Contemporary politics,local and international current affairs, science, music and extracts from the Queensland Newspaper "THE WORKER" documenting the proud history of the Labour Movement.
MAHATMA GANDHI ~ Truth never damages a cause that is just.
The
pandemic is a long way from ending and the Coalition has created
expectations about what decent governments do to help people.
Australians
see that a goodly portion of the commonwealth-led pandemic health
response has involved stuff-ups in plain sight, with bursts of
incompetence accompanied by a near-disgraceful lack of remorse.
Last modified on Sun 30 May 2021 17.51 AEST
James
Merlino spoke for Australia on Sunday when he expressed incredulity
that Michael McCormack, the deputy prime minister, was still telling
people the Covid vaccination rollout was “not a race” in the middle of a
serious outbreak.
“That was said
today?” Merlino, the acting Victorian premier, said to the journalist
who brought it to his attention. “There you go.”
There you go indeed.
McCormack, currently acting prime minister with Scott Morrison winging his way to New Zealand, was having no loose vaccination “race” talk
on Sky News. Over on the ABC, the trade minister, Dan Tehan, was also
holding the line, but in a more Shakespearean spirit (think “a rose by
any other name would smell as sweet”).
Tehan
observed the Melbourne Cup or the Stawell Gift were certainly races. But
he thought a vaccination program was something else again – a sort of
urgent thing that involved moving quickly, but not racing because (according to a previously undisclosed bylaw in the talking points manual) race can only be used literally, not metaphorically.
Unfortunately
for McCormack and Tehan, while the nation sat gripped by this
heart-gladdening exhibition of mid-pandemic keystone cops on the Sunday
morning political shows, events elsewhere were moving decisively.
Victoria reported a handful of new infections, including, worryingly, a mystery case involving a worker
in a federally regulated aged care facility where the residents had not
been fully vaccinated despite their obvious vulnerability during any
outbreak.
Under growing pressure about the
dawdling pace of the rollout, the federal health minister, Greg Hunt,
said the lack of full vaccinations in aged care facilities now relates
to the residents not consenting to have the jabs, rather than the
commonwealth serially bungling a key responsibility.
But
unfortunately for the health minister, Australians do have eyes. They
can see that a goodly portion of the commonwealth-led health response
has involved stuff-ups in plain sight, with bursts of incompetence
accompanied by a near-disgraceful lack of remorse or self-criticism.
As well as Victoria’s new mystery case seeming to underscore the overwhelming good sense of racing
to inoculate people against a virus that could kill them, the state
government, over the course of the past few days, has also decided to
execute a decisive shift in the politics of the pandemic.
Previously,
Morrison – because he moves fast when cornered – has largely managed to
avoid getting pinged for Canberra’s mistakes in aged care, vaccinations
and quarantine.
But
given Merlino now has to manage Victoria’s fourth lockdown – which
involves dealing with his psychologically fatigued community and
enduring a visceral backlash from business – the acting premier has
decided to rebalance some of the political risks.
So
while Dumb and Dumber got bogged down defending the “not a race”
talking point that Morrison had uttered previously, Merlino and Tim
Pallas, the Victorian treasurer, gathered Melbourne reporters for an
update and went for broke.
Merlino opened the
batting by emphasising the persistent lack of urgency in the vaccination
rollout and the lack of purpose-built quarantine facilities.
Pallas
then told reporters he had implored his federal counterpart, Josh
Frydenberg, to tip in cash for workers deprived of an income during the
week-long lockdown. But he said the federal treasurer was not for
turning. Merlino had lobbied Morrison. That hadn’t worked either.
Pallas:
“It would be really good if the self-styled party of the workers
actually did some work for working people and provided them with the
assistance that they need, indeed, that they require. I am angry and I
am disappointed.”
Pallas
noted the Coalition liked “to pride themselves on being the party of
the forgotten people”. “Well,” he said, “the people they have seem to
have forgotten is Victorians, and in particular Victorian workers.”
Now, a couple of things to note.
The Morrison government during the first and second waves of the pandemic did spend billions subsidising the wages of workers,
including in Victoria – a point that Pallas acknowledged. Now that
jobkeeper has faded into history, Frydenberg has not automatically
topped up support for workers in other states affected by short, sharp
lockdowns to curb outbreaks.
So Pallas going
full Oliver Twist on Sunday is certainly maximising his material (as we
say in the news business). But only up to a point.
If
the Victorian lockdown is short and sharp, that’s one thing. If (God
forbid) things escalate, and the lockdown is protracted, that is another
thing entirely, which is why the Morrison government isn’t actually
saying no to additional assistance if you listen closely.
The
message from Dumb and Dumber and the other federal ministers on Sunday
seemed to be “No for now” rather than “No for forever”. Frydenberg said:
“No but the situation is being closely monitored.”.
The reason for this hedging is obvious: if the Victorian lockdown becomes protracted, then Canberra refusing to help stranded workers
becomes politically difficult, particularly when the state government
has sent a public message that it intends to whack you if you don’t.
What Sunday tells us is two things.
The
first is the pandemic is a long way from over and the Morrison
government has created a bunch of expectations in the community about
what decent governments do to help people in extremis. People will judge
the commonwealth against the benchmarks it set for itself, not against
an arbitrary new standard it might want to invoke to get itself off the
fiscal hook.
The second is that the long
period of state governments smiling at Morrison through gritted teeth is
over. The prime minister no longer absolutely controls the play.
The age of accountability has dawned. Politically, the pandemic has entered a new normal.
The new Ariya electric vehicle will be released mid-year overeas, but hasn't been confirmed for release in Australia.(Supplied: Nissan)
A
global car giant says Australia is "missing out" on newer, cheaper
electric vehicle models in favour of countries that offer better
incentives to motorists, pushing the country further behind the
international market.
Key points:
Advocates have accused the Australian government of sending mixed messages to manufacturers
The ACT has introduced nation-leading incentives for Canberrans to buy electric vehicles
The high upfront cost for EVs has seen some people get creative in order to bring the price down
Nissan
Australia is one of the biggest players in Australia's electric vehicle
(EV) industry, selling several variants of its compact LEAF model.
But the company's national manager for electrification, Ben Warren, admits Nissan's best models are not coming to Australia.
"When you can only make so many cars, you have to prioritise where you send them," Mr Warren said.
So does that mean Australian drivers are missing out?
"We absolutely are," Mr Warren said.
One example of that is Nissan's 500km-range, all-wheel-drive Ariya, which is slated for release globally from late 2021.
A spokeswoman for Nissan locally said "at this time [the Ariya] is unconfirmed for Australia."
Mixed EV policy messages from government
Ben Warren from Nissan says Australia's car market is "missing out" on the newest, cheapest electric vehicles.(ABC News: Craig Allen)
Nissan's
comments echo longstanding criticisms from EV advocates: that state,
territory and federal governments were sending conflicting messages to
manufacturers.
EV policy expert Dr Bjorn Sturmberg said there needed to be clearer government leadership.
"The
fact that Australia has a small number of people in a global market —
that hasn't stopped us from being world-leading in adopting solar.
"We're
one of the world leaders in adopting home batteries — there's no reason
why we can't get the latest and greatest in electric vehicles as well."
Nissan's
Ben Warren said Australia only needed to take direction from European
nations, which had a dramatically higher uptake of EV technology.
Norway has a goal that all new cars sold by 2025 will be zero-emission.(ABC News: Matt Roberts)
"When
we look at the markets that have made the biggest leaps in recent
years, this is off the back of fairly consistent policies and regulatory
settings and direction from the government," Mr Warren said.
"Ultimately
the opportunity for Australia does require the government … to give the
guidance to industry, to give the guidance to consumers.
Norway's Ambassador to Australia, Paul Larsen, said his government had offered both carrots and sticks to drive change.
"Last year 60 per cent of new cars sold were electric in Norway — about 60,000 new cars," Mr Larsen said.
"The reason is obviously incentives and disincentives — we have very high taxes on petroleum combustible engine cars."
The
Norwegian parliament has set a goal that all new cars sold by 2025
should be zero-emission, offering hefty tax breaks, reduced parking and
tolls to drivers of green vehicles.
ACT offering nation-leading incentives to make the switch
There are currently about 950 electric vehicles registered in the ACT, of which 52 are part of the government's own fleet.(ABC News: Matt Roberts)
With
demand running hot through Europe for electric cars, ACT Climate Change
Minister Shane Rattenbury said he understood why car companies were
unwilling to take a punt on Australia's slowly growing market.
"And,
of course, in Australia, we haven't seen the incentives that other
countries are offering, so that's why our market has been so slow to
take off."
ACT Climate Change Minister Shane Rattenbury says he understands why car
companies are unwilling to take a punt on Australia's slowly growing
market.(ABC News: Mark Moore)
Mr Rattenbury said he hoped the incentives would drive stronger consumer demand, that the carmakers couldn't ignore.
There are currently about 950 electric vehicles registered in the ACT, of which 52 are part of the government's own fleet.
'Grey imports' undercutting Australian dealers
Shane Maher imported his Nissan Leaf from Japan to save money.(ABC News: Greg Nelson)
When
Canberra bus driver Shane Maher started pricing Australian EVs he found
the upfront cost prohibitive, so decided to think outside the box.
Working through a broker, he ended up purchasing a near-new car at auction in Japan and had it shipped to his home in Canberra.
He said the savings were significant.
"If
you were to buy this 'e+ LEAF' from a local Nissan dealer I think
including on-road costs would be around $62,000-$63,000," Mr Maher said.
"We imported this a year ago for roughly $49,000."
Shane Maher bought a near-new electric vehicle at auction in Japan and had it shipped to his home in Canberra.(ABC News: Greg Nelson)
Mr
Maher said the model he imported was not available in Australia, and
the model he chose allowed him to have a much greater driving range on a
single charge.
"In
real life, we could probably stretch this car out to about 360
kilometres … but we drive around 300 — 330 kilometres and then give it a
quick recharge, just to be safe, just to give us a bit of a buffer."
Nissan's Ben Warren said he understood the temptation for buyers to look overseas.
"Looking
at those alternative channels obviously comes with risk and reward. So
as a consumer you've got to take a balanced view of what you're getting
yourself into."
Mr Warren said the main risk was the lack of a manufacturer's warranty when a car was imported from a foreign country.
Turning classics into battery sportscars
Conrad Gibb with his electric converted VW Beetle.(ABC News: Greg Nelson)
In
the Snowy Mountains district of New South Wales, mechanical engineer
Conrad Gibb has been run off his feet, keeping up with demand for
motorists wanting to crack the EV market.
But his electric cars looked nothing like the modern models offered by the big manufacturers.
Mr
Gibb specialises in retrofitting classic vehicles with supercharged
battery power — delivering performance that way exceeded their original
specifications.
He said the costs were relatively
high, ranging from $30,000 for a DIY battery conversion, to $50,000 for a
fully installed service.
But he said the price was
not deterring drivers wanting to swap out gas-guzzling engines from
their classic Jaguars or VW Kombis, for zero-emission technology.
He
said there were several reasons people were looking to convert their old
clunkers to electric, including environmental benefits and reduced
running costs.
"It's just a motor with perhaps half a dozen moving parts and two bearings. There's not a lot to it really," Mr Gibb said.
"And
no maintenance and cheap running — our Beetle costs approximately $3.80
per 100 kilometres to run on electricity. It's cheap."
Mr
Gibb admitted the purists would never go for it, but most people who
drove his converted classics appreciated their vastly improved
acceleration.
While the TGA hasn't yet approved a mix and match vaccination schedule for Australia, some countries are already doing it.(Reuters: Gareth Fuller/Andreas Gebert)
In
the face of changing eligibility for the AstraZeneca vaccine, new
variants of the coronavirus and supply constraints, many people are
wondering whether they can "mix and match" COVID-19 vaccines.
This
means, for example, having the AstraZeneca vaccine as the first dose,
followed by a different vaccine such as Pfizer as the second dose, and
boosters with other vaccines later on.
While many studies are ongoing, data has recently been released from mix and match trials in Spain and the United Kingdom.
This
data is very promising, and suggests mix and match schedules may give
higher antibody levels than two doses of a single vaccine.
While
Australia's drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA),
hasn't yet approved a mix and match COVID-19 vaccination schedule, some
countries are already doing this.
So how does this work, and why might it be a good idea?
What's the benefit of mixing and matching?
If the COVID-19 vaccine rollout can mix and match vaccines, this will greatly increase flexibility.
Having
a flexible immunisation program allows us to be nimble in the face of
global supply constraints. If there's a shortage of one vaccine, instead
of halting the entire program to wait for supply, the program can
continue with a different vaccine, regardless of which one has been
given as a first dose.
If one vaccine is less
effective than another against a certain variant, mix and match
schedules could ensure people who've already received one dose of a
vaccine with lower effectiveness could get a booster with a vaccine
that's more effective against the variant.
Some
countries are already using mix and match vaccine schedules following
changing recommendations regarding the AstraZeneca vaccine because of a
very rare side effect of a blood clotting/bleeding condition.
Germany, France, Sweden, Norway and Denmark are among those advising mixed vaccination schedules due to this reason.
Is it safe?
In a UK mix and match study published
in the Lancet in May, 830 adults over 50 were randomised to get either
the Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccines first, then the other vaccine later.
It
found people who received mixed doses were more likely to develop mild
to moderate symptoms including chills, fatigue, fever, headache, joint
pain, malaise, muscle ache and pain at the injection site, compared to
those on the standard non-mixed schedule.
It's not clear what kind of evidence regulatory authorities, like
Australia's TGA, would require for a mixed schedule to be approved for
use.(AAP: Mark Stewart)
However,
these reactions were short-lived and there were no other safety
concerns. The researchers have now adapted this study to see whether
early and regular use of paracetamol reduces the frequency of these
reactions.
Another similar study (not-peer reviewed) in Spain found most side effects were mild or moderate and short-lived (two to three days), and were similar to the side effects from getting two doses of the same vaccine.
Is it effective?
The Spanish study found people had a vastly higher antibody response 14 days after receiving the Pfizer booster.
This
response to the Pfizer boost seems to be stronger than the response
after receiving two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, according to
earlier trial data. The immune response of getting Pfizer followed by AstraZeneca isn't known yet, but the UK will have results available soon.
There's
no data yet on how effective mix and match schedules are in preventing
COVID-19. But they're likely to work well as the immune response is
similar, or even better, compared with studies using the same vaccine as
the first and second dose. This indicates they will work well in
preventing disease.
Might this be one way to help resolve Australia's slow rollout?
In
Australia, we've seen many people wanting to "wait for Pfizer" and not
have the AstraZeneca vaccine. This is despite the UK's recent real-world
findings that, following two doses, both vaccines are similarly effective against the variants circulating in the UK.
Delays in vaccine uptake have also been due to concerns regarding the very rare but serious blood clotting/bleeding syndrome after the first dose of AstraZeneca, as well as changing age restrictions in terms of who can receive this vaccine.
This
caused widespread uncertainty and meant some younger people in some
countries in Europe who had already received a first dose were excluded
from getting a second dose.
The results from these
mix and match studies support the possibility of vaccinating people who
have received the first dose from AstraZeneca, with a different booster,
if the need arises.
Further studies are underway to evaluate mix and match schedules with Moderna and Novavax vaccines, both of which Australia has supply deals with.
If the COVID-19 vaccine rollout can mix and match vaccines, this will greatly increase flexibility.(Getty: Paul Kane)
Don't delay getting vaccinated
As
Victoria tackles its current outbreak, many other countries in our
region are experiencing a surge in cases too. These include Fiji, Taiwan and Singapore, countries previously hailed as excellent examples of how to manage COVID-19.
These
examples highlight the difficulty of sustained suppression in the
absence of high vaccination coverage. This will be further exacerbated
by the new, more transmissible variants.
The
current cases in Victoria are caused by the B.1.617.1 ("Indian")
variant. Both vaccines are effective against the closely related
B.1.617.2 variant (albeit a bit lower than against B.1.1.7) and we would
expect similar effectiveness against B.1.617.1.
It's
not clear what kind of evidence regulatory authorities, like
Australia's TGA, would require for a mixed schedule to be approved for
use.
While we are waiting, it's critical eligible
people don't delay getting vaccinated with the vaccine that's offered to
them now. Vaccination is an essential part of the pandemic exit
strategy.
It's likely the vaccination schedule will
be modified in the future as boosters may be needed. This is normal for
vaccination programs — we already do this each year with the influenza
vaccine. This shouldn't be seen as a policy failure, but instead an
evidence-based response to new information.
Fiona
Russell is a senior principal research fellow, a pediatrician and an
infectious diseases epidemiologist at the University of Melbourne. John
Hart is a clinical researcher at the Murdoch Children's Research
Institute. This piece first appeared on The Conversation.
An explosion at the Callide C power station as well as court rulings
overseas have thrown Australia's mooted gas-fired recovery into doubt.(Reuters: Jason Lee)
Good news and bad luck have at least one thing in common. They both run in threes.
Last
week, three entirely separate but vitally connected events sent
shockwaves in quick succession through the fossil fuel industry that are
likely to have a lasting long-term impact.
Then,
on Thursday night, monumental rulings – one by a Dutch court, the other
by global investors – threatened to change the course of three of the
world's biggest fossil fuel suppliers.
The
ruling, which Shell plans to appeal, was unprecedented with the judge
dismissing Shell's argument that governments alone were responsible for
meeting the Paris Agreement targets.
Across the
Atlantic later that very same night, shareholders in two of the world's
biggest petroleum groups forced management to step up action on climate
change.
Exxon Mobil was stunned when investors
voted two representatives of a small activist hedge fund to the board of
the energy giant, vowing to force the company to diversify away from
fossil fuels. In a separate move, an overwhelming majority of Chevron
investors voted in favour of setting emissions reductions targets for
the company.
Why the new Hunter Valley gas-fired power station may not stack up
The
Callide C explosion was an accident. There were unconfirmed reports
that a rotor blade broke through its casing, which caused the explosion
and the subsequent fire. But no findings have been made and human error
and other causes are being explored.
Built at the
turn of the century, the plant, which uses a more efficient
"supercritical boiler technology" is relatively new and in the normal
course of events should have at least another three decades of life.
But
these times are far from normal. With most of the ageing east coast
fleet of coal-fired generators becoming increasingly prone to
breakdowns, shutdowns and forced maintenance, outages are likely to
become common unless they are quickly replaced.
As a result, fossil fuels will remain in the mix for the medium term until battery storage becomes cheaper.
Below
is the scheduled shutdown of our coal-fired fleet. Many, however, are
being retired early as energy companies see no future in the vast outlay
to keep them operational, let alone investing $5 billion-plus in
coal-fired plants that are likely to be obsolete within a decade.
Coal-fired power stations are set to shut progressively over the next 30 years.(Supplied: Grattan Institute)
It's interesting to contrast the reaction from our leaders last week with the 2016 blackouts across South Australia when a fierce storm took out towers, forcing most windfarms shut down and an outcry from coal lobbyists.
Oddly, there's been little if any talk this time of the unreliability of coal-fired generation.
Baseload,
however, is not a virtue. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the
minimum required amount of electricity to keep the lights on.
It's
the opposite. It instead describes one of the fundamental shortcomings
of coal-fired electricity generators and the inflexibility of steam
engines. You can only turn them down to a certain point – the baseload –
beyond which, you have to shut them down. They then take weeks to fire
back up.
As a result, you had to build enough
coal-fired generators to supply just enough electricity, usually at
night, when they were powered right down to baseload.
Bear that in mind the next time you hear a politician extol the need for more baseload power.
What
is required is dispatchable energy, that can easily be switched on and
off. Renewables fit that bill. So too does gas. But it has become too
expensive. And even though it has less emissions than coal, the shift
towards an accelerated reduction in emissions is likely to leave it with
little future.
You can no longer be sure of Shell
The
landmark case against Royal Dutch Shell, brought by Friends of the
Earth Netherlands, could have a lasting impact on Australia and our gas
export industry.
It
holds large interests in some of our biggest natural gas projects off
the coast of Western Australia including the North West Shelf (16.7 per
cent), Gorgon (25 per cent), Browse (27 per cent) and the southern
Queensland development Arrow (50 per cent).
The
latest ruling adds to a trend from courts in developed nations to switch
the onus for action on climate change to corporations. Last week's
decision compels Shell to cut emissions by 45 per cent by 2030, almost
double the company's plans.
While Dutch law doesn't
extend to Australia, the size of Shell's Australian interests virtually
guarantee that it will be closely examining its operations. Even if the
ruling is overturned on appeal, actions of this kind are likely to ramp
up, ensuring most major corporations either accelerate their exit from
fossil fuels or, at the very least, deploy future investment funds in
clean energy.
Global leaders may have turned
climate change from a scientific study into a political issue for their
own ends. But courts, shareholders and insurance companies are now in
the ascendancy, transforming the crisis into a legal and financial
issue.
Exxon and Chevron out of gas
Few
had ever heard of Engine No 1 until last week. But the tiny hedge fund
has been waging a battle against the chief executive of ExxonMobil,
Darren Woods, and the board for most of this year.
Formed
late last year by tech investor Chris James, its interests primarily
are focussed on improving returns for its investors while trying to save
the planet. Unlike the altruistic motives of Friends of the Earth,
however, Engine No 1 is fighting climate change on behalf of
capitalists.
Its successful attack against Exxon
was focussed on the company's poor financial performance and its failure
to adapt to a decarbonised world.
Last week, it
managed to gain two board seats and, with the battle ongoing, could end
up with as many as four in a humiliating defeat for Mr Woods.
It
began the fight with just 0.02 per cent of the shares in Exxon last
December. But its arguments about performance and Exxon's sad history of
misinformation and lobbying when it comes to climate change, clearly
resonated with shareholders.
Meanwhile, more than 60 per cent of Chevron investors voted to set targets to reducing emissions, including those of customers.
Like
Shell, ExxonMobil has an interest in the massive Gorgon gas project off
the coast of Western Australia while Chevron has interests in Gorgon
and the North West Shelf. Each company ranks among our biggest gas
exporters.
Gas always was considered a transition fuel; the short stop between coal and renewables.
With
three major multinationals now under pressure to exit or at least scale
back, the transition may have become far more transitory. And the
gas-fired recovery may well run out of steam before it even starts.
Perhaps it’s off a low base, but the opposition’s morale seems better now than at the start of 2021
Labor
leader Anthony Albanese is congratulated after he delivers his budget
in reply speech in the House of Representatives at Parliament House on
13 May, 2021.
Last modified on Sat 29 May 2021 15.00 AEST
At
the beginning of budget week, on 10 May, Labor’s marginal seat holders
gathered in Canberra for a half-day session with the party’s national
secretary, Paul Erickson.
The gathering was
predominantly focussed on digital strategy. But at one point during the
session, the frontbencher Michelle Rowland, who holds her western Sydney
seat on a margin of 2.8%, asked Erickson a more existential question.
What was the pathway to victory in the forthcoming election?
Some
of the MPs present thought Erickson fobbed Rowland off. But others
thought he provided a good answer, identifying the specific cohorts of
voters Labor needs to target, in which regions, with concrete thoughts
about how to reach them.
I’ll unpack the
substance of Erickson’s response shortly, but we are starting here to
illustrate a basic point. Perceptions are subjective. When reporters
write pieces purporting to capture the current mood of a political
party, they should come with a basic disclaimer. People have different
views. How things are going usually depends on who you ask.
Some Labor MPs now firmly believe the path of least resistance was the right call
Anthony
Albanese marked two years in the party leadership this week. Much of
the reporting out of Canberra suggests Labor is in the doldrums, with
MPs fretting Albanese will deliver the same crushing disappointment as
Bill Shorten delivered in 2019 when he lost the supposedly unloseable election.
Joel
Fitzgibbon, who regrets holding his tongue during the Shorten period,
articulates that particular night terror more or less constantly, narrowcasting ruthlessly
to the blue-collar constituents in the Hunter Valley who turned on him
in 2019. This week, Fitzgibbon’s NSW neighbour and ally Meryl Swanson
told caucus she feared Labor was about to sleepwalk off a cliff.
The
loudest voices tend to shape public perceptions. But if you cast the
net widely, the picture is actually more mixed. Perhaps it’s off a low
base, but internal morale feels better now that it was at the start of
2021.
One
senior figure captured the zeitgeist pithily. “I honestly think we’ve
gone from not being a chance to a chance, but I wouldn’t put it higher
than a chance. Scott Morrison is doing badly, but we are not yet doing well”.
It’s true some MPs are nervous and/or flat. There are differences about policy. Climate remains difficult, and there’s the government’s stage three tax cuts.
On tax, the internal differences are significant, and will be hard to
resolve to everyone’s satisfaction. Albanese and the shadow treasurer,
Jim Chalmers, are conducting rolling consultations one-on-one in an
effort to reach a landing point.
Oppositions
routinely worry about where the votes will come from. Some believe
Albanese hasn’t yet articulated the case for change, that the leader is
not sufficiently on the map; and they wonder whether the change case can
get traction during a pandemic when voters want continuity and safety.
Albanese
could also very obviously use the services of a head-kicking partisan
like Peter Dutton in the lower house as the cycle enters the business
end. But right now Labor women (and Albanese allies) in the Senate,
Kristina Keneally, Penny Wong and Katy Gallagher, are doing the bulk of
the heavy lifting. In the House, Albanese is surrounded by colleagues
who would ultimately like his job, and a number of leadership
alternatives appear more interested in keeping themselves clean and tidy
for their next gig than on winning the current battle.
Richard Marles, Tony Burke, Anthony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP
There is material there to work with, and Labor knows it is time to muscle up.
But
MPs also know that Morrison will do anything to win. While Tony Abbott
and Malcolm Turnbull would try and tough out difficult political
battles, allowing Labor to make gradual political inroads, Morrison
engages in constant zero remorse repositioning to close off momentum for
his opponents.
Rather than locating his
preferred hill to die on, the prime minister is like mercury, moving all
the time. The perception in Labor ranks is Morrison is the “just
enough” guy. When voters start to get angsty about his deficiencies, he
does just enough to quell the rebellion.
Any marksman knows it is hard to hit a moving target, and it is easy to be demoralised when you miss.
The pathway to victory
Let’s
track back now to that marginal seat holders forum in Canberra a couple
of weeks ago, and capture the particulars of what Labor’s national
secretary told Rowland about the pathway to victory.
According
to people in the room, Erickson told Rowland Labor would be targeting
Coalition-held seats in every state, and working off a smaller list than
the party had in 2019, somewhere in the order of 15 seats. The targeted
electorates, by and large, are in the outer suburbs and regions. The
targeted voters are working families, worried about the costs of
childcare, and paying the mortgage – people highly attuned to the state
of the economy, and worried about their stagnant wages.
The
other point Erickson made was that conditions on the ground are
different than they were in 2019. Covid has changed the dynamics. A lot
of contemporary voter perspectives are now formed by who is in
government at a state level. A number of MPs who weren’t in that forum
concur with the observation. The message you get consistently from MPs
of all stripes is everything is state and local in the collective
consciousness right now. National issues seem very much in the
background.
Again, there are mixed views about
what this means for Labor’s federal chances. Some Labor MPs think that
dynamic ultimately buttresses Morrison’s political position, because
thus far – prior to the latest outbreak in Melbourne, and the accompanying backlash – he’s associated positively with the Covid response.
Anthony Albanese (left) listens to prime minister Scott Morrison during question time. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP
But
others see opportunity. While Albanese’s strategy of avoiding excessive
carping and negativity during the first wave pandemic response was seen in some quarters as a weakness
– a fundamental failure of product differentiation – some Labor MPs now
firmly believe the path of least resistance was the right call.
One
MP (who contested elections during the Rudd/Gillard civil war, and the
Shorten period) told me this week this is the first election they have
contested where “people don’t hate us”. There was no civil war for
constituents to be furious about, and (referencing the Shorten era) no
leader to feel negative about. The MP said there was a strong view among
the local Labor rusted-ons that Albanese needed to be tougher with
Morrison, but more generally, “this is the first time the backdrop has
felt benign to me”. From that benign base, constructive critique can
build.
The leader is telling nervous colleagues Labor is competitive
The
occupants of camp opportunity point to other factors to build their
case. Labor hopes there can be a less superficial debate about spending
and debt now the Coalition has unfurled significant unfunded expenditure. Some senior figures also see risks in the national security conversation Peter Dutton is clearly seeding
ahead of the election. Revving up domestic unease about China’s
hegemonic ambitions likely resonates in Anglo Australia, but that
messaging is more fraught with the large Chinese diaspora dispersed
across federal electorates. Many Chinese Australians are proud of
China’s rise, and see containment language as racism.
People nominate other pluses. Labor does not enter the coming campaign as favourites. Labor MPs will not be defending a change to franking credits on booths at the coming election. That complicated savings measure, coupled with the well organised fake news around a “death tax”,
killed the party’s chances in more than one seat. Labor continues to
grapple with climate policy, which creates a faultline between
progressives and some of the party’s traditional working base, but the
Queensland Adani project doesn’t seem quite as totemic as it was in
2019.
Covid being good for incumbents has also
strengthened Labor’s campaign position structurally in two states where
the party is normally weakest – Queensland and Western Australia.
Things are very difficult in NSW, and mixed in Tasmania, but for now at
least, better than they have been up north and out west.
This
optimism comes with caution, however. Labor in Queensland will not only
be trying to win seats the government now holds with very comfortable
margins after the colossal wipeout in the state in 2019, it will also be
defending some “held” seats that the Coalition is targeting, seats like
Moreton and Lilley.
This
caution seems well-founded. I’ve lost count of the number of times over
the past 20 years that someone in Labor has declared things have turned
a corner in Queensland, only to see the party go backwards in the
geography the Coalition now claims as its rusted-on cultural heartland.
‘We are getting to the phase where we can be more competitive’
Albanese
has been working to get match fit for what he conceptualises as the
fourth quarter. He’s lost more than 10kg, the wardrobe has been edited
and updated, and the natural yarner is trying to master the art of
sticking to a script and speaking in soundbites without sounding like a
fake.
He survived a car crash in Sydney earlier this year
that could have killed him. Albanese’s injuries weren’t telegraphed,
but they were serious, and they lingered. He seems to have gained energy
since his recovery. Labor is pushing his personal story. MPs have been
told to push it as well. The objective (apart from telling disengaged
voters who the alternative prime minister is) is to pit Albanese’s
working class “realness” against Morrison’s relentless political
calculation.
Albanese marked his second
anniversary in the leadership with a Facebook live forum streamed to
party members. He told them it was hard to recover from the blow of
losing the 2019 election. Labor’s deputy leader, Richard Marles, says
when Albanese got the leadership “we were dealing with the biggest
moment of grief in living memory – it was an incredibly difficult time
to assume the top job”. Albanese said “getting ourselves off the mat and
getting competitive was a big thing”.
Albanese
said his focus from the beginning had been how to win the election, not
how to win the day. Both friends and frenemies say he’s both tactical
and strategic, survival skills you learn growing up and scrapping in the
brutal NSW party machine.
The leader is telling nervous colleagues Labor is competitive and Morrison can be beaten.
Labor’s
Senate leader, Penny Wong, has been Albanese’s friend for 30 years. “I
think what Albo has done has kept us in the race through a period where
that was really difficult, and now we are getting to a phase where we
are, and can be more, competitive,” she tells me between Senate
estimates hearings this week.
“There is more
capacity for oppositions to take on the governments,” Wong says. “There
is more capacity to put forward a different plan for the country”.
I
ask her whether Albanese, who absorbed much of the emotional and
practical trauma of the Rudd/Gillard fight, has the ardour, the hunger,
to tear down a politician like Morrison. Surely a life outside the
accumulated psychic injuries of politics would be more appealing?
“I
think it is a legitimate question about how you manage the ups and
downs of politics,” she says. “Albo knows what it’s like to be down as
well as up, and the thing about him is he learns from that.”
Wong
says Albanese wants to win. “He looks to how you win the fourth
quarter. If you look to his political history, you see that”.
I ask her how Labor wins the fourth quarter. Like, really. How does that happen?
“It’s
hard,” she says. “I recognise that. We take nothing for granted. We
know that we will fight on wage and jobs and the future. I don’t think
12 years of this government is good for the country – and that’s what
they are asking for.”
What would she say to colleagues who fear this is impossible?
“We can do this.” She shifts emphasis slightly. “Remember why we do this. Labor governments change the country for the better.”
As
of last week, Canberrans who buy electric and other zero-emissions
vehicles automatically receive two years’ registration for free. The
Australian Capital Territory already waives stamp duty for clean cars,
and has promised households and not-for-profit organisations
interest-free loans of up to $15,000 to buy them.
Also
last week, the Victorian parliament passed the country’s first road
user charge – a tax on every kilometre driven – for electric vehicles
(EVs) and hybrids. The Labor state government’s legislation was backed
by enough crossbench MPs to pass the upper house despite opposition from
the Coalition and Greens. It starts on 1 July.
These
contrasting approaches reflect what campaigners say is Australia’s
confused and contradictory approach to helping the country embrace EVs
at a time when other countries are increasingly backing them.
Just
0.75% of new cars bought in Australia last year were EVs. It compares
with more than 4% globally, more than 10% in Britain and the European
Union and nearly 75% in Norway.
The Morrison
government – having accused Labor of wanting to “end the weekend” before
the last federal election through a non-binding 50% EV target for 2030 –
does not believe it is its role to rapidly change this.
The
emissions reduction minister, Angus Taylor, has ruled out policies used
elsewhere to drive EV uptake, such as direct subsidies to consumers or a
ban on new fossil-fuel car sales from 2030 or 2035 as promised in
countries including the UK, Germany, India, Thailand and Japan.
Taylor
argues the federal government’s policy role is to enable consumer
choice by supporting EV charging infrastructure, not drive a rapid
change on climate grounds. He cites a doubling in sales last year of
non-plug-in hybrid cars, which have both petrol and electric engines,
and still emit CO2 from the tailpipe.
The
ACT Greens-Labor government’s approach has been to attempt to
accelerate uptake to help cut greenhouse gas emissions from transport as
quickly as possibly. Treasurers in at least three states – Victoria,
South Australia and New South Wales – have backed another path:
introducing road user charges for EVs before they take off to build in a
long-term revenue stream before the inevitable expansion of the
technology.
Their stance follows a push by thinktank and lobby group Infrastructure Partnerships Australia and a Victorian government report to the Board of Treasurers
– a forum of state and territory treasurers – last year that advised on
how best to introduce road-user charges on clean and low-emissions
cars.
The dispute is mostly not over whether a
road user tax is ultimately a good idea. It is over whether now is the
right time for one to be introduced, given the emphasis on rapid
emissions cuts and growing warnings that Australia risks being left
behind, and to have to pay more in future to transform its car fleet.
Launching
the ACT’s free registration program last week, Shane Rattenbury, the
territory’s Greens leader and emissions reduction minister, said a road
user tax on clean cars was a “disastrous policy” when national EV sales
were at less than 1%. The territory government says it is prioritising
reaching net zero emissions by 2045. “I would encourage those other
states to rethink their strategies,” he said.
Under
Victoria’s new laws, clean-vehicle owners must keep a record of
odometer readings to provide to authorities at the end of the year. They
will be charged 2.5 cents a kilometre for EVs and hydrogen fuel cell
cars and 2 cents for hybrids. The rate will increase with the consumer
price index.
The
Andrews Labor government has estimated the average cost will initially
be about $330 a year. It is expected to add at least $3,000 to the cost
of a car over its lifetime.
The central
argument for a road-user charge is that it will be needed to replace the
national excise on fuel paid by petrol car drivers as a source of
budget revenue. The Victorian government last year said it “proudly took
an active role” in pushing treasurers across the country to introduce a
road-user charge “that makes sure all motorists pay their fair share”.
Car
manufacturers and environmental groups have not been persuaded. A group
of 25 published an open letter in April urging the state government not
to introduce what they described as the “worst electric vehicle policy
in the world”, warning it increased the risk Victorians would not have
access to high-quality, affordable EVs.
The
Andrews government subsequently announced it would offer a $3,000
subsidy for EVs that cost less than $69,000, set a target of 50% of new
car sales being zero or low emission vehicles by 2030 and promised to
support more infrastructure.
Internal and
external criticism has also delayed the introduction of road user taxes
in NSW – where treasurer Dominic Perrottet’s proposal was opposed by the
environment minister, Matt Kean, and transport minister, Andrew
Constance – and SA, where the government announced a charge in the
budget but later decided to wait a year to see how it worked elsewhere.
The
passage of the road use tax through the Victorian parliament was
welcomed by the chief executive of Infrastructure Partnerships
Australia, Adrian Dwyer. Describing EVs as “established technology”, he
applauded the state treasurer, Tim Pallas, and “the sensible crossbench”
for staring down “a fringe fear campaign”.
“This
is a ringing endorsement of the fact it is possible to encourage
electrification of transport and still be able to pay for
infrastructure,” Dwyer said. “It’s now time for the NSW government to
follow the Victorian playbook and introduce a road user charge on EVs
alongside a comprehensive proposal to turn the state’s light vehicle
fleet green.”
Richie Merzian, the climate and
energy director with the Australia Institute, said no serious case could
be made that the road user charge was not a disincentive to cutting
Australia’s rising transport emissions.
“It
will further slow down an already embarrassing uptake of electric
vehicles,” he said. “It is incredible that the same month that the US president pledges US$174bn for the EV industry you have the Australian government put nothing in its budget for EVs and a state government put a tax on them.
“It is so difficult to explain to overseas governments how successful Australians are at shooting themselves in the foot.”
Road to nowhere? EV commitments
Federal
Nearly $40m support for charging infrastructure
Holding a two-year EV trial for a government fleet.
ACT
No stamp duty on new zero emissions vehicles
Free vehicle registration for new zero emissions vehicles
Promising zero interest loans of up to $15,000 for households
All newly leased fleet cars zero emissions in 2020-21.
NSW
Low-emissions light vehicles receive a maximum $30 discount on registration
Proposed but delayed clean car road user charge
Government fleets to be 30% EVs by 2023
Fully electric bus fleet by 2030.
Victoria
Road user charge of 2.5 cents/km for zero emissions cars and 2 cents/km for plug-in hybrid cars starts on 1 July
$3,000 subsidies for EVs cheaper than $69,000
$100 registration discount for EV owners
EV owners pay a lower rate of motor vehicle duty than other luxury cars
50% target for new EV sales by 2030
$10m for 400 EVs in government fleet by 2023.
Queensland
EVs in the lowest band for registration and stamp duty
Doubling the number of EVs in government fleets every four years
Funded 31 fast-charging sites in 2017; another $2.5m for 13 stations in 2020.
South Australia
Promised a road user charge but has delayed it a year
Government fleet cars must be replaced by EVs where possible. Aim to be fully EVs by 2030
$13.4m for public charging network.
Tasmania
Target of 100% electric government fleet by 2030
$600,000 for fast charging network.
Western Australia
Minimum 25% EV target for government fleets by 2026
Up to $20m for creation of a charging network.
Northern Territory
EVs charged in the small car category for registration ($665.55 a year).
.png)
