Malcolm Fraser famously remarked, as the tumult of the Whitlam years neared its end, that he wanted Australians to feel they could turn to the sports pages first when they read the newspaper. In other words, that political life and public policy would once again become sufficiently stable and predictable — even ‘boring’ — that the news section would no longer be a priority.
That is hardly the situation that we find ourselves in currently, with each day bringing new developments on the policy scene, many of them unexpected or unwanted. Fortunately, our papers also feature a number of excellent satirical columnists, whose writings can provide a welcome diversion and sometimes even catharsis. ‘The Mocker’, ‘Jack the Insider’ and ‘Brown Study’ are great examples, providing both laughs and insights.
Satirists have had a field day recently, given the rich vein of unintentionally comedic material to draw from. In many cases, they need do little more than embellish what is observed. Recent takedowns of our political leaders have been especially good, like Jack the Insider’s parody of the Treasurer’s fondness for jingoistic alliteration (‘Grim Jim’s Spin’, The Australian, May 20, 2026).
In a typically droll piece in this week’s Australian Spectator, Neil Brown (former politician and barrister) inspired by how the controversial tax changes in the Budget were developed and presented to the public, suggests that policy-making under Labor now conforms to two new principles.
The first of these he calls the ‘Principle of 51’. Based on the Prime Minister’s curt response to a journalist pressing him on whether he would rule out making changes to the Capital Gains Tax and negative gearing — “Yes! How hard is it?! For the fiftieth time…” — it states that no promise can be counted on until it has been made at least fifty-one times. This principle clearly has much wider application than taxation policy. It would also encompass earlier promises like those repeatedly made about electricity prices, or not reinstituting industry-wide union bargaining, etc.
The second is the ‘Principle of the Changed Position’. As you will recall, Albanese denied that he broke his promise on taxation, declaring that after the election he had simply ‘changed his position’. The sense was that this was a perfectly normal thing to do. After all, Labor had changed its position on a key tax promise in its first term as well. Attempting to draw a parallel with John Howard’s own change of mind on the GST back in 1999 proved unfortunate, however, as it revived memories of that reform having been taken to a hard-fought election (against relentless Labor opposition).
Neil Brown stops at these two new principles, but his approach could be taken further.
For example, increasingly on display is the ‘Act first, consult later Principle’; a variant of which is ‘legislate first, work out the details later’. These have been evident for the superannuation ‘reforms’ as well as for the tax changes announced in the Budget, for which Treasury has again resorted to ‘policy-based evidence’. (Key aspects of the super ‘reforms’ are still unresolved, with the starting date for the new regime being just a few weeks away.) An earlier example was the retrograde industrial relations changes that shocked business leaders invited to Labor’s ‘Jobs Summit’. (Memo to business: Labor is the political arm of the Union movement.) The goal, successfully realised, was to pre-empt objections that might have carried weight with the public.
Then one could add what might be called the ‘Digging-in Principle’ to cover the increasing tendency never to admit error, and rarely to change course, in the hope that most people will have forgiven or forgotten by election time. (This might also be called the ‘Andrews Manoevre’, based on its successful application in Victoria.) It was fully on display in the Treasurer’s proposal to tax the unrealised capital gains in larger superannuation accounts. Chalmers persisted with this proposal, despite vocal and well-founded opposition from all sides, until the politics had become so fraught that the PM felt obliged to step in. A similar phenomenon is playing out with the Treasurer’s/Treasury’s misguided tax changes announced in the Budget, though whether the PM intervenes this time round remains to be seen.
Where politician’s statements are at variance with evidence or logic (or both) there may also be a place for what could be called the Costanza Principle. Drawn from the Seinfeld comedy TV show, this states that ‘a person is not telling a lie if that person believes it to be true’. For example, it cannot be ruled out that the PM and at least some Ministers really did believe that electricity bills would fall by $275. Indeed Minister Bowen may truly think that ‘renewables are the cheapest source of energy’, or even that ‘the sun and the wind don’t send us a bill’. Moreover, the Treasurer might actually believe that his big spending and taxing budget will help young people. Further, the Government may think it can solve the demand-driven housing crisis without reducing immigration. (It is even possible that Albo was sincere when he denied falling off the stage on national TV.)
It is said that a politician who can fake sincerity has got it made. So there is that to consider. However if the false beliefs and delusions are genuinely held, it would be a sad reflection on the state of the public service, whose primary function is to ensure that ministers are properly informed when making policy.
To the extent that the new policy principles, satire aside, are reflective of what is actually happening, our country has a rocky road ahead of it. There are signs the electorate may be waking up to this, with the latest survey showing the public’s trust in government reaching an all-time low. It may also be seen in the unprecedented support for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party, which, abstracting from questions of policy merit, is at least known for being upfront and consistent on issues that matter to people.