Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Big Ideas -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) This Program is Captioned Live. # Theme music I'm Waleed Aly. Hi there and welcome to Big Ideas, Amongst our shortcuts today, use of wildlife, the debate around the sustainable They Shoot Lions, Don't They? in a lively discussion called Political leaders past and present Is Democracy Broken? are called to account in into the world of political spin. And Jane Caro with her insights to control and manage how you appear The problem is that the more you try real human fluidity and riskiness the more you try to resist the of human communication, you create. the more anxiety and suspicion the more you look false and forced The more you don't look real, Neil showed us, and use all that horrible language about you the more people feel anxious to find out the truth. and the more they come after you More from ad land guru, Jane Caro, Spin Cycle event a little later. at the Sydney Writers' Festival on the climate change debate. But first a refreshing take of Climate Change Mike Hulme is a professor in the UK. at the University of East Anglia a keynote about the challenges On a recent visit to Sydney, he gave in a partisan era of selling climate change action and why it's such a hard sell. diffuse the risks of climate change Hulme argues our current efforts to are leading us nowhere, to stop climate change, and if we're actually trying the means for the end. then we're sadly mistaking I don't believe that our policy goal climate change. is really about stopping is about stopping climate change - If our policy goal really would say in his rhetoric, as for example George Monbiot that we have to achieve, 'it's the task before others otherwise we fail in everything - ' for the sorts of interventions then it opens the way to hear more about, that we are beginning into the stratosphere, of technological intrusions so-called 'geo-engineering', you could stop climate change that, actually, or aerosols in the stratosphere. by putting mirrors in space is clearly a great simplification - And actually leave - and this else in the world the same. but we could leave everything climate change? Surely it's not - Is it really about stopping

the welfare of humans and non-humans our ultimate objective is about on the planet. the means for the ends So actually, we're mistaking when we talk about climate change I think, the plot. and we've rather lost, when I talk about co-benefits, So, for me, the co-benefits of welfare policy what I do, I talk about for climate change, for welfare of climate policy. not the co-benefits I turn the issue around. authorities, a few years ago, So, when the New Delhi city to convert the entire vehicle fleet took the unilateral decision and in the process of doing that away from petrol to LPG, almost overnight, improved the air quality reduced the public health burden,

done for public health reasons, that decision, had climate co-benefits. to stop climate change It wasn't a decision done you know? that had public health co-benefits, the argument around here So, I'm turning on the welfare goals directly. and by focusing again you open up the possibility of actors and interests for new coalitions around policy innovation, to gather and congregate rather than getting continually stuck about climate change science. on the sterile arguments

the Kyoto Protocol, With respect to not so much quite old thinking, which I think is now sort of on climate change, about reaching agreement on the Cancun Agreements - but focusing more and the adaptation mechanism, if we take read out of it, and the technology mechanism

in the way that you suggest, and deal with it how do we - of the plurality of cultural values, still relying on your theory deal with that question climate change, perhaps not of stopping but of mitigating the 50% of CO2, point in fossil fuel economies, which seems to really be a sticking into the multilateral negotiations? which then play that the Kyoto Protocol is history. I don't think everybody would agree that statement - Japan. Only one country has made part of the Kyoto Protocol, Of course, the US have never been would still be investing but certainly the European Union and diplomatic capital a tremendous amount of political that there is something in trying to ensure from Durban onwards. that can inherit the Kyoto Protocol, I think, is relevant, Anyway, your wider point, if one wanted to, and actually, one could, a bid at doing this, actually, and I think I would want to make after Copenhagen that what we're seeing

is, in fact, a fragmenting. to reinterpret Cancun And you could certainly begin in these sort of terms, of multi-track approaches that there is a beginning held together that are rather more loosely under the UNFCCC.

would not have happened So, my argument is that that and December 2009. Without the events of November The fossil Co2 - on your starting point. I suppose again it depends I think for my starting point, with particular targets it is not about starting of either Co2 concentrations, in Co2 emission by certain dates, or particular reductions which seems to be the way has been brought into policy. in which the science or 550 parts per million Whether you're talking about 450 or 80% reduction by 2020 or 2025 or whether you're talking about 50% in order to ensure global warming to less than 2 degrees that the prospect of reducing is greater that 50%, which is still the rhetoric, I think. starting point So to me that's the wrong because it's driven by these numbers, approach. and the whole targets and timetables policy If one thinks about energy technology

of considerations, from this more eclectic set energy access, about energy diversifications, energy security, energy innovation, be done without being constrained then you can find things that can by the gun being held at your head that says you have to get a certain number by a particular date. I just don't think that way of entering the argument about de-carbonising the global energy system is a very helpful way of starting the whole policy discussion about how you do it. Hi Mike, and thanks for your presentation. We originally met, I think, just before Copenhagen, where you were warning everyone in the crowd to not be overtly optimistic about Copenhagen. A message which I really liked and I brought back here, which made me a pariah amongst activists, environmentalists - they stopped inviting me to things when I warned them that the inside word was that Copenhagen was gonna crash. You were right, it crashed, people have lost energy and focus. You know, it's hard to get more than a couple of thousand people at a rally now, compared to tens and 20 and 100,000 before. What do you think - any advice you want to tilt, a different change in strategy, I mean, where do you think the energy's gonna come from for a new round of pushing towards responding to, I think, what you've said is a challenge to humanity, not necessarily just climate change? There are multiple sites of energy, socio-cultural energy or socio-cultural capital,

campaigning advocacy capital, in the world. It doesn't just have to be the climate camp activists who provide that energy. In the UK, for example, it can emerge from those people who affiliate

with what we call the Transition Towns movement, it can emerge from those people who affiliate but actually the framing is very wide - much wider than that - it's about recognising the importance of localism, about social inclusion. And that actually has got a significant number of advocates and so, there's social and cultural energy emerging from there. One could argue that in parts of India, there are very active - in fact, I was interacting with them when I was there just over a year ago - very active entrepreneurs within India who are actually seeing tremendous opportunities for India to reposition itself in a global economy with India leading the way for new solar technologies. So that is where energy can be found. And actually if you multiply that across all regions and sectors, you will find there's great diversity, and for me, that's why, I suppose - someone asked me the question this morning - am I optimistic or pessimistic? I'm optimistic. I actually - yeah, I have faith in humanity. We are a tremendously creative and adaptive species. Yes, we've got 7 billion people on the planet but we've got more highly-trained and skilled and motivated human beings working and thinking about creative innovation than ever before on this planet. Professor Mike Hulme, speaking in Sydney as a Guest of the Hot Science Global Citizens Symposium. To see that event in full, you can head to our website at the address on your screen. Next up - They shoot lions, don't they? That's the intriguing title of a lively panel discussion, the latest in the University of New South Wales series, The Hot Seat. It's a reference to what's called, the 'sustainable use of wildlife.' Where commercial hunting, captive breeding, native pets, even trade and export of mammals and reptiles, everything, once anathema to eco-science, is on the table as the new direction for conservation strategy. The basic premise behind it,

is that animals are no longer safe in the wild. The experts on the panel, including the former Australian Museum director, Mike Archer, now think putting a price on the heads of our most endangered species, might make us value them enough to save them from extinction. Moderating is former Catalyst reporter, Paul Willis. We've had an epic in Australia for too long about preservation, somehow we imagine the world is going to stay the way we found it. And somehow it's our job as faunal managers and biologists, to figure out, what is it that we've got to do, to keep things exactly the way they are. And this is absurd, this is a kind of three dimensional approach to conservation, and it's not conservation it's preservation.

So I think what we're saying is, that understanding that extinction is a natural part of the process. Without it, animals and plants that are not particularly well adapted to a changing world, would just stay there and the whole thing would collapse. You've got to get the ones that are not fit to basically more over and let evolution replace them with ones that are fit. But the trick is, how do you maintain eco-systems in a way that ensures that real conservation, i.e. replacement of extinction with new species, can occur. And yes, we're paleontologists and I've often been told, 'get back to you're bones and stop worrying about conservation, you're on that side of the fence - all those things that are dead.' But actually they've got messages for us, they tell us, in may ways, what is required to secure the things in the future. And I find more and more, we're using the fossil record, not just to produce horrors and weird toothy things that scare the life out of kids, but what is it we need to learn form this, to make sure that we're conserving the fauna into the future. I've gone into, a bit like one of my other PHD students, Tim Flannery, I've gone into a depressed period where I think this is not working, and like greg is saying, we're loosing things at a furious rate, we've lost eighteen mammals in the last 200 years. But there are ways to turn this around, and as Paleontologists are saying, how much land do we need to have in conservation capable form, before we can say we've put this system together in a way that evolution will replace the things that we've lost.

And this is, I think, why were are all here. Looking for these innovative strategies that will do what conventional preservation type activities have so far failed to do. What else can we do,

that will augment the valuable, important current strategies

and give out biota and us and out kids a future? When it comes to novel strategies, Keith, you've spent the last 25 years in Africa, pioneering the idea that one great way to save an ecosystem, is to selectively shoot it. Can you tell us what you've been up to with Elephants and Lions, and how, while it might seem contradictory to conserve species by allowing them to be shot, how that's worked out? The interesting thing, I'd love to admit I started it, but I didn't, it was started in 1975 by Zimbabwe, under a thing called the Windfall Program, which was run by a chap I know, Rowan Martin, and a professor called Marshall Murphree. which was run by a chap I know, Rowan Martin, to protect it outside national parks. Now what we're talking about is the communal areas of Africa,

and we look at this, and we say most of the ranges of large mammals

is outside national parks. Mammals don't stop at the borders of national parks. So they're ranging outside the borders, and if we take Elephants, which is what most studies have been about, elephant's have a range that's 60 percent outside of national parks and the group I actually studied longest was in Namibia, and their range was 97 percent outside of national parks. So they're living inside the communal areas, and this is where people live. Now if we want these animals to live on and prosper, as it were, and therefore we can have these community based natural resource management programs, which is what they've been modernly termed. What do we need to support these animals? And it's not just the -

We pick up what they called the charismatic species, we talk about lions, elephants, giraffes, because you know them and you can readily associate with them, their history is well documented, in just about every national park program you'll get lions, elephants, and giraffe, just as an example. You may not get Hyena's, and you may not get the small mammals associated with that, but you get the So if we're looking at the charismatic mega-fauna, how best to preserve this outside of a national park? OK, inside a national park it's a completely different argument, it's not for what this debate is about, but outside of a national park we talk about sustainable use, so if you're looking at somewhere like Northwest Namibia, when I started in Northwest Namibia, which is 1997, that seems a long time ago now, there was only about 423 elephants outside of Itosha, in Northwest Namibia. Myself, working with a number of other NGO's, it wasn't just me, but we've now got a population of over 850 elephants. Populations of elephants are very interesting. If you read the national media, and listen to conservation programs,

you'd believe that elephants are in danger, there are 625,000 elephants in Africa. They do not suit the biological criteria of an endangered, threatened, or even vulnerable species. Thing is, they're what we call a flagship species, so everybody can associate elephants with conservation,

so when you talk about how best to conserve these animals outside their protected areas, outside of their national parks,

we talk about a thing called, community-based natural resource management program. Which gives the right of management back to the local communities. And it works. And how it works, is you put a price on that animal. Shoot an animal in Africa, in most areas will cost you US$50,000.

Through a professional hunting organisation. The quotas are set by government. So there's never been a decline in a wildlife species, when you have managed professional hunting, So there's never been a decline in a wildlife species, If we talk about a thing I like to call citizen hunting, where the local people start to shoot the animals, then you can talk population declines because it's unregulated. If they don't want an animal in an area they will shoot it, trust me. It will cease to exist. I've seen it in three different areas, where if people don't want animals in the area, they will shoot it out. So what happens, now we have to come up with, as conservationists, how best to maintain the species in that area, and how best to benefit the local communities who live close association with it. And while I would not like to get into the the morals of the debate of wether it's better to shoot an elephant or not, $50,000 is an incredible amount of money to an African community. From that the government takes $10,000, the local community takes $10,000 and the hunter takes the rest. But that money goes directly to the local community. And you've got, associated with that, less cost than you do with something like photographic safaris, in terms of environmental cost.

If you look at an area of land, say we set aside 100,000kms of area, just a big area of land, how much does it cost to manage that land? If you had community based Safaris, and professional hunting, normally you have one operator, who uses six sets of skinners, he has a facility, and he has various other things. and he doesn't want anybody else in the area, because he's hunting. So you have a very low environmental impact on the land. If you have a photographic safaris, what you have is up to 50 people in the same area, to earn the same amount of money, and then you have to support them, so you have large lodges, you have lots of people employed, you do, but then you have accumulated waste from those people. And what do you do in a photographic safari? You want to go and see the land, to see the wildlife. So you're touring around that land constantly, looking and disturbing wildlife. So if you're talking about what is beneficial for the animals, and for the land, then hunting is. Simply because of less environmental impact on the land it's self, and it returns a large revenue resource. We're not talking endangered - We are talking threatened, but we're not talking endangered species, they're locally abundant in these areas. So it makes very good sense, plus it keeps the local community from shooting the animals. And isn't it the case Keith, that because of this there is now more of Africa's wildlife in these game reserves, than there is in all the national parks put together? That is correct. And because the animals ranges are so large, the number of animals you can support on any piece of land, is directly proportional to the area available. So if you only have 100,000 hectares of land, because of the biomass available for the animals to eat, you can only support that number of animals. If you increase that to half a million hectares,

then you can increase, proportionately, the number of animals to that area of land. it's a direct, liner, relationship. I actually want to tease that out for a model for conservation later, because I'd like to introduce Rosie, you completed this report on keeping native animals as pets

as another strategy to preserve some species that are going extinct. Tell me a bit about this report, what did you actually find? Is it a viable option?

Well, the report was a feasibility study, carried out with a number of co-authors, including Rosalie Chappell, who's here in the audience, and we were basically asked by the Royal Industries R&D corp, in Australia, to ask whether it was feasible to set up an industry, based on the keeping of native mammals as pets, in a way that would actually enhance conservation objectives. And it's not a simple answer, and very much the devil's in the detail. It depends what species you're talking about and, very much, how it's done. But we found that certainly there are some species which are very well suited for keeping as pets. For instance, a Quoll, Mike Archer has had long expediences of keeping native animals, and has kept Quoll's and has written about it extensively. We found Quolls, with some caveats, would be very suitable for, at least, experienced keepers to keep in their yards. And we asked the question, 'why is it that we're keeping these exotic, introduced, dangerous predators, dogs and cats, as pets, which readily go feral and pose serious threats to native wildlife, when we could be keeping our own indigenous wildlife?' So, we looked at a range of of potential negative consequences, and there are potential problems, depending how it's done, but we also looked at a range of potential conservation benefits, and there's a number of them, but one of the ones that I think is potentially the most important, is really reconnecting people with wildlife. There are about 100 native mammals on our current federal endangered species list, potentially the most important, Apart from you. OK, that's one, out of this whole audience. We don't know our native mammals. You know, our children grow up learning about giraffes, lions and rhinos and hippos and dogs and cats and pigs, but they don't learn about bilbies and potoroos and gliders and cuscuses and all sorts of our Australian native mammals. So, I think there are two visions of conservation competing at the moment. And one is what I see as a very urban vision, in which we all sit here in our urban environment,

and nature is out there behind fences, and it's protected and it's OK because we don't touch it, and the other is not really a new, but a more traditional vision of conservation, where we're out there in the landscape, using the wildlife, and through that we're learning about it, respecting it,

and we value it because we use it.

Panellists from the UNSW Hotseat Event, They Shoot Lions, Don't They? With new RI Aus director, Paul Willis doing the scientist wrangling. Next, is democracy broken?

After the extraordinary outcomes of the 2010 Federal Election, Australian voters, pundits and politicians alike, are asking the same questions. What happened, where does this apparent voter disillusionment come from? What's wrong with our political system, and what kind of constitutional change is needed to fix it? Melbourne's Wheeler Centre got together a high powered panel, including former PM Malcolm Fraser,

former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull and former ALP federal minister, Lindsay Tanner. Radio National's Fran Kelly lead the discussion.

When you look at the debate, it is all too often that politicians are simply engaging in a series of sound bites designed to get a grab on the six o'clock news. And the press gallery finds it easier to write about politics replaced by commentary. as a game, so you get news

Kevin Rudd's press secretary, Now, Lachlan Harris, he used to be

that we've gone from having a - 24 hour news cycle, we shouldn't talk about a commentary cycle. it's really a 24 hour think about the news papers And if you just think about, is actually a discussion of policy, that cover politics, how much of it 'is Kevin stalking Julia' you know - and how much of it is, Is Malcom stalking Tony?

the political writers how many, think about how many of how many have actually made and commentators, contribution, to, for example, a thoughtful consistent, considered how many have actually made and commentators, gas emissions? Australia's greenhouse vain to find a detailed analysis Where is that - and you search in of that and so many other issues. and the media are in a death lock So, I think the politicians each other but loathe each other. in a sense, that they need to this dumbing down But they are each contributing that's a big part of the problem. of the policy debate, and I think of the policy debate, OK, Margaret is the dumbing down

gentlemen here, do you agree with these to the dysfunction is that a central problem at the moment, that we're seeing in our politic democracy is broken? is that enough to say colleagues to some degree I think, And I do have to defend my media and I'll try not to do it all night. there are serious issues But I certainly think like climate change. written on issues contribution regularly, I mean, Lenore Taylor makes a serious makes a serious contribution Laura Tingle regularly on these issues... Keep nominating... Can you name a good man? a broad question. (Laughter) That's quite (Appreciate Laughter) Malcolm was talking about, But Margaret, the death roll, that politicians and the media, the death grip between the and how do we address that? is that the central issue

journalists are at fault, Well, I don't think to say that these gentlemen off the hook. which they certainly are, to let

frankness and honesty We can all think of examples of they play very well with the media in politicians recently and usually and the general public. where which politicians - We also have means these days the Shadow Communications Minister and I'm sure can reach right past the media understands this - and talk direct to the public, previously possible. in ways that weren't certainly. But journalists are at fault, consistent coverage of politics It would be great if we could have which we all have a stake as thought it were something in As though it actually matters. as citizens.

Rather than just as a game. who's first past the post. And too often it's all about who's one of the leading thinkers I love the comment that Jay Rosen, made when he was out here last year. in the world on media futures, 'you have a program called Insiders? He said, That's extraordinary.' And the Insiders are journalists? journalists were the outsiders, Now there was a time when

they were the unpopular ones, when they were the larrikins, when with respect and a little fear. when a good journalist was regarded have got too much of a stake These days journalists, I think, to the citizens and say and they don't reach out at the moment, in the system as it plays

'what's your agenda, gentlemen to talk about?' what would you like these

That's very profound, I think. (Applause) when you were in politics, Malcom Fraser, it was a different media landscape. cycle, we weren't Tweeting, We had nowhere near the 24 hour media none of that was happening. we weren't blogging, between journalists and politicians, How different was the relationship as Margaret suggests there. were they more outsiders would depend on the politician. It depends on the journalist, to blame the journalists But I don't think it's reasonable for everything. I mean the poor print media, for everything. have to make up something. so the print media who give opinions So you've therefore got people and you buy The Age, and you buy The Australian you're buying a lot of opinions. the opinions, you might not. You might respect people giving those opinions? But do you really want should be called opinion papers. They're not newspapers, they to anyone who wants it. Yes, but OK, but I'll throw this open commentary, too much opinion - This notion that it's 24 hour are loaded with opinion, but the new mediums their opinion out, it's everyone putting of everybody's opinion, blogosphere is full what people want... and that seems to be But it might be what people want, to talk about serious issues, but if politicians are not going a serious debate, if they're not going to have whether it's climate change - playing politics for votes if they're going to be seen to be on every damned issue. with a bipartisan policy We went for about 40 years and immigration, in relation to refugees with everything. now we play politics (Applause) with opinion, I think there's nothing wrong real question is opinion about what? the more opinion the better, the

who's down, who is stalking who, If it's opinion about who's up, a leadership challenge against who, who is going to launch preselection ballot? who's rigging the numbers in what Then that's the problem.

in accessible mass media. of Twitter, believe it or not. Lots of people have never heard there is less and less discourse In accessible mass media, about the content of issues. issues, about climate change. About health reform, about water about the sporting contest And more and more it is simply on both sides between the array of individuals Greens and In dependants and indeed in the of those context. and all the little idiosyncrasies And that's the problem. the media are followers. But in a large part, who followed politicians It was the media when they were arguing whether the government should or shouldn't pay for airfares for people who are going from Christmas Island to funerals. And there are far more important things to argue about than that. That's fair, isn't it, Lindsay Tanner and Malcolm Turnbull, that is fair that it's all very well to say that's what the media reports. Where are the politicians talking in depth about policy and daring to put forward contentious ideas that they know will be contentious, that will be provocative, that are visionary,

I mean, it was Paul Keating who said let's flick the switch to Vaudeville at certain times. Politicians are very aware of the impact of point-scoring versus policy. The answer is politicians do what gets them publicity. Well, that's a cop-out, Lindsay. If they have to put on a silly hat to get publicity, they put on a silly hat.

What awaits a politician of serious substance,

who puts out the kinds of propositions you put is either huge internal controversy within their party or more likely, glorious irrelevance,

because they are either gonna be set up as breaking party ranks, without serious consideration to substance - for example, how much debate has there been in the last few days about the taxation of family trusts? There's been virtually zero discussion about the content of that issue, but lots of discussion about whether Joe Hockey has been humiliated, has had to backflip, back down, etcetera, etcetera. That's what awaits politicians who do things other than what the media frame dictates.

Yes, but partly that comes out in that way because Joe Hockey just put that out into the atmosphere. There was no argument about it - 'We'll just tax family trusts.'

But that's what Fran's advocating. That politicians should do that and they'll prosper,

the answer is they won't. No, I thought she was advocating a.. No, no, I - Anyway, Malcolm was going to follow with - ..a serious discussion or statement on the issue which had some substance. Joe's statement had no substance. Margaret, what do you make of this discussion

and is it getting us anywhere closer to the notion of - if our democracy is broken, how we might fix it, I mean, is this the crux of the problem? This relationship between politicians and the media, or is it something else? Is it the way our two major parties in this system are functioning? It goes back to the people we're recruiting - the apparatchiks, who's in power, how things are controlled. Well, I think, all of the above. I think it's certainly possible, I'm increasingly thinking likely, that the party political system

But that's not quite the same as saying that democracy is broken.

is a great hunger there But it seems to me that there for people to hear ideas debated. at fault, And our profession is certainly like Q And A, but whenever you see a program serious debates whenever you tune into the more that you do see on the Internet. haven't heard of Twitter - And while most people but everybody's heard of Facebook - when you do tune into that, to engage seriously with ideas. you'll find people are hungry Our profession of journalism to satisfy that hunger is largely failing with some exceptions. But politicians are to blame as well. may well have a case, Joe Hockey may well have an argument, for discussion. may well have issues to put out there I'm not sure by the mainstream media that they would be seriously reported but there are other methods as well. And in terms of the media, the national broadcaster, and perhaps particularly community forums before an election what about actually holding are? What would you like explained? to say, 'What do you think the issues

to be that we put to politicians?' What would you like the questions as journalists, And pursue that agenda want to talk about it. whether or not these guys Let me make a couple of - but I think a great deal - again, I'm being unduly agreeable, (Uproarious laughter) Should try it more often! for being too agreeable. Well, I've often been criticised (Laughter) So have I! Nobody's ever said it about me. about the way Parliament works? Can I make an observation improved since the election Question Time has undoubtedly

on the answers, because there are limits four minutes. they can't be more than I mean, Kevin Rudd - on your side of the House I don't know what it felt like when, you know, but there were moments pencil with the thought, one would look at a sharpened (Laughter) 'If I jab that into my eyeball... ..will that be less painful go on for eight minutes?' than listening to the prime minister (Laughter) but here's the thing - It was really desperate, a theatrical combat. Question Time has just become In the British parliament, an expert on its procedures, and I'm not by any means for particular ministries - they have Question Time days That is so dull. Well, you know, it may be dull - See what I mean? The entertainment business again!

This is the thing, Fran, you see - and you haven't. I know, but I've sat through it I can tell you as a politician,

a lot of dull things in my time. I've sat through so I know dullness. Well, I used to be a lawyer, (Laughter) so many important issues of policy But I just think that there are in Question Time that rarely get ventilated is just on the Prime Minister because the focus

and one particular issue of the day. a lot of people listen to it. And it is a great forum, in my electorate office - And the feedback I always get obviously, I'm an MHR as we all do. so I represent a lot of people, the combativeness of Question Time - People are irritated by Here here. (Applause) The pointless combativeness. Because, you know,

they want to learn something they're listening to it because what the Prime Minister and hear about has got to say about something, or the Minister for Whatever that information. and they're not getting journos on the question Passionate pollies and hard-headed

'Is Democracy Broken?' for the Wheeler Centre. At Melbourne's RMIT these days have to be spun? Finally today, does everything golden age of clarity? Was there ever a

is getting faster or is it just that the spin cycle and the detergent more corrosive? 2011 Sydney Writers Festival A panel from the how far we've crossed the line took on the task of working out to painful obfuscation. from plain speaking The Gruen Transfer's Jane Caro, And the star turn was for Marketing Anything'. who gave her 'Eight Simple Rules The Gruen Transfer's Jane Caro, And the star turn was and I thought, 'How am I going to approach this?', 'stick to your knitting, Jane - talk about what you know.' simple rules for marketing anything. So, I'm going to give you the eight beliefs and political parties. Including politicians, political strike you as surprising, Some of you will in fact I hope all of them do. represent good spin over bad spin. And then I will talk about why these honoured in the breach The first rule is always more

of marketing anything. But it is the first rule 'Under-promise and over-deliver' And it is: This is about managing expectations. Everyone who is selling anything

anyone to do anything or trying to persuade what they are promising should think very hard about a little less and make sure that they promise than they are sure they can deliver.

you promise, Because it doesn't matter how much if you actually don't meet it

disappointment and anger. you will create even by a nanosecond - If you over-deliver, your morning coffee if you get an extra chocolate with just once in a while - you will be happy and come back. It's not about how much you promise, it's that you give a little more.

The second rule is: 'Be voter centred'.

research voters Now, this doesn't mean that you said they wanted, and parrot back to them what they in order to get elected. what that is, Because if you think about

that's actually you're self-focused. 'How do I manipulate That's actually out there are saying what those idiots I believe it too and make it sound like and I'll actually win?' so that they vote for me voter-centred to do that. So, it is the opposite of being

To be voter centred actually means and out of the control seat you need to step back for improving society You need to present your ideas as truthfully as you can as you believe them, and you need to convince voters that you genuinely have those ideas because you put them first. Successful brands actually do that. They convince the people who buy them that they put the people who buy them first. Malcolm Turnbull and Bob Brown strike me as two politicians that voters believe have their best interests at heart. Doesn't actually mean that those voters necessarily agree with Bob Brown or agree with Malcolm Turnbull, but they have a sense of them putting voters first. And that's because they both take risks... ..in defence of what they believe. they put their career at risk for what they believe.

The third rule is: 'Don't sacrifice what your core users always liked about you to buy new users.' There are a great many brands that have completely disappeared by doing this. One of the basic problems of selling any product or service is that you have a kind of life-cycle. One of the basic problems of selling any product or service and you get a bit old fashioned and out of favour you think, 'we've got to make ourselves look young and hip and get the young users in.' Most of those brands end up looking like a middle aged man, just divorced with a comb over. (Laughter) And it is a classic mistake that political parties make They take their core users for granted, they think, 'Well, they haven't got anyone else to vote for so we don't have to pay any attention to them, we have to go out and get those swinging voters - those people who don't really like us very much, change our policies and seduce them.' The trouble is they'll never really like you, they might buy you occasionally because you offer them a carrot or a lower price or a bigger pack or a -

I don't know, a 'stop the boats' kind of a policy. But they won't really believe you believe it and as soon as the other side offers you something a little bit more attractive they're off, that's their nature. They swing, they're not loyal, they don't stick with you. Meanwhile, the people who've always voted for you because they believed in what they thought you stood for, are flowing out the back door, to another brand that's offering them what they've always cared about. Peter Hartcher has an article in the Sydney Morning Herald's review section today about precisely that. And that's what the Labor party is currently suffering from, they ignored their core users. The other one, many of you in the room will hate to hear, but all advertising people know that this is fundamentally true, all purchase decisions - and a vote is a purchase decision - are made emotionally and then post rationalised. (Laughter) don't you? Yes, you like to think you're clever, intellect and not your heart. and that you're ruled by your No, no, sorry.

degrees you've got, I don't care how many don't care what you're IQ is, as the rest of us. you're just as emotional emotions that change behaviour - There are two hope and fear. that change behaviour The reason there are two emotions oriented emotions. is because they're the two future

that fear is bad And a lot of people like to believe is bad spin. and so spin that uses fear who use hope are using good spin. And hope is good, and people

How simplistic is that? Rubbish! the different sides of the same coin. I think fear and hope are probably with a feeling of dread, Fear is when you look at the future you know, anxiety. you look at the future And hope is when

excitement and expectation. with a feeling of we all do both all of the time. and to some extent, That's what the future's like. change behaviour, So, when you're trying to change a vote, or maintain behaviour, keep a vote, dealing with all the time you need to know that what you're That's what they're operating on. is people's hopes and fears. I mean, people - and oppositions therefore, and the problem is that governments interesting situation. are placed in an governments have to sell on fear, By and large, because their basic position is but they're worse. 'you might not like us very much, the devil you don't know' 'It's better the devil you know than what governments sell on. is basically Oppositions generally sell on hope - different and better.' 'We can offer you something new and absolutely hope-driven campaign. think of Kevin '07 that was an a hope driven campaign. Think of Obama's 'Yes We Can' - out that what he meant was Who knew that it was going to turn 'Yes we can kill Osama.' candle waving voters I'm sure all those Oprah loving didn't realise that's what he meant. but you know what I mean. I don't think he meant it, are problems with both of those. I think that there When you sell on hope - in politics, and hope is the riskier position of course, because when you sell on hope,

the danger of you very quickly get into over-promising and under-delivering. 'Yes We Can', As soon as I heard Obama's slogan, I started to worry about him. he could only disappoint, I started to worry that because he was promising so much were being placed on him and so many expectations projecting a whole lost of stuff. from so many people who were journos on the question Passionate pollies and hard-headed

they don't stick with you. They swing, they're not loyal, this is fundamentally true, but all advertising people know that governments have to sell on fear, By and large, because their basic position is but they're worse. 'you might not like us very much, out that what he meant was Who knew that it was going to turn it's because it still feels to us - And I expect that and not thought - and remember this is about emotion it still feels to us as if are the legitimate government. the Liberals A hangover from Howard. really feel the Gillard government We're still not quite sure that we is legitimate yet. people saying that, I know that people hate but this is about feeing, not fact. decisions are made emotionally Number five is: while all purchase you must give purchasers ammunition and then post rationalised, to defend their choice. as the facts and figures about brands So, policy is important, just and services are important too. anyone's vote, not fundamentally. It won't actually necessarily change a way of post rationalising, But what it does is it gives people the purchase decision they have. of rationalising why they've made rationalising to themselves. They mostly have to do that post

our anxieties It's actually how we kind of soothe

tell ourselves it's about this policy about the decision we've made is to or that policy or the other. raise voters morale and our own. The next rule is: that look like they want the job We want to vote for people look like they love the job. and once they've got the job,

who gave us that impression Some of the people I can think of extremely strongly, was John Howard. or disagree with him, Whether you agree being Prime Minister. he looked like he loved he was having a hell of a time. Ronald Reagan, he always looked like it gives them confidence. People like that, you might hate his policies, You might hate the guy, you might wish he got voted out,

there's a confidence in someone but on an emotional level a good time while they're doing it. who looks like they're having who really looked like he reveled Bob Hawke is another person, in the work that he was doing. their parties morale This raises not just

but the entire country's morale. I heard A.A Gill the other morning very interesting and he said something in Australia, that no one's really talking about maybe only an outsider could say it. he hates costume dramas. He was talking about how much

when he's in England, But he said he hates them only when he came here. he didn't mind them so much that we make better costume dramas, And the reason was, not

symbolic of the fact that Britain but that in Britain it's

is a profoundly pessimistic society that their best days are in the past. who believes optimistic society Australia is a profoundly are in the future. because you believe your best days and I thought 'he's right!' I loved that,

and that would help us raise, Why don't we talk more about that, across the nation? what I see, a kind of sinking morale And that worries me.

voter morale and your own The corollary to raising voter anxiety about you, is you need to lower

voter morale and your own The corollary to raising of your opponent, you want to make people frightened less anxious about you. but you want them to feel relaxed and comfortable. Howard promised to make us feel What he didn't tell us was, he wasn't going to make us feel relaxed and comfortable

about the world, he was going to make us feel relaxed and comfortable about him. (Chuckles) And to a large extent, he succeeded, and that's why he survived for so long. At the moment I think voters are anxious about both our leaders, sometimes I feel like we've got - that the public are angry because they've actually got the leaders of both political parties they don't want. They want Malcolm Turnbull leading the Liberals and Kevin Rudd leading Labor and they're going to keep being sulky about it until it happens. (Applause)

And the other thing that happens, and I blame my industry for this, is a pseudo-scientific approach to marketing -

which, by the way, is garbage in advertising is a pseudo-scientific approach to marketing - and it's terrible to see it bringing its dead hand

over the rest of the world - but the problem is that more you try and control and manage how you appear, the more you try to resist the real fluidity and riskiness of human communication, the more anxiety and suspicion you create. The more you don't look real, the more you look false and forced and use all that horrible language Neil showed us, the more people feel anxious about you, and the more they come after you to find out the truth. The more you try to control it, the more they try to break down your control.

So in way, the media and politics are in this horrible little dance where the politicians try to protect themselves, which only makes the media more suspicious, so they attack them further and further and further. One side's got to stop it, and I think it's got to be the politicians. And they've got to change. It's no good saying 'You lot change out there.' That never works in life, it's always about you changing. You. The last rule is that voters want politicians to love their constituency, their community. I disagree profoundly with Lindsay about the reaction to Anna Bligh.

It had nothing to do with her tears. It had to do with the fact that she proved that she loved Queensland.

That is what sent her popularity up,

the fact that she was so moved that she cried, which is what chicks do, Lindsay -

(Laughter) LINDSAY TANNER: You may have noticed there's a few men who do it occasionally, too. Yeah, indeed. I think the only prime ministers who've cried publicly are both men. Yes, Hawke. And we believed him when he cried, too. It's because she proved that she loved the place. I was thinking about this, who are our leaders who have proved their love of their constituency,

when he cried, too. Whether we agree with them or not - Hawke.

and Australians. I believe he loved Australia He loved it, all of it. That he was proud of Australia. Faults and all - he loved it. He had many of those faults himself. Still has, no doubt.

he loved Australia, John Howard - I think he proved that even if you didn't love him. to love you, like it or not. I think he was determined (Laugher) that he was - he loved Queensland. Bjelke-Petersen - nutjob for that long? How did he stay in power he loved them. Because Queenslanders thought Yeah, I don't like him either - what I like or don't like. this isn't about completely, I think the US Presidents get this that they love America. that they have to prove Sometimes it makes us feel a bit icky and I think progressives on the left patriotism, are particularly uncomfortable with but I think - that its about, I don't care if it's patriotism who you're serving. its about you actually loving really a feeling, it's a action, You can't say it, because love is not you have to do it. exemplify it in the modern world, Two people, I think, who absolutely Nelson Mandela. that he loved South Africa, He proved beyond a shadow of a doubt

he loved South Africa, and not just that he loved all South Africans. whatever their political beliefs. Black, white,

example of it. That's an extraordinary And Aung San Suu Kyi. her community, her country I think there's no doubt she loves and the idea of democracy.

but I'm not saying they're easy. I'm saying these rules are simple, It's really hard.

want to be a politician I'm not a politician, I don't ever to this standard. because I couldn't live up

keep these core, simple ideas But I think it's very important to is not about control, we do and remember that good selling at the bottom of everything

it's about where you come from. it's not about who you manipulate, it is my perhaps naive belief And if you come from the right place, will see that too. that eventually the rest of the world I continue to hold onto that. Thank you for listening. (Applause) commentator Jane Caro Award winning advertising writer an at the Sydney Writers' Festival. Big Ideas Short Cuts. That's all for today's taste test of it is my perhaps naive belief and many more un-spun wisdoms at the Big Ideas website. weekend shows on News24 And look out for our lunchtime Saturday and Sunday at 1pm. I'm Waleed Aly, I'll see you then. (Closed Captions by CSI)

..

THEME MUSIC

greatest and most vibrant cities, New York is one of the world's a bustling 24-hour metropolis and towers of chrome and glass. renowned for its concrete canyons internationally recognised features - The Big Apple has many other the ubiquitous yellow cab. the neon of Time Square,

that represents But it's also home to a symbol and hopes of a nation - the aspirations, pride, the world over. an object instantly recognisable is New York's most famous icon Our wonder, a lady, into the shade. and puts all the others the Statue of Liberty. She is, of course, Liberty stands 47m high. and inside is a spiral staircase. She's hollow, people would go up the staircase The idea was from the start that just within her crown, and go into a viewing platform Liberty over the skyline of New York. offering a panoramic view from Liberty was conceived in 1865,

to the United States. a gift from the French people

the final abolition of slavery, The statue was designed to celebrate and the Centenary of Independence. by the sculptor Auguste Bartholdi The statue was designed and the engineer Gustave Eiffel. out of sheet copper, They built the colossus a steel and iron skeleton. beaten and melded over in sections It was prefabricated in France for assembly. before being shipped to New York the great symbol of freedom It was supposed to be was dogged by controversy. but, from Day One, that if Liberty were a woman Suffragettes protested in America. why did women have so few rights eventually in October 1886 Once the statue was unveiled

it became a symbol of the new world and poverty in Europe. for people fleeing oppression and her torch held on high They would catch sight of Liberty, as they arrived at Ellis Island would give them a sense of hope

in the shadow of the statue. must have seemed like a giant. In 1886 the Statue of Liberty as the 20th Century All that was soon to change of the skyscraper heralded the ambitious new age of nearby Manhattan. above the streets those buildings go, But no matter how high

most iconic feature. Liberty remains New York's Closed Captions by CSI ..

Hard hat area. A revved-up

Labor caucus shows new interest

in the Labor agenda. Shock and

more. When will it end for Christchurch's rattled

residents? We just want to know

now. Everybody 's had Once just a niche market, now. Everybody 's had enough.

there's big money in

allergy-free foods. We're

enjoying growth enjoying growth of nearly 20%.

So it's a very buoyant market.

And Republican presidential

wanna-bes line up to spruik

their stuff.

Welcome to ABC News across

Australia. I'm Ros Childs. On

the local share market, miners are leading the retreat, just about all sectors are down.