
This, apparently, is a moment that brings “shocking revelations“, “shame” and dishonour, especially to dead diggers. Local media’s most unsurprising outlets have been reacting with daily surprise to reports of the royal commission into banking. Surprise might not describe your response to news that the national economy’s most powerful sector doesn’t always produce extreme private debt in a nice way. But, it may be the sincere response of many journalists.
Who knows? Perhaps some commentators are so truly forgetful that they can be be truly surprised each day. Perhaps disgust, surprise, and outrage are symptoms of a virus contracted in newsrooms. Perhaps a database hiccup at News Corp directs all internal searches for the 2008 financial crisis to Madonna’s divorce settlement. I dunno. Doesn’t matter. What does matter is that surprise, whether cynical or naïve, is a very sound means of reviving dominant order.
Took the government a while to remember. But, finally, they’re on it.
The Minister for Finance was surprised on Monday. It was then that Mathias Cormann told Sky News, “I have to say I have been surprised. I have to admit some of the revelations in recent times, I have been surprised.” Matt Canavan, Minister for Resources, reportedly said that he was “shocked“. Even our Financial Services Minister took a moment to be “appalled” in a magnificently appalling television interview. Not surprised enough, though. Not willing to call this a scandal.
It is, of course, possible that Kelly O’Dwyer is not truly surprised by these accounts of predation in the financial services industry. She has worked in the sector and perhaps has seen such things directly, even accepted them as inevitable. I can’t say. As I could find no description of her duties at the National Australia Bank more detailed than this by News Corp: “she looked after extremely rich families worth more than $30 million“.
(This last sentence and the quote it contains in no way serves the point I seek to make here about the political power of surprise. But, it would be a shame not to share this scrap of late journalism itself so extremely rich.)
O’Dwyer’s moment has been celebrated widely. But, the moment is no more a demonstration of her bad character than it is of Barry Cassidy’s skill as a journalist. A failure to appear surprised, or as suddenly shaken by those terrible banks as Tony Abbott, is not much to celebrate. Not one politician is surprised. Not one.
Say Kelly O’Dwyer was not merely appalled or very surprised that such terrible things could ever unfold. Say she named those Few Bad Apples who’d most surprised her with their stench, then called for their immediate composting. What then?
This is no proof that Sir Humphrey Appleby was wrong to identify that basic rule of government: “Never set up an inquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be”. Sir Humphrey was never, as I recall, wrong about anything. As truly monstrous as some findings are, government, and opposition, are not shocked that banks feed like jackals on the bodies of the dead.
What else might such a powerful sector do to retain its primacy, one erected in this nation on phantom credit itself founded on commodities for which China may soon have diminished use? Australian banks don’t facilitate investment much in actual things these days. They give cheap money to the wealthy and impose harsh penalties on the rest.
What they can produce, though, is a good lesson that equilibrium under capitalism is a bit of a fib. How can a small house be worth a million dollars? Because houses are in short supply, says a government that pretends to be shocked by the behaviour of banks. No. Houses are not in short supply. Vacant dwellings in Australia vastly outnumber homeless Australian persons. The transformation by banks of a home into an asset of such extreme value punishes people, and creates a private debt to GDP ratio that may punish our entire economy.
So perhaps the response to the royal commission should not be one of surprise. To denounce some banks, as Abbott and others have, as scandalous is to state that the problem with a monstrously powerful sector is its bad morality, its disrespect for dead diggers etc. It is to create the illusion that a fundamentally unsustainable national economy can be sustained if we tell the bad bits of it off.
It’s not a scandal. It’s scandalous to say so. It’s business as business has been permitted to become, and this was known not just by Kelly O’Dwyer in advance.
Good piece, Razer!
That several dozen adults could profess surprise at the Bank’s shenanigans suggest that they are either complete liars or complete idiots. They can pick their own category between the two.
Couldn’t agree more Helen. The resort to ‘surprise’ and ‘appalled’ is a mere fancy to hide the fact that they knew what was going on all along, and just didn’t want the plebs to know.
Of course, there is ScoMo, who has good claims to being surprised. He displays almost no understanding of how the economy or business works, particularly big business. He is still under the illusion that giving big business tax reductions will lead to increased wages. He has strong claims to not knowing, it is in fact his default position.
Cormann mouths the same, but as he is much smarter than ScoMo I have to assume that he is fully aware of his bullshitting.
Turnbull, yeah well, I’m sure he knew, and like all his corporate mates, thinks that is actually good for the country for the big end of town to shaft the little people remorselessly.
The disconnect is vast, so vast that the contemplation of it can lead to nirvana. Buddha could only envisage multiple universes piled on top of one another.
While I agree with the thrust of your article, I would pick you up on one point. The amount of vacant homes might outnumber the homeless, HR, but not the buyer market. From my reading Australia is some several hundreds of thousands dwellings short of the market. The shire I live in almost prides itself for not having had a major rezoning since 1988, with the result that even a small home is now over $1m. Anyway the number of homes for sale (unless you’re advocating that vacant home owners give them away) doesn’t affect the number of homeless persons. A great number of homeless could be housed if our govt went back to the kind of social housing we had before and after WWII (and still exists in Europe).
“The amount of vacant homes might outnumber the homeless, HR, but not the buyer market.”
The buyer market, comprising of;
Wealthy 1st home buyers?
Wealthy 2nd, 3rd, 4th, home buyers/investors.
Struggling, 1st home buyers, who have to pay more for a home because every sale is a bidders market. (Even in outer suburbs of major cities.)
The old days of ‘gazumping’ being illegal, has flown out the window.
If you want a home that goes over your budget (due to bidding war) then you pay extra $10K +/- for insurance that is provided & underwritten by some other Bank/Ins overseas, thereby reducing the bank’s chance of being caught with the hassle of collecting their money.
What I’d like to know is;
How did the banks get away with this?
Too big to fail?
How many politicians have known this all along & were happy to turn a blind eye?
I happen to agree with you Coralien, that its a ridiculous how expensive home ownership is in this country. Especially because of all countries on earth, we should definitely not be one with a housing shortage. Forget what all the vested interested are saying are the reasons for home affordability, theres only one major reason – lack of stock. Supply & demand. As much as we’d like to blame the banks for the price of housing, most of the blame should actually go to the politicians who have let this happen.
If councils all around the country were forced to rezone land to such an extent as to lower prices in their region, that would make a huge difference. If we had social housing for those who still can’t afford a home, that would make a huge difference. Maybe the trillion of dollars in the super fund could be freed up to invest in low cost housing, that would make a huge difference.
Its a bit rich that people wax lyrical about the villages all over Europe, how cosy the village squares are, etc, but think about it, almost all of those places have 4 & 5 storey dwellings in the centres where even the poorest can afford to buy or rent, or be eligible to social housing. Look at any town centre in Australia, you’ll see none of these things, if theres a village square at all it’ll be surrounded by shops not housing and everyone lives in suburbs which expansion to absorb higher populations is controlled by councils.
Your point will be further strengthened when, as the dust settles, not one of the criminals will serve porridge.
Count the number of ex-bankers in the Cabinet. “I am shocked, shocked” : head of police in the movie Casablanca just before being handed his winnings from illegal gambling.