Catastrophe at a Canter

It is now several weeks since the surprising outcome of the Australian federal election. The conservative coalition has been returned under the leadership of Scott John Morrison. The Prime Minister quickly assumed the mantle of 'legend of the party'. In keeping with his sincerely and oft expressed Christian faith, he referred to the result as 'a miracle'. If not quite as momentous as the parting of the Red Sea, it nevertheless took one's breath away. What now that the dust has settled, the bodies of the losers taken away and the recriminations and analysis by hindsight consigned to the newspaper fish wrappings?

Not really expecting to win, the government must now focus on the two areas of policy that defined its campaign. First, the tax cuts. This requires steerage of a policy in three parts through both the Representatives and the Senate. In the former, the government's slim majority should ensure a smooth passage. The voters were not so kind in the Upper House. The government effectively needs to secure all but two of the crossbench, assuming that Labor and the Greens join in opposition to at least part of the package. This is where the arithmetic gets complicated. There are two key blocs of Senators, each with two members, Pauline Hanson's One Nation and the liberal-light Centre Alliance. There is little love between them, and each will relish having an effective veto on government legislation, depending on how the vote of Tasmanian independent Jacqui Lambie swings (and assuming that Cory Bernardi votes with or even rejoins the government). Take the tax policy. The Senate will almost certainly if not unanimously vote to support the first cuts focused on low income earners. The second round targeting those on middle-upper middle incomes may also get general, or at least sufficient support - but only if they and the first tranche are separated from the third and final cuts that deliver the bulk of total benefits to high income earners five years down the track.

Unsurprisingly, the government is asserting its intention to put the cuts as an omnibus bill, take it or leave it. This, is, of course, its ambit. One would hardly expect any other opening move. It is also one of the oldest tricks in the politicians' tool bag. Fulminating against a defeated opposition by claiming a mandate from the people, gives the government time and space to begin the serious negotiations with the Senate crossbench. Still, it's worth a try. Labor is still reeling from losing the unloseable election. As a new Opposition leader seeks to distance the party from the failed policies of its predecessor, Labor might just be wedged sufficiently to roll over on the whole tax package. This, however, would be almost as surprising as the election outcome itself. Not only would this infuriate the true believers and Labor's union base, it would remove any vestige of a claim to be a social democratic alternative to 'the radical centre'. Stranger things have happened, but not much stranger.

So, the government will be thrown back onto dealing with the feral Senators. Centre Alliance has already indicated that it may support the first two cuts but remains dubious about the third, concerned by the capacity of the federal budget to weather such a structural leakage of revenue, especially as the Australian economy has turned south in a world of Trump-induced uncertainty. But neither is Pauline Hanson's vote guaranteed. She has already laid out a series of populist demands as preconditions for her support, that's assuming she can keep on the leash the famously maverick re-elected Malcolm Roberts. (For readers unfamiliar with the turbulent history of One Nation, the average tenure of parliamentary membership of that party is not much more than the lifespan of the mayfly.) Most of those demands can be met by lip service and sham action - for example, holding an inquiry into the rights of men in family law. But the trouble starts when the government has to deal with her demand for government support for a new coal-fired power station in central Queensland. This is doubly difficult, since not only would the government be permanently on the hook for a future stranded asset that private investors would be unlikely to fund without iron-clad government guarantees, the end result would likely be higher not lower power prices.

That then raises the second policy area that faces the government - or rather non-policy. I refer of course to what is to be done about climate change? Cue crickets. Nothing, if the recent track record of coalition discord is to guide us. Indeed, the strong showing of the government in Queensland suggests that nothing is precisely what we can expect.

The government's position, as repeatedly laid out by the Prime Minister is that Australia will meet its Paris target of reducing overall Greenhouse emissions by '26 to 28 per cent' by 2030. indeed, he famously said that we would do so in a canter and continues to say so even after the government's own admission that total emissions have risen every year since 2014. How can this be? We all know that people self-select into parliamentary politics in part due to their pronounced capacity to navigate the shoals of cognitive dissonance, the ability to hold two or more mutually contradictory thoughts and positions - and to choose whatever line of argument gets them off the hook baited by a pesky journalist. We see this tactic every day, thanks to the twenty-four-hour news cycle of the Canberra press gallery. It is particularly evident in relief when a dim Minister gets his or her lines wrong. (I am irresistibly reminded of National Party leader Michael McCormack and Liberal Minister MIchaelia Cash.) In the case of rising emissions, the energy Minister directs our attention to the 'fact' that Australia has the lowest per capita emissions in the world. (Where is the proof of this assertion?)  So what? Our total emissions are rising. He then points to our burgeoning liquified gas exports replacing coal fired power stations in Asia as contributing to their reduced emissions, even though mining and transporting the gas adds to our emissions.  With a breathtaking leap, almost in the same sentence, he defends increasing our coal exports to the same countries. Has there ever been a better demonstration of double-speak?

But Scomo has a plan. He has had his people lay out a series of targets dated to 2030. Unsurprisingly 'the plan' ends with emissions down by '26 to 28 per cent' in 2030. But there are no detailed actions or monitoring measures specified, other than the one concrete policy taken to the election, the fund to pay polluters to reduce their emissions. That's it. Job done. (I have always been puzzled by the 'to': why not just 26 percent?)

To a recovering urban planner, Scomo's plan is reminiscent of the 'master plans' carefully delivered to elected governments outlining designated spatial patterns for new urban development. Once printed in glorious multicolours, they are ignored as developers build where they think they can reap the greatest gains and local planning authorities eventually follow, with infrastructure lagging a poor third. Such is likely to be the fate of Scomo's plan. Private investors, large employers and the collective decisions of millions of resident consumers are likely to drive environmental outcomes in the absence of firm government directives on energy policy and overall emissions. We are either going to reach the government's target in spite of its plan or find ourselves cantering to the cliff's edge when, within sight, the horse jams its front hooves into the ground and flings whatever government is in the saddle over the precipice. By then Scomo and his team will be gone. Praise the Lord.