Swingeing - a new term in the Oz body politic

What is 'Swingeing'?

'Swingeing' is a term that has been used to discuss government budgets (at least in Westminster style democracies) since modern newspapers started to discuss what a government is trying to achieve by changes to its up-coming budget.  It is a very old word, coming from the English Middle Ages, that means "to beat, to flog, to punish". In the past, if an academic or a political reporter wanted to prove that the proposed changes (of laws or their application) to the budget were 'draconian', that is, "excessively harsh and severe", they simply set about to properly describe them as an attempt to 'swinge' the poor, defenseless, and ignorant taxpayer. If you won that bout, you would in the past have expected the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to apologise and modify the swingeing aspects of the tax/expenditure changes or to remove that tax/expenditure changes altogether.

Present use of the word 'Swingeing'

Well, it seems that times have changed. 'Swingeing' is still used in the debate about coming tax/expenditure changes. And it still means the same, "to beat, to flog, to punish". But rather than being something that a Treasurer, Prime Minister or key Treasury official needs to disprove to allow the passage of the budget by the Parliament, it has suddenly become something that they can be proud of, a treasury official / a committee (such as the National Commission of Audit) can accept as a key objective of proposed changes, and the MSM reporters can report without the need to investigate or question.

MSM use of the word

I know I am asking a lot of the reader to put your mind on the use of one single word, but it seems to me that it is an important word, and its use in the last two days seems to be a key point in the movement of Australia into a serious new world and one defining part of what the Treasurer means when he says “the end of the age of entitlement”.

READ MORE: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-01/commission-of-audit-report-release...

This analysis of the coming changes proposed by the Commission of Audit by ABC political correspondent Emma Griffiths uses the term 'swingeing cuts' (see above) and describes a large number of these cuts. But at no point is there any attempt to interrogate the Commissioner why he is proposing 'draconian' changes, what he is trying to achieve by using 'swingeing' (draconian social) changes, and why other non-draconian changes could not be used to achieve the same economic objectives without including these draconian social changes. So there is no clear indicator that Emma has fully understood the term 'swingeing cuts' she used to begin the analysis. As I said, in the past, if a change was identified as swingeing/draconian, the government woud be called upon to prove it as not swingeing/draconian or remove it.

My guess is that Emma borrowed the use of the term 'swingeing cuts' from Chris Uhlmann (who reported this story first talking to Chris Bowen on Monday, April 28, 2014 07:10:00 and then helping the Minister of Finance The Hon. Mathias Cormann present the government's proposed changes Thursday, May 1, 2014) without seeing the need for serious analysis of the history and meaning of the term 'swingeing cuts', and so may not be fully up to speed on the full implications of what she reported. (See Uhlmann's conversation with the Chris Bowen, Shadow Treasurer http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2014/s3992958.htm). See Uhlmann's conversation with the Minister:

Chris Uhlmann TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE DATE: 1/05/14 TITLE: ABC Radio - AM TOPIC: Release of the Commission of Audit report.

READ TRANSCRIPT: http://www.financeminister.gov.au/transcripts/2014/0501-commission-of-au...

But reading these two important press release type moments (one from either side of the parliament) using the interview style as designed by Chris Uhlmann, it is easy to see that Uhlmann fully understands the meaning of 'swingeing cuts'. But Uhlmann also can be seen to be part of the movement into a new world, by not seeing the need to apply the standards of moral decency that have promoted similar interrogations by chief reporters in the past. When Bowen throws the ball stressing the importance of applying the test of 'swingeing' to acceptance/rejection of changes, Uhlmann lets the ball go through to the keeper without comment. When Cormann stresses the need for 'swingeing cuts' to the Public Service and to services delivered, he does the same. It's like suddenly the moral impact of policy changes has no role to play in the evaluation of policy changes. It has nothing to do with him!

The Bowen response http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2014/s3992958.htm using 'swingeing' in the traditional sense, as a way of highlighting social hurt that will arise as a negative and the Cormann response http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2014/s3992958.htm that couldn't care less about the hurt arising from 'swingeing' are accepted in the same manner.

Nasty immoral changes

At present the changes published by the Commission of Audit are being proposed and evaluated by a cabinet who seem intent on serious changes that will be 'radical' and will be 'swingeing' (will beat, flog, and punish) a non-suspecting electorate. We have a MSM who see it as a government's right to do so, without the need to justify it, and without them seeing any role by them to bring the moral dangers of such changes out into the open. A hundred years of tradition about moral integrity of such changes are being dumped in the dustbin of history with little or no comment, by anyone. Here are some other related MSM and Social Media stuff to read that impacts at this time: