Extract from ABC News
Belting the government is easy. Producing alternative solutions to complex challenges is not.
Let's start with housing affordability.
The Greens have spent the past 18 months dialling up pressure on the government over rising rents and housing costs. Pitching themselves as the "party of renters", the Greens have been highly effective, tapping into the grievance of a generation locked out of the housing market.
Last year, the Greens' simple demand was for the states and territories to impose a "rent freeze". None took it up and some experts warned it would only make the problem of affordable housing far worse over time. That didn't deter the Greens.
This week came a new, somewhat more complicated policy to fix the housing crisis. To call it highly ambitious would be an understatement.
Can an idyllic vision actually come to life?
The idea is for the federal government to overrule state and local planning laws, build 360,000 new homes over the next five years, and then sell or rent the properties at "affordable" prices, by "cutting out the profit margin". Oh, and the states would waive stamp duty.
Speaking at the National Press Club yesterday, Greens housing spokesperson Max Chandler-Mather spelt out his grand vision for teachers, pensioners, doctors, and cleaners to be living side by side in beautifully designed, well located, not-for-profit, affordable apartments, complete with rooftop gardens.
Sounds idyllic. There are, however, just a few missing details and unanswered questions. The ABC's Tom Crowley posed a quick list to Chandler-Mather at the Press Club.
"Will the Commonwealth compulsorily acquire land? How will local planning objections be managed? How will bureaucrats choose between potentially thousands of applicants for a single house? How will mortgages be set? How would states agree to give up stamp duty? What is the constitutional basis for the Commonwealth (making development decisions)?"
The broad answer, involved little detail, other than an assurance that "of course" it can be done.
Experts largely disagree.
The Grattan Institute thinks the idea amounts to a "very expensive and arbitrary lottery", constitutional expert Professor Anne Twomey reckons it would not be constitutional, and even the Parliamentary Budget Office, which costed the policy for the Greens, says it's "highly uncertain" it could be implemented as intended.
Unsurprisingly, both the government and opposition immediately dismissed the proposal.
The danger here for the Greens is the perception they're now promoting a pie in the sky idea to fix a serious problem. Angry tirades can take a party so far. Ultimately voters want credible solutions too.
Perhaps that matters less for a minor party mainly focused on trying to influence government, than it does for a major party trying to form government.
And what about the Coalition?
Which brings us to the Coalition and its solution to another difficult challenge confronting Australia: the transition to net zero emissions.
Peter Dutton is inching closer to what's likely to be his defining roll of the dice as opposition leader. Within weeks he's set to announce detailed plans to roll out nuclear power stations across the nation.
This week he confirmed the policy could include both small and large-scale nuclear reactors, built on the sites of old coal-fired power stations.
The "small modular reactors" the opposition has promoted until now, aren't yet in commercial operation anywhere in the world. At least it can point to plenty of developed countries using modern large-scale plants (Generation III+ and IV, which are safer than reactors from last century).
Ahead of the policy announcement, Dutton is trying to head-off (or at least narrow down) a scare campaign about nuclear plants potentially popping up in every neighbourhood. He says he's only talking about sites "where there is an existing coal-fired generator so you can distribute using the existing poles and wires."
This underscores one of the main motivations behind the Coalition going nuclear — it wants to avoid the disruption of running transmission lines across farmland for wind and solar projects.
Nonetheless, this nuclear alternative will still hit the regions.
The "brownfield" coal sites Dutton is earmarking for nuclear power plants include the NSW Hunter Valley, Victoria's Latrobe Valley, and several sites in Queensland and Western Australia.
Even if these locations are viable, there are a bunch of unanswered questions the policy will have to answer.
What the nuclear is up against
It's unclear whether any private investors are willing to stump up the cash for typically expensive modern nuclear plants, or whether taxpayers would be on the hook. It's unclear whether household prices would end up being any cheaper.
It's also unclear whether there's enough water at the old coal sites.
Then there's the time frame. How long would it take to conduct environmental approvals, train a local workforce, and establish a whole new nuclear regulatory regime? If that takes longer than a decade (as it no doubt would), what's going to bridge the gap as old coal generators shut down?
That's before we get to the question of where to store the nuclear waste, (which admittedly must be dealt with either way, for the waste Australia's already producing from Lucas Heights and the waste to come from the AUKUS nuclear submarines).
Peter Dutton is confident he can win the politics on this. He knows it won't be easy, but points to the Voice as evidence of his ability to turn public opinion around.
Convincing Australians to say "no" to constitutional change, however, has historically proven relatively easy. Convincing them to say "yes" to nuclear power has not.
And that's the difference between criticising the government and putting forward alternative solutions.
Running a no case from opposition is straightforward. Running a yes case is far more difficult, involves political risk, and requires plenty of details. Particularly if the Coalition wants to be taken seriously.
David Speers is National Political Lead and host of Insiders, which airs on ABC TV at 9am on Sunday or on iview.
No comments:
Post a Comment