a “Russian Re-Set” foreign policy. Ukrainians are fighting today for their country, and though resist-ing superior force with inferior weaponry, they show no sign of enduring either surrender or final defeat. And in this week’s diplomatic news there is an announcement by a coalition of Nordic and Baltic foreign ministers, some in NATO, some out-side it, that they are forming a defensive regional alliance. We can only guess how Putin’s gambit will turn out.

As Churchill could have told us, however, we should never wait too long before responding to the kind of thing.

QuadrantMay2015 7

It is said thatwithinhoursofbirthababywillrespond to a human face. Adults can instantlyrecognisehundredsoffaces.Aswemoveamong

other people we constantly study faces and reactto them. In any social interaction our gaze rarelymoves away from the face or faces in front of us.Andweareequallyself-consciousoftheeffectourownfacemaybehavingonothers.Ourfacesarethedoortoouridentity,thefirstroadtothepersonandmindbehindthatmobileandflexiblemaskofskinthatmaybethe instrumentofbothrevelationandconcealment.Itisthescreenonwhichouremotionsmaybe readandourmotivesguessed. It is canvasand billboard communicating an infinite varietyof messages to others. We never cease to wonderwhatothersaremakingofus.Theideaofafacelesshumansocietyisunthinkable.

Sothefacemaybeusedforallsortsofintentions;suchasattractingattention,oradmiration,orcuri-osity,orfriendship,ordisplayingenmityordisgust,and for a thousandother purposes. It is the silentcompanionofthevoiceineveryhumantransaction.

Atthesametime,wemaymakealterationstotheface,orconcealit,intheserviceofavarietyofinter-personaltransactionsandperformances.Weadornthefacewithcosmetics,or tattoos,ormoustaches,tobethoughtattractiveornoticeableinourdealingswithothers.Orwemayplaceamaskuponthefacetoprovokefearorrespectormysteryoradmiration,ortoconcealanidentityfornefariousreasons.Themaskedballisafestivalofteasingandcuriosity.Thegrotesquemasksofthe“MudMen”ofNewGuineamay provoke fear or demand attention. The robesandmasksoftheKuKluxKlanaredesignedtoter-roriseandachievecriminalanonymity.

Butinalmostallcases,theelaboration,alterationor concealment of the face and individual identityoccurs in a social setting and to achieve a socialend—whether for entertainment and amusement,orfortrivialorseriousorgoodorbadpurposes,ortoannouncevariouspieties,beliefsandcustoms.

In his recent book The Soul of the World, thephilosopher Roger Scruton draws attention to theimportance of the human face in making contact

withotherpersonsand,insodoing,toexpressandexpandourcommonhumanity.Andheadds:

Eachhumanobjectisalsoasubject,addressingusinlooks,gesturesandwords...Ourresponsestoothersaimtowardsthathorizon,passingonbeyondthebodytothebeingthatitincarnates.

The ordinary human impulse in a meeting is“face to face”, as the essential preliminary to anydeeperengagement.The“exchangeof faces”, so tospeak,istheessentialprecursorandvehicleofinter-actionwithotherhumanbeings,withpersons,andisthusthefoundationofcivilinteraction.

Curiosity about faces and reacting to them isroutinebehaviour in anopen,democratic and lib-eralcountry.InAustralia,sociallifeisaccompaniedby an enviable public egalitarianism of mannersandeaseofengagementwithothersthatproclaimsmutualrespect,irrespectiveofstatus.Itisakindofpublicandprivateopennessandfellow-feelingthatwerightlycherishbecauseitoilsthewheelsofdeal-ingswitheachother.Wevalueitasamoraleleva-tionofourwayoflife.

It is not surprising, therefore, that a great manyAustralians seem to be profoundly disconcerted

by the burka and the concealment of the faces ofthose women who wear it in public. For mostAustralians, I suspect, the practice is seen as adirectdenialandcriticismoftheopennessandface-to-face engagement we expect as appropriate andestablishedconduct.Theblackcloththatobliteratesthespacewherethefaceshouldbesendsamessageof denial, separation and rejection. In effect, theperson behind the mask declares (or is obliged todeclare) that she is unavailable as a normal publicentity;thatsheisasocialneuterwithwomanhoodblackedout,suppressedanddemeaned.Theburkaisthusanimplicit“slapintheface”fromoneculturetoanother.

Thispracticeisnotanindividualeccentricity.Itisfoundedinlong-standingcustomwhich,consciously

g u e s t C o L u m n

barry maLEy

QuadrantMay20158

guestcolumn

soughtornot, achieves certainpublic andculturaleffects,aswellasaffecting the livesof thewomenwhosubscribe,whethertheydosowillinglyornot.

If I am correct that disconcertment, and evenrevulsion,arecommonAustralianreactions,shouldthey be dismissed as irrational and intolerant?Shouldwegritour teeth, “getover it” andopt fortoleration?Thatseemstobethepolitical response.But should the issue rest there? Is thequestion soimportantthatitshouldbepursued,andifso,whyandhow?Thefactisthatitconfrontsuswithatestofmulticulturalismandhowfaritshouldbetaken.

Theimpulsetotolerate,to“takeiteasy”andcalmdown is a strong instinct amongst us and inmostcases a valuable support of stability, public orderand common sense. But there are occasions whento“tolerate”maybetoacquiesceinthe steady erosion of a valued wayoflifeandtheappropriateresponseistoresistit.

An established polity has a justclaimtoprotectitswayoflife.

Gender equality and face-to-faceexchanges are integral and vitalelements in our civil life. It is notunreasonable to expect newcomerswhohavechosentojoinustoforgopractices and customs, especiallythose of a retrograde and publickind, that significantly challengeestablished conduct and seek toundercut our way of life. Thequestioniswhetherthepublicburkarepresentssuchachallengeand,ifitdoes,whatshouldbedoneaboutit.

The burka is a signif icantchallenge, and it is a justifiable objective, withinthe law, to seek to “restore the face” and to revealthe citizen and the person by urging the removalofthemaskfrompublicinteractioninthiscountry.Thisisnotacallforbanningtheburka.Thatwouldbe severe, authoritarian and disproportionate. Itis a task not for formal law but for civil society;for reasoned criticism but not for harassment; forpeaceful expressions of dismay and disapproval;for open discussion anddebate. In short, for non-violenceandsteadyargumentanddiscoursewithinourtraditionoffreespeech.

Toretreat,tostaysilent,istoacquiesce.Todiscussis to take thewideandcivilised road to thrashingoutmutualaccommodationsandcompromisesthatmay promote public order and a common culture.Discussionmayberevelatorytoallpartiesandopenup discoveries, truths and opportunities for formsof agreement that might otherwise lie hidden.

Nor should we shrink in the face of seeminglyimplacableopposition,butpersist ifwebelievethecaseisjustified.

This means, so far as the public burka is con-cerned, that one is obliged to marshal the argu-ments favouring its disappearance from the publicspaceand,aboveall, toremaincivil indoingso.Ihavesuggestedsomedirections thatsuchanargu-mentmighttake.

Yetproblemsremainindoingso.Weareinthemiddleofacrucialargumentaboutthescopeoffreespeechinthiscountry,andthecallfrommanycor-nersistolimititbyavoiding“offence”toothers—inthis case,offence toMuslims.Perhaps therecouldbealegalargumentthattocriticisethepublicburkais to cause offence under the terms of section 18C

of the Racial Discrimination Act.Although religion is not an issueunder the Act, it might be argu-able that the burka could be cov-eredunder theheadingof “ethnic”or“national”originwithintheActand that criticism of it is offensiveand unlawful. On the other hand,the course being suggested here isone of “reasonableness and goodfaith”;measures thatwouldappeartobewelcomedwithinthetermsoftheAct,andbeasufficientdefencetoachargeundertheAct.Butonecanneverbesure.

What is blindingly obvious,however, is that to have to museand wonder in this fashion aboutfreedom of speech in this countryis unconscionable. We should beashamedofourselvesandthepoli-

ticiansthathaveplacedusinthispositionthroughthe laws they have made. The course of events ismakingmockeryofthecommonviewthatwehavebeenextremelycleverinthiscountryinthewayinwhichgovernmenthashandledimmigrationandthecreationofahugelysuccessfulmulticulturalcountryfreeoffriction,liberalandharmoniouslycohesive.

Barry Maley is a former academic who has published widely on issues of social policy.

The burka is a significant challenge, and it is a justifiable

objective, within the law, to seek to

“restore the face” and to reveal the citizen and the person by

urging the removal of the mask from public interaction in this country.

Peter Coleman regrets that he is unable to continue his Quodlibet column for the time being. We thank

him for his contributions, and trust that he will write for Quadrant again before too long.

Quadrant May 2015 9

For a considerable time, judicial power in Britain has been expanding at the expense of legislative and executive powers, and promises

to continue to do so. But if this is to continue—and there are powerful reasons why it should not—it should be brought about not just by changes in the thinking of legal elites such as academics and judges, but with the understanding and assent of the public, or at least of those elected to represent the public. Furthermore, they must possess the knowledge needed to decide whether to assent to or oppose the change. This lecture is intended to pro-vide some of that knowledge, by describing recent developments, and setting them within a broader philosophical and comparative context. This should be of interest elsewhere in the Anglosphere, wher-ever parliamentary government and the common law have grown from the same British stock.

While I will sometimes be critical of judges expanding their own powers, I do not intend to impugn their motives. Decisions that have expanded judicial power have always been motivated by the laudable goal of promoting justice or the rule of law, and often with success. The philosophical and political issues I will discuss are difficult ones, about which well-informed and reasonable minds can and do disagree. On the other hand, it is this very fact—the existence of reasonable disagree-ment—that underpins the case for substantial con-stitutional change being brought about only through democratic reforms, and not by unilateral judicial innovation.

Parliament’s traditional role

The British constitution—which is uncodi-fied and fundamentally customary—rests on

the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. After sometimes violent political conflicts, and for many reasons, by the end of the seventeenth century Parliament had come to be entrusted with ultimate responsibility for safeguarding the welfare of the

community, including the rights and freedoms of the people. For centuries it was commonly said that only in Parliament could all the diverse and con-flicting opinions and interests within the commu-nity be properly heard and brought to bear upon public decision-making. It was often said, starting in the early thirteenth century, that Parliament represented and spoke for “the community of the kingdom”—“the body of all the realm”. It was described in the sixteenth century as “the mouth of all England”.

This long-standing rationale for Parliament’s sovereignty pre-dated, but was fortified by, the establishment of democracy in the modern sense in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was also frequently said to follow that Parliament embodied the combined wisdom of the commu-nity, which was necessarily superior to that of any other human authority. Parliament was the princi-pal guardian of the liberties of the community—the “storehouse of our liberties” and “the bulwark” between rights and “all designs of oppression”.

In a recent paper Dinah Rose QC claims that Sir William Blackstone “clearly spelt out” the concept of “absolute”, “fundamental common law rights” of which the courts were “the supreme arbiters”. With respect, I believe that this is a misreading. The “absolute rights” that Blackstone discussed were rights given “by the immutable laws of nature”, although he added that they were “coeval with our form of government”, in which Parliament was sovereign. As he said, “[t]o preserve these [rights] from violation, it is necessary that the constitu-tion of parliament be supported in its full vigour”. He listed many petitions, statutes and declarations in which Parliament had reasserted the rights of Englishmen when they had been threatened. It is true that he regarded these rights as embodied in “the ancient doctrine of the common law”, which the courts played a crucial role in enforcing, but his understanding of the common law as immemo-rial custom was quite different from our modern

Jeffr ey Goldsworth y

Losing Faith in DemocracyWhy Judicial Supremacy is Rising,

and What to Do about It

QuadrantMay201510

LosingFaithinDemocracy

notion of judge-made law. He also acknowledgedParliament’s supreme power to declare what thecommonlawwas,andtoreformthelawtoaccom-modatechangesincircumstancesortocorrect“themistakes ... of unlearned judges”. Parliament was,afterall,regardedforcenturiesasthehighestcourtinthekingdomfromwhichnoappealwaspossible.

the expansion of judicial review

The principle of legislative supremacy was notunique to Britain. Until after the Second

World War, judicial enforcement of written con-stitutions was relatively unknown in most of theworld. But we now live in a very different worldinwhich,toquoteaneminentconstitutionalcom-parativist,“FromFrancetoSouthAfricatoIsrael,parliamentarysovereigntyhasfadedaway.”In1939only a handful of countries had judicial reviewunder a written constitution; in 1951, 38 per centhad adopted it; by 2011 that number had grownto 83 per cent. This extraordinary transformationofmethodsofgovernancearoundtheglobeisnowbeing studied by constitutional comparativistsand political scientists. It is the subject of bookswith titles suchasThe Global Expansion of Judicial Power, The Judicialization of Politics, and Towards Juristocracy.

This phenomenon is often called the “rightsrevolution”. As one leading scholar puts it: “Intoday’sworld,theideologyofrightshas,arguably,achievedthestatusofacivicreligion.”Theancientideathatthelegitimacyofgovernmentdependsonconformitytoa“higherlaw”remains,butforthosewho no longer believe in the law of nature or ofGod, this higher law is the law of human rights.Moreover, we are witnessing a global conversa-tionaboutrightsamongjudgesofapexcourts,whoincreasingly meet at conferences, share ideas, andciteandsometimesfollowoneanother’sjudgments.Somescholarsenvisagetheeventualemergenceofahomogenisedglobalconstitutional law.It isalsosuggestedthatthisisbeingpropelledbyaconstant“ratchetingup”process,inwhichcourtsoutdooneanother in discovering new rights and expandingexistingones.ThedecisionoftheUnitedKingdomSupremeCourtintherecentcaseofR (Nicklinson) v Secretary of State,onassistedsuicide,maybeafirststepinthatdirection.TheCourtheldthatithasthepowertoadoptamoreexpansiveinterpretationofaprotectedrightthanthatadoptedbytheEuropeanCourtinStrasbourg.

One common method of “upping the ante” inrights protection is to adopt a theory of interpre-tation commonly called “living constitutionalism”.Themostextremeversionofthistheoryholdsthat

judges are not limited to the original meaning ofaconstitutionalorrightsprovision,butcangiveita new, more expansive meaning that they believeis more consistent with evolving social values. Inthiswaythejudges,ineffect,amendtheprovisionto keep it “up to date”, although the only author-itytheyhavetodosoisaself-conferredone.LordSumptionrecentlycriticisedtheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsforfollowingthisapproach.

Thesedevelopmentsamount toaconstitutionalexperiment on a global scale. They raise the dan-gerofdemocraticdecision-makingbeingsubjecttooverridenotonlybylocaljudges,butbyreferencetoaglobaljudicialconsensusaboutrights.

Judicialpower,includingpowertoprotectrights,hasexpandedmassivelyinBritishlaw,asaresultofbothjudicialcreativityandlegislativereform.Sincethe1960s,thejudiciaryhascontinuouslyexpandedthe availability and grounds of judicial review ofadministrative acts. A distinction was tradition-allydrawnbetweenenforcingthelegalboundarieswithin which the administration exercises discre-tionarypowers,and interferingwith themeritsofthe administration’s decisions inside thosebound-aries. The role of the judiciary was to hold firmthe legal boundaries, but not to intrude into themeritsofadecision: theexecutivewas responsibleonlytoParliamentandtheelectoratefordecisionsthat were lawful but arguably unfair or unwise.However,judgeswereabletoshiftthelegalbound-aries within which decisions could be made, andthey did so regularly and usually so as to expandtheirownpowersofreview.Eventually,theortho-dox theory that they were merely enforcing legallimits imposed (expressly or impliedly) by statutecame to be seen as implausible, and was replacedbythetheorythattheywereinfactenforcinglimitsimposedby thecommon law—or, inotherwords,bythejudgesthemselves,sincetheymakethecom-monlaw.

Averylimitedformofmeritsreviewwasallowedonthegroundthatanadministrativedecisionwasso unreasonable that no reasonable person couldpossibly have made it. Increased judicial concernabout human rights led to the relaxation of thisstandard: iteventuallycametobeacceptedthat ifadecision impactedona right, it shouldbegivenmore “anxious scrutiny”, whereby a less extremedegreeofunreasonablenesswouldjustifyoverturn-ing thedecision.By thisandothermeans judicialinterference with administrative decision-makingcontinuedtoexpand,wellbeyondwhat ispermis-sible in Australia, where review of the merits ofadministrativedecisionsisstillregardedascontrarytotheseparationofjudicialandexecutivepowers.

Judicial review was further expanded in the

QuadrantMay2015 11


UnitedKingdomby the enactment in 1998of theHumanRightsAct(HRA),whichrequiresallpublicbodiestoactconsistentlywithprotectedrightsandauthorises the courts to invalidate decisions thattheybelieve arenot consistent. Judicial reviewonthisgroundseemsclearlytoconcernthemeritsofadecision.ThomasPooleoftheLondonSchoolofEconomics is of the opinion that the HRA maybe “the catalyst for ... a reformation of Englishadministrativelaw”,which“couldmeanthatcourtsineffectremake—anddosoquiteopenly—agencydecisions”.Whetherornotthisoccurswilldependon the outcome of a debate as to whether or notthe judges should sometimes choose to “defer” toadministrativedecision-makers,and if soonwhatgrounds. Some legal academicsare resolutely opposed to thatpossibility when human rights areatstake.

There is much to admirein modern administrative law,althoughthecontinuingexpansionofjudicialreviewmaynowbegoingtoo far. As Professor TimothyEndicott at the University ofOxford concludes, the expansionofjudicialreviewofadministrativeaction has improved the fairnessand openness of administrativedecision-making, and emboldenedthejudgestostanduptoabusesofpower.Butontheotherhand,ithasgenerated a “massively expensivelitigation industry” and “occasionally” inspired “aformofjudicialimperialismasthejudgessuccumbto the temptationconstantlyoffered to them ... toreplaceadministrativedecisionswithdecisionsthat[they]thinkwouldhavebeenbetter”.

TheHRAalsogreatlyexpandedjudicialpowerover Parliament’s statutes, by requiring that thecourts interpret statutes as far aspossible so as tobe consistentwithprotected rights, and to issue adeclarationof incompatibility if this is impossible.Thecourts adopted a very expansive viewof theirpower of interpretation, holding that they mayin effect add words to or subtract them from aprovision, or otherwise change theirmeanings, tomaketheprovisionconsistentwithprotectedrights,eveniftheresult is inconsistentwiththemeaningParliamentintended.InAustralia,theHighCourthas expressly rejected this British approach onthe ground that it would violate the separationof powers by authorising judges (within limits) toamend statutes. In Britain the courts can, withsome plausibility, argue that Parliament intendedthe HRA to confer such a power upon them. It

follows that those opposed to this power shouldnotholdthejudgestobesolely,orevenmainly,toblame. If Parliament did intend to confer such awidepoweronthem, theyhavemerelydonetheirduty. If it did not intend to do so, it should havemadeitsintentionsmuchclearer.

Thepowertoissuedeclarationsofincompatibilityisalsoacauseforconcern.Itwasplainlyintendedto preserve parliamentary sovereignty by givingParliament the final word as to whether or not astatuteshouldbeamendedorrepealedinresponsetosuchadeclaration.Thecourtsweretoenterintoahelpful “dialogue”withParliamentbyprovidingit with a dispassionate analysis of compatibility,withoutbeingabletoimposetheiropinionsbyforce

of law. On this view, Parliamentshould feel free to disagree withthe courts, after carefully andconscientiously reconsidering thematter. Yet I understand that sofar, on only one occasion has adeclaration not been followedby remedial legislation. This hasinspired the claim that judicialreview under the HRA is almostequivalent to strong constitutionalreviewincountrieswithentrenchedconstitutions, because in practice,British courts exercise much thesame sway over legislation theyregardasincompatiblewithrights.Ifthisisso,andifitisproblematic,thenonceagainthisisthefaultof

thepoliticiansratherthanthejudges.The other major concern about the expansion

of judicialpowerconcerns theEuropeanCourtofHumanRights inStrasbourg.Here, too, if blameis tobe laid, it ismainlyat the feetof theBritishgovernment that ratified the treaty conferringpower on that court—no doubt thinking that itwould be directed at other less enlightened coun-triesandnotitsown—althoughtheCourtitselfiswidely regardedashavingconsistentlyadoptedanoverlycreativeandself-aggrandisinginterpretationofitsownpowers.Neitherthetreatynorthedeci-sionsoftheEuropeanCourtunderitformpartofBritish law: theyarebindingandenforceableonlyasamatterofinternationallaw,althoughtheincen-tivestocomplyareverypowerful.TheHRA,whichincorporatestherightsprotectedbythetreatyintoBritishlaw,requiresBritishjudgestotakedecisionsof theEuropeanCourt intoconsideration. Itdoesnot expressly require them to follow those deci-sions,althoughthereislivelydebateregardingtheextenttowhichtheyshouldfeelfreetotakeadif-ferentview.

Courts focus on the predicaments of the individual parties

appearing before them, but they are less well equipped to take into account the interests of other people who

may be affected by the laws in question.

QuadrantMay201512


The global expansion of judicial power

For many people these developments, here andglobally,aremerelythenextinevitableadvance

in theprogressiveevolutionof constitutionalism—atermreferring to the subjectionofgovernmentalpower at the highest level to the rule of law. Ontheir view, just as democracy came to be widelyadoptedbecauseitwasanindisputableimprovementonautocracy,sotoohasthejudicialenforcementofconstitutional rights spread because it is innatelysuperior to unchecked majoritarian democracy,whichisthoughttoendangertherightsofunpopu-larandvulnerableminorities.

Asanempiricalhypothesis,thisidealisticexpla-nation of the rights revolution is highly question-able.Socialscientistswhohaveexaminedtheglobalexpansion of judicial power have come to a lessflattering conclusion: the development has beendriven much more by domestic electoral competi-tionthanbygenuineidealism,whenpoliticaleliteswhoseinfluenceiswaningvestpowerinindepend-entcourts,hopingtoloadthediceinfavouroftheirpoliciesoverthoseoftheirpoliticalrivals.

Bethatasitmay,IbelievethatinmostWesterndemocracies the impetus towards the adoption ofbillsofrightshasbeenmotivatedlargelybyagen-uine commitment to protecting individual rightsfrom violations resulting from thoughtlessness, orpanderingtopopularprejudiceorhysteria.Respectforpoliticiansandthebusinessofpoliticsseemstohavedeclined.AsaSouthAfricanlawyeroncesaid,“the moral authority of the judiciary is expandinginto the space vacated by the contraction of themoralauthorityoftheexecutiveandthelegislature”.The global rights revolution has had an enormousinfluenceonlawyersinparticular.

Thedemocraticprocessisallegedtosufferfromavarietyofdefects:

• Westminster parliaments are widely regarded(rightlyorwrongly)astoosubservienttotheexecu-tivegovernmentsthatdominatetheirlowerhouses.Lord Hailsham’s famous description of “electivedictatorship”isstilloftenquoted.

•Therearesaidtobe“agencyproblems”:failuresofelectedrepresentativestofaithfullyrepresenttheinterests of their constituents.They are sometimessuspected of being unduly influenced by powerfulinterest groups, lobbying behind the scenes afterpurchasingprivilegedaccesstoministers.

• InBritain, thedemocraticcredentialsofgov-ernments and Parliament are questioned. VernonBogdanor argues that “the first past the post sys-temnolongeryieldsmajorityruleeitheratnationalnoratconstituencylevel”.Thisisbecausenosingle-partyelectedgovernmentislikelytorepresentmore

than35percentofthevoters,whiletheformationofamulti-partygovernmentisbasednotonadirectexpressionofmajoritypreference,butonpost-elec-tionwheelinganddealing.

• Conversely, politicians are sometimes criti-cised for being too subservient to public opinion.Theyaresometimesregardedasself-servingcareer-ists and populists who put winning and retainingpowerbeforerespectforhumanrights.InAustralia,forexample,veryharshtreatmentofasylumseekerswhoarrive,unauthorised,byboat—aparadigmcaseofavulnerableandunpopularminority—iswidelycondemned forbeingdrivenmainlyby adesire topandertopopularhysteria.

My impression is that in countries such asBritain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, asubstantialproportionofthetertiary-educated,pro-fessional class has lost faith in the ability of theirfellowcitizenstoformopinionsaboutpublicpolicyin a sufficiently intelligent, well-informed, dispas-sionate and carefully reasoned manner. They maybe attracted to the judicial enforcement of rightspartlybecauseitshiftspowertopeople(judges)whoarerepresentativemembersoftheirownclass,andwhoseeducationalattainments, intelligence,habitsofthoughtandprofessionalethosarethoughtmorelikelytoproduceenlighteneddecisions.

The obvious rejoinder is that the attraction ofjudiciallyenforceablerightsisduemuchmoretotheprocedures that judges followthan to thepersonalqualities of the judges. These procedures are saidtopromotemorethorough,impartialandcarefullyreasonedinquiriesintotheactualeffectsoflawsonthe flesh-and-blood individuals who come beforethecourts.

Of course there is something to this rejoinder,but Idonotfind it completely convincing.Courtsdofocusonthepredicamentsoftheindividualpar-ties appearing before them, but for that very rea-son,theyarelesswellequippedtotakeintoaccountrelevant interests of other people or groups whomay be affected by the laws in question. Also, ifthemainproblemisdeficienciesinthedeliberativeproceduresofelectedlegislatures,themostobviousremedy is to improve thoseprocedures topromotemore careful and well-informed decision-making.Judicial enforcement of rights would then becomea fall-back position, to be resorted to only if suchreformsareunsuccessful.

The impact of judicial rights review on democracy

Judicial reviewofconstitutionalitymaybehighlydesirable,orevenessential,topreservedemocracy,

theruleoflaw,andhumanrightsinmanycountries,

QuadrantMay2015 13


inwhichcorruption,populism,authoritarianismorbitterreligious,ethnicorclassconflictsarerife.Butinmature,stableandtolerantdemocracies,itisnotsoobviouslydesirable.Themainargumentagainstitisbasedonthefollowingpremises.

First,anyenumerationofrightsmustbecouchedintermsofabstractrightstofreespeech,dueprocessof law,equalitybefore the law,andsoon.Second,noabstractlystatedrightcanbeabsolute.Eventhemost fundamental right of all—the right to life—canbeover-ridden,as inself-defence.Theabstractrighttofreespeechissubjecttomanyexceptions,toprotectreputation,privacy,confidentiality,nationalsecurityandsoon.Third,itisimpossibletodecideinadvancehow,inparticularcases,abstractlystatedrights shouldbeweighed against competing rightsand interests. It follows that thepower of judges to interpret andenforcetheserightsisthepowertodecide a vastnumberof controver-sial questions of public policy, andinasystemofstrongjudicialreview,to substitute their decisions forthosereachedbylawmakerselectedtorepresentthepublic.Theseques-tions include virtually all seriousmoral and political issues likely toariseinsocietiessuchasours.

Whenacommunitymustdecideimportant questions—includingquestions of principle involvingrights—butitsmembersareindisa-greement,thefairestwayofsettlingthedisagreement is forunfettereddebate inwhichevery person’s opinion can, in principle, have anequal influenceon thefinal decision—whichmustthereforebebymajority vote. (Judgesdecidedisa-greementsamongthemselvesinthesameway.)Oneof the most fundamental of all rights is thereforetherightofordinarypeopletoparticipate,onequalterms, in thepoliticaldecision-making thataffectstheir livesasmuchasanyoneelse’s.Thisrightwashard won, through centuries of political struggle,andshouldnotreadilybesurrendered.

AsJeremyWaldronhasargued,thelargesizeoflegislaturesenablesallsignificantinterestsandopin-ionswithinthecommunitytocontributetodebate,ensuringthatnoneareoverlooked.Allparticipantsare treatedwithequal respect, rather than ignoredor shouteddown for being ignorant, prejudicedordishonest.Decision-makingbymajorityvoteistheonlywayofgivingeachindividual’sviewthegreat-estpossibleweightcompatiblewithanequalweightbeinggiventotheviewsofeveryoneelse.

Politicians, like the people they represent, areimperfect. They sometimes do the wrong thing,

including theoccasional enactmentof unjust laws.Butjustastheconsideredchoiceofamajoritymaybe wrong, so too may the opinions of a minority.And in the absence of any independent, objectivemethodofdeterminingwhoisright,itisbetterthatthemajorityshouldprevail.

Atthispoint,anadvocateofjudicialsupremacymightsay:butjudgesdonowhaveanindependent,objectivemethodofdeterminingwhoisright—themethod of proportionality analysis developed byrights-enforcingcourtsthroughouttheworld.

Tothosewhoareunfamiliarwiththeterm,pro-portionality analysis (ignoring different variants)involves:first,identifyingboththerightclaimedtobeinfringedbysomelegislativeorexecutiveact,andtheobjectiveofthatact(fosteringsomecompeting

interest or right); and then deter-miningwhetherornottheobjectiveis legitimate, infringing the rightwasnecessarytoachieveit,andthebenefits of doing so outweigh thelosses.

Thisistypicallyhowcourtsnowdecide disputes about rights. Theproblemisthatratherthanbeinganobjectivemodeof analysis peculiarto dispassionate legal reasoning, atbest proportionality analysis justformaliseshowanythoughtfulper-son, including a politician, mightthink about such issues. Politicaljudgment is all about trade-offs:whether some controversial meas-

ureadverselyaffectingonegroupofpeopleisjusti-fiedbythebenefitsitprovidestoothergroupsorthepublicasawhole.Balancingbenefitsandcostsanddecidingwhetherthebenefitsmakethecostsworth-while is the very stuff of politics. Adding impactsonindividualrightstoeithersideofthescalesdoesnotchangethesubjective,value-ladennatureofthechoicethatmustbemade.

Democratic participation is also thought tohave beneficial consequences. Since prejudice andintolerance tend to diminish when people engagein genuine dialogue with one another, democracyis thought to promote mutual respect, moderationand compromise. Moreover, legislators must buildcoalitionstobeeffective:allmajoritiesaregroupingsof minorities that have joined forces in a politicalparty,acoalition,oratemporaryalliance.Politicalpower is impermanent, and opponents defeatedtoday might turn the tables tomorrow. The impe-tus towards moderation is propelled partly by theneedtobuildthenecessarycoalitions,andthefearof backlash should adversaries defeated today gaintheupperhandtomorrow.

Genuine and lasting respect for one

another’s rights cannot be imposed by judicial fiat; it can only emerge

from the dialogue and compromise that characterise politics

in a democracy.

QuadrantMay201514


“Democratic debilitation” is a label used forways that rights litigation may damage the healthofrepresentativedemocracy.Somefearthatlegisla-torsmightdevote less attention to the compatibil-ityofproposed legislationwithprotected rights, ifitislikelytobelitigatedinthecourts.Theymightbecome reckless as to compatibility or,worse still,“passthebuck”tothecourts,andshirkresponsibil-ityforunpopulardecisions.Frequentresorttolitiga-tiontoadvancerightsclaimsmightalsodivertvitalfundsandenergiesfromgrass-rootspoliticalmobi-lisation.Inaddition,ifpoliticaldebateissubsumedbylegaldebate,couchedinlegalisticjargonandfor-mulae,thegeneralpublic(includinglegislators)mayfeelexcludedandbecomepoliticallyenervatedandapathetic.

Ontheotherhand,activeparticipantsinpoliti-cal disputes who are defeated in the courtroommaybecomeembitteredorenraged.TwoCanadianscholarshavearguedthat:

Rights-basedjudicialpolicymaking...[leadsto]issuesthatshouldbesubjectto...ongoing...discussion[being]presentedasbeyondlegitimatedebate,withthe[winners]claimingtherighttopermanentvictory.Asthemoralismofrightsdisplacesthemoralityofconsent,thepoliticsofcoercionreplacesthepoliticsofpersuasion.Theresultistoembitterpoliticsanddecreasetheinclinationofpoliticalopponentstotreateachotherasfellowcitizens...

Genuine and lasting respect for one another’srightscannotbeimposedbyjudicialfiat;itcanonlyemerge from the dialogue and compromise thatcharacterisepoliticsinademocracy.

Itmightbearguedthatsomegroupswillneverbeadequatelyrepresentedinpoliticsbecausetheylackthenecessarynumbers, resources or organisationalability.Indigenouspeoples,theaged,thepoor,thechronicallyill,andsomemigrantgroupsareofcon-cern.Judicialreviewhasbeendefendedasawayofredressing their inability to get a “fair go” in thepoliticalarena,byprovidingthemwithanalterna-tiveforuminwhichdecisionsaremadethatcannotbeignored.Butthesegroupsaretypicallynotsignif-icantlyassistedbyjudicialenforcementofconstitu-tionalrights:theyusuallyneedpositivegovernmentassistance—land rights, education, employment orfinancialorotherformsofassistance—whichcourtscannot effectively provide. Enforceable “positive”rights to government assistance or empowermentmight require judicial power to amend thebudgetand possibly rates of taxation. Indeed, it is partlybecause of the need for the democratic process toprovide suchassistanceor empowerment—and the

danger of judicially enforced negative rights beinginvokedtoobstructit—thatjudicialsupremacyhasoften been most staunchly opposed by people ontheLeftofpolitics.Anditisnotablethatthecoun-tries thathavebest protected thewelfare rights ofthe most vulnerable members of society—such asinScandinavia—havehistoricallynothadconstitu-tionsprotectingnegativerightsagainsttheexerciseofgovernmentalpower.

Danger of judicial transformation of the British constitution

This powerful democratic case against judicialreview of legislation becomes even stronger

when judges take it upon themselves to transforma constitution, by expanding their own powers toenforcerights.LordNeubergerrightlyobservedthat“itisafeatureofallconstitutionalcourtsthatthattheygenerouslyinterprettheconstitutionandtendtobestowpoweronthemselves”.Butindoingsothecourtssometimesusurpthemostfundamentalrightof thepeople: the right tochange theconstitutionunderwhichtheylive.

There are various methods by which judges incommon law countries can expand their powersto amend or partially invalidate statutes. Gradualexpansionofthesemethodscouldleadtothedeathofparliamentarysovereigntybyathousandcuts,orby gradual, incremental steps that lay the ground-workforalarge-scaletransformationinthefuture.

Forcenturies,themostfundamentalprincipleofstatutoryinterpretationhasbeenthatcourtsshouldseekoutandgiveeffecttowhatParliamentintendedto communicate. Common-law principles, rightsand freedomshavebeenprotectedmainly throughpresumptions that Parliament did not intend tointerferewiththem.Thesepresumptionshavenowbeenbundled togetherunder the label “theprinci-pleoflegality”.Thetraditionaljustificationforthesepresumptions was entirely consistent with parlia-mentary sovereignty, given that they depended onintentions that could reasonably be attributed toParliamentbutwhichitisabletodisavow.Butthisjustification is increasingly regardedasanartificialrationalisation or polite fiction. Some now claimthatthecommonlawpresumptions“nolongerhaveanything todowith the intent of theLegislature;theyareameansofcontrollingthatintent”.

Forothers,theveryideaoflegislativeintentionisafiction:theyconsideritimplausiblethatalegislatureincorporatingtwodifferenthouseswithhundredsofmembers canhave anymeaningful intentionotherthan merely to enact a statutory text. All this hasled some observers to conclude that the presump-tions“canbeviewedasthecourts’effortstoprovide,

QuadrantMay2015 15


ineffect,acommonlawbillofrights”.Judgeshaveclaimedthat,byrelyingonsuchpresumptions,“thecourtsoftheUnitedKingdom,thoughacknowledg-ing the sovereignty ofParliament, applyprinciplesofconstitutionalitylittledifferentfromthosewhichexist incountries”withawrittenconstitution,andthat “we already have constitutional guarantees ...givenbythecommonlaw”.

There are two reasons for concern about thesedevelopments. The first is that if judges inter-pret legislation according to common law rightsthat they themselveshavedeveloped, regardless ofParliament’s intentions, theybecomeco-authorsofthelawthatresultsfromtheirinterpretations.ThisistosubordinateParliament’schosenmeansofcom-municating its intentions and pur-posestomoralvalueschosenbythejudges.Parliament isno longer thesole authorof the statute it enacts;nomatterwhatwordsituses,theirmeaningwillbedeterminedpartlyby values preferred by the judges.This is applauded by opponents oflegislative supremacy,who say thatthe meaning of any statute is “thejoint responsibility of Parliamentand the courts” and is therefore acollaborativeenterprise.

Toalimitedextentcourtsneces-sarilydocontributetothemeaningsof statutes. If, for example, a stat-uteisambiguousorvagueonsomecrucialpoint, judgesmaybeforcedtofill inthegapinordertodecidea case before them. But in doingso, they should act as Parliament’sfaithfulagents,seekingtoimplementitsobjectives.If theydonot then, asRichardEkinshasargued,it is difficult to see how their interpretations canbe reconciled with the fundamental notion that itis Parliament that has the authority to make stat-ute law. Ifmaking statute lawwereacollaborativeenterprise, Parliament would merely provide rawmaterial, in the form of a text, which the judgeswould then combine with their own material tomake the law.This, incidentally, is anobjection tosection 3 of the HRA which, as construed by thecourts,authorisesthemtoactasco-authorswhocan(withinlimits)rewritestatutoryprovisionstoensurecompatibilitywithprotectedrights.

Thesecondreasonforconcernaboutthisincreas-ingjudicialtendencytodescribecommonlawrightsas“constitutional” isthat itmayinthenearfutureposeamorefundamentalchallengetothedoctrineofparliamentarysovereignty.

Describing important principles as “consti-

tutional” is a long-standing feature of Britishconstitutionaldiscourse,andinitselfisentirelycon-sistent with parliamentary sovereignty. Sir RobertChambers,Blackstone’ssuccessorattheUniversityofOxford,embracedparliamentarysovereigntywhole-heartedly,butcondemnedaparticularstatuteonthegroundthat“thoughnotillegal,fortheenactionofthe supremepower is thedefinitionof legality, [it]was yetunconstitutional”, because itwas “contraryto theprinciplesof theEnglishgovernment”.Thisdistinctionbetweenlawandconstitutionalprinciplewasperpetuatedbyotherwriters in theeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies,andsurvivestodayinthedistinctionbetweenlawandconstitutionalconven-tion.Dicey,forexample,referredto“thefundamen-

tal principles of the constitutionandtheconventionsinwhichtheseprinciples are expressed”. He alsodescribedas“constitutional”certainprinciples that were extrapolatedfrom judicial decisions, includingprinciples that protected personalliberty.Butofcoursealltheseprin-ciples were subject to Parliament’slegislativeauthority.

The problem is that today, thesubtle distinctions encoded in thistraditionalterminologyareincreas-ingly liable to be misunderstoodor obfuscated. It is already beingclaimed that “the incrementaldevelopmentbythecourtsofabodyof‘constitutionalrights’...ha[s]ren-dered our traditional understand-ingsofthesubordinateroleofcourtsin relation toParliament obsolete”.

Thismaybeaimedateventuallyenablingthejudici-arytoclaimthepowertoprotectrightsfromlegis-lative interference. Having laid the foundation fordoingso,judgesmayeventuallyfeelemboldenedtodeclare that “of course, if theseprinciples are con-stitutional,theymustbydefinitioncontroleventhepowerofParliament”.

Critics of parliamentary sovereignty, includingsomejudges,openlytalkaboutthecourts“chippingawayattherockofparliamentarysupremacy”,“inch-ing forwards with ever stronger expressions whentreatingsomecommonlawrightsasconstitutional”,andas“[s]tepbystep,graduallybutsurely”qualify-ingtheprincipleofparliamentarysovereignty.Onesenior judge has said that “the common law hascome to recognise and endorse the notionof con-stitutional, or fundamental, rights”, and althoughParliament at the present time remains sovereign,thismaychangethrough“thetranquildevelopmentofthecommonlaw”.

Parliament will only be able to retain its sovereignty over the long term if it

continues to be widely regarded as deserving to be entrusted with

it. Members of Parliament must be sensitive to the root

causes of the expansion of judicial power.

QuadrantMay201516


Allofthisraisesthequestionofwhetherstatutelaworcommonlawisultimatelymorefunda-

mental. The orthodox view is that Parliament canoverrideanypartofthecommonlaw,becausestat-ute law is superior to common law. But accordingto an alternative theory, Britain’s uncodified con-stitution rests ultimately on fundamental commonlaw principles, from which Parliament derives itsauthority tomakestatutes.According toProfessorTrevorAllan,oftheUniversityofCambridge,thisentailsthat“thecommonlawispriortolegislativesupremacy,whichitdefinesandregulates”.Thisthe-oryiscalled“commonlawconstitutionalism”.

For some time, common law constitutional-istshavebeenadvocatingapeaceful constitutionalrevolution,byincrementalstepsaimedatreplacingthe doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty with anewconstitutionalframeworkinwhichParliamenteithersharesultimateauthoritywiththecourtsor—ifpushcomestoshove—issubordinatetothem.

In Jackson v Attorney-General, the famous “foxhunting case”, Lord Steyn embraced this theory,declaring that the doctrine of the supremacy ofParliament:

isaconstructofthecommonlaw.Thejudgescreatedthisprinciple.Ifthatisso,itisnotunthinkablethatcircumstancescouldarisewherethecourtsmayhavetoqualifyaprincipleestablishedonadifferenthypothesisofconstitutionalism.

TwootherjudgesinJacksonmadesimilarorsup-porting observations, and like-minded dicta haveappearedinothercases.

It can be argued that too much should not bemadeof the expression of unorthodoxopinions intheobiterdictaofafewseniorjudges.Afterall,theymaynotpersuadeamajorityoftheirpeers,someofwhom have already responded by reaffirming thedoctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Moreover,thesedictaareeitherbasedondemonstrablefalse-hoodsorareimplausible.Ihavearguedatlengthinmytwobooksonthesubjectthatthecentralclaimof “common law constitutionalism” is false, partlybecause,asamatterofhistoricalfact, thedoctrineofparliamentarysovereigntywasnotcreatedbythejudiciary. Rather, it is the outcome of sometimesviolent struggles for constitutional supremacy inwhichjudgesmainlysatonthesidelines,orwereonthelosingsideandhadnoalternativebuttoaccepttheoutcome.

Butweshouldnotbetoocomplacent.Nomatterhowoftenthecommonlawconstitutionalists’cen-tralclaimisrefuted,itcontinuestobeasserted.Theprocessbywhichthecommonlawgraduallyevolves

allows the expression of judicial opinions that arefalse, through sheer repetition, to come to appeartrue. Indeed, sufficient repetition can eventuallyclothethemwithauthority.Common-lawconstitu-tionalismcouldinthiswaypullitselfupbyitsownbootstraps.

Therearepowerfulreasonsofdemocraticprinci-plefornotacceptingthatthecourtshaveauthoritytounilaterallymodifyor repudiate thedoctrineofparliamentary sovereignty. If they did, they couldimpose all kinds of limits on Parliament’s author-itywithno democratic input orwarrant.AsLordMillett said in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: “anychange in a fundamental constitutional principleshould be the consequence of deliberate legisla-tive actionandnot judicial activism,howeverwellmeaning”.

Constitutionalchange incontemporarydemoc-raciesrequiresappealingtotheprinciplesofpoliticalmorality that are the source of modern constitu-tional legitimacy, in particular the sovereignty ofthepeople.Suchchangesrequiredemocraticdelib-eration and decision-making. Officials who favourconstitutionalchangemustpersuadeotherofficials,andthepublicatlarge,thatitisdesirable.

Any attempt by the judiciary to unilaterallychange the most fundamental rules of the systemisalsohazardous.Parliamentmightresistajudicialattempttochangetherulesthatwerepreviouslygen-erallyaccepted,andtakestrongactiontodefeatit.Ifthejudgesweretotearuptheconsensusthatconsti-tutesthebasicrulesoftheconstitution,theywouldbepoorlyplacedtocomplainifitwerereplacedbyapowerstrugglethattheyareill-equippedtowin.

What to do about it?

Thisbringsmetothequestionofreform.Iwillsayonlya littleaboutthis, forseveralreasons.

There are too many possibilities, and too manycomplexities, to be sensibly canvassed even in alengthy lecture. As an Australian lawyer I lackthedetailedknowledgethatisrequired.Andsincethepurposeofthislectureistolaunchaprojecttodevelopandproposepracticalreforms,thereislittlepoint in making specific recommendations beforethatprocesshasevenbegun.

Iwould,however,offerthefollowingadvice.First,byallmeansconsiderpossiblechangesto

the European Convention on Human Rights andthe HRA, but do not neglect more fundamentaltrends such as the labelling of common law prin-ciples as “constitutional”, possibly with a view totheirelevationatsomefuturetimetoconstitutionalstatus intheAmerican,ratherthanthetraditionalBritish,senseoftheterm.

QuadrantMay2015 17


Second, if Parliament is to retain its capacityto control constitutionaldevelopments, andnotbeoutflanked by judicial development of a commonlaw constitution, then its members must robustlyassert and defend its legislative sovereignty fromcriticsandsceptics.IdonotmeanthatParliamentshouldnecessarily seek tomaintain its sovereigntyforever. If public opinion came to strongly sup-porttheadoptionofawrittenconstitutionlimitingParliament’s powers, there would be good reasonsfor Parliament to act accordingly. Rather, I meanthatsuchaprofoundtransformationoftheconstitu-tionshouldnotbebroughtaboutsolelybychangesin the jurisprudential theories favoured by legalelites.Itisvitalthatmembersofthelegislativeandexecutive branches of government keep abreast ofthese changes, and develop the intellectual self-confidenceneededto respond. Insaying this, Idonotmean toencourage intemperateattackson thejudiciary.Itisessentialthatthedebatebeconductedontermsofmutualrespect.

Third,asuccessfuldefenceofparliamentarysov-ereigntyoverthelongtermwillrequireconsiderablebipartisan (ormulti-partisan) support. If criticismsof expanding judicial power come from only oneside of politics, they may not have a sufficientlybroad influence on public opinion. That is partlywhyIhaveemphasisedthatresistancetotheexpan-sionofjudicialpowerhashistorically,inBritainandelsewhere,beenevenmorepopularontheLeftthanontheRight.

Fourth,Parliamentwillonlybeabletoretainitssovereigntyoverthelongtermifitcontinuestobewidely regarded as deserving to be entrusted withit.MembersofParliamentmustbesensitivetotheroot causes of the expansion of judicial power. Inparticular,theymustpersuadenotonlythegeneralpublicbutinfluentialelitesthattheyaresensitivetorights issues and give them careful consideration.IfMembersofParliamentbelieve it isuntrue thattheyhavebeensupineandineffectiveinholdingtheexecutive to account, due to its dominance in theHouse of Commons, then they must demonstratethis.Inotherwords,ifParliamenthasapublicrela-tionsproblem,itmustbeeffectivelyaddressed.Butif there is more than just a public relations prob-lem—iftheelectoralsystemorparliamentaryproc-esses need improvement—then those problemsshouldalsobetackled.

How has Parliament discharged its historicalresponsibilitytoprotecttherightsandfreedomsofthecommunity?Itstrackrecordoverthecenturiesisfarfromperfect.ButasChristopherForsythrecently

argued,judgingbystatutespassedoverthelastfiftyyearsorsoithasdoneverywellindeed.Legislationhas abolished the death penalty, decriminalisedhomosexual conduct and legalised same-sex mar-riage,outlawedvariouskindsofinvidiousdiscrimi-nation, and legalised abortion within limits—thelistcouldgoonandon.

It isnocoincidence that in rankingsofnationsaccording to the freedoms of their residents, theUnited Kingdom consistently falls within the topten-to-twenty,andconsideringthecompanyitisin,thisisnothingtobeworriedabout.Norisitsfailuretorankhigherduetoitsnothavingawrittenconsti-tutionwithabillofrights.Forexample,inarepu-tableindexofworldfreedompublishedbyCanada’sFraser Institute in2012,NewZealandrankedfirstoutof123countries,despitehavingnowrittencon-stitution and only a statutory bill of rights, andAustraliarankedfourth,despitehavingnonationalbillofrightsatall.TheNetherlandsrankedsecond,andasusualtheScandinaviancountriesalsorankedhighly,eventhoughnoneofthemhavehadalongattachmenttorights-protectingjudicialreview.

Thesearereasonsnotforcomplacency,butrather,for refusing toagree that theHRAopenedaneweraofenlightenmentafteralongdarkageinwhichrightsweresuppressed.

Robert Dahl, the pre-eminent modern theoristofdemocracy,oncesaid:“Thedemocraticprocessisagambleon thepossibilities thatapeople, inact-ingautonomously,willlearnhowtoactrightly.”Toadopt full judicial review of constitutional rightswould amount to a verdict that theBritish peoplehavefailed.Itwouldindicatealackofconfidenceintheirability tomaintaina tolerantandfair societywithoutthesupervisionofjudicialchaperons,over-seeingtheirdecisionsandcorrectingtheirmistakes.It would impose on the British people a kind ofpoliticalguardianship.IdonotbelievethatBritain’senviablereputationasaworldleaderinthedevelop-mentofdemocracyand libertywarrants suchpes-simism.Indeed,Ibelievetheopposite.

Jeffrey Goldsworthy is Professor of Law at Monash University. He delivered this lecture on March 9 at Policy Exchange, Westminster, to launch the Policy Exchange Project on Judicial Power. It is published here with the permission of Policy Exchange. Professor Goldsworthy thanks Richard Ekins and Graham Gee for very helpful comments on an earlier version of the lecture, which they should not be assumed to agree with. A footnoted version of this article appears on Quadrant Online.

QuadrantMay201518

Sociology is anhonourablediscipline foundedover a century ago by Emile Durkheim,Vilfredo Pareto, Herbert Spencer and Max

Weberandwith roots thatgobackmuch further,perhaps even to Ibn Khaldun in the fourteenthcentury.Sociologydoesnotdeservetobemalignedbecauseof thedistortionsof its leftwing and thefantasiesimposedonitby“critical”thinkersunabletoquestionpropositionsimpartially.Tobescepticalisavirtueinsociology;tobecriticalisavice.

The roots of their “infantile disorder” (Lenin’sphrase,notmine) lie intheirobsessionwithineq-ualityandhencetheirideologyof“underdoggery”,whichassertsthatparticular,selectedgroupsoflos-ersaretheblamelessvictimsofsocialinjusticeandthatallanalysesmustbegovernedbythedrivetoredress this,even if it leads to falsehoods.Atfirstit was the heroic working class whose cause theytook up with a fervour that was often, though bynomeansnecessarily,Marxist.Theproletariatlaterfelloutoffavourwiththeradicals.Theworkershadnotonlyrefusedtoberevolutionarybutprovedtobe socially conservative and stubbornly patrioticandso theradicalsdumpedthemin favourof the“excluded”—racialminorities, criminals and thosewith unorthodox sexual preferences. Capitalismremainedthevillainbutfordifferentreasons.

The rise of the class-obsessed leftists withinsociology meant that class differences and thesupposed lack of upward social mobility betweenclasses through the education system were madetheverycoreofsociology.Theleftistsrarelystudieddownward mobility, which is the true mark ofhow open a society is, nor the personal sufferingexperienced by those moving down and theirfamilies;theyconcentratedonlyonthediscontentsofthosetryingtoriseorwhohavemovedup.Likewisethey failed to study those without education whorose through business entrepreneurship, for thatwouldhavemadecapitalismlooklegitimate.Workonclass,educationandmobilitywasthehighroadto citations and promotions, to prestige and to

fundingfromtheawardersofresearchgrants,whowere also ideologically (indeed to use their owncantphrase“hegemonically”)oftheLeft.Religiousand military institutions were seriously neglectedbecause theywereseenasunimportant inrelationto the workings of capitalism. The “bourgeoisfamily”was importantbutonlybecause itwasthetransmissionbeltforpropertyandprivilegeandthusoneofthepropsofcapitalism.Otherwisefamilieswerejustthewaythelabourforcegotreproduced.

For theMarxists inparticular economic forcesdroveeverything,andtheotherleftistswerealwayswillingtomeetthemhalfway.Themanualworkerswereboundtocometopowereitherthroughrevo-lution or through inevitable and inexorable socialforces suchas the squeezingoutof smallbusinessandofcoursethepeasants,thegreaterradicalismofworkersineverlargerenterprise,whowerealienatedfrom a distant management and formed militantlabourunions,theexpansionofstateemployment,eventhehigherbirth-rateofsocialistvoters,whosechildren would vote the same way. Such was themessageofLeft-optimisticsociology.Anyonewhoat that time mentioned the growth of the servicesectorortheimportanceofknowledgeinthecrea-tionofwealthwasdismissedasareactionary.

The sociologists of the Left had a nasty shockin1979whentheShahofIranwasoverthrownnotbythoseradicalisedbyeconomicdeprivationbutbyreactionaryMuslimfundamentalists.TheyhadalsotriedtoexplainawayorminimisetheprofoundbutslowandpeacefulsocialchangesbroughtaboutbytheconversionofthedispossessedtoPentecostalismin South America instead of the revolution theyhad predicted and the role of Catholicism in thedestructionoftheAustralianLaborPartybyB.A.SantamariaandtheGroupers.Nowtheywerefacedwiththefirstviolentrevolutionarychangeinpeace-timeindecades,notamerepoliticalcoupbutarev-olution that utterly transformed an entire society,anditwasrootedinreligion,notinclashesbetweeneconomicclasses.Theleftistshadfailedtopredictit

ChristiE dav iEs

MustWeBlameSociology?

QuadrantMay2015 19


andnowcouldnotexplainit.It“oughtnottohavehappened”.

Theyarestill trapped in theiroldprejudices inthe twenty-first century when many societies areplagued by Islamic terrorism and when Muslimgangs in Australia, Britain and Scandinavia alikehave committed a disproportionate proportion ofsex crimes against women and girls. The mantraofthesociologistsoftheLeftineithercaseisthattheperpetratorsare“marginalised”and“deprived”individuals.Religiondoesnotcomeinto it.Nevermind thatmanyMuslim terrorists from theWesthave university degrees. For the Left-sociologistsit is still all about inequality under capitalism, anexplanation that conveniently meshes with thepolitically correct view that a group defined as a“minority”andevenitsleadersmustnotbeblamedforthewickednessoftheirmembers.

Theleftists’dismissalofreligionand the military as important

forces was brought home to mein a strange way. In the 1980s Ipublished several articles and laterbook chapters to try and explainwhyhomosexualmenwereorhadbeen so viciously hated and theiractivitiesrenderedcriminal.Icouldseenosenseorjusticeinthis.Itwasa puzzle thathad tobe explained.Iconcludedonthebasisofanextensivecompara-tivestudyofdifferentsocietiesandinstitutionsthatit was a product of religious beliefs in the main-tenanceof strongboundariesandof theorganisa-tional demands of all-male, celibate hierarchicalorganisationssuchaschurchesandarmies.SinceforonceIwasbeingagoodliberal,myworkwaspub-lished in the leading journals and I gotpromotedto full professor.But theLeft-sociologists contin-uedtoassertwithoutanyevidencewhatsoeverthatthephenomenonwastheproductofa“crisisinthebourgeoisfamily”.Suchaviewneithermesheswithhistorynorwithdifferencesbetweensocieties.Butnevermindthefacts,ourspecialinsighttellsusthatthepersecutionofthegaysisaproductoftheneedtopreserve the inheritanceofpropertywithin thebourgeoisie. Yes, capitalism is to blame as usual.MoretauromerdinesociologyoftheLeft.

Manyof the sociologistsof theLeftwerepar-ticularlyobsessedwithequalityofopportunityandwastedenormoussumsoftaxpayers’moneybuild-ing detailed input-output tables of social mobil-ity toshowthat theeducationalsystemhadfailedthe working class. Any sociologist who suggestedthat intellectual ability was innate and inherited

risked being drummed out of the profession. Thepsychologists whose work proved conclusivelythat intelligence is inherited remained unread bytheLeft-sociologistsorwere subjected toad hom-inemattacks.WhenanEastGermanpsychologistshowedhowverystronglyintelligenceisinherited,theEnglish leftistsaskedtheStasi tosuppresshiswork lest it embarrass their ideological claims.Psychologists,likeeconomists,werealwayssuspectbecausetheychallengedleft-wingfantasiesofcreat-ingatotallyequalsocietybybringingupharshfactsabouttheconstraintsimposedbyscarcityandbiol-ogy.Ironicallytheinheritanceofintelligenceisthegreatdriverofsocialmobilitybecauseoftheregres-sioneffect.Theoffspringofintelligentparentstendto be more able than average but less intelligent

thantheirparents,andtheconverseistrueofthestupid,someofwhosedescendantswillbebrightandwillmove to a higher class. When thelibertarian Australian sociologistPeterSaunderspointed thisout inhismasterlybookUnequal but Fair?theLeft-sociologistsreactedwithacharacteristic mixture of rage andwilfulincomprehension.

InfairnesstothesociologistsoftheLeft,mostofthemdidnotholdtheSovietUnioninhighregard,butnonethelesstheywerefarlesswill-ing systematically to criticise this

socialist“civilisation”thanthefreeanddemocraticsocietiesinwhichtheylived.Thisisonemoreillus-trationofhowthe“criticalthinking”oftheLeftisacompletesham.Inparticulartheylaidstressonthesupposedlymoreequaldistributionofincomesandhigherratesofsocialmobilityinsocialistsocieties,wheretherewasaffirmativeactionforthechildrenof theproles and central control overwage levels.TheyfailedtounderstandthateveniftheSovietsta-tistics were truthful—which the Left-sociologistsalwaysassumedtheywere—theydidnotrevealhowprivilegeworkedinasocialistsociety.

If I know how much an Australian earns andwhatassetsheorsheowns,Iwillhaveagoodideaofwhat they are able topurchase andwhere theycan afford to live. In the Soviet Union what youcould afford depended equally on access to thepower of the state, selective access to the specialshops where high-quality, often imported, goodswere cheaply available, goods available nowhereelse. Ordinary people could not shop there; theywerenotallowedin.ThosewholivedinMoscoworLeningradhadamuchbetterlife,bettereducation,betterhealthcare,betterfacilitiesthanthosestuckinsomedown-at-heelprovincialtownbecausethese

In the 1960s even muggers, burglars and car thieves,

vandals, drug dealers and brawlers became

heroes and victims for some sociologists

of the Left.

QuadrantMay201520


cities were showpieces and the places where theelite lived.Butyouneededaresidencepermitandworkpermittolivethereandgettingthemrequiredpoliticalinfluence.Crimeratesinthesecitieswerelowandlifewassaferbecausethepenaltyforbeingconvictedof a crimewithin the city limitswas tolose your residence permit. Criminals were exiledtoghastlyprovincialtownswithpoorhousingandfacilities, which in consequence had a very highincidenceofcrime.ButthetoppeopledidnotlivethereandforeignersincludingLeft-sociologistsdidnotvisit,soitdidnotmatter,didit?

ThesociologistsoftheLeft,sokeentouncoverthe seamier side of capitalist societies, showedno interest in the widespread bribery, corruption,black-marketingandmoney-launderingofasocial-ist society and no understanding of why thesedeviant activities were utterly necessary to thefunctioning of a planned economy without pricesdeterminedbysupplyanddemand.NonethelesstheLeft-sociologistswereshockedandsurprisedwhenthecommunistsocietiesofEuropeallcollapsed,apeacefulbutcompleterevolutionarydestructionnotjustofagovernmentbutofanentiretypeofsociety.Theyhadno ideathatsuchathingcouldhappen,noideathatcommunistsocietieswereanunreform-ablemassofinternalcontradictions,basedentirelyonthearbitraryandrepressiveuseof force.Whattheyhadassertedwassolidmeltedintoair.Shortlybefore, theyhaddenounced theexiledLithuaniansociologist Alexander Shtromas for so accuratelypredictingthecollapse.

Itisinrelationtocrimethatwecanbestseehowthe Left-sociologists began to split, with many

abandoning the old emphasis on material produc-tionandsocialclasses.Theold-styleMarxistsoci-ologists had been a disciplined lot who admiredthe working class, the proletariat, for its capacityfor organising itself, leading in time to revolutionor at thevery least to the captureof thepowerofthe state. They had nothing but contempt for thelumpenproletariat, those below the working class,that disorganised rabble of criminals, drifters anddealers in dubious commodities who had chosenidlenessratherthanwork.Banditsandbushrangersmightbeturnedintoclassheroes,butnottheurbanflotsam. But in the 1960s even muggers, burglarsandcarthieves,vandals,drugdealersandbrawlersbecameheroesandvictimsforsomesociologistsofthe Left. They were victims not just because theyhad been pushed into crime by deprivation, theolder view, but because they were unfairly vilifiedbythepopularpress.

Betweenthemid-1950sandthemid-1990stherewasaninexorableriseinbothviolentandproperty

crimes in nearly all the wealthier industrial coun-tries,inmarkedcontrasttotheVictorianerawhencrimefell,ortheinter-warperiodwhendespitehighunemploymentandamuchlesswell-developedwel-farestate,crimerateshadstayedlow.Notsurpris-inglytherewasconsiderablepublicconcernamongthe ordinary folk who were experiencing the newwaves of theft and assault, burglary and robbery.The nice pink liberals were horrified. The welfarestate was producing unwelcome, unexpected con-sequences.Itshouldnotbehappening.Itcouldnotbehappening.Among the even lefter sociologists,there were two responses. One was to deny thatcrimewasrisingandtoexplainitawayby“improvedreportingandrecording”.Thiscouldnotbematchedwiththefallingorstaticcrimeratesofthelatenine-teenthandearliertwentiethcenturieswhenreport-ingandrecordingwerealsoimproving,butwhyletfactsget intheway?Isometimeswonderhowtheadherentsofthereportingandrecordingthesishavecopedwiththegeneralfallincrimesincethemid-1990s. When victim surveys of the general publicweredone (which leavesout crimesagainst stores,warehouses,banksandsoon)theyshowedwhatanysensiblepersonknew.Crimehadrisensubstantiallybutnotasfastasthepolicefigures.

The Left-sociologists’ motives in denying theobviouswerepartlythatthejustifiablehighcoverageofcrimeinthepresswasdistractingattentionfromwhattheysawasthe“real”problemofclass injus-tice,andpartlythatthealarmovercrimemightleadgovernments to be more punitive towards a groupwithwhomtheyincreasinglyidentified—theyoung,male,lower-classcriminal.He,likethemselves,wasanopponentofbourgeoissocietyandunderattack.

Perhapsthesilliestessayonthesubject,onestilladoredandreverentlycitedbyLeft-sociologists,wasStuart Hall’s “Mugging as a Moral Panic” (1978).There had been a spate of robberies against thepersoninstreetsandparksandotherpublicplacesand theworstcases involvingserious injurieswereextensivelyreportedinthepressinvividdetail.Hallargued,byanincompetentuseofstatisticsandwithacompleteignoranceofcalculus,thattheincidenceofmuggingwasno longer rising,andmore to thepoint he suggested that many of the robberieswere mere bag-snatching, frightening but withoutmuch violence. Thus the heavy press coverageand theoutrage expressedby those inhighplaceswerenot justifiedandconstituteda “moralpanic”,meaning an exaggerated alarmed response in thefaceofdeviantbehaviour.Butwhoistosaywhatisadisproportionateandwhatisareasonableresponse?Hall’s supporters were absolutely horrified whenthosenotontheLeftapplied theconceptandthemethodbehinditto“racialattacks”,mostofwhich

QuadrantMay2015 21


aremerelyverbalabuseorabitofscuffling,andtodomesticviolence,whichingeneraldoesnotresultinseriousinjury.

Later what was equally shocking to the“watermelons”—aredLeftturninggreen—inwhatthey called “the new risk society” was an exten-sionoftheconcept,the“techno-moralpanic”.Thiswas used to analyse the absurd and alarmist fearsdrummed up by the greenists who have menda-ciouslydemonised food irradiation andGMcropsandstirredupthepress,whichfarfrombeingcon-trolled by the big capitalists simply wants to sellexcitingcopy.TheLeft-sociologistsinventconceptsthatarenotanalyticalbuttendentiousandthengetindignant when someone uses them in a perfectlyhonest way to make a point thatgoesagainsttheirideology.

What seriously split the Left-sociologists was when one of theirown number showed on the basisofanaccurateareasurveythatpoorpeoplewere theoneswho sufferedmost at the hands of young malecriminals.Thepoortendedtobeinthewrongplaceatthewrongtimeand got attacked, were unable todefendthemselvesandtheirhomesand could not afford insurance.Therewasnowasplitbetweentheoddly named “Left-realists” whoacknowledged honestly the havocwroughtbycriminalsinpoorareas,and the remnant of the macho-Left, many of them criminals-manqué, who wentonchampioningthemuggers.Themacho-Leftsoci-ologists’ position was further undermined by therise of the feminists, angry that domestic violenceand sex crimes against women were being under-ratedby the tough-mindedmenof theLeft.Theysucceededtosuchanextentthattodaytheincidenceofcrimesagainstwomenisbeingtalkedupasvigor-ouslyanddishonestlyasviolentcrimeingeneralhadbeen talked down thirty years before. The work-ing class is now often stereotyped on the Left asa horde of wife-beaters, xenophobic brawlers whoharass immigrants, and vicious “poofter bashers”.Theyarenowonlyonepersonintheholytrinityofrace,genderandclass,thethreeholiesofsociology,the threesetsof inequalities thatmustbeexposedanddenouncedby all true-red and even true-pinksociologists.

The left-wing sociologists of an earlier genera-tion often deceived themselves into thinking

their work was scientific. Russia had “scientificMarxism” and Britain a Social Science Research

Council. They believed in cause and effect in adeterministicway.Theymeasuredtheeasilymeas-urablewithgreatprecision to theneglectof vari-ablesthatweredifficulttomeasureandthentheydrewlinesonagraphandprojectedthemintothefuture,ignoringsuchimponderablesastheimpos-sible-to-predict inventions of the future and theyused their findings to agitate for social planning.Accuratelymeasurednonsense.

Nonetheless as quantitative techniquesimproved, censuses and surveys have produced alot of good data, some of it embarrassing to theleftists.Howelsewouldwehaveknown thatgaymenarelessthan2percentofthemalepopulation,orthatotherthingsbeingequal theshort-sighted

aremorelikelytosucceedinlife?In consequence many of the

leftistshavegoneoffscience.Itwasnot producing the answers theywanted.Nowmany sociologistsofthe Left study not social “reality”butthewaypeopletalkaboutthatreality,notcrimebutpressreportsof crime, not conflicts but imagesof the conf licting parties, notdocuments in the files of institu-tionsbutchatontheinternet.Theyhave takenup “discourse analysis”which consists of recording long“depth” interviews with ordinarypeople about tendentious mat-ters, arbitrarily editing the record,and then producing shock-horror

claimsabouthowbigotedandreactionarythepop-ulace are. Discourse analysis is the long-windeddescendantofthedishonestF-scalequestionnairesproducedbyAdornointhe1940sand1950s.“F”inthis casedoesnotmeanwhatmost peoplewouldexpect but refers to Fascism. It was a slick tricktoprovethatall“authoritarianpersonalities”wereon the Right. Today’s discourse analysis reducessociologytoasortofthird-rateradiodocumentarythatisalltalkandnoreality.Thefleshhasbecomeword.

Now instead of mimicking the scientists, theLeft-sociologists, likemany teachersof literature,have embraced the wilder and foggier branchesof Continental philosophy, the “higher Froggynonsense”—structuralism, post-structuralism,Lacanianpsychoanalytic thought,postmodernismandsoon.Thenonsensecalledliterarytheory,muchofwhichhasbuilt-inbiases fromthestart—post-colonial theory, feminist theory, queer theory—owes as much to Left-sociology as it does to thestudentsofliteratureandtheymergeinthatvagueaggregatecalledculturalstudieswhichmeansyou

Many of the leftists have gone off science. It was not

producing the answers they wanted. Now many sociologists of the Left study not social “reality” but the way people talk about that reality.

QuadrantMay201522


donotneedtodoanyhardthinkingaboutsocialoreconomicstructures.Yetmoreofthat“culturalMarxism”whichLeninwouldhavedenouncedasbourgeoisidealism.PoorLenin,themanwhoevengot upsetwhenphysicists beganundermininghiscrudeviewofwhatwas“material”,mustbeturninginhismausoleum.Inthetwenty-firstcenturytheLeft-sociologists waffle about “liquid capitalism”or even “weightless capitalism” in a vain attempttocomebelatedlytotermswithasocietyinwhichthekeycommoditiesareservicesandinformation,whilestillnotunderstandingthespontaneousorderproducedbymarketsortheroleoftheentrepreneurasinnovator.

SomeofthemoreobscurantistLeft-sociologistsseemtoregardsocietyasakindoftexttobesub-jectedtoexegesis.Thenewtheorieshavethegreatadvantage of being untestable, unfalsifiable andoften incomprehensible. Some lengthy works ofsociologicaltheoryareentirelyself-referentialandcontainhardlyanyfactualdata.Those,likemyself,who know that a scientific sociology is a miragebutarguethatthereareadvantagestothescientificapproach and that even though we cannot attaintruth we ought to try to approach it and that itis possible to show that certain propositions arealmostcertainly false,aredenouncedas“privileg-ingscience”.

ThoseontheLeftwhoonceclaimedthattheyhadaccesstothetruthbecauseofwheretheywereplacedinthesocialordernowassertthatthereisnowayofshowingthatonestatementismoreaccuratethananother.Theydonotaskofdata“Isitreason-ablycorrect?”butonly“Whoproducedthedata?”and“Whowouldbenefitifwedecidetoacceptit?”Their favourite author is Thomas Kuhn becausetheyfalselybelievethathehasshownscienceinallitsneutralitytobeasfallibleasthevalue-ladenanduntestable theses about the nature of society that

theypeddle.Thepropositionthatthereisprogressin the natural sciences, whereas changes in Left-sociology are mere shifts of fashion driven bypoliticalfactions, isanathematothem.Theyoncebelievedthattheyhadprogressontheirside.Nowtheyaredeterminedthatnooneshall,noteventhescientists. Their mantra is “You can’t be certain”,butnooneclaimsthatourever-changingphysicalsciencesprovidecompletecertainty.Itisenoughtosay that for all practical purposes we can be surethat, say, thechemistryof today isvastlysuperiortothatof1900or1950oreven2000.Nosuchclaimcanbemadeaboutsocialtheory.

Despite the way sociology was disfigured bythe Left, who also monopolise the textbook

market,thelasthalfofthetwentiethcenturywasa timeofgreatachievement insociologyby thosewho, whatever their politics, retained free minds.ThegreatcomparativesociologistssuchasStanislavAndreski,ErnestGellner,SeymourMartinLipset,David Martin and Edward Shils flourished andtherewerethewonderfulinsightstooofRaymondAron, Mary Douglas, Norbert Elias, ErvingGoffman,LouiseShelleyandHelmutSchoeck.Toreadthemortolistentothemwastorealisewithpleasurethatyounowhadabetterunderstandingof the social order than you had before. What apitytheleftistshadtostainagreatdiscipline.

TheLeft-sociologiststriedtochangetheworld,butthecallingofthesociologististointerpretitinvariousways.ThesociologistsoftheLeftbetrayedthatcalling.Itistimetorestoreandinsistonit.

Dr Christie Davies is the author of The Strange Death of Moral Britain. He began his teaching career as a tutor in the University of Adelaide. He was for many years Professor of Sociology at Reading University in England and head of department.

QuadrantMay2015 23

Waiting for the Woodman

AmudpackofpigsondevastatedgroundSevendarkgreysows,tworedmalespound-for-poundHistruckishere,butthewoodman’snotaround.

Greedhasn’tlefthereasinglespeckofgreenInonecorner,thepondwearsagreasysheenThemanwhosellsfirewood,nowheretobeseen.

Perhapshefell,theyatehim?IlookaboutEverylastinchofhimsnuffledpastflatsnout?Bacon-makersscoffhumans,ohhavenodoubt.

Thesevensowsdoze,theirskinsuncreamedwithmudLikebeachedsealstheylie,fatladiesinapodBristlyboyskeepnudging,trytostirtheirblood.

Ifasowstands,amaletriestogetthejumpPushes,nuzzles,slurpsbetweenthosehamssoplumpPuttingonthehardwordtoclimbaboardandhump.

Sowshrieksorgrunts,turnsheavybreatherawayMakesitclearshe’dpreferamealanydayBig-balledboyscouldusesomelessonsinforeplay.

Waitingforthewoodman,feelingavoyeurThesunbakingswinestareback,andIdefer:“Vegetarian!Nopork,nochops,nosir!”

Themachosstandapart,froth-mouthed,rejectedNowonemountstheother’sback,ill-directedAfewfutilethrusts,heflopsoff,dejected.

Dumbanthropomorphism,tomyselfIsayButthinkIunderstandtheredmales’dismay(CertainlobbywouldclaimproofNature’sgay).

Ah,woodman’sarrived,isathisbackdoorLeavethesowstodreamofstaleloavesbythescoreAndyes,Inowknowwhyaboariscalledboar!

Withatrailer-loadoflogsforwinter’sstoveIheadmoreslowlyalongtheroadIdroveThink:Well,atleastpigsarenotconfusedbylove.

Five Fine Frogs Fivefinefrogsintheswimmingpoolwebbedflippersonbroadbackfeettheytireonthesurface,autumn-coolhavingploppedinafterinsectstoeat.

Fiveprisonerscaughtontaughtgreentheoverhangoffersthemnowayoutamongtheablestamphibiansseenbutnoabseilers,can’tleapliketrout.

One-by-oneliftedoutwiththenetwater-drunk,bulge-eyesrunningtearsthroatsapulse,notrecoveredyet“Frogoff!”Isay.Don’tfrogshaveears?

Touchonthesmallestone’sslimyspineandhe,orshe,arcsthroughdryairtheothersloopoffasthoughatasignburpingaboutchlorine,treacherousstair.

Tonightbythecreek,aloudjamboreehigh-jumps,wooings,inMudtheytrustthefivewillbeblithelyjoiningthegleesongsaboutwater,nomentionofdust.

Rod Usher

QuadrantMay201524

Budgets are rarely make-or-break affairs. Yetthisyear’sfederalbudget,tobedeliveredonMay12,isacriticaltestforTonyAbbottand

hisgovernment. AfterAbbott’snearpoliticaldeathinFebruary,whenhefacedavoteinhisownpartyroomonwhethertoallowaspillmotion,thePrimeMinisterdeclaredthatthisyear’supcomingbudgetwouldbeboring: “It’llbeprudent,it’llbefrugal,it’llberesponsible,butIthinkwhenitcomestosavings,peoplewillfinditprettydullandprettyroutine.”

Thedeclarationofadoctrineofdullness repre-sents a critical turning point for his centre-Rightgovernment. It comes as a direct response to thesoapopera in theSenate, adramaplayedoutoverthe last twelve months by independent and minorpartysenatorswhoturnedtherejectionofthegov-ernment’sstructuralreformsintoaPunch-and-Judypantomime.

It was an extraordinary reversal of fortune.WhenAbbottwongovernment inSeptember2013with53.49percentofthetwo-partypreferredvote,he raised the hopes of many on the centre-Right,not just inAustraliabutelsewhere intheEnglish-speaking world. His muscular conservatism leav-ened with classical liberalism and antipodeanpragmatisminspiredadmirationontheRightevenas theLeftdamnedhimasaTeaPartyextremist.Here was a leader who was not afraid to take ontheshibbolethsoftheprogressives—hecampaignedon the abolitionof a carbon tax andamining taxand did not mince words in promising to defendAustraliansovereigntyanditsborders,turningbackunauthorisedboats of asylum seekers and runninginsteadanorderly,offshorerefugeeprogram.

Yet in February, Abbott’s leadership crisisprompted former British Conservative MP andTimescolumnistMatthewParristowritethePrimeMinister’spoliticalobituary,assumingthathislead-ershiphadalreadybegun its “ill-temperedwalk tothegallows”.Parriswasnotalone. TheLeft-leaningcommentariat also wrote off the Prime Ministertheyhadearlier claimedwasunelectable.Yet, two

months later, Newspoll, the most authoritativeopinion poll in Australia, has Abbott improvinghis net satisfaction with voters from minus 44 tominus 26 points and the government opening upafive-pointleadoverLaborintheprimaryvoteof41per cent to 36per cent.AlthoughLabor is stillahead of the government by 51 per cent to 49 percentoncepreferencesaredistributed,thetrend,ifitcontinues,favoursAbbottandhasputhimbackinthegame.Whatwasseenasauniquecalamitynowlooksmuchmorelikeastandardmid-termslump.

Centraltothisturnaroundhasbeenwhat TimescolumnistTimMontgomeriecalledinJune2014theriseof“BoringsvilleConservatism”or“BoreCons”.Montgomerie,aBritishConservativePartyactivist,says that while ideological conservatives in think-tanksandnewspapershungerfortheboldconserva-tism of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher,callingforregulationsandbureaucracytoberolledbackandgovernmentspendingtobeslashed,whatvoters want in these troubled times is not radicalrhetoric but reassurance, not hairy-chested stand-offsbutsoundeconomicmanagementandnotbig-bangreformsbutimprovementsbystealth.

In September 2013 Montgomerie claimedAbbott’s election victory as a triumph for theBoreCons partly because he wasn’t promising toslash spending. By February 2015, however, ParrislabelledAbbottthekindofright-wingpopulistthatTorytoddlerscould“paintbynumbers,apoliticianthat No Turning Back focus-groupers could havestitchedtogetherwithcanvassreturns,pollingdataandsteelwire”,andwarnedthatifBritishconserva-tivesfollowedhisexampletheywouldbepunishedinthepolls.

ThetruthisthatAbbottisacomplexpoliticianwithcontradictorytendencies.Montgomerieisrightthat “nearly every time he finds a way of cuttingAustralia’s budget deficit, he finds a way to spendit”.ButAbbott isalsoagreatadmirerofThatcherand Reagan and despite the fact that $20 billionworthofgovernmentsavingshavebeenblockedby

rEbECCa wEissEr

Budgets,BoreConsandtheDoctrineofDullness

QuadrantMay2015 25

Budgets,BoreConsandtheDoctrineofDullness

theSenate,hehasstillbeenabletochalkupsignifi-cantsavingsormeasurestostrengthentheeconomy.For example, apart from repealing the carbon taxandtheminingtaxandstoppingtheboats,Abbottended subsidies for the car industry, refused tobailoutQantasortogiveahandouttoCoca-ColaAmatil, is privatising Medicare Private, has abol-ishedtheDepartmentofClimateChangeandhasbeenwagingawaronredtape.

Itwasnottheseboldmeasuresthatledtoplung-ingopinionpollsbutthecombinationoftheusualfirst-termerrors added to a toxic air of chaos cre-ated by inexperienced, populist crossbenchers andanimplodingminorpartyintheSenate.ItforcedaresolutionofAbbott’sconflictingpoliticalimpulsesandledtothetriumphoftedium.

This manifesto of the mundanewasnodoubtinspiredbyNew

ZealandPrimeMinisterJohnKey,the poster boy for the BoreCons,re-elected inSeptemberforathirdterm with an increased majority,promising nothing more excitingthan “a strong and stable govern-ment” and “a brighter future forall New Zealanders”. What couldthecountrylookforwardto?“Icanassure New Zealanders,” Key toldjournalists, “that everything willcontinuetickingoverasusual.”

Labor’sshadowTreasuryspokes-man,ChrisBowen,notedAbbott’snewstrategyofnotfrighteningthehorses and set about sabotaging it.InapreviewofLabor’sattackstrat-egy,Bowenpaintedtheforthcomingbudgetasscaryandunfair,saying,“thePrimeMinister[is]reassur-ing people, reassuring his party room, that every-thingwillbeallright,we’llstillgetbacktobalance,thatcanonlymeanmoredeepcutsinthebudget”.

The business community, on the other hand,fearsthatincommittingtoadullbudget,thegov-ernment won’t make the necessary cuts. In earlyAprilnine industry lobbygroupswentso faras toissue a joint statement calling on the governmentnottoshyawayfrommajoreconomicreformwith-outwhichthecountrywouldbeona“pathtoeco-nomicdespair”.

Steering a course between these conf lictingdemandswasnevergoingtobeeasy,particularlyasthosewhowantreformdonothaveaunitedposi-tion on what they would like the government todo.Forexample,theclassicalliberalthink-tanktheCentre for Independent Studies has called for anend to financial assistance for industry, estimated

by theProductivityCommission in2012-13 tocostapproximately$9.4billionperannum.Sinceapprox-imately30percentofthiscorporatewelfaregoestothemanufacturingindustry,itisasafebetthattheAustralianIndustryGroup,asignatorytothelettercallingforreformbutwhosemembersincludemanywhoreceiveindustryassistance,mightresistsuchasavingsmeasure.

One of the government’s chief errors with itsfirstbudgetwastomakealmosteveryreformcon-tingent on legislation, which it was unable to getthroughtheSenate.Thisyear itneedstouncouplereformfromthebudgetprocessandworkonitelse-where.Thegovernment shouldhavedone this lastyear, for example with the Medicare co-payment,

sendingitandabroaderhealth-carereform agenda to the ProductivityCommission to allow stakehold-ers to wage war over the policyand only deciding what measuresit would adopt once it was clearwhat the community—and theSenate—werelikelytosupport.ThegovernmenthasdonethiswiththeProductivity Commission inquiryinto workplace relations, which islooking at contentious but poten-tially vital reforms in areas likepenaltyrates,youthwagesandindi-vidual bargaining agreements thatcouldmakeabigdifferencetolevelsofemployment.

Strippedofthetaskofeconomicreform,thebudgetcanbereturnedto a more traditional accountingexercise. Yet already the govern-

ment has signalled that reform to childcare pay-mentsislikelytobeannouncedinthebudget,usingthemoneythegovernmentplannedtospendonpaidparental leave toprovide greater assistance.Whilethis was studied by the Productivity Commissionthereisstillconsiderableuncertaintyaboutwhatthegovernmentwillannounce,howmuchitwilladdtothebudgetbottomlineandwhetheritwillwinthesupportoffamiliesandoftheSenate.

But is it really possible, or even desirable, tomake budgets boring? John Maynard Keynes

hoped so. He thought it would be splendid if“economists could manage to get themselvesthoughtofashumble,competentpeople,onalevelwith dentists”. The idea was presumably to makebudgetsasboringasdentistryeveniftheywereaspainfulasrootcanaltherapy.TheSwedishpoliticalscientist Herbert Tingsten thought the rise oftechnocratic government would turn politics into

John Key, the poster boy for the BoreCons,

was re-elected in September for a

third term with an increased majority, promising nothing more exciting than “a strong and stable government” and “a brighter future for all

New Zealanders”.

Quadrant May 201526

Budgets, BoreCons and the Doctrine of Dullness

“a kind of applied statistics”.Certainly, few people get as excited as former

prime minister and treasurer Paul Keating at seeing a “beautiful set of numbers”, but budgets nonethe-less are about who gets what and how much, and because such decisions always leads to a clash of val-ues and conflicting interests, controversy is inevita-ble. In an era without windfalls to throw around, budgets must create winners and losers, and the los-ers will protest.

When it comes to reducing expenditure, the strat-egy of the government will be to rely on innovation and on eliminating waste and fraud. This flows from the recognition that there is no easy path to cutting expenditure. With the government already in debt, there are no “rivers of gold” flooding in with which to buy off the losers from any reform. Nor does the government have much political capital on which to draw which might help convince the electorate that it’s a matter of hard bread today for jam tomorrow. With no obvious easy targets or politically painless cuts, what is required is what Max Weber referred to as “strong and slow boring through hard wood”, which will be genuinely dull.

In health, for example, there is no silver bullet or prospect that a big-bang reform could be introduced to rein in expenditure. So it will require line-by-line reviews of individual expenditure items to cut fraud, better target services and eliminate waste. But there is much work that has been done identifying prob-lems in this area. For example, Dr Tony Webber, the former head of the Professional Service Review, the watchdog in charge of policing the abuse of Medicare, wrote in the Medical Journal of Australia in 2012 that the creation in 2005 of Medicare rebates for General Practice Management Plans (GPMPs) and Team Care Arrangements generated a bonanza for unscrupulous practitioners and corporate owners to claim for clinically unnecessary GPMPs. It also created a whole industry of allied health practition-ers and dentists who were able, for the first time, to shift the cost of podiatry, physiotherapy, psychology and dental care onto the taxpayer.

Jeremy Sammut, a research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies, calculated that between 2005 and 2013, the total real cost of these expendi-ture items increased by 327 per cent and by 2012-13 the total expenditure on these items was at least $720 million. Three years on, Sammut says nothing has been done to eliminate the abuse in this area.

Voters know that this sort of waste exists throughout the health sector and the public sector and expects the government to crack down on it

before raising taxes. Properly done, it should save more money than a modest co-payment.

Of course, even when it comes to eliminating the abuse of Medicare, an area in which the government indisputably holds the moral high ground, doctors and allied health professionals will still make the case against change. Yet by harnessing the knowl-edge and critiques of insiders, such as Dr Webber, the government gives itself a fighting chance of winning the argument.

The government should not make the mistake however of assuming that public service mandarins will be an ally in this task. Some will no doubt find it easier to ask for additional revenue rather than go through the hard work of making savings the way a private sector company would in search of increased profitability.

The holy grail of reining in government spend-ing is to improve services while reducing costs.

Usually this can only be achieved by finding whole new ways of doing things, much as Uber has revolu-tionised taxi services. The government could facili-tate this by making public sector data available to the general public and inviting the private sector to come up with innovative ways to improve services and reduce costs, while increasing transparency, accountability and efficiency.

Is it possible to have boring budgets when spend-ing already exceeds revenue? The recent state elec-tions in the eastern states provide grounds for both optimism and pessimism. While the Queensland government narrowly lost an election fought on the leasing of state assets to pay down debt and fund new infrastructure, the New South Wales govern-ment showed that it was possible to take the same unpopular policy to the electorate and comfortably win an election.

Perhaps the easiest way to take the excitement out of a budget is to have nothing new in it. The whole tradition of a budget lock-up has become increasingly artificial. Paul Keating may have liked throwing the switch to vaudeville, but with no bread and circuses to give away perhaps the government should leak absolutely everything beforehand. What could be more boring than that?

The true test of the success of the budget should perhaps be that on the second Tuesday in May most people choose to watch My Kitchen Rules. Then again, they probably always have.

Rebecca Weisser is the former Opinion Page Editor for the Australian.

QuadrantMay2015 27

Admiration for Ayn Rand’s autonomousheroes, support formulticulturalism,beliefin smaller government, a disliking for big

banks, defence of illegal immigrants, distrust ofUnited States global policy, a non-Marxist anti-imperialism(compareRonandRandPaulorDennisKucinich), advocacy of a protectionist nationalindustrypolicy.Anyconsistencyinallthat?

ManyofMalcolmFraser’sattitudeswerebasedon his perception of institutional threats to indi-viduals, cultures, even nations. Ayn Rand, whomhewentoutofhiswaytomeetbecauseheadmiredmuchofherphilosophy(thoughnothercontemptfor the weak—her heart never bled), pits her fic-tionalheroesagainstencroachingbureaucracy, thestate,andtheruleofbadlaw,whichtheydefiantlybreakordisregard.ThatresonatedwithFraser.Eachoftheapparentincompatibleslistedaboverelatesinsomewaytotheencroachmentofinstitutionalisedpower.

Take illegal immigrants (and accept for argu-ment’ssakethatmostaren’trefugees).Putthefol-lowing: “These individuals have managed to saveor scrape together ten or fifteen thousand to paysome potentially double-crossing boat-owner toget them here, with all the financial and physicalrisksinvolvedinthat,breakingtherules.Weedoutany who are dangerous or criminal by all means,butdon’tweneedmoreandnotlessofthatspirit?They’dbebetterforoureconomythanmostofthelegalsbecausethey’veshowntheyhavethegutsanddetermination to work and save money and maketheirownway,likeentrepreneurs,whobreakrulestoo. They’ve done more than wade across the RioGrande.”Frasercouldthinksuchthoughts,thoughhe overplayed the “refugee” bit, like his allies onthe Left, with whom he had more and more incommonassocialjusticeincreasinglyfiguredinhisstatements. The other thing he liked to point outwas that most “illegals” arrive unnoticed, by air,andsimplyoverstay theirvisas.Bycontrast, a sta-tistwouldsaythelawmustbeobeyed,“theproper

channels”,andsoon.Eveninhisincreasinglysoft-hearted days, Fraser was more individualist thanstatist, and had always been more federalist thancentralist (he offered to hand the income-taxingpower back to the states, whose it originally wasuntil the Second World War, but they declinedtheoffer:toohard,letCanberrakeepthat).Alongwithhisindividualismwentasocialconscience.HissocialindividualismwassimilartothatofMenzies.

Frasergrewupinanisolatedplace,onthevastwooded flatlands of the Riverina, by the banksof the Edward River, forty miles from the near-est sociable neighbour. “There were no strangersabout,”hismothertoldme.“Iftherewerestrangershe would disappear straight away. Very, very fewpeopleevercame.”Therewasamanager,somesta-tion hands, a series of nurses. He’d ride into theeucalyptforestsalone,eachtimeventuringdeeper,up to twenty-five miles at a stretch, where oth-ershadbeenlostandneverfound,orhe’dwanderamongtheriverredgumshuntingforrabbits,witha pet dog and devoted galah. There was freedomand lack of constraints, which, together with theisolation, promoted a self-sufficient, interiorisedpersonality, immune, in his case, to the collectivementalityofaMelbourneGrammarSchoolwherehehadfewfriends.Theinterestshedevelopedwerethoseof individuals,notgroups:sportingcarsandmotorcycles,shooting,photographyandfly-fishing.When we occasionally met we talked sports carsand motorcycles as often as international politics(heseemedlessinterestedinthelocalvariety).

In intellectual terms it was probably a mistakeforhisparentstosendhimtoOxfordstraightafterschool. He would have done better to complete alocaldegreefirst,butitwastraditionaltogodirectlytoOxbridge,hisfatherhaddonethesame,alltheirfriendsdidthat.HestudiedPhilosophy,PoliticsandEconomics,arevelationandchallenge.Hekeptallofhisseventy-oddessays,whichIhaveanalysedindetail,andwhichIsuspectnooneelsewillbothertoread.They’reworthlookingatbecausetheyshow

phiLip ay r Es

MalcolmFraser:ErrorsandMisconceptions

QuadrantMay201528


precisely where he’s going: towards an idealistic,socially-focused individualism. Those who thinkhe changed a lot should read them, they’re in theFraser archive. He thought the best conservativewouldbe“likeChurchill—aradicaldeterminedtodestroyevil,andwhereverhefoundit,byconstruc-tivelegislation”,andheretainedthisreformingandidealisticvisionuntiltheend.

Later(1973–75)he’ddefinetherelationbetweenthe apparent incompatibles of individualism andsocial policy in terms of enablement of freedom(government-provided family allowances, forinstance).ButviewsofFraserarefixednow:in1975,soitgoes,hewasaradicalrightist(almostafascist,somethink),andthenhedegeneratedintoanide-alistic dreamer, moving from far Right to wimpyLeft.Post-mortem the journalistsre-hashthesameold themes. “To think is to thinkagain”?

Thisisoneofthefunniestones:an Australian legend has it thatFraser at Oxford was close friendswith a black student from Africa,andhencetookupthecause.Iaskedhimaboutthatandhelaughed,webothlaughedtothinkthatsupportfor anti-colonialism and sympathyfornationalliberationstruggleshasto be explained in such a way …OnlyinAustralia.

Fraser’s choice of a life in poli-ticswas thedirect resultofhis

studies at Oxford and was madebefore he ever returned here. Thesame idealism, the same social individualism,runs throughallhisearly speeches.Following the1960 Sharpeville massacre he made the strongestspeechofany intheparliamentagainstapartheid,“acrime”hesaid,adoomedsystem.“Thespiritandthe emotion of our times are represented in theemancipation,freedomandself-governmentofcol-ouredpeople.Anythingthatfliesinthefaceofthisspiritcannotstandandwillbepushedasideinthispresentage.”

But didn’t Fraser go from pro-American andpro-BritishtoseeingtheUnitedStatesandBritainas dangerous allies? Actually, he never trustedeither.Yes,hebelievedtheVietnamWarwassome-how winnable, and for a long time clung to thenotionthatAmericawasforcedtofight“withonehand tiedbehind theirbacks”, asheput it tome.“Tiedbehindtheirbacks?”Iasked.“With550,000men committed there, and dropping more bombsthanthey’ddroppedonEuropeinWorldWarII?”Should they have gone nuclear, I wondered, or

all-out chemical (they’d gone geo-chemical). No,ofcoursenot—butInevergotitclearinmyhead,that“handsbehindtheirbacks”thing.Wasthathis,orsomethingfree-floatingI’dmissed?Orhe’dtalkabout America’s home-front rebellion against thewarandLBJ’sweakeningofwill.Idecidedthiswaspure self-defenceonhispart—until the late 1980shewasstillbackingpositionshe’dtakenduringhistenureof theArmyandDefenceportfolios in the1960s.Heceaseddoingthatinthe1990s.However,he’dnevertrustedtheAmericans,witnesshisnego-tiations in Washington over the F111 purchases—he found Melvin Laird and his associates in theDefenseDepartmentfullofdeceitandplayedthemattheirowncheatinggame.

LateronhewasclosetoKissinger,withwhomhe never disguised his distrustful view of United

Statespolicy;helikedKissingerandadmiredhowhehadturnedpolicyaroundonChina.Kissingerthoughtoutsidethesquare,withinacreativegeopolitics,notreflexivelylikemostconservatives.IngeneralFrasersawthe Americans as being for them-selves; theywouldneverdefendusoutofaltruism.Hadn’ttheybackedIndonesia, not us, on West Irian?Where were they on Konfrontasi?Nor was he at any time pro-Brit-ish. At Melbourne Grammar he’dneverbought theempirestuff,anymorethanRupertMurdochboughtitatGeelongGrammar,wasneverpartofaschool-inculcatedmental-ity,thoughtforhimselfandviscer-

allydislikedtheBritainhefoundin1949.Hetoldmehisdentisttheresaidhe’dneverseensuchgoodteeth.

AsPrimeMinister, thefirst countryhe visitedwas not Britain or the United States but China,where he was shown around sensitive defencefacilities Whitlam had never seen, for instance,the nuclear missile sites out from Urumqi. Hedeveloped andmaintained closepersonal relationswith top Chinese leaders over subsequent decadesand admired the successes of their market social-ism(or“socialismwithChinesecharacteristics”,inthe tradition of Bukharin’s anti-Stalinist “Enrichyourselves” line on the Russian peasantry in thelate1920s).LikeGeraldFordandotherRepublicanpresidents,heimmenselyadmiredDengXiaoping.Thestrikingeconomicsuccessofmarketsocialism,withthegovernmentincontrolofthecommandingheights but where individuals were encouraged tobecome rich, enriching the economy in the proc-ess,impressedhimallalong,itwasnotsomething

In general Fraser saw the Americans as being for themselves;

they would never defend us out of

altruism. Hadn’t they backed Indonesia, not

us, on West Irian? Nor was he at any time pro-British.

QuadrantMay2015 29


onwhichhe“movedtotheleft”.HesawChinaasalogicalallyforAustraliabecausetheireconomiesweresomutuallydependent,whereas(forexample)theUnitedStateshadnevertreatedouragriculturalexportsfavourably.Itwouldbefoolish,hethought,forAustraliatoallowitselftobepressuredintoanymilitary alliance against China. His opposition tothe establishment of an American base of opera-tions inDarwin isconsistentwithhisattitudes toChinaandtheUnitedStatesoverfortyyears.

The reason Fraser did not ruthlessly overturnthe Whitlam legacy was because, having come topowerbyruthlessmeans,viaamanwhomhereadlikeabook,SirJohnKerr,heunderstoodthatthenation required stabilisation, not revenge. It’s fairto say that afterhis second sweepingelectionvic-tory, of 1977, he had the chance to move further,faster,oneconomicandfiscal reform,althoughhedidwindbacktheproportionofgovernmentspend-ingtoGDP.Moreover,contexthastobetakenintoaccount:aconservativeTreasuryunderJohnStone(atleastintheviewofFraser,KeatingandHawke;Stone would later become a harsh critic of Fraseronthisveryissue,andfightallthreeonthehistori-calfacts),anationthathadneverheardof“smallergovernment”,afourthestateshockedandalarmedbythescaleoftheRazorGang’scuts(welookbacknowandwonderhowtheycoulddescribethemas“swingeing”)—thatwasthecontext,sothatwhen,a few years later, Hawke and Keating proceededto reformtheAustralianeconomy ina reallyboldway,thegroundhadbeenprepared.Italsohastobesaid that Fraser’s caution on economic reform, forinstancehissetting-upoftheCampbellCommitteeandthenhisreluctancetogofull-speedonitsrec-ommendations, was due in part to his agrarianbackground,hisdistrustofthebanksincludingtheReserve Bank, generally what Jack Lang used tocallthemoneypower;andtherewasalwaysanele-mentof agrarian socialism inhis thinking,whichwas and remained moderately protectionist. Buthereagainthereisconsistency.

Following preliminary moves in that directionunder Whitlam, Fraser introduced his policy ofmulticulturalism.Theproblemwasthathecreatedanindustryaroundit,withprofessionalorganisersandbureaucratsfeedingoffthepublicpurse.Inanycasethepolicyitselfwasunnecessaryanddivisive,buthereagainhewasacting,ashesawit,indefenceof individual and cultural difference against adominant Anglo power structure he’d never hadmuch time for, in a country thathadalwaysbeena settler state, unlike, say, France, Germany orItaly.Butitwasunnecessarytohaveapolicybuilton “multiculturalism”.All thatwasneededwas tocease using the term “assimilation”, which was an

historical lie in any case. Australians have neverbeen an “assimilated” people; those of CatholicIrish or Italian or Greek background have alwayskept hold of their culture, autonomously, withoutany bureaucratic pressure or incentives to do so.The taxpayer doesn’t have to support that. It wasbadpolicy,unnecessary.Fraserwouldprobablyhaverepliedthatitwasanotherpolicyofenablement,inthiscaseofindividualandculturaldistinctiveness.Ayn Rand would have despised that notion—letindividuals help themselves. I mention her againbecauseIcan’tgetitoutofmyheadthatasPrimeMinisterhehadhisstaffcallherupandbroughttohishotelinNewYorkforatalk.Whatshemadeofthatseemstohavegoneunrecorded.

The most impressive thing about him, to mywayofthinking,washisstronginteriorityandself-sufficiency,thoughtherewasanemotionalvulner-ability,aswithanyone.Hedidn’tneedotherpeoplemuch,exceptpolitically,andwithinthefamily.Thisoffendedthepress,whohadnopossibilityofpluck-ingouttheheartofthemystery—theyjustcouldn’tgetinthere.NorcouldI,butthenIdidn’twantto.Iwasworriedaboutsomethingorotheronce,andsaid so,andhe toldme, “Don’t fret”,whichmademedespisemyself,becausehe’dneverdothat.

Thefollowingisbywayofaclose-upontheforceofsuchapersonality.Tryenvisaginganyother

formerAustralianprimeminister in the followingsituation—itwon’tcompute.IobservedhimcloselyinSouthAfricain1986asheconfrontedtheapart-heid police, with their riot guns and rhino-hidesjamboks,outinoneofthe“homelands”,andagainin Somalia in 1992 when, as president of CAREInternational, he confronted General Aidid—aninterestingday,withtwostrongmenatastand-off,inasituationoftotalchaos.Ididn’tdislikeAidid,whatlittleIsawofhim.Hewasonourside,moreor less. There was nothing instinctively to dislike,and of course the character who goes under hisname in thefilmBlackhawk Down is afigmentofHollywood’simagination.Yes,hebecameanenemyofAmerica.

After four days’ warning in which to fortifyit, General Aidid’s south-western stronghold ofBardera, a major aid centre for CARE and otheragencies, had succumbed to a dawn attack byarmed units aligned with the Somali NationalFront (SNF) and led by the cultivated “General”Morgan—MohammedSaidHersiMorgan,son-in-lawtotheousteddictatorSiadBarre,andreputedlytheworstwarcriminalinthecountry.Ifonehadtochoosebetweenacity’s fatebeing in thehandsofMorganorAidid,anywell-disposedpersonwouldchooseAidid.Fraserneededhishelp tomove the

QuadrantMay201530


aidconvoysbuttheman’spowerwasslipping.Itwasjustthreehoursafterthefallofthistown

thatFrasermetwithhim.Itookdetailednotes.Aidid’s compound in south Mogadishu was

heavilyguarded.Youclimbedtoanupstairslandingandenteredhisprivaterooms,butfirstyouremovedyour shoes, and once inside you sat on cushions,not chairs. This was the Islamic aspect of Aidid’sUnitedSomaliCongress(USC).TherivalUSCledbythesmoothAliMahdiMuhammad,self-styled“Interim President”, who held north Mogadishuandnotmuchelse,madenoattempttocreateanysuch effect (his furniture was plush). In 1991 theyhadfoughtacivilwarthroughMogadishu,leavingthiswhiteandonce-elegantItaliancolonial city looted and in ruins.A “green line” separated its northfrom its south.You could seehowattractiveithadbeeninMussolini’stime, for the built environment ofthat period was entirely intact,includinganarchofvictory.

Aidid couldn’t have guessedthatFraseralreadyknewaboutthefallofBardera, fromwhereoneofCARE’s aid workers had radioedthat he and two journalists werehostages of the SNF. After hand-shakesallround,wereceivedahis-tory lesson designed to show thatthe chaos was everyone’s fault butAidid’s.He toldushewouldnever sitdownwiththe man he had overthrown, the evil Siad Barreandhisgang.NorwouldhetalktoAliMahdiandhiscliqueuntilheceasedcallinghimself “InterimPresident”.Aididassuredushecontrolledelevenofthe eighteen regions of Somalia. If only that hadbeentrue,thecountrywouldhavebeenthebetterforit,forthenmoreoftheaidwouldhavebeenget-tingthroughtothepeoplewhoneededit,insteadofintothehandsofindependentgangs.

“I’m sorry, General,” Fraser interrupted, “but Ihavetocontradictyou.”

Aididwasvisiblyputout.“Ifyouwouldpermitmetocontinue?”

“Look, General, you don’t even control yourowncentres.Twoandahalfhoursagoyourforceswere pushed out of Bardera. Now we hear thatMorgan’s men, victorious there, are closing onSaccouen. CARE thought it was safe in Barderabecause itwasyour town,General,butour confi-dencewasmisplaced.Asforyour‘control’here,it’sobviouslynotyouwhocontrolsthestreetsofsouthMogadishu but undisciplined gangs. Just listen totherandomgunfire—it’stotallyinsecurehere.Youdon’tevencontroltheairport—rightnowthestrip’s

closedbecauseofclanfighting.”TheGeneralsquintedthroughallthisinobvious

agitation.“Please, sir!Please! Ifyouwouldpermitme to respond?First, it is true thatwehavebeenforcedoutofBardera.Iamsendingreinforcementsandwewillretakethattown,Iassureyou…”

“But,General,youhadfourdays’warningoftheattackandstillyoulostit.”

“Andwewillretakeit,Ipromiseyou.Thenyourpoint about security in Mogadishu—I am givingordersthatallthearmedgangsaretobeforcedoffthestreetsanddisarmed…”

“When,General?Whenwillyoudoallthis?”“Withinoneweek!”

One week in his dreams.Althoughhewouldhavetheneces-sary forces at his disposal to repelthe US incursion some monthslater, he would not be around forlong,dying in July 1996of aheartattack, either during or immedi-atelyafteranoperationonwoundssustained in a clash with rivals. IhaveaKodachromeslideItookofhimandFraserconversing.

Thatconfrontationtellsyoualotabout Fraser, how he handled

himself, his power of control. Hethrived on confrontation. In themonth-long blocking of Supply in

October-November1975,whenitwasonlyhiswillthatheldafrayingOppositiontogether,hewasathis best. His Oxford essays, even, are confronta-tional.Hewashappiestfightinginwhathesawasagoodcauseandifhebroughtthehousedownontopofhim,asheseemedtobedoingin1975,sobeit.Thereweretheoddcontradictions,butgenerallyhispoliticaloutlookovertheyearswasphilosophi-callyconsistent.

Hemademajormistakesinthelatteryears,suchasunsuccessfullyseekingtheLiberalParty’sfederalpresidency,apostnoformerprimeministershouldprobably hold, and his resignation from the partythathaddonesomuchforhimwasarguablyasself-ishasitwas(inhisview)principled.Thepartyhadabandonedhim,he said,nothe theparty. In factboththingsweretrue.Thepartyhadmovedtotheright,ditchingsomeofthesocialelementsthathadalwaysbeen there inhisphilosophy,whilehehadgraduallymagnifiedthem.Thingschange.

Malcolm Fraser: A Biography by Philip Ayres was published in 1987. A shorter version of this article appeared on Quadrant Online after Malcolm Fraser’s death in March.

He thrived on confrontation. In the month-long blocking of Supply in October-November 1975, when

it was only his will that held a fraying

Opposition together, he was at his best.

QuadrantMay2015 31

Service Records

Complexion:dark,colourofeyes:grey,Oathtaken:January1915,sohelphimGod,Dischargedouttheotherside:October1918.Topiecetogethertherest,IhavetolearnArmy.

GassedinAction.TakenOnStrength.GunShotWounds.Thesequencerepeats—

Likeamalevolentscratchintherecord.HebroughthisfinalwoundhomeAndgrandfatheredme.ItrytolineupThedateswithahistoryofhisBattalion

I’vecobbledtogether,fromanythingwithinreachOfaholidaylaptoponaBassCoastdeckOverlookingapeacetimebeach.Apairofbluewrensawaitstheresult.

WhentherecordsalignIsee:Gallipoli, TheSomme,

Passchendaele.DearGod,nowonderhehatedparades.

HisfirstchargewasinsolencetoaBritishNCO—Alifetimeofinsubordinationexplained?Butthetimelinestellmehe’dbeenThreemonthsonTurkishbeachesbythen

Andmyself-congratulationfallsaway.IhavetosearchNavy/DisgracetounderstandHislastcharge,ofsmokingbetweendecks.Aterriblecrime,itseems,foramuch-woundedprivate

Onadepletedtroopship,almosthome.Iseeayoungdark-hairedboywithgreyeyesThegasandthegunfirebehindhimThesmallvictoryofholdinghisowncigarette

PausingtocontemplatethepossibilitiesOfanentirehand—amanmightstillmarryIfonlyhecanforgetthemudandthemadnessAndlearntheveteran’sprayer—

Lestweremember.

Elisabeth Wentworth

Grace

Allowedfromthemillionsjustone,thewordtosavemightbegrace.NottheAmazingkindnorHemingway’spressureonthematador’sfaceasbullpassespelvis.NeitherdinnertablemumbleortheMemphislandofElvisbutthatreductivegracewhich,withthegravityofoneg,takesalltheheatfromrace.

NoheadlongFall-FromGrace-and-Favour’scondescendbutamorning’sabsolvingsmile,attwilight,alifenearingend.Drought-breakingrainuponroofcirclesdancingoutonapondlovethatdemandsnoproof…Certaingraceswhichabidewithoutreachingforbeyond.

Rod Usher

QuadrantMay201532

Back inDecember2013, formerUSsecretar-ies of state Henry Kissinger (who servedfrom1973to1977)andGeorgeShultz(1982

to1989)wroteanop-edforthe Wall Street Journaltitled“WhataFinalIranDealMustDo”.Thismis-siveappearedaweekafterPresidentObamasignedthe2013interimnuclearagreementwiththeIslamicRepublicofIran,onethatpurportedtotemporarilyfreezeTehran’sdecade-longadvancetowardsmili-tarynuclearcapability.KissingerandShultzwarnedthat the Islamic Republic’s quest for the nuclearbombwouldbeenhancedbythe2013interimagree-ment.OnApril12,2015,aweekafterObamacel-ebratedhislatest“breakthrough”withtheMullahsofIran,theso-calledframeworkforapreliminarynuclearagreement,KissingerandShultzpublisheda sequel in the Wall Street Journal, this time titled“The IranDeal and ItsConsequences”.Theworstfearsof theformersecretariesofstateappearedtobeconfirmedbythelatestturnofevents:

negotiationsthatbegan12yearsagoasaninternationalefforttopreventanIraniancapabilitytodevelopanucleararsenalareendingwithanagreementthatconcedesthisverycapability,albeitshortofitsfullcapacityinthefirsttenyears.

The problem, in the opinion of Kissinger andShultz, is that the P5+1 (UN Security CouncilmembersplusGermany)negotiationshaveprogres-sively legitimised Tehran’s thirteen-year-old questfornuclearweapons capability.Between2003and2013Tehran “defiedunambiguousUNandIAEAdemandsandproceededwithamajornucleareffort,incompatiblewithanexclusivelycivilianpurpose”.DuringthistimeIran“periodicallyengagedintalksbutneverdismantledanyaspectof itsenrichmentinfrastructureorgrowingstockpileoffissilemate-rial”,notwithstandingsixSecurityCouncilresolu-tions passed between 2006 and 2010. The interimagreementreachedonNovember24,2013,hadpro-

videdtheIslamicRepublicwithanestimated$8bil-lioninsanctionsreliefinexchangeforatemporaryhalttosomeaspectsofitsnuclearprogram.Tehranwasnotbeingaskedtodismantleorwindbackitsvast nuclear infrastructure, let alone lengthen thebreakouttimenecessarytoacquirenuclearweaponscapability.Thus,the2013interimagreementeffec-tively“recognisedasbaseline”pastIranianmiscon-ductincludinguraniumenrichmentandplutoniumproduction,allpreviouslycondemnedbytheUnitedStates and the international community as illegalandillegitimate.

Inshort,KissingerandShultz’swarningin2013wasthatsittingdownatthetablewiththeIslamicRepublichadnotmadetheworldsaferbutquitetheopposite.The2013 agreement resulted in “a subtlebutfundamentalchangeintheconceptualbasisofthenuclearstandoff”.Formerly,theUSA(andtheUN)hadinsistedthattheIslamicRepublicremain“inthecold”untilitsnuclearweaponsambitionwasirrevocably ended. Some kind of nuclear programwith an “exclusively civilianpurpose”wasnot outofthequestionbuttheideaof“anIranianmilitarynuclearcapability”andIranas“anuclearthresholdpower”hadpreviouslycomeunderthecategoryofnon-negotiable.AfterNovember2013,however,therulesofengagementchangedor,toputittheotherway around, engagement had changed the rules.Ever since, regrettably, the United States (alongwith theotherP5+1nations)hasbeenprepared tonegotiateabout“breakouttimes”,implicitlyaccept-ing the Islamic Republic’s status as “a nuclearthresholdpower”.

ThisexplainswhyKissingerandShultz,intheirApril op-ed, assert that the Islamic Republic hasturned the original—we might say actual—pur-poseoftheP5+1deliberations“onitshead”.Theso-called frameworkappears togiveTehranvirtuallyeverything it wants: the possibility of progressingtowardsnuclearweaponscapabilityandtheliftingofcrippling sanctions.KissingerandShultzarguethat although President Obama and Secretary of

dary L mCCa n n

WiserMenontheIranianDeal

QuadrantMay2015 33


State John Kerry deserve “respect” for attempting“toimposesignificantconstraintsonIran’snuclearprogram”, including confining the enrichment ofuraniumtoonefacility,the2015frameworkhasgap-ingholes.Forinstance,twoweeksafterannouncingtheirdiplomatic“breakthrough”,ObamaandKerrywerestilltoreleaseanofficialtextoftheagreement,allowing Iran’s principal negotiator to dismissAmerica’sinterpretationoftheagreementas“spin”.AndeveniftheIslamicRepublicdutifullysignsuptoadetailedpreliminarynuclearagreementbytheendofJune,itisnotrequiredtodismantlethevastnuclearprogram,merelyputitonhold—a“strate-gicpause”wemightcallit.

Moreover, ifTehrandecidestopursuethegoalof nuclear weapons capability over the next tenyears,historytellsusthattheInternationalAtomicEnergy Agency (IAEA) will notbeup to the jobof detecting suchadevelopment.Andoncethosetenyearsareup,the“scopeandsophis-tication” of Iran’s nuclear,militaryand industrial power almost cer-tainly guarantee the very outcomeall the P5+1 talks were meant toprevent. President Obama’s pre-liminarynuclearagreement,intheopinion of Kissinger and Shultz,does not diminish the threat of anuclear-armed Iran but insteadgivesTehranthe“latentcapacitytoweaponiseatatimeofitschoosing”.

Whyhasallthiscometopass?The premise of Michael

Rubin’s Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes(2014)isthatgovernment-sanctioned negotiations with rogue regimes, fromthePeople’sDemocraticRepublicofKorea to theIslamicRepublicofIran,arenotnecessarilyaposi-tivething.Unlessarogueentityisreadyandwillingto be “brought in from the cold”, as was the casein 2003 with Gaddafi’s WMD program, would-be peacemakers are likely to do more harm thangood.USdiplomaticoutreach,accordingtoRubin,canendupnotonlylegitimisingawaywardregimebut alsoemboldening it,usually at theexpenseofAmerica’s traditionalalliesandthecivilisedworldingeneral.EnterthePeacemaker-in-ChiefandhisattemptedrapprochementwithIran.It is theroguestate, Kissinger and Shultz contend, that alwayshas the upper hand in negotiations: “While Irantreatedthemerefactofitswillingnesstonegotiateas a concession, the West felt compelled to breakeverydeadlockwithanewproposal.”

Sanctions remain one of the obvious sticking

points in the framework for apreliminarynuclearagreement. Without the release of an officialdetailedtextwecannotbesureaboutthespecifics.Obama and Kerry insist that economic sanctionswillberelaxedinapiecemealfashionconcomitantto Iran’s verified compliance with an official 2015preliminary nuclear agreement, but already theIraniansareengagedinpushback.VariousIranianspokesmencallAmericanpronouncementsa“mis-interpretation”oftheframeworkfortheagreement,while Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameneinow insists he cannot countenance a June dealcontaining anything short of an immediate andtotalcessationofsanctions,andthat theso-calledframeworkhisnegotiatorsacceptedonApril2was“unfinishedandnon-binding”.Hereis“theshrewddiplomacy”thatKissingerandShultznotein“The

Iran Deal and Its Consequences”.WecanimagineaflannellingJohnKerry on the line to a flummoxedBarack Obama, talking abouthowtobreakthe impassewithyetanother concession, this time onsanctionsrelief.

TeamObamahasspokenabout“snap-back”sanctionsinthecaseofIranian non-compliance. KissingerandShultzaresceptical,suggestingthatany restorationof sanctions isunlikely to be as automatic as theexpression snap-back implies: “Incountriesthathadreluctantlyjoinedinpreviousrounds,thedemandsofpublicandcommercialopinionwillmilitate against automatic or even

prompt‘snap-back’.”Somefutureattempt“toreim-pose sanctions risks primarily isolating America,notIran”.Besides,Khameneiandthetwelve-mem-ber Guardian Council can—in the course of thenexttenyears—invalidateanucleardealauthorisedbyPresidentHassanRouhaniwhenevertheydeemthemomentprovidential.

KissingerandShultzarenotconvincedAmericashould be giving the Iranians the benefit of thedoubt, because co-operation is not “an exercise ingood feeling”, and for past thirty-five years theIslamicRepublichasprofessedanexistentialisthos-tilitytowardstheUnitedStates(“theGreatSatan”).KissingerandShultzputitthisway:

Iran’srepresentatives(includingitsSupremeLeader)continuetoprofessarevolutionaryanti-Westernconceptofinternationalorder;domestically,someseniorIraniansdescribenuclearnegotiationsasaformofjihadbyothermeans.

America’s diplomatic outreach can end up not only legitimising a wayward regime

but also emboldening it, usually at the

expense of America’s traditional allies and the civilised world in general.

QuadrantMay201534


As recently as March, Khamenei vented hisfeelingswithanhour-longanti-Americandiatribein front of a crowd of frenzied activists, climax-ingwiththisOrwellianchant:“DeathtoAmerica!DeathtoIsrael!”

The lifting of sanctions against the IslamicRepublic, in whatever form that might take,couldgivetherulingcliqueinTehranthebreath-ing space it requires to achieve nuclear weaponscapabilitybeforetheirreligion-infusedkleptocracybecomesevenlesstenable.EventhecurrentIranianpresident, the “pragmatic” Hassan Rouhani, hasboasted of misleading the international commu-nitythroughoutthefirstdecadeofthetwenty-firstcenturytobuytimeforIran’sattainmentofnuclearweapons capability. During Rouhani’s tenure asthe Islamic Republic’s “nuclear envoy”, Iran builtits top secret Fordow site and also a heavy-waterplant in Arak capable of turning out plutonium.With“moderates”suchasRouhaniwhatneeddoesIran have of “hard-liners”? The idea of a nucleardealservingas“awaystationtowardstheeventualdomestication of Iran” is dismissed by KissingerandShultzasadangerousdelusion.

NottheleastdamningelementoftheKissinger–Shultz critique of President Obama’s nuclearagreement “triumph” relates to Realpolitik or, asour wily former secretaries of state term it, “tra-ditional balance of power theory”. Washington’sattempted rapprochement with Tehran makes nostrategicsense,accordingtoKissingerandShultz,sinceitinvolvesaidingandabettingthe“therisingor expanding power” rather than bolstering “theweaker side” in the sectarian conflagration rag-ing throughout the Middle East. One enemy ofthecivilisedworld in theregion,IslamicState, isthe also the enemy of the Islamic Republic but,asIsrael’sBenjaminNetanyahupointedoutinhisMarch 3 address toCongress, thatdoesnot turnthe Islamic Republic into America’s friend. TheIslamic Republic, on account of its military andindustrial capacity, has thepotential to create farmoremayhemintheMiddleEastthantheKhmerRouge-likeIslamicState.Besides,theideathattheUSAandtheIranmightco-ordinatetheirrespec-tiveresourcestothwartSunnimilitants(fromtheTalibaninAfghanistantoAlQaedainIraq)—“theGrand Bargain”, as it was once tagged—lost allcredibility long ago. Supreme Leader Khamenei

explained the situation at his March rally:“America’s objectives on regional matters are theoppositetoourobjectives.”

Were the Islamic Republic to attain nuclearweapons capability—or even seem tobe in

theprocessofdoingso—theUnitedStateswouldbe left with two options. One involves watchingon as Saudi Arabia and Egypt get the bomb, aprocess that in all likelihoodwouldbe facilitatedbyPakistan.Here is the stuffofnightmares.Theonly alternative to this means America provid-inga“nuclearumbrella”toitsMiddleEastallies,from Saudi Arabia and Egypt to Jordan and theGulf sheikhdoms. Such a scenario, as Kissingerand Shultz make clear, would result in the USbeingforeverensnaredinthemachinationsoftheMiddle East. So much for the Obama Doctrineand the promise of American disengagement. Ineither case, we are taking about the eviscerationofthewholeanti-proliferationstructureas itcur-rentlyexists.

The consequences of the Islamic Republicobtaining nuclear weapons capability are dire,something that President Obama himself hasrepeatedlyacknowledgedovertheyears.Itwould,asKissingerandShultzsay,inflamearegionthatisalreadytrendingtowards“sectarianupheaval”andinvolveIranactivelyintensifying“effortstoexpandandentrenchitspowerinneighbouringstates”.

The irresponsible conduct of the P5+1 negotia-tors,asthewisemenmakeclear,hasalreadydonegreat damage well in advance of any final agree-ment.FortheJunepreliminarynuclearagreementtohaveapositiveimpactontheregion,Iranmustgiveupitsnuclearweaponsambitionanditsneigh-boursmustbelievethattobetrue.TherealfollyofP5+1 is tohaveallowed the IslamicRepublicovertheyearstosubverttheiroriginalmissionbyrede-finingthedebateordiscussionintermsoflimitingIran’s “breakout time”. It shouldneverhavecometothis.Thepeacemakers,asissooftenthecaseinhistory, have made war of every imaginable kindmorelikely,andthatincludesmilitaryinterventioninIran.

Daryl McCann reviewed Robert G. Rabil ’s Salafism in Lebanon in the April issue. He has a blog at http://darylmccann.blogspot.com.au.

QuadrantMay2015 35

Back in 2007, Kevin Rudd thought he couldmakeabigpoliticalstatementbyoutflankingJohnHowardasafreemarketeer.Heclaimed

tobethetrue“economicconservative”,andattackedtheHowardgovernment’s “recklessspending”.Butthat was just half of Rudd’s pitch. A headline inthe Australian Financial Review in October thatyearscreamed,“LaborblastsPMoverredtapebur-den”.ReaderslearnedthatRuddhad“savaged”theCoalition for the regulation that was “strangling”business.“StandbyfortheRegulationRevolution,”said the Sydney Morning Herald; “cutting back themazeofbusinessregulationandredtape”wouldbeoneofRudd’s“toppolicypriorities”.

Theysaythepastisanothercountry.Campaignsare another planet. Once handed power by theAustralianvoters,thepracticeoftheRuddgovern-ment was light years away from its soaring cam-paignrhetoric.Yes,truetoRudd’spromise,LindsayTanner was appointed Australia’s Minister forFinanceandDeregulation.YetoneofTanner’sfirstactsasministerwastopresideoveravastincreaseinregulatorycontroloverthefinancesector,adoptingnew federal anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism-financinglawsthathadbeenpreparedbytheHowardgovernment.

Thiswas justa tasteof things tocome.Tannerwasourfirstderegulationministerandtheexperi-mentwasafailure.Justashewasunable,asMinisterforFinance,topreventthemassivesplurgeofgov-ernmentspendinginstigatedbyRudd,WayneSwanandTreasurySecretaryKenHenry,hewasunabletoholdbackthetidalwaveofnewregulationthatcame with an interventionist government. By thetwilightoftheLaborgovernment,thiswaveofreg-ulatoryinterventionismhadbecomeaflood.Rudd’sprofesseddisdainfortheredtapeburdenstranglingbusinesswasforgotten.Vastnewregulatoryframe-workswerebeingimposedonlabourmarkets,finan-cial markets, employment conditions, child care,hospitals and health, aged care, competition law,healthandsafety laws,highereducation,charities,

coastalshipping,andofcoursetheenvironment.These increased the regulatory burden on indi-

vidual sectors, but also the economy in general.Forinstance,thecostofregulationimposedontheminingandenergysectorsflowthroughtoraisethecostsofdownstreamproducts.Justastaxes—likethecarbonandminingtaxes—reduceeconomicgrowthandlivingstandards,socanregulationimposedonthesevitalsectors.

Someofthemostegregiousnewregulationswerenot successfully implemented. CommunicationsMinister Stephen Conroy was unable to pass hislarge-scaleattempttoregulatefairnessinthepress.Attorney-GeneralNicolaRoxonwasunabletopassherattempttocreatearightnottobeoffendedoneverything from race to politics in the workplace.Roxondidhowevermanagetopassthatmanifestlyabsurd and deeply symbolic instance of regulatoryover-reach—plainpackagingontobaccoproducts.

Thesenewregulationsbecameasourceofpridefor the Labor government. Trying to combat thesensethatparliamentunderJuliaGillard’sminoritygovernment was chaotic, Anthony Albanese usedto brag about just how many pages of legislationGillard had ushered through parliament. As themonths tickedby thenumbergrewever larger. Insixyears,Laborpassedawhopping975acts,addingupto38,874pagesoflegislation.

It’s true that the volume of legislation is animperfectmeasureofthegrowthinregulation,foranumberofimportantreasons.Itisindicativeratherthan demonstrative. It does not take into accountthe effect that each new piece of legislation willhave, nor does it take into account the fact thatsome legislationmightrepealexisting law, therebyreducing the regulatoryburden.On theother sideof the ledger these figures do not include subor-dinate legislation nor any state laws and councilbylaws. But it is extremely suggestive. And con-stantlegislativechangeimposesitsowncosts,asweshalldiscussbelow. In2012 theInstituteofPublicAffairs calculated that therewere 103,908pagesof

Chris bErg

TheUndoneTasksofDeregulation

QuadrantMay201536


Commonwealthlegislationonthebooks.Rudd’sderegulationpushmayhavebeenbrazen,

buteverygovernmentcomestopowerpromisingtocutredtape.TheHowardgovernmenthaditsownpromisetoreducetheregulationwhichwas“envel-opingsmallbusiness”butthefruitsofthatlabourarehardtosee.AustraliawasmoreregulatedaftertheHowardyearsratherthanless,asIpointedoutinthe2009bookThe Howard Era.ForallthestabilityandgoodgovernancethattheCoalitionofferedbetween1996and2007itdidlittletostemthegrowingtideofregulation.Ruddwasn’twrongwhenhediagnosedtheredtapeproblemin2007.It’sjustthathewasn’ttheperson—andhispartywasn’tgame—tofixit.

So how does the Abbott government shape up?There arepositive early signs.On theheadline

figureof legislative activity, 2014was agoodyear.Therewerejust135actsconstituting4607pagesoflegislationpassedthroughtheCommonwealthpar-liamentlastyear.Thisisadropfromthemorethan5000pagespassedin2013,andhappilywellbelowthe8150passedin2012.Nodoubtthisisinpartdueto the trouble that the government has had pass-ingitsbillsthroughahostile,unpredictableSenate.But it is also due to the efforts of the Coalition’sown deregulation minister, Josh Frydenberg, andtheemphasisthattheAbbottgovernmenthasplacedonitsderegulationagenda.AbbottandFrydenbergmade deregulation one of the central features ofits economic message in the Gillard years, lean-ing heavily on reducing the regulatory burden aspartofitsplantorevivetheeconomyafteryearsofsluggishness.

Andyet.WhiletheAbbottgovernmentrepealed57,000 pages of legislation in 2014—and claims tohave saved the economy a whopping $2.1 billion ayear—muchofthatwhichwasrepealedwasalreadydefunct. The real work of deregulation, if it is tooccur,hasn’tstarted.

Indeed, the Abbott government’s deregulationexperienceshowswhythisagendaissohardtopur-sue.In2013,themuch-publicised“RepealDays”—asingle parliamentary day every six months dedi-cated solely to repealing law rather than introduc-ing it—were important but, as they came around,theiragendaitemskeptdisappearing.Forinstance,the proposal to eliminate the entirely unnecessarygender-equality reporting requirements imposedon businesses with more than 100 employees hadto be dropped, apparently for political reasons.The reforms to the Labor government’s Future ofFinancialAdviceprogram,whichwouldhavetakenthe edge off some of the most extreme regulatorycontrols but nevertheless left the previous govern-ment’s regulatory framework largely inplace,were

implementedby regulation. Ina surpriseupset theFutureofFinancialAdvicereformswerereversedbytheSenateattheendoftheyear.Otherderegulatoryproposals—suchasthederegulationofhigheredu-cation—haveflounderedaswell.

Every regulation, even the most absurd, hasa unique justification, and its own constituency.Gender-equality reporting is “not an issue of redtape”, according to Claire Braund, the head of anorganisation called Women on Boards Australia.But it is the epitome of red tape—it imposes noother compliance requirements on firms exceptpaperwork, and paperwork that has no other pur-poseexceptinforminggovernment.Itshouldbethelow-hanging fruitof regulatory reduction.There isnot a single person in the country, except perhapsthe bureaucrats that administer the program, whowould be materially worse off if this requirementwasabandoned.Yetgender reportingcouldnotberepealed.

In some areas the government seems intent ongoing backwards. The Abbott government started2015withastalledbudgetandbytalkinguparangeofregulatoryincreases.It’sclampingdownonforeignownershipinproperty.It’sintroducingnewcountry-of-origin labels to foodproducts. It’s talkingaboutloweringtheGSTthresholdonimportsanddigitalproducts,whichwouldrequireenormousnewregu-latoryinfrastructureforretailersandimportersalike.Ithaspassedlegislationtoimposenewcontrolsonsocialmediawebsitestoclampdownoncyberbully-ingandtorequireinternetserviceproviderstokeepvast amounts of information on every Australian’sonline activities just in case they are in the futuresuspectedofacrimeorregulatoryviolation.

Wecanbattheprosandconsoftheseproposalsaround.Theyought tobedebated earnestly.

Buttheyillustratethatevenagovernmentasappar-ently dedicated to deregulation as the CoalitionunderTonyAbbott is nevertheless unable to resistthe steady creepofneweconomic controls.There’ssomethingmuchdeeper goingonhere than tradi-tionalpartyideology.WhileitisclearthatLabor’sapproachtoregulationwasworsethanwhatwesawunder the Howard government and what we haveseen so far underAbbott,we’re talking aboutdif-ferences in degree, not kind. There is a deep andseemingly inexorable logic of modern democraticgovernmentthatpushesittowardsregulatoryexcess.Recognisingwehave aproblem is thefirst step tosolvingit.

Anditisaproblem.EachyeartheWorldEcon-omic Forum publishes a Global CompetitivenessReport which rates world economies according toalargerangeofindicatorsthatwouldhelpfacilitate

QuadrantMay2015 37


business.Australiadoes relativelywell overall.Weratewellonthingslikeeducation,thesoundnessofourbanks, thehealthofourpopulation,thedepthof our financial markets, the professionalism ofmanagementandsoon.Butwearecatastrophicallybad when it comes to “burden of governmentregulation”—aterrible124thintheworld,sharingaspotwithsucheconomicpowerhousesasIran,SpainandZimbabwe.Ourcompetitorsratemuchhigher.TheUnitedStatesisateighty-second,whileCanadaistwenty-ninth.

The Australian Industry Group surveyed 241CEOs in Australian businesses. The number ofexecutiveswhonominatedgovernmentregulationasoneof their top three impediments to growthhasgrownfrom9percentin2011to11percentin2014.This figure may seem relativelysmall in isolation,butgiven that itcompetes against other factors likethe global economic and invest-ment climate, it is strikingly high.Fully 83 per cent of CEOs believetheyfaceamediumtohighlevelofregulatory burden—particularly intheareasofindustrialrelationsandhealthandsafety.

The Minerals Council ofAustralia commissioned a reviewof legislative controls on the min-ing industry. It found that thenumber of primarypieces of legis-lation overseeing project approvalsnation-wideincreasedfromninety-fourto144between2006and2013.Subordinate legislation increased even more: fromsixty-six in 2006 to 119 in 2013. As they told theProductivity Commission’s 2013 review into min-eral and energy resource exploration, the largestmining states,WesternAustralia andQueensland,havesomeofthemostonerousregulatoryburdens.HancockProspecting’sRoyHillironoreprojectinthePilbarahasrequiredastaggering4000licences,approvalsandpermits—muchof themimposedbythestategovernment.

The cost burden of regulation is well known.But more important—and harder to test—is

how regulations shape and constrain the economyitself. A modern economy is subject to constantshocks. Technologies change. Preferences change.New business models supplant old business mod-els. Political events in distant countries can haveunpredictable ricochet effects forAustralianfirms.Foreignpricechangessuddenlyrenderexistingwaysof work unprofitable, or open up new opportuni-ties.Firmshavetoconstantlyshifttheiroperations,

theirways of doing things, even their entire busi-nessmodelssometimesjusttostayafloat.Economicchangedoesnotjustoccurinboom-bustcycles,norinthelong-termtechnologicalrevolutionsthathavecharacterisedthelasttwocenturies.Tinychangestosupplylines,seeminglyminorlegislativechangesindistant countries, and modest but constant adjust-ments toconsumergoodsmeanthat theeconomicground is constantly shiftingunder the feetof thebusinesssector.

Contrast this unstable economic dynamismwith thepolitical system thatproposes to regulateit. Statutes reflect the nature of the world only atthe moment of their passage through parliament.Legislation is static—blackwords in leatherbooksthatcanonlybealteredthroughfraughtandcom-

plex political negotiation. Evenminor, uncontroversial legislativeamendments can take months.Serious change can take years,from green papers to white papersto exposure drafts to committeeinquiries to law of the land. Eachof those legislative changes thatthe Gillard government was sopleasedtohaveoverseenwasalongtime in the making—the fruit ofmonths and years of bureaucraticbusywork. As a consequence theeconomic environment depicted instatuteisalmostalwayslongoutofdate.Embeddedineachstatuteareassumptions—about the shape ofindustry, technological ability, the

forceofcompetition—whichdonotlast.Inotherwords,nomatterhowactivethegovern-

mentis,thelawisastaticinstrument.Theeconomyitgovernsisdynamic.Thiscreatesseriousproblems.As rockbeats scissors, law trumpsbusinessneeds.Firms facing economic headwinds find that theirability to adjust is limited by the legislative envi-ronmenttheyoperate in: legalconstraintsarecon-straints on business flexibility. In an Institute ofPublic Affairs paper published in December 2014,DomTalimanidisdemonstratedtheperilousdeclinein entrepreneurism inAustralia.Wherenewbusi-nessesconstituted17percentoftotalbusinessesin2003-04,in2012-13newbusinesseswerejust11percentoftotalbusinesses.Unsurprisingly,therelativedecline inbusinessentry isgreatest in those statesthataretheleasteconomicallyfree.

Theburdenof regulation ismostobviouswhenwe look at individual firms—the time spent onpaperwork,thebusinessopportunitiesnotpursued.But all these little disincentives and distractionsaddup.Regulatoryexcesscanhaveseriousmacro-

Firms facing economic headwinds find that their ability

to adjust is limited by the legislative environment they operate in: legal constraints are constraints on

business flexibility.

QuadrantMay201538


economicconsequences.Inanimportantpaperpub-lishedbytheSwedishthink-tankResearchInstituteofIndustrialEconomicsinJanuary2015,theecono-mistChristianBjørnskovlookedattherelationshipbetween standard measures of economic freedomand economic crises. As Bjørnskov finds, a highdegree of economic freedom does little to preventcountriesfromsufferinganeconomiccrisis.Butthedegreetowhichaneconomyisfreeisaveryimpor-tantfactorinhowquicklyacountryrecoversfromacrisis.Thethingsthatmatterherearenotwhethertaxes are low, government spending is modest, orwhethertheruleoflawisstrong,buthowefficienttheregulatoryenvironmentis.

Economiccrisesnecessitatealarge-scalereallo-cationofresources,awayfromtroubledsectorsandintomorestableones.Attheindividuallevel,aper-sonwhohas losta jobinaneconomiccrisisneedsto move rapidly into new employment—perhapseven new employment in a new industry—beforetheharmofunemploymentbecomestoomanifest.Regulations likeoccupational licensingand indus-trial relations laws that raise the cost of employ-mentactasahandbrakeonthenecessaryeconomicadjustment. All regulation in some way preventsresources frombeingused alternatively—even if itisjusttheopportunitycostoftimespentfillingoutgender-reporting forms. Even when regulation isdesirable, we have to recognise that all regulationmakesforalessflexibleeconomy,andonelessabletoadapttochange.

One possible answer to the problem of legisla-tiveimmobilityisforparliamenttograntacertainamountofdiscretiontoadjustandinterpretregula-tionsaccording tochangingcircumstances.This iswhatwedowhenwehanddecision-makingpowerover to regulatory agencies. Yet vesting unelectedregulatorswithdiscretionarypowerdoesmoreharmthan good. It exacerbates regulatory uncertainty,with serious consequences for the private plans ofindividualsandfirms.Itfacilitatesregulatory“cap-ture”.Andofcourseithasademocraticlegitimacyproblem—under whose authority do regulatorsmakewhatareeffectivelypublic-policydecisions?

Nevertheless, policy-makers today lean heavilyondelegationtoregulatoryagencies,handingthemquasi-legislative power. In an important book, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?(2014),theColumbiaLawSchoolprofessorPhilipHamburgertracestheoriginsofsuchdelegatedlegislativepowerbackpastthecreationofregulatoryagenciesatthebeginningof the twentieth century—where most scholars’history stops—all the way to the pronouncementsofmedievalkings.Hamburgerdrawsadistinctionbetween administrativepronouncements by execu-tivegovernmentsthatare intendedtobindofficers

oftheexecutiveandthosethatareintendedtobindsociety more generally. The former form of pro-nouncement isobviouslynecessary forgovernmentto function. Bosses need some way of instructingtheiremployees.Butpronouncementsthataffectthepublic more generally ought to be the purview ofthe legislature, not the executive. These are moreakin to the exercise of the royal prerogative thandemocraticlaw.

We often imagine that our modern concernsaredistinctfromthoseofthepast.Buthowmuchlegislativepowertheexecutivecouldexercisewith-out parliamentary approval was one of the greatcontests in the lead-up to the English Civil War.The seventeenth-century English historian RogerTwysden declared that “the basis or ground of allthe liberty and franchise of the subject” was “thismaxim, that the king cannot alone alter the law”.Yet through executive pronouncement anddelega-tiongovernmentshavevestedvastlegislativepowerinwhat scholars call “non-majoritarian” regulatoryandbureaucraticagencies.

Weareyettoworkoutthelong-termdemocraticsignificance of this approach to governance.

Buttheeconomicconsequencesaredire.FriedrichHayekarguedthattheruleoflawhadthreerequire-ments.Lawshadtobegeneral,thatis,theyappliednot to specific circumstances and individuals butto society as a whole. They had to be equal—theyhadtoapplytoallpeopleinsocietyequally,withoutdiscrimination.Andfinally theyhad tobe certain.Certaintyisastrangewordtobeusedinconnectionwitheconomiclife,ofcourse:thereisnothingcer-tainaboutthefuture.Butthechallengeofeconomicuncertainty is exacerbated by political uncertainty.Hayekwrote:

Idoubtwhetherthesignificancewhichthecertaintyofthelawhasforthesmoothandefficientworkingofeconomiclifecanbeexaggerated,andthereisprobablynosinglefactorwhichhascontributedmoretothegreaterprosperityoftheWesternWorld,comparedwiththeOrient,thantherelativecertaintyofthelawwhichintheWesthadearlybeenachieved.

So laws ought to be clearly spelled out. Theyneed to be “known”. Their consequences and sig-nificance ought to be discernible to all those whoareexpectedtofollowthem.Weoughttolimitthediscretionthatadministratorsandbureaucratshaveinapplyingthelaw.

Butdoesthisblack-letterapproachtolawreallycreatecertainty?Whatiscertainaboutblack-letterlaw that is subject to constant revision? Or black-

QuadrantMay2015 39


letter law that is constantly being supplemented,complementedandexpanded?Thevolumeoflegis-lationcurrentlybeingpushedthroughparliaments,stateandCommonwealth,LabororCoalition,andinventedbyregulatoryagencies,isitselfachallengetothecertaintyofthelaw.AsBrunoLeoniwroteinhisclassicstudyFreedom and the Law:

Themoreintenseandacceleratedistheprocessoflaw-making,themoreuncertainwillitbethatpresentlegislationwilllastforanylengthoftime.Moreover,thereisnothingtopreventalaw,certainintheabove-mentionedsense,frombeingunpredictablychangedbyanotherlawnoless“certain”thanthepreviousone.

Thus,thecertaintyofthelaw,inthissense,couldbecalledtheshort-runcertaintyofthelaw.

Foranybodywhohadatimehorizonlongerthanthat short run, the law was anything but certain.Leoni’s book was published in 1961. His lifetime(Leoni was born in 1913) had seen enormous eco-nomic and technological change, but the scale ofthosechangespales incomparison to the shifts intechnology and business that we are seeing today.In just a few years entire industries have shiftedoutoftheterrestrialworldintoonline.Ubiquitouscommunicationshavemadeoldertraditionsofworkobsolete. It is absurd that we have shop trading-hourregulations,asstillexistinWesternAustralia,co-existing alongside always-on mobile inter-net shopping. While firms like Uber and Airbnbare revolutionising transport and accommodationrespectively,theypresentacompetitivethreattothetaxi and hotel industries that have been lumberedwithlong-standingandcostlyregulation.Stretchingourviewslightlyfurtherintothefuture,today’sreg-ulatoryassumptionsaregoing tobe challengedbynewtechnologieslike3Dprinters,consumerdronesanddigitalcryptocurrencieslikeBitcoin.Nomatterhowmanicisthelegislativeactivitythatcharacter-isesourpoliticalsystem,itisneverthelessunabletokeepupwithsocialandtechnologicalchange.

DespitethesmallbutimportantsuccessesoftheAbbottgovernment in reducing some regula-

tionandclearingthestatutebooksofanachronisms,it is obvious that the deregulation movement hasstalled.Deregulationisnowmoreapoliticalsloganthanaseriouspublic-policyproject.Politicianshaveceased trying to justify the purposes of deregula-tionandnowtreatderegulationasagood in-and-of-itself. This is a testament to the intellectualsuccessofthederegulatorsofthepast—whomadethe case for lower regulation a virtual self-evidentproposition—but ithas left thepolitical classwith

littleappetitetoactuallyarguethecaseforneededreform. When each side has committed itself toderegulation,all thatremains isarule-in,rule-outgame.Unfortunately,inthenatureofpolitics,rule-outsaremorecommonthanrule-ins.Thepopulistpressurefornewlawisfargreaterthantheintellec-tualpressureforless.

Thus the deregulation stalemate, a stalematemore pernicious as we move towards an unpre-dictable economic future and hyper-innovationsin technology. The issue is not how many “repealdays”arescheduledinayear.Theissueishowthegovernmentseesitsrelationshipwiththeeconomy.We do not lack alternatives to the over-regulationpathwehave taken.Leoniwasanadvocateof thecommonlaw—thesystemofprivate,particularanditerativelaw-makingvastlysuperiortothestatutorylawwhichnowdominatesourlegalsystems.Ratherthan expecting politicians to play constant catch-up with economic and technological changes, thecommon lawwouldallow legal issues tobe solvedwhentheyarise.Lawcanbediscovered,ratherthanimposed.

Hayek spoke of “generality” as an ideal of therule of law. In modern regulatory parlance this isakin to “neutrality”. Four decades ago the Frasergovernment’s Campbell Committee into financialregulationspokeof“competitiveneutrality”,justasthe Rudd government’s Convergence Review intomedia and communications regulation spoke of“technologicalneutrality”.Theideaisthatproductsorservicesthatcompetewitheachothershouldfacethe same regulatory burden. Deposits in buildingsocietiesshouldberegulatedthesamewayasthoseinbanks.Videobroadcast over television channelsshould be regulated the same way as video servedovertheinternet.

Neutrality has proven to be more of a catch-phrase than a policy program. This is becausegenuine regulatoryneutralityundermines someofthemostfundamentalassumptionsofgovernmenteconomic management. To regulate is to control.Everyadvocateofnewregulationhasanideaoftheworldthattheirproposalwouldcreate.Regulationis always purposeful—it has a goal, a vision of afixedfuture.Forallthevaluablediscussionoftech-nological neutrality, Labor’s Convergence Reviewcollapsed into absurdity when it was unable toshedafundamentalbeliefintheabilityofgovern-ments and regulators to shape the world aroundthem.Rather thanreducing theburdenonhighlyregulatedtelevisionservices,itproposedtoexpandthose regulations onto the ungovernable internet.Neutral,yes.Butalsoabsurd.

TheConvergenceReviewoffersamicrocosmofthebroaderregulationproblem.Regulatoryexcess

QuadrantMay201540


istheresultofgovernmentstryingtoimposetheirvalues on the economy—using law to shape theeconomyaccordingtotheirownpreferencesratherthan allowing the economy toflowunpredictablyaccordingtoconsumerdemandandentrepreneur-ialexperimentation.Inthatsense,itisareflectionof the political system from which it emanates.If the Abbott government wants to go down inAustralian history as a significant reform-driven

government,thenthe“deregulationagenda”isnotenough. It needs to start a serious rethink of therelationshipbetweenthedynamic,entrepreneurialeconomyandthestaticbutover-energetic regula-torystate.

Chris Berg is a Senior Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs. His new book, Liberty, Democracy & Equality, was published by Connor Court last month.

Third Party Selfie

IfyouhappenedtomeethiminALDI,You’dprobablybeunimpressed,Withhishairsowhiteandhissmilesotight,AndhisRalphLaurenFairIslevest.He’lltalkaboutpoemsandpastgloriesAndifyou’rearoundhimforlong,He’lltellyousomedubiousstoriesAndhemightevenburstintosong.

InhisyouthhewasmuchbetterlookingAndconsideredhimselfquitetherascalButnowhe’sbecomeoldandcrankyHejustsitsandthinks,likeBlaisePascal.HispoemshavebeenpraisedbyLesMurrayAndhelikestothinkhecanpaint.HedoeseverythinginahurryAndthinkshecansing,buthecaint.

InhisclosetareracksfullofgladragsBoughtinOpshopsforjustafewdollarsThey’reoldbuttheyhavetherightnametagsFromSaintJamesandMilanintheircollars.Histhreesonsandtwodaughtersarehandsome;Theirmothersallthinkthemhotstuff.TheirtrajectoriesarezigzagandthensomeButtheyseemtogetbywellenough.

Hedrinksclaretandwhiskyandginandchampagne;Hisoldfriendsaretreasuredlikegold.Hehopesthatonedayhe’llsmokeseegarsagainButnot’tilhe’sgrownveryold.ForsometimehisneuroneshavebeentiringButwhiletheconnectionsarestrongAndafewlastsynapsesstillfiringLet’sbringanendtohissong.

Peter Jeffrey

Quadrant May 2015 41

A legal, social and biological revolution is tak-ing place worldwide without much serious thinking about the consequences. Consider

this: in Britain the House of Commons recently approved the use of “three-parent IVF” to remove defective mitochondrial DNA from babies. Each year in Britain about 100 children are born with mutated mitochondrial DNA, resulting in about ten cases of fatal disease to the liver, nerves or heart. A new in vitro fertilisation (IVF) technique devel-oped at the University of Newcastle allows doctors to replace a mother’s defective mitochondrial DNA with that of a healthy donor, presumably using pre-implantation sequencing and microscopic opera-tion on the zygote. Mitochondrial DNA does not affect appearance, personality or intelligence, and it reduces kinship—genetic similarity—by only about 1 per cent. Still, the resulting child, though its nuclear DNA would come from its main par-ents, would have three parents.

Critics warned that this would set society off down a slippery slope to eugenics and “designer babies”. A government official, the “British Fertility Regulator”, replied to this warning with the obser-vation that most people support the therapy. This was intended to assuage the concerns expressed. In fact it would seem to confirm them, since wide-spread support for a product or service indicates a readiness to adopt it. Sure enough, though there had been little public discussion in advance of the Commons debate, the new techniques were none-theless approved by a large parliamentary major-ity. Australian scientists have since called for the British policy to be emulated.

Despite half a century of warnings by moral conservatives, advances in genetics and reproductive technology have created the conditions for a consumer-driven mass eugenics industry. Here is the Oxford Dictionary definition of eugenics: “the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics”. It has a bad historical reputation because authoritarian governments have

denied civil liberties in the name of eugenics. But as we shall see, both the definition and the reputation of eugenics have been overtaken by advances in science, medicine and marketing. Eugenics has since reappeared in many countries in the form of voluntary genetics counselling—a medical service provided to help parents avoid genetic disorders in their children; and IVF has become a sizeable industry that offers parents the genetic screening of embryos and other eugenic choices.

Genetic improvement is becoming a market phenomenon—a situation discernible as long ago as the 1980s when Daniel Kevles, the leading historian of eugenics in the USA, quoted a biotechnology expert thus: “‘Human improvement’ is a fact of life, not because of the state ... but because of consumer demand.”

The underlying reason why we can expect mas-sive demand for eugenics services is the human misery caused by deleterious mutations as reported in stories about health and lifestyle. Beneficial mutations do occur, though rarely. When they do they enable adaptive mutations to spread through-out the population. But most evolution involves the sifting out of harmful mutations which occur in every generation. Most natural selection is like the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, always running in order to stay in the same place. The resulting balance was upset by the scien-tific and industrial revolutions. Prosperity, modern medicine and the welfare state caused the mutation load in humans to rapidly increase by relaxing the relentless winnowing of large families that made life “nasty, brutish and short”.

In the past, individuals could suffer death or dis-ability due to small genetic defects, for example in their immune systems, for which modern medicine now routinely substitutes and which welfare cush-ions. But even modern medicine and welfare have their limits. W.D. Hamilton stated that when the misery resulting from mutations grows too great to bear—for medical, economic or humanitarian reasons—the load will be reduced, either naturally

Fr a nk k. Sa lter

Eugenics, Ready or Not(Part I)

QuadrantMay201542

Eugenics,ReadyorNot

or artificially—painfully throughelevated ratesofmortality,orpainlesslythrougheugenics.

Eugenics themes in the media

The public is reading and viewing a steadystream of information bearing on genetic

improvement,primingamassmarketforeugenicsservices.Whatfollowsisasmallrandomsampleofpressclippingsfromthelasttwoyears.Itindicatesgreat advances in eugenics science and not muchthinkingaboutitssocialimplications.

Any survey of eugenics themes in the mediamust discuss reports of animal breeding. Onenewspaper article in the Weekend Australian inAugust2012describedhowfarmersbreedanimals,using the latest DNA assay techniques as well astraditional folk genetics. The arti-cle,“Breederssplitonthebestwaytopickachamp”,reportedthenewcomputerised DNA method forchoosingMerinostudsforfinenessand length of wool, worm resist-ance and fertility. Another reportof animal breeding was an ABCtelevision report of how Sydney’sTaronga Zoo imported a malegorilla,Kibali,fromaFrenchzoo.Hewasneededtoreplacetheage-ing silverback male and continuethe breeding program. The zooneeded a western lowland gorilla,a subspeciesor race facingextinction in itsnativeAfrica.Thezooaimstoconservepopulationchar-acteristics,adimensionofbiodiversity.Kibaliwaschosen partly based on consideration of eugenics.Hisgeneticprofileshowedthathehadalowdegreeof genetic similarity to the females at Taronga,reducing the risk of inbreeding depression. Alsohe came from a good family, because his mothershowed excellent maternal behaviour. In additionhe showed low aggression—dominant but notvicious.

A news report headed “Next-generation IVFmakes perfect delivery” was published in July2013. A baby was born in the USA using a newIVF technique that greatly improves the chancesof successful implantation while substantiallylowering the cost. Previously, IVF proceduressuffered high rates of failure due to embryoshaving the wrong number of chromosomes. Only30 per cent of implanted embryos result in full-term pregnancies. To compensate, doctors wouldimplantseveralembryos,oftenleadingtomultipleconceptions.Chromosomaldefectsusually lead toanembryospontaneouslyaborting,butwhenababy

doesresult ithasgeneticdisorders,suchasDownandTurnersyndromes.Inthecasebeingreported,thirteen eggs from the thirty-six-year-old womanwerefertilisedin vitro,allowedtogrowforfivedays,thensomecellswerescreenedtocountthenumberofchromosomes.Onlythreeembryoshadtherightnumber.Justoneofthesewasimplanted,resultingin a baby. The procedure—pre-implantationscreening—doubles thepregnancy rateandhalvesthe miscarriage rate. The monetary cost of next-generation IVF is reduced by the falling cost ofgenome sequencing combined with the greaterreliabilityof implantation, allowingmorepatientsto afford the procedure. The article noted that inBritain doctors are permitted to screen embryosonlyforthemostseriousgeneticdefects.However,inprinciplethetechnique,whenexpandedtoscreen

genes as well as chromosomes,wouldallowmuchgreaterscopeforeugenics.Parentscouldavoidmanygenetic predispositions in theirchildren,suchasthattocancer.

In January 2014 the Guardian Online reported that IVF babiessuffermuchhigherratesofcompli-cations—born pre-term, stillborn,ordyingwithinfourweeksofbirth.Doctors were unsure whether thecause was the IVF procedure orwas related to the infertility thatled women to seek IVF. Anotherf inding indicates that the extra

riskofpre-termbirthdoesnotarisewithembryoskeptfrozenforsometimebeforebeingthawedandimplanted. Researchers speculate that this is dueto themother’shormoneshavinga chance to set-tle down following treatment toproducemultipleeggs.

Further research in China supports this find-ing and adds a eugenics twist. Children resultingfromfrozenembryosweremoresociallyadeptthanthose implanted fresh after eggs were fertilised.Thechildrenalsomovedbetter,hadsuperiorcom-municationskillsandshowedmoreindependence.AllanPacey,a fertilityexpertat theUniversityofSheffield,suggestedthatthiswascausedinpartbytherigoursofthethawingprocess.Notallembryossurvive thawing, and perhaps those that do are“stronger”, he said. Perhaps freezing and thawingembryos is an inadvertent eugenics process, mostsuccessful with embryos having a low mutationload. This example reminds us that genes affectmany characteristics including personality andsocialbehaviour,notjustphysiqueandintelligence.

AnAugust2013article,“Takethetestorhopeforthebest?”,toldthestoryofanAustralianfamily

Media coverage and medical advice are driving up the demand for genetic tests faster than the

medical establishment’s capacity to

provide them.

QuadrantMay2015 43

Eugenics,ReadyorNot

carryingararemutation,CDH1,thatbestowsan83percentriskofdevelopingstomachcancerbymid-life.Modernsequencingtechniquesallowthefaultygenetobeidentified.Soaffectedindividualscouldtake what is a heroic preventive measure, namelyremovingthestomach.Whatwasnotdiscussedinthe article was that screening of embryos wouldallow affected individuals to avoid passing themutationontotheirchildren(whootherwisehavea 50 per cent chance of inheriting it). The articledid note that thousands of medical genetic testsarenowavailableinAustralia,thoughin2013onlyfifteensuchtestswerecoveredbyMedicare.

In 2011 almost 580,000 medical genetic testswere performed in Australia, 280 per cent higherthan in2006.Mediacoverageandmedicaladvicearedrivingup thedemand forgenetic tests fasterthan the medical establishment’s capacity to pro-videthem.MassawarenesswasboostedbyactressAngelinaJolie’sdecisiontohaveadoublemastec-tomy following the discovery that she carried amutantgenethatcausesbreastcancer.

Another Australian report in January 2014,headed “DNA sequencing to be commonplace”,described the HiSeq X Ten sequencing system,purchased by the Garvan Institute of MedicalResearchinSydney.Thisnewmachineismanufac-turedbyUScompanyIllumina,andcansequenceupto18,000genomesperyearatacostofUS$1000each. That is one millionth the cost of sequencing the first genome.Ifthispaceofdevelopmentcontinues,thecostwillcontinuetoplummet.ProfessorJohnMattick, head of the Garvan Institute, explainedthat whole-genome sequencing helps doctors pre-scribe drugs most compatible with the individualpatient. It also allows identification of deleteriousmutations. “Roughly 1 per cent of children suffera significant genetic disease, but individually [thediseases are] rare and many are new mutations.”Alreadysomeparentsofchildrenwithearlyonsetdiseases are having their genomes sequenced.Identifyingamutationcontributingtothediseasenot only aids diagnosis but “gives the parents theopportunity toavoidhaving furtheraffectedchil-dren”.Mattickstatedthattotakethatsteprequiresthe parents’ genomes to be sequenced, to deter-minewhether themutationoriginated from themoroccurredduringreproduction.

ResearchreportedinMarch2014foundhigherratesofgenedefectsinspermasmenage.Womenpassonaboutfifteennewmutations to theirchil-dren,butalreadybytheageoftwentymentypicallypassontwentymutations,bytheageoffortythishasrisentosixty-five,andbyfifty-sixthenumberhasreachedabout130.Childrenconceivedbyolderfathersareatgreaterriskofautism,schizophrenia

andotherdiseases.Thetrendformentodelaymar-riage is contributing to theoverallmutation load.Theoretically a greater mutation load degrades alladaptationsincludingimmuneresistanceandgen-eralintelligence.

Allthereportsreviewedabovediscussedgenet-ics because eugenics relies heavily on knowledgeabout heredity. Genetics often evokes ideas abouthowtoreducediseaseor improvesomecharacter-istic.Geneticsthemesareubiquitousinthemedia,inrelationtofamilyhistory,medicineandmore.

Eugenics market takes off

Takentogether,thesereportsindicatethat“slip-peryslope” isan inadequatemetaphor for the

combustible mix of genomics and reproductivetechnology.Abettermetaphorwouldbe “launch-ingpad”.Wehaveignition.

ConsiderwhatisalreadyhappeninginthelargeIVFmarket.MonashIVF,anAustraliancompanywith sales of $114 million, is positioning itself tocompetewithlargerrivalsbyofferingthelatesttech-nologyforgeneticallyscreeningembryos.Theinitialbenefitisbetterpregnancyoutcomesbutascustom-ers learn more of the science, they will inevitablywish to avoiddeleteriousmutations.Market-basedeugenics will have taken off when the screeningadd-onbecomesamajordrawinitsownright.Thereareearlysignsofthis:forexampleaUSfirm,NewJerseyFertilityCenter, advertises pre-implantationgenetictestingofembryosinconjunctionwithIVF.Such screening “allows for the selectionofgeneti-callynormalembryosthatcan increasethechanceofasuccessfulpregnancy,decreasetheriskofamis-carriage, minimise the risk of passing certain genetic diseases to your childrenandprovidegenderselectionforfamilybalancing”.(Emphasisadded.)

TheCenterhassixofficesintheUSAandcaterstointernationalpatients.Eugenicsservicesarebecom-ing commonplace, for thosewho can afford them.InCalifornia,StanfordFertility andReproductiveMedicine Center (SFRMC) freezes the eggs ofwomenwhoexpecttodelaybearingchildren.Thisis associated with IVF because if a client shouldseektohavehereggsthawedandfertilised,thatisdone in a test tube (using sperm injection).Whenembryos are available, pre-implantation screeningwouldbeanoption.Freezingeggs isbecomingsopopularthatwomenintheirtwentiesarebeginningto use the procedure to insure themselves againstinfertility.ThepracticeisalsobecomingpopularinBritain.ApollofBritishandDanishwomenin2014foundthefollowingresults:20percentwouldfreezetheireggsiftheneedarose,90percentapproveofothersdoingso for social reasons,and99percent

QuadrantMay201544

Eugenics,ReadyorNot

extendthesameapprovalformedicalpurposes,suchaspreservingfertilityincaseofcancer.

HalfofSFRMCclientsworkinthetechindus-try.Somewomenbelieve that theprocedure givesthem the option of a male-type career by slow-ingdownthe tickingclock.Savvyemployersofferfreeeggfreezingtoattractorkeepvaluablefemaleemployees—a service that can cost US$20,000,which makes it unaffordable for many Americans.SFRMCalsooffersIVFandeugenicsadd-ons,suchasaserviceforfamilieswithinheritedcardiovasculardisease.Theyoffergeneticcounsellingtohelpcon-structapedigreeandthusidentifyrisks.ClientscanalsopurchaseIVFwithpre-implantationscreeningtochooseonlythoseembryoswithoutthepredispo-sitiontoheartproblems.

InAustralia,MonashIVFislookingtoexpandinto Asian markets powered by its new screeningtechnology. IVF has become bigbusiness, largely due to demandfrom women who find it diff i-cult to conceive after postponingchildbearing.In20139percentofAustralian women had difficultyconceiving naturally. However,manyhadeggsofinsufficientqual-ity for use in IVF, with the resultthat demand is growing for eggdonors.IntheUSAdonorsreceiveup to$10,000.InAustraliadonorsare not paid, which contributes toa shortage of supply. Even so thelucrative Australian fertility serv-ices market was worth over $500million in 2013. Demand contin-ues togrow.Theworldmarket forIVFwasUS$9.3billionin2012,projectedtogrowtoUS$21.6billion in2020.And ithasgrown thislargeeventhoughithasnotprovidedmanyoptionsforgeneticimprovementasyet.

Until the new British law, this market hadgrownlargelyundertheradarofpolitics.Butevi-dencehasbeenmountingthatdemandforeugen-icsisputtingpressureonlegislators.Anoteworthyarticle in2003byTaniaSimoncelli, thenapolicyanalystattheInternationalCenterforTechnologyAssessmentinWashington,decriedtheuseofIVFwithpre-implantationgeneticdiagnosis(screening)toselectthesexofbabiesfornon-medicalpurposes(asofferedbytheNewJerseyFertilityCenter).Onereasonisthatunliketheoldstate-sponsoredeugen-ics, the new type is “individual, market-based”.Consumer demand can be difficult to regulate—andthestrongerthedemand,themoredifficulttheregulation.AsshownwithprohibitionofalcoholintheUSAintheinter-warperiod,withrecreational

drugs from the 1960s, andwithprostitution sincetimeimmemorial,itisdifficulttopreventwealthyconsumersofgoodsor services fromgettingwhattheyseekfromwillingproviders.

Theparticulardifficulty in regulating thisneweugenics market was illustrated by a 2006 courtcase. The Italian Constitutional Court ruled thatacoupleusingIVFcouldnotusepre-implantationscreening to eliminate the (high) risk that theirchildren would suffer from thalassaemia, a blooddisorderthatgreatlyincreasestheriskofanaemia,loss of vigour, and in severe cases organ damage,stuntedgrowth,liverdisease,heartfailureandevendeath. What the parents wanted was to implantthose of their embryos that lacked the mutationthat causes thalassaemia. The woman had alreadyhad two abortions after her foetuses were diag-nosedwiththeconditionandshewantedtoavoid

a repeatbyusingpre-implantationscreening. After the court ruling,the couple considered travellingabroad to have IVF with geneticscreening.

Their gynaecologist meanwhilereportedstrongdemandforeugen-icsservices.Between1977and2004his clinic in Sardinia had con-ducted prenatal screening of over35,000foetuses.Whenasignificantgeneticorchromosomaldefectwasfound,98to99percentofthecou-plesinvolvedchoseabortion.Whatweseeinthisepisodeisanewsocialrealityemerging:therichtraveltocountriesthatallowIVFwithpre-implantationscreeningorwhatthe

gynaecologistcalled“procreativetourism”;thepoorchooseabortion.

Anoteonterminology:Letmeconcedeatoncethat from the standpointof theCatholicChurch,most evangelical Christians, and other moralconservatives,allofthesecouplesareabortingtheirbabiesbecause theyarediscardinganddestroyingembryos some of which might otherwise be bornand live lives.That is amoral stancedeservingofrespect which, as will become clear later, it willreceivefrommethroughoutthisarticle.ButIdon’tshare their view that an embryo at the earlieststagesofpregnancy—ablastocyteof100cells—hasthesamepersonhoodandhumanrightsasafoetus,fromabouteightweeks.Indeed,Ithinkoneoftheadvantagesofpre-implantationscreeningisthatitreduces the frequency of pregnancy terminationsat a stage when the foetus has clearly humancharacteristics, can feel pain, and might evensurviveoutside thewomb.Onthatbasis I reserve

We see a new social reality emerging: the

rich travel to countries that allow IVF with

pre-implantation screening or what the gynaecologist

called “procreative tourism”; the poor choose abortion.

QuadrantMay2015 45

Eugenics,ReadyorNot

the word abortion for terminations of foetuses, asin the above paragraph. I believe most people inWestern societies share that view. It is true thatmajorityopinioncannotsettleamoraldebateofthiskind,andasthescienceofembryologydevelopswewillalllearnmoreandperhapschangeourviews.

Majority opinion does determine marketdemand,andtheprospectsandrisksofconsumer-driven eugenics are large and growing. Inparticular,procreativetourismcouldcombinewiththe growing accessibility of IVF technology tomake designer babies a reality. Bob Lanza, chiefscientific officer of Advanced Cell Technology,anAmericanbiotechnologycompany,pioneeredacloning technique thatcanbecopiedby scientistswith conventional IVF training. He warned thatexperimental eugenics is most likely in countrieswherecloningisnotcloselyregulated.

Upside and downside

Howwill consumerdemanddrive thismarketfor eugenics services? What types of gov-

ernment regulation might be needed? How effec-tivewouldtheybe?Caniteverbeappropriateforgovernments to initiate eugenics programs, as inHuxley’sBrave New World?Andiftheydo,howdoweprotectcivilliberties?

The first and most obvious benefit of geneticscreening is the prevention of disease. The newgenomics-based eugenics represents a significantadvance on traditional methods. Consider thehypothetical case of a mutation that is only dan-gerous when inherited from both parents and ispresent in 1 per cent of the population. (In factthatisahighfrequencyforadeleteriousmutation.)With random mating, only one in 10,000 peoplewill inherit the mutation from both parents andonlytheywillshowilleffects.Evenifallofthesecaseswerepreventedfromreproducing,thatwouldeliminate only one out of every 10,000 mutationseachgeneration,whichwouldbequiteinsufficientto counteract the accumulationofnewmutations.That is why traditional eugenics aimed at reduc-ing disease has little impact on the population asa whole. A small number of children are spareddiseasebutthemutationitselfremainsatlarge,itsdamage almost undiminished. But the new IVFprocedurecanscreenoutselectedmutationsbeforetheydoharm.Anditdoessowithoutabortionbyterminating pregnancy at a very early stage. Theprocedurehasroomforimprovementbutisdevel-oping in the direction of a measured, targetedmethodthatminimisescollateralharm.

About 4000 genetic diseases affect humans.That results in 1 per cent of us being affected by

one disorder or another. Many more people carrybutdonotexpresssinglecopiesofthesemutations.Genetic diseases found around the world includecystic fibrosis, fabry disease, fragile X syndrome,Prader-Willi syndrome, spinal muscular atrophyandWHIMsyndrome.

Thesituationisdifferentinsomesmallpopula-tionswhosehistorieshaveresultedinmuchhigherrates of some genetic diseases. For example, non-classicalCAH,atypeofcongenitaladrenalhyper-plasia,causesdevelopmentalproblems.Itissufferedbyonein1000peopleofEuropeandescent,whichisconsideredarelativelyhighfrequency foraseri-ous disorder. However, its prevalence is muchhigherincertainpopulations—oneintwenty-sevenAshkenazis, one in forty Hispanics, one in fiftyYugoslavs, and one in 300 Italians. Some ethnicgroupsatriskofgeneticdisordersareservedbyvol-untarygeneticscreeningprogramsthatidentifycar-riersandeducateparentsaboutpreventivemeasures.

Some disorders are more common worldwide,suchasschizophrenia,adevastatingconditionthatishighlyheritable.Itafflictsaboutonein300peo-ple.About80percentoftheriskofcontractingthedisorder is due to mutated genes. Recent researchindicates that schizophrenia consists of eight dif-ferent disorders, each caused by a specific clusterof genes, which can be detected using screeningtechnology.

Negative eugenics—or genetic intervention toward off disease—can also keep down the muta-tion load in general. Mutations can reduce vigourandadaptivenessevenwhentheeffectisinsufficienttobecategorisedasdisease.Asalreadymentioned,inall species theclock-likeaccumulationofmuta-tionsiscutdownbythescytheofnaturalselection,but this processhas beenblunted in recent centu-ries by medical and welfare services. At the sametime the supply ofmutations has increased due tothe increasing age of parents. On average fatherspass on seventy new mutations to their children,mothersfifteen.Buttheeffectisgreatestinparentswho delay childbearing, in today’s world typicallyprofessionals.

Leadinggeneticistshavesupportedtheneedtoholddownthemutationloadbyartificialinterven-tion. R.A. Fisher, a pioneer evolutionary theoristin the inter-war period, concluded that techni-callyadvancedcivilisationisunsustainablewithouteugenics.W.D.Hamilton,anotherleadingtheoristof social genetics, argued that a rising mutationload means that humanity must choose betweenartificial and natural selection, the first relativelyhumane,thesecondnotsoatall.Supportingtheseviews is a recent analysisof thedataonmutationloadandgeneralintelligencebyMichaelWoodley.

QuadrantMay201546

Eugenics,ReadyorNot

Thisanalysisfindsthat increases inmutation loadare driven by a combination of relaxed naturalselection—the blunted scythe if you will—withthe genetic errors originating largely in males.WoodleyestimatesthatthegrowingmutationloadiscostingdevelopedeconomiessuchastheUKandUSAanaverageof0.84IQpointsperdecade,con-sistentwithhis estimateof thedecline ingeneralintelligencesincetheVictorianperiod.

Even if these dire predictions are true, thereseemstobenopressingneedtotacklethemutationload.Individualsandgovernmentsmightsomedaybeforcedtomakedifficultdecisionstocountertherisingnumberofmutations.But that isno reasontosacrificelibertyorothervalues—atleastforthepresentandperhapsnever—ifimprovementsinsci-enceandtechnologyenableustosolvetheseprob-lems in more acceptable ways. As the geneticistJohnMaynardSmithsuggested inthe 1980s, germline engineering—technologythatcorrectsmutationsin sperm, eggs or embryos, thuspreventingthembeingpassedontochildren—would be the ultimatenegative eugenics tool, allowingparentstowipeouttheirchildren’smutation load in one fell swoop.Thatwouldbeanescape from thelogic of social Darwinism morepermanentthanmedicine.Itwouldno longer be true, as Shakespearesuggested in his twelfth son-net, that “[N]othing ’gainst time’sscythe can make defence, save breed”, and thatagainwouldbewithoutrelyingonabortionorthesacrificeofliberties,

The second main purpose of eugenics—orcertainly of eugenicists—has traditionally beenincreasing human abilities. And that brings usonto the rocky territory of IQ. Francis Galtonwas spurred to invent eugenics by his view thatin Britain those with the most productive char-acteristics of intelligence and personality werehaving fewer children than the least productive.Subsequent research confirmed part of this viewbyshowingthatinmeritocraticsocietieswealthiscorrelatedwithability.Inhisreviewoftheevidencefor dysgenics, psychologist Richard Lynn showsthatIQhasbeennegativelycorrelatedwithfertilityintheUSAandEuropesincethebeginningofthetwentieth century when data were first collected.Thiscoincideswiththewell-known“demographictransition”, which started about 1850 in Europewhen thewealthyceasedhaving the largest fami-lies.AlthoughIQtestresultscontinuetorise,thereis evidence that general intelligence in Europe is

actuallydeclining,asmeasuredbyreactiontime,ameasureofprocessingspeed,andthusintelligenceattheneurophysiologicallevel.

Ifthisisindeedaproblem,itmightbereducedbypre-implantationscreening in theIVFmarket.As evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller hasstated, this could lead to substantial increases ofintelligence within families that adopt it. That,however, would require the expansion of IVFservicesbeyondthetreatmentofinfertility.Initialexpansion isbeingdrivenbydemand fornegativeeugenics,inwhichparentschooseanembryowiththelowestriskofgeneticdisease.Shortlybeforehedied,CarlDjerassi,whodevelopedthecontracep-tivepill,opinedthatimprovementsinIVFwould,intime,inducemostwomentoseparateconceptionfrom sex. It will become normal, he thought, touseIVFtoconceivebecausethatallowsscreening

of mutations; sex will be reservedforfun.

So when significant numbersof fertilewomenbeginusing IVF,we will know that market-basedeugenics has left the launch pad.Thiscouldeasilyexpandintoposi-tiveeugenicswhereparentschoosethebestamonghealthyembryos inan attempt to give their childrenabetter start in life.Mostparentswant their children tobenotonlyhealthy, but happy and successful.The surmise by James D. Watson,co-discoverer of the structure of

DNA,isplausible:“Onceyouhaveawayinwhichyoucanimproveourchildren,noonecanstopit.”Watson wants parents to have access to geneticscreening. That would aid negative eugenics butitwouldmaketheslopetopositiveeugenicsmoreslippery.

Consider intelligence and our measurement ofit.Withwhateverflawsitstillhasafterrefinementto deal with cultural biases and other factors, IQremainsthesinglebestpredictorofeducationalout-comesandisassociatedwithseveralpro-socialori-entationsincludingimpulserestraint,reducedratesof criminality, and employment. Add that recentresearch indicates that children with a particulargenevariant,togetherwithlowerthyroidhormonelevels, are four times more likely to have an IQunder85.AnIQat that level isnotadiseaseoradefect.It isstill inthenormalrange,but lowanddisadvantageous for the individual. It is more orlessassumedbyresearchersthatraisinglowIQisagoodthing.Parentsarelikelytoagree.Ifagenetictest can predict this effect, and if hormone treat-mentinearlychildhoodcanimproveit,whatthen?

Attempting to select intelligence or any other trait among healthy embryos is what we mean by

positive eugenics—and also what we mean by the slippery slope.

QuadrantMay2015 47

Eugenics,ReadyorNot

Other research is beginning to identify the manygenesthatcontributetointelligence.

Parents and their medical advisers mighttherefore not wish to rely on hormone treatmentalone to avert a low IQ for their child. Effectivehormone treatment is prone to error, needingaccurate genetic diagnosis followed by delivery ofthehormoneontimeattherightdose.Ontheotherhand,imagineparentswhooptforIVFasameansof avoiding the gene variant that lowers IQ. Teneggs fromthewomanare fertilised in vitrobyherhusband. Seven of the resulting embryos are freeofthevariant.Ofthese,onehasa70percentriskof contracting schizophrenia. The parents decideto choose from the remaining six.How to chooseamongthem?Shouldtheyjustguessorshouldtheymake an attempt to actually improve their futurechild’s ability? In this imaginary case, the genetictests are conducted overseas to circumvent anti-eugenicslawsathome,whichalsofreesthecoupletoexerciseotherpreferences.IftestsshowthattwoembryoshavethegeneslikelytoresultintenextraIQpointscomparedtotheothers,thesamegoalthatmotivatedtreatmentinthefirstplacewouldpointtotheseembryosastheobvious choice.Attemptingtoselectintelligenceoranyothertraitamonghealthyembryosiswhatwemeanbypositiveeugenics—andalsowhatwemeanbytheslipperyslope.

It shouldbesaidatonce that theeffectswouldnotbeasmagicalastheysometimesareinsciencefiction.Quantitative traits suchas intelligenceandpersonality cannot be increased forever. There arelimits defined by the species architecture, if weassume (as we should) that limits to technologyor parental choice prevent eugenics from produc-ingnon-humanchildren.Initialgainsare likelytoberapidbutwillthenslowdownastraitsapproachtheirupperlimits.Nonethelessthegreatdifferencesbetween individuals in the world today show thatconsiderable room exists for changing bodies andbrains.

The consequences of negative and positive eugenics

So far we have been examining eugenics fromthestandpointofhowitmightaffectindividu-

als and families.Butwhat about their social ben-efits and costs? What would be the consequencesto society of market-driven eugenics? That willdependonwhichtypesofeugenics—negativeandpositive—areadopted,andhowwidely.

Thefollowingtableshowsfourscenariosofhoweugenicscouldspread.InscenariosAandBasmallminority of citizens adopts negative or positiveeugenics;inscenariosCandDalargemajorityof

citizensdothesame.Howmightthefourscenariosworkout?

Negative Positive

Minority A:minority- B:minority- negative positive

Majority C: majority- D:majority- negative positive

Table 1.Fourscenariosoffutureeugenics.

Thefourscenariospromisedifferentsocialbenefitsandcosts.

A. A minority of citizens adopts negative eugenics.Letusimaginethattwotypesofnegativeeugenicshavebeenidentified:first,eliminatingoneormoreofthe4000mutationsthatcausegeneticdiseaseinabout 1percentof thepopulation; second, reduc-ing the backlog of mutations which, though notamountingtoadisease,togetherreducephysiologi-calorpsychologicalefficiencyamongamajorityofthepopulation.

(i)Eliminatinggeneticdiseaseinfamilieshasanequalisingeffect,notaprivilegingone.Anexcep-tioncouldarise ifonlyaminorityof families fac-ing genetic disease availed themselves of eugenicsservices.Inthatsituationinequalitywouldincreasebetweenthosefamiliesandsimilarlyafflictedfami-liesthatdidnot.Thatmightcauseresentmentandbe called unfair. However, as it would affect lessthan1percentofthepopulation,andastheprivi-leged families would not gain an advantage overtheother99percent,theinequalitywouldnotbesociallydestabilising.

(ii)Reducingthemutationloadwouldpotentiallybenefit a much greater proportion of the popula-tion,perhapsallofit.Ifonlyasmallminoritycouldafford the procedure needed to reduce the overallnumberofmutationsintheirchildren,thatwouldprovidesomebenefit,thoughonehardtoquantify.Butthebenefitwouldbebroadforaffectedindivid-uals,improvingimmuneresistance,vigour,intelli-gence,mentalhealthandmore.Thiseffectislikelyto be small in each generation. If so, it would bea modest exaggeration of existing socio-economicinequality,insufficienttobesociallydestabilising.

In both types of minority-negative eugenics,moreover, any negative impact could be remediedbybroadeningaccess.

B. A minority of citizens adopts positive eugenics. Thiswouldbelessbenign.Ifasmallminorityofthepopulation begins choosing embryos not only for

QuadrantMay201548

Eugenics,ReadyorNot

healthbutfordesiredcharacteristicssuchasintel-ligence,creativityandvigour,therewouldbecostsaswellasbenefits.Badchoicesarepossible.Withnatureno longerat thetiller,parentscouldtakeacourse with evil consequences for their children,perhapsduetoscientificerror,fads,genderbiasorperverse motives. Government regulation mightpreventsomeoftheseoutcomes,oroutlawpositiveeugenics altogether. But if the perceived benefitswere large enough—and they would be—wealthyclientswouldprobablybeabletofindthenecessaryservices overseas. Should that happen, the maincostofminority-positiveeugenics is likelytoarisefromits success,childrenwhoarenotquite“demi-gods” but strikingly intelligent, athletic, vigorousor attractive. The development of a eugenic casteis likelytodegradesocialcohesionanddemocracy.

Positive eugenics is nonethe-lessproposedby someof themostinf luential contemporary advo-cates forgene improvement. JulianSavulescu, professor of bioethicsat Oxford University, argues thatparents should be free to chooseembryosthatwillnotonlygivethechildren the best possible healthbut the most fulfilling life. It ismorallywrong,he thinks, to limitreproductive choices. He explicitlyapproves positive eugenics, main-taining thatparents shouldchoosethe“bestchildren”.(SavulescuandhisdoctoralsupervisorPeterSingerdonotperceivethe danger of a eugenic caste because, like manymainstreamsociologists,theydenybiologicalinflu-encesonclassdifferences.)

Another enthusiast for positive eugenics whooverlookssocialconsequencesisGeorgeChurch,ageneticistatHarvardandMITandabiotechentre-preneur.Churchmaintainsthat“We’rewellbeyondDarwinianlimitationstoevolution.Evolutionrightnowisinthemarketplace.”Hisprojectionsofgerm-lineengineering—addingordeletinggeneticcodeas if editing computer code and then reproducingthosechanges inchildren—havearousedconcernsabout inequality.IsraelihistorianNoahHarari, inhisbookSapiens,drawsonChurch’sideastowarnabout the ossification of class differences. Hararisuggests,“Inthe21stcentury,thereisarealpossi-bilityofcreatingbiologicalcastes,withrealbiologi-cal differences between rich and poor ... The endresultcouldbespeciation.”(Speciationoccurswhenpopulations become so different that they can nolongerbreedtogethertoproducefertileoffspring.)Classdifferenceswillbecomeexaggerated,Harari

argues,becausetherichwillalwayshavefirstaccesstothelatestgeneticormechanicalenhancements.

A more basic objection to Church’s vision isits over-confidence.Manipulating thegermline toremove defective mutations would be beneficial;but adding new gene variants—invented or takenfrom other species—would be reckless. The sim-plestdownsidewouldbeillhealth;themostcom-plex would affect social behaviour two or threedecades later, for example by disrupting socialbonds.Significantchangestoappearanceorbehav-iour could reduce the sense of kinship betweendesignedchildrenandtheirparentsandfellowciti-zens.Humantiescouldfrayduetoethno-centrismandspecies-centrism.Ifgovernmentregulationcanachieveanythinginthisarea,itshouldconcentrate

on preventing scientific arrogancebeingmadeflesh.

Harari’sconcernaboutclassdif-ferences in the uptake of positiveeugenics is based only on differ-encesinwealth.Behaviouraldiffer-encescouldaddtothedisruption.

Initiallyandperhapsforseveralgenerations, eugenics technologywill be adopted by those parentswho already invest most intenselyin their children, in arrangingthe best education and medicalcare they can afford, who are far-sighted, ambitious and self-sacrifi-cial for their offspring beyond thekenofmostparents.Inbehavioural

biology this corresponds to a slower “life historystrategy”,meaningthatparentalinvestmentanditsresults are more intense and produce reproductivepayoffs over longer time periods. Slow life strate-gists are typically better educated, have their firstchild later than usual, have greater impulse con-trol,lowerratesofviolenceandcrime,lowratesofdivorce and single parenthood. Except for thosewhose religion forbids it, these parents are likelytobe thefirst to adoptproveneugenics technolo-gies, negative and positive. As socio-economicclass is correlated with a slow life history, eugen-icscanbeexpectedtoaccentuateclassdifferences.Ethnic differences could also be exaggerated. Ifso, the costs and tensionsofdiversity already evi-dent in multicultural societies will grow. Populardemandtoredistributeresourcesfromrichtopoorcouldintensifyasinequalitiesofwealthrise;atthesametimeresistancetoredistributioncouldstiffenbecausewelfare ismost generouswithin relativelyhomogeneoussocietieswithlowsocialbarriers,notthosefracturedbycompetingcastes.

Thosewillingandabletoadoptpositiveeugenics

A minority eugenic caste would be a

dagger in the heart of something Westerners take for granted—a unified democratic community with a large degree of social mobility.

QuadrantMay2015 49

Eugenics,ReadyorNot

could minimise “regression to the mean”, whichnormally causes children tobemore average thantheir parents. Brilliant captains of industry andfinancewhoamass fortuneshavenotbeenable topreventdescendants losing somecompetitive edgeofintellectandcharacter.Itisnotforlackoftrying.Sinceabout1880wealthyfamilieshave,onaverage,reduced family size the better to invest heavilyin each child’s education and status. At the sametime they have delayed childbearing to promoteprofessionalcareers,increasingresourcesandstatusbut greatly increasing the number of mutations passed onto children. Thelikelyeffecthasbeentoaccelerateregressiontothemean.EconomistGeoffreyClark,whostudiesevolutionaryeffectsonclassstructure,argues that regression “exercise[s] a death grip ondynasticambitions”.Negativeeugenicsmightslowthisregressionbutitwouldnotpreventit.Positiveeugenics would give the kiss of immortality towealthy lineages because it would allow parentstochooseoffspringwhose talentsaregreater thanchancewouldallow.

Extreme inequality among individuals lowerssocialcohesion.Thiseffectismultipliedwhendif-ferences in wealth or status affect whole groups,such as religions or ethnicities. With regard tocaste inequality, the best-known example is slav-ery, a group hierarchy imposed by conquest anddiscriminatorylaws.Adifferentexample,onethatapproximates the scenario of voluntary castes, hasbeen middleman ethnic trading communities, inwhichtradersbelongtoaminorityethnicgroupliv-ingoutsideitshomeland.Theirsharedgroupidenti-ties establish greater trust and therefore allow forefficientmarketexchangeswithminimalcheating.In-groupidentityismaintainedbyerectingbarrierstomarryingoutsidetheethnicgroup,anexclusiv-ity thatalsohelps retainanadvantage inbusinessskills over many generations. Examples are JewsinMedievalEurope,Chinese inSouth-EastAsia,Armenians intheOttomanempireuntil theFirstWorldWar,IndiansinWestAfricauntilthe1970s,andGermans inEasternEuropeuntil theSecondWorldWar.Becauseoftheireconomicefficiencies,these trading networks have repeatedly increasedinequality.

To take just one example, ethnic Chinese inIndonesia and the Philippines, though just 1 percentofthepopulation,ownabout70percentofthecorporateeconomyandhavebeentheobjectsofillfeelingonthepartoftheethnicMalaymajorities.Competition for resources by ethnic groups andthe resulting stratification have been responsiblefor someof thebitterest conflicts associatedwithethno-religiousheterogeneityaroundtheworld.

A eugenic elite would marry in. It would, in

effect, reproduce strictly within its class, eitherby choosing mates who were also the resultof eugenics or by using embryo selection. AsHerrnsteinandMurrayshowedinTheBell Curve,the effect of assortative marriage alone, withouteugenic selection, can be signif icant when itinvolves heritable characteristics such as heightand IQ. The anthropologist Henry Harpendingrecently modelled the Herrnstein–Murrayscenario, showing that assortment can have adramaticeffect in justonegeneration.Themodelshowsthatheritablegroupaveragesdivergewhenaminorityclassconstitutingthetop10percentofthe population assorts (marries others who sharea characteristic). The model predicts an averageIQdifferenceof 30points, sufficient to allow theeugenic class to dominate the professions andpractise long-term dynastic strategies of wealthaccumulationandinfluence.

The result would be wealth and status almostset in concrete, an inflexibility likely to result insocial conflict because class lines would hardenas the rich got ever richer. Dynasties would nolonger spontaneously dissolve but persist downthe generations unless their reproductive strategywas curtailed by government edict or revolution.Because the dynasties would depend on carefulbreeding, there would be an extra payoff fromchoosingmateswhosharedtheeugeniccultureandinheritance. From the perspective of democraticvalues,exclusiveeliteeugenicswouldbeespeciallyobjectionable because it would add the insultof actual superiority to the injury of aristocraticprivilege.Suchanelitewouldhaveavitalinterestin suppressing democracy to avoid redistributivepolicies.Their efforts todo sowouldbe aidedbytheir feelings of alienation from the masses withwhich they would have little social contact. Theywouldfinditadaptivetoviewthemajoritycoldly,instrumentallyanddefensively.

A minority eugenic caste would be a daggerin the heart of something Westerners take forgranted —a unified democratic community witha large degree of social mobility. For that reasonit would be wise to outlaw or strictly regulateminority-positiveeugenics.Asalreadystated,thatcouldprovedifficult.Technicallythereisnogreatdividebetweennegativeandpositiveeugenics,andthereisnothinginherentlyperverseaboutwantingone’s children to have a touch of the demi-god.If prevention proves impracticable, an alternativeto defeating the resulting exclusivity might beto universalise it. If the lower orders cannot beata eugenic upper caste, they might vote to join itby demanding that government provide eugenicsservices as an essential component of the welfare

QuadrantMay201550

Eugenics,ReadyorNot

state. (I speculate on the social consequences of“majority-positive”eugenicspresently.)

C. A majority of citizens adopts negative eugen-ics. This scenario is the surest way to a beneficialoutcome,withonlymoderaterisk.Negativeeugen-ics that prevented genetic disease would greatlyimprove the lives of the 1 per cent of the popula-tionaffected.Awiderthoughslighterbenefitwouldaccrue if most families had their mutation loadsreduced.

Thoughaffectingonlyasmallminority,geneticdiseaseexertsafinancialstrainonsociety.Aslongagoas2002justonecondition,schizophrenia,costtheUSA$63billionayearinmedicalexpensesandwelfare, equivalent to $77 billion based on 2014GDP.Thiscanbeusedtoroughlycostgeneticdis-easefortheUSeconomyat$308billion,whichisnotlargecompared to thegrossdomesticproductofa$16 trillioneconomybut is largecomparedtogov-ernmentoutlaysof about $1 trillion.To the extentthatitwouldalleviateburdensontheeconomyandontaxation,negativeeugenicscon-stitutesapublicgood,aservicethatbenefitssocietyasawhole.

Eliminating some genetic dis-eases might carry costs. This isindicatedbythefactthatsomecon-ditionsoccuratlevelsmuchtoohighto be explained by chance muta-tion. This is sometimes explainedbyagenevarianthavingbeneficialaswellasharmfuleffects.Therearesomewell-knownexamplesofgeneswithmultipleeffects,orpleiotropy.

Totakeoneexample,sicklecellanaemia causes premature death and afflicts 2 percentofNigeriannewborns,withsimilarratesaffect-ing other sub-Saharan African populations. Someparts of India are also affected. Experts maintainthatthemutationresponsiblefortheconditionhasbeennaturallyselectedbecauseanindividualcarry-ingjustonecopycanbetterresistmalaria.Anaemiaaffects only those who inherit the mutation frombothparents.Whenbothparents arehealthy car-riers, on average half their children will receiveone copy and therefore benefit from immunity, aquarterwillbeunprotected,andaquarterwillsuf-fer from anaemia. Without modern anti-malariadrugs,aeugenicsprogramthateliminatedthesicklecellmutationwould result ingreater contagionbymalaria.

An analogous situation might exist with somemental conditions, such as schizophrenia andautism,whichcouldbeoutlierexpressionsofgenevariants with beneficial single-copy effects, such

as increasing intelligence or creativity.73 Withoutsufficientknowledgeofhumangenetics,a society-wide eugenics program could, by reducing humanbiodiversity, dull a vital spark. That possibility isunlikely to prevent parents putting the welfare oftheir children first, even if they know the largerconsequences.

D. A majority of citizens adopts positive eugenics. In Eugenics: A Reassessment Richard Lynn arguesthatenhancingchildrenisgoodandforeseesdevel-opments in genetics and IVF making functionaltraitsavailableforgeneticmanipulation.Inhisviewpositiveeugenicswillbeadoptedbythegreatmajor-ityofparents.Thegainswouldbesufficienttogivedesignerbabiesatremendousheadstart,notonlyincognitionbutalsoinpersonalityandvigour.Lynndoes not envisage a small elite caste using eugen-ics to lord it over the unselected masses, becauseheseeseugenicsbecomingthenorm.Nevertheless,evenifmostadoptembryoselection,therewillstillbeagrowingsocialdividewiththosewhodonot.

An average IQ gap of 55 pointswithattendantpersonalitychangeswould be more than sufficient tocause dramatic cultural differencesandpolarisation.

GeorgeChurchthinksthatIVFusing germline engineering willresult in differences so great thatthetwopopulationsconstitutedif-ferentspecies.Lynndoesnotgosofarbutexpectsthatnaturally-repro-ducing people in majority-positiveeugenic societies would occupythe lower socio-economic niches,

oftenunemployedandunemployable.Theresultingwelfareburdenwouldcometobeseenasageneticproblem.ButLynndoesnotconsider theeffectofdifferencesinbirthrates.Ifpresenttrendscontinue,parentsoftheeugenicclasswillhavefewerchildrenthan the non-eugenic, threatening to reduce theirproportionofthepopulationandperhapsleadingtopopulist reaction and defensive counter-measures.Again, this indicates social division and perhapsconflict.

Admittedly the benefits from majority-positiveeugenicswouldbegreaterthanthosefrommajority-negative.Thiswouldstandtoimproveemploymentratesandthusreducewelfare,boostcreativitybothtechnicalandcultural,andreduceinequalitywithinthe eugenic population, thereby raising politicalstability.

One benefit from widespread positive eugenicswouldbe a greater prevalenceof geniuses.Geniusof intellectorcharacterbenefits thewhole society,

L ynn does not envisage a small elite caste using eugenics to lord it over the unselected masses,

because he sees eugenics becoming the norm.

QuadrantMay2015 51

Eugenics,ReadyorNot

whether through scientific, technical, cultural orpolitical innovation. That makes ultra-high intel-ligenceapublicgood.Turningpointsincivilisationwerebasedonmacro-innovations—ideasandinven-tions of great novelty and far-reaching impact—producedby very clever individuals.These includethe plough, writing, astronomical navigation, thesteamengineandthesemi-conductor.Creativityofthis magnitude stimulates the economy, improveslifeandhelpssocietyadapttochallenges.

Positive eugenics would increase the numberof geniuses because abilities of cognition and per-sonality are distributed in a bell curve. A slightincreaseintheaveragegreatlyincreasesthepropor-tion of gifted individuals. For example, increasingtheaverageIQfrom100to105wouldincreasethenumberofindividualswithIQover160almostfour-fold. (Recall that Woodley estimates a loss of 8.4IQpointsper centurydue to risingmutation loadalone.) Increasing the average to 120, well withinwhatLynnseesasfeasiblewithintwogenerations,would increase thenumberof 160-plus individualsabout125-fold.

As the innovations produced by highlyintelligent people are public goods, it would seemprudentforrepresentativegovernmentstoallowthereproductive choices that produce more of them.If most citizens adopted eugenic reproduction,the benefits of accelerated innovation could begainedwithoutallowinganuppercastetodevelop.Further reducing the political risk is the altruistic

bentofmanygiftedindividuals.Historicalresearchindicates that the ultra-intelligent often have hadfeworno children, even in earlier centurieswhenability normally correlated with fertility. At thesame time theyenriched industry andculture andincreasedthefitnessoftheirnations.

There might be other benefits of a general riseincognitiveability.EvidenceassembledbyFinnishsociologist Tatu Vanhanen indicates that risingaverage intelligence promotes socio-economicequality and thus democracy. This effect is notcertain. China is a rather large exception to therule because it has the highest IQ of any largepopulationbuthasneverbeendemocratic.Butevena limited effect as Vanhanen suggests could meanthateugenicsocietieswouldtrendtowardsrelativeegalitarianismanddemocracy.

The second part of this essay will examine thesometimesimprudentvisionsofgeneimprove-

mentbeingdisseminatedby academic experts anddiscuss the possibilities and ethical and politicaldangersofgovernment-ledeugenics.

Frank K. Salter is an urban anthropologist and ethologist who studies organisations and society using the methods and concepts of behavioural biology. His books include On Genetic Interests and Emotions in Command. A footnoted version of this article appears on Quadrant Online. The second part will appear in the magazine shortly.

Reflection

Heleadsapiedstallionacrossapaddockwheresheepdockbrittlegrassandbleatintosummer’ssmudge.Othersjostlewater’sbrink,andrinsereflectionsbeforeboundingfree.

Thehorsesteadiesfordrinking—patchworkperfectedinthedam,untilamuzzlecreaseswaterandreflectionquivers.

Arrivingclouddisturbsthesurface.Doesitforeshadowrain,ordroughtelectric?Onlythehorseiscertainasitdrinksdapplefromthedam.

Ken Stone

QuadrantMay201552

The radical-progressive journal Retrieval,whichhadchurchlinksandwasavailableatAustralianCouncilofChurchesofficesand

readingrooms,publishedvariouspiecesduringtheVietnameseboat-refugeecrisisontherefugeesandonthebenevolentnatureoftheHanoigovernment.The issue of October/November 1977 claimedprotests about “re-education camps” in LiberatedVietnam were based on “inaccurate information”.It saidmostof thosenamed in a letterofprotestto theHanoi authorities asbeingdetained in thecampshadbeen“intimatelyinvolvedinmaintain-ingthesystemofrepressionoftheSaigonregimeand favoured continued US war in Vietnam”. Itwasasiftheydeservedit,aclaimfewontheLefthaddaredtomakeopenly.Itcontinued:

90to95%ofthe1.5millionofThieu’sarmyhavereturnedtocivilianlife.Therehavebeennoallegationsoftortureinthecamps.Prisonersgetthesameaustererationsastherestofthepopulation.Andreleasesaretakingplaceallthetime.

The Retrieval article did not state the sourceof its statistical information nor the source of itsinformationregardingtheabsenceoftorture.

Repatriated US prisoners from the NorthVietnamese prison “Hanoi Hilton”, includingfutureUSRepublicanpresidentialcandidateJohnMcCain, would testify that torture and ill-treat-menthadbeengeneralthere,ashadbeenthecasewiththeFrenchsoldierscapturedafterDienBienPhuinthefirstVietnamWar,andthereseemednoreasontosupposethatofficersofthedefeatedarmyshouldhavebeentreateddifferently.(McCainwashungupbyhis armsafter theyhadbeenbroken,resultinginpermanentdisability.)

Wilfred Burchett and others had, during theKoreanWar,publishedaccountsintheCommunistPartyofAustralianewspaperTribuneoftheidyllic

conditions enjoyed by inmates in prison campsin North Korea. In fact the death-rate there wasaboutthesameasinJapanesecampsintheSecondWorldWar—about40percent—andoverashorterperiod.

After the fall of Saigon, an estimated 1 mil-lionto2.5millionpeoplewereimprisonedwithnoformal charges or trials. According to publishedacademicstudiesintheUnitedStatesandEurope,165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic ofVietnam’s re-education camps. Thousands weretorturedorabused.Prisonerswereincarceratedforas longasseventeenyears,withmosttermsrang-ingfromthreetotenyears.

Retrieval claimed a “Human Rights ProtestLetter” complaining about the conditions in re-educationcampshadbeenpromotedbyindividualsassociatedwith theUSgovernment and “a right-wingVietnameserefugeejournal”.Thearticlewassigned“V.N.”,presumablyforValNoone,aformerCatholicpriestwhowas tocontinuetobeassoci-atedwithdefencesof theVietnamese regimeandattackson right-wing refugees. In the same issueNoone published a feature article attacking andgenerally tending to discredit refugees under theheading: “Refugees—Some Bring Gold, OthersAreTheirServants”.Anumberofitsthemesweretooccuragaininthefuture.

Aswithpreviousattacksalongthesamelines,thisarticleignoredthefactthat,giventheregimein Liberated Vietnam was a revolutionary com-munist one, “rich” people, professionals, seniormilitaryandcivilianofficialsandwhatStalinhadexterminatedasthekulak class,weremore,notless,likelytobegenuinerefugees.Itseemedtopresumeanunusualextremityofignoranceorstupidityonthepartofitsreaders.Thearticleclaimed:

Someofthe47VietnameserefugeeswholandedatBroomeinJulybroughtgoldbars,saystheWAregionaldirectorofthe

h a L g.p. CoLEbatCh

The“BoatPeople”andthe1977Election

(PartII)

QuadrantMay2015 53


immigrationdepartment,MrJ.N.Mackay…itisnotuptometodivulgetheirpersonalfinances…[the]manageroftheGraylandsHostelinPerthwherethe47refugeesstayed,said,“Wehadonefamilyhereforonlyaweekandthentheywentoutandboughta$50,000house.Someofthemhavetheirownservants…”

This allegation, repeated in attacks on refu-gees,thatsomehadtheirownservants,makesnodidactic sense. How could refugees escaping byboatattheperiloftheirlives—criminals,“pirates”andoutlaws fromthepointofviewof theHanoiregime—bringservantswiththem,paythoseserv-antsorenforceanycontractofservice,unless the“servants”agreedtocomeandsharetheperilsvol-untarily? (One is reminded of what is said to beoneoftheoldestknownjokesintheworldthatisstillwrylyfunny:arichmanonanancientRomanshipfounderinginastormtoldhisterrifiedslaves:“Don’tworry,Ihavefreedyouallinmywill.”)ThearticlequotedTobyRichmondinNation Review(aradicalleftistjournalofthetime),whohadwritten:

AsItalkedtothem,eachinturn,IbegantosuspectthatthisgroupwasasmallcoreofuppercasteVietnamesewhohadassembledahandfulofexpertseamenandmarinemechanicstoferrythemsafelyacrosstothegentlewesternsociety.Thosewhowerenotfittersorengineerswerefishermen,ex-soldiersor“Students”wellintotheir20sor30s.

What exactly was suspicious or illegitimateabout“ex-soldiers”wantingtoescape?Howexactlycould “expert seaman and marine mechanics” beassembledand induced (andpresumablybribed—butwithwhat?)toundertakeaperilousoceanvoy-agetoanuncertaindestination,avoyagewhichwasalsoillegal,underthenoseofagovernmentwithapervasive security apparatus which would imposeDraconianpunishmentsiftheywerecaught?

Thewholesumoftheallegationsmadenosenseand fell apart when considered. And why wereRetrieval andNoone, an ex-Catholicpriest, pub-lishingmaterialplainlyintendedandcalculatedtoexacerbate hostile feelings towards the refugees,ratherthancalculatedtocreatefriendly,supportiveandChristiannotionstowardsthem?

Thearticlecontinued:“AccordingtoRichmondmostoftheso-called refugees[emphasisadded]hadnotheardofAustraliabeforereachingMalaysia”—whichmade themvery ill-informed formembersof an alleged “upper caste” or thirty-year-oldstudents:

butonerecentarrival,MissSweenieWong,gaveadifferentaccount.AskedwhysheandherfriendshaddecidedtoescapetoAustralia,MissWongsaid:“WehadheardontheradionewsthatpeopleonboatsfromVietnamwillgetverygoodtreatmentfromtheAustraliangovernment…”

Nothingwasmadeof the fact thatWong is aChinese,notaVietnamese,name.Therewasthena cross-head: “How Spontaneous is the RefugeeMovement?”

VietnameseBuddhistmonkThichNhatHanhvisitedMelbourneinFebruary1977towinsupportforthe“boatpeople”.ThichNhatHanhhadbeenworkinginSingaporeonthe“boatpeopleproject”oftheso-called[emphasisadded]WorldConferenceofReligionandPeace.However,hewasaskedtoleavebytheSingaporegovernmentbecausehewassoactivelyencouragingrefugeestoleaveVietnam.InaspeechattheAnglicanchurchinNorthFitzroy,ThichNhatHanhaskedforsympathyforthoseleavingVietnam.Whenquestionedonhisco-operationwithNguyen Ngo Bich[right-wing]journalmentionedintheprecedingitem,ThichNhatHanhurgedhislistenersnottobenaiveintheirpoliticaljudgements.HealsomentionedinpassinghisviewthattheAmericanshadbroughtlandreformtoVietnam.

ThichNhatHanhwillbeknowntoanumberofreadersastheVietnameseBuddhistmonkwhocontributedtotheanti-warmovement.The logic of his speech is hard to follow. He seems willing to grow vegetables on his French farm but unwilling to go to work in the fields of Vietnam.[emphasisadded]

Thus, according to Retrieval ’s peculiar set ofvalues, it was illogical to prefer living and work-ing ina free society toanunfreeone.Thearticleconcluded:

Heandhiscompanion,SisterPhung,spokeforalongtimeaboutthe“boatpeople”andcitedmanyfaultsoftheVietnamesecommunists.Itwasinthiscontextthattheyspokeoftherefugeeproblem.

The same issue also carried an article, signed“V.N.”,supportingtheanti-AmericanfanaticNoamChomsky’scontentionthattheUSA’sallegedcon-cernfor“humanrights”inVietnamwasmerely“amoral-sounding excuse for aggression”.That is to

QuadrantMay201554


say,Americahadspent50,000ofitssoldiers’livesandastronomicalamountsof treasure(ruining itsspace program, its “Great Society” program, andmuch other infrastructure investment) merely forthesakeofdoingso.

Americans and the Saigon regime were likeNazis,soAmericaandSouthVietnam,notNorthVietnam, were responsible for making aggressivewar,andfurtherAmericaandSouthVietnamwereevidentlyresponsibleforsystematicextermination.Retrieval also attacked and tried to discredit thehuman rights campaign. The article continuedalongthelinesthatalthoughtherewerenoatroci-tiesorviolationsofhumanrightscommittedbythecommunistregimeinLiberatedVietnam,theanti-war movement which had worked to install thatgovernmentwasnotresponsibleforthemanyway:

Aboveall,theUSrulerswantto[maintain]theoriginalmythaboutVietnam—namelythatitwasacaseofaggressionagainsttheSouthbytheNorth.Itisinthiscontext,Chomskysuggests,thatweshouldassessthehumanrightscampaign…Chomskyviewsthenewspaperatrocitystoriesasunreliable…for example the widely reported photos of Khmer Rouge atrocities are fakes.[emphasisadded]

TheLeftwasforcedtodoanotherflip-flopalit-tlelaterwhenitwasbecameclearthatthephotosofKhmerRougeatrocitieswerenot fakesandabout1.7 million people had been murdered. LiberatedVietnam invaded Liberated Kampuchea and puttheKhmerRougetoflight.EvenJohnPilger,per-haps for the first time, on that occasion used hispolemicaltalentstocriticisecommunistatrocities.Thearticlecontinued:

Talesofcommunist“atrocities”aremeantnotonlytoprovetheevilsofcommunismbutalsotounderminethecredibilityofthoseintheWestwhoopposedthewarandmightopposefuturesuchwars.People who opposed American aggression in Vietnam have no special responsibility to determine whether the victims of American (and Australian) violence are guilty of evil practices, justasGermanresisterstoNazismhadnospecialresponsibilitywithregardtothebehaviouroftheFrenchresistanceorJews.Hewrites,“Wemustbearinmindthesimpletruththatanypublicpoliticalactmustbeassessedintermsofitslikelyconsequences,inparticular,forthosewhoaresufferingorwillsufferfromoppression…ignoringthosepoints,manyhonestopponentsoftheAmericanwarare

trappedintotacitsupportforthepropagandajuggernaut,”Chomskysays.[emphasisadded]

False, to the point of obscene, analogy couldhardly be stretched further, or a more morallydecadent argument produced. This, of course,accounts in part for the hatred and fear whichthe Vietnamese refugees aroused on the Left inAustralia and which made it a psychologicalimperative that they be discredited: by their veryexistence,theywereevidencethatthetalesofcom-munistatrocitiesweretrue,and,furthermore,wereof such a nature that masses of people were pre-pared to risk their lives to escape from them, astheyhadnotundertheSaigonregimes.

Even if theywerecondemnedandstereotypedas capitalists, bourgeoisie on the run or “black-marketeers” this might remind some people thatSaigonhadatleasthadaneconomiclifewithcon-siderable liberality,andthat in the junglere-edu-cation camps of Liberation, there was no marketatall.

Whitlamat this timecalledagain forat leasttwenty new patrol boats for the Navy,

referring to ALP policy on refugees. FrankKnopfelmacher, Nation Review’s token conserva-tive, a political philosopher and psychologist ofCzechJewishbackground,whosefamilyhadbeenmurderedbytheNazis,wrote:

WhenIheardtheALPleadersrefertothemas“yellowCroats”(Whitlam,beingapatrician,witharoyalsenseofhumourpreferstheexpression“yellowBalts”),Ishuddered,fortheimplicationsweregruesomelyobvious.

ThepogromagainstresidentCroatsin1973didnotharmanybodyverymuch.Apogromagainstfloatingwretchesnotyetonlandmaybelethal.

Knopfelmacherconcluded:“AvoteforLaborisavotefordeath.”Thiswasprobablytheonlypro-refugee piece published in Nation Review, whichotherwise published material contributing to thestereotypingofrefugeesasbrothel-keepers,black-marketeersandbourgeoisexploitersontherun.

In Darwin, Waterside Workers’ Federationleader“Curly”NixonthreatenedawatersidestrikeunlesstheSong Be 12wasreturnedtoHoChiMinhCity, preferably, as National Times correspondentDavidLeachjocularlyputit,loadedwith“reffos”.

The Labor Party spokesman on Immigrationand Ethnic Affairs, Ted Innes, said the nation’s“migrant” community was “aggravated” by thegovernment’srefugeepolicyandbywhattheysaw

QuadrantMay2015 55


as refugees jumping the queue. He added thatmigrants in Australia “see that their relatives ortheirimmediatefamiliesareprecludedfromcom-ingacrossherebecauseof theeconomic situationandthat’sthecriterionthat’sbeingappliedinpre-ventingfamiliesfromcomingtogether”.

Mr Whitlam blamed Singapore for helpingVietnamese to reach Australia, and accusedSingapore of providing refugee boats with plans,maps and petrol. Clyde Cameron, however, wasto commend Singapore for placing Vietnameserefugeesindetentioncamps.

OnthesamedaytheDeputyLeaderoftheALP,MrHayden,inastatementagainobviouslyaimedat the government’s policy of accepting refugees,attackedthepoorstateofDarwin’sdefences,say-ingthatitwasalmostaseasytoarriveinDarwinundetectedastocrossSydneyHarbourinaManlyferry.(Ironically,whenDarwinwasbombedintheSecond World War, its defences were incompletebecauseofunionstrikes.)

On November 23, Whitlam said South-EastAsian governments were using Vietnamese refu-geesasaweaponagainstAustralia,movingthemon to Australia in order to “twistour tails” because of their dislikeof the Fraser government’s poli-cies. Plainly if this argument wasaccepted by the community itwould tend against the refugeesbeingwelcomed.

Mr Al Grassby, the Comm-issioner for Community Relationsand a former Labor Minister forImmigration and Ethnic Affairs,and thought to have connectionswith organised crime, made astatementattackingright-wingrac-istpropaganda,whichhesaidwasbeing put out by groups such as “White Power”andtheNationalFront.

The diaries of Mr Cameron for this period,published in 1990, in recounting ALP strat-

egy during the 1977 federal election campaign,showtheALPwascountingonusinganti-refugeesentiments in the community for political advan-tage.Cameronused thewords refugees and illegal immigrantsinterchangeably.Hishatredoftherefu-gees and contempt for any notion of compassiontowardsthemshonethroughthepages:

BobHawkehasnowboughtintotheVietnameserefugee question.Hehasissuedaverysensiblestatementonthematter.Andhecancountontheoverwhelmingsupportof

themajorityoftheAustralianpublicforhisdemandthattheGovernmentput an end to the entry of illegal immigrants...

Yesterdaywasagoodday,too,andforthatmattersowasSunday.Ifwecanmaintainthescoringpointswehavebeenabletomakeoverthelastthreedayswewillmorethanretrievethegroundlostlastweek.The Vietnamese refugee issue will, if it means anything at all, count more against the Government than the opposition...

[DeputyPrimeMinister]AnthonyconcededthattheVietnameserefugeesituationwascreatingdifficultiesfortheGovernment,butsoughttominimisetheeffectsbydraggingouttheoldCommunistbogey,sayingthatAustraliahadadutytoprotectpeoplefromtheravagesofCommunism.The Government’s position won’t be improved by the Vietnamese Government’s demand for the return of all the 151 “pirates” as they are being described by the Vietnamese Charge d’Affaires in Sydney.[allemphasesadded]

Thisthirdextractcanbeseenasan unintended tribute to the gov-ernment’s humanitarianism andpolitical courage. Whatever thelater shortcomings and confusiondisplayed by Malcolm Fraser, thisshould not be forgotten. As myown employer, a federal minister,saidatthetime,“Wecan’tjustletthemdrown.”

Cameron, meanwhile, whoapparently thought the Australianelectorate shared his own callous-ness, gave no evidence of caringif refugees drowned or, if forcibly

repatriated, were shot as “pirates”. He continued,in a passage showing contempt for concern over“humansuffering”:

TheGovernmentisclearlyworriedabouttheVietnameserefugees.AndrewPeacockandMichaelMacKellarissuedajointstatementinAdelaideyesterdaysayingthatAustralia’sacceptanceofrefugeesmustnotbeallowedtobecomeanelectionissue,adding,“Thebasicquestionofhumansufferinginvolvedtranscendspartisanadvantage.”Australia,theysaid,wascommittedtoacceptingaregularflowofrefugeesfromIndo-China,butprioritywouldbegiventorefugeeswhometnormalmigrationrequirements.

During the 1977 federal election

campaign, the ALP was counting on

using anti-refugee sentiments in the

community for political advantage.

QuadrantMay201556


FollowingLabor’ssecondconsecutivelandslidedefeatatthe1977election,Cameronrecounted:

Thephonehardlystoppedringingtoday.TonyMulvihill…complainedaboutGough’spublicstatementdeclaringthatVietnameserefugeeslandingillegallyonAustralianshoreswouldnot bedeported.This,hedeclared,wascontrarytohisownpublicstatementinwhichhehadmadeitclearthataLaborGovernmentwouldseethatillegalimmigrantswere deported.[emphasisinoriginal]

The various communist parties in Australiathen in existence—the Communist Party of

Australia(CPA)whichhadbrokenfromMoscow,largelyovertheSovietinvasionofCzechoslovakia;the Socialist Party of Australia, which remainedalignedwithMoscow;andtheCommunistPartyof Australia (Marxist-Leninist), aligned withPeking—though feuding bitterly, all attackedVietnamese refugees, as did other small far-Left groups. These attacks were on the groundsthat the refugeeswere capitalists and enemies ofLiberationandthattheywerethat“cheaplabour”which had long been portrayed as an enemy ofthe labour movement and unionism, the spectreof which had been responsible for the creationof the White Australia policy. How they couldsimultaneouslyberichcapitalistsandcheaplabourwasnotexplained.

The CPA’s national newspaper Tribune head-linedastoryonDecember7,1977:“WharfiesStopWorkOverFakeRefugees”.Thestory stated thatthe refugees were illegal immigrants from theprivileged classes. They could not be refugees, itargued,becausethewarhadbeenoverfortwoandahalfyears.AccordingtoTribunetheyweresoft-life seekers who could not stand the fact that inLiberated Vietnam they were having to do hon-est work for the first time in their lives insteadof exploiting thedown-trodden.The absurdity ofthis statement was self-evident and catering toa mythology: in the modern world, and perhapsespeciallyinAsia,noclassofanyconsiderablesizeexcept a tiny number of millionaires and someWesternuniversitystudentscanlivewithoutwork-ing.Tribunestated:

WatersideworkerstwicestoppedworkoverthearrivalofVietnameserefugees.WWFSecretaryKevinManskitoldTribunewhytheyacted.“Originallyitwasonthebasisofoursecurity,sincethefirsttwoboatssimplysailedintotheharbour.Seconditwasbecauseofthequarantineregulations.”

That a communist-aligned union should beconcerned with Australia’s security was a novelidea. The WWF in Darwin had been notoriousforstrikeseveninthedarkestdaysoftheSecondWorld War, deliberately damaging Australia’ssecurity and the war effort. Manski repeated theclaimfromRetrievalthatrefugeeshadlandedwithgoldbarsandservants,despitethelackofanyevi-dence and the inherent extreme improbability ofthis.Hewenton:

Thirdly,wesaidtheyweren’trefugees,theywereillegalimmigrantsbecausethewarhadbeenfinishedfortwoandahalfyears.Norweretheydisplaced,theywereleavingbecausetheVietnamese Government was sending them to work and they didn’t like it.

They were, in fact, from the privileged classes. “If they didn’t have they wouldn’t be here,”saidManski.[emphasisadded]

“We’velearnedabouttheonesinWesternAustraliawholandedwithbarsofgoldandservants.Sincethenwe’veseenthemourselves.There’sstoriesfloatingaboutallovertheplaceaboutthegold.”

Note once again the presumption underlyingthis story that if people fleeing from a revolu-tionary communist government had money theycouldnotbegenuinerefugees,and,byimplication,becauseofthistheywereundeservingofanyhelp,evenwhentheywereinperiloftheirlives.Further,anyveryrichpeopleinSouthVietnamshouldhavebeenabletogetoutbysaferandmorecomfortablemeansearlier.Tribunecontinued:“HeagreedthatsomepeopleinDarwinsupportedthestoppageforracist reasons. ‘Their reasons were totally differ-entfromours.Theseracistshavegotonthesamebandwagon.’”

In other words, the Vietnamese should beabandoned to perish or be forcibly be repatriatedto their ruthless government not because of racebut because of class. The statement emphasisedthe essential and historic moral bankruptcy ofMarxismandcommunism.Tribunecontinued:

Whatdidhethinkofthelatestboat,thestolenSong Be 12,whichtheVietnamesegovernmenthasdemandedbereturned?

“Thisshiphasbeenhijacked.TheyshouldallbesentbacktotheVietnamesegovernment.Atpresentwe’retryingtogetabetterdealfortheguardsimprisonedontheship.”(ThreesoldierswereseizedwhentheshipwashijackedinHoChiMinhCity.)

“Allthosemugsgetupandtalk

QuadrantMay2015 57


abouthumanitarianism.Butwhere’sthehumanitarianismtowardsthesepeoplelockedup?”KevinManskiasked.

On December 6, 1977, the Brisbane Courier-MailquotedthepresidentoftheQueensland

Trades and Labour Council, Mr Hausenschild,to the effect that the sudden influx of refugeeswas a plot to smuggle in cheap labour for themining of uranium—thus pressing two buttonssimultaneously.

ThisattackwasmadeontheoppositegroundstothoseclaimingtheVietnamesewererichgold-laden capitalists and soft-life seekers. It claimedthe refugeeswere “withouthomes,possessionsorjobs” and were thus a ready-made cheap labourforce.Itwasmorethanacoincidence,healsosaid,thattheywereleavingliberatedVietnamtwoyearsafterthewarhadended.

He did not elaborate on the question ofhow he thought this plot had been arranged,presumablybetweencapitalistAustralianuraniummining interests, the federal government, theVietnamese penniless/gold-carrying refugees,and thegovernmentofVietnam.Andhowdid itsquare with Whitlam’s claim that the ASEANgovernments were using refugees as a weaponto punish Australia, or Cameron’s gloating thatthe refugee issue was embarrassing the federalgovernment?Onceagain,theargumentwasabsurdand without even a veneer of either commonsenseor consistency, let alonehumanity.All thatmattered was that the refugees be attacked andstigmatised:

TheFederalGovernmentwantedtouseVietnameserefugeesasastand-byworkforcefortheminingofuranium,theTradesandLabourCouncilPresident,MrHausenschild,claimedyesterday.

Hesaidthegovernmentwasallowingboat-loadsofrefugeesintoAustraliadeliberately.ThegovernmentknewAustralianunionistswereopposedtouraniumminingatpresent.ItwouldbevirtuallyimpossibletorecruitAustralianworkerstomineNorthernTerritorydeposits.

MrHausenschildsaidtherefugees,withouthomes,possessionsorjobs,wouldprovideanimmediatemanpowersourceofminingandexportingyellowcake.“ItseemsmorethanacoincidencethattheVietnamWarhasbeenoverfortwotearsandtheinfluxofrefugeesbeginsnow,”hesaid.

“Itwasalsomorethancoincidencethatimmigrationofficerswerebeingsentto

MalaysiaandSingaporetoprocessrefugeestoAustraliaatatimewhenunemploymentinAustraliawasthehighestsincethedepression.”

On May 3, 1978, Tribune published a leaderattacking Vietnamese refugees under the heading:“The Vietnamese Ustasha”. This leader describedVietnameserefugeesas“fascists”and“criminalsandqueue-jumpers”,escapingwiththeirprivate“booty”.Some,itsaid,werekillers.Itimplicitlyequatedthemwith white supremacists from South Africa. (Itssuggestionofa“flood”ofthelatterbeingimportedby the Liberals for domestic political purposesindicatedthatTribunewasnotfullyconversantwithMalcolmFraser’sideasonthematter.)ItsuggesteddireconsequencesforAustraliaifVietnamesewerepermitted to enter. It also made the surprisingcharge,intheabsenceofanyevidence,thattheyhadoften hijacked boats from other refugees, thoughwithout explaining how hijackers and hijackeesweretobetoldapart:

WhileyetanotherflotillaofVietnameserefugeeboatsheadsforDarwin,thosealreadyhereareorganisingpara-militarysecretsocieties.Lastweek,fully200ofthemmetatSydneyRSLclubtoplottheVietnamesegovernment’soverthrowbymilitaryforce…iftheyareasluckyastheUstasha[anextremeright-wingorfascistBalkangroup]theAustraliangovernmentcouldevenhelpthem.

Whatcanbedonetostopthesefascists encouragedtoenterAustralia?

Firstly,theGovernmentmuststopencouragingthe“boatpeople”.Manyofthemhavehijackedboats,oftenfromotherrefugees.Somehavekilledorthrownoverboardpeoplewhostoodintheirway.

Thesepeoplearecriminalsandqueue-jumpers.

TheAustralianGovernmentmustco-operatemorecloselywithVietnaminarrangingfamilyre-unions…Mostare“economic”refugees,escapingfromthepovertyofVietnamwiththeirprivatebooty.ItisthereforeimportanttoaidVietnamanddemandthatAmericapayitspromisedreparations.Ifthisweredonesomewouldreturntotheirhomes.[What?Criminals,queue-jumpersandall?]

…TheGovernmentmustdisbandanygroupforminganarmytofighttheGovernmentofVietnam,agovernmentsupportedbymostVietnamesewhofought30yearstowinnationalliberation.

QuadrantMay201558


Tribune went on to state that the real plot ofultra-rightLiberalswastouseaVietnamesepara-military force inAustralianpolitics “as theyhaveused the minority of fascist refugees from someothercountries”.(Tribunein1956hadalsodescribedanti-Soviet Hungarians as fascists.) It concluded:“Just imagine what would happen should theLiberalsnextsupportafloodofwhitesupremacistrefugeesfromRhodesiaandSouthAfrica.”

The Vietnamese refugees were also likened toUstasha by then ALP Deputy Leader Tom

Uren, President of the pro-Hanoi Australia-Vietnam Society. After a demonstration by anti-communistVietnamesein1979outsidetheSydneyTrades Hall against a concert by the “YoungSocialist League” to raise money for Vietnam,Mr Uren called on the federal government torid Australia of “violent extremists” among theVietnamese refugees. He claimed in a letter toNewSouthWalesLaborPremierNevilleWran:

ThereisanimmediateneedtomaintainclosesurveillanceoftheextremistsamongtheVietnameserefugees.

YouwillrecallthatittooksomeconsiderabletimetoconvincetherelevantauthoritiesoftheseriousnessoftheattacksbymembersoftheUstashiontheirpoliticalenemies.

Itwasonlyafteranumberofbombattacksthateffectiveactionwastaken.ThesituationamongtheVietnameserefugeesisalsocapableofescalatingasaresultoftheactivitiesofextremistelements.

UrenledadelegationofunioniststolobbyWranfurther on the matter. The Australia-VietnamSocietywastoraiseallegationsofviolencebyanti-communist refugees frequently in its publication

Vietnam Today,towhichtheRev.MrNoonewasafrequentcontributor.

In the September 2010 issue of the left-wingmagazinethe Monthly,academicRobertManne

wrote,quitebizarrely:

Thesuccessofthesettlement[ofVietnameserefugees]reliedontheexistenceofabipartisanconsensuswithintheAustralianpoliticalelite.Withtheboatarrivals,theLaborOppositionunderWhitlam,andthenHayden,resistedthetemptationtoexploitunderlyingracistoranti-refugeesentimentforpartypoliticalgain.EventheColdWarideologicaldividewasblurred.TheRightsupportedtherefugeesasescapeesfromcommunism;theLeftaspartoftheprojectofburyingWhiteAustralia.

HowMannecouldwritethisinthefaceofthepublichistoricalrecordisbaffling.

The 1977 federal election brought a secondlandslide defeat for the ALP, virtually asoverwhelmingas thatof 1975.TheALP’sandtheLeft’scampaignofhateandfearagainstrefugees,based on racism, anti-anti-communism andxenophobia, had failed to gain traction with theAustralianvoters,whorespondedtotheplightofthe Vietnamese refugees largely with humanityand compassion, and supported the Coalition’spolicyofreceivingthem.

Hal Colebatch’s two notable recent books are Australia’s Secret War: How Unionists Sabotaged Our Troops in World War II (Quadrant Books), which shared the Prime Minister’s Prize for Australian History last year, and Fragile Flame: The Uniqueness and Vulnerability of Scientific and Technological Civilization (Acashic). The first part of this article appeared in the March issue.

Men like this risked their lives to

preserve our traditional Australian culture

All we ask is that you join us today as we stand up for their legacy

British Australian Community

P.O. Box 707 South Yarra, 3141

www.britishaustraliancommunity.com

QuadrantMay2015 59

IX Haiku

nightpullingoverinasmalltowneveryonehashisdoor

mountaintopsdistantviewsnevermakingthenews

centuriesseparatecenturiesmuseumguardscheckourlaughter

crossingsunnystreetsafewdayswhereRomewasbuilt

NewYear’sdayoutlivinglastyear’sdaysforourworldtoend

underscatteredcloudsmilesfromlandthedeadweightofhistory

moreleavesfallhidingthefallentouristsignsinmorethanonelanguage

whereherskippingstonesinksthelatestnewsnotchangingourday

cloudslosingtheirplaceallthelightbetweenstars

Gary Hotham

Hog

YoucockyourwristandblasttheCBDwithnoise.Startledkneessnapbackandwalkersmakemini-Maasaijumpsintotheair,land,utterandgoon.

YourHarleyhasanextrafatblackbacktyrewhileKawasakiridershaveparkedtheirbeesinhoney-combrowsforbuzzingoffatsixpastfive.

ThemotorbikereplacedthequietWesternFrontdispatcheshorse.Forlifetheykeptthedindown.NowwhenthePostiecomesandgoesyouneedtolistenout.

YoucockyourwristandblasttheCBDwithnoise.Butyoursignlanguageisn’tgoingtowork.Don’tbeshy,ifyouwanttosayhowlostyouare:usewords.

It Got Lost

Whathappenedtothegoldwatch?Whathappenedtoworkinginoneplaceallyourlife?Sometimessuchthingsgetlost.Whathappenedtoallthoseblokesyouworkedwith?

Whathappenedtoworkinginoneplaceallyourlife?Sometimesyouonlyseethingslookingback.Whathappenedtothoseblokesyouworkedwith?Andplayingfootballfortheteamwhereyougrewup?

SometimesyouonlyseethingslookingbackLiketrachomawasaworryonce.IftheycanpayyoucanplaywhereyougrewupButloyaltypaysnobody’sbills.

TrachomawasaworryonceAndsometimessuchthingsgetlost.Butloyaltypaysnobody’sbills.Whathappenedtothegoldwatch?Isoldit.

Saxby Pridmore

QuadrantMay201560

TheFirstPrinciplesReviewoftheDepartmentofDefencewasreleasedbyKevinAndrews,theMinisterforDefence,onApril1.Akey

question iswhether this review foreshadowsmajorprogressinDefencereform.

MyviewisthatthereviewisthemostthoroughassessmentofDefenceadministrationinthiscoun-tryinageneration.Itcontainssixpositivefeaturesandsixnotablesurprises.

Positive Features

The first positive is the forensic diagnosis ofthe ills inDefenceadministration.Thereview

doesn’tholdback.Itstatesbluntly:

Thecurrentorganisationalmodelandprocessesarecomplicated,slowandinefficient…Waste,inefficiencyandreworkarepalpable…Defenceissufferingfromaproliferationofstructures,processesandsystemswithunclearaccountabilities.Theseinturncauseinstitutionalisedwaste,delayeddecisions,flawedexecution,duplication,achange-resistantbureaucracy,over-escalationofissuesfordecisionandlowengagementlevelsamongstemployees.

The second positive feature is that the reviewisclearinplacingmuchoftheblameforthisstateof affairs on the poor performance of Defence’sleadership:

Previousreviews,morefrequentsince1997,haveresultedinonlyincrementalchange…wewerepuzzledastowhyDefencehasbeenunabletoreformitself.Organisationsneedtobeperiodicallyresetandreshapedbytheirleadership.SubstantivechangeappearstohavebeentoodifficultforDefenceleaders…

Thethirdpositiveisthatthereviewrecommendssubstantial change in the Defence leadership—itsexperience,culture,focusandenergylevels:

Successwillonlyhappenwithstrong,clear,wiseanduncompromisingleadershipfromthetop(bothpublicserviceandmilitary)supportedbyanenergetic,committedandableseniorleadershipteam…Thesechangesneedtostartquickly,bepursuedwithenergyandbeguidedbynewandstrongleadership…Thetimeisrighttoclearthedecksandliberatetheorganisationforthefuture.

The fourth major positive is the breadth ofchange recommended for Defence administrativestructures and processes. The review proposes asignificantstrengtheningofpowerinthecentreofthedepartment.Theresponsibilitiesandaccount-abilities of the Secretary of the Department andthe Chief of the Defence Force will be clarified.The Vice Chief will be given authority over thesingle service chiefs to plan and develop jointcapabilityandtheAssociateSecretarywillbecomethe integrator for all non-military functions. Themanagement of most derivative functions will besimplified, with named personnel carrying clearresponsibilityfordeliveringspecifiedoutputs.

Numerous committees will be abolished andmany others, including the Defence Committee,thinned down. Under this new regime there willbelessscopeforhidingpoorperformance.

Afifthpositivefeatureisthereview’sinsistenceon reducing the number of senior and medium-levelmanagersandmarkedlyreducingthenumberofreportinglayersintheorganisation:

Defencehasbeendriftingandhasnotbeenreshapedindecades.Itisnowpoorlystructured.Thereareupto12layersinsomepartsoftheorganisation,fromtheSecretarytohisfrontlinestaff…Thisstiflesinnovationandslowsdowncommunication,decision-makingandexecution.Nomorethansixorsevenlayersofmanagementiscommonpractice,eveninthelargestorganisations.

ross ba bbagE

AWell-AimedShotThatFellShortTheDefenceDepartmentReview

QuadrantMay2015 61

AWell-AimedShotThatFellShort

Thereviewrecommendsasubstantialde-layeringof the organisation, increased spans of controlfor middle managers and stronger standards ofaccountabilityforperformance.

A sixth positive feature is the detailed imple-mentationplanspecifiedinthereview.Notingthefailure of the department to effectively implementtheconclusionsofnumerouspreviousreviews, thisreportspecifieshowitsrecommendationsaretobeimplemented, by whom and over what period. Italsoadvocatestheappointmentofastrongexternaloversightboardtoreportdirectlytotheministerfortwoyearsinanefforttoensurethatthedepartmentdoesn’tdragitsfeet.

Surprises

Thefirstmajorsurpriseisthefailureofthereviewtodrivereformsoastoachievekeyoutcomes.

The review talks generally about the need for theorganisation to reliably deliver priority outcomesbut it fails to specify either the primary organisa-tional goals themselves, or theprocesses bywhichthe department is to achieve them. The reformeddepartment will probably operate more efficientlybuttherecanbenoguaranteethatitwillbemuchbetterindeliveringkeyoutcomes.

The second surprise is that the review fails tospecifyastrategy-ledprocessfordesigning,analys-ingandtestingalternativetotalforcestructuresforthefutureAustralianDefenceForce.Ittalkslooselyabout the need for greater contestability in keyforce development decisions. However, the word-ingimpliesthattheservicesareexpectedtodevelopproposals fornewor replacement capabilities,pre-sumablyinbroadaccordwiththegeneralprioritiesidentifiedinthelatestDefenceWhitePaper.Theseproposalsarethentorunthegauntletofaseriesofcritical reviews with the resulting messily-derivedmixofcapabilitiesproceedingtoacquisition.

This tactical and highly reactive processing ofa never-ending procession of sub-element propos-alsisarecipeforcontinuedpoorperformance.Itisakintoacarcompanydecidingthat itwillneedanewcarintwentyyears’time.Inthefirsttwoyearsthedrive-trainengineersproposeanew-generationV6 engine and attract fierce debate about whetherthisistherightchoiceattherightprice.Theinte-riordesignersareexcitedbyanew-designsteeringwheelandinthespiritofcontestabilitythereisthenan intense debate about whether the new steeringwheel shouldbe roundorovalormadeofcarbon.Theelectricalengineersproposeanewtypeof taillightsandagainintensedebatefollowsonthemostcost-effective option. In the second two years thedrive-trainengineersdebatewhetherthecarshould

befront-orrear-wheeldrive,theinteriordesignersproposeanewair-conditioningsystemandtheelec-tricalengineersproposeanewdigitalfuse-box.Verylittlethoughtisgiventothemoreimportantques-tion—the new vehicle’s operational performancewhenitgetsontotheroadintwentyyears’time.

After twenty years of this tribal contestabilitytheendresultwouldprobablylooklikeaclumsily-designed and poorly integrated Corolla. However,if serious thoughthadbeengiven to thedesignofan optimal total vehicle for the demanding timesahead,adecisionmighthavebeenmadeattheout-settobuildsomethinglikeaLandCruiserthatcanhandle sustained travel on rough tracks and deepriver crossings. Once that decision is taken thespecification and acquisition of components is farsimpler and the end result after twenty years willbeamuchbetterintegratedandhigherperformingvehicleforundertakingtheprioritytasks.

Thetypeoftacticalcontestabilitydescribedinthereviewwillsufferfrompreciselythesameflaws.Itwillnotproducearigorously-analysedtotaldefenceforcestrategyandstructureforthefuture.Norwillit provide a robust means of convincing ministersthat Defence knows what the country needs forthe more challenging security environment that isdeveloping.Inconsequenceitwillnotwinthesus-tained support of ministers for budgetary priority.Inorderforthesebenefitstobewonbythereformeddepartment envisaged by this review, the newly-empoweredViceChiefwillneedtodesign,developanddriveacompletelynewtotalforcestrategyandstructuredevelopmentprocess,probablyagainstthefierceresistanceofthesingle-servicechiefsandoth-ers. Unfortunately, this review will not help himgreatlyinthiscriticaltask.

Thethirdmajorsurpriseisthatwhilethereviewrecognises the need to align strategy, plans andresource allocations, the structural and processchangesrecommendedareunlikelytoachievethis.The primary changes proposed in this context areto draw together all policy functions into a singleorganisationalunit,toencouragestrategic,technicalandcostcontestabilityofindividualproposals,andfor the minister to meet the Defence Committeetwiceyearlytoreviewstrategy,capabilityandfund-ingalignment.

ThefourthmajorsurpriseisthatwhilethereviewacknowledgestheneedfordeepculturalchangeinDefence, itdoesn’tdiscuss indetailhowthishugechangeistooccur:

Defencelacksaservicedeliveryculture.Thismanifestsitselfinprovidersandcustomersnotappropriatelynegotiatingwitheachother,enablingfunctionsnotprovidingresponsive

QuadrantMay201562

AWell-AimedShotThatFellShort

servicesandcustomersduplicatingfunctionsastheydonotbelievetheywillgettherequiredservices.

The weaknesses in Defence culture are alsoreflected in the extended tolerance of the currentloosely federated structure, the excessive layeringof management, theweak and inconsistent systemof performance management and numerous otherproblems noted in the report. While the reviewaddressessomeofthestructuralandprocessaspectsofthesechallenges,itfailstospellouthowthedeepculturalflawsaretoberemedied.Mostnotably,thereisnodiscussionofthereformsneededtothetrain-ing,educationanddevelopmentsystemstoencour-ageandforce thechanges required.Moredetailedplanningandabroaderlistingofremedialmeasureswillberequiredbeforeamajorprogramoftransfor-mationalchangecanbelaunchedsuccessfully.

Thefifthmajorsurpriseisthatwhilethereviewnotes that Defence tends to be inward-looking,it does not propose any remedy. The review notesthatDefence’spublicservantsarethemostlikelyofthose in allCommonwealth agencies tohaveonlyeverworkedinoneagency.Moreover,aquarterofall Defence public servants are retired ADF per-sonnel.InordertoreducethisinsularitythereviewrecommendsincreaseduseofexternalpersonneltoassistwithkeyanalyticaltasksandproposesthattheDefenceScienceandTechnologyOrganisationout-sourceelementstoindustryandacademia.However,thereviewdoesnotrecommendsignificantincreasesinlinkstoothergovernmentagencies,tocommer-cialentitiesortonot-for-profitorganisations.

A sixth surprise is the failure of the review topropose a workable mechanism for refreshing thedepartment’s leadership, thecurrentweaknessesofwhicharehighlightedinmanypartsofthereport.Forinstance,thereviewstatesthat:

FailuresofleadershipareconfirmedbyrecentsurveydatathatshowDefence’spublicserviceleadershiptrailingthatoftheServicesandthebroaderPublicServiceinkeyareas…Defencestaffreportedlittleconfidenceintheirseniorleadership.Theleadershipwasseenasnotveryeffectiveatleadingandmanagingchangeanddidnotappeartobeheldaccountablefortheirperformance.

Thereviewissilentonhowthiscentralproblemistobeovercome.Indeed,inanamazingconclusiononthefinalpageofthereview,itstates:

Topreventcontinuingdriftandtoprovidethegreatestchanceofimplementationsuccessthereshouldbe,asmuchasrealisticallypossible,minimalleadershipturnover.TheleadershipteamneedsconstancyandunityinordertotackleDefence’sproblemofinertiaandmakethebulkofthechangeswithintwoyears.Werecommendstabilityinthekeyleadershippositions,particularlyoverthenexttwoyearstoprovideconsistencyofdirectionandownershipofchange.

Soinordertoundertakethemyriadfundamentalreformsthatthereviewarguesareurgent,itplacestrust in the current Defence leadership that thereviewarguesatlengthhasfailedtodriveefficiencyand effectiveness for many years. This recommen-dation directly contradicts the calls for leadershipchange earlier in the report and seriously under-minesthereview’scredibility.

Conclusions

So what is to be made of the First PrinciplesReview?Doesitportendgreatimprovementsin

Defenceefficiencyandeffectiveness?This report is the most important review of

Defenceadministrationinthirtyyears.Itsprimarystrengths are its frank assessment of the presentstate of the Defence Department and its detailedimplementation plan for important structural andprocessimprovements.

However,thereviewdoesnotclarifythedepart-ment’s key outputs and outcomes and it does notdirecthowtheorganisationistodesignanddelivera fully integrated future defence force. Nor doesthereviewaddressinaconvincingmannerhowthedepartmentistoachievethedeepculturalchangesitsaysareneeded.

Sowhile thereview’srecommendationsdeservetobeimplementedinfull,theyareunlikelytoresultin a Defence administration that is fully effectiveand approaches world’s best practice. In conse-quence, the review’s plea that Defence be sparedfromanyfurtherreviewsforsomeyearsmayprovetobeaforlornhope.

Ross Babbage is a former senior Defence official, a former Head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at ANU, Founder of the Kokoda Foundation, Managing Director of Strategy International (ACT) Pty Ltd and a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Menzies Research Centre.

QuadrantMay2015 63

So If You Know My InmostAnd since you’ve seen the wiles o’ me,Come tell to me your name. —Traditional, “The Forester”

“Soifyouknowmyinmostwhynotrevealyourname?ForAnnabelsandClarabelswillnotbethoughtthesame

byoneupfrontandforelockboy,sleekbesideswimmingpool,adroitwithpleasantriesbetweenoursheetsofsweetmisrule.

Fornowthedawnhascomewithbroomtosweepawaythestarsandsliptheminherpocketwithherkeepsakesandménage,

andIamnowyourdata,love,yes,yourmagneticfield,sosinceyouknowmyphysics,love.I’llhaveyournamerevealed.”

“SomecallmeShy,somecallmeShock,somecallmeScaramouche.ButI’mthechoughwithcrimsoneye,thebronze-winginthebush.

SomecallmeRaindrop-on-a-leaf,somecallmeHiddenFace,butwhenIearnmylivelihoodI’msimplyknownasAce.”

“Somecallyouthis,somecallyouthat,somecallyoudemigod,butwhenyou’reatyourworkplace,love,Iknowyou’reWallyPlod.”

He’sjumpedastridehismotorbike,he’soffacrossthehill.Onskateboardshe’sabreastofhimthoughstillshe’sdeshabille.

She’schasedhimthroughthevalleysandbesidethereservoirs,thendownintothecitywithitsserpentgleamofcars.

He’sintheliftandrisingfasttoLevelFortyFour,butsheisinthestairwellandarrivingtherebefore.

TheviewsareangelviewsuphereHobarttoBorneo,andDaddy’sinhisswivelchair,hishirelingscomeandgo.

“BigDaddy,here’syourflunkeywhocreptbelowmyguard,butwouldnotgivehisnametomeforallhelefthiscard.”

Herdaddygazesthroughtheglass,HobarttoBorneo.Herdaddyspeakswithquiteagrowl…“Here’swhatIthinkwillflow…

IfWallyhasalovingheart,butmore,acarefulear,thenIforeseetheremightwellbetheweddingoftheyear.

Butifheisafly-by-night,avarmintandashonkhe’llsleephisnightswithcrabsandmitesintheslumsofHonkytonk.”

Confettiblushedacrossascene,they’remarriedfortyyears,amagnate’sonlydaughterandascampwithcarefulears.

Alan Gould

QuadrantMay201564

Howdowecometobelievewhatwebelieve?It is hard to know because the personwith the most knowledge of my develop-

ment,namelymyself, isprobably its leastdetachedobserver.But it isunusual forsomeoneofmygen-erationwhogainedundergraduateandpostgraduatequalifications,andthendevotedacareertowritingandteachinginauniversity,tohavebecomepoliti-callyconservative.Becauseitisatypical,mypathwaymaybeofinterest.

Looking back, two experiences were to proveformativetomypoliticalorientation.Needlesstosay,Iamunclearaboutthedegreetowhichtheymerelygave clarity to an inbornnature,whichwas in theprocessof emerging fromunder themental cloudsof adolescence; orwere in themselves instrumentaltomylaterviews.Isuspectmoreoftheformerthanthelatter.FrankKnopfelmacheronceremarkedthatthe key to a person’s political formation was whathappenedtothemintheirtwenties—yes,butIthinkheunderestimatedwhatwasinnate.

The first experience was a six-week visit toPapuaNewGuineaearlyin1963,whenIwaseight-een years old. Papua New Guinea was still anAustraliancolonyat the time. I spenta fewweeksin theHighlands includingaperiod trekkingwiththelocalAustralianPatrolOfficerinaveryremotearea,partofwhichhadonlybeenvisitedoncebeforebywhites. Iwasshockedby thecasualbrutalityofthelocalpeople.ThePatrolOfficerhadjustreturnedfrominterveninginatribalwartriggeredbysorcery;Iwaspresentatmenjokingandlaughingaboutanincidentinwhichagroupofthemhadbeenplayingwithagrenade,whichhadexplodedkillingseveraloftheirnumber.AndIwasinattendancewhenthePatrolOfficer,whowaspoliceandjusticeinthearea,conducted an impromptu trial of a localmanwhohadchoppedoffhiswife’sthumbwhensheprotestedabouthisgettingtheirteenagedaughterpregnant.

Ibecamewhat Iwould later learn to categoriseasaHobbesian—abouthumannatureandtheneed

for political order. Rousseau’s “noble savage” wasa delusion, and his famous line attacking civilisa-tionwrong:“Manwasbornfree,andiseverywhereinchains.”Itwasnot thatIhadacceptedamono-chrome black view of human proclivities; ratherone of complexity. Six months earlier I had spentthreeweeks inAliceSpringsdoingvolunteerworkfor the Inland Mission helping to build a collegefor Aboriginal children. In that time, I had beencharmedbytheAboriginalrelationshiptotheland,and the textureofAboriginal religionasmuch (orlittle)asIunderstoodit.

ThesecondexperiencewasMay1968,inEurope.I had been a student at Cambridge University foralmosttwoyears,andhadalreadytravelledwidely,includinghalf a dozen visits toParis, a city I hadcometolove.Ihadattendedmeetingsinoppositionto the Vietnam War, and even joined a couple ofmarches—outofcuriosityratherthanconviction.Ihadbeenmildlyinfavourofthewarupuntil1967,thenswungmildlyagainst it.InAustralia, theninCambridge,IhadbeenmoreinclinedtotheLabor/Labourparties.MypoliticalreadinghadsweptfromPlato,MachiavelliandMaxWebertoanarchistslikeStirner and Nietzsche, and on to theneo-MarxistFrankfurtSchool,whichwas,atthetime,themostintellectually vital group still extant. I had evenhad a phase slightly taken by the Romantic guer-rillafantasyintheWestsurroundingCheGuevara.Looking back, what seems obvious is that I wasroamingaroundintellectually,tryingtofindahome.

ThenthestudentuprisingsofMay’68occurred.Iwasnot inParis at the timebuthadbeen a fewweeks earlier. Two months later I was travellinginGreece, and at onepoint stayingononeof theislands with an Australian family linked to theembassyinVienna.Atlunchonedayatatablewithadozenor sopresent,drinking retsinaandgazingoutacrosstheAegeanSea,Iwasaskedbythehostwhatwas goingonwith the studentunrest.Whatwasitallabout?Iremembervividlysittingupright

John CarroLL

HowIBecameaPoliticalConservative

AMemoir

QuadrantMay2015 65


inmychair,takenabackbutthenhavingasuddenmomentofclarity,asifthishadbeenonmymindinaninchoatestate,strugglingtofindform.Irepliedto the effect: “It’s spoilt richkids fromveryprivi-legedbackgroundspretendingtobethewretchedofthe earth, throwing a tantrum.They identifywithsomeimaginaryworkingclass,butactuallynoneofthemwouldknowwhattosayiftheyactuallymetaworkerinthepub.It’srankhypocrisy.”

My reaction against May ’68 was reinforced bygrowingdistaste for thehippiedrugculturewhichwasemergingatthetime.FellowCambridgestudentsspendingthedayinahazeofmarijuanalisteningtothe same Bob Dylan song like a mantra repeatedagainandagainseemedlikeakindofworld-denyingself-annihilation.Musicdidcharac-terisethetimes,andtherehadbeensome seismic shift away from thezesty ebullience of Elvis, the earlyBeatles, and the Rolling Stones.From the simple Dionysian fun ofthatmusic,whichIhadenjoyed inmy late teens andearly twenties inMelbourne, something dark anduglywasemerging.TheWoodstockconference of 1970, as viewed onfilm (I was not there), symbolisedthenew.Thosesameprogenyoftheprivileged upper middle class wererolling round stoned and nude, pretending to beuninhibitednoble savages,but lookingstiff,gawkyandembarrassed,beforerushingofftothetelephonetocallhome—seeminglylostandlonely.

IspentafewmonthsinFrankfurtinlate1971,bynow turningoff thehighly intellectualisedneo-

Marxismthathadprevailedthere.Indicativeofshift-inginterest,IwasreadingHeideggeronNietzsche.ThenIreturnedtoAustralia.MypoliticalviewshadsomovedbythistimethatwhenGoughWhitlamledtheLaborPartyintotheelectionofDecember1972,with the slogan “It’s time!” I was underwhelmed.ThiswasinspiteofthesittingPrimeMinisterbeingLiberalWilliamMcMahon,forwhomIhadnoth-ingbutcontempt(ifhehadremainedinofficelongenoughhemightwellhavesetthestandardforthenation’sworstPrimeMinister).IwasinEnglandatthetimeoftheelectionandrememberbeingrelievedathavinghadanexcusenottovote.

From the mid-1960s, I had become increas-inglyengagedbytheworksofGermanphilosopherFriedrich Nietzsche and Russian novelist FyodorDostoevsky, and inparticular theirwrestlingwiththe challenges of ultimate meaning in an increas-inglypost-religiousworld. Iwas also fascinatedbytheir brilliant psychologising of human character

anditspathologies(aninfluencethatInowregardasdetrimentaltomyownearlytomiddlework,whichover-psychologisedcultureanditsvicissitudes).Mydoctoral thesis drewon them inprojectingwhat Icharacterised as an anarcho-psychological perspec-tiveonthehumancondition.Noconservatismdwelthere,buttherewasacritiqueofsocialism.

It was back in Australia that I soon took tothe English eighteenth century and the works ofEdmundBurke,SamuelJohnson,DavidHumeandJaneAusten.Here lay theflesh and colour formygrowingconservatism.ItwasspearheadedbyBurke’sattackontheFrenchRevolution,asitmirroredmyownresponseto the farmoretepidand ineffectualMay ’68, also set in Paris. Burke’s confidence

about the good sense and healthyprejudices of the ordinary Englishman and woman struck a chord,as did his scepticism about grandintellectual blueprints for society,hisdislikeoftheunworldlyrantingintellectuals who put them intopractice,with inevitableunforeseenconsequences, andhis observationsthatgood institutionsneedtimetobuild, drawing on the cumulativewisdombuiltupovergenerations.Iwasalsodrawntotheearthy,wittycommon senseofDr Johnson, and

toHume’sscepticism.Andthesoberdecency,calmthoughtfulness,stabilityandcivilityofJaneAusten’sgentrycomplemented,forme,Burke’sincarnationofnoblesse oblige.InJanuary1976inLondon,IboughtafirsteditionofBurke’s1790versionofhisReflections on the Revolution in France. Burke remains myfavouritepoliticalphilosopher.

WhatviewofpoliticsdidIcometo?Itisquitesimplereally.IlikeWeber’scharacterisationof

thevocationofpoliticsasthehardandslowboringofhardboards.Itsrealworkisdifficultandunglam-orous,requiringalotofselflessdiscipline,sobriety,tenacityandjudgment.Charismaisusuallyacurseinpolitics,exceptintimesofnationalemergency—notably,WinstonChurchillin1940—or,atmost,inverydilutedoseswhenleadersneedtoconvincetheelectorateoftheneedformajorchanges.

Intimesofpeace,themajortaskissteeringtheshipofstateadroitly,takingaccountofinternationalcircumstances, exploiting national strengths,compensating for weaknesses, with the ultimateend of underwriting prosperity. The major way agovernment can contribute to social well-beingis to secure a thriving economy with low levels ofunemployment.Theworst inequalityafflictspeoplewhocan’tfindwork,andasaconsequenceareunable

The major way a government can

contribute to social well-being is to secure

a thriving economy with low levels of unemployment.

QuadrantMay201566


to lead self-sufficient lives, affording a reasonablestandardofliving.Itisparticularlydemoralisingforthoseleavingschool,enteringtheadultworld,nottobeabletofindajob.

In post-war Australia, the parties of the RighthavebeenbetteratmanagingtheeconomythantheLabor Party—with the striking exception of theHawke–Keatingyears.WhileLaborhasmadecon-tributionstoparticularsofsocialjustice,health,andstrengthening awelfare safetynet, those contribu-tionsareminorcomparedwiththebenefitofensur-ingprosperityandnearfullemployment.

In the context of this discussion, economicsis merely functional, outside political categories. Imyselfhavedriftedfroma largelyKeynesianincli-nation,with emphasis ongovernment interventionto soften the extremes of boom-recession cycles—onewhichissometimesfalselyidentifiedwithsocialdemocracy—to amore free-market view.The shiftwasinresponsetoAustralia’sextraordinaryprosper-itysince1990,aprosperityguidedbyincreasingmar-ketliberalisationsincetheHawkeera.Thefactwasthatthefreemarketeershadbeenprovedright.Anditmakesno sense to call dry economics conserva-tive—itisradicalliberal.Bytheway,Ilikecapital-ism—asIbelievedoesvirtuallyeverybodywholivesinthemodernWest,iftheyarehonest.

Letme return topolitics in thebroad.Theonemajor change that occurred inmy later think-

ingwastorejectaviewofcultureasprimarilyaboutmorals—theTenCommandmentviewthatidentifiesculturewithThou shalt nots.MyrevaluationappearedinthebookThe Wreck of Western Culture, Humanism Revisited,whichwasfirstpublished in1993. Ihadcome toquestionDostoevsky’sequation thatwith-outGodeverythingispermitted:hisargumentthatwithoutfaith inatranscendentalabsolute—God—there isnoauthorityorreferencepointbywhich itcanbeassertedcategoricallythat,forexample,akissisgood,amurderbad.TheempiricalrealitywasthatthemodernWesthadnotdegeneratedintoanarchyandmayhemas theDostoevsky formulapredicted.On the contrary, consensus about the main morallawsisnotaproblemincontemporarysocietieslikeAustralia,whichinanyrealistichistoricaltermsareveryorderlyandlaw-abiding,withlowlevelsofvio-lence. If anything, as the churches have emptied,society has become more law-abiding. The typicalmodern individual is not an amoral egotist whosepleasuresknownolimits—afalsecaricaturesharedbymanyonboth theRight and theLeft.Forme,moralswerenottheproblem;meaningwas.

Iamnotamoralconservative—Puritan,Catholicor Humanist. Lamenting some moral decline,or fraying of the social fabric due to increasing

narcissism, is not to my taste. The sociologicalevidence simply does not support such culturalpessimism, certainly in Australia. Nor does itsupportthetraditionofculturalconservatismwithinsociology that is concerned about the decline ofcommunity,andthesteadyreductionsincethe1970sintheextenttowhichpeoplesocialisetogether—atradition warning of social disintegration, rankanomie and mounting levels of personal despair.Australians continue to rate very highly on well-being indicators; visiting tourists rank themas thefriendliestpeople intheworld;andtheyhavebuilttheworld’smostliveablecities.Noneofthissuggestsmoraldecay.

It is true that much more of human behaviourtoday iscast inagreyareabetweengoodandbad,where it is difficult to make confident judgmentsabout right andwrong. I think that is truer to thenature of things—more honest. I like living in atimeinwhichmanyofthebigquestionsaboutvalueandmeaningareindoubt.

FromtheHumanismbookonwardsmyworkhasbeenconcernedwiththewayspeoplefindmeaningintheirlives.IthasequallybeenconcernedwiththefailureofHighCulturetoanswerthebigmetaphysi-calquestionsaboutlifeanddeath,itsabrogationofits traditional duty to provide convincing frame-worksofunderstanding—especiallythrougharche-typalstories—tohelppeoplelivebetter,andtobearup to the tragedies thatwill inevitablybefall themattimesduringtheirlives.Here,I havearguedforatypeofmoderndecadence—located intheculturalelites.

Thereisapoliticaltie.MostthinkingontheLefthas been self-confessedly “critical”. In this it hasoften distorted one of the indispensable strengthsoftheWesterntraditionsinceclassicalGreece,thehabitofsubjectinghumanlifeandsocietytoscepti-calquestioningandreflection.TheLeftimpulsehasbeenlesscalmlyquizzical,moreaggressivelyhostile,seeking to undermine existing authorities withoutreplacingthem.Accordingly,arthastobeshocking;valueshave tobedeconstructed;meaningshave tobeexposedasrationalisationsforentrenchedwealthandprivilege.Marxhadhimselfset thetone,withhisowngreatpassionfordestruction—ineffect,fordestruction in itself—with but passing and half-hearted interest inwhatgreen shootsmight sproutintheruinsofcapitalism.It isas ifanytruebeliefhasperished,leavingarageagainstthepresent.

Afriend,JohnDickson,hassuggestedthatIhavebeenunfairtotheLeftinunderestimatingtheneedforcharismainaworldinwhichtheoldgodsarenomore.With thedecayof institutionalChristianity,thelongingforsomethingtobelieveinhasstrayedinto politics. John has, I think, rightly suggested

QuadrantMay2015 67


that I may have been unsympathetic to politicalidealismbecauseIhadlittleequivalentyearningforcharismaticdirectionmyself.Indeed,Iam,intem-perament,morelikethevastmajorityoffellowciti-zens—theso-calledordinarymenandwomeninthestreet—infindingineverydaylifeheroestoadmire,activities to inspire, and tasks thatareworthwhile.Inwork,insport,enjoyingtheoutdoors,andinthecomplexitiesofcommunallife,thereisfertilesoilinwhichtoleadameaningfulandgratifyinglife.

Ofparticularrelevancyhereisloveofcountry—andforme,loveofmycity,Melbourne.Ihave,sincemyCambridgedays,beenshockedthatsomanyontheLefthatetheirowncountryandidentifywithitsenemies.GeorgeOrwellwroteinEnglandin1944,in an essay for Partisan Review, thathehad cometojudgetheentireLeftintelligentsiaashatingtheircountry, to the extreme of beingdismayed whenever Britain won avictory in the war against Hitler.Hence the continuing idealisationofStalinistRussia,wilfullyblindtotheavailablefactsaboutitstotalitar-ianhorrors.My country’s enemy is my friend. Orwell still identified him-selfasasocialistwhenhewrotethis,theLeft’smosttrenchantcriticfromtheinside,sotospeak.

Georg Lukacs proved the mostintellectually distinguished twen-tieth-century example of Left ide-alism. He read bourgeois cultureas the last Western form capableof providing life meaning, the lastviable real culture in the evolu-tion of the West. It was in termi-nal decline—as he interpreted itprojected through the novels ofThomasMann.LukacshadtriedthereligiouspathsofbothKierkegaardandDostoevsky(andwithsuchadegreeof seriousnessas to learnDanish inordertoreadKierkegaardintheoriginal),butfoundthemwanting.Outofculturaldespair,feelingthatitwasnotpossible to live in an absurdworld strippedofultimatevalues,hetookaleapoffaithintocommu-nismin1918.Thereafter,hewouldspenddecadesasanapologistforStalin.

Laterinthecentury,Lukacs’sspiritualoffspringwouldbedrivenby a similardisenchantmentwithmiddle-classexistence—withwhattheysawas,say,thedrearinessofsuburbanlife,thebanalityofcon-temporarymanagementpolitics, and themeannessofaneverydayworldgearedtopettypleasures.So,inreaction,therearosetheneedforvisionsofanidealworld, for causes thatmeant something, for actiontogetthebloodflowing,andforcharismaticleaders.

This idealism was not just naively utopian, butoften harboured a darker side—rancour. The

manifestationsofrancourhavebeendiverse,includ-inghatredofcountry,tothepointofhopingitwouldtoloseawartoHitler;theidealisationofmass-mur-dering totalitariandictators likeMaoTse-Tung;ortheactionsofAustralianunionistsduringtheSecondWorldWarsabotagingpartsforAmericanplanestobeused against the Japanese.Culturalmasochism,andthewell-springsofragethatdrive it, remainaphenomenoninneedofpsychologicalexplanation.

Surely,thetwentiethcenturyisonelongcautionarytaleaboutredemptivepolitics:promisesofsalvationthroughpoliticswere central to theappealofbothNazismandcommunism.Andtrue,theidealismontheLefthaslargelydissipated(withrareexceptionslike euphoria about President Obama, quickly

dashedontherocksofreality).Butthe carpingnegativity continues tothrive.Usingneo-Marxistcategoriesof exploitation and oppression tofind“victims”oftheirowncountry’smendacity,asadevicetowhipit—soAustraliabecomesracist,crueltorefugees, misogynist, homophobicandincreasinglyrivenbyinequality.The tropes endure, with Islam thecurrent exploited and oppressedrepository of virtue. The extremityandirrationalityofthehierarchyofbitterness, with one’s own nationas Public Enemy Number One, isillustrated when some feministsapplaud Taliban or Islamic StatevictoriesoverWesterntroops.

In Australia, Left rancour hasbeen readily observable in theuni-versities,amongwriters,artistsand

musicians, and across the culture industry, whichincludes the ABC, galleries and museums, and inschoolcurricula.IthasbeenmuchlessnoticeableintheLaborPartyitself,whereleaders,ministersandtheirstaffhavegenerallybeenpatriotic,moderateintheirideology,andpragmatic.

On the Right, there has been an equallyunconvincingjumpintoredemptiveillusion,inthiscase that of religion. In England, there was T.S.Eliot’s embrace of conservative Anglicanism, andlikewiseforW.H.Auden—inbothcases,paralleledby a radical decline in the quality of their poetry.In America, there was Daniel Bell’s sociology ofreligion,aperspectivethatgoesasfarbackasthelatePlatoofThe Laws,holdingthatreligionisgoodforthepeople, even though the authordoesn’t believeinithimself.PhilipRieffchampionedanimaginedsacredorder,inanequallyvainantidotetoaremissive

Left rancour has been readily observable in the

universities, among writers, artists and musicians, and across the

culture industry, which includes the ABC, galleries and museums, and in school curricula.

QuadrantMay201568


worldwithoutultimatemeaning.MaxWeberhadbeenmorehonestinclingingto

“intellectual integrity” ina time inwhichGodhasbeenreplacedbysmall-ggods,onesthathesawasfailingtoretaintheirauthorityforlong.(IhappentothinkWeberwastoopessimisticaboutthesmall-ggods.) I am not suggesting that there is no genu-inereligiousexperienceandpracticeinthemodernWest—thatwouldbepresumptuous.Rather, ithasstruckmethatproclamationsoffaith,andtheneedfor faith, from prominent members of the intel-ligentsia have looked desperate and forced. In thecaseofRieff,theproblemisnotwhetherthereexistssomethingbeyond thematerial plane, but thathismanner of asserting it rings with a grandiose andfalsetone.

Backtomyself.Fundamentaltomyownwork—towhatIhavewrittenandwhatIhavetaught—

hasbeenabeliefabouttheobligationsoftheculturalelites.Boundbyanethicofakindofnoblesse oblige,given their privileged social position, they are thecustodians of High Culture. It is their responsi-bility to keep alive the classic and enduringworksof Western culture—in philosophy, literature, art,musicandmorerecentlyfilmandtelevision.Apartof this responsibility is thatofconstantly renewingthearchetypal storiesandmyths, retellingtheminnewformssothattheyspeaktochangingtimes.Thechurchesfirst abdicated this central task; followedmorerecentlybytheuniversities.

My view of culture is in part conservative; but

then not, in that the challenge is always to createnew works in tune with new times, while subser-vient to the central questions of meaning, whichthemselves don’t change.For instance,whilst I doregardtheGoldenAgeofWesternpaintingtohaveended in 1665 with the death of Nicolas Poussin,sincethenthemostseriousattemptstoanswerfun-damentalquestionsoflifemeaninghavemovedintootherart forms(themusicofBach; thephilosophyofNietzsche; thenovelsofHenry James; thefilmsof JohnFord). Imyselfhavedevoted twobooks toattempting to retell theWest’s enduring stories inacontemporaryvoice—The Western Dreaming (2001)andThe Existential Jesus(2007).

Iretainconfidenceinthegoodsenseofthepublic.Ihaveprovidedasociologicalelaborationinabookwhichcelebratesthesmall-ggodsthatengagepeoplein their everyday lives—Ego and Soul: The Modern West in Search of Meaning (1998, 2008). I retain anequal confidence in thehealthy vitality of popularculture.RecentAmericancabletelevisionseries,likeThe Sopranos and Deadwood, havebeenprofoundlyand edifyingly engaged with the existential ques-tionsthatmatter.Infact,theyhavebeendoingtheworkofHighCulture,anddoingitbrilliantlywell.Finally,myadmirationforBurkeanpracticalpoliticsendures, a politicswhich, asBurkehimself put it,needstobalanceprincipleandcircumstance.

John Carroll is Professor Emeritus of Sociology, La Trobe University. He has a website at https://johncarrollsociologist.wordpress.com.

Among the Leaves

Thefirsttocomepeerswithoutmalicefromthewirestowardstheforestbranchesinthenearbyslope.ThatafternoonIwatch

bothpallidcuckoos,greyongreywithroundedheadsprisonstripesontheirtails,flywings-spreadhalfglidingabovethecanopy

intoaslowwestwind,searchingdownwardforthenesttoconwiththeireggandthelargechickthatwillejectothernestlingsfortheirfeeds.

Thetimeofcrimepassesintoheatandthecuckoosandtheiryoungmoveoninnature’sdauntingtolerance.

Paul Williamson

QuadrantMay2015 69

On Bravery i.m. Kenneth James Oxley

Bereassured,no-onewhoisbraveEverknowsitatthetime.MyfatherInhispithyMancunianwaySaidthatbraveryisstupidityWithahappyending.Itisnot-thinking-acting,impulse-propelled

Thebrainleftfarbehind.StuffOfourmothers’nightmares.DivingintounknownwatertoretrieveAchild.Shieldingastranger’sbodywithyourown.Engagingawild-eyedmadman(withagun?)Inconversationabouttheweather.

BeliberatedfromtheburdenOtherswantyoutocarryforthem.Youneedtakenocredit.Youneedneverdoitagain.Itcannotbeexplained.EmbarrassmentIsanappropriateemotion.Pridecanwait.

Youwerestupid/youwerebraveAheartbeatbetweenthetwo.

Elisabeth Wentworth

Kranky

Ifyoucan’tbeAnoldgoatwhenyou’reold,Whencanyoube?Archaicinaddress,Eccentric,youallowYourself,antiqueOrinappropriateStylesofdress.WritedisgustedcommentsOnandlettersto,Tabloids,magazines,Curse,bitterly,andfrequently,Inanimatemachines.TheuniverseagainstusTangleshoses,ropes,andcables,MakespaintingsfallfromwallsAndpenstorollofftables.Entropywins;Youloseyourkeys&glasses,Thingsmovefromwhereyouputthem,And,friendsaside,Theworldisfullofasses.Youngwomen,iftheynoticeyou,Takecomplimentsaspasses;WhatwouldoncehavepassedasromancesWouldnowplayoutasfarces.

Peter Jeffrey

QuadrantMay201570

DuringthosehappydayswhenIwasaslikelytobefoundonaplanetoParisorVeniceasonanexpresstrainheadingtoEdinburghI

soonlearnednottodiscusswhatthepurposeofmytripwasorwhatmyrolemightbewhenIarrivedatmydestination.ThatwassoImightnotgetinvolvedin a conversation either with the IT expert seatedonmyrightorthefinancialconsultantseatedtomyleft about the possible purposes of art criticism—norfeelobligedtorespondfortheumpteenthtimetothefollowingquestion:“Surelyallartcriticismissimplyamatterofsubjectiveopinion?”

Over the preceding years I had indeed formu-latedanumberofresponsestothistiresomequerybutoftenfoundthesereliedtoomuchonmyques-tioner’s knowledge—or lack of it—of art history.Theall-purposeanswerIfavouristhis:“IfyoutakethesixcenturiesofEuropeanartfromthetimeofGiottotothedeathofGauguinin1903youwillfindthereisahugeconsensusamongexpertsaboutwhothe truly outstanding artists were and who weremerelythealso-rans.Sokindlytellmewhetherthisoverwhelming consensus is a matter of pure coin-cidenceorperhapsoneofcovertconspiracyamonginternationalscholars?”

The true essence of the matter is this: violentdisagreement among so-called experts about therespective merits of artists does not really beginuntilwestart todealwiththoseartistsprincipallyactivefromthebeginningofthetwentiethcenturyonwards—forexample,fromthefirstFauvesexhibi-tionin1906.

Thus if we apply the largely aesthetic criteriaby means of which many of us consider Giotto,Leonardo,Titian,Rembrandt,Velazquez,Vermeer,Goya, Constable, Manet and van Gogh, say, to

be utterly outstanding artists, how then may weapply exactly the same critical criteria to MarcelDuchamp,JacksonPollock,AndyWarholorJosephBeuys—letalonetoJeffKoonsorDamianHirst—andthenconsiderthemsimilarlytobegreatartists?

The short answer is that we can do no suchthing; it is only by altering the qualities thoughtvitalforoutstandingartisticexcellencemoreorlessentirely—forexample,bytryingtomakemerenov-elty a virtue in itself—that we can even begin tocomeupwithsucharesult.

Ipreface my words about the last publishedanthology of Brian Sewell’s art criticism, Naked

Emperors, in thismannersimply toestablisha fewgroundrules,notjustregardingtheexcellentbookitselfbutalsoaboutthedilemmaswhichfacecon-temporaryartingeneral.

Brian and I both began our mainstream criti-calcareersin1984:inhiscaseatLondon’sEvening StandardandinmineattheSpectator.InevitablyourpathscrossedfrequentlybeforeIcametoAustraliato work in 1995. To state that Brian was a highlyrespectedrivalratherthanaparticularfriendmerelyreflects a divergence in our extra-mural activities,becauseintermsofartcriticismandreasonedargu-ment I was and remain a paid-up admirer of oneofthelasttrue—andutterlyfearless—defendersoflastingartisticvalues.

Naked Emperors contains thirty often lengthyarticles of criticism of English contemporary art.Ingeneralthesearticlesareasremarkablefortheirhigh-flyingproseasfortheirbitingandoftenhilari-ouswit.

Thepresenceofwitisespeciallyvitaltothebook,becausemuchofwhatSewelldescribesmightoth-erwise seem deeply depressing. Yet the essays alldeal with figures proposed by other critics fromour present thickheaded age as being thoroughlydeservingofnationalandinternationalfame.WhilesomeoftheartistsdescribedintheanthologywillprobablybeunfamiliartoAustralianaudiences,the

giLEs au t y

BrianSewellandtheRiseofState-ApprovedArt

Naked Emperors: Criticisms of English Contemporary ArtbyBrianSewellQuartet,2012,368pages,£15

QuadrantMay2015 71


issueswithwhichSewelldealsareuniversalaswellastimeless.

Ofcourse,workingincloseproximitytoEuropeandnot too far fromAmericamakes itmucheas-ierforBritishcriticstobasetheirbeliefsonadeepknowledgeof internationalcollectionsandmaster-pieces in a way that is impossible for most criticsbasedhere.BrianisthereforejustifiablyrudeaboutthehostofBritishandEuropeancriticswhobetraytheknowledgereadilyavailabletothembybuyinginto“equivalence”theorieswhicharefundamentallyfalse. Thus Sewell is right to ridicule the notionencouragedbyauthoritiesfromtheRoyalAcademyofArtsinLondonin2001,forinstance,thatFrankAuerbach is somehow“aRembrandtofour times”by deliberately exhibiting an earnest but ploddingpainterat thesamemomentasoneof thegreatestmasterswhoeverlived.

Such “equivalence” arguments represent falsereasoningatitsworstyetareverypopularindeed—ithardlyneedssaying—withtheambitiousdealerswho represent fashionable contemporary artists.The lie isgiven to suchsillyarguments,ofcourse,whentherealthingissooftenavailabletobeseeninLondonitselfornearbycontinentalEurope.

Tohisgreatcredit,Sewellcarriesinhismindanexhaustive list of artists from earlier times whoseachievementsmake thepretensionsofover-praisedartistsfromthepresentseemludicrousatbest.Thus,writing about Howard Hodgkin, whom too manynow propose as some kind of “modern master”,Sewellsays:

SincelateJunethirteenpaintingsbyHowardHodgkinhavebeenhanginginDulwichPictureGallery.Theyarenotconfinedtoasingleroom,theretobeveneratedinacataleptictrance;theyareinsteadscatteredamongthedistinguishedpicturesinthepermanentcollection,rubbingshoulderswithPoussin,RicciandGuercino,keepingcompanywithClaude,RubensandRembrandt,illuminatingall—orsowearetold—thejuxtapositionleadingtoourgreaterunderstandingofthepresentandthepast,Hodgkinandhiswonderfulprecursorsspeakingthesamelanguage.Thatistheofficialwayofperceivingthischalkandcheesedisplay.

Laterfromthesamearticleheadds:

Itis,ofcourse,justpossiblethatDulwichisbeingsubtle,guilefulandsubversive,itsintentionquitethereverseofwhatatfirstitseems—thatDulwichis,infact,demonstratinghowfatuousandvacuouscontemporaryartcan

bebyhangingasloppyHodgkinbetweenapairofPoussinsthatweallknowtobemonumentsofscrupulouslycarefulpictorialconstruction,thecontrastmadeperhapstoreassurethevisitorwhoperceivestheworkofHodgkinaspretentioustrash.

Probably thenamesofDavidHockney,LucianFreud,DamianHirst,TraceyEminandGilbert&Georgewillbemore familiareven toexpertaudi-enceshere than thatofHowardHodgkin, andallare given a varied but largely justified degree ofcomeuppanceinSewell’sbook.Afterall,HockneyandFreudhavelargeandextremelyill-chosenworksintheNationalGalleryofAustraliawheretheybearwitnesstothegeneralcluelessnessofformerdirec-torsofthatinstitution.

I was in London last year when the vast exhi-bition “Australia”, largely sourced from the NGA,struck the Royal Academy with all the force of amuch downgraded cyclone and Sewell was one ofthemanycriticstheretogiveitthethumbs-down.Londonisamuchmoresophisticatedcitynowthanwhen the 1961 exhibition of Australian art at theWhitechapelGalleryawokemanytotheoriginalityandinsoucianceofartistssuchasNolan,BoydandWhiteley.Verysadlyforme,sinceIamadualpass-portholdernow,“Australia”waswidelyconsideredbyBritishcriticstobetheworstmajorexhibitioninLondonofitsyear.

How, with the considerable resources at itsorganisers’ disposal, could such an entirelyunnec-essarytravestyoccur?

Sewell’sbookdescribeswithgreatforcehowthedevelopmentof“state”artinBritainandtherise

of bossy, dumb or corrupt ancillary funding bod-ieshavecombinedtousher indecadesofgenerallyworthless“official”stateart.Indeed,SewelldescribesBritain’s Arts Council, possibly too kindly, as “anestofvipers”. Ifirst lockedhornswith thatbodymyself, to my professional disadvantage, way backinthe1970s.Sewell’sbookisthereforenotwithoutrelevance to Australia, where similar institutionsexist which help render this country incapable ofrepresenting itself appropriately—or fairly—on aninternationalstage.Thinkforamomentofsomeofthe bizarre or atrocious choices made to representAustraliaatprestigiousinternationaleventssuchasVeniceBiennalesandyouwillseewhatImean.

Today’sproblemsofartareinternationalbecausetheyarisefromthesameorsimilarsources.ThatiswhySewell’shugelyentertainingbookisoneevery-onewithatrueinterestinthesubjectshouldmakeastrenuousefforttoobtainandread.

Hereisanothersentence,drawnatrandomfrom

QuadrantMay201572


the book, regarding a typical “state art” occasionheldattheTateGallery:

Thereis,intheexhibition,notonesingleworkofinterestormerit.Thesearepaintingsthatsaywithdrip,splashandsweepofthebrush:“Look,look,Iamapainting”—butdrip,splashandsweepofthebrusharemerelymarksthatreflectthephysicalactionofthepainterand,meaninglesswithoutintelligentpurpose,arenotenoughtomakeapainting.

Doyoufeel,atthismoment,someinclinationtorisefromyourchairandcheer?

WhenIfirststartedoutinart—asapainter—itwasfashionableinBritainandelsewheretopokefunat theofficial stateartof theSovietUnion,whichfrequently featured heroic tractor drivers or wivesbiddinglastfarewellstoRedArmypatriotssettingforthtodefendtheirmotherland.

I was probably one of the firstpeopleinBritaintosourceandbuya book about such art: VladislavZimenko’s The Humanism of Art(Progress Publishers, Moscow,1976). Its author signed my copy adozenorsoyearslaterinMoscow’sArtsClub.

Here indeedwas an exampleofarttotallycontrolledbythestate—indeed all too obviously so. In itsfavour,however,theartistsinvolvedgenerally underwent a six-yeartraining on traditional lines whichincludedcoursesinanatomyor—inthecasesofsculptors—inthecarvingof marble. How many students inWesternartschoolsknowanythingofsuchmatterstoday?

Little did we imagine, nearly half a centuryago, that official “state art”—of a more informalnature admittedly—would similarly rear its headinmostWesterndemocracies.YetnoRussianartscommissar probably ever achieved the power ofsuch contemporary figures in Britain as NicholasSerota at theTateGallery, who effectively enjoysthe “thumbs up/thumbs down” powers there of aRoman emperor. Instead of gladiatorial contests,however, Britain’s unfortunate public is treated tosuchmeaninglessnon-contestsastheannualTurnerPrizes, which perhaps belong more properly in atotalitarian state such as North Korea. Sewell isscathingaboutsuchnon-events:

Ithardlymatterswhoischosenfortheshortlist(thoughscepticsbelievethisisdecidedlong

beforetheyearisout),ortowhomthelargeprizeisgivenbythejudges,fortherealandfarlargerarenaisnotwithinTateBritain,butinthepress,themedia,thefashionablewateringholesofIslingtonandthemahoganydiningtablesofTunbridgeWells.InallthesequartersthePrizeisseenasaBrueghelianboutbetweendrunkenCarnivalandsoberLent,blindFollyanddumbWisdom,soweightedinfavouroftheSerotatendencythatCarnivalandFollyalwayswin.

Brian has recently been desperately ill. ShouldhenotsurviveIwishtopaytributetotheman

who,asadissidentvoice,hasprobablycontributedmorethananyothertokeepingthecausesofsan-ity and scholarship alive in British art—althoughthecriticDavidLee,founderandeditoroftheartsmagazinetheJackdaw,wouldrunhimaclosesec-

ond.TheJackdawhasjustreprintedalengthyessayIwroteforQuadrantinApril2006onthegrounds thatitexplainsthecomplexdilemmasofModernism in termsanyone inter-estedcanunderstand.

In the Spectator of February17, 1996, the eminent historianand worthy amateur painter PaulJohnsonwaskindenoughtoincludeme among “only four outstandingartcriticsinBritaininthepreviousfortyyears”andIrefertothisnowonly to take issue with one of hisother inclusions: John Berger. Theother two critics he named werePeterFullerandBrianSewell.

As a former Marxist, Fullerawoke late to themenace inherentin Berger’s theories, and most

of Fuller’s books chart his disillusionment withBerger and his belated discovery of the merits ofthenineteenth-centuryEnglishcriticJohnRuskin.Sadly,Fullerwaskilledinamotoraccidenttwenty-five years ago but he was never, in my view, thepossessor of “a good eye”—in other words hisaestheticjudgmentswereoftenfallible.

Bergerwas a strangeparadox: thepossessor ofexcellentaestheticinstinctswhichcouldeasilyfindthemselves swamped by his lifelong devotion toMarxistcauses.His influencegaverise fortyyearsagotoaschoolofso-called“social”criticsdevotedto“Marxistanalysis”andtoabeliefthatartshouldbejudgedforitssocialorpoliticalinfluenceratherthanbyitsintrinsicmeritasart.Acorollarytothisfatalandultra-destructiveviewwasthat“aesthetic”values were somehow a “bourgeois” myth—a

Sewell describes with great force how the development of

“state” art in Britain and the rise of bossy,

dumb or corrupt ancillary funding

bodies have combined to usher in decades of generally worthless “official” state art.

QuadrantMay2015 73


means, in fact, whereby a privileged social classcould impose its cultural tastes on less privilegedones.Theso-called“culturewars”featurethiskindofissueprominently,butifwesubstitutethewords“well-educated” for the word “privileged” a ratherdifferentcomplexionemerges.

Almostallof themoststupidandunjustifiableart movements of the past forty years—such as“conceptualism”—arise from political theory. Inthelattercasetheideaprevailedthatifcommercialdealers could be deprived of physical objects withwhich to trade then thiswouldhasten thedemiseof capitalism. So art should be reduced simply

to the concept or idea. For example, a phial ofthe bath water in which the artist bathed whileruminatinghisworld-shatteringideasmightsufficeas“evidence”.

Essentially Sewell and I are aesthetic criticswho would be as happy to write long essays onthe superiority of Titian to Jacopo Bassano, say,a brilliant and original painter of the time—ifsomeonehadauseforthem.Butwhoisinterestedinintelligiblecriticismorscholarshiptoday?

Giles Auty is the former art critic for the Spectator and the Australian.

Instructions

Todayweshallallbewaterpipes, shesaid,pipesthatknownothingofslouch butstanduprightagainstwallstoletwater travelunimpededintobaths,basins,radiators.

Becomingpipesmeansunlocking shoulders,ironingoutkinksinbacks andknotsinknees,challengingfaultyhips, wakingupfeet,exultinginthegloryofflow.

Inournewrolesweshallbecarriers ofwaterwhichblessesgrassandflesh, waterwhichhasnocrisesofconfidence, offersitselffreelyalthoughwemistreatit.

Nowwehavere-inventedourselves seehowtallweare,tallasorganpipes, astelegraphpoles.Everythingispossible ifwedon’tstifle,butletinimaginationanditsmusic.

Listen,thesoundisasuninhibited aswater.Inexperienceisunimportant— weshallpractisetheochostep,enjoy thebrushofthighagainstthigh,entertherhythm,

itsexcitement,drawitsemotion intoourbodies,movewiththeclearintention ofriverwater.Inreality,aswellasfantasy, eachoneofuswillbecomeadancerofthetango.

Myra Schneider

Ochostep:Thebasic8-countinArgentineTango

QuadrantMay201574

Horaceissaidtohaveadvisedfellowauthorsnever to publicise any of their writings,however time-sensitive, till at least nine

years had elapsed; but then Horace, dying as hedid in the year 8 BC, did not have to confrontthe demands of cyberspatial correspondence or ofutilities invoices thoughtfully printed in red ink.Muchofthefollowingwasoriginallywritteninthefortnight just after Peter Sculthorpe’s death. TheresponsesitmetfrommagazineeditorsintheUSA,theUKandAustraliavariedfrom“Sorry,notreallyofinteresttoAmericanreaders”via“Isay,oldchap,whowasSculthorpe?”to“Sodoff,Stove,youf***in’Nazi.” (Itwill requirenoundueskill tomatchtheresponsestothecorrectnations.)

In recent months, what with the releasing ofcompactdiscsdevotedtoSculthorpe’spianoworks,andwiththeHenriDutilleuxaffairhavingconvulsedFranceasfewworldviewclashessinceSartre-versus-Aron have done, the issues raised by Sculthorpe’screativityandaweforEastAsianculturesmayhaveacquiredanewweight.Whateverthetruthonthatscore, at least Ihada slightpersonal acquaintancewith Sculthorpe; so much obituary nonsense waswrittenabouthimbythosewhoneversomuchasmethimthatinthecountryoftheblind,theone-eyedmanisnotsomuchkingasBoswell.

***

Earlyin1936,Wodehousetoldafriend:“Doesn’tKipling’sdeathgiveyouastunnedfeeling?”To

anyliterateAustralianwhocameofageduringthe1970sor1980s,thedemiseonAugust8,2014—ina Sydney suburb, Woollahra—of Peter Sculthorpeinspiredasimilarconditionofnear-disbelief.True,he had been ailing for months; but near-disbeliefpersists. One would perforce be at least seventyyears old to retain clear memories of an AustraliawhereSculthorpe’snamecountedfornothing.

As that statistic implies, Sculthorpe’s careerlongevity has to be reckoned with. Rare is thecomposerwho stays at the topofhis game—withneither gauche juvenilia nor drivelling senilia to

embarrass posterity—for five decades. This featSculthorpemanaged.“SchoolboyComposerWritesOpera”, blared a headline in the Examiner (chiefnewspaper of his birthplace, Launceston) duringhis childhood. Said opera remains unpublished,butitisimprobablethatitsexhumationwouldhavedisgracedhim.

Aged only twenty-six, in 1955, Sculthorpe hadalready had his Piano Sonatina—still one of hisfinest compositions—performed at a Baden-Badenfestival.BythetimeImethim(IcouldscarcelysayI knewhim)in1980,hehadbecomeasimmovableaninstitutioninnationalartasMenziesbecameinnationalpolitics.And,aswithMenzies,suchstayingpower could with excessive ease be underrated, infactbemocked.

It speaks well of Sculthorpe’s capacity fordisinterestednessthatherefusedtobawlmeout.Hemustby this stagehavedivined the rolewhichheplayedintheprivatedemonologyofhisfellowSydneyUniversity academic: my father, David Stove. Bysomeimprobableandlucklessplanetaryalignment,both men found themselves serving on the sameAcademyoftheHumanitiescommittee(thisservicebeing a chore which my father routinely loathed,but which he equally routinely never boycotted,andneverdareddelegatetoothers).Admittedly, itwould be false to suggest that Sculthorpe movedDad to the same detestation as did Robespierre,Marx,Lenin,Mao,Whitlam,HoChiMinh,PolPot,andanybodyascribingoriginalsintocricketers.Equally invalid, though, would be the concept ofDad showing hypocritical politeness to the man.It is entirely plausible that if Dad had unleashedhis free-floating id upon committee meetings, anaccurate transcript of the ensuing minutes wouldhaveincludedwhatfollows:

Sculthorpe: Goodmorning,ProfessorStove,howareyou?Dad: Shutupyoubloodycommunist,whydon’tyougetbacktoHanoi?Andwhileyou’reatit,shaveoffthatdisgustingmoustache,itmakesyoulooklikeJohnLennon.

r.J. stov E

SculthorpeRemembered

QuadrantMay2015 75


Fromwhich readerswill infer thatDad foundSculthorpe’s appearance no less irksome thanSculthorpe’smusic.Evenin1980theSculthorpianattireinclinedtoostentatiouscasualness.Tenyearsearlier, as surviving photographs confirm, it hadforeshadowedCheechandChong.

Sothepotentialfor“issues”—aswewouldnowsay—inanycontactbetweenthemusicianandthephilosopher’ssonloomedlikedistantthunder.Butinhisfewdealingswithme,Sculthorpecouldnothavebeenmorecourteous.Otherundergraduates,far better acquainted than I with him, reportedlikewise.Withhis fame,hehad everymotive forpulling rank. In my presence, he never did. Nor(andthisdoeshimstillmorecredit)didheblatantlydroprank,afterthefashionofthoseantipodean god-professors fromyore, who micro-managed theirstudents’sociallivesasapreludetodominating their sex lives. (Manyofmycompatriotscanstillrecollectthepre-feministcollegiatemaxim,“AlayforanA.”)

Sculthorpe enjoyed greateresteem among critics and

audiences than among his fellowcomposers. That same year, 1980,broughtforth—intheJulynumberof 24 Hours, an Australian artsmagazine long since defunct—a terrifying two-page attack onhim by his Canberra-based foe,the émigré pianist-musicologist-composerLarrySitsky.ThisattacksavagedeachaspectofSculthorpe’sworldviewandexterior,whilecleverlyskirtingthelibel laws by not using Sculthorpe’s name once.It must have inspired in its victim a homicidalanger. Yet not through so much as a raised eye-browdidSculthorperevealtousthehurthesurelyexperienced.

About another rival, the late Richard Meale(probably most celebrated for his opera Voss, notperformedtillwellaftertheeventsdescribedhere),he spoke with gentle affection. During the 1960sand 1970s, Sculthorpe’s and Meale’s respectiveadvocates conducted journalistic combat which inretrospect seems as addled as European music’sfar more famous and ferocious pamphleteeringbattles: Brahms versus Wagner, Debussy versusRavel,ElgarversusSirHubertParry,andsoforth.In such quarrels the artists themselves habituallybehavewithatactforeigntotheirrespectivecheer-squads. So in this instance. Sculthorpe foundunfathomable Meale’s increasing fondness for Sir

ArnoldBax(“whomIalwaysthoughtsimplyabadcomposer”);butofill-willtowardsMeale’sabilitieshe feltnodetectablehint.AndregardingBax,hemight perfectly well have changed his mind lateron.In1980almostnothingbyBaxcouldbeheard,bySculthorpeoranyotherAustralian,ondisc(LPbackthen,needonesay).

Even before long-time Sculthorpe championTamara-AnnaCislowskahadgivenusanoverdueCDintégraleoftheman’spianowriting(ABCClassics),mostofSculthorpe’soutput—theSun Music series,Memento Mori, Irkanda IV,Mangrove,theRequiem,the string quartets, the aforementioned Piano Sonatina—ended up on commercial recordings.Theserecordingswillenablefuturegenerations,as

MatthewArnoldmighthave said,to see him steadily and see himwhole. From Opus 1, the largelyself-taught Sculthorpe exhibiteda stylistic freshness which manyweightierandmorepolyphonicallyversatile composers crave in vain.He never played the piano or anyother instrument at a professionalstandard. (To arts administratorJames Murdoch, he asserted thathis slow ref lexes debarred himfrom instrumental prof iciency.)And this very lacuna might havebeen his creative deliverance, asit manifestly became the creativedeliverance of Berlioz, althoughBerlioz conducted at aworld-classstandard and Sculthorpe did not,tomyknowledge,conductatall.

At no stage could Sculthorpebe mistaken for either Webern or Messiaen,however obviously he shared Webern’s uneasewith large forms, and however great a debt hisown orchestration owed to Messiaen’s scintillant,clangouroustimbres.(SurelyYeatshadsomethinglike Messiaen’s Des Canyons Aux Étoiles in mindwhen, in “Byzantium”, he spoke of “that gong-tormentedsea”?)NowheredidSculthorpelastinglysoundlikeanyoneexceptSculthorpe.Tohaveone’svoice recognisable in the first five bars of everysingle work, for whatever medium, which onecomposes:thatisamusicalfatemostwouldenvy.

One hostage to fortune he did give. Througha malign f luke which he could not have

predicted, Sculthorpe’s adoration (not too strongaword)forIndonesianculturecoincidedwiththepost-1965kakistocracyofSuharto’s goons. In anyother country than Australia, this kakistocracy’svery name—“New Order”—would have set off

Nowhere did Sculthorpe lastingly sound like anyone except Sculthorpe. To have one’s voice recognisable in the

first five bars of every single work, for

whatever medium, which one composes: that is a musical fate

most would envy.

QuadrantMay201576


conservativealarm-bells.ButsincetheNewOrder’sEast Timor subdivision concentrated on killingCatholics with a genocidal zest beyond TitusOates’sor theKuKluxKlan’smostpornographicdaydreams,allwasjoyouslyforgivenit.

Beitnewlystressed:thepublicSculthorpe(andthe public Sculthorpe is for most of us the onlySculthorpe)remainedsomuchtheaesthetician,solittletheideologue,thathecannothaveapprehendedthe correct nature of his earthly paradise’s rulers.Nor,hadhesuspectedthetruthaboutIndonesia’sstatist terrorism, would he have been other thanhorrified. Yet, as with Shostakovich and Stalin,thequestionmustbefacedsomehow,evenifmostof us (like “ jesting Pilate” in the classic Baconessay) would prefer “not [to] stay for an answer”.Thequestionbeing:howmuchautonomycananyoutstanding composer keep, when the countrywhichhelovestotheinmostcoreofhisbeing(itcanbe,butneednotbe, thecountrywhich issuedhispassport)isruledbythemostgloballyresourcefulbranchesofMurderIncorporated?

(RightnowthesubjectofhowFrance’sleadingpost-Messiaencomposer,HenriDutilleux,behavedunderVichyisbeingfuriouslyarguedabout inLe MondeandLe Figaroaswellasthespecialistpress.OnecanonlyhopethatpeoplekeeptheirtempersatthenextbigAustralianmusicologicalconference,and that this conference does not turn into avariantof theonce-world-famous late-nineteenth-centuryParisiancartoonbyCarand’Ache.Panel1:Paterfamiliasatdomesticdinnertable:“Aboveall,let’snotspeakoftheDreyfusCase!”Pandemonium-saturatedPanel2:“Theyspokeofit.”)

Few Australian public figures stayed as privateasSculthorpe.Whateverphysicalrelationships

hehad,hekeptlargelyundertheradar.(Engagedtwice, he married neither f iancée.) His 1999

memoirs comprise littlemore than a catalogueofdutydone.Anyformalreligiousbeliefsheretained,henowhereflaunted.ThathesharedwithSibelius—notamonghisfavouritecomposers—aheartbroken,near-pantheistic, cognisance of natural beauty (inparticularAustralianlandscapes’naturalbeauty)isobservablefromeverymusicalphrasehewrote.

Ihavewonderedseveraltimes,andnevermoreoftenthansincehisdeath,howmuchheowedthispainfullyacuteawarenesstohisTasmanianorigins.Even today, the Tasmanian-born individual,however suave in comportment, will seldom bemistaken by mainlanders for one of their own.As well suppose that an Alabaman will pass—orindeedwanttopass—foranativeofMassachusetts.(The cultural and pedagogic gap between islandandmainlandyawnedstillmoreabysmallyin1929,the year of Sculthorpe’s birth, than it does now.)To pronounce with greater firmness than that onSculthorpe’s inner life would be, for us outsiders,impudent.Butenoughhasbeensaidtoshowhowlittle he had in common with the screeching,cocksurepaganOxbridgedemagogyof aRichardDawkinsandaChristopherHitchens.

During that final struggle in his hospital bed,sodignifiedafigureasSculthorpemightwellhavereflectedonthedyingSirWalterScott’spleatohisbiographer:“Bevirtuous…beagoodman.Nothingelsewillgiveyouanycomfortwhenyoucometoliehere.”TheSculthorpewhomImet,rarelybut(forme) profitably, gave me every indication of beingnot just a greatly gifted man, but a good man. Ishallmisshimmuchmorethan,inmygreenyouth,Iwouldhaveconsideredpossible.

Melbourne organist R.J. Stove, Adjunct Research Associate at the Sir Zelman Cowen School of Music, Monash University, is the author of César Franck: His Life and Times (Scarecrow Press, 2012).

A Satisfying Answer

Outofnothingpoppedsomethingrushingawayfromitselfataneverincreasingspeedandthat’swhatwecallascientificexplanation

Immanuel Suttner

QuadrantMay2015 77

At the Sheridan Food Pubin Shannon Airport

Thedark-eyedyoungwomanwithlustrousandlongblackhairsitsacrossfromashort-hairedyoungmaninasolid-greyteeshirt.Exceptfortwoarm-lengthtattoos,heisnondescript.

Butthewoman,wheneverhespeaks,throwsbackherhead.Herveryredlipsspreadwide,andherwhite,flashingteethreflectanabruptlaugh.What’smore,herdarkeyesglitter.

Istheyoungmanreallyamasterofwitwhosebland,featurelessfaceconcealsacommandofwords?Oristhisresponsiveyoungwoman—forallofherapparentscintillation—simplysimple?

Wecouldponderthesequestionsandperhapsdrawaconclusion.Buttime,astheysay,hasrunout.Ourflighthasbeencalled.

Wind

Thoughthedayhascomeforus,thewindisallthatseemsreal.Andrealenoughithasbeen,blackeningleavesandstalksandscatteringpetals.

Thoughwewillnotreverttoourgardensagain,toustheyseeminfinitelysadandrepletewithnondescriptmeanings.

Arrangementshavebeenmadeforus,andaswelackcauseforfurtherdelay,westepoutintothewind.Wecaresolittleforthefutureofourpastthatweleaveourdoorsopentoswingontheirhinges.

Bentforward,weleanonthewind,assuredofeachother’spresence—eventhoughoureyes,downcast,extendnofartherthanourfeet.

Knute Skinner

The Dawning of Sadness

Iseenowthatthisredearththatcoloursmyblood,thiscountryIlove,theyarestillmine,butherpeoplearenot.

LikeanelderlycouplenolongercompatiblesoaremypeopleandI.

C.R. McArthur

QuadrantMay201578

DiscoveringandrediscoveringJeanAnouilh,I’msuddenlyreturnedtothestageofanoldtheatre.TheplayisThe Cavern(La Grotte)

and the theatre is St Martin’s in South Yarra.Anouilhdescribed the set, designerPaulKathnermadeit,andIsweptit.AtthetimeIhadasmalloffstagejobatthetheatre.Onstageweretwolevelsof an unrealistic house linked by a staircase. Thesettingwas an attractive suggestion, inwood andcanvas,oftheupstairsanddownstairsofawealthyParis residence, about 1910. It’s not in the stagedirectionsbutatoneperformanceayounggirl,thecount’s daughter, tripped and fell from the highplatformwherethearistocraticfamilypreened.Shebounced, andgotupas thoughnothinghadhap-pened.Thechildwasthenieceofoneoftheactors.Herstagefatherwasamalemodelintheknitting-patternbooksMumboughtandseldomused.

ThereputationofAnouilh,onceoneofthebest-known names in twentieth-century French play-writing, has dimmed. In April his name brieflyflickered,likeasignaturewritteninantiqueneon,whenaperformanceofDariusMilhaud’sinciden-talmusicforhisplayTraveller Without Luggagewasgiven at the Sydney Opera House. Concert pub-licitynotes called it a “classic”play, though ithasnotbeenstagedinAustraliasincetheearly1960s:somereadersmayrecalltheBrokenHillRepertorySociety production (in the Police Boys’ ClubTheatrette)in1961.

St Martin’s was a small professional theatrepresenting well-crafted productions of good writ-ing—the1960sculturalrevolutionturnedthatintowrongheadedgraffitifordreary,politicallycompro-mised and economically unsustainable theatre. StMartin’shadgrownfromtheearlieramateurLittleTheatregroupandhadopeneditsownspeciallybuilttheatrein1956.Itwasasubscriber-basedcompanyofferingthirteenplaysayearinthree-weekseasons.Itwasaninstitutiontobescornedorignoredbythe“NewWave”radicalsmakingplaystobeperformed

indisused stables andbakeries or takingover theuniversitiesandpublic-ownedmedia.

The traditional text-based theatre which StMartin’sexemplifiedisalosttreasure.Governmentsubsidiesdestroyedcommercialtheatre(whichisapoortermforclassifyingStMartin’s)andproducedanoddtwo-wingedcreationwith largesubsidisedtheatres on one side and smaller, fashionable,experimentaltheatresontheother.Onlybigmusi-caltheatreproductionsexistinthespacebetween,whileoutsidethearenaamateurtheatrecompletelyignores the new writing which has cost taxpayersso much and instead draws on old favourites thatbringinaudiences.Anouilh,whoplacedhimselfinFrance’sboulevard theatre,wasdisappearing fromourviewataboutthesametimeStMartin’swentdownin1973.

Artsfundingisfairlysimpletounderstand.Thecarefully constructed methodology behind it hasbeenworkedoutovertimeandhasmadeAustralianarts the envy of the world. Funding major artsorganisationsisamatterofrealestate.Thosewithharbourviews,riveroutlooksandhectaresofnativetitle do well: other companies do not. Backroomladiesinblackworkouttheremainingfiddlybits.

What happened to St Martin’s well representswhathashappenedtoAustraliantheatre.Afteritsclosurethepremiseswereboughtbythestategov-ernment, and from the late 1970s and early 1980sthey have been the home for St Martins YouthArtsCentre.Thechangerepresentsfarmorethana mislaid apostrophe. Presently, the early vitalityof the youth theatre seemsexhausted.Oneof theCentre’s latest productions is “a promenade per-formance work” called 16 Girls. It was a featureoftheCastlemaineStateFestival inMarchandisbasedonaneventinAmericawhengirlsinalocalhighschooldeliberatelybecamepregnant:

16 Girlspresentsastrikingimageofanensembleofheavilypregnantteenagegirlsastheyengage

miCh a EL Con nor

HumpbacksinLoveandOtherPlays

RediscoveringJeanAnouilh

QuadrantMay2015 79


inordinary,everydayactivitiesinacollegiatemanner.

16 Girlsisabeautifulsculpturalworkthatturnsordinaryplacesintoactivatedperformancespaces;theimageofalargegroupofpregnantteenagegirlsraisesmanyquestionsandchallengesforallthosewhoencounterthem.They got that right. 16 Girls raises questions

about using young girls in this way, and the roleoftheresponsibleadults involved.TheStMartinsYouthArtsCentrereceivesfinancialsupportfromalllevelsofgovernment.Why?

If theoldStMartin’shadbeenable tosurvivethefinancialstressesitmighthaveofferedahometoAustralianplaywrightswho,likeAnouilh,wouldhavebenefitedfromworkinginatraditionalthea-tre. Inthe1960snewplaysbywriters likeRussellBraddon,HalPorter,ThomasKeneallyandMorrisWestwereslottedinbetweenFriedrichDürrenmatt,Lillian Hellman, Jean-Paul Sartreand Harold Pinter. The writingwhichhascomefromthenewthea-trescouldhavebeenbalancedwithwriting from these older theatres.Insteadwewent in justonedirec-tionwhichbecameconformistandcontrollingand,lockedinplacebygovernmentsubsidies,hastakenusinto a cultural cul-de-sac. Sixtiesradicalismwasbuiltofintolerance.StMartin’seducatedandcultivatedtheiraudiences.

Earlier this year Red Stitch inMelbourne offered two new playsbyBritishandAmericanwriters.Thesellingpitchsuggestsaverylimitedaudiencetheywouldappealtoand,simplyfromtheoutlinesgiven,bothplaysprobably accurately represent the state of contem-porary theatrewriting: introverted, feminisedandsubmissive.

Wet HousebyPaddyCampbell:

AWetHouseisahostelforhomelessalcoholicswheretheresidentsarepermittedtodrink.Andy,anidealisticyounggraduate,hasbegunworkingasacarerandisfullofidealismandincreasingconfusion.Heisplungedintoaworldwhererulesaboutwhatisrightandwhatisnormalhavebecomeblurred.Andthat’sjustamongtheotherstaff!

GroundedbyGeorgeBrant:

She’sanF16fighterpilot;arockstarofthegreatbigblueabove.Shelovesthesky.Andsuddenly

sheispregnant.Now:repurposedasadronepilot,huntingtheenemybyday,livinginLasVegasbynight.

Anouilh’s acceptance outside France was noteasy. New York critic Walter Kerr recounted

the playwright’s history of American flops in the1950suntil

acarelessoff-BroadwaygroupthathadnotyetheardofAnouilh’sdisgraceventuredtomounthisThieves’ Carnival.Themoodwaslight,themannermocking,theconceitengaging,andtheupshotstartling:thenewspapers,quiteforgettingthemselves,likedit.

Anouilh’sacceptanceoutsideFranceisstillnoteasy, as demonstrated by Charles Spencer’s 2002reviewofWild Orchids(originallyTime Remembered)whichfeaturedPatriciaRoutledge:“Itisaxiomatic

among many theatre-goers thatAnouilh is an alternative spellingof the French word for boredom.”Aftercomplainingofset,directionandnewtranslationSpencerfinallysuccumbed to the play’s “boule-vard charms” and “La Routledge”:“Withheronboard,it’sgreatfun.”

WhenAnouilhselectedhistextsfor publication he invented clas-sifications: black plays, pink plays,brilliant plays,grating plays,costume plays.Thoughhewroteaboutfortydramas, only a few remain visiblein recent productions—Antigone,

Becket and Ring Round the Moon. Other worksperformed in English like The Lark (on Joan ofArc),Poor BitosandThe Cavernhavedisappeared.Returningtotheplaysisapleasure.

The Cavern, with a cast of fifteen, is theatrewithinatheatreandisadelicatemixtureofmur-der, rape, abortion, class conflict and love. It isintroducedtotheaudiencebytheauthor,whohasbeenunabletowriteit.Hischaractersstandaboutnotknowingwhat todoorwhatplay theyare in,andtheauthorcan’thelpthem.Onthehighlevelarethearistocracy.BelowisthekitchenofMarie-Jeanne,theircook.Whenyoungandbeautifulshehad been loved by her employer, the count. Theirchildisnowaseminarian.Shehasbeenstabbedtodeath, and the inspector investigates, or would iftheauthorcouldgetonwithhisplay.Theseminar-ian,whohasnottakenhisfinalvows,fallsinlovewiththemaid,whomayalreadyhavegonetoworkinabrothelinOran,Algeria.Theauthorcan’tquitegetthisworkedout.Itisoddtofindmentionofa

There is a spontaneity in the writing of Anouilh (and also the underestimated

Sacha Guitry) which is hard to capture

in translation, and difficult for actors.

QuadrantMay201580


placewhereIwouldlaterlivesittinginaplayIknewyearsbefore.Themaid, if shehasnot already lefttheplay,ispregnantbyanothermanwhorapedher,andMarie-Jeannepusheshertoacceptanabortion.Theauthor’scharactersmaketheirownsuggestionson where the play should go and complain of hiswriting.Scenesarechangedandreplayed.Thedeadcome to life, actors are banished from the stage.There is a spontaneity in the writing of Anouilh(andalsotheunderestimatedSachaGuitry)whichis hard to capture in translation, and difficult foractors.AudiencessawThe Cavernastheatreinthemaking;Isawitfrompromptcorner.

Ardèlewaswritten in 1948 andonlyperformedonce in Australia, in 1952. The stage representsthegreathallofaFrenchchateau.Two stairways lead up to a gal-lery at the back of the stage fromwhich many doors open, thoughone remains locked for much oftheperformance.BehinditisAuntArdèle, a forty-something hump-back. We never see her onstage,orhearher. Shehas fallen in lovewith her young nephew’s tutor,also a humpback. Her brother thegeneral is outraged at this shame-making event and has locked herinto her room and called a familyconference,whichistheexcuseforassembling thecast. Fromoffstageisheardthecryofpeacocks.Theirsoundmimicsthatofthegeneral’sbedriddenwifecallinghim:“Léon!Léon!” Her debilitating illness islove and jealousy, of her husband:bothcharacters reappear inWaltz of the Toreadors.Theirabsenteldestson,asailoroverseas,hasmar-ried a young woman who loathes him and loveshis brother, who returns her love, hopelessly. Thegeneral’s sister arrives with her husband, anothercount,andherlover.Thecountbecomesquitesym-patheticandexplainstohishostileanduncompre-hendingfamilythat“AuntArdèlehasasoulinherhump.” The situation is hopeless. The humpbacklover,whohasnodialogue,stealsonstageandintoArdèle’s unlocked room where they suicide. Thisone-actcomedywasturnedintoathree-actplayinEnglish,andtheNewYorkproductionwasshort-lived: “Cecil Beaton designed the elegant chateausettingandperiodcostumes,neitherofwhichwereneededaftertwoperformances.”

Ring Around the Moon was adapted byChristopher Fry from L’Invitation au Château.DirectorPeterBrookhadseenpartoftheoriginalproductioninParis:

Theperformanceonthewholewasuninspired,yetthefragmentIsawwastantalizing,thereseemedanenchantingmoodhiddenawaybehindit,andIwasinafeverforacopyofthescript.

Brook recognised the traditional nature ofthe play and set it running as commedia dell ’arte.Anouilh, he wrote, “is a poet of words-acted, ofscenes-set, of players-performing”. His actorsincluded Paul Scofield (playing twin brotherswho entered and exited almost simultaneously),Margaret Rutherford, Claire Bloom and RichardWattis,andtheyweregivenarichlydecorativeset-tingtoplayin.Eventwenty-two-year-oldKenneth

Tynan was impressed with thedesign: “Oliver Messel has donenothing for twenty years as goodastheflimsyconservatoryinwhichAnouilh’s lovers f lirt and part.”Theplaywithitsmoodof“loveandfoolishness”wasamusicalStephenSondheim wanted to write. Afterhissecondattempttobuytherightswas rejected he instead picked upIngmar Bergman’s Smiles of a Summer Night,andturneditintoA Little Night Music.

When Anouilh died in 1987,most theatregoers with

memories would have thoughthe had taken a final curtain yearsbefore. Appreciation of his workhas dimmed. When his playswere immortalised by publication

in Pléiade editions in France in 2007 (thirty-fourplaysintwovolumes)theeditorwasupfrontaboutAnouilh’seclipse:“Inthisedition,thetextisofferedtoreaderslikea‘playinanarmchair’andtomenofthe theatre as an appeal to renewed productions.”English readers anddirectorswouldbehelpedbymoderntranslations.

When one of his rebellious characters in The Cavern makes a joke the stage author complainsthat such jokes have given him a bad reputationin Paris: “elsewhere, it is less important becausethey areunable to translate them,becauseof thatI have a much better reputation than in France”.CutsintheoldEnglish-languagetranslations,per-haps necessary for practical production purposes,needrestoringforarmchairreaders.Somechangesfromtheoriginaltextnowseemslightlypointless.In the English Time Remembered (Léocadia) thePrince inhismake-believecaféorders “Pommery,’47”.InFrenchheorders“Pommerybrut1923”.His

A bad and boring play, they said, and so convincing were

they that Paris decided to come and see for herself, and

the play ran for 308 performances. Night after night audiences laughed at a reading

of the terror laws of Prairial, 1794.

QuadrantMay2015 81


companion, poor thirsty Amanda, asks for “a ginandlimewithlotsofwater”.InFrenchsheordersan anisette with water, and the Prince specifiesMarie-Brizard (Anouilh had earlier worked foran advertising agency). There has also been somerearranging of acts which need restoring to giveforeign readers a better appreciation of Anouilh’stheatre.Andit’ssurelytimetohaveanotherlookatChristopherFry’sadaptationsofThe LarkandRing Around the Moon.

Anouilh’s private life was kept as private ashe could make it, his plays can’t be neatly classi-fied,andhispoliticsseemtooindependenttosat-isfy modern theatre-makers. There is a suspicionbytheLeftthatwriterswhokeeptheirpoliticstothemselvesarehidingtheirattractiontotheRight.Anouilh had had certain problems with Antigone,which was approved by the German censors andopened in occupied Paris in 1944. Post-war therewere unfounded criticisms that the play was sup-portiveofVichy.

In1945hewasoneofthefewFrenchintellectu-alstoprotestagainstthedeathsentenceimposedonthehomosexualcollaborationistRobertBrasillach.Withmuchpersonal courageheorganisedapeti-tioncallingondeGaulletoshowclemency.Onlyf ifty-one signatures were obtained—Camus,ColetteandCocteausigned,SartreandSimonedeBeauvoir refused. Itwasoneof themoments thatmarkedAnouilh’slife:

TheyoungmanAnouilh,whomIhadremaineduntil1945,leftonemorning,insecure(understandableinthosedeceptivetimes)butonhisleftfoot,togogetsignaturesfromhiscolleaguesforBrasillach.Hewentdoortodoorforeightdaysandreturnedhomeold—asinaGrimm’sFairyTale.

De Gaulle had Brasillach shot. Anouilh firedbackin1956withPoor Bitos.

The opening night of Poor Bitos in October1956turnedintotherowdiestaudiencedemonstra-tion against a play in a Paris theatre since VictorHugo’sHernani in 1830;Hugohadmore support-ersintheaudience.TheLeftcriticswereunhappythat Anouilh brought together the Terror of theRevolution and the post-Liberation epuration(purification), and laughed: “Summary executions

arelikeboules,it’saFrenchgame.”DeGaulleandBrasillachcametomindwhenacharacterremarkedthat inFranceageneral couldalwaysbe found tosignadecree,orrefusemercy.

ThatnightPoor Bitosworkeditsmagic.AcriticforafarLeftmagazinestoodupthreateningtogobackstage and beat up Anouilh (he didn’t). AftertheplaythecriticleftforsupperatBrasserieLippand had hardly had time to wipe the foam fromhislips,sothestorygoes,beforeanothercarcutinfrontofhimandtookhisparkingspot.Preparingagainforbattleheopenedthecardoor,startedtoget out, and dropped dead. Surviving Left criticswere hardly better intentioned. A bad and boringplay, they said, and so convincing were they thatParisdecidedtocomeandseeforherself,andtheplay ran for 308 performances. Night after nightaudiences laughed at a reading of the terror lawsofPrairial,1794—whichmaysaysomethingaboutthe seriousness of humour in Anouilh’s work, ormaynot.

The brilliant actor Michel Bouquet was Bitos.There is a shortpieceofoldfilm showinghim incostume in his dressing room and then acting ascene fromtheplay.His facealone is remarkable.His wide forehead seems to slant unnaturallybackwards while his narrow chin juts forward ina perfect manifestation of hypocrisy in humanform. The costume is for the audience’s first viewof Bitos: he is arriving at a dinner party wheretheguestsareeachtakingontheroleofafamousrevolutionary figure. Naturally, Bitos, responsibleforlegalcrueltiesin1945,isRobespierre.Hewearsa long overcoat and on his head is a chalk-white,fluffy eighteenth-century wig. Above the wig is abowlerhat.Hetakesoffthe longcoatandrevealsthe dandified costume of the famous Left head-lopper, circa 1794. Bitos, in wig, bowler hat andopen overcoat with glimpse of sky-blue costume,could have been drawn by Hergé for a Tintinadventure. Today, without too many adjustments,the costume would suit a Monsieur Rudd, or aMonsieurHollande.

Poor Bitoshasbeenaway fromour stages for along time. While its references to now forgottencontemporarypoliticalmattershavedimmed,Bitoshimself, the mid-twentieth-century Tartuffe, hasgrownbiggerwhileour ideaof theatrehasgrownsmaller.

QuadrantMay201582

Since even before British settlers began toarriveinnumbersonitsshoresatcloseoftheeighteenth century, Australia has exercised

both fascination and repulsion on the Europeanmind. The wide, open horizons, fertile and ripewithpossibility,wereyetinhabitedalsobystrangeand lethal creatures, not to mention inscrutablepeople.Europeansgazedupon thegreat southerncontinentwith ambivalence,uncertainwhether tofearorloveit.

This ambivalence manifested itself in a varietyofways.Letusponder, for amoment, aphenom-enonassuperficiallyunremarkableastheexistenceofblack swans.From the compositionof Juvenal’sSatires some fifty years after the crucifixion ofChrist, “black swan” became a byword in Europeforthefantastical,thenon-existent.Whatcouldbemoreself-evidentlyabsurd thanaswanwithblackfeathers?Morethanbeingsimplysillyas,say,lime-greenfoxesorfuchsiakestrelsmighthavebeen,theblackswanrepresentedtheveryopposite(theanti-pode,ifyouwill)ofthestandardwhiteswan.Itwastheanti-swan.

But then, in 1697, at themouthofwhatwouldlaterbenamedtheSwanRiver,Dutchsailorsdiscov-eredawaterwaychokedwiththeverybirdswhoseexistencepopularEuropeanwisdomhad explicitlydenied.Intime,stuffedswanswouldreachBatavia,and then laterEurope itself.For thenext century,visitorsfromthenorthernhemispherewouldremarkonthefrequencywithwhichtheywitnessedflocksofJuvenal’srara avisonthelakesandriversofthenew continent. In one of those magical momentshistorians so relish, the European absurdity wasrevealedtobetheAntipodeancommonplace.

Europeans had long suspected that the south-ernhemispherewouldbeinhabitedbymonstrosities(theearlyChristianphilosopherLactantiusdeclaredthe Antipodes an impossibility, stating that weresuchaplacetoexistitwouldbeinhabitedby“menwhose footprints are above them and their headsdown”,andthatthere“treesandgrain[would]grow

downward” into theground), and theblack swanspresagedodditieslatertobediscovered:porcupine-like creatures that laid eggs (let usnot forget thatEchidnawasthe“motherofallmonsters”inGreekmyth,anabominationwhoinHesiod’swords“diesnotnorgrowsoldallherdays”),greatmammals,tallasmen, thathopped abouton theirhind legs andcarriedtheiryounginpouches.Whenthefirstplat-ypuses arrived stuffed in London they were takenforacrudetaxidermist’sjoke.

Thomas Watling, describing this mystifyingnewcontinent ina letterof 1791 tohispresumablybaffledaunt inDumfries,couldspeak inthesameparagraph of an environment with features both“elysian”and“grotesque”.Oneneedonlyglanceatearlycoloniallandscapepaintingtoseethedifficul-ties theEuropeaneyehad inprocessing this alienworld,and thedifficulties theEuropeanhandhadindepictingit.Fearandbeautyinheringinthesamephenomenon—onceagain,ambivalence.

This vein ran no less through literature, fromAbelMagwitch in Great Expectations to AlgernonMoncrieff in The Importance of Being Earnest (“Australia! I’d soonerdie”) to, in thefirstquarterof the twentiethcentury,D.H.Lawrence. In 1923,Lawrence published a novel called Kangaroo, thestory of a period spent by anEnglishman andhiswifeinSydneyandthesoutherncoastofNewSouthWales.Itis,perhapsnotunjustly,oneofhislesser-read works. Regarding Kangaroo’s broader literarysignificance, I am not qualified to speak. What Ican speak on, however, is the profound interest itholdsasavisionofAustraliaandAustralians.

When I was buying my second-hand copy ofKangaroo,atiny,yellowedreceiptfromtheSydneyUniversityCo-OperativeBookshop,datedApril18,1962, fell out from among the pages—one pound,seven shillings and threepence someone had paidfor Lawrence’s novel in the classic orange-and-cream, phoenix-rising-from-the-ashes Penguinpaperbackedition,inapre-decimallinktowhatwasoncecalled the “mother country”,now lost.Given

da niEL o’nEiL

TheWorldaNewLeafD.H.LawrenceonAustralia

QuadrantMay2015 83

TheWorldaNewLeaf

thenovel’stheme,theappearanceofthisoddlittlemementoseemedappropriate.

TheyearbeforeKangaroo’spublication,Lawrenceandhiswifehad,liketheprotagonistsofthenovel,spent a period in Australia, arriving in Fremantle(henotes, withmutedpleasure, that a copyofhisnovelThe Rainbow sitsontheshelvesofalibraryhevisitsinPerth)andsailingontoSydneyviaAdelaideandMelbourne.Lawrencespentbyfar thegreaterpartofhistimeinAustraliainNewSouthWales,andendedupwritingmostofKangarooinaseasidebungalowinThirroul.

Thegreatmanofearlytwentieth-centuryEnglishlettersdidnotthinkterriblyhighlyofAustralia.

In fact, Lawrence’s deep antipathy towards allthings Australian shines through on almost everypageofthisstrangenovel.Heinsistsonrenderingourspeech,whathecalls“Cockney-Australian”,indemeaning eye dialect (“next peo-plewhokymearftermust’evtykenit”).HisprotagonistpricklesattheAustralians’ “aggressive familiar-ity”.Thisgratingpersonabilityanditsattendantvulgarupwardmobil-ity are embodied in the novel’stitular character, an articulate butmenacingbarristerwhoserealnameisBenjaminCooley,andwhoactsasthecharismaticringleaderofaNewGuard-type paramilitary organisa-tion of former comrades-in-armsfrom the Great War called the“DiggersClub”,acrewofwhatonecouldperhapscallockerblackshirts.

It isnotmerelyAustralia’smenupon whom Lawrence heaps his opprobrium. “Somanywomen,”hewrites,“almostelegant”—momen-tarily lured in—“[y]et their elegance provincial,without pride, awful”—and then repulsed. Thesuperficially enchanting shell of Australian wom-anhood, as with all else in this continent, hides avulgarinterior.ThislackofeleganceextendstothecityofSydneyitself,withwhichLawrenceismostunimpressed:

InMartinPlacehelongedforWestminster,inSussexStreethealmostweptforCoventGardenandStMartin’sLane,attheCircularQuayhepinedforLondonBridge.ItwasallLondonwithoutbeingLondon.WithoutanyofthelovelyoldglamourthatinvestsLondon.ThisLondonoftheSouthernhemispherewasall,asitwere,madeinfiveminutes,asubstitutefortherealthing.Justasubstitute—asmargarineisasubstituteforbutter.

These remarks are not terribly original; theycouldhavecomefromthepenofanytransplantedEnglish grumbler. One is almost surprised not tofindacrackaboutconvictsthrownintothemixforgoodmeasure.WhatmakesLawrence’sfrustrationswithAustralia intriguingisthattheyarethefrus-trationsof ambivalence,of amanwhooncewrote“[f]or somethings…I loveAustralia” (duringhistime in Sydney, Lawrence composed, in additionto his novel, an unambiguous tribute in verse tothe poise and dignity of the great kangaroo), andyetwho lamented that “[i]t eludesme, and alwayswould”. They were, at base, the frustrations of aman with a profoundly authoritarian streak castadriftina(comparatively)egalitariansociety.Theyarephilosophical objections to anAustralia of theimagination.

Thoughhe isrememberedtodayasatransgres-sivenovelist—perhapsevenasasexualrevolutionary

avant la lettre—whose vivid depic-tions of human sexuality in Lady Chatterley’s Lover so scandalisedthemiddleclassesofhistime(eventhirtyyearsafterLawrence’sdeath,a barrister could ask an Englishjury whether Lady Chatterley was“a book that you would even wishyourwifeoryourservantstoread”),Lawrencewasnotamanof liberalpoliticalopinions.Onthecontrary,hewassomethingofadyed-in-the-woolreactionary: inaJuly 1915 let-ter to Bertrand Russell, he fumedthat“theextantdemocracy …isourenemy”, and proceeded to lecturethegreatphilosopherontheinsan-

ityofallowingtheidiotproletariatasayintherun-ning of the country. Democracy, he fumed in anessay four years later, meant “the reduction of thehumanbeingtoamathematicalunit”(theso-called“Average Man”), and the equalisation of humanbeings who were patently not equal in intellect orphysique. His opinions on the Jews, or the non-whitesubjectsoftheBritishEmpireheencounteredinCeylon,arebestleftunrepeated.

Yet for all this Lawrence was no traditional-ist—a man of humble social origins (his fathera coalminer, his mother a teacher and sometimelace factory worker, and D.H. himself likewisetrainedasateacher),hedidnotyearnforareturnof the aristocracy. The future of which he dreamtwould see “women governing equally with men”,witha“Dictatrix” rulingalongsidea“Dictator”. IfLawrence’spoliticalphilosophyremindsusofany-thingitistheorderedutopiaPlatopresentedinhisRepublic andhisLaws:Lawrenceenvisages“abody

Lawrence laments that Australians had

effaced the “categorical difference between the responsible and

the irresponsible classes”. Australians “ fail to admit the necessity for rule”.

QuadrantMay201584

TheWorldaNewLeaf

of chosen patricians” whose sole objective in gov-erningwillbe“thehighestgoodofthesouloftheindividual, the fulfilment in the Infinite”. Beyondthis,itisaresistancetothespiritofmodernitythathearkens back, not to an idealised golden age inthe past, but to a basic human authenticity (how-everhierarchicallyandundemocraticallyperceived)againstthepoisonousatomisationoftheindustrialage.

Fascist is not the word to use here—partlybecauseLawrenceneverdescribedhimselfassuch,andbecause,inanycase,polemicoverusehasslowlydrainedthatwordofallmeaningbeyond“politicalphenomenonIdonot like”.No,Lawrencewasnofascist: if nothing else, he could not stomach thefascists’street-fightingandhead-kicking,andbeforecomingtoAustraliahehadbeeninItaly,wherehehadhimselfhadachancetowitnessthebruterealityof the fascist squadristi. Indeed, at Kangaroo’s cli-max,abrawlbetweenCooley’sDiggersandagroupofanarchistsleavestheLawrence-protagonistdisil-lusioned.Thiswasthepoliticsoftheuglymass:thegathering “of all the weak souls, sickeningly con-sciousoftheirweakness,intoaheavymob”.

Lawrence knew exactly what he did not wantin a society, and he had found exactly that in

Australia.InaletterofJune1922,hewrotethat“themoreIseeofdemocracy,themoreIdislikeit”,andthatAustraliawas“themostdemocraticplaceIhaveever beenin”(itgoeswithoutsayingthathedidnotintendthistobeacompliment).TherearehintsofwhatLawrenceclearlyperceivestobethebankrupt-ciesofnegative freedomhere: the idea that,undi-rected, ungoverned, people will simply attend tothe“little things”,andtheirown“littleegos”,attheexpenseofthegreatandthebeautiful.Thenaturalorderofhumanity,andtheinstitutionalarchitecturethatholdsittogether,woulderode,withdisastrousconsequencesforall.InKangaroo, LawrencelamentsthatAustralianshadeffacedthe“categoricaldiffer-encebetweentheresponsibleandthe irresponsibleclasses”.Australians“failtoadmitthenecessityforrule”—acardinalsininLawrence’sbook.Theresultis a sort of hollow ghost polity in which effectiveauthorityceasestoexist:

ButinAustralianobodyissupposedtorule,andnobodydoesrule,sothedistinctionfallstotheground.Theproletariatappointsmentoadministerthelaw,nottorule.Theseministersarenotreallyresponsible,anymorethanthehousemaidisresponsible.

Yet,forallhisbiliousdenunciationofthedeprav-ityofourcultureandthehollownessofourinstitu-tions,thegreatsouthernlandneverthelesscontinuedto exercise an almost primal allure on Lawrence.Inwhat,givenhispreviousoutbursts, feels almostlike amoment ofFreudianparapraxis, he goes ontodescribeSydneylaterinthenovelas“[o]neofthegreat cities of the world”, before drawing himselfback to castigate its lack of “heart”. He wonderswhether Australia isn’t in some awful fugue state,doomed to be rudely and damagingly awoken onedaybyreality.ItseemstotroubleLawrencedeeplythatthisdegradedpolityisabletofunctionatall.

ButthetruehorrorofAustraliadoesnotperco-late through to Lawrence’s consciousness until heleaves the city for the outback, for the vast emp-tiness. It is difficult to think of a landscape lesssimilar to the Australian desert than the rollinggreenofLawrence’snativeNottinghamshire(tryasEnglishmenmighttoreplicatethelatterintheformerbyfoundingsettlementswithnameslikeEastwood,Mansfield and Carlton). Australia, he writes inthe letter of June 1922, is “empty and untrodden”,indeed,“soempty,sonothing, italmostmakesyoufeelsick”.FromDarlington,eastofPerth,LawrencewrotetohisGermanmother-in-lawthattheland-scape was such that “the people who are here arenotreallyhere”:inAustralia,humanbeingsmerely“schwimmen wie Schatten über die Fläche davon”(floatlikeshadowsovertheexpanseoftheplace)or,touseanotherofhismetaphors,arelikeducksskatingonthesurfaceofapond.

Thesoft,blue,humanlessskyofAustralia,thepale,whiteunwrittenatmosphereofAustralia.Tabularasa.Theworldanewleaf.Andonthenewleaf,nothing.

Itis,touseaLawrencephrasefromanotherlet-ter, a “country to disappear into”, “where one cangooutoflife”andfadeintoalandscapethatevadesevenhumansight—“nobodyhasseenAustraliayet:can’t be done. It isn’t visible.” This is Australia asLawrencefearsitmost:withoutcommand,withoutauthority,withoutorder,unabletobeassembledevenforthebenefitofthehumaneye.Thereisawesomestrengththere,butitisuntrammelled,uncontrolledand, indeed, perhaps ultimately uncontrollable.Herewehavemovedbeyondmereambivalence:thisisAustraliaasanEnglishman’snightmare.

Daniel O’Neil is an Australian who is studying history at the University of Oxford.

QuadrantMay2015 85

Inthe1970saBBChistoricalmini-seriessuchas Wolf Hall (currently screening here on theBBC Australia subscription channel UK TV)

would have been shown in Australia free-to-airontheABC.ThisseriesaboutHenryVIII’schiefministerThomasCromwell,basedontwoBookerPrize-winning novels by Hilary Mantel, wouldhavebeenexactlythekindofprogramthenationalbroadcaster was expected to show. Indeed, in theearly1970s,formanyofusmini-seriessuchasThe Six Wives of Henry VIIIandElizabeth R tookoverourSundaynights.Itwasnotideal—foronethingtheBBCwas“filming”incolourandAustraliastillhad only black-and-white television. But we didgetitfornothing,withoutadvertisements,andwewere watching superb writing and acting. To besure, the styleofa series suchasElizabeth Rwassomewherebetweentheatreandfilm.Itwasshotinlongtakesandwrittenandplayedinaheightenedstyle that evoked the rhetoricof theperiodwhilebeingexpertlypitchedtothecamera.

Wolf Hall could not be more different. Thevisuals combine documentary realism with pain-terlyimagesthatevokethestyleofHansHolbein,whosecontemporaryportraitswereamajor influ-enceontheproduction.DirectorPeterKosminskyand cinematographer Gavin Finney are drawingona longandhonourabletraditionforperiodtel-evisionandfilminrecreatingthestyleofcontem-porary artists—Jacques-Louis David for Marie Antoinette(1938),VanGoghforLust for Life(1956),while Toulouse Lautrec was almost entitled to adesignercreditforthefamousopeningsequenceofJohnHuston’sMoulin Rouge(1952).

ButKosminskyhasgonefurther.Manysceneshavebeenfilmedusingthelightfromcandlesandsometimesthefiressupposedlywarmingtherooms,withthecameraalmostentirelyhand-held.Thisisanythingbuttraditional.GavinFinneyexploitsthecapacityofthenewdigitalcamerastoliterally“see”moreclearlythanthehumaneye.

Ithasbeenattemptedbeforebutwithdifferent

technology. Stanley Kubrick used very fast filmstockandspeciallyadaptedZeisslenses,originallydevelopedbyNASAtorecordthemoonlandings,sohecouldshootsomeinteriorsforBarry Lyndon(1975) by candlelight. That was very effective, butwith six hours of television Kosminsky recreatesalmostcompletelythevisualexperienceoflivinginthesixteenthcentury.Inthenightscenescharactersareshadowyfigures,occasionallyilluminatedbyalantern. Day sequences seem to have been filmedinnatural light.Unobtrusive travelling shots givethenarrativeanimmediacythatisoftenlackinginthemoreformalgroupingsofthetraditionalperiodfilm.

Theserieswasshotalmostentirelyon locationusingsurvivingTudorandmedievalhouses.DoverCastle doubled as the Tower of London for thepublic execution scenes in episode six. The LongGallery, Tapestry Room and Queen ElizabethRoominPenshurstPlacedoubledasspecificroomsinWhitehall.TheLongGallery,whichwasactuallyusedbytherealHenryandAnneBoleyn,doublesasher chamber.Thefilm-makers soondiscoveredthat these buildings were specifically designed tobelitbycandlesandfoundtheappropriatespots—while the actors complained about bumping intothefurnitureinthedark.

Wolf Hall ’sactionisseenfromtheperspectiveof Thomas Cromwell. He is of course the

villain inA Man for All Seasons,RobertBolt’splayabout Sir Thomas More, most famously played byLeoMcKerninthefilmversionasabullyingthug.Historicallyhewasmorecomplex,aloyalservantofCardinalWolseyandlaterHenryVIII,andamajorforce in distributing the translated Bible. Mantelmadehimthefascinatinglyambiguousprotagonistofthetwonovelsonwhichthemini-seriesisbased,Wolf HallandBring Up the Bodies.

The screenwriter, Peter Straughan, condensesMantel’soriginalbrilliantly.Thefirsttwoepisodes,“ThreeCardTrick”and“EntirelyBeloved”,portray

nEiL mCdona Ld

TudorFilmNoirbyCandlelight

QuadrantMay201586


the fall of Wolsey, beginning when the King’sofficers demand the Great Seal of England fromtheCardinal.Afigureemergesfromtheshadowsand whispers in the prelate’s ear and Wolseyblandlypointsout that theyhavenotbrought therightpapers.Thisistheviewer’sfirstintroductionto Mark Rylance’s Cromwell. Jonathan Pryce isa sympathetic Wolsey, and together they makethis first attachment of Cromwell ’s touchinglybelievable. Some nicely placed flashbacks explaintheKing’sGreatMatter—thedivorceofCatherineofAragonfromKingHenrythatWolseyhasfailedtosecure.

Wolf Hall isperhaps thefirstof these series toshowthedetailsofagreatman’sfall—theplunder-ingofhispossessions,howhisretainersmovehimtoanotherresidence,andofcoursethe anguish. Straughan, followingMantel,makesthesesequencesthemotivation for Cromwell ’s pur-suit of the instigators of Wolsey’sfall.Whenanotherretainerof theCardinal describes their patron’sdeath while being taken to theTower charged with high treasonandcallsonGodtotakevengeanceonallthoseresponsible,Cromwellrepliesquietlythatthereisnoneedto trouble God: “I will take it inhand.”ItisoneofWolf Hall ’smostchillingmoments.NoonecanbeabsolutelycertainthiswasthereasonCromwellpursuedtheBoleynsandtheirallies,butitisquitelikely,andmakesforsplendiddrama.Throughouthe ishauntedbyhismemory of a masque staged at court to influencetheKingwhereafigurerepresentingtheCardinalis prodded into a hell mouth by masked “dev-ils” impersonated by some of the men seeking toencompasshisdisgrace.TheincidentiscompletelyaccuratealthoughwhetheritinfluencedCromwellinthiswayonecan’tbesure—butonceagain,itishighlyprobable.

AsMarkRylance’sCromwellmovesdownthecorridors of the great houses occupied by Kingandcourt,orsitsathisdeskperusingstatepapersand the reportsof informants,he seems tobeyetanother film noir protagonist, flawed, vulnerable,laconic, witty and deadly—“You made a mistakewhen you threatened me.” Yet the portrait is atleast a valid interpretation. Neither Mandel norStraughanmakesanyattempttomitigatetheenor-mityofhisjudicialmurderofAnneBoleyn,whichisportrayedinthenovelandtheseriesinchillingclinicaldetail.Aswithsomanyofthegreattrag-edies,therevengeonceachievedishorrifying;evenmoresoherebecauseitisalltrue.

Wolf Hall is one of the few fictional series tomake a real contribution to our understanding ofthe period. Damian Lewis’s Henry captures thecharmandauthoritydescribedbycontemporaries.WhenWolseyspeaksof lovingtheKing it seemsquiteplausible.AndastheKing’scrueltyemergesitcomesasagenuineshocktotheviewer,muchasitdid formanyofhis subjectsat the time.ClaireFoy’sAnneBoleynisbothviciousandvengefulaswellasbeingresoluteandcourageousatherend.

It is a pity a similar balance was not struckwith theportrayalofCromwell’sgreat rivalSir

Thomas More. As played by Anton Lesser he isa fanatical persecutor of heretics and a torturer.More did have a darker side. Accusations of tor-

tureweremadeagainsthiminhislifetime.Theyweredenied,butheopenly approved the burning ofheretics. Mandel and Straughanwere therefore entitled to portraythese less attractive qualities. Buttheyshouldnothavedistortedthetrial.AsweknowfromA Man for All Seasons,Morewaschargedwithhigh treason for refusing to takethe Oath of Supremacy affirmingHenryVIIIasheadoftheChurchinEnglandandwouldnotsaywhyhewouldnottakeit.Hewascon-

victedwhenRichardRichtestifiedthatMorehaddenied the supremacy inaprivateconversation inhiscellintheTowerwhenRichcametoremovehisbooksandpapers.UndoubtedlyRichperjuredhim-selfandtheperjurywassubornedbyCromwell.InepisodefourofWolf Hall,Richistellingthetruthand More is worsted in the exchange with him.This contradicts the transcript which records thisdevastatingresponse:

CanitseemlikelytoyourLordshipsthatinsoweightyanAffairasthisastotrustMrRich,aManIhadsomeananopinionof,inreferencetohisTruthandHonesty…thatIshouldonlyimparttoMrRichthesecretsofmyConscienceinrespecttotheKing’sSupremacy,theparticularSecretsandonlyPointaboutwhichIhavebeensolongpressedtoexplainmyself?

SimilarlyMantelandStraughanonlygivetheirMoreafewfragmentsofhisgreatorationinwhich,after being convicted, he condemned the Act ofSupremacy. He isn’t even allowed his final linebeforebeingexecuted:“IdietheKing’sgoodservantbut God’s first.” The trial was done brilliantly by

As with so many of the great

tragedies, the revenge once achieved is horrifying; even

more so here because it is all true.

QuadrantMay2015 87


Robert Bolt, who condensed the exchanges andspeeches to give the actor playing More somegreatmoments—watchCharltonHestonandPaulScofieldinthefilmversions.ButallMantelinthenovel and Straughan in his script had to do wasto stay closer to the transcript and allow Morehis moral triumph and not distort the history.

Certainlythisisfiction,andthelessattractivesideofSirThomaswasoverdueforanairing,butartistsofthiscalibreshouldhaveembracedthecomplexityofhistrialanddeath,notsimplifiedit.

Nevertheless, Wolf Hall is great film-makingand this is only a minor lapse in an otherwiseextraordinaryachievement.

The Swede

Morelikeadeformedanimalthanavegetable,Iimagineitsnufflinginthedark,dreamingitselfaglobeasitheavesagainstwaterloggedclayandstones

tofilloutitsgirth.Hardasmahogany,heavyasflint,itsthickskinismarkedwithblotchespurpleasbruise,ringedwithridges.Thisonehasanoutgrowth

whichlooksjustlikeafoetallimb.AtfirstIbranditinferiortotheleeksIdugupinthegardenoneyear,eachsmoothasapoleandmorewhitelyalivethansnow

buttheungainlybodyspeaksofpersistentlabour,quietconfidence,gravitas,andIadmireitformakingnopretencetobeotherthanitis.Iwonderwhy

we’resocarelessoftheplanetwhichcoddlesseedlingsthatlookfrailenoughforwormstocrumpleandharboursweightyvegetables,whywe’reforeverlookingupatthesky,

probingMarsforsignsoflife,seekingouteverfaintergalaxiesand,asthemysteryofspace-timegrows,whywekeeptryingtocrackthesecretwhichbegantheuniverse.

Bettertoconsiderthecasserolewe’rehavingforsupper,howwhenIlifttheglass-liddedpotoutoftheovenslowcookingwillhaveturnedthepiecesofswede

luminousorangeandsoftenoughtoslipdownthethroat,warmthebelly.Bettertoaskhowlongitwillbebeforetheswede’sanendangeredspecies.

Myra Schneider

QuadrantMay201588

PeteMossiswaitingforhisgirlfriend.He’ssittingoutsideatBigMouthCaféonAclandStreetinStKilda.Hehasjustpurchasedanewtypeofpre-paidmobile.“Time”,anewmobilephonecarrier,hasjustbroughtoutthesenewdisposablephones.Youpurchasethephonefor$50andreceivethatamountincreditandgetamobilenumberthatexpireswiththecredit.Andafter

the$50isusedupyousimplythrowthephoneaway,likethoseolddisposablecameras.Handyforhistypeofwork.Pete’sadrugdealerwhodoesn’twanttobeadrugdealeranymore.

“Whatdoyouwanttodo?”sheaskshim.“Icouldstudy.Icouldworkat7-11.Icouldbeachef.Workinacafélikethisone.”“That’sbetter.Youhaveallthesedifferentoptions.”“WouldyoustillgooutwithmeifIworkedat7-11?Nomorefreedrugs.I’dprobably

havetomoveoutoftheapartmentonInkermanStreet;wouldn’tbeabletoaffordtherentanymore.Nomoreeatingout forbreakfast, lunchanddinner.You likeeatingoutandcoffeeandgoingtonightclubswithme,don’tyou?GonnadumpmeifIstopdealing?”

“Idon’tgooutwithyoubecauseyou’readrugdealer.”“Don’tyou?WhatabouttheguyIbuythedrugsoff?WhathappenswhenItellhim

Iwantout?Idon’twanttodothisanymore.Imakealotofmoneyforhim.He’sgoingtoaskmesomequestionsaboutwhoistakingoverfromme.Canhebetrusted?HowamIgoingtocompensatehimifIcan’tfindsomeone?Idealtoyouex-privateschooltypeswithmoney.”

“IsthatwhatIam?Atype?”Heignoresherandgoeson.“Areyourfriendsgoingtotrustsomeoneelse,andthe

friendsofyourfriends,whatwilltheydofordrugs?I’llbeprettymuchontheouterifIstopdealing.”

“Noyouwon’t.”“WhywouldyourfriendsbeinterestedinsomeonewhogrewupinStAlbansand

leftschoolatfifteenandlearnedhecouldmakemoneydealingdrugsbecauseonenightwhenhewasnineteenhegotluckywithagirlwhooozedmoneyandgoodlooks.”

“Thanksforthecompliment,”shesayslaughing.“Youcanaffordtoeatoutwithoutmeandgoouttoclubsandlivethegoodlife,but

thedrugs,they’retheaphrodisiac,that’swhyyou’rewithme.It’swhoIam.WhatIdo.AllcachetislostifIstopdealing.”

“Ifyou’llletmespeakforasecond.”“Fireaway.”“I’llloveyouwhateveryoudo.Whateveryouwanttobe.We’llfindsomeonetotake

s t o r y

SomebodysE a n o’LE ary

QuadrantMay2015 89

Story

overthedealing.Squareeverythingwithwhomeveryougetthedrugsfrom.Icanthinkofafewpeoplethatmightwanttotakeover.”

“Thisisn’tlikeJim’sMowing.There’safairbitofbravadoandthefearfactorneeded.Mostofyourfriendsarealittlescaredofme,right.So,there’sthefearfactor.”

“There’sotherways,Pete.Youneverbashedanyone,didyou?”“NotsinceIhookedupwithyou.”

Julia, his girlfriend, showed him the right clothes, how to wear the cool clothes.Gonewere theTargetblack jeansand jumpers. Incame theblackLevi’sandshirtsfromCountryRoad;ArthurGalansuits,oneofwhichheworetoaMelbourneCuppartyinthecarparkatFlemington;cooljacketsfromFrenchConnectionandfactorywarehouses;shoesandbootsfromWindsorSmith;clothesboughtonline.Juliastartedfollowing themen’s fashionblogsandboughtclothes forhim.Thesexwas thebestshe’deverhad.Hewastallandrakish,longsinewymusclesinhisarmsandlegs,bodythickandstrong.Acnescarsonhisleftcheek.Headshaved.Apowerfulman.

Juliaintroducedhimtoallherfriends.Shetoldthemhewasachef.ThelittlejokeaboutbeingachefatBigMouthafewmomentsago.Hestarteddealingtothem.SpentlesstimeinYarravilleandFootscray.Herfriendswouldpayabovetheusualrate.Jess,thedangerousmanhegotthedrugsfrom,waspleased.Itwasarelief.Petewashappy.Buthewantedtobesomeone.Allthiswealthandambitionhadrubbedoffonhim.AllofJulia’sfriendswereprofessionalpeople,baroneortwoofthem,andtheywereonlykillingtimebeforetheirfatherkickedthemupthearseandtoldthemtogetseriousortheycouldbetheonewhofallsthroughthecracks.Theypartiedhardbuttheyseemedtoknowwhentoswitchoff.Whenenoughwasenough.Heditchedhisoldlife.FoundthiscoolapartmentonInkermanStreet.Juliadidn’twork.Shewasthewealthiestofthemall.Herfatherwantedhertobehappy.Shewantedtodesignclothesandjewelleryandsheprobablywouldonedaysoon.Itthrilledhimthateverytimehecalledhershecametohim.

“Don’tworrysomuch,Pete.Doyouwantmetomovein?Icouldjustpayashareoftherentforyou,ifyoudidn’twantmetomovein.”

Heleansacrossthetableandgrabsherhand,“Shityeah.Iwantyoutomovein.Thesoonerthebetter.”

“Iwillthen,soon.”Andalreadyshe’swonderingwhyshesaidit.“Wherewillwegotonight?”sheasks.

Heshakeshisheadtogetalltheinformationinorderortogetitoutofhishead.Hetakesadeepbreath.Letsitout.“Whooo.Idon’tknow.”Helooksatherandthinks.Idon’twanttoloseyou.Ihopeyou’retellingmethetruth.Let’sgohomebacktomyplace.”

“Oh,”Juliasays,“Ihavetomeet,Sally.Um,no,I’llcallher.You’reright;we’llgobacktoyourplace.”

“No,goandmeetyourfriend,”hesays.“Iwill,thanks.”“Julia, I want to be somebody,” he says, almost pleading with her. “Maybe your

father.Hemighthavesomeconnectionstogetmestartedsomewhere.”“Doingwhat?”shesnorts.Hegetsanoddfeelinginhisstomach.Histemperrises

andshesays,“Oh,work,youmean.Yes,I’llaskhim.”Andtheystandupandshecomesaroundthetableandkisseshimopenlyonthestreet,unashamedly,andhehugshercloseandsheturnstogoandhealmostpleadsagain,

“Askyourfather,please.”

QuadrantMay201590

Story

She breathes a sigh of relief as she walks off. What on earth could he do? Shedoesn’twanttolosehim.Whydoeshewanttochangeallofasudden?What’sgothimthinkinglikethis?Youandyourfriendshavegothimthinkinglikethis.

PetecallsJess.“Jess,whendoyouwantmetopickyouup?”Thatwashiscodetogooverandpick

upthedrugs.“D’youbuyanewmobile?”Jessasks.“Yeah,um,I’llexplainwhenIseeyou.You’lllikeit.”“Pickmeupinanhour,twohoursatthemost.”“I’minStKilda.I’llleavenow.”Hecallsataxi.Petehasn’tboughtacaryet.Hegets

outofthetaxiatFlindersStreetstationandtakestheStAlbans-linetrain.HethinksaboutJess.Thesmallwhiteweatherboardhousewiththeperfectlycutlawnfrontandback.Thebigwiregatedowntheside.Thetwopitbulls’facespushedupagainstthewire.Barkingandsnarling.Jessasbigasamountain.HeletsthedogsinthehousewhenPeteisthere.IncreasesthefearfactorandJesscontrolsthemasifhehasthemona remotecontrol.Clapsandhandsignalsandbarkedcommands thatonlymeansomething to him and the dogs. How to untangle himself from Jess is the biggestpuzzleofall.

Juliaistwenty-two,witharoundprettyfaceandcoolblackeyes,slimbutstrongandwithamaneofchestnuthair.Shewasagoodrunnerat school,abasketballplayer,notanetballplayer.Shedoeshaveboldideasaboutfashionanddesign.Shewillbesuccessfulwhensheputshermindtoit.SheandPetehavebeentogetherforjustoverayear.Sheusedtoannoyinglycorrecthisspeechbutshedoesn’thavetodoitanymore.He’swhipsmart,likeachameleon,thewayhepickedupontheirwayoftalking,thespeechpatterns.Howtheymoveandactanddress.He’shadtodefendJuliaacoupleoftimesinbarsandnightclubs.Hestaredathertormentors,gavethemthatlookofhis,andtheybackedawaylikefrightenedkittens.Nomatchforherbadboydrugdealer.

Shouldsheaskherfather?Whatcouldhedo,shewonders.Herfatherownsachainofbakeries;pubsandclubsalloverMelbournetoo,andawholeraftofotherbusinesses.Hermotherrunsachainoffashionstores.Hermotherisbusiness,notcreative.WherecouldPetefitinamongstallthat?Shedoesn’tthinkhe’dbehappysweatingitoutinthebackofabakery.Shecallsherfatherandarrangestomeethim.

Peteknocksonthedoorofthesmallwhiteweatherboardhouse.Thedogsgoapocalypticatthewiregate.Jessopensthedoor.

“Comein,”hesays.Petefollowshimintothelounge.Theysitonablackleathersofawithchromehandlesonthesidesandtheheadrest.

“What’sthisaboutthephone?”Jessasks,andPeteexplainsthephone.“So,you’llbechangingyourfuckingnumbereveryfewdays.”“You’ll get the new number straight away on caller ID. I think it’s designed for

overseastourists.”“Idon’tcare,mate.Ineedtoknowwhatyou’reupto.”“Yougoingtodrivemebacksoon?”“I’lldriveyounow,extrabigdeliverytoday.”Theonlyplacewheretheytalkdirectly

aboutdrugsisinhiscarwiththemusiconloud.Petesometimesthinksit’sabitliketheconeofsilenceonGet Smart.Jessdrivesaten-year-oldblackute,slowly,withinthespeedlimitbutnottooslow,nottoocareful.Hedoesn’ttakethedogswithhim.Wantstodrawnoattentiontothecar.

Astheydrive,Jesssays,“Tenthousandbacktomewithinthreeweeks,mightlet

QuadrantMay2015 91

Story

youhaveamonth.Goodqualitygrass,plentyofE.Speedasalways.SomeicebecauseI knowyou’re always looking fornewways to get your friendshigh.They are yourfriends, aren’t they?Don’t screwanyone’sgirlfriend,mate.Don’tuseviolenceatall.Thesekids’llratyouintothecops.Whateveryouthink,you’renotoneofthem.”

PetethinksJessisprobablyright.Sellingicewouldbeamistake,though.Heneedstogetoutofthat.Fuckit.He’sgettingoutofthewholething.HecallsJulia.She’llmeethimattheapartmentonInkermanStreet.JesstellsPetehisvisionforhislife.He’sgoingtobemovingupintheworldandtheusualwarningsaboutkeepinghistrapshut.Andasever,justbeforehegetsoutofthecar,

“Don’ttryandscrewme,Pete.Igotojailyougotojail,andintherenobodycanhelpyou.”

Petewalksup the stairs to thefirst-floor two-bedroomapartmentandopens thedoor.Breathesoutandgoesthroughtothebedroom.He’swearinggreychinosandalight-bluepoloshirt.Itiswinterbutmildtoday.Hestashesthedrugsunderthebedinasuitcase.HeusesJess’slogic.Nevermakesexcessivenoise,noloudmusic.Heusesheadphonesforthat.HecrashesontohisbedthenpickshimselfupandgoestotheLaTrobeUniversitywebsite.HehasideasofbecominglikeJulia’sfriends.Hespoketothisguystudyingfilmandartsingeneral.ABachelorofArts.Theyallthinkhe’sachef,andtheguyexplainedtohimhecouldapplyasmature-agestudent.Petethedrugdealeratuniversity.Hehasn’ttoldanyone.HowcanheescapefromJessandmakethisnewlifework?Jessdoesn’twanttolethimgobecausePeteknowseverything:wherethedrugsaregrown;thepersonwiththepillpress;theguywhocooksupthespeed.Jesstoldhimandshowedhimallthisbecauseitwasentrapment.You know too much mate, can’t let you go.

Juliaknocksonthedoor.HelogsoutoftheLaTrobesiteandturnsoffthelaptop.“Ihavenewsforyou,”shesays.“Whatnews?Itbetterbegood.”“IgotyouajobasabarmanatapubonChapelStreet.Mydadsetitup.”Shesees

thecrestfallenlookonhisface.“Butthat’swhatyouwant,isn’tit,tochangeyourlife?You could still deal andwork too if youwanted too, you’dmeetmorepeople, newcustomers.”

“IhadthisideaImightliketostudysomething.”“Ohyeah,likeTAFE,youcouldum,yeah,Idon’tknow,doingwhat,Pete?”“IwasspeakingtoyourfriendVincentaboutwhathestudiesatLaTrobe.”Sheshakesherheadandlaughs.“Youleftschoolatfifteen.No,yougotkickedout

ofhighschoolatfifteen.”Helookshardatherasifhe’stryingtofigureheroutalloveragainandthensays,

“YoukeeptellingmehowsmartIam.”“YouaresmartbutImeanstreetsmart.Youadapt.Universityis...youhavetohave

ahighintellect.Vincentisbrilliant,agenius.”“Andwhataboutalltheotherstudents?Aretheyallinthegeniuscategorytoo?”“Youdon’tgetit,Pete.”Hesmilesather,shrugsandthengoesandhugsherclose.“You’reright,”hesays.

“I’mkiddingmyself.”Shelaughsandkisseshimhardonthemouthandhekissesherbackandthentakesherhandandleadsherintothebedroom.

In themorninghe says, “You’rebeautiful. I lovewatching yougetdressed.”Sheturnsandflashesaquicksmileathim.

“Listen,”hesays,“I’vebeenmeaningtoaskyousomething.I...uh,couldyougetmetengrandcash.”

“What!”

QuadrantMay201592

Story

“I’llpayyoubackfifteengrand,fivegrandprofitinthreeweeks.”“Adrugdeal?”“Whatelse.Canyougetthecash?”“Yeah,Ihavemuchmorethanthatinmybankaccount.Butlisten,justpaymeback

thetenthousand.Keeptheprofitforyourself.”Ineeditmorethanyou,that’swhatyoumean,iswhatPeteisthinking,andhesays,

“Great.HowaboutwewalkdowntoAclandStreet,youcangetmethecashandthenwecanhavecoffeeandI’llgoandseemymanandbuythegear.IhavesomestuffforVincenttooandthreeorfourofyourotherfriendsthatIneedtodropoff.CouldIborrowyourcar?”

“Yeah,sure.Whataboutthebarjob?”“I’llprobablysticktowhatI’mgoodat.”Andhegetsoutofbednakedandgrabsher

andshesquealsindelightbutheletshergoandgoesintothebathroomandshowers.ShegetsthecashandPetedropsheroffatherfather’shouseinStGeorgesRoad,

Toorak.HedrivesbacktoStKildaandstopsathisflattogetthedrugshe’sgoingtosellandajacketandthendrivesdowntheNepeanHighway.Hegoesintoaused-cardealership.Asalesmancomesstraightforhim.

“TradingintheBMW?”Petelooksatthecarsintheyardandlaughsandsays,“NothereI’mnot.I’mjust

gonnatakealookaround.”Andthesalesmanbacksoff.Hewandersthroughthesmallyardandcomesona2007Peugeotfor$12,000.Heaskstotest-driveitandthesalesmansitsinthepassengerseatwhiletheytakeitaroundtheblockacoupleoftimes.

“Ilikeit,”Petesays.“Justneedsometimetothink.”BackathisapartmentonInkermanStreet,hisphonerings.“Buyingacar,mate?”Jesssays.“How’dyou...”“Tonysawyou talking toa salesman inacaryardonNepeanHighway.Hewas

onhiswaybackfromseeinghisgirlinChelsea.Whatgives,Pete?I’mgettingabadfeeling,mate.Likeyoudon’tlovemeanymore.Thesefancynewphones,lookingatcars,theseyuppiesyou’rehangingaroundwithgivingyoubigideas.”

“Iwanttobuyacar.Nothingsinisterinthat.”“No,mate,nothingsinisterinthat.”“It’sTuesday,”Petesays.“I’llbeovertopickyouuponThursdayafternoon.I’lllet

youknowifIgetanewmobilebythen.”“Good,that’sgood,mate.Seeyou,then.”PetegoestoseeVincentandthenontoMirandaandSissy,whoputhimontoLionel

andVictor,andhe’snearlysoldhalfofthestuffJessgavehim.Hedriveshomeandmakesafewquickcalls.HewaitsattheapartmentforanhourforthreeofJulia’sfriendstoturnupandhesellssomemoregear,pressuresthemintobuyingmorethantheywantto,thenhestashestherestofthegearbackunderhisbedinthesuitcase.HedropsJulia’scarbackoffatherparents’placeandleavesthekeyswiththegardenerandgetsataxitoWarrigalRoad,Moorabbin.Helooksaroundtwocaryardsandseesa2000SubaruImpreza,takesitforatestdrive.Thepriceis$8800.Hegetsitdownto$8650.Big concession. And drives off. He buys two more of the new-style $50 disposablemobilephonesanddriveshome.

InthemorninghedeliberatelycallsJessat7.30a.m.becauseheknowshe’llbeasleep.Heusesoneofthenewphonesandleavesamessage.

“Thisismynewnumber;I’mstillpickingyouupThursday.”Heflushestherestofthedrugsdownthetoilet,slowly.Wrapsthegrassintoiletpaperinsmallbunchesandflushes,all thepillsflushedslowly.Notraces left,buthecleansthetoiletwithAjax

QuadrantMay2015 93

Story

powdertomakesure.Hedealsdrugs,hedoesn’tusethem.Hepaidtherentforanothermonthacoupleofdaysago.Thedealismonthbymonth.Hecallsthelandlordandtheyagreethathecanleaveafterthemonthisup.Hepackstwosmallbackpacks,leavingmostofhisfancynewthreadsinthecupboard.HepacksallhisshortsandjeansandT-shirts.Leavesalltheshoesandbootsbehindexceptforonepairofblackshoes,buttakesallhisrunners.Hestartsoutoftheapartmentbutstopshimselfandsmilesandturnsbackandtakesoneoftheblacksuitswithhim.Heleaveshisregularmobileonthekitchentableandtakesthetwonewdisposablephoneswithhim.

Jess doesn’t call him until Thursday afternoon and by that time he’s at a servicestationinGlendamboontheStuartHighway,592kilometresnorthofAdelaide.

Jesssays,“Whereareyou,mate?”Petesmiles,“JustfillingupataservoonKingsWay.Iwon’tbeabletopickyouup

untiltomorrowmorningthough,Ihaven’t...”“Mate, you get your arse overhere soon, pronto!Now!Something’s not ...”Pete

turns thephoneoffand throws it into abinbeside thepetrolbowsers.Hefills thetankandgetsintothecar.Hedidn’tcallJulia.Shedidn’tbelieveinhim.Themoneyisinconsequential.Alesson.HedrivesnorthuptheStuartHighway,sleepinginshortspellsandthendrivingsomemore.

When thechameleon reachesDarwinhechangeshisnamebydeedpoll fromPeteMosstoBrianPattinson.Thenamemeansnothing.Theblanderthebetter.HeenrolsatCharlesDarwinUniversitybuthastodoabridgingcourseforsixmonthsbeforehecanstarthisBA.

HestaysattheYMCAforawhileandthenmovesintoaccommodationoncampus.Heneversavedmuchfromallthedealing.Itwas,ashesaidtoJulia,eatingoutforbreakfast,lunchanddinnerandthentheclothes,thetaxiseverywhere,therentonhisapartment.

Hesurvivesforawhileonhissavingsandtherentoncampusisreasonable.Theotherstudentslikehim.HetellsthemhewasawaiterinarestaurantinNorthbridgeinPerthandhewantedtochangehislifearound,sohemoveduphere.Hedoeswellinhisstudies.Afterawhileherunsoutofmoneyandtakesworkscrubbingpotsandpansinthekitchenofthecafeteriaattheuniversity.He’sagoodworker.

FouryearsafterleavingMelbourne,BrianPattinsongetshisdegreeandthencommitstostudyanotheryearandahalftobecomeaprimaryschoolteacher.Hedoeswellandcompletes the course.Onhisfirstday at school inMinter, a suburbofDarwin,heenterstheclassroomandlooksatallthedifferentkids,differentcoloursandshapesandsizes.Hesaysgoodmorningandthekidssaynothing.Hesays,

“MynameisBrianPattinson.YoucancallmeMrPattinson.”Andheturnsandwriteshisnameontheblackboard,turnsbacktotheclassandsays,“Goodmorningeveryone.”Andtheysay,“GoodmorningMrPattinson.”Andhesmilesbroadly.

At lunchtimehefindsaquiet spotand thinksabouthis life: thefifteen-year-oldkidwhogotkickedoutofschoolbecausehewantedtorunwithanolder,wilderpackofboys.MeetingJessandthebeginningofthings.Drugdealsandeasymoney.Theswaggeringnineteen-year-oldwhosomehowcaughttheeyeofJulia.ThedrugdealerlivingthehighlifeinaStKildaapartment.Theescape.Nowthis:legitimate;ateacher.Somebody.Hecanteachthesekidsatrickortwo.

Sean O’Leary is a Melbourne writer. He published a short story collection, My Town (Ginninderra Press), in 2010, and several of his stories have since appeared in Quadrant.

QuadrantMay201594

30thMarch1827

ToHisExcellencyLieutenant-GeneralRalphDarling,GovernorandCommanderinChiefinandoverHisMajesty’sTerritoryofNewSouthWalesanditsDependencies,etc,etc,etc.

Sir,I have the honour to acquaint you with the facts of a very curious incident that

occurredhereinWellingtonValleyduringmyrecentvisit.Theaffaircouldhavehadveryseriousconsequences,butfortunatelyIhavebeenabletoclearituptothesatisfactionofallconcerned.ItismorethanayearsinceYourExcellencywaspleasedtoappointmetothepositionofInspectorofRoadsandBridges,anditisonlynowthatIhavereachedtheouter limitsofsettlement inmygeneral tourof inspectionofthecolony’sroads.FromBathurstIhavecome102mileswesttothisremoteconvictsettlement,reachingitonthemorningofthe27th.

On arrival at Government House I found the Commandant, Lieutenant PercySimpson, on the point of ordering the soldiers under his command to carry out ageneralattackonthelocalaboriginesinordertodrivethemoutofthedistrictentirely.ConsciousasIamthatsuchactionistotallyagainstYourExcellency’sbenignpolicywithregardtothenativepeople,Ienquiredofhimastothecauseofsuchadrasticintention.Herelatedthefollowingextraordinarycircumstancestome.

Severaldayspreviously an aboriginalmannamedWiradjurawas arrestedby thesoldiers for attacking one Private John Lynch in the bush with murderous intent.He wounded Lynch with his spear, at which point Lynch called out to his fellowsoldiersforhelpandtheyswiftlycametohisassistanceandsavedhimfromanyfurtherharm.Lynchwasfuriousandwantedtoshootthemanthereandthen,buthisfellowsoldiers would not allow him to commit so wanton an act. They insisted the manbe arrested andbroughtbefore theCommandant forpunishmentbydueprocessoflaw.ThewoundedLynchkeptholdofWiradjura’sspearasevidence,andthesoldiersconveyedtheaboriginetothejail,wherehewaslockedinbythesettlementconstable,theconvictVincentRussell.

A report on the incident was then made to the Commandant, who questionedPrivate Lynch. Lynch said the attack was entirely unprovoked. In the eyes of theCommandantthiswasaveryseriousdevelopment,comingontopofarecentescalationoftensionsbetweenthenativesandthesettlers.Thenativeshavebeenprovokedtoanincreasingnumberofretaliatoryattacksbyoutragescommitteduponthembystock-keepers,whointerferewiththeirwomenandsubjectthemtootheractsofaggression.Consequentlythesettlers,whoarenowfearfulfortheirsafety,havebeencallingon

s t o r y

WellingtonValleybob wright

QuadrantMay2015 95

Story

theCommandanttocleartheaboriginaltribesrightoutofthedistrict.Anunprovokedattackonasoldiersoclosetothecentreofthesettlementmadeitmoredifficultforhimtoresisttheirdemands.

Itbeingalreadylateintheafternoon,theCommandantdecidedtoleaveWiradjuralocked up overnight and question him in the morning. That evening the constablebroughttheprisoneramealandfoundhimtobeinasullenmoodandmakingthreatstokillPrivateLynch.Helefthimlockedinthejailandretiredtohishut,whichheshareswiththeprincipaloverseer,theconvictGeorgeBrown.Thefollowingmorning,whentheCommandantwasreadytoquestiontheprisoner,thesoldierswenttothejailwiththeconstabletofetchhimtoGovernmentHouse.Totheirutmostastonishment,when theconstableunlocked the jail they found insidenot themanWiradjura,butthe soldier Private Lynch, run through with Wiradjura’s spear and quite dead. OfWiradjuratherewasnosign.

ThisunexpecteddevelopmentwasreportedimmediatelytotheCommandant,whosentthesoldiersoutinsearchofWiradjuraandcloselyquestionedtheconstable,whosworethathecouldnotunderstandhowthebodyofPrivateLynchcametobeinthejailinplaceoftheaborigine.VincentRussellwasadamantthatWiradjurahadbeeninthejailwhenhelockeditupthepreviousnight,thathehadgonestraighttohishutafterwards,fromwhichhehadnotstirredallnight,andthathehadtheonlykeytothejailwithhimthewholetime.Hecouldnotaccountforthestrangeturnofevents.TheCommandantthensentfortheprincipaloverseerandquestionedhim,andGeorgeBrownconfirmedthatRussellhadnotlefttheirhutfromthetimehereturnedfromtakingWiradjuraamealuntilthefollowingmorning.

The Commandant surmised that the only possible explanation was that PrivateLynch,whostillhadWiradjura’sspear,musthavesomehowstolenthekeystothejailfromRussellandopeneditinthenightwithintenttokillWiradjurainrevengefortheattackuponhimself.TheaboriginemusthavefoughtLynchoffandgotthebetterofhimintheensuingstruggle,spearinghimtodeathandfleeingintothebush.

Upon their return the soldiers reported that after an extensive search they hadfoundnotraceofWiradjura,norwouldanyoftheotheraboriginessaywherehewas.AtthispointtheCommandantsentwordtotheaboriginesthatiftheydidnotdeliverWiradjurauphewouldhavenochoicebuttoattackthemanddrivethemaway.Hegavethemtwenty-fourhourstomeethisdemand.Thekillingofoneofhissoldierscouldnotbeallowedtogounaccountedforandunpunished.Thetwenty-fourhourshaving expired with no word from the aborigines, the Commandant mobilised hissoldiersinpreparationforhostilities,andthatishowIfoundmattersonthemorningofmyarrival.

OnYourExcellency’sauthorityIorderedtheCommandanttosuspendhisactionpending my own investigation of the case. I was not entirely convinced that hisexplanationofthefactswasthetrueone.Foronething, itdidnotexplainhowthejail came tobe lockedagain themorning thatPrivateLynch’sbodywasdiscoveredinside,andthekeysbackinpossessionoftheconstable.ItoldLieutenantSimpsonthatIwishedtoquestionboththeconstableandtheprincipaloverseermyself.HeorderedthembroughttoGovernmentHouseandIquestionedthemseparatelyinthepresenceoftheCommandant.Theybothtoldmeexactlywhattheyhadtoldhim.

IthentoldtheCommandantthatIwishedtoexaminethebodyofPrivateLynch,whichhadbeenremovedfromthejailtohishut,andhadnotyetbeenburied.HetookmetoLynch’shut,whereIfoundtheunfortunateman’scorpse laidoutonhisbed,whichwassoakedinhisblood.Thespearhadbeenremovedfromhisbody,leavingagapingholeinhischest.Hisfacewascontortedinpain.Itwasagruesomesight.The

QuadrantMay201596

Story

CommandantinformedmethathehadthebloodiedspearsafelyinhispossessionatGovernmentHouse.

Inextaskedtoseethejail,whereLynchhadbeenkilled.Theconstablewassentforagain,andheunlockeditforme.Ilookeditovercarefully,buttherewasnothingtobeseen,nothingtogiveanyclueastowhathadtakenplacesorecentlywithin.Iwasperplexed,anddecidedatthispointthatIneededtohearWiradjura’ssideofthestory.IdeclaredmyintentionofvisitingtheaboriginesonmyowntoattempttospeakwithWiradjura.TheCommandantprotestedagainstthiscoursemostvehemently.HewasoftheopinionthatIwouldbeputtingmyselfindanger,andhesaidhewouldnotbeabletoguaranteemysafetyifIdidso.IassuredhimthatIwouldcometonoharm.

The Commandant gave me directions and I rode into the bush in search of thenatives.Atfirsttheykepttheirdistanceandfledatmyapproach.ButIcalledouttothemthatIwasafriendandmeantthemnoharm,thatIonlywishedtospeakwiththem.TheysawthatIwasaloneandeventuallytheypermittedmetoapproachthem.IexplainedwhoIwasandassuredthemthatIwouldpermitnoattackuponthembythesoldiers.IaskedtospeakwithWiradjura,buttheysaidhewasfrightenedandhadgoneintohidingandwouldnotcome.Icouldnotpersuadethemtobringhimout.AsI turned to leavehowever,acomelyyoungaboriginalwomancameforwardandidentifiedherselfasWiradjura’swife,Bangaree,andsaidshewouldspeakwithme.

Bangaree then told me that Wiradjura had attacked Private Lynch because thesoldier had tried to take her by force when he happened across them in the bush.Wiradjurahadonlybeendefendingheragainstanattemptedoutrage.Shefled,anddidnotseeWiradjuraagainuntilthefollowingday.Herhusbandtoldherhowhehadbeentakenbythesoldiersandlockedinthejail.ShesaidthatWiradjuradidnotkillLynch.Shesaidhetoldherthatafterhehadeatenthemealtheconstablehadbroughthimhehadfallenasleepinthejailandwokenthenextmorninginthebush,withnoideaofwhathadhappenedintheinterval.Thiswasaqueertaleindeed,butIhadnoreasontothinkthatshewasnottellingthetruth.Sheinsisteduponherhusband’sinnocence.

IwasnowgettingsuspiciousaboutthepeculiarcircumstancessurroundingLynch’skilling,andasIrodebacktothesettlementsomethingwasnaggingatme,somethingthat didn’t seem right. On arrival I made some examinations of the ground whichconfirmedmysuspicions.Ialsoquestionedsomeoftheotherconvictstosee if theycould tell me anything about this mysterious affair. They provided me with certaininformationwhichmadethewholethingcleartome.

IaskedtoquestionBrownagainandhadhimbroughttoGovernmentHouse.InthepresenceoftheCommandantItoldhimthatIknewthathehadbeenlyingandthatheandRussellhadmurderedLynch.Hedenieditandsaidtheyhadnoreasontodoso.IthenrevealedthattheconvictshadtoldmethatLynchhadtreatedbothRussellandhimselfwithcontemptandneverlostanopportunitytoheapinsultsuponthem,despitetheirpositionsof responsibility,andthatconsequently therewasbadbloodbetweenthetwomenandLynch.Theconvictshadbeenwillingtotellmethisbecausetheydespisedboththeconstableandtheprincipaloverseerduetotheirharshness.

BrownsaidtheotherconvictswereslanderinghimoutofjealousyandthatIhadnoproofthatLynchwasn’tkilledbyWiradjura.ItoldhimthatwasimpossiblebecauseLynch’sbedwassoakedinblood,buttherewasnoneinthejail.IfhehadbeenspearedinthejailinastrugglewithWiradjura,thentherewouldhavebeenbloodstainsinthejail,butwhenIhadexamineditearlierinthedaytherewerenone.Conversely,ifLynchhadbeenkilledinthejailthereshouldhavebeennobloodinhishut,oratleastnotthequantitythatIhadobservedthere.Therecouldonlybeoneexplanation.Lynchmusthavebeenkilledinhishutandthebodyremovedtothejailafterwards.Ihadconfirmed

QuadrantMay2015 97

Story

this by carefully examining the ground between Lynch’s hut and the jail, and sureenoughIhad foundevidenceofdriedblood, the largerquantitybeingnear thehutandalesseramountclosertothejail.FurthermoreRussellwastheonlyonewhocouldhavelockedLynch’sbodyinthejail,andthatmeantthathemusthavehadahandintheman’sdeath.SinceBrownhadgivenRussellanalibi,Brownmustalsobeinvolved.

I toldBrown thiswas sufficientevidence tohang themboth formurder.At thishewentashen-facedandbeggedformercy,insistingthathehadtakennopartinthekillingofLynch.ItoldBrownhisonlyhopeofavoidingthegallowswastotellmethewholetruthimmediately.HesaidIwasrightinallparticularsexceptthathehadonlyassistedRussellaftertheevent,andcolludedwithhimtocoveritup.HesaidRussellhadlefttheirhutinthenightandreturnedalittlelaterandaskedhimtohelpwithsomething.Theyhadgone toLynch’shutwhereBrownsawthatRussellhadkilledLynchwithWiradjura’sspear.BrownandRussellthencarriedthebodytothejailandlockeditin.BrownsaidWiradjurawasquiteunconsciousatthetime,anddidnotstiratallwhentheyremovedhimtothebush—acircumstancehecouldnotaccountfor.

InowsentforRussell,andBrownrepeatedhisaccountofeventsinfrontofhim.Withnowayout,Russellmadeafullconfession.HesaidhehatedLynchandwasjustwaitingforachancetoberevengedonhim.HeseizedtheopportunityprovidedbyWiradjura’sarresttokillLynchandmakeitlookasthoughhehadbeenkilledinanattempttomurdertheprisoner.KnowingLynchwaswoundedandvulnerable,Russellhadstolenintohishutthatnight,seizedthespearandrunhimthroughthechestwhileheslept.HethensolicitedBrown’sassistancetoremovethebodytothejail.EarlierintheeveninghehadlacedWiradjura’smealwithopium,sotheprisonerwastotallyunconsciouswhentheybroughtinLynch’sbodyandtookhimouttothebush.Russell’sideawastoblamethekillingontheaborigine,whowouldhavenoknowledgeofevents.Theconstable’smistakewastolockuptheprisonafterwards,whichhedidoutofhabitandwithoutthinking.

With themystery resolved andRussell now locked in the jail awaiting trial, theCommandant is satisfied that the aborigines had no part in the murder of PrivateLynch.Hehascancelledtheplannedattackandre-establishedgoodrelationswiththenatives,sendingthemwordthattheywillnotbeharmedandthatWiradjurawillnotbearrested.IhaveforbiddenLieutenantSimpsontotakeanyextremeactioninthefuture,whateverpressurehemaybeunderfromthesettlers,andremindedhimofyourpolicyinthesematters.Ihavealsowarnedhimseverelyagainstallowinganyofhissoldierstomistreattheaboriginesortheirwomen.Ofcourseitishardertopolicesuchbehaviouramongst the settlers and stock-keeperson so remotea frontier.Perhaps itwouldbewiserafteralltowithdrawthesettlementatWellingtonValleyentirely.Iwillsendafurtherreportinmynextletter.

Ihavethehonourtobe,Sir,YourmostHumbleObedientServant,

CaptainWilliamDumaresq.

Bob Wright lives in Sydney. This story won the Rolf Boldrewood Literary Award for prose in 2014.

QuadrantMay201598

B o o k s

a nthon y da niELs

The Mind of a Mass Murderer

One of Us: The Story of Anders Breivik and the Massacre in NorwaybyÅsneSeierstadVirago,2015,544pages,$35

Utøya: Norvège, 22 juillet 2011, 77 mortsbyLaurentObertoneEditionsRing,2013,400pages,€20

TwoyearsafterAndersBehringBreiviksetoffabombinthecentreofOslo,killingeightpeo-

ple and injuring two hundred, and then went tothe island of Utøya where he shot to death sixty-nineyoungpeople,allyoungmembersofNorway’sLabourParty,andinjuredseverelymorethanthirtyothers,theEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsruledthatthewholelifesentencespassedonthreeBritishmurderers (whichmeant that theywouldneverbereleasedfromprison)weredegradingandinhuman,in breach of their fundamental human rights: for,saidthecourt,suchsentencesallowedfornorepent-ance,redemptionorrehabilitation, thethreeRsofthehumanitariantheoryofpunishment.

It beggars belief, surely, that judges on a con-tinent that had within living memory witnessedsomeoftheworstatrocitiesinhumanhistorycouldconceiveofnocrimesoterriblethatitwasbeyondthereachofthosethreeRs.HadDrMengelebeencapturedand imprisoned, forexample, theywouldhavebeencontenttoreleasehimoncehehadcon-vincedthemthathewassorryforwhathehaddoneandwouldneverdoitagain.Forthem,punishmentandtherapywereindistinguishable,perhapsbecauseintheirphilosophynomandoeswrongknowinglyandthereforehastobebroughtnotsomuchtoGodas to knowledge, including moral knowledge, forexamplethatconductingviciousexperimentsonlit-tlechildreniswrong.

Theirgraspoftheprinciplesoftheruleoflawwasweak, as indeed was that of the Norwegian penalcodeaccordingtowhichBreivik,havingbeenfoundcriminallyresponsibleforhisacts,wassentencedtothemaximumtermofimprisonmentallowedunderthecode, that is to say twenty-oneyears.Twenty-oneyearsforhavingkilledseventy-sevenpeople,orjust over three months’ imprisonment per murder!NowondermanyNorwegiansthoughtthesentence

derisory,oneparentexclaiming(quitecorrectly,andwith a much better grasp of the rule of law thanthe framersof theNorwegianpenal code) thatheshould have been sentenced to seventy-seven sen-tences of twenty-one years to run consecutively,thatistosay1617years’imprisonment:ineffect,ofcourse, imprisonment for the term of his naturallife,assumingnodramaticbreakthroughsinmedi-cal science to extend the span of human life wellbeyondthatofMethuselah.

But there is a get-out under the Norwegianpenalcode,aget-outthatisgenuinelyandseriouslyinbreachofhumanrights: for if,after twenty-oneyears,Breivikisconsideredstilltoposeadangertosociety,hemaybekept inprisonforafurtherfiveyears,andafterthatforanotherfiveyears,andsoonad infinitum. SinceBreivik is nowonly thirty-twoyears of age, it is conceivable that he could spendtwice as long under preventive detention as underdetention mandated by a proper court: in otherwords,servetwiceas longforwhathemight doasforwhatheactuallyhasdone.Butsuchpreventivedetention,susceptibletoallkindsofpoliticalpres-sures, to say nothing of the inherent impossibilityofpredictinganyone’sfuturebehaviourbeyond rea-sonable doubt,eitherinthedirectionofcommittingfurthercrimeorofnotcommittingit,hasnoplaceundertheruleoflaw.

The three British murderers on whose case theECHR ruled were not as bad, which is to say asprolific in killing, as Breivik, but there comes apoint in evil atwhich it is fruitless, evenobscene,to apply a simple measure of comparison. A manwhorapesandmurdersfourpeopleisnothalfasbadasonewhorapesandmurderseight:andthethreeBritishmurdererswerebadenoughtohavemeritedtheirsentence.Onekilledfivemembersofhisfam-ily;anotherkilledhiswifeshortlyafterhavingbeenreleasedfromprisonafterservingasentenceforthemurderofanotherperson;andthethirdkilledfouryounghomosexualmenforhisownsexualpleasure.Apparently,theECHRthoughttheyalldeservedasecond(orathirdandafifth)chance.

NodoubtthejudgesoftheECHRhuggedtheirrobes tightly around themselves as they deliveredtheirjudgment,warmedbytheirawarenessoftheirown humanity; but in fact their judgment was ascruel even to the appellants aswell as itwaspsy-chologically crude, additionally being against therule of law for the reasons given above. For theydidnotrulethatthemenshouldneveractuallybereleased, only that consideration be given to suchreleaseregularly,thuslayingthemopentoacycleoffalsehope and subsequentdisappointment, allow-ing,indeedmandating,officialdomtoplayagameof cat-and-mouse with them. By contrast, a man

QuadrantMay2015 99

Books

maymakethemostofhissituationifheknowsforcertainwhatitis.

Breivik, in fact, had every intentionof makingthe most of his imprisonment, at least accordingtoabookabouthim,One of Us,byÅsneSeierstad,a well-known Norwegian journalist who attendedBreivik’strial.Unlikemostmasskillers,Breivikdidnotdieeitherbypoliceactionorsuicide,butmeeklygave himself up; indeed, he had already tried todo so when he had killed “only” forty youngsters,but could find no one to surrender to, so he wentonkilling.Hisplanwas touseprison as a retreatinwhichhecouldwrite and fromwhichhecouldspread his ideas; he was outraged when his accesstoaword-processorwaslimitedandthepenhewasgiventowritewithwasnottohistaste.Itmayseemincrediblethatamanwhohad justkilledseventy-seven people should immediatelystart to complain of minorinconveniences(healsocomplainedof the view from his cell and thathewasgiventhewrongsweaterstowear)asifhewerebeingmaltreated,if not tortured, by the authorities,but in fact it is often the mostconscienceless criminals who havethe liveliest ormost acute senseofwhatis,orwhattheythinkis,theirdue. Few men are so lacking incompassion that theyare incapableofself-pity.

It was only natural that worldattention should be fixed for a

timeonamanwho,inamatterofonlyafewhours,singlehandedlymorethandoubledhiscountry’sannualrateofmurder.Indeed,itisdif-ficult not to conclude that seeking such attentionwasapart,probablyalargepart,ofthemotivationforhismasskilling: for thereundoubtedlyexistsaclassofmen(almostalwaysmen)soavid for famebutimpatientofthedisciplineusuallynecessarytoachieveitbynormalorconstructivemeansthattheyresorttoadramatic,bloodthirstycoupthatwillkeeptheirnames alive ifnot for ever, at least formuchlongerthaniftheyhadjustgonetoworklikeeve-ryoneelse.HowelsebutbyslaughterwouldAndersBehringBreivikhavehadbookswrittenabouthiminseverallanguages?Hisvictimsweresacrificedonthealtarofhisego.

Are such types as he more common now thanpreviously?Thecultofcelebritycertainlybreedsanambitiontobenoticedbylargenumbers,asiftobeweretobeseen;andthecultalsobreedsresentmentandbitterness,inasmuchascelebrityisascarcecom-modity that isdistributedaccording tonoobvious

principleandthereforeunjustly.Fromresentmentatsupposedinjusticeitisbutasmallsteptoparanoia.

Likemanyofhistype,Breivikwasanambitiousmediocrity. In that regard, at least, he was repre-sentative of his age, which has passed seamlesslyfrom meritocracy, the social ascension of the ableirrespectiveof socialorigin, to thatofmediocracy,thesocialascensionoftheambitiousirrespectiveoftheirability.

Ambition cannot remain free-floating for long,ithastoattachitselftosomething.EarlyinhislifeBreivik,whohadnopatienceforscholasticachieve-ment, sought eminence among the youth of Oslowho adorned the walls and buildings of that citywith graffiti; then he tried several get-rich-quickschemes, the most successful of which was in thesale of fake university diplomas. He soon lost any

moneythathemadeononeschemeonthenext;and,neverhavinghada steady job, he then retired to aroominhismother’sflatwhere,forfive years, he played a competitiveonlinewargameinwhichheroseintheranks,anachievementofakindbutaworthlessone.

Breivik was a serial fantasistwholovedtodressupinuniforms.Thankstotheinfluenceofanuncle,he joined the Masons and hadhimself photographed in Masonicregalia: but Masonry were far toorigorous, and demanded far toomuchdiscipline, forhim to rise inthe ranks. He devised a militaryuniformforhimself,completewith

self-awarded medals, though he had avoided hiscompulsory military service by claiming to be hismother’scarer(hewouldhavelikedthearmy,pro-vided thathe entered itwith the rankofgeneral).Likemanyanambitiousmediocrity,hewasafirmbelieverinhierarchysolongashewasatthetopofit.

Having previously expressed little interest inpolitics, his first political commitment was tothe Progress Party, Norway’s most conservativeparliamentary party (an odd choice of name,perhaps, for a conservativepolitical formation,butnot even conservatives would vote for a RegressParty).Breivikwassoondisillusionedbytheparty,initially not because of any disagreement withits policies but because it failed to choose him asa candidate for a council election. Ever inclinedto find fault with those who did not recognisehim at once for the genius he took himself to be,he decided that the route of conventional politicswas hopeless, that Norway was too far down the

It is often the most conscienceless criminals who have the liveliest

or most acute sense of what is, or what they think is, their

due. Few men are so lacking in compassion that they are incapable

of self-pity.

QuadrantMay2015100

Books

declivity of what he called cultural Marxism, ofwhichmulticulturalismwasitsmostimportantanddangerous manifestation, to be saved by anythingbut conspiratorial revolutionary activity. However,hefailedeveninhisattemptstoreachothersoflikemind.Hisovertureswerenotrespondedto,oronlyperfunctorily.Hewastoomuchofacrankevenforothercranks.

Failure only hardened his conviction that hehad a mission of national, if not of world-histori-cal, importancetofulfil.Inthishewasrather likeanotherNorwegianmisfit,VidkunQuisling.Infact,Quislingwasamanofmuchgreaternativeabilitythan Breivik, being both a gifted mathematicianandlinguist,speakingEnglishandRussianfluently,an ability that made him Fridtjov Nansen’s right-handmaninthelatter’seffortstobringfaminerelieftomillionsofpeasants inthewakeof theRussianRevolution. But Quisling had some of the samefaultsasBreivik,amongthemabeliefthatrepeatedfailure onlyprovedhow righthewas, and thathealone had truly grasped the nature of the threatposedbyMarxiststohiscountry:beliefsthatmadeco-operation with others difficult and provided ajustificationinadvanceforanythingandeverythingthathedid.WhatwaswrittenofQuislinginabiog-raphycouldhavebeenwrittenofBreivik:

[His]lackofrealismwashisstrengthand,atthesametime,hisgreatestweakness.Quisling’simmunityfrompoliticalrealityprovidedhimwiththepowertoignorepoliticalreverseswhichwouldhavecrushedthespiritofalessintrovertedman.

Obstinacymightbeabetterwordthanstrengthtodescribethesetwomen’sdetermination.

There was one difference between Quislingand Breivik, though; the former thought he wasthe Saviour, the latter that he was only John theBaptist.Breivik’sactwassupposedtobethesparkthatignitedthefireofresistancetowhathesawasIslamic domination throughout Europe, resistancethat would save it from demographic and culturalextinction.

WhensomeoneactsascataclysmicallyasBreivik,withoutwarningandapparentlywithoutseri-

ouscriminalantecedents,wefeeltheneedtounder-stand, though it is by no means clear what wouldconstitutesatisfactoryunderstanding.Atwhatpointwouldanyofusbeabletosay,“Aha,nowat lastIunderstandwhyBreivikshotsopitilesslysixty-nineyoungpeopleonUtøya”?Thatpoint,Isuspect,willnevercome:forattheheartofallhumanbehaviourthereliesanunresolvablemystery.

Butifwearedestinedfinallynottounderstand,we are equally destined to try to do so: such isMan’s Sisyphean task. We use various means: thebiographical, the empathic, the sociological, thehistorical,theideologicalandeven,sometimes,theneurological. Åsne Seierstad’s book, for example,relatesBreivik’s personal trajectory in considerabledetailwhich,lackingintrinsicinterest,shemustdoon the supposition that theoriginof the acts thatgavehimworldwidenotorietymustbesoughtinhisbiography.

Anders Breivik was a child of the new type offamily arrangements that have comprehensivelyreplaced the traditional nuclear family in much ofEurope.Hismotheralreadyhadachildbyaprevi-ousliaisonwhenhewasborn;hisfather,adiplomat,hadthreechildrenbyapreviousmarriagetowhomhe seemed singularly indifferent and unattached.His mother and father married when she waspregnant; shehadbeensoworriedbyhiscoldnessthat she considered aborting the child, but finallydecidedagainstandgotmarriedinstead.Themar-riagelastedonlyaboutayear,however;andyoungAndershadveryintermittentcontactwithhisfatherthereafter.

Earlyinhischildhood,Breivikdisplayedsignsofoddness:inabilitytomakefriends,afailuretoplaynormallyandoccasionalmisbehaviour,forexample.Hismotherfoundithardtocopewithhim,andsheherselfwasnoticedtobeodd.Beforelong,thesocialservices and child psychiatrists were invoked, butafteracertainamountofinconclusiveinvestigationtheycametotheconclusionthattherewasnothingtheyeithercouldorshoulddo.Noraretheresultsofinterventionsbysocialservicesorchildpsychiatristsanyguaranteeofahappyoutcome.

What is one to make of this? It is clear thatAnders Breivik’s upbringing was far from ideal,but many children have had far more disturbedupbringings than his without resort later in lifeto bombs and machine guns. Perhaps his geneticinheritance was far from ideal also, for his fathershowed a marked tendency to emotional coldnessandself-centredness.Ontheotherhand,suchself-centredness was l ’air du temps: it was the decadesfollowing the 1960s, when human relations, espe-cially those between men and women, were nowsupposedtobefoundeduponthestateoftheiraffec-tionsandonnothingsounromanticandinhibitingasmutual obligation, contract,material interest ordutytowardsothers(forexamplechildren).Insuchamoralenvironment, itwashardlysurprisingthatfathers,tiringofmothers,shouldabandonthemintheir search for personal happiness (“I needed myspace,”asmanyachild-abandonerhastoldme).

Limited though such material about Breivik’s

QuadrantMay2015 101

Books

upbringingisinexplanatorypower,weshouldfinditodd if abookdevoted tohis exploitsomitted italtogether, so strong is our instinctive belief thatthechildisfathertotheman.

Another approach is takenby aFrench author,LaurentObertone,apseudonymousjournalist

specialisingincrimesofviolence.Hisbook,Utøya: Norvège, 22 juillet 2011, 77 morts, is an attempt totellthestoryinthefirstperson,thatofBreivik,ontheassumptionthat ifwecouldenterhispointofview we should reach that Eureka! moment whenwefeltthatwehadunderstood.

The book was strongly criticised in France ontwo grounds. The first was that it was sensation-alist, though this seems tomeodd.WhatBreivikdidunderstandablycausedasensa-tion; if it was to be written aboutat all (and what degree of censor-ship would have been necessaryto ensure that it was not writtenabout?), it could hardly be writtenabout in the languageof theauditof the accounts of a municipallibrary.

The second criticism of thebook was that it attempted to seeand recount things from Breivik’spoint of view and was thereforesomekindofapologeticforhim.Itriskednotonlylesseningthemon-strousnessofwhathedid,butevenpartiallyjustifyingit.

Thiscriticismwasalsoodd,butinanotherway.ItwasthesamecriticismthatwaslevelledatthefilmDownfallaboutthelastdaysofHitler, which was accused of presenting Hitler intoohuman away.ButHitler was ahumanbeing,notanalienparachutedinfromouterspace,whichis precisely why he is so frightening; the realisticrepresentation of such a figure can only be objec-tionable to thosewhobelieve that toexplainall istoforgiveall,tothosewhotakeapurelynaturalisticviewofhumanity,sothatultimatelymoralityhasnoautonomousspherebutisonlyamatterofsociology,economicsandevenphysiologyasthemovementofbilliardballsisonlyamatterofthelawsofmotion.

Obertone obviously based his reconstruction ofBreivik’sthoughtprocessesbefore,duringandafterthe massacre on the public record and Breivik’sexpressedopinions.After all, his 1500-pagemani-festo was easily available on the internet (I readaboutthirtypagesofitbeforedecidingthatlifewastoo short to read further), and so it would not bevery difficult to construct a plausible first-personaccount. The book is in the tradition of Truman

Capote’sIn Cold Blood,notatraditionthatImuchadmire,for itseemstomethatwheresuchabookisaccurateitclaimstheprestigeofscholarshipandwhereinaccuratetheprivilegesoffiction.However,Obertone’sdepictionofBreivikisplausibleandnotmuchinconflictwiththeknownfactsabouthim.

What upset the reviewers, I suspect, is thatsome of Breivik’s complaints against Norwegiansociety as relayed by Obertone, while grotesquelyexaggerated, have an element of truth, or at leastan element that is not incontestably false. WhenthedistinguishedFrenchnovelist,essayistandedi-tor atGallimard (fromwhichhewas immediatelysacked),RichardMillet,suggested,inhisÉloge lit-téraire d’Anders Breivik, that Breivik’s actions werethe reaction of someone exasperated by the delib-

erate and irreversible destructionof Norwegian national identity bythepolicies promoted by multicul-turalistdogma,hewasimmediatelytreated as a heretic rather than assomeone who had put forward anargument,howevermistaken.

Some of Millet’s formulationswere both unwise and distasteful,forexamplethatthekillingshadaformal literary perfection; but thefact that Breivik cold-bloodedlyslaughteredsixty-nineyoungpeopleon the island of Utøya who mightwellhavebeenthefutureleadersofthe party most militantly attachedto multiculturalism (for amongother reasons as a vote bank) does

not automatically mean that the policy of admit-tinglargenumbersofpeople,aproportionofwhomatleastmaybe,orbecome,thebearersofadeeplyhostileanddangerousideology,allfornoreasonsofnational interestbutpurelyoutof akindofmoralvanity,exhibitionism,grandiosityandhubris(“Aren’t we good people?!”) is wise, prudent or even moral.EventsinEuropeandelsewheredonotineluctablylead to the conclusion that, for example, Sweden’sdeterminationto take inmorerefugees fromSyriaisinthatcountry’slong-terminterest,orevencon-ducestothepeaceoftheworld.

What Breivik’s monstrous action did was tomake discussion of the whole question difficult tothepointofimpossibility.Ifyoudonotsubscribetothe eternal truths of multiculturalism (discovered,itmustbeconfessed,ratherlateinhumanhistory),you must be an apologist for Breivik. Like manydichotomies, this is a false one: false in logic,thoughnotnecessarily inpoliticalpsychology,anditisthelatterwhichcounts.WhatBreivikdid,whopreposterously believed himself to be some kind

Seierstad’s book, probably without

meaning to, provides an argument against

multiculturalism infinitely stronger than any that the ranting, grandiose and brutal Breivik

could supply.

QuadrantMay2015102

Books

ofKnightTemplar,was immensely strengthen themulticulturalists.Ononesideangels,ontheotherdevils.

One of Us recountsnotonlyBreivik’strajectory,butalso thoseofa fewofhisvictims.This is

always a dangerous procedure, for it suggests thatthe nature of the victims is what determines theseriousness of a crime. But Breivik’s crime wouldhavebeenjustasheinousifhehadgoneintoaprisonandkilled,say,theseventy-sevenworstcriminalsinNorway. The crime is mass murder, not the massmurderofparticular individuals.Nordoesbeingavictimmakeavictimretrospectivelyaparagon.

For myself, I found the young members of theNorwegian Labour Party as depicted by Seierstadsomewhat unattractive. They were energetic andpublic-spirited all right, but priggish, as youth-ful idealists so often are. On Utøya, for example,theyhearda lectureabout theWesternSahara,ofwhichcountrytheyhadneverpreviouslyheardandof which naturally enough they now heard fromonesideofthequestiononly,andimmediatelycon-cludedthattheyhadtodosomethingaboutit.Notforaninstantdiditoccurtothemthattheymightnotbeintellectuallyqualified,orhaveamorallocus standi,letalonebemorallyrequired,todo somethingabouttheWesternSahara.Herewasmoralgrandi-osityinallitsnakedness,togetherwithsuffocatingself-righteousnessandacompletelackofawarenessthat theywere inpractice formingthemselves intoan elite so that they might well grow up to be amixtureofMachiavelliandMrsJellyby.But—needIreallyadd?—killingthemwasstillthemostdes-picableact.

Oddlyenough,Seierstad’sbook,probablywith-outmeaningto,providesanargumentagainstmul-ticulturalism infinitely stronger than any that theranting,grandioseandbrutalBreivikcouldsupply.OneofBreivik’svictimswasayoungwomancalledBano Rashid, the daughter of Kurdish refugees.BorninIraqiKurdistan,shearrivedinNorwayasayounggirl.Heraiminlifewastointegrateherselfthoroughly into Norwegian society, an admirablegoal but not easily achieved, for the Norwegians,though welcoming in the abstract, are not partic-ularly warm in practice. Nevertheless, gifted andhard-working,shesucceeded,becomingsomethingof a youth leader (horrible term!) and joining theNorwegianLabourParty.BreivikmurderedheronUtøya.

At Breivik’s trial, her sister, Lara, said, “Banodidn’tdiefornothing.ShediedforamulticulturalNorway.”Thiswasuntrueandbetrayedhersister’smemory.BanowantedanormalcareerinNorway,and would probably have found a Norwegian

husband.HavinggrownupmostlyinNorway,shespecifically disliked much of the Kurdish cultureherparentshadfled.Itisunlikely,hadshemarrieda Norwegian, that she would have taught herchildrenKurdish;herKurdishnesswouldsoonhavebeen reduced to cuisine and occasional folkloricmanifestations,thatistosayfancydressatoutdoorfestivals. Thus she died not for a multiculturalNorway, but because she wanted so much to beassimilated.Shediednot formulticulturalism,butforassimilation,forNorwegian-ness.

Anthony Daniels, who also writes under the pseudonym Theodore Dalrymple, is a prolific writer on social, medical, literary and other matters. His most recent book is Threats of Pain and Ruin (New English Review Press). He wrote on Simon Leys in the April issue.

a L a n gouLd

All the Manner of Life

The Children Act byIanMcEwanJonathanCape,2014,213pages,$30

Thisnovelis,Ithink,asmallmasterpiece,andinwhatfollowsIwanttoilluminehowitsquality

arises out of a meticulous naturalism in the writ-ing,onethatgathersintothestoryitsextraordinarymythic charge and the exquisite realisation of itscentralcharacter,FionaMaye,yetleavesuswithasenseofaneverydayfabrichavingbeendelineatedjustso,justlyandso.

Fiona is a respected High Court judge livingwith her husband, Jack, at Gray’s Inn Square inLondon. As the novel opens, we learn their longmarriage is in crisis, Jack announcing he wantsFiona’s licence to proceed with an affair becausetheir own sexual relation has lapsed for severalweeks. Fiona, hurt, angry, has been proofing thejudgmentofarecentcaseinwhichshehaspresided.Hercasesofteninvolvechildren,forherexpertiseisindivorcesettlement.Thecoupleischildless.

Andhere,finelyintegrated,isthesubstancewithwhichMcEwancreatesFiona’sconsciousness,andthe calibre of her intelligence. There are the fur-nishingsofabourgeoisapartment,thegoodwhiskyand its matrix of respectable/indulgent attitudes,the incessant (unnatural?) summer downpours.There are thedifficulties ofher recent cases—oneacustodybattleinastrictJewishfamily,anothera

QuadrantMay2015 103

Books

mixedmarriagewherethefatherhasabscondedtoMoroccowiththechild.Anddeftlyincludedthereisaconsciousnessofourwiderplanet,weathersys-tems off the Azores causing the rain, news fromwar-torn Syria. These details fret upon Fiona’sattention,capturingtheflickerynatureofmodernstimulaewhilerevealingherclear,moral,authori-tative being, now at a moment of personal crisis.This is very deft depiction. So too is the pursuitof her reactions to her spouse’s iconoclastic chal-lenge to their union. These modulate from initialshock to a colder retaliatorymoodat the same time as she composesherself for the family court whereshepresides.

Andthenwelearn(asherhus-banddoesnot) thather reason forlosing interest in sex arises froma case where she has been com-pelled to judge in favour of kill-ingoneSiamesetwininorderthatthe other might live. This, for allher judicial dispassion, has madeher recoil against bodily intimacy.For here, we are quietly aware, isa childless woman put in the wayof legally murdering a part-child,and McEwan is searching in howhe exposes the visceral and moralnecessity in Fiona’s reaction. It is fair to add thatweencounterFiona’srestiveconsciousnessinaveryexactlymappedLondon,andallthispreparationisencounteredinthefirstchapter.

Inthelawcasethat liesattheheartofthestory,Fionamustjudgeinacasewhereahospitalwishes

to give a life-saving blood transfusion to a boy,Adam, just short of his eighteenth birthday, fromaJehovah’sWitnessesfamilyforwhomtoperformsuchanoperationistocontaminateessentialbeliefs,and both parents and patient have refused it. Thehospital’scaseforinterveningtosavelifeiscrisply,forensically delivered, inarguably one might say.Thenthefamilyandtheirlegalsreply,andMcEwandoes something both clever and unerringly fair.Hepersuadesus,notthattheJehovah’sWitnesses’beliefinwithholdinginterventionisreasonableper se, but that it is fair for the reader to believe theJehovah’sWitnessesparentsandboybelieveitandthat this right-of-belief has a sovereignty that thelaw cannot automatically dismiss. I find this par-ticularly impressive in The Children Act, affirmingas itdoeshow theessential valueof theNovel, asone of the human arts, is the fairness with whichittreatsallthemannerofLifethatcomesbeforeit,givingnecessitytothewelcomeandtheunwelcome

alike.Here,intheveryimpulsesofcomposition,iswhatLeaviswouldhavecalled“moral seriousness”andIimaginethatbravechisel-facedoldgentwav-ingMcEwan’snovelpasthisstrictures.

For Fiona, the effective argument from bothsidesoftheemergencydetermineshertotraveltotheboy’sbedsideandassesshisattitudeforherself.Thisisconscientiousofher,butalsoconsequential,forthisactcreatesapersonalrelationshipbetweenherandtheboy.

Adamhasallthenecessityofaprecociousyouthfacing death. The very candor shemust use in quizzing him estab-lishes their rapport. He reads heroneofhispoems.Onhisviolinheplaysher a favourite,Yeats’s poemabout faery, “Down by the SalleyGardens”,andshesingsalong.Shereturnstothecourt,andinthefaceoftheJehovah’sWitnessesprohibi-tion,ordersthatthebloodtransfu-sionbegiven,andthechanceoflifetherebymadeprobable.

Amonthorsolatersheisdoingjudicial duty in Newcastle whenAdamlocatesher inherhotel.Heis now eighteen, immensely grate-ful tobe alive,has runaway fromhome and believes he should now

livewithFiona.Naturallyherprofessionalandper-sonal circumstances make this impossible, but indismissinghim…

lightlyshetookthelapelofhisthinjacketbetweenherfingersanddrewhimtowardsher.Herintentionwastokisshimonthecheek,butasshereachedupandhestoopedalittletheirfacescameclose.Heturnedhisheadandtheirlipsmet.Shecouldhavedrawnback,shecouldhavesteppedrightawayfromhim.Insteadshelingered,defencelessbeforethemoment.Thesensationofskinonskinobliteratedanypossibilityofchoice.Ifitwaspossibletokisschastelyfullonthelips,thiswaswhatshedid.Afleetingcontact,butmorethantheideaofakiss,morethanamothermightgivehergrown-upson.Overintwoseconds,perhapsthree.Timeenoughtofeelinthesoftnessofhislipsalltheyears,allthelife,thatseparatedherfromhim…Sheletgoofhislapelandsaidagain,“Youmustgo.”

Andherethescrupulousnaturalismofthestorygathers its resonant psychological and mythicalunderpinnings into itself.McEwan’s control is, asIsay,meticulous.Thiswomanjudgedeliveredthe

The essential value of the Novel, as one of the human arts, is the fairness with which it treats all the manner of Life that comes before it, giving necessity to

the welcome and the unwelcome alike.

QuadrantMay2015104

Books

precocious boy into his life. And now he returnstoher,impelledtoseekamother.Ifthatwerenotchargedenough,intheglancingmomentofaffec-tionthatpassesbetweenthem,animpulsivemater-nal gesture becomes charged with Eros. At oneleveltheencounterisoutlandish,atanotherithascompletepathologicalnecessity.

From this, their brief re-encounter, Adamdepartstohispiteousfate,Fionatoagradualres-toration of her marriage and the burden of thatdecent, intelligent, stricken conscience we knowhertopossessandwhichnowlodgestheperplexityofthiscaseanditsaftermath.Hereisstoryindeed.

Theplacingofoutlandishincident intoafinelynaturalised context has been a feature of

McEwan’sfictionovera longperiod. InhisnovelThe Child in Time(1987)ayoungfatherwhogrievesfor the loss of his child in a supermarket, findshimself outside a café in a wood, and behind theglassseeshisownparentsastheywerewhenyoung.Theyareinintentdiscussion.Later,theyoungmanlearns from his father that his mother had beenpregnantwithhimatthetime,andtheintentnessof their exchange turned on whether they shouldterminate the pregnancy or have the child; hewatcheshis own chanceof life in thebalance. Inthe later novel Saturday (2005) we learn how thehero,asurgeon,firstmeetshisverybeautifulwifetowhomhe isdevotedwhenhehad to surgicallycutopenherface;theloverbeginshislifelongpro-tectionbytakingaknifetothefeaturesheadores.These,andotherinstancesinMcEwan’sfiction,areneverpresentedas sensational.Rather, theymakeahomefortheoutlandishintheveryfabricofthenatural, such that the strange sustains its chargewithnoviolationtothetenorofLife’snaturalism.

Indeed, thisnovelist tucks awayhis threadsoffabulismveryneatly.Forinstance,nearthebegin-ningofThe Children Act,oneofFiona’sfellowjudgesmakesawisecrackaboutdeadbodiesand lawyersandthesurfacecollegialityofthejudicialchambersisdeftly sketchedby this.Towards theendof thestory,asFionamountsthestagetoperformatthepiano,thissamejudgeisatthestep, impartingtohersomenewsshedoesnotatfirstcatch.ItrelatestoAdam’sdeath.Andsuddenlywebecomeawarethatthiscasualcharacter,atanemblematiclevel,isalsothenovel’sdeath-messenger.

So the fineness of The Children Act, and thefineness inMcEwan’sfictiongenerally, lies in thecompass, the comprehending of its naturalism. Hecommunicatesasufficiencyofunderstanding.Thisis a pacy novel; argument in court moves with aclip,a seeming legaldigression returnsquickly toits psychological impact. We are close to Fiona

throughout these 213 pages, know the texturesand noises of her present and have pools of lightfrom her past. At the same time we’re aware ofthose Atlantic weather systems and Middle Eastpolitics, theplanetarycontext,or thehubbubofachambersChristmasparty, thewinkingofhospi-tal monitoring equipment, the social context, theglimpsesbackonchildhoods.Dimensionsofbeingare being arranged; does this cover the novelist’sjob?Andbeneaththeseeverydaythings,wetouchthe death-figures of shadow-play and the ur-rela-tionshipsofmyth, “that roar on theother sideofsilence”, as George Eliot phrased it. This worldMcEwandepicts is shimmerywith itsmodernity,yet threaded with moral and psychic pressuresthat are primitive and perennial. It is the novel-ist’s knowingness, his control of these resources,the confidence with which he integrates them inFiona’sconsciousness,thatmakesThe Children Actasmallmasterpieceinmyview.Thestoryismoving.Theartleavesonegrateful.

Alan Gould’s ninth novel, a picaresque titled The Poets’ Stairwell, has just been published by Black Pepper Press in Melbourne. One of his poems is in this issue; more will appear shortly.

robErt murr ay

Leaning on Anzac Day Anzac’s Long Shadow: The Cost of Our National ObsessionbyJamesBrownRedback/BlackInc,2014,184pages,$19.99

This sharply written little book is not anothersanctimonious demand from an ivory tower

forAnzacDaytobediminishedordropped,alongwith Australia Day and even perhaps Christmas.Instead James Brown wants a better Anzac Day,a more “contemplative” one devoted to examiningtheAustraliandefenceprojectasawhole,pastandpresent.

He points to unattractive political and com-mercial excessesunderway for the centenary year,with alarming similarity to Santa Claus in storesinNovember andhot crossbuns inFebruary.ThetitlesummariseshisargumentthattheemphasisonAnzac Day covers up mediocrity that could resultin feeble defence if war actually did come to ourshores.“WehaveDisneyfiedtheterrorsofwar,”hesays.And:

QuadrantMay2015 105

Books

WeshouldceasetofeelanxietyaboutpassingonthestoryofAnzactonewgenerations.Thegovernmentdoesnotneedtobesiegeschoolchildrenandschoolteacherswithnewpictorialhistorieseachyear,nortomountvastdisplays.Ourmemoryofwarwillnotfade.Butourmemoryofrecentwarsmight.

WewouldservetheAnzaclegacywellbycommissioningnewofficialhistoriesofourcampaignsinEastTimor,theSolomonIslands,Iraq,Afghanistanandourtwo-decadeslongoperationsintheIndianOcean.

Thelegendofthelean,laconicbutvanquishingAnzacorDiggerisallverywell,Brownsuggests,as is the flag-waving and political grandstandingover not only Anzac but the Middle East war aswell. But it is glitzy icing on the doughy cake ofa defence effort characterised by a stodgy, overlydefensive and secretive bureaucracy in Canberra,andpoliticians,mediaandacademiathatpreferlipservicetoseriousdiscussionofdefenceissues.

The proud egalitarianism originating with theAnzaclandingonGallipoliacenturyagodetractsfromtheauthorityandperformanceofofficersandencouragesanatmospherefavouring“doers”attheexpenseof“thinkers”.

Brown does not call defence headquarters inCanberra “Fort Fumble” as some critics do, buthe lists many weaknesses, generally those of astolid bureaucracy, lacking initiative, discourag-ing even constructive criticism and politicised inthe institutional sense. Discussing deficiencies inperformance reported by one of its own officersfrom the Afghan front, for instance, “is difficultinadefenceforcetryingtoliveuptotheimageofthe exceptional digger and woefully oversensitivetocriticism”.

One of the defining traits of the AustralianDefence Force, he says, is a lack of professionaldebate:

Thisisdangerousinasocietythatdoesnottakemuchofasustainedorpoliticaloracademicinterestinstudyingtheartandscienceofwar.Forastart,theADFisnotverygoodatsharingitsexperiences.Veryfewofficersorsoldiersarepermittedtowriteprofessionally;evenfewerchoosetodoso.

He says partly because of Canberra timidity,Australians have been told too little of the ADFpartintheAfghanwar:

BesidesfindingithardtoexplainwhyAustralianswerefightinginAfghanistan,the

governmentandtheADFwerealsomakingahashoftellingthestoryofwhatAustraliansweredoingthere.MostoftheAustralianwarwasbeingfoughtinamediavacuum,anddeathsweretheonlyeventthatthemediacouldfixon.Australiansoldiersbecameangrythatthestoryoftheirhardworkwasnotgettingbacktofamilyandfriends.

ThereissomuchAustraliansdon’tknowaboutthewarinAfghanistanthatitisdifficulttoknowwheretobegin.Brown says thatwhereonce itwaspossible to

neglectAnzacDay,

itisnowpossibletoover-correctandcreateacycleofjingoisticcommemorationthatdoeslittletohelpthewaywethinkaboutwarortostitchveteransbackintothefabricofthesocietyfromwhichtheycame.

ThemorecontemplativeAnzacDayshouldbe:

clearoftheclutteranddetritusthathaveaccumulatedoverthedecades.Clearthemawayforthosewhohavemadethechoicetoofferuptheirlivesintheserviceoftheircountry...Politicaldebateondefenceischaracterisedbyalackofcriticalanalysisofsoldieringoperationsandmilitarycampaigns.Politiciansdonotseemcomfortablediscussingmilitarydetailoranalysingoperations.AustraliangeneralsinAfghanistanspeakprivatelyoftheirsurpriseatVIPvisitors’lackofinterestinthedetailsofthewar.Platitudesarespreadthickly.Thefocusisontheworkingconditionsofsoldiers,notassessingthestrategyandperformance.Browniscriticaloftheveterans’charities,espe-

cially of the growing divide between RSL clubs,theRSLandnewer generation ex-servicepeople:“Weneedtopolicemorestrictlythosewhowouldcash inonAnzacDay.Thepromise of donationstocharitiesshouldnotbereasonforcompromise.”

He says many military charities are largelygeared towards helping veterans qualify for com-pensation from the federal government. In partthisisbecausetheDepartmentofVeterans’Affairsfunds a network of non-professional advocates tolobbyforentitlementsfortheir“clients”:

PeeringthroughtheveilofAnzac,boththegovernmentandthepublicneedtoexamineex-serviceorganisationsandtheprivilegedplacetheyholdinoursociety,andassesstheirperformance,criticallyifneedsbe.

QuadrantMay2015106

Books

JamesBrownisaformerarmyofficerwhoservedinIraqandAfghanistanandisnowafellowoftheLowyInstitute.Heisason-in-lawoffederalminis-terMalcolmTurnbull.

Robert Murray is the author of The Making of Australia: A Concise History (Rosenberg) and frequently contributes to Quadrant on history.

iain ba mforth

In the Dark Room

Ludwig Wittgenstein: Ein biographisches AlbumeditedbyMichaelNedoC.H.Beck,2012,463pages,€39.99

In the train of the acclaimed exhibition“Wittgenstein and Photography”, shown at the

London School of Economics to much acclaim inthesummerof2012,MichaelNedo,directoroftheWittgenstein Archive in Cambridge and editor oftheWienerAusgabeofWittgenstein’swritings,hasproduced a sumptuously illustrated biography ofthe philosopher under the imprint of the MunichpublisherC.H.Beck.Likehisearlierco-editedvol-umeLudwig Wittgenstein: Sein Leben in Bildern und Texten(1983),itcombinesthevisualandthetextualin a compellingmanner: thisbook is an albumofover 500 images—family snaps, letters, postcards,patent depositions, walking routes, manuscriptswith handwritten annotations by Wittgenstein—accompanied by over 2000 excerpts and citationsfromtheworkand letters (inbothof thephiloso-pher’s languages) many of which engage with hisinsistenceon theostensive.Afterall, in the intro-ductiontoPhilosophical Investigations,Wittgensteinhimselfwouldappeartoconcur,observingthathisworkwas“reallyonlyanalbum”.

Thoughhewasalwayskeeninlaterlifetoplaydownhisprivilegedbackground,Wittgenstein,whoendedhis lifeasaBritishcitizenand isburied inStGiles’scemeteryinCambridge,starteditastheyoungestofeightsurvivingchildreninthesecond-richestfamilyintheHabsburgempire,andgrewupin most cultivated and elegant surroundings. Hisindustrial father Karl—a fascinating, driven andenergetic figure—was a major patron of the arts,and fundedmuchofVienna’smusical andartisticlife (of which the shimmering Klimt weddingportrait of Wittgenstein’s sister Gretl in 1905 isone of the most widely known relics), including

theSecessionmovementanditslateroffshoot,theWienerWerkstätte.

Like that other great dynastic contributionto modern British culture, the Freud family, theWittgensteinsseemedtoknoweverybodywhowasanybody:theirpalatialhomeinVienna’sAlleegasse,accordingtoBrunoWalter,exudedan“all-pervad-ingatmosphereofhumanityandculture”.Itisstrik-ingtoseeaphotographoftheyoungBrahms—withwhommusiccametoa“fullstop”,asWittgensteintold his friend Maurice O’Connor Drury in 1930(and even there he could begin “to hear the noiseof machinery”)—dedicated to the philosopher’sgrandparents, followed by an image of the com-poserasabeardedoldman(“Jehovah”Brahms)inthecompanyofhisaunts.MusicpermeatedthelivesoftheWittgensteins;hisbrotherPaul,wholosthisright arm in the war and became famous for hisassociation with Ravel’s brilliant Concerto for theLeftHand(towhichheenjoyed lifetimeperform-ing rights after commissioning it) used to tell hisyounger brother that he couldn’t practise “becauseI feelyourscepticismseepingunder thedoor”. (Inmanyways,PaulwasalltoolikeLudwig:herefusedtoplaysomeofthe left-handedworkshecommis-sioned for himself, including large-scale works byProkofiev and Hindemith, unless he first under-stoodtheir“logic”.)

It was in one of the family’s magnificent sum-mer houses around the capital, Neuwaldegg, thatWittgensteinworkedontheTractatusonleavefromthe eastern front in the last months of the GreatWar, finally completing the manuscript in hisunclePaul’s house inSalzburg.Manyof the fam-ily pictures were evidently taken in or around thehunting lodge at Hochreith, their favoured sum-mer residence, surrounded by nannies and retain-ers;Wittgenstein’ssistersevidentlylikedtoindulgethatoldaristocraticpenchantfordressingupinfolkcostume.Imageafterimageintheseyearsatteststothefactthatthephilosopherwhoseemsthearche-typaloutsideractuallycamefromtheheartofcul-turalevents incentralEurope.Thereare far fewerthansixdegreesofseparationbetweenWittgensteinandsomeofthemostprominentCentralEuropeannamesoftheearlytwentiethcentury:Rilke,Trakl,Kraus,Loos,Musil(whoseapartmentlookedontothe famous gleaming white Platonic house whichLudwig built in a pared-down, starkly-delineated,ornament-hostile manner for his sister Gretl) andFriedrichHayek,whowashissecondcousin.Eachispresent—andmanymorebesides—inthismonu-menttothetransplantationofhighEuropeancul-ture to the island of tea-drinkers and superficialmanners that, to Wittgenstein’s considerable sur-prise, as related by his pupil J.P. Stern, proved to

QuadrantMay2015 107

Books

be a solid moral and physical redoubt against thenightmareofcontinentalhistory.

An early photograph shows a surly-shy youngLudwig with his pony Monokel, a present fromhis brother Kurt (one of three brothers to com-mit suicide); a yearor so later, the eleven-year-oldcanbeseenseatedathislathe,thefirstevidenceofthe interest in technicalobjects thatwouldbeoneof the constantsofhis life.At that tender age,hehad made a working model of a sewing-machineout of wooden rods and wires: his sister Herminewrites in her family memoir that it was actuallyable to make a few stitches. In a few years kiteexperimentsinGlossopandthedesignofamotor-less “aero-engine” (British Patent No. 27.087, 1910:“Improvements in Propellers applicable for AerialMachines”) followed the interestin anything that could be crankedand levered; and Wittgensteinwasto maintain a keen interest in themechanicsofphotographytoo.Oneofthemorecuriousexhibits inthebookisacompositeimagehemadeby superimposing individual facialportraits of himself and his threesisterswiththeideaofdrawingout“Familienähnlichkeiten”, the incar-natedresemblancesinafamilythattranscendtheindividualmembers.

This slightly eerie picture is areminder that the criminologistsof the nineteenth century wereexperimenting with exactly thiskind of anthropometric mugshottoo in order to identify recidivis-tic “traits” in criminals. Indeed,Wittgenstein had read about thetechnique of composite portraiture in the work ofFrancis Galton, who spent many years perfectinghis technique in the hope of being able to iden-tify deviations from the normal in the infirm andcriminal—he was looking, in a word, for types.Wittgenstein took a blither, evenmystical view ofthetechnique:hereferstoit,inhisfamouslecturetotheHereticsSocietyatCambridgein1929,asananalogyforhisnotionofethics,progressingthroughrelativeaspectsofethicaldilemmassoastoglimpsesomethingofanabsoluteandformalnatureemerg-ingfromthem.

Given that he frequently leans on the analogybetween pictures and propositions throughout hiswritings,avisualbiographyseemsacleverstrategytocataloguehislife.Thephotographisanindex,astheAmericanpolymathC.S.Peircefirstobserved:it presents an object immortalised in its natural“projectiverelations”withoutanyneedforaformal

aesthetics other than the framing of the scene(Wittgenstein liked to crop his photos too). Thenatureoftheimageissuchthattherecanbenosuchthingasafictivephotograph,fictivebeingunderstoodas theworkof the imagination—althoughaphotocan of course be “doctored” or faked, especiallynowinthedigitalera.Initsfirsthundredyearsthephoto, like so many Victorian technical advances,offeredanewdegreeofverisimilitudeinreplicatingexperiential reality—“the real”. Images wereevocative,withoutrevealingallthecluestheviewermight possibly want (or need) to know about thephotographer’smotivesfortakingthephotograph.

Theaestheticsofthephotographisthereforeoneofpresenteffect,obscuredcause.Andthescopeofthateffectisattheviewer’sdiscretion;meaningisn’t

entirelyorevennecessarilyinherentin the photographer’s intention orthe half-coordinated, half-impul-sive moment of the “snap”. (TheinfluentialAmericanstreetphotog-rapherGarryWinograndconfessedthat he photographed “in orderto see what things looked like inphotographs”.)

Afterhis initial attempt tocon-tinue his studies in aeronauti-

cal engineering at Manchester in1908,Wittgensteinmovedtostudyphilosophy with Bertrand RussellatCambridgein1911,whenRussellreferredtohiminalettertoOttolineMorrellas“myferociousGerman”.OntheoutbreakoftheGreatWaracross Europe a few years later,Wittgenstein returnedhomepatri-

oticallytoenlistintheAustrianarmy:heservedontheGalicianfrontwithcourageanddaring(receiv-ing many decorations for valour), and then in theTyrol,whenheendedupasanItalianprisoner-of-warinacampatCassino,anepisodethatlaterpro-videdthetitleforaremarkable“machine-part”andaluminiumcastsculpturebyEduardoPaolozzi.

Wittgenstein,whohadalwaysbeenattractedtomonkishandevenpuritanicalwaysoflife,especiallyafterbeingexposedtothe“intellectualsuperficial-ity” of Cambridge—as the several photographs ofNorway, where he built his own wooden cabin atSkjoldennearBergen,andConnemaraattest—tookit into his head after the war that he ought to bea simple schoolteacher in various villages in theSemmering areaofLowerAustria, andwoundupintheisolatedvillageofPuchbergamSchneeberg:a double-page spread taken outside an Alpine hutwithsnowonthetilesshowshimwithhischarges,

The British knew this exigent intellectual type

from their literature. Nobody, to my

knowledge, has ever commented on how much Wittgenstein

fits the image of Sherlock Holmes,

especially as played by Basil Rathbone.

QuadrantMay2015108

Books

girlslinedupinfront,boysbehind,allmoreobvi-ouslyusedtolifeonthefarmthanintheclassroom.

Ifaphilosophicalproblemhastheform,“Idon’tknow my way about”, Wittgenstein had clearlystrayed into thevalleysof stupidity (where“aphi-losopher always finds more grass to feed upon”,as he remarked elsewhere) rather than taking upthe Nietzschean example of exposing himself tothe crystalline heights. Both are self-consciously“authentic” poses, and both look pretty silly.Wittgenstein’s attempt to shed his patrician iden-tity and go “among the people” ended badly, bymost accounts, although there is no documentaryevidenceinthisbookofwhathasbecomeknownasthe “Haidbauer incident”,whenhehimselffiled apetitionforacourthearingwhichacquittedhimofphysicallyill-treatingoneofhisslowerpupils.

Perfectly out of place in rural Austria, he sub-sequently put in two years’ penance as architectand fittings designer to his sister Gretl, the out-comebeingtheaforementionedhousewhose“lines,planes and volumes” were so pure his other sisterHermine felt unable to live in it. The early twen-tieth-century tendency—a trait held in commonby the philosophers of the Viennese Circle andthetheoristsoftheBauhausmovement—toreducecomplexthingstotheirsimplestformalexpression(amovementsometimesdubbed“simplexity”),hadfoundanavidifunwittingdiscipleinWittgenstein.Whathehadbuiltwasthegeneralpropositionofahouseplusfixtures,orashewroteelsewhere:“Iamnot interested inconstructingabuilding, somuchasinhavingaperspicuousviewofthefoundationsof possible buildings.” This was Wittgenstein’sunofficial contribution to Rudolf Carnap’s “logicalconstruction of the world”. Haus Wittgenstein isnowtheculturalinstituteoftheBulgarianembassy,havingbeensavedfromdestructioninthewreckers’decadeof the 1970s by the concerted efforts of anorganisationdevotedtopreservinglandmarkbuild-ingsinVienna.

By1929,WittgensteinwasbackinCambridge—forgood,as itwere—wherehewasgenerallycon-temptuous about the insider knowledge requiredto“be”aTrinitydon—astatushehadacquiredbytheexpedientofhavinghisnowfamous(atleastinphilosophical circles) Tractatus Logico-Philosophicussubmitted as a doctoral thesis.Andwhynot?TheBritish knew this exigent intellectual type fromtheirliterature.Nobody,tomyknowledge,hasevercommented on how much Wittgenstein fits theimageofSherlockHolmes,especiallyasplayedbyBasilRathbone.Andsomefamouspeoplewerepre-paredtorangehiseccentricitiesonanevenhigherlevel,eveniftongueincheek.Keyneswrotetohiswife:“Well,Godhasarrived.Imethimonthe5.15

train.”It isareflectiononourpoliticallyverycor-recttimesthatthesedayseventheauthorofaworkoftheorderofTractatuswouldbemostunlikelytosecure a doctorate, no further scrutiny required.Withouttheproperpaperwork“God”wouldn’tgetasniffatachairinCambridge.

Over the rest of his life Wittgenstein was toturn away from the inert, unhistorical summationof facts that seem to constitute the world in theTractatus—a boxed-in Brownie-camera-vision ofreality—to a realm in which many kinds of con-ceptualisation are possible, and indeed welcome.In his writings on the nature of language itselfWittgenstein found what he had been denied intheAustrianAlps.As the laterphotographs seemto suggest in their altogether more modest scen-ery and even bleakness (cottages in Ireland anddeserted British beaches), although Wittgensteinturnedtowardsthenotionoflanguageasprovidingcommunal andcultural legitimacy for thought,hedisplayednointerestatallinpoliticsandlittlemoreinsocialissues.Itseemsfittingenoughthatasearchengine likeGoogle should copewith theproblemoftheenvelopingpolysemyofnaturallanguagesbyapplyingsomeofWittgenstein’sideasaboutsyntax,inwhichalgorithmsforkeywordsearchesarenowcontext-bound. “Don’t look for the meaning, butfortheuse”:itcouldalmostbeanewMosaicpro-nouncement for the age that owes somuch tohisquondam colleague Alan Turing, who designed alogicmachine in thehope that it, likeAdamandEveintheGardenofEden,wouldinhabit—guile-lessly—thefuture.

Iain Bamforth lives in Strasbourg.

gEorgE thom as

Two Warnings

This Tattooed LandbyDerekParkerPublisher’sApprentice,2014,130pages,$19.95

The Digital ApocalypsebyDavidGrovesPublisher’sApprentice,2015,225pages,$29.95

The two novels under review are, I think,symptomsofawidespreaduneaseaboutradical

environmentalism. The fanaticism and zealotry

QuadrantMay2015 109

Books

of the movement, its totalitarian tendencies, itsdisregardforhumanlifeinfavourofotherformsoflife, itscontempt forWesterncivilisationandtheachievementsandtraditionsofthepast2000years,anditsuseofthetruthasnothingmorethanatoolthat occasionally comes in handy, are only someofthereasonswhyAustraliansmightviewitwithunease,ifnotfear,whentheyseetheGreensandtheir supporters apparently gaining ever-greaterinfluenceandpower.

Thereisasmallbutgrowingdystopianliteraturein which environmentalist fanaticism is extrapo-lated into power in various forms. In these twonewAustraliannovels,DerekParkerexaminesanAustraliainwhichtheGreenshaveseizedpower,whileDavidGrovesimaginesglobaleco-terrorismthataimstoslashtheworld’spopulation.

This Tattooed Land is a short novel, a warningsatire set in an Australia of the 2030s. The

Greens have taken over, using emergency powersthey sneaked into a piece of climate researchlegislation late one night a few years before. Thecountryhasslumpedintodecayanddemoralisation,a process overseen by the Green Corps, thegovernment’solive-cladGestapo.

Our narrator is Turner, a former policemanwhowas jailed for refusing tofireondemonstra-tors.HeescapesaftereightyearsonaQueenslandprison farm (where they teach “sustainability” totheinmates).Likeallenemiesofthenewstate,hehasbeentattooedonthearmwithhismisdemean-our:“Recal”,recalcitrant,acategorythatseemstotakeinallthosewhoarenototherwisebrandedasEmitter,Zionist,Denierandsoon.

Deciding that only drastic action can save hiscountry,TurnerheadssouthtoCanberra,intendingtoassassinate theprimeministerusing thepolicepistol he had secreted in his old flat in Brisbane.Onthewayhelooksbackonhispast,andlearnsfromthosehemeetsaboutwhathashappenedtoAustraliaduringhisincarceration.Ittakesawhile,becausethereislittletransport,andhetravelsmostofthewaybybicycle.

Communications have broken down, as haseverythingelse,becausetheelectricitysystemthenationhadreliedonhasfallenintodisrepair.Inaclimate of official lies, and in the absence of theinformationthatusedtobespreadinstantaneouslyby electricity, nobody knows what is true, andrumour and fear govern people’s lives. But it iscertainthatmillionsofpeoplehavefledAustralia(New Zealand has struggled to cope with thenumbers), many of them ironically becoming“boat people”, illegally fleeing Australia for theprosperouscountriesofSouth-EastAsia.

Electricians left Australia en masse when theysaw what the Greens were doing to their liveli-hood, so there is nobody to keep things going.Oneof the rumours is that ex-Australian electri-cianshaveoverhauled the entire Indonesiangrid.(Another rumour is that the expatriate SouthAfricans inWesternAustraliaarenowgoverningthe state and have seceded rather than submit totheGreens.)Turner,whohadbeenanelectricianbeforehejoinedthepolice,isabletoearnfoodandshelteratvariousplacesonhisjourneybyrepairingsomeof the remainingsolarandwindgenerationequipment.

I won’t reveal the ending, except to note thatthe Greens’ leaders have been affected in variousways by the madness that overtakes most leaderswhogovernbylyingandrefusingtoallowdissent.

Whilethenovelsucceedsasfarasits130pagesgo,andhasthekindofangryhumoursatireneeds,Iwas leftwantingmore.Itmighthavedevelopedgreater power with greater length and complex-ity. We hear nothing of the means by which theGreenswouldhavetotrytopersuadeAustralians,except fear; even in totalitarian states like NorthKorea thebrutalgovernmentendlesslypropagan-dises, especially to children, in order to keep thepeoplehappyandmotivated.Alsowegetnohintof the sortofunderground resistance thatwould,I like to think, spring up in thousands of placesacross Australia—perhaps united by religion(which, apart from the Greens’ rabid anti-Zion-ism,isnotmentioned;imaginewhattheGreensinunopposedpowerwoulddotoChristians)orsport(alsonotmentioned)orsimplyloveofthelandandthepeopleonit.

ButwhileIbelievethattheordinaryAustraliansthe Greens despise simply would not let such astate of affairs happen, Derek Parker is evidentlylesssanguine.Turner,musingabouttheAustraliancharacter,says:“welettoomuchpass,toomuchgoby,thingsarelostbeforewerealiseit,thingsthatmighthavebeensavedifwehad...”

The Digital Apocalypse isanotherwarningnovel,in this case of the fragility anddecadenceof

civilisationand itsdecreasingability todealwithincreasinglylikelyglobalcrises.ItissetinEnglandbetween2003andthe2020s.

WinstonFrobisherisayounghistoryacademicat Exeter University with a special interest inthe effects of technology and environment onsociety over time. He is particularly worried byour growing economic and personal dependenceon modern communications media, and by ourhistorical ignorance. Paralleling the story of hispersonal and academic life is the story of Adam

QuadrantMay2015110

Books

Lampton, a young medical student who after astint with Médecins Sans Frontières decides thatover-population is destroying the planet and,inspiredbyvisionsofCharlesDarwin,decides todosomethingheroicaboutit.

FromhisstudiesofhumanandplanetaryhistoryFrobisher concludes that the sun is a far moreimportant influence on the earth’s climate thanhuman activity. He gives appropriately climate-sceptical lecturesatExeterwhichreceive thesortof reasoned response one does not usually expectat a modern university; he is awarded researchgrants andpromotion.Hediscovers that a severesolar storm is about to strike the earth, probablydestroying much of the communications system.Foreseeingchaos,heretreatstohiscottageontheScillyIsles,whichhehaspreparedforjustsuchanemergency.

MeanwhileLampton,workingatahigh-securityvirus-researchinstitute,managesovertimetostealsamplesofahighlyvirulentstrain.Hehasformedagroupoflike-mindedfanatics,whocarryouthisplanof releasing the virus at someof theworld’s

busiestinternationalairports.Thetwocatastrophesoccur simultaneously,producingglobal chaosandthe deaths of billions before the world’s societiesareabletosettletoanew,chastened,order.

It is a good story, and Frobisher is a likeablemain character, but unfortunately The Digital Apocalypseisnotaverygoodnovel.Itreallyneededat least three editorial passes—for punctuation(severalhundredmissingcommas,forastart),forredundancy (unlike Derek Parker’s disciplined,economicalwriting,heretwentyorsopagescouldhavebeenprofitablycut),andforoverallconsistencyand coherence (for example, Frobisher’s wife isinexplicablyslainbyIslamists,andwhileherdeathaffects the plot, the Islamism just disappears; foranother example, apart from one or two goodpassages there is too little about the chaos andits effects, which might have been the extendedclimaxofthenovelinthemannerofthedystopiannovelsofJohnWyndham).Thereisabetternovelinsidethisone,tryingtogetout.

George Thomas is deputy editor of Quadrant.

The Close Distance

IntheredbrickchurchinBrunswickthepriestbringswarmwatertothefonttobaptisethefirstchildofacouplefromtheparish.Familyandfriendssmile—somearefrominterstateone,likethefather,fromoverseas.

ForthreeyearshismotherhadstitchedCarrickmacrosslaceinaMonaghanhamlettomakeaFirstCommunionveilforhissister.Nowmotherhassentitheretogracethebaptismaldress.

Thebabywithdarkhairandconnectingsmile,claimedheronaflyingvisitbeforetheicynorthernwinter.Thelaceon-loanremindsofGrandmaandavowtocherish.

Paul Williamson

QuadrantMay2015 111

Somewhat to my surprise, I have, in recentyears,becomeaChristian.Iamstillnotquitesure how this change happened, or what it

means.Iamcertainlynotanorthodoxbeliever.ButIhavefoundmywayintoastrangekindoffaith—partly willed, partly organic, by turns frustratingandsustaining.

ToendupasaChristianistoswimagainsttheAustralian tide.Mostofmycontemporarieshave,withvaryingdegreesofrelief,jettisonedreligion.Irespect their reasons fordoingso.Butmyexperi-encemay,possibly,suggestawayback.

Ihadspentmostofmyadultlifewaybeyondthereachofthechurch,asanatheistorasaBuddhist.Butsomethingabout traditionalAnglicanismhadalways drawn me, first when I was confirmed inmyearlytwenties,andlater,whenmymotherwasdying, I found myself, one evening in early sum-mer,walkingthroughthedoorofmylocalchurch.

After a lifetime of not quite fitting in, it waswonderfultofindsomewherewhereIfeltathome.Christianswilltakeanyone,Isuppose—that’sthepointof it.Butmynew friendshave shownmeakindofcommunitythatIdidnotknowexisted.Ihavebeenananalyticalpersonallmylifeandamnotabouttostopnow.ButwhatevererrorsImake,I know my more conservative friends will forgiveme. With the delicacy of Australians, they willleavemysearchtome.

When I first started going to church, I wasveryunsure about thenomenclatureofbelief thatseemedtorequireone’sassent.Thenitjustseemednaturaltogivetheresponses.Thelanguageofmeta-phorbecomes,overtime,thelanguageoffaith,andfaith is quite different from belief. Belief impliescertainty,whereasfaithcontainsbothcommitmentand uncertainty. But if you pay close attention,youfindsomethingelse.Evenfaithmustbetran-scendedbylove.Forwithoutlove,wearenothing.

Weknowthis,buthowtotranslatethisinsightintoapracticalityoflivingdefeatsallbutthemostsaintly of us. Contemporary theological writingsoffer a plethora of differingperspectives.At their

most useful, these scholars give us a reasonedand reasonable confidence to think for ourselves.Theformsofworshipweadoptare,astheprolificBritishtheologianKeithWardhasargued,ineverycasethelegacyofmanycenturiesofchange,dispu-tationanddevelopment.

It is obvious, though, that in twenty-first-cen-turyAustralia,organisedformsofreligion,asrep-resentedbythechurches,areerodingaway.WhilemostAustralians (just over 60per cent accordingto the most recent census) classify themselves asChristian,Christiansrepresentadecliningpropor-tionofthetotalpopulation(acenturyago,thefig-urewas95percent).Ofthisgroup,theproportiongoingtochurchregularlyisalsofalling.

Itisthetraditionalchurchesthatseemtobesuf-feringthemost.TotalattendancesatbothCatholicand Anglican churches are in decline. In ruralareas,thefallinnumbershasbeengreaterthaninthe cities. Without a growing population base tosupportthem,churchesinthecountryareparticu-larlyat risk.Fromwithin,manychurchesare fullof life,ofpeople caring for andabout eachother.Butinoverallterms,theinstitutiontheyrepresentisshrinking.

There will always be those who are drawn toministry. And while they are still about, middle-aged and older women will continue to be themainstay of many congregations. There are manyreasons for this.Censusdata tellsus thatwomen,in general, are slightly more likely to be religiousthan are men. By and large, women still do theemotional work of families, and many continuethis role in a religious context. Some are findingrefugefromnon-religiousordifficulthusbands.Inany society, older women are also the most neg-atively-constructed group. The Christian religiongives us work to do and a measure of autonomy.Increasingly,thereligiousprofessionalcarryingtheserviceisawoman.

Yet it is the schools the churches run, and thenot-for-profits theyown,rather thanthechurchesthemselves,thatconstitutethebulkoftheirsocial

g u e s t C o L u m n

JEnn y stEwart

QuadrantMay2015112

guestcolumn

activity.Given thepredatorybehaviourofat leastsomeof themale clergy in thepast, the fact thatlayteachersandotherprofessionalsdomostoftheextra-religiousworkistobewelcomed.Butthereisaparadoxatworkhere.Themoresuccessful theirschoolsbecome,thefewerChristianstheyseemtobeturningout.

The result is that theorganisedchurches, con-sidered as religious entities, are nowhere nearas prominent, in the lives ofmost people, as they used to be.AnglicanbishopTomFrame,inhisbook Losing My Religion: Unbelief in Australia, fears that the meta-narrative,theover-archingstory,ofAustralian Christianity will soonbe lost. The churches, he believes,will concentrate on large catch-mentareas.Theywillbecomemoreintroverted, less socially oriented,less liberal. Evangelism beats thequietassuranceoftheprayerbook,the rotund tones of the organ.Certaintytrumpsdoubt.

Thismaywellbethepathofthefuture. But if they simply becomemore conservative, the churcheswill have missed a signif icantopportunity forgrowth.Weknowthat many people have a belief inGod. We know that the reasontheydonotattendchurchisthattheyfindreligiontobeirrelevanttotheirlives.FormostAustralians,themoralitythattheypractisecomesfromfamily,orpeers,orculturaltradition.

So what should the churches do? Should theyjust forget about themarketing, andbe them-

selves?Shouldtheybecomemore,orlesshard-line?Shouldtheircongregationsstandonstreetcorners,andspreadthegoodwordinperson?Theproblemis thatmostAustraliansrunamile fromthissortof “good news” proselytising. We do not want tobe “converted”. Nevertheless, I think there is anopportunityinthiscountryfortheexerciseofatrulysignificantspirituality,notbecauseAustraliansaresomehowunspiritualandinneedofspecialatten-tion,butbecausethereisalreadyafirmtraditiontodrawfrom.

Don’t be fooled by the thongs-and-barbecueimage.Despitetheincreasingmaterialism,Ithinkmost Australians are natural Christians, even iftheynevergotochurch.Whenwehadnothing,welookedoutforeachother.Nowthatwearericher,

ontheaverage,Ihopethatwearestilllookingoutforeachother.

We have never been subjected to the appara-tus of power and of class that crippled so manyEuropean societies. Many of our forebears wererejects and outcasts. Blessed with a wide brownland which resists cultivation, we do not have anover-largepopulation.Webreaktheheartsofourintellectuals,butnevertheirbodiesortheirminds.

Wearethesupremepragmatists.Ifitdoesnotseemrelevant,weignoreit. In what sense, then, mightChristianitycomeclosertous?

I do not think it is the formof worship that needs to change.There is, in any case, a verit-able smorgasbord of forms fromwhichtochoose.Butthechurchesshould be more ready than theyare to acknowledge that they donothaveall theanswers,andonlysomeofthequestions.Theyshouldacknowledge that belief and non-beliefneedeachother.Theyshouldacknowledge the importance ofdoubt, not as a dire problem thatmustbeovercome,butasasimplereality.

Itispossible,too,forChristiansto learn from other traditions. Asa Buddhist, I learned not to over-

theorisemyself.Ilearnedthatmyever-presentper-sonalidentitywasnotasimportantasIhadthought.I learnedthat thoughtsarenot realities. I learnedthe importanceof equilibrium. I learnedpracticalmethodsforgeneratingcompassion.Ilearnedthatthe only way to beat the dark stuff is with love.Jesussaidexactlythis,ofcourse.Therightprayerisalwaysanswered.

Thereistoomuchstilltoabsorbfromtheteach-ings of Jesus—and our thinking about them—tolet thesepossibilitiesdie.Therearemanyways tobelong,justastherearemanywaystobelieve.TheChristianconversationhasnotstopped.Itmayjustberenewingitself.

Dr Jenny Stewart is a Canberra-based writer and former academic.

I think there is an opportunity in this

country for the exercise of a truly significant

spirituality, not because Australians

are somehow unspiritual and in need of special

attention, but because there is already a firm tradition to draw from.

Peter Ryan is unwell, but he hopes to resume his contributions to Quadrant shortly.

quadrant.org.auquadrant.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/quadrant-text... · 2018. 11. 15. ·...

Documents