How many times have we heard that One Nation does not have enough policies or costings? I hear the accusation regularly thrown at Pauline Hanson by cranky people, be they socialists or not-as-socialist politicians.
It is a nonsense.
Not because costed policies lack importance, or because of the ongoing hypocrisy of it all (which many others have described). Instead, I find the immaturity of the discussion nauseating. Too many do not understand what a policy is in contrast to general ethical parameters, which are then followed by detailed procedures for implementing steps towards the policy.
Put simply, policy statements briefly describe core commitments. They are one or two sentences explaining what you are wanting to achieve in a certain area of your operations – or if the statement is in the form of vision and mission statements, they represent what you are wanting to achieve across your whole operation.
The detail is a subset of this foundational work. If generic principles are needed to reinforce your ethos, then they might be a short list of numbered sentences. The deep detail comes in how that commitment is going to be operationalised within your ethos principles.
This structure is, for example, what independent schools are supposed to provide to the government in order to be registered as a school entity in the business sense. There is a whole manual about it, and there are companies who make a living from helping schools comply with the regulations around such policy and procedure development. Additionally, anything that ‘customers’ (parents) might need to know should be available to them before enrolment (at the policy level) – that is, parents should not be asked to join a school unless they can see if the commitments align.
What an irony that the historically dominant political parties ignorantly rant about a lack of policies in their opposition when they can’t even meet the starting standards of a local independent school. Their commitments seem to be either missing, unclear, or intermittent. It is why so many of the comments by the Coalition and Labor feel puerile.
They do not understand that at the moment, One Nation, led by Pauline Hanson, has the clearest statements of commitment. In my view, clearer than any other party. I am sure many conservative voters would like to be more confident in the Coalition, but their commitment statements have been slow and soft in being presented, that they have the air of uncertainty to them – especially when we have witnessed the internal conflicts of commitments of the last couple of years. Thus, if the current leader gives a commitment, can it be trusted to stay in place? I do not have that confidence, based on experience, particularly in what has been crassly called the ‘cultural wars’, which are actually culture-forming aspects of life that form the basis of a society’s identity.
Surely Pauline Hanson’s core commitments have been the clearest and most transparent ones across the last 30 years, compared to all the other parties? Even the Greens have slid around from their environmental roots to all kinds of other social reorganising themes. But Hanson’s recent speech at the National Press Club summarised her commitments clearly and strongly, again. There were no surprises, which is why commentators had to quibble over the wording of the commitment to keep Australia, well, Australian. ‘Monocultural’ might be considered clumsy by some, and offensive by the deconstructionists, but it works to explain her commitment.
How does the muted Labor gang respond? They frame it as an insult – to whom? To those who want more than one national language; or those who want different legal systems; or those who promote ‘peaceful demonstrations’ by making regular public nuisances of themselves while intimidating a group of Australians who have seen their friends abused and now shot; or to those who want expensive energy without productivity? Oh, I know, the insult was for those who want more than one flag! Silly me.
What did the Coalition make of it? The same, but in quieter tones. They used to have an effective Indigenous Affairs spokesperson, but she has been moved to a different portfolio. They used to declare ‘we will decide who comes into this country’, but now have some complicated message about immigrants, housing, and values (while avoiding any strong statements about the beliefs behind those disruptive values). They used to insist on students knowing the basis of Westminster law and citizenship, but they say nothing about the current emphases in the National Curriculum. They used to defend taxation rates that rewarded effort, initiative and families – and seem to be heading that way again – but can they tame the unions? They tried to raise nuclear energy in an election, and then let the wets put a damper on it, and are still ambivalent about gas and for some of them, still allergic to coal. At least there is a one flag commitment – but I do not trust the multinationalists and multiculturalists that still slink around their corridors.
Commitment. Give it. Keep your word. Listen to your own people and their constituents. Allow public debate, even from within your own ranks, and then see what support you have for your commitments. Based on that, develop your ethos principles, and move to the operational projections after the electorate has said, ‘yes’.
Sounds simple.
Why does it sound like only one party is finding clear starting commitments at the moment? The Libs are lost. Labor has muted its democratic moorings with the public and within its parliamentary members. The Greens really are red on the inside. The Teals are – who?
One Nation anyone?
