interview
1 Jul 2008
The Ultimate Veto
Independent Senator-elect Nick Xenophon is about to become one of the most powerful men in the country. Ben Eltham finds out what makes him tick
It's a busy Thursday afternoon in the office of the Xenophon and Co law firm, which is where I find the man who is about to become one of the most powerful legislators in the country. The receptionist doesn't know anything about our interview, but when she puts me through to Senator-elect Nick Xenophon, he's all business."You know The Australian is doing a big spread on me this weekend," he says straight away, disarmingly, just in case that might change my line of questioning for this interview. "They're dredging up old stuff from student politics," he continues matter-of-factly.
Nick Xenophon is suddenly in the spotlight, as the most important independent Senator since Brian Harradine.
Xenophon's massive primary vote in South Australia - he polled better than Penny Wong - split the normal major party duopoly and indirectly helped 26-year-old Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young into the last seat on the South Australian ticket. Now Kevin Rudd will need Xenophon's vote on every single piece of legislation he hopes to pass.
It's not so much the balance of power as the ultimate veto.
The outlines of Xenophon's career are now becoming better known. Briefly involved with the Liberals at university, Xenophon was Editor of the University of Adelaide student newspaper, On Dit. Xenophon calls it a "youthful indiscretion." He argues he also attended Labor and Democrats meetings, before settling down to a career in the law.
During the 1980s and 90s, Xenophon developed a successful career as a personal injury lawyer. It's a somewhat uncommon path to politics in Australia (although Julia Gillard was a partner at Slater & Gordon, she worked primarily in industrial relations) - unlike in the United States, where several former trial lawyers and state attorneys like John Edwards and Rudy Giuliani have gone on to make names for themselves in politics.
It was reportedly the experience of one of Xenophon's clients, who had a gambling addiction, that first prompted his interest in poker machines. Elected to South Australia's upper house on an anti-gambling platform in 1997, he quickly made a name for himself on an issue few State governments have been prepared to address. "I was known as the No Pokies MP," he freely admits.
Xenophon is frank in discussion and surprisingly agile in his command of the policy details. He essentially brings only two policy priorities to Canberra: gambling and water.
On gambling, Xenophon points to books like Robert Goodman's The Luck Business and the groundbreaking 1999 Productivity Commission report into problem gambling, Australia's Gambling Industries. Xenophon wants Federal legislation to outlaw ATM access inside gambling establishments. "Close to 60 per cent of problem gamblers access ATMs" during a typical gaming session, he argues.
"There were two factors that led to a tipping point in my running for the Senate," he says. "Firstly the High Court WorkChoices decision made it clear that the Commonwealth can use the Constitution's corporations power to override State legislation."
"The second aspect of it was there were statements by Kevin Rudd and Peter Costello about the damage caused by poker machines, and the realisation that States are hopelessly compromised by the taxes they rake in over pokie machines - in NSW $1 billion a year."
"I thought the last, best hope to wind back the damage caused by poker machines was in Federal Parliament."
Xenophon's other agenda is water - an issue of special concern in South Australia. "We're at the tail-end of a once-great river system," he says. "We have borne the brunt of the mismanagement of the Murray by State and Federal governments. It needs a national approach. My short term goal is to ensure that the permanent plantings in the Riverland don't die."
"If we don't get some emergency assistance now, the cost of picking up the pieces will far exceed what we're spending now, in Centrelink payments for the thousands of irrigators and people who draw their livelihoods from the river."
Xenophon has been influenced by the work of Professor Mike Young, Research Chair of Water Economics and Management at the University of Adelaide. "We've got to get it right and we're running out of time. We've only got a few more months before the lower lakes suffer irreversible damage."
I ask if Xenophon has been out to see the lower lakes of the Murray. He has. "They are pretty awful in terms of mud and sludge and acid sulfate soil. In the Riverland people are pulling out trees, they're on a knife edge and they're praying for rain. It's very grim."
His policy prescriptions on the issue are threefold:
"Number one: you need to fast-track water conservation measures. You have the absurd meandering channels in Victoria and NSW. Secondly you have irrigators who use the water inefficiently instead of using state-of-the-art systems like Israeli drip irrigation. [And thirdly], you have the whole issue of water being diverted out of the system - the so-called turkey dams up in Queensland. They're just three things that need to be tackled."
It's a big challenge for a nation which has found water reform an historically difficult policy problem. Nearly as big as climate change, to which Xenophon refers several times during our interview. So, I take it he is not a climate change skeptic?
"To the skeptics I say that one of the best comments I heard was from Rupert Murdoch, who said that even if you accept there's only a 30 per cent chance of global warming then you must, from a risk-management point of view, do everything possible to avoid that happening. Even if it was a 1 per cent chance that we could face catastrophic consequences of global warming, we need from a risk-management approach to prevent that from happening."
Xenophon is talking like a Greens Party member, but he insists he is firmly in the centre of politics. "Look, I don't want to be tied down to a particular ideology, I want to be an independent, I think that I'm pretty much in the middle. Some people have called me a social conservative - I don't support voluntary euthanasia legislation, but I am sympathetic to stem cell research because of the hope it offers."
What then is Xenophon's position on that other pressing social issue, Kevin Rudd's alcopops tax increase?
"Look, there's clearly a binge drinking problem in the country, but I want to weigh up the options. This is about problematic drinking. I think that report [from the National Health and Medical Research Council] that says four drinks is binge drinking, that's not about reducing harm, that's about labelling people. My initial concern is that the Government is looking at $3 billion in revenue and there's only $70 million going to be spent on harm minimisation programs - which is consistent with what the Greens and Family First have said on this issue."
In a sign that could pose future problems for Labor, Xenophon is keen to work with the minor parties in the Senate. "I want to work with both the Government and my cross-bench colleagues. I've met with Steve Fielding and I know Bob Brown and I'm keen to have a good and constructive relationship with both the Greens and Family First."
Even so, is Xenophon ready for the scrutiny that holding the balance of power will bring?
"I had a Senator-elect [tell me that] I have no idea what's going to hit me, and I said 'Yes I do - it's going to be ugly.'"
Nevertheless, Xenophon gives every impression of being prepared. "I'd rather be in a position where my views and votes matter rather than being on the periphery."
From today, that's exactly where Nick Xenophon will be.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
We are very proud of him in South Australia :) I’m sure that he will take up the best of the Democrats’ principles, that he will keep the bastards honest generally, and more particularly and urgently, get us a good deal on water.
Joe
How can people possibly vote for a person who does not at least a clear philosophical basis? The south australians have elected someone who has (in my view) good opinions on gambling and on water. For all I know he is a good bloke. But they have no idea what his views on other issues will be, or on how he will reach them.
I know how eroded the principled base of the major parties is, and I know about the ugly deals that are done, and the amoral way that lines of argument are presented not because they have any inherent merit but because they work well with the news cycle and the shock jocks. The NSW tactic of banning anything that people might want to do is one example; the ridiculous proposition that a 5c or 10c reduction on petrol is a rational idea and a good idea is another.
But by and large we can assume that labor will tend to look after the underdog, to see some point in regulation, and to be a party of social tolerance. And by and large we can assume that the liberals will be interested in maximising the interests of employers and business generally, and will be inclined to be socially more restrictive, and economically more open. These are pretty broad brushes, I know, but they are something.
Added to that, the major parties spend a bit of time in developing and promulgating policies on most issues. Again these tend not always to be core promises, and often they need some rectification or even abandonment in the light of reality.
But we have a relatively good idea of the type of pig we are getting. It is not tied into a poke with only a few tail bristles sticking out.
This is not the case, it seems with Mr Xenophon. It does not seem to be the case with Mr Fielding. And a glance at the article elsewhere on this site by the greens about the intervention in the nt reads more like an emotional polemic than a clear set of positions based on demonstrated facts to which have been applied an observable reasoning process.
So our elected ‘representatives’ seem to include people who can be said to represent us only in a formal and very indirect way.
Are people happy with this?
As an afterthought, does it make the primary phenomenon whereby american candidates undergo a gruelling nationwide interrogation of all of their policy positions seem attractive? At least they know what to expect when mccain or obama finally get in.
Can we have a moritorium on single issue or narrow issue politicians and parties?
Hi Richard,
Nick Xenophon was elected by the South Australian electorate. He IS a representative, no quotation marks necessary. That’s democracy. People down here know him to be very socially-aware, and always (so far) on the side of the underdog. In fact, I think he will out-Labour Labour.
At least we might get more water than you easterners are willing to give us so far.
Joe
Knowing little to nothing about Xenophon, I read this with interest. On balance this FAR leftie is pretty happy.
More than anything it’s that he’s either relatively spin free or very very good at it. To this ex PR world flunkie he comes across as refreshingly free of guile.
It’s easy, but altogether false to criticize independents or minor parties who hold the balance of power as unrepresentative. If it’s NSW or Victorian voters who hand power to governments (or major party oppositions) in the Senate are THEY unrepresentative? Of course not.
Xenophon seems to be of the Peter Andren mold, if he’s even half the man he was I’d like to say Thanks to the folks of SA.
Oh, Nick is full of guile all right, and an inexhaustible talent for PR, but as far as anyone in SA can tell, he uses those powers for good.
And I’m tickled pink that you call him a far leftie :) Perhaps even a genuine leftie at last, although he has never claimed to be one.
Joe
From Nick’s ancestry he seems to to have ‘the right stuff’. Read about " Xenophon and the 10,000". Much the same as we see happening today, read the original Xenophon’s words and not the commentary. Frank
From the little I know Nick seems like an excellent independant. I don’t share Richard’s distaste for single issue candidates in the Senate. In fact I think a balance of power held by a loose coalition of independants that are not tied down by party policy could be as good or better than the Democrats.
If they are not locked into policy they may be able to respond more directly to the electorate. We have seen many times legislation passed despite obvious misgivings by a majority of the population. Hopefully neither party will be able to rely on the support of these senators as a matter of course, forcing parties to draft more even-handed and democratic legislation.
At least Nick is into water and reduction of gambling instead of guns and 4 wheel drives.
I’m from South Australia, and Xenopohon scares me to death.
Sure, he’s good with the media, but what does he think about the budget? international affairs? paid parental leave? oil prices?
South Australians have elected someone with no policy platform, no ideology and no idea, and I wouldn’t trust him one bit.
Wait and see, WanderinStar: if he’s no good, we don’t vote him in again. That’s how it goes. Let’s see what he does about water first but: can he squeeze more of it from the greedy eastern states before it’s too late ? If our water supply dries up by next summer, will he pressure the federal government to set up adequate refugee camps for South Australians around Melbourne and Sydney and maybe Brisbane ?
Joe
Joe I was referring to MYSELF as a far leftie, I wouldn’t named anyone in the Australian Parliament left at all.
Oh and we already run refugee camps for SA folk - anyone ever heard of anyone decamping from Melbourne or Sydney and setting up in Adelaide?
so let’s add all this up. Xenophon is a good choice because South Australians like him. He is either honest, or a really good liar. He’s not locked into policy because he has none, so he can respond more directly to the electorate (whatever that means). And hey, none of it matters, because he might only be there for one term.
Good. That’s settled then.
So next time I need heart surgery I wont check out the reputation and training of the surgeon, whether she uses radical or well established technique, and the like, because I don’t want one who is locked into a policy. I won’t ask her about the operation, prognosis, success rate etc because she might be a really good liar. And if she fucks up, hey its only the one operation and I might be able to have a different one next time (if I’m alive).
Silly me. I thought that one of our duties as citizens was to choose leaders based on a degree of careful thought, applying our individual values to our assessment of the candidates based on their policies and proposals. And I thought that we wanted a degree of predictability and stability in government, and to avoid the spectacle of idiosyncratic politicians with the balance of power doing deals and deriving benefits for which there is no rational justification. And I thought one of the expectations of politicians was that they would lay out for our consideration their values, policies, and proposals.
Thanks, MissnOmar. And yes, RichardP, we voted for him, and if he’s any good, we’ll vote for him again. You might not know him but in South Australia, he is very, very well known and respected. So wait and see. But one thing you might not get with Nick is predictability: buckle up, we’re in for a wild ride !
Joe
RichardP you admit your views on what can be expected from the major parties is a broad brush yet you take issue with SA voters choosing Xenophon after applying much the same "broad brush" thinking.
"But by and large we can assume that labor will tend to look after the underdog"
unless that underdog works in the construction industry, attends public school or can not afford private health insurance
"to see some point in regulation, and to be a party of social tolerance."
Keating/Hawke deregulated more than Howard did and Rudd holds IDENTICAL views as to howard on gay rights and drug decriminalization just to name two social issues.
"and by and large we can assume that the liberals (snip) and will be inclined to be socially more restrictive, and economically more open."
What social policies of the Libs haven’t been loudly cheersquaded by the ALP lately? Liberals by definition are not socially restrictive
How on earth was Workchoices legislation economically open?
This false dichotomy of Australian politics is in my view part of what causes people to abandon the major parties.
Traditional Liberals can’t support the Coalition’s restrictive social views not to mention overly restrictive employment laws.
Traditional conservatives can’t support the economic rationalist radicals who took over their party 20+ years ago
Traditional Labor supporters (ie union movement supporters not ALP) can’t support Workchoices-Lite and the ABCC
Given BOTH major parties can only be trusted to do one thing, push the neo-lib economic disaster of "deregulation" and privatisation why would any of their traditional base vote for them?
MissnOmar and RicharP,
Why assume that the Labour party will look after the underdog ? Have they really done that in the past, any more than the Libs have ?
As for our Nick, he has already proposed another desalination plant, this time for Port Pirie, so that you eastern states bastards can all stand on your heads and pour your Murray-Darling water up your arses. We’ll build desalination plants, and provide for ourselves. And when the mining really gets going in SA, you mongrels will put your hands out for royalties, I’ll bet. Australians all let us rejoice ? Maybe we can build a dam at the NSW-Vic bvorder, you can keep your water, and we can join with WA and secede.
Joe
Jesus guys its only the senate, not like he can do any real damage surely. Its the only place we can afford to have wild cards like Nick, and he will likely be the source of some new ideas. God knows the two major parties are slow on the uptake.
In answer to your medical question Richard if we relied on the two party system of surgery you would be left with a choice between leeches and trepanning. I guess Labor are the leeches and a Liberal government was certainly like having someone bore into my head. The Nationals would simply bring out the screen and shoot the patient.
I look forward to Senator Xenophon doing as much damage as the eastern states deserve. Greedy, miserable bastards.
Joe