We have many popular images for ways of imposing upon other people. We call it sticks and stones, carrots and sticks, good cop bad cop, iron fist and velvet glove and/or using honey or vinegar.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Bearing this in mind, it has been fascinating to witness the variety of approaches that the Prime Minister and other members of the government have used to get their own way during the pandemic. While some policies have been agreed upon after discussion through formal mechanisms such as the national cabinet this has only been part of the story. The rest is about political leverage.
These approaches are not necessarily new. In any political situation the government has other tools at its disposal when rational discussion with other parties fails to deliver the desired outcome.
Federal state relations have a long history of different types of federal government political leverage. Divide and rule is a common federal government approach in areas like health and education when it is trying to gain agreement on a common national approach. This means getting individual states on board one by one, beginning with the most compliant. The snowball effect means that once a majority is on board the rest will probably follow.
The parliament is another example. When any federal government needs to pass contentious policies through a divided Senate it concentrates on winning over members of the cross bench one by one. Some are relatively easy to win over because they are ideological allies. Others need to be shamed or bribed or threatened with dire consequences. Independent senators way back to Tasmania's Brian Harradine have experienced different forms of leverage which have been brought to bear to win their vote.
Sometimes it is a good financial deal for their state or acceptance of an amendment to the policy in question. Sometimes it is the threat of lack of cooperation in the future and the reminder of how much their pet issues depend on federal government action. Sometimes it is a warning that they were only elected through a preference deal with the government.
In recent times even powerful Australian corporations have been subjected to government leverage. In fields like energy policy, for instance, carrot and/or stick approaches are common. The carrot approach often involves increased government funding for their sector, while the stick approach involves threats of increased regulation of consumer prices.
All these mechanisms have been on display during the pandemic. The objects have been state governments, service providers in aged care, health and education, and ordinary citizens.
The use of leverage has reached new heights. One extreme example has been the extravagant attack on Victorian Premier Dan Andrews by the federal Education Minister Dan Tehan for an alleged failure of leadership in not acceding to the federal government's desire for a quicker re-opening of government schools. Tehan later retracted his remarks, claiming they were the result of personal frustration, but the point had been made. He had played bad cop by attempting to shame and undermine Andrews. Some Coalition federal parliamentarians behaved similarly towards other state and territory leaders.
They take the money and run when it suits them; they stand and fight the government when it does not.
To the same end, the federal government mounted pressure on cautious state premiers, like Andrews and Gladys Berejiklian of New South Wales, by offering the independent and Catholic education sectors advance part-payment of 2020-21 funding if they would re-open their schools systems early with a guaranteed percentage of students in attendance by mid-year. This was an attempt to bribe these non-government sectors to effectively put pressure on the public school systems and to generate a revolt against recalcitrant state and territory premiers and chief ministers by parents keen to get their children back to school.
Another contemporary example has been the federal government's approach to achieving sufficient community take up of the COVIDSafe app. Part of the approach has been the intellectual argument, backed up by a standard media campaign with support from credible community figures.
Accompanying this marketing campaign, just in case the intellectual argument is not enough, have been threats and bribery of ordinary citizens. The threat has been that lockdown provisions will not be eased unless the take-up is sufficient. The bribery has been the promise of the personal benefit of greater freedom if the collective response is positive enough.
These stick and carrot approaches have been evident since the early days of the federal government's response to the pandemic. It was quick to remind aged care providers, hospitals and schools that they were dependent on government funding for their operations. The target was the aged care industry when the government wanted to ensure the protection of the vulnerable elderly by restricting visitors and then became the private schools when some closed their doors earlier than the government wished. This was a version of "He who pays the piper calls the tune". The message was a warning that government funding came with the responsibility to obey the government.
There are two lessons. One is that these tactics are commonplace in politics and anyone who wants to be a player should get used to them. That was Andrews's response to Tehan's attack. That also seems to be the response of health and education providers. They take the money and run when it suits them; they stand and fight the government when it does not.
The second lesson is that governments must be wary of unintended consequences. The Morrison government may have been clever in how it has used these various tactics. But long after the pandemic is over those who feel manipulated by the government will remember how they were treated.
- John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University.