COVID-19 crisis no time for political squabbling

In an unprecedented crisis, it's having to weigh long-term economic consequences with the immediate health risk to millions of people.

It would be difficult for any government at the best of times. The variables and uncertainties are many. And multiplying.

In the coming weeks, it has to minimise the loss of life from this terrible virus. And have no illusion: it is a terrible virus and not just a bad dose of flu.

But there are constraints.

It has to preserve the health of its citizens but also, ideally, the wealth of its citizens.

A people impoverished by recession will not be able to keep the economy and its tax-base afloat - and ultimately a badly-damaged economy will be less able to fund the healthcare of the future.

To that end, subsidising jobs at a cost to the tax-payer of $130 billion is to be welcomed. Like in war, old rules of balancing budgets go out of the window.

But there is also the question of how far that generosity with tax-payers' money should go.

Hard choices have to be made. Should casual workers benefit and, if so, by how much? How do you define a casual worker?

The government seems to be softening on an earlier assurance that the wage subsidy would be "inclusive and reasonable", an assurance many took to be a promise that casuals would be included.

Industrial relations minister Christian Porter said the government would "refine" the plan before parliament voted on it. Sceptics see the word "refine" as slippery.

He was asked if casual workers would have to work for a single employer for a year. He replied: "That's correct.

"Now exactly the wording of that definition, how it's refined, is something we're working through at the moment."

So it is not clear how far the subsidy will go beyond the permanent employees who find themselves deprived of work by the crisis.

Already, there is mistrust.

Governments of all persuasions use crises to get through measures which might be politically impossible in normal times. The politically ultra-astute Churchill himself said: "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

Labor and the unions fear this government may use the current crisis to get through changes to industrial relations law.

They warned, for example, against taking a "sledgehammer approach" by altering the industrial relations system through changes to the Fair Work Act.

This leaves Labor with a dilemma.

Will it oppose the wage subsidy legislation when it comes before parliament?

The politics are difficult. Will the public accept opposition to a measure to subsidise wages in a crisis painted by the government as similar to war?

Mr Porter, in turn, called their stance "ridiculous" and "extraordinary".

He said his changes were "the only guaranteed way to make the $1500 payments flow in a lawful way to save Australian jobs".

The sub-text is: if you want the subsidies you may have to swallow unpleasant medicine.

But this is not the time for usual Punch-and-Judy politics.

Beating this virus demands unity which demands that governments don't try to exploit a crisis to get contentious measures through.

And it demands that opposition politicians recognise that funds are limited, even in this time of crisis.

Squabbling will undermine trust in politicians at a time when public trust is absolutely essential.