I have never paid too much attention to "labels" worn by those in politics. While for a host of reasons, ranging from ideology to practicality, players tend to label themselves as conservative, or small "l" liberal, or progressive, right or left wing, even Liberal or Labor, or whatever, such labels cannot be consistently applied to all their activities, or to the positions they take, from time to time.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
For example, in recent years, some conservative Liberals, who would seek to define themselves as "believing" in small government, minimal regulation, and reliance on market forces wherever possible, have still opposed "putting a price on carbon", even though it is the most cost effective response to climate change. They have also attempted to take a "BIG Regulatory Stick" to the power companies in an effort to "control electricity prices".
The health/medical and economic crises created by COVID-19 has similarly seen unexpected responses from the Morrison government.
In an attempt to control the rate of infection and manage the demands on our health and hospital services the government has embraced lockdowns, border and other enforced closures, social distancing rules, and so on.
In an attempt to "stimulate/cushion" our economy from the consequences of these medical responses, the government has increased unemployment benefits (JobSeeker/Newstart) that they had consistently opposed, embraced a form of universal income/living wage by introducing the JobKeeper program that they had also consistently opposed, and funded apprentices.
It has dramatically increased the role and size of government with these "welfare measures" plus free childcare, a range of general and specific industry/business assistance, and enhanced banking liquidity.
In a sense, all this is completely "out of character" for both Morrison and his government.
Being totally unprepared for the pandemic, it took these crises to force them to quickly and practically address some significant policy issues, and in doing so has now raised serious questions of just how far the government can actually step back from some of these policy positions.
It has also focused attention on the need to improve the delivery of essential services, what should be our industrial base, and social structures, moving forward, and on the budget deficit and debt management.
These are now all serious challenges to the government in developing the detail of its recovery strategy. For example, having now effectively admitted that Newstart is inadequate, is it realistic to just go back to the old allowance that hasn't been increased in real terms in about 25 years, and recognising the widespread community support and expectations in this respect?
Similarly, as the economy is most unlikely to just "bounce/snap" back to the way it was, with unemployment more than double and slow to fall, will the government sustain some sort of living wage?
How can it easily abandon free childcare, now having given it, and recognising its significant impact on the costs of living for a large number of working families?
Also, many industries, especially tourism, higher education, retail and hospitality will emerge from these crises fundamentally/structurally different, and probably in need of continued support until effectively restructured.
Clearly, we will want to emerge with a competitive domestic airline industry, the issue now having been brought to a head by Virgin being placed in voluntary administration.
Understandably, the government is concerned to not just lend money that ends up in the hands of shareholders. Foreign airlines should actually be pressured to step up to support Virgin, although they too are struggling in the collapse of the global aviation market.
The government is committed to a competitive domestic airline market, but there are no easy/acceptable solutions, especially if, in the end, Virgin is taken over by some vulture/private equity group, which rarely make long-term commitments, with significant short-term consequences for the employees, fares etc.
There is also significant political pressure on the government to find ways to rejuvenate our manufacturing base, and to address issues like the Chinese involvement in our economy, where they have been able to take control of a power company, a power distribution company, a port, much agriculture and real estate, a significant share of Virgin, and so on.
As tough as the crises have been so far - the Reserve Bank has warned that we face the largest collapse in national output since the Great Depression - the development of the recovery strategy may be an even bigger challenge for the Morrison government, in many respects out of its "comfort zone".
John Hewson is a professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, and a former Liberal opposition leader.
