Parallel political universes for experts and governments

Major long-term issues like climate change and immigration are being discussed at the same time as whether the sails of the Sydney Opera House should be used to advertise the Sydney racing industry and its forthcoming $13 million race, The Everest.

Is this the desecration of the heritage value of a cultural icon or the pragmatic use of what Prime Minister Scott Morrison describes as just another advertising billboard? The NSW racing industry lobby, Racing NSW, praises the Sports Minister, Stuart Ayres, who appears to be driving the decision, as a ‘can do’ man, the highest form of praise from a lobbyist for a politician. The CEO of the Opera House cops a typical dressing-down from radio host Alan Jones for her temerity in defending the honour of the building. Racing NSW is also supported by the State Labor Opposition Leader, though Bill Shorten was game enough to refuse to agree with the description of the Opera House as a billboard.

This is just an example of the tenor of debate which can flourish in what passes for democratic discourse in Australia today. We appear to have lost our bearings and our guiding principles.

Elections are looming in the major states and at the federal level. This has infected political leaders, especially those holding the reins of government, with a desire to be seen to be doing something, anything. Yet when actions are taken many of them are immediately engulfed in controversy. This leads to endless discussions and many decisions becoming bogged down. Political leaders are afraid to challenge conventional wisdom especially when it is reinforced by a potent mixture of powerful media bullies and professional industry lobbyists.

Politicians are only interested in the short-term for political reasons. Long-term planning and expertise are not taken seriously enough, in relation to climate change or immigration policy for instance. Governments and academic experts inhabit parallel universes which hardly touch one another. They are like ships passing in the night.

The key to the next elections will be just which of these universes is occupied by the majority of voters. Is it experts or governments who have most lost the confidence of ordinary Australians? Governments have the whip hand in this contest as they hold the reins of power and can be seen to be actually doing something. This may be a perception rather than a reality but even a perception will do as elections loom.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report on the impact of rising temperatures on the economy is quickly dismissed by the federal government which backs the mining industry groups, especially when they are playing up shorter-term community concerns about the cost of living. The Queensland Resources Council is led by a former Abbott government Coalition Energy Minister, Ian Macfarlane, so it can speak with the confidence of insider access and influence.

Scott Morrison’s support for coal-fired power stations is based on his first priority which is to be seen to reduce electricity prices. He may be reading popular opinion correctly and therefore sending the right signals to anxious swinging voters, though Labor and the Greens will confront him on this during the next election campaign.

In South Australia, a small state at the heart of energy debates, the local newspaper, The Advertiser, is promoting its own write-in survey calling for a Royal Commission into the energy sector on the grounds that energy pricing and reliable supply is the state’s number one issue even when compared to jobs and job security and the general cost of living, which rank two and three.

But at the same time the signals from the public are extraordinarily mixed on these and other issues. These same South Australians overwhelmingly want more solar farms and greater investment in wind farms. It may be the political party which can convincingly do both which wins majority political support.

Population and immigration policies are being debated in much the same unconvincing way. The federal government appears to be trying to send signals about reducing immigration and capping population growth while neglecting the long-term analysis supporting the current immigration program by renowned experts such as Professor Peter McDonald, Emeritus Professor of Demography at the ANU. McDonald concludes that long-term social benefits such economic growth from an increased workforce and an amelioration of the ageing of the Australian population would be put at risk by a steep cut in immigration.

Morrison and his Population Minister, Alan Tudge, are wavering, tempted by the short term selling-point of a populist cut in migration, but afraid to commit strongly. Morrison wants a ‘fair dinkum’ conversation about immigration and population policy, which is a tentative coded nod towards community worry about urban congestion but not a long-term policy choice. The government will eventually probably give greater weight to re-election than to a principled long-term position.

There are many discomforting aspects to modern politics. Academic expertise is crowded out by lobbying and bullying by insiders of various stripes. Trivial marketing of financial benefits prevails over heritage values. The short-term hit wins out over long-term thinking. These dismaying trends are exaggerated in an election climate in which weak leaders are scrambling around looking for advantages over their opponents.

John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University