Rae Wear

Water fluoridation in Queensland, why not? Timing, circumstance, and the nature of 'The fluoridation of public water supplies Act (1963)'

This paper argues that the reasons for Queenslands low levels of fluoridation lie not so much in its political culture but more specifically in the nature of state legislation governing fluoridation.

Commonwealth of Australia January to June 2001

On 23 January, after embarking on a three week “listening tour” around the state’s shopping centres, jumping on public transport and swimming with sharks, the Premier Peter Beattie called an early election for 17 February 2001 – with six months of his first term remaining. The campaign ran for 26 days, the shortest permissible under the Electoral Act. The catalyst for the snap poll was the damage to Beattie’s government caused by the “electoral rorts” scandal involving mainly the powerful Australian Workers’ Union faction. While the initial allegations of electoral fraud had involved pre-selection battles in two Townsville seats, the repercussions were much wider engulfing the entire party and bringing down the Deputy Premier Jim Elder and two backbenchers, Grant Musgrove and Mike Kaiser. However, Beattie’s political opponents were divided and Labor benefitted from a four-way split among the conservative side of politics and some other conservative independents.

Andrew Fisher: An underestimated man

This is the third recent biography of Andrew Fisher. It joins David Day’s Andrew Fisher: Prime Minister of Australia and Edward W. Humphrey’s Andrew Fisher: The Forgotten Man, both published in 2008. Clearly, years of neglect have now been addressed. In terms of achievement, Fisher should never have been overlooked. He was a minister in the world’s first Labor government in Queensland, served in Chris Watson’s Labor ministry, and became Prime Minister three times. He and his governments were instrumental in the introduction of the old age and invalid pensions, workers’ compensation and maternity allowances. His government established the first Prime Minister’s Department, substantially upgraded the nation’s defence forces; commenced construction of the east–west railway; established an Australian currency; created the Commonwealth Bank; introduced the first genuinely Australian stamp; selected the site for the national capital, which was given an Aboriginal name in preference to ‘a vast number of possible imperial, nationalist or abstract concoctions’ (p. 228); and designated Saturdays as voting days so as not to disadvantage working people. Fisher is also remembered for two declarations. At the 1908 federal conference of the Labor party, he told those assembled, ‘We are all socialists now’ (p. 133) and in 1914, he promised ‘the last man and the last shilling’ (p. 185) in support of Great Britain if war should eventuate. Despite these achievements, it is easy to see why, until recently, authors have focused on more colourful prime ministerial characters. The portrait painted in this book is of a dull but amiable striver. Fisher was born in Ayrshire in 1862 and received a solid. although rudimentary, education in the village school, which he later supplemented with night school and a program of self-improvement. Bastian tells us that ‘he was uneasy with too much intellectual speculation and tended to read works that confirmed, rather than challenged, his views’ (p. 10). His family were Presbyterian abstainers and Fisher remained a member of the Temperance society all his life. He began working in the Crosshouse coal-mines as a 9-year-old and it is likely that he joined the union at this point, although the first record of his membership is his election as district secretary of the miners union in 1879. Desirous of a secure future, he migrated to Queensland in 1885, where he replicated elements of his Scottish life: work in the mines, temperance, the Presbyterian Church and unionism. He married at age 39 and although his marriage was ‘solid and enduring’ (p. 93), it was devoid of outward displays of affection when family members or others were present. No whiff of scandal was ever attached to him. As a parliamentarian, he was not an inspired speaker. Like John Howard, he was hard of hearing, and his Scottish brogue added to his audience’s difficulty. As a politician, he was frequently underestimated. This was undoubtedly compounded by the fact that the great bulk of his last years were spent in London – first as Australian High Commissioner and then as a retiree. Bastion makes a convincing case that Fisher’s career, with its demonstration that a man of humble background and ordinary mien could become Prime Minister, ‘changed forever the way Australians would think about the social aspirations of their democracy’ (p. 157). He also makes a solid case for a re-evaluation of Fisher and his numerous achievements.

Astroturf and populism in Australia: the Convoy of No Confidence

The ‘Convoy of No Confidence’ was a trucking convoy that converged on Canberra in 2011 in a failed attempt to force the Gillard Labor government to an early election. At the time, there was widespread speculation that it was an ‘astroturf’ or synthetic grassroots movement. This article assesses the extent to which this alleged astroturf event exhibited populist elements, measured against Taggarts definition of populism. Unlike most Australian populist movements, which have been hostile towards all major parties (or all the big banks), the convoys participants directed their anger almost entirely towards the Gillard government. In this, they were joined by Coalition politicians and right-wing media. The article finds that such one-sidedness is insufficient to characterise the convoy definitively as an Astroturf group, and therefore not genuinely populist. It also suggests that there may be a continuum between populist and astroturf movements. “不信任游”是2011年坎贝拉的一次失败的卡车游行，意在迫使吉拉德工党政府提前大选。这是一个“人工草皮”或合成的草根运动。本文根据泰格特的民粹主义定义，探讨了这次所谓草根运动到底包含多少民粹因素。与仇视所有主要政党的大多数澳大利亚民粹主义运动不一样，这次游行的参与者把愤怒完全投向吉拉德政府。因此，他们得到了联盟政治家以及右翼媒体的联手。作者发现，由于这种单面性，该运动算不上草根群体，并非真正的民粹主义。作者认为，在民粹与人工草根运动之间存在着一个量变的连续体。

'Adventure, Heterodoxy and Knavery': Queensland's Electoral Experience

S.R. Davis described the electoral experience of the Australian states as a mixture of three things, such as adventure, heterodoxy and knavery, whereas knavery and adventurism have not confined to Queensland. Election results in Queensland during the Bjelke-Petersen era were within the margins expected in any system based on singlemember electorates.

The mainstreaming of the extreme right in France and Australia: a populist hegemony?

governments’ (p. 4). It almost goes without saying that The New Labour Experiment does not achieve this. It is possible that this is an excellent, or at least a competent, French book let down by a bad translation, but the errors of fact and its general superficiality suggest otherwise. Justifying New Labour Policy is a very different book in almost every way. Although it takes the New Labour governments as, effectively, a case study, it is both less and more ambitious than The New Labour Experiment: less ambitious in that it does not attempt to cover the entire sweep of government activity, but concentrates on a few selected policy areas; more so in that it is doing so in order to develop a theoretical framework to investigate how politicians use moral arguments to justify policy to the public. This is an exciting venture and such a framework would add valuable depth to discussions of policy and rhetoric (and the relationship between the two) going far beyond New Labour and British politics. The extent to which Atkins succeeds in developing such a framework, however, or at least to which she succeeds in demonstrating it in operation, is less obvious. The first part of the book is largely a literature review, setting the book’s aims within the context of existing theoretical frameworks for studying politics and policy – in particular Freeden’s work on ideology. From this Atkins derives a number of ‘contexts’ in which justification takes place (ideology, argumentation and hegemonic competition), and the kinds of moral arguments that can be employed (consequentialist, virtue theoretic) and then goes on to examine the ‘core values’ of New Labour’s ‘ideological platform’ – taken to include, most importantly, community, reciprocal rights and responsibilities and equal worth. This is where the first potential problem rears its head, in that Atkins seems (here and throughout the book) to accept uncritically New Labour’s own account of its moral and ideological position. One does not need to be too much of a cynic to suspect that politicians, when seeking to justify policy (or indeed, internal changes within the party) might not always state – or even articulate fully to themselves – the full and complex interaction of motivations behind them. Atkins then goes on to examine a number of policy areas under New Labour, asking what justificatory arguments were used and asking whether these were compatible with the party’s ideological platform. As it could be argued that the ideological platform is itself part of a justificatory strategy, this threatens at points to become circular. Given its exciting premise, the work displays other frustrating weaknesses. It completely ignores the context of public opinion and popular culture, as if this were far less important to politicians than their own moral positions. It treats context, ideology and justification as if they were discrete entities, while many would see a complex and inextricable interplay between them, and Atkins does tend to take New Labour rhetoric and their representation of their core beliefs at face value. However, the fact that it is possible to engage critically with this book, to want to argue with it, rather than just find its very existence bemusing, makes it clearly the more valuable and worthwhile of the two. The justification of policy is a fascinating field, and Justifying New Labour Policy is hopefully the opening salvo in a long and fruitful debate. The New Labour Experiment, on the other hand, sounds like the dying gasp of an old one.

Aurélian Mondon, The mainstreaming of the extreme right in France and Australia: A populist hegemony?, reviewed by Rae WearMondonAurélian, The mainstreaming of the extreme right in France and Australia: A populist hegemony?Ashgate: Farnham, 2013; vii + 229 pp.: ISBN 978 1 4094 5260 7, £49.50 (hbk), 978 1 4094 5264 4, £55 (ebk).

governments’ (p. 4). It almost goes without saying that The New Labour Experiment does not achieve this. It is possible that this is an excellent, or at least a competent, French book let down by a bad translation, but the errors of fact and its general superficiality suggest otherwise. Justifying New Labour Policy is a very different book in almost every way. Although it takes the New Labour governments as, effectively, a case study, it is both less and more ambitious than The New Labour Experiment: less ambitious in that it does not attempt to cover the entire sweep of government activity, but concentrates on a few selected policy areas; more so in that it is doing so in order to develop a theoretical framework to investigate how politicians use moral arguments to justify policy to the public. This is an exciting venture and such a framework would add valuable depth to discussions of policy and rhetoric (and the relationship between the two) going far beyond New Labour and British politics. The extent to which Atkins succeeds in developing such a framework, however, or at least to which she succeeds in demonstrating it in operation, is less obvious. The first part of the book is largely a literature review, setting the book’s aims within the context of existing theoretical frameworks for studying politics and policy – in particular Freeden’s work on ideology. From this Atkins derives a number of ‘contexts’ in which justification takes place (ideology, argumentation and hegemonic competition), and the kinds of moral arguments that can be employed (consequentialist, virtue theoretic) and then goes on to examine the ‘core values’ of New Labour’s ‘ideological platform’ – taken to include, most importantly, community, reciprocal rights and responsibilities and equal worth. This is where the first potential problem rears its head, in that Atkins seems (here and throughout the book) to accept uncritically New Labour’s own account of its moral and ideological position. One does not need to be too much of a cynic to suspect that politicians, when seeking to justify policy (or indeed, internal changes within the party) might not always state – or even articulate fully to themselves – the full and complex interaction of motivations behind them. Atkins then goes on to examine a number of policy areas under New Labour, asking what justificatory arguments were used and asking whether these were compatible with the party’s ideological platform. As it could be argued that the ideological platform is itself part of a justificatory strategy, this threatens at points to become circular. Given its exciting premise, the work displays other frustrating weaknesses. It completely ignores the context of public opinion and popular culture, as if this were far less important to politicians than their own moral positions. It treats context, ideology and justification as if they were discrete entities, while many would see a complex and inextricable interplay between them, and Atkins does tend to take New Labour rhetoric and their representation of their core beliefs at face value. However, the fact that it is possible to engage critically with this book, to want to argue with it, rather than just find its very existence bemusing, makes it clearly the more valuable and worthwhile of the two. The justification of policy is a fascinating field, and Justifying New Labour Policy is hopefully the opening salvo in a long and fruitful debate. The New Labour Experiment, on the other hand, sounds like the dying gasp of an old one.

Aurélian Mondon, The mainstreaming of the extreme right in France and Australia: A populist hegemony?, reviewed by Rae Wear

governments’ (p. 4). It almost goes without saying that The New Labour Experiment does not achieve this. It is possible that this is an excellent, or at least a competent, French book let down by a bad translation, but the errors of fact and its general superficiality suggest otherwise. Justifying New Labour Policy is a very different book in almost every way. Although it takes the New Labour governments as, effectively, a case study, it is both less and more ambitious than The New Labour Experiment: less ambitious in that it does not attempt to cover the entire sweep of government activity, but concentrates on a few selected policy areas; more so in that it is doing so in order to develop a theoretical framework to investigate how politicians use moral arguments to justify policy to the public. This is an exciting venture and such a framework would add valuable depth to discussions of policy and rhetoric (and the relationship between the two) going far beyond New Labour and British politics. The extent to which Atkins succeeds in developing such a framework, however, or at least to which she succeeds in demonstrating it in operation, is less obvious. The first part of the book is largely a literature review, setting the book’s aims within the context of existing theoretical frameworks for studying politics and policy – in particular Freeden’s work on ideology. From this Atkins derives a number of ‘contexts’ in which justification takes place (ideology, argumentation and hegemonic competition), and the kinds of moral arguments that can be employed (consequentialist, virtue theoretic) and then goes on to examine the ‘core values’ of New Labour’s ‘ideological platform’ – taken to include, most importantly, community, reciprocal rights and responsibilities and equal worth. This is where the first potential problem rears its head, in that Atkins seems (here and throughout the book) to accept uncritically New Labour’s own account of its moral and ideological position. One does not need to be too much of a cynic to suspect that politicians, when seeking to justify policy (or indeed, internal changes within the party) might not always state – or even articulate fully to themselves – the full and complex interaction of motivations behind them. Atkins then goes on to examine a number of policy areas under New Labour, asking what justificatory arguments were used and asking whether these were compatible with the party’s ideological platform. As it could be argued that the ideological platform is itself part of a justificatory strategy, this threatens at points to become circular. Given its exciting premise, the work displays other frustrating weaknesses. It completely ignores the context of public opinion and popular culture, as if this were far less important to politicians than their own moral positions. It treats context, ideology and justification as if they were discrete entities, while many would see a complex and inextricable interplay between them, and Atkins does tend to take New Labour rhetoric and their representation of their core beliefs at face value. However, the fact that it is possible to engage critically with this book, to want to argue with it, rather than just find its very existence bemusing, makes it clearly the more valuable and worthwhile of the two. The justification of policy is a fascinating field, and Justifying New Labour Policy is hopefully the opening salvo in a long and fruitful debate. The New Labour Experiment, on the other hand, sounds like the dying gasp of an old one.

So Many Firsts

vast majority of abortions are morally unjust (12). But he is convinced that meaningful and respectful dialogue between defenders and critics of abortion is possible if two key truths are honored. The first is the difference between the subjective culpability of the agent and the objective morality of the act as determined by relevant moral principles and norms. We must not, indeed cannot, judge those who choose to have or defend abortions. “Whatever one’s view of abortion itself, refraining from making judgments about the character of those touched by abortion (in whatever way) is helpful in treating the topic properly, and more importantly, I believe (but won’t defend here), that it is an essential part of being a decent human being” (5). The second is to avoid loaded language such as anti-life, anti-choice, etc. and use instead terms such as defenders of abortion, critics of abortion (6).

BA Santamaria, Your Most Obedient Servant: Selected Letters: 1938-1996

This is the third recent biography of Andrew Fisher. It joins David Day’s Andrew Fisher: Prime Minister of Australia and Edward W. Humphrey’s Andrew Fisher: The Forgotten Man, both published in 2008. Clearly, years of neglect have now been addressed. In terms of achievement, Fisher should never have been overlooked. He was a minister in the world’s first Labor government in Queensland, served in Chris Watson’s Labor ministry, and became Prime Minister three times. He and his governments were instrumental in the introduction of the old age and invalid pensions, workers’ compensation and maternity allowances. His government established the first Prime Minister’s Department, substantially upgraded the nation’s defence forces; commenced construction of the east–west railway; established an Australian currency; created the Commonwealth Bank; introduced the first genuinely Australian stamp; selected the site for the national capital, which was given an Aboriginal name in preference to ‘a vast number of possible imperial, nationalist or abstract concoctions’ (p. 228); and designated Saturdays as voting days so as not to disadvantage working people. Fisher is also remembered for two declarations. At the 1908 federal conference of the Labor party, he told those assembled, ‘We are all socialists now’ (p. 133) and in 1914, he promised ‘the last man and the last shilling’ (p. 185) in support of Great Britain if war should eventuate. Despite these achievements, it is easy to see why, until recently, authors have focused on more colourful prime ministerial characters. The portrait painted in this book is of a dull but amiable striver. Fisher was born in Ayrshire in 1862 and received a solid. although rudimentary, education in the village school, which he later supplemented with night school and a program of self-improvement. Bastian tells us that ‘he was uneasy with too much intellectual speculation and tended to read works that confirmed, rather than challenged, his views’ (p. 10). His family were Presbyterian abstainers and Fisher remained a member of the Temperance society all his life. He began working in the Crosshouse coal-mines as a 9-year-old and it is likely that he joined the union at this point, although the first record of his membership is his election as district secretary of the miners union in 1879. Desirous of a secure future, he migrated to Queensland in 1885, where he replicated elements of his Scottish life: work in the mines, temperance, the Presbyterian Church and unionism. He married at age 39 and although his marriage was ‘solid and enduring’ (p. 93), it was devoid of outward displays of affection when family members or others were present. No whiff of scandal was ever attached to him. As a parliamentarian, he was not an inspired speaker. Like John Howard, he was hard of hearing, and his Scottish brogue added to his audience’s difficulty. As a politician, he was frequently underestimated. This was undoubtedly compounded by the fact that the great bulk of his last years were spent in London – first as Australian High Commissioner and then as a retiree. Bastion makes a convincing case that Fisher’s career, with its demonstration that a man of humble background and ordinary mien could become Prime Minister, ‘changed forever the way Australians would think about the social aspirations of their democracy’ (p. 157). He also makes a solid case for a re-evaluation of Fisher and his numerous achievements.