federal politics
7 Jul 2008
Fair's Fair for the Tall, Bald Poppy
We shouldn't expect Peter Garrett the minister to possess the magnetism of a rock star or the slogans of an activist, writes David Ritter
Although he's not responsible for the Climate Change portfolio, as Environment Minister, Peter Garrett will still be a crucial figure in how the public perceives Labor's policy response to the Garnaut Report.No doubt, the Opposition will find some special barbs for Garrett as they adopt scaremongering tactics, but making fun of the former rock star seems to be increasingly a national pastime. For Garrett, it has been quite a metamorphosis from stadium colossus to political target.
As the front man of Midnight Oil, Garrett had a gripping onstage presence. He would flail around and storm about, furiously eyeball the crowd and belt out lyrics with all the wanton expense of energy of an athlete in the last yards of gold medal race. Like Keating at the dispatch box or Gilchrist at the crease, Garrett in his artistic prime was an unmatchable performer who dominated the arena.
Then there was his evident clarity of vision. Even those who loathed Midnight Oil's music, or despised the band's politics often gave Garrett a certain grudging respect. Here, surely was a man of unconditional principle. Ideology was made lyrical in songs targeted at corporate and political wrongdoers, a synthesis exemplified by the 1990 protest concert staged on the Avenue of the Americas facing the Exxon Building in New York.
But then something changed. In 2004, Garrett became the Labor member for Kingsford Smith. The unconventional stage clothes were abandoned for the suit and tie. To use Kerry O'Brien's colorful phrase, Garrett began to be "scrutinised up the wazoo". Inevitably, there were cries of "sell-out". It was the start of the national sport of having a go at Garrett MP who had become just another tall poppy.
What makes it particularly hard for Garrett is that he is still measured against his former life. Garrett sang: "The time has come/To say fair's fair/To pay the rent/To pay our share", so why can't he fix Indigenous affairs? On stage he was clear: "So you cut all the tall trees down/You poisoned the sky and the sea... There should be enough for us all/But the dollar is driving us still", so why can't he sort out corporate excess and fix the environment? Remember the lyrics: "Blue collar work it don't get you nowhere/You just go round and round in debt"? So, why hasn't he dealt with the credit crisis?
The answer is that the conviction politics of the campaigning musician are different to what is required to be effective in caucus and Cabinet.
The unstated accusation is that Garrett should bring the same transcendence to politics that characterised his presentation as a singer. But what is legitimate and powerful as an activist rock star is not appropriate and would be of dubious use in a Westminster politician.
Garrett the parliamentarian should not be expected to act as a be-suited replica of his earlier self. And neither should we want him to, because political systems where charismatic leaders harangue frenzied crowds with simplified messages don't tend to be very democratic in nature.
Garrett is a pragmatist with principles. Had he taken the path of running for the Greens, then perhaps more of the singer-activist might have remained. But as Mungo MacCallum put it before the last election, Garrett opted for the ALP because he "became convinced that actually achieving change for the better, imperfect though it might be, was more useful than spending the rest of his life yearning for an unattainable green utopia."
We cannot expect Garrett the minister to project the magnetism of a rock star in concert mode or deliver on the slogans of an activist. Instead, the Member for Kingsford Smith should be assessed on what he is now: a 55-year-old newish member of Cabinet in an equally fresh government working to deliver on his portfolio responsibilities in a complex world.
Garrett's effectiveness, like that of every other parliamentarian, is a matter of legitimate debate, but in assessing his efforts, let's try to ignore the giant bald shadow that will be forever dancing and gesticulating furiously on the wall behind him.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
For Ritter to say that people should not expect Garrett to be like the rock musician he was now that he is a politician is rather naïve. People knew him for his stance on the environment and social justice as well as his music.
Garrett, in turn, traded on his reputation as a principled advocate and activist to gain election.
It will take adjustment on the part of both politician and public to change their view of each other. Garrett has the advantage since he has had advance knowledge of his intentions whereas the public is still struggling with the disconnect between their expectation and the new reality.
Garrett is no longer who he was held up to be and the disappointment among voters will be palpable for some time
Good to see that someone is finally making fair comment in relation to Garrett.
People seem to expect some cross between a messiah and a omnipotent dictator. If they had ever understood the oils they would have known Garrett was a team player .
You can be sure that within caucus and his ministry his message has not changed and the passion is undimmed, he is still the principled advocate.
The two images we now have of the man illuminate the gulf between ideals and practicality.
No he can’t stop the pulp mill , close the coal fired power stations etc because as a minister he is subject to and respects the law. That is a good thing , the world doesn’t need more politicians like Bush and Howard.
The disappointment among voters lies in the inadequacies of the system , and in themselves for their long tolerance of Howard era complacency , not the man.
Muuske is right. Garrett was preselected for being a rock star with principles, the electorate voted for a rock star with principles, and what we got was another apologist for inaction on environmental emergencies.
Crusaders don’t earn respect by joining the other side. He deserves what he gets, as did those former passionate campaigners for justice, Cheryl Kernot and Meg Lees.
Easy to indulge in simplistic criticism , but what did you expect another Robert Mugabe?
There are no environmental emergencies , climate change is old news, if you were paying attention 20 years ago the you would realize the predictions about changing climate patterns have been spot on . It takes decades of work to effect the changes that are needed , one man , still learning the job to boot, can not achieve this in five minutes.
I have never run a government department , wouldn’t have a clue as to what is involved , but I can imagine that to manage a team of hundreds to achieve an effective , legal outcome within the parameters of party policy would be harder than sitting back and labeling people "apologists for inaction".
I can see no grounds to criticize Meg Lees track record.
Indulge in some reasoning and you have to consider our system , dominated by two parties representing a very narrow cross section of society, seriously flawed. We need parliament to be a workshop , varied viewpoints forging a consensus and acting upon it , until we make changes to the structure of parliament we cannot expect individuals to be all that effective within it.
As always time will tell , Hawke and Keating appeared a bit second rate at the time , but a lot of their decisions have done us well over the last 15 years.
He ran as Peter Garrett so most people expected him to behave like Peter Garrett.
I knew that he would be swallowed by the party machine and so have not expected anything from him and have not been disappointed.
I would have thought that a ‘pragamatist with principles’ is an oxymoron.
Peter Garrett sold out his ‘green principles’ when he signed up to Labor, with an inflated ego through his prior public acclaim in another field, with no idea as to what changes he could bring about. He obviously wanted political power for the sake of it and because a politically inspired crank called Mark Latham helped him in.
I can’t even imagine the dissent and crankiness this would have caused within the Party faithful who had prepared another (probably far more suitable) candidate for his seat.
As Garrett has discovered, politics is not about spinning one liners to the media, nor is it a popularity contest, but rather you need to be able retain a lot of information and details, have very good communication skills, but above all, be direct and honest in dealing with the public about what you actually stand for.
I don’t think he has a chance of surviving the next election as his portfolio is seen as an aside and is clearly distancing him from the Caucus.
All the same shame on Labor for separating the Climate Change agenda from the Environment, as these two issues are irrevocably interlinked and should be fully merged to facilitate better programs and schemes if they REALLY cared about either of these overlapping areas of policy.