In Eureka Street on Friday, UnitingCare National Director Lin Hatfield Dodds wrote that the Government’s proposed flood levy represents precisely the approach social justice principles dictate. But she also described it as a one-off response that won’t improve our ability to cope with natural disasters in the long-term.
Being prepared for natural disasters brought on by radical climate fluctuation is part of what former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd called the ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’. The fact that he did not have the courage of his conviction, and virtually gave up on it, does not mean that serious preparation for the effects of future climate fluctuation is now beyond us.
There are simple strategies that can go some way to addressing this particular challenge, including making the flood levy a permanent natural disaster fund, as suggested by the Independent MPs who hold the balance of power in the House of Representatives.
In fact the politics of the situation make it much easier for Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the levy permanent. It could be a rare example of reform that she and her government can be proud of for years to come.
The current government has form in failing to legislate for reforms needed to improve Australia’s readiness to face future challenges. The Henry Tax Review was almost totally ignored.
Gillard is not alone. Most prime ministers in recent years have lacked the political courage necessary to legislate for reform. They have focused on government for the short-term, with the aim of being re-elected at the next election. They have considered it politically foolhardy to enact legislation that involves short-term pain for long-term gain.
Part of the problem is caused by the myth that electability is paramount. Contributing to this is the attitude of many Australians, who look askance at leaders who are focused on the long-term, as it’s likely they are serving with one eye on their own political legacy. We think of them as deluded by a false sense of their own grandeur.
Yet that is not necessarily a bad thing. A politician wanting to make his or her mark on history will surely do what it takes to pass reform legislation. It doesn’t do any real harm to have former prime ministers acting like demigods, but it does a lot of good to have ‘courageous’ legislation successfully pass through parliament.
The economic reform begun during the Hawke-Keating years is a good example. Hawke and Keating will look good for ever more because of their bold actions. They cut tariffs and instituted other measures to allow the economy to interact more freely with the economies of other countries. In the short term, this killed much of the manufacturing industry and cost jobs. But years later it contributed to the economic robustness that got us through the GFC and saved us from large-scale unemployment. It also cost Keating government, but now he’s basking in glory, and most Australians are arguably better off.
By contrast, Kevin Rudd, for all his idealism, dropped the ball on climate change, and cannot even claim too much credit for the Apology to the Stolen Generations, given that it had popular support. His political legacy is shot.
On the face of it, current prime minister Julia Gillard has her hands tied. She does not have any political capital to spend because she presides over a hung parliament. Her focus must be on getting Labor back into majority government at the next election, in 2013 or before.
But the reality is quite different, because her immediate political masters are the Independents, not the electorate. They hold the balance of power, and she has to appease them or face possible rejection of all legislation. The wishes of the 2013 voters are secondary.
Because it’s highly unlikely their hold on the balance of power will continue beyond the next election, the Independents have nothing to lose by demanding long-term reform. That is why Independent MP Tony Windsor could afford to tell Labor last week that it must make its flood levy permanent, in order to provide Australia with an ongoing natural disaster recovery fund.
Labor needs the Independents’ support, so Gillard cannot reject this demand, at least not out of hand. If she wants the legislation passed, there’s a reasonable chance that it may need to include the permanent levy Windsor wants. In that case, it would constitute long-term reform. Despite the involuntary nature of her zeal for reform, this could establish a pattern, and history may credit her with embracing some of the great moral challenges of our time.
Michael Mullins is editor of Eureka Street.