Extract tract from ABC News
Analysis
South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas has just won an election. Rather convincingly. Prime Minister Scott Morrison is trying to win one. Given the assistance he is getting from his own side of politics of late, he would probably just settle for winning unconvincingly.
Malinauskas is all fresh-faced enthusiasm and big ideas. Scott Morrison, like his government, just looks tired and, quite a lot of the time, petulant.
The South Australian Premier came to the National Press Club in Canberra this week, keen to get a few new ideas on the national agenda before we all disappear into the vortex of an election campaign.
The
Prime Minister travelled the country, re-announcing exceptionally large
bundles of money for infrastructure in target electorates, while
apparently having to be dragged kicking and screaming to give more money
to people whose lives have been destroyed by floods.
The contrast in the PM's approaches between infrastructure and flooding is one of those mysteries of modern Australian politics.
Malinauskas talked about the role of governments, noting that while he was "reluctant to draw comparisons between World War II and the pandemic because they're very different things", Australia hadn't had a moment like this one — when "a global shock up-ended the way we think about things" — since 1945. Malinauskas said:
"Think of the thousands of businesses that willingly closed their doors in the pandemic, not knowing what was happening next. Think of all the workers that gave up their incomes, not in their interest but the interest of others. These are people who've made big sacrifices during the course of the pandemic."
People want to know what the legacy of COVID is going to be, he said. "Is it going to be more of the same, just going back to where we were before — wage stagnation and a less fair economy? An incredibly tumultuous state of affairs in our politics? Or is it actually going to be a legacy that is a better future?" he said.
"There is an appetite — in my assessment — an appetite for ambition and boldness in policy, a vision for the future of the country."
The trillion dollar question
Morrison seems to have a different view about the times. He says the election "is a choice, not a referendum". (Subtext: it shouldn't be a referendum on his government.)
"It's a choice between the Liberal Party and the Nationals and Labor supported by the Greens," he said on Friday.
"[A
choice between] our future plans and our track record of the economy
and national security, and plans we don't know anything about from Labor
and the Greens. They're an unknown. It's a choice between what you know
and what you don't know."
The trillion-dollar question of the election is whether voters want more of "what we know": whether it will indeed be a referendum on Morrison's government.
So, what do we know about this government on the eve of the election?
We know that it rises from a dysfunctional political party, so divided it was prepared to risk going into the election without a swag of candidates in NSW. And we know that quite a lot of members of the government, and the party, have been prepared to give unflattering character assessments of the PM on the eve of an election.
We know of a propensity to use taxpayers' money in targeted electorates that is pretty staggering.
Prime ministerial stubbornness over funding for flood victims
The Financial Review reported this week that more than $1.3 billion of the $3.3 billion in infrastructure spending allocated to NSW — out of $17.9 billion nationally announced in the budget — is allocated for Dobell, on the NSW central coast, held by Labor on a margin of just 1 per cent.
Are the people of Dobell grateful for this? Morrison faced quite hostile questioning from reporters when he turned up there this week. They pointed out that locals were still waiting for the delivery of promises from the last election, including commuter car parks. And they queried why a billion-dollar promise for faster trains "covers 10 kilometres of track in this region" but didn't deal with other slower parts of the route which rather undermine the aim of achieving a faster commute.
On the other side of the equation is the almost incomprehensible prime ministerial stubbornness over funding for flood victims in both NSW and Queensland.
The PM found himself at loggerheads with both the Coalition government in NSW and the Labor government in Queensland this week over floods.
NSW wanted help with grants of up to $20,000 to make homes habitable again. NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet was also critical of the way federal funding was being distributed to some victims "based on where they live".
In doing so, he joined a chorus of criticism, including from members of the Coalition, for the federal government's initial decision to offer more assistance to flood victims in Lismore (within a federal seat held by the Nationals) than the Tweed, Byron and Ballina shires (within a federal seat held by Labor).
Queensland wanted help with a much bigger scheme — like one used after the devastating 2011 flooding in Grantham — to help people relocate to safer parts of the town.
Three weeks after the Queensland request was made, the Prime Minister finally got around to saying "no" to it earlier this week, only to backflip — as he did on the NSW funding — after a public outcry.
Voters might want to see a vision for the future
The PM's standard defence is to firstly quote the amount of money the federal government has handed out in immediate cash assistance to victims (which is the federal government's job), and then to argue that what the states are asking for is outside the normal guidelines of disaster assistance agreements.
The states dispute this, both on the basis of what the guidelines actually say about funding in exceptional circumstances, and on the basis of past practice — like Grantham.
The PM has been suggesting the states are exploiting the imminent election to "politicise" funding and put the government in a position where it is forced to hand out money outside funding guidelines.
Of course, he might have more moral — and policy — authority in arguing this, if his government had not become notorious for distributing hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of grants from schemes that either didn't have any guidelines at all, or in which the guidelines were spectacularly ignored in order to push funding into target electorates.
As Peter Malinauskas said this week, voters might like to see a boldness in policy, a vision for the future. And they might like to see it at the looming federal election. Even just some leadership.
In a report tabled 18 months ago, the royal commission into natural disasters established by the government, said that "making the nation more resilient to natural disasters calls for 'strategic imagination' and 'big country thinking' — a national response and national strategic leadership".
"The Australian Government should lead in the development and coordination of long-term, national strategic policy directed at making Australia resilient to natural disasters. It is uniquely placed to see the national picture, the national risks, and the impacts on all Australians."
If only this was "what we know".
Laura Tingle is 7.30's chief political correspondent.
No comments:
Post a Comment