Labor has defined its political style for this term in office: performative paternalism.
It’s about image rather than content and, under a veneer of caring for your safety, it’s also about iron control. Here are four examples of how performative paternalism works.
Anthony Albanese is in his happy place on ABC Radio Brisbane on May 29, joshing with former NRL player Billy Moore: “a good friend of mine, a bit of trivia for you, Billy, that their cat was named Billy”.
Unexpectedly the ABC injects some substance, asking the Prime Minister about a new report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute that says the Australian Defence Force is not ready for conflict.
Albanese: “Well, that’s what they do, isn’t it? ASPI. I mean seriously, they need to, I think, have a look at themselves as well and the way that they conduct themselves in debates.”
The threat is clear: ASPI is government-owned. An “independent” review into ASPI commissioned by Albanese and released just before Christmas last year argued to bring the organisation under closer public service oversight.
ASPI’s report echoes many concerns that the ADF is buckling under spending cuts to pay for the far-distant nuclear-powered submarines. Albanese hates the criticism, any criticism, so ASPI better “have a look at themselves”.
Example two of performative paternalism. At the National Press Club last Tuesday Albanese delivers a speech that talks about Australia’s “stabilising global role in uncertain times”. He doesn’t mention China.
The Prime Minister is asked three times by a reporter from this newspaper if he thinks “China is a national security threat to Australia”. He will not say, instead offering: “I think that our engagement with the region and the world needs to be diplomatic, needs to be mature and needs to avoid the, you know, attempts to simplify what are a complex set of relationships. And Australian journalists should do the same.”
It is not Albanese’s business to tell journalists how to report on China. Answering an earlier question, Albanese says: “I respect the role that the media play, and people should respect the role that the media play in our modern society.”
But when it comes to China, Albanese says journalists should follow his script and avoid naming the threat.
Labor’s tendency to ever-stronger performative paternalism is most on display in connection with Israel. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade mistakenly says: “Australia has a warm and close relationship with Israel.”
That used to be true but Albanese, with Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s support, is demolishing bilateral relations with the Middle East’s only democracy for the sake of the unrealisable policy of a two-state solution for Palestine.
On recognition of a Palestinian state, Wong said on Wednesday: “We no longer see recognition as only occurring at the end of a peace process. We do see the possibility of recognition as part of the peace process.”
For as long as Hamas controls Gaza and a war is being fought there is no prospect for meaningful peace talks. Offering recognition now is the ultimate reward for Hamas atrocities of October 7, 2023. The offer should not be on the table.
Wong condemns Hamas for its terrorist activities and calls for hostages to be released. Still, she “will continue to advocate for all of these things, including a ceasefire”.
This is pure performative theatre. Australia’s long-advocated ceasefire would leave Hamas in charge of Gaza, where no peace process is possible. Hamas advocates a one-state solution, which means the destruction of Israel. Labor must not risk recognising a Palestinian state where there is no Palestinian entity committed to peace, only terrorist groups wanting international legitimacy.
So, to my third example of performative paternalism: On June 6, American-Israeli technology entrepreneur Hillel Fuld was denied a visa to Australia on the grounds that he might incite hatred “against particular segments of the community, namely the Islamic population”.
Fuld was due to speak at events in Sydney and Melbourne. I understand he was going to talk on innovation; high technology accounts for more than half of Israel’s exports.
Fuld is also active on social media. To demonstrate the risk of inciting hatred, the Department of Home Affairs listed some of his tweets on the extent of Islamist radicalisation; on the complicity of some Gazans in supporting Hamas; on Arab terror against Jews.
Reasonable people could disagree with Fuld, perhaps finding some of his views objectionable, but he is clearly a rational and intelligent person. His crime might well be that his views dramatically differ from those of Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke.
There is nothing so fragile about Australian society that we need protection from Fuld. A sharp debate about the reality of the war in Gaza would actually inform our thinking.
Example four: on Tuesday Australia joined with Canada, New Zealand, Norway and Britain on sanctions targeting Israeli Knesset members Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. Both are ministers from minor parties in the Netanyahu coalition government.
Wong told ABC radio on Wednesday: “These two ministers are the most extreme proponents of what we regard as an unlawful and violent settlement enterprise which by their actions go against the notion of a two-state solution.”
I carry no brief for Ben-Gvir and Smotrich; they represent one end of a politically riven Israel, but they don’t speak for the Israeli government.
Their offence, according to the five-nation joint statement, is “extremist rhetoric”. Where are the targeted sanctions against Muslim leaders in the Middle East peddling “extremist rhetoric” against Israel?
Where are the sanctions against Iran’s ambassador in Canberra who last year used social media to call for the “wiping out” of Israelis in Palestine by 2027 and described Jews as a “Zionist plague”?
Netanyahu’s approach to Gaza is, in my view, deeply flawed. A friend might choose quieter engagement to encourage Israel towards a better path. But Labor’s performative campaign will fracture our relationship with Israelis who increasingly feel abandoned by their mates.
The sanctions have already been condemned by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Wong’s response is “from time to time we have differences of views”. Increasingly, though, this is Labor’s tone towards the US.
Welcome to performative paternalism: where symbolism displaces hard choices, dissent is met with rebuke and foreign policy is reduced to theatre.
A government that bullies, lectures and sanctions its way through difficult terrain risks not only domestic division but real damage to our US alliance and our once-valued relationship with Israel.
Peter Jennings is director of Strategic Analysis Australia and an adjunct fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs. He is a former deputy secretary for strategy in the Defence Department.
More Coverage
No room for discussion as ABC dumps Q + A
The ABC is a conservative-free zone without one political conservative as a presenter, producer or editor for any of its main TV, radio or online news and current affairs outlets. How boring is that?
Spare us the warped reality of Greta’s Gaza aid boat stunt
What is more heroic; lounging on the hull of a boat in the scorching Mediterranean sun or risking your life to get food to hungry people?