The Alcott/ANZ Alliance
Keeping money out of politics should be a goal, not the sacrifice, in social progress
This newsletter began with a trilogy of China focused pieces: thankfully, the nation has sorted that question out. Time to focus inwards, on something a little more personality based.
The other day, Dylan Alcott was named the ‘Victorian Australian of the Year’ for 2022, for his work as, in order, an Athlete, paralympian, philanthropist, media commentator and advocate. Undoubtedly a determined and wildly successful tennis player, Alcott has won 15 Grand Slams, second only to Dutch female player, Esther Vergeer, as the best wheelchair player of all time. This newsletter dutifully acknowledges the skill, talent, and hard work to be at the top of the world for that long in competitive sport. Alcott, upon receiving the Award of ‘Victorian Australian of the Year’ (finals to come on ‘Australia Day’ 2022), mentioned his desire to enter politics:
“You can actually influence a lot of change in there ... There hasn't been many people with disability who've had the opportunity to do that”
It appears Alcott is planning a move beyond being merely a public figure, to expressing desire to be a public representative. As such, it is time to take a closer look at Alcott. Beyond disability advocacy, I am very curious to know where his political allegiances lie. I, for one, would love to know what his thoughts are on the balance of capital to labour, foreign affairs and national security, energy and environment, privatisation of government services, planning and development, tax incentives and housing, or any number of critical issues facing our society. However, on his weekly show on commercial radio Hit Network, Alcott slightly walked back his ambitions, asking rhetorically why the Prime Minister couldn’t be in a wheelchair, rather than forwarding himself for political office. Either way, given the media saturation his profile affords, it’s entirely believable that this is a long-term objective of the ever-successful Alcott.
Now, stick with me, even if it appears I am critiquing Mother Theresa. All public figures, and particularly those in representative office, place themselves there, and deserve analysis and critique. For whom do they serve? Us. They also serve higher purpose: for Mother Theresa, it was God, and for Dylan, it is disability advocacy. No doubt, sincere, noble and laudable. But just as Mother Theresa was a loyal servant to the Roman Catholic Church, Alcott, it appears, is a loyal servant of ANZ, and by extension, the Australian Banking Cartel.
Strong claim, but thankfully there is a mountain of ANZ/Alcott content to back it up. Luckily, in his role as brand ambassador ANZ, Dylan has given some clues to his political compass. These media segments are presented by Alcott and his girlfriend, Sexologist Chantelle Otten, taking the form of cute, informal couple dates, where the two engage in unscripted ‘couples goals’ sessions. They fool around in front of the camera, showing their natural side… in order for you, the unfortunate viewer, to click on the paid promotion links and sign up for the “ANZ Financial Wellbeing Challenge”. Sounds a stretch? It is. Sounds painful? It is. Worthy of analysis? You bet.
Let’s take a look, starting with a core question of politics, ‘Wants or Needs’. Unfortunately you’ll have to exit the newsletter and watch on Facebook. It is essential viewing.
https://www.facebook.com/ANZAustralia/videos/461463688617413
Here, the two ask and answer, in today’s society, what constitutes a Want, and what is a Need? Food delivery = need. Streaming services = need (Alcott says, post COVID, they are “essential”). New clothes = need in Otten’s case. Tickets to see Roger Federer play = need.
Now, you may be saying, why, this is just a paid promotion, it’s not serious, it’s just a bit of fun. Indeed, the marketing executives responsible would nod along with you, pointing to the response ratio below as evidence of a brilliant campaign.
It would be cynical to extrapolate Alcott’s entire political platform from just a short Facebook video. Would Alcott be advocating for universal food delivery and streaming services if elected to Parliament? Interestingly, one can imagine a UBI future, with state-subsidised privately run mega-entertainment corporations delivering bread and circus, for profit. But, in the meantime, the video opens Alcott up to serious questions about the distribution of scarce resources in society. Beyond middle class comforts of Uber and Netflix, does Alcott believe that universal dental care, for example, is a need, or a want? Currently, Medicare doesn’t cover dental, and it is deemed a mere desire to want to have all your teeth past middle age, unless you have the coin to cover the extortionate bills.
Or, how about workers rights for those participating in the ‘Gig economy’? Want or need? Do ‘delivery partners’, as they are condescendingly labelled, deserve such protections as sick pay, superannuation, WorkSafe insurance, or for that matter, the minimum wage, when delivering food for us? Alcott and Otten are comfortable sorting ‘food delivery’ into their Need basket: do they view the workers satisfying their needs as below concern? Uber’s business model depends on restricting these needs from its workers. It is able to run massive marketing and sponsorship agreements precisely because its revenue isn’t directed towards its ‘partners’. Important to note that Alcott, always happy to help, has also has been a paid representative of UberEats, starring in the ‘Tonight, I’ll be Eating” campaign.
Again, is it cynical to view Alcott’s mass media approach with such skepticism? I would argue no, as it is only in the realm of politics that we have any chance of fixing these issues (disability services, workers rights, dental care). They are all linked, and when Alcott nominates himself to enter politics, his associations and sponsorships are fair game for analysis. Uber is currently lobbying to implement a new classification of worker, separate to current models that deliver benefits that labour activists fought for over the past 150 years. As it is, there has been a steady eroding of protections and rights in the wider economy, as more and more workers were shifted from permanent part-time to labour hire and casual roles. These aren’t merely discussions centred on delivery drivers though. The uncontrolled and unregulated growth of the gig economy leads to lower superannuation contributions, higher insurance coverages, and a greater reliance on public safety nets. In the long-term, everyone suffers, including the federal budget. Uber is lobbying politicians of all stripes to have its way, in order to implement a low-cost model, and in turn reap higher profits. Thankfully, the lobbyists at Uber won’t have to worry about Alcott. If elected, and faced with a decision between favouring a new, disruptive, dynamic mode of employment favoured by Uber, or protecting workers rights and wages on the other hand, what (and who) do you think Alcott is likely to vote for?
One of the common arguments deployed against those linking such ‘activist’ concerns and ‘woke’ ideology is that these are private companies, and if you don’t like it, don’t buy it. Hey, object to slave labour, strip mining, and the total destruction of the Congo? Don’t buy an iPhone! If only it were that simple. Also, the logic works back the other way. It is only by performing our roles as consumers in our current society that we actually gain any power. If you decide to sit out, you have no stake in the system. So, as customers, we do have a right to expect better from these corporations, just as we have a right to disregard them. But, I would posit, it is one thing to be a consumer of these products, purchasing them to participate in society and the modern economy. It is another to be employed by these corporations as bank tellers or store retailers. It is another thing altogether to be sponsored by these companies, taking in tens of thousands of dollars for small TV spots, willingly ventriloquising oneself for some coin. There’s something qualitatively different there, and that’s before you add on the possibility that they will then take the sponsorship arrangement to the political arena. Maybe I am a little old fashioned, but some separation between democracy and business would be desirable.
Similar logic applies to everyday consumers of sportswear, as compared to the athletes being paid millions to represent. This is a tired argument, and barely registers anymore, so accepted is the exploitation of the labour of those unfortunate workers in foreign lands. It is unpaid wages to those workers that fund massive sponsorship deals. I don’t particularly expect Alcott to rescind his sponsorship from Nike, given the ubiquity of these arrangements among sports stars. However, he would do well to read about forced labour in China and other areas that produces his sportswear. It all depends what you want to read: Nike’s statement against forced labour on its website, or the numerous investigations that started over 20 years ago and continue to this day? Nike and many other major US companies have been lobbying Congress to water down the Uyghur Force Labor Prevention Act. One gets the impression Alcott trusts his corporate underwriters and their marketing teams when they say things are improving. Also, Nike supports some of the initiatives of the Dylan Alcott Foundation, such as the disability awareness campaign Remove the Barrier. Nike Pacific general manager here: “We are delighted to extend our support for Dylan off the court, for this important initiative which champions what Nike stands for; equality and inclusion”. I’m sure those in the Uyghur internment camps in China hear the rallying cries of equality and inclusion crystal clear.
But, back to the main point, the Alcott and ANZ alliance. ANZ was also a supporter of the Remove the Barrier campaign. Here’s CEO Shayne Elliot weighing in: “Our role is to provide opportunity through employment and ensure our products and services are inclusive and enable every member of our communities to participate and maximise their potential.” Well, Mr Elliot, what to make of ANZ’s predation of Indigenous communities? Or the home loan customers overcharged $90 million? Most inclusive indeed. These were but some of the ‘ethical lapses’ uncovered in the Banking Royal Commission of 2018. ANZ exited the scandal paying $374 million in compensation to customers, and a further $55 million in legal fees. Only the naive or wilfully blind would assume all is redeemed at ANZ (or any other major financial institution). ANZ’s support of the Dylan Alcott Foundation is public relations, pure and simple. Its hollowness and insincerity is glaringly obvious to those who care to see. And just like Uber, one can imagine which side of regulation Alcott would align with in Parliament.
Again, we can’t expect Alcott to have any actual ability to change things at these corporations. After all, he is but a tennis player, model and celebrity to be deployed at will. However, if Alcott were to make a run at politics, he would necessarily have to be across much more than just disability access and representation. ANZ may be at the forefront of disability advocacy in the workforce (they certainly argue as much), but that is a mere fraction of the issues facing disability services in Australia. The National Disability Insurance Scheme, implemented by the Gillard Labor government in 2013, provides support to those living or caring with disability. Its current cost is just over $25 billion annually, over 1.1% of GDP. Further, it is likely to need to increase dramatically as more people enter the scheme. There are fears the scheme is drastically underfunded, with estimated cost to blowout to nearly $35 billion by 2025. How do we pay for the scheme? Where will the extra revenue come from?
Thankfully, ANZ also have an answer: you. Well to be clear, certainly not large corporations. ANZ is a key member of the Business Council of Australia (BCA), the industry association comprising the chief executives of more than 100 of Australia’s biggest corporations. The BCA consistently argues for a reduction in the company tax rate, whilst simultaneously striving “to ensure Australia is economically strong to support a fair, free and inclusive society for all Australians”. Barely a month passes without a BCA talking head in the media urging reductions in taxes or regulation or obligations on big business. The BCA tirelessly urges Australia to engage in a race to the bottom against other jurisdictions on taxes in order to attract foreign investment. This faulty reasoning has long been questioned by academics and Left economists. Higher tax rates can actually encourage business investment, as instead of drawing profit from the surplus, it encourages the recycling of said surplus as investment to avoid taxation. The BCA lauded Trump’s massive cut in the US company tax rate, which has shredded their budget beyond belief. If we want to have social services (like dental care for all, as mentioned earlier), we need to raise revenue to pay for them. The only question is, who pays? Corporations, the wealthy, investor class, or someone else. ANZ, using Alcott, plays both sides, presenting itself as a champion of the disabled, whilst simultaneously joining in the chorus against contributing funding for those services which actually help the disabled.
These are the larger questions that get buried when we promote individuals as avatars of social progress. Alcott has done wonders for disabled representation, and it would be most unfair to underestimate that contribution. He is a skilled media performer, personable and hard-working, and deserves all the recognition his athletic achievements attract. However, when it comes to wider society, and the scale of the issues facing our nation, representation and awareness does not make change. Legislation and funding does. For reference, take a closer look at the accounts of the Dylan Alcott Foundation, found on the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission website. Running a fully fledged music festival, Ability Fest, boasting corporate sponsors Nike, ANZ, NEC and KIA, and running awareness campaigns, it appears the Foundation has granted the sum of roughly $126,000 to young people with disability over the past 4 years. Not an amount to be sneezed at, but a drop in the ocean when compared to the massive budgetary requirements of the NDIS. It appears Alcott’s father Martin is the sole Director of the charity (no impropriety implied). The only suggestion is that more media focus should be on funding disability services, rather than the personal philanthropy of one advocate and their family Foundation. But the media, and the corporations advertising on their networks, love a story like Alcott, much rather than the nitty-gritty of budgets, Senate estimates, legislative bills, and bureaucracy. This is modern corporate activism, masquerading to improve the lot of the needy, whilst pushing against the government, the only institution that can materially harness sufficient resources and assist the disabled amongst us.
Alcott, it appears, weighs the scales, and sees greater benefit in promoting awareness and inclusion from within the corporate nexus. All power to him. But the moment he declares his political intention, the contradictions of his role are exposed. If we saw an ex-ANZ executive campaigning, we would know whose interest they represent if elected. We understand that a politician like Turnbull represents the Harbourside set, more than the service workers running the economy. The waters appear muddier with Alcott, but in reality they are just as clear: Alcott would be as hopelessly compromised by donations, as most members of the major parties are, to make decisions in the best interest of the people. Marginal benefits to disabled accessibility aside, his political project maps perfectly onto the demands of corporate Australia.
“Why couldn’t we have a prime minister with a disability? I’m serious. Why not?”
There is absolutely no reason why we couldn’t have a prime minister with a disability: best start with politicians who aren’t beholden to corporate interests from the beginning. Democracy is eroded every day through donations and fundraisers, and though we like to feign moral superiority over our American cousins, we are well progressed down a similar path of lobbying, inducement, and outright corruption. Unfortunately, we are also more than eager to engage in the celebrity worship and devotion so prevalent in the USA (perhaps more depressing). How else can one explain this piece of Alcott/ANZ content, called ‘Drawing Down Your Debt’
https://www.facebook.com/pedestriandottv/videos/156590533007987/
note: Pedestrian TV in paid partnership with ANZ. The Commonwealth Dollarmite accounts may be beyond the pale nowadays, but the banking cartel is adaptive, and will succeed in reaching young eyes and ears where-ever Harry Styles appears, by hook or by crook.
__________________________________________________________________________
“How well do you know your debt? If you see it, you can achieve it. Draw down on your debt to win”
Over 50% of households in Australia are financially stressed. Household debt equals 185% of GDP, up from 70% in 1990. Who benefits? ANZ, and the other banks. We are addicted to the debt that fuels rising house prices. It is the only game in town. It is a terrible way to run the economy, and will end in tears. Alcott and Otten’s solution, reminiscent of The Secret, is to draw your debts out, to make them real. The notion of merely listing (or drawing) personal debts, and then it being miraculously easier to repay them, fails to take into account the economy that actual people engage in, with cost of living pressures, inflation, and the lack of secure jobs enabled by the gig economy. I suggest Alcott can’t detect the breathtaking arrogance of these segments simply because he is detached from the economic realities facing everyday Australians. Never mind the irony of naming the segment, ‘Drawing Down Your Debt’. Anyone with a passing knowledge of banking and finance knows that ‘drawdown’ occurs when taking on more debt, not less. The pseudo prosperity gospel bullshit pedalled by Alcott, Otten and ANZ deserves as much scorn thrown at it as possible, and has no place marketed as financial wellbeing advice. This is old fashioned class war from above, appealing to sentiment and aspiration, rather than material reality.
At risk of overdoing the point, Alcott’s ambition appears to know no bounds. Corporate Australia has found a willing advocate, with disability access and representation merely the metaphorical Trojan Horse for a rather stale elite conservative political project. I have no issues with Alcott, the Brighton Grammar boy who went on to great athletic achievements. Send all the media and brand ambassador spots his way. But our democracy is far too precious for further erosion from business interests, and on the evidence, we must demand better from our potential political representatives.