Extract from ABC News
Analysis
Last Sunday, Australia's Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, was asked a very simple question: Would he support any sort of target to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050?
As far as climate change politics are concerned, as far as the fundamental relationship between the governing Coalition parties is concerned, it is the fundamental question.
His rambling answer to
Insiders host David Speers was too long to repeat here but involved the
menu in the restaurant in the hotel next to where Joyce was standing for
the interview, and an immediate digression into what Labor's policy
might be.
When Speers interjected to say he wasn't asking about Labor's approach but the government's, Joyce said the Nationals' approach "is that we want to see exactly what's involved and we want to see exactly what the cost is".
Labor's approach, Joyce said, was that "They don't care what's on the menu and they don't care what is the price and when what turns up is sauteed gherkins and sashimi tadpoles, they're prepared to pay anything for it because they said they'll accept anything for lunch".
It went on like this for some time.
In a week when the NSW Government unilaterally declared its COVID pandemic crisis a national emergency, and two other states were fighting to suppress outbreaks, and in a week where our political leaders were struggling for a strategy for dealing with it all, it might seem weird to focus on a ludicrous and vaguely insulting bit of hokum about another serious policy issue from the country's second most senior political leader.
After all, it's Barnaby, right? No one actually expects him to say anything articulate. That's not what he is there for.
But think about it. Not only can Barnaby Joyce not articulate a policy for dealing with climate change. He cannot even articulate a policy for why he is opposed to a policy dealing with climate change that only exists in some nebulous form because his senior Coalition partner is too terrified to articulate it, lest it stir up Joyce and his mates.
COVID is getting worse, and so is the dysfunction
Joyce's contribution just helps frame the dysfunctions not just in politics but policy, which we face as things get worse by the day on COVID.
It's not just the COVID case numbers that are getting worse, nor even the glaring inadequacies and delays in our vaccine supply. It's the poor messaging that created so much vaccine hesitancy, it's the lack of consistent data, coherent advice, a coherent rollout plan and, now, coherent and consistent economic support.
It's not that a lot of all those things aren't there in the background, somewhere. We just now also have a breakdown in communications of what the policy might be.
Like Joyce this week, the Prime Minister not only seemed to have been unable to articulate a policy, but also seemed unable to articulate what's wrong with the one we don't have.
The priority list of who gets vaccinated first, for example, seems to have long ago hit the wall. All those 1A and 1B groups like aged care and disability residents and workers?
And good luck if you are able to keep up with who is now supposed to be in a priority group, let alone the advice about whether you should, or can, get access to Pfizer or AstraZeneca, or even whether you can get two shots of either.
Apparently, it's all ATAGI's fault
By Friday, it felt like a free for all, with NSW authorities pleading with people to just get a shot, any shot, yet the state is still awash with unwanted supplies of AstraZeneca.
Apparently, it is all ATAGI's fault — the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. The PM made clear that it would have all been better if their advice hadn't made people more hesitant about AstraZeneca.
He kept urging them to change their advice, he said: "I've just simply said, the balance of risk is changing guys, so how is that impacting on your advice and is it time to think about that?"
But ATAGI has consistently given advice on vaccines in a range of risk scenarios. And it's not its job to balance vaccine risk against issues like economic impact.
As the Victorian Health Minister Martin Foley pointedly observed in response on Thursday: "If government has an issue with [the ATAGI advice], constructively engage with them. Seek a solution. Don't seek to blame people for doing their job. If we all did our job, we may not be in this position we are today with very low vaccine rates."
The ultimate authority for our Prime Minister, unfortunately, has too often been the polls.
And the published polls have all been pointing in the same direction this week, as have what the focus groups are telling the political parties.
Despite the fact that it is state premiers who are more regularly in the public's face day in and day out, and despite the Prime Minister being less visible, it is Scott Morrison who voters hold responsible for the breakdown in the COVID response. The simple measurement of his failure in voters' minds is that we are lagging the entire developed world on vaccination rates.
And the PM is perceived to be perpetually trying to shift the blame to others. Which is why his sudden acknowledgement that he is ultimately "responsible" for the vaccination program was perhaps more important than his statement that he was "sorry" the vaccination program hadn't met its targets.
What's ahead is clear as mud
You can be sure this was a statement made in response to focus group findings, to address those perceptions that he was dodging the issue, even if he continues to blame others for the problems.
Pollster Tony Mitchelmore has long said that the only two things that have really mattered to swinging voters during this long period of crisis have been management of the pandemic and the economy.
On the pandemic, the Prime Minister repeatedly says we must focus on what's ahead, not what has happened in the past (which is understandable given the current dim view of what has happened in the past). Except what is ahead is as clear as mud just now.
Mitchelmore says focus groups aren't really focused on any concerns on the economy just yet.
But in the same way the COVID messages have become splintered and confused, there is a real risk to both the real economy and the political messages that the splintering of assistance measures — with the federal government increasingly expecting the states to provide business assistance, and less certain personal income assistance available from the federal government — will also hit business and consumer confidence just as hard as lockdowns are doing.
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg says we can't look backwards to JobKeeper and all the other support the government gave out last year. They were policies for the times, he says. And the times have moved on.
It's just unfortunate that, like the pandemic response, most voters would like some more reassuring signals from the government on the economy looking forward.
Laura Tingle is 7.30's chief political correspondent.
No comments:
Post a Comment