 |
| Image courtesy awareness days |
Right now, gentle reader, we're observing the onward march of Australian politics against a background of fear and loathing.
There are two prominent threats - climate change and an emerging China. The fear refers to climate change; the loathing to China and its system of government.
Across the two issues we see the two major parties adopting largely opposing positions. It was ever so. In this country for the last twenty years or so, if one party takes a position, the other opposes it.
You could say that this is how it is, how it should be, and how it always will be. Isn't democracy a contest of ideas? - I hear you say.
Perhaps there is another way of looking at it. If these two issues are about existential threats (and we are told they are) wouldn't it be a great idea if the two major parties formed a war cabinet to deal with them? History shows that this has been successful practice in the face of existential threat in the past.
In the case of energy policy, each party talks about a mix of energy sources, but with one party locked into total renewables, and the other using nuclear as a foil and a point of separation, the investors will be just as confused about the future as they have been for the last decade. Lack of investor confidence will delay any solution to the loss of energy capacity caused by the closure of the coal fired generators.
A bear of little brain would understand that if our elected representatives got together and produced a joint statement, clarity would emerge, and we wouldn't be stuck on the merry-go-round that got us into the invidious situation that we're in now. If indeed the various lobbies (both fossil fuel and renewables) understood whatever the carve-up of energy sources provided them, the competition might end up in a draw, and we'd all be better off.
The fear of China has produced nothing of benefit except the AUKUS agreement, that is if you believe that we will ever see these boats actually in the water. Frankly I doubt it, and I'm in good company. The US Studies Centre describes the AUKUS agreement as a "hospital pass". Given the political volatility evident both in the USA and the UK, there are too many minefields to cross, if you'll excuse the military metaphor.
More fundamentally, why do we need submarines capable of cruising waters off China and Taiwan, given we are an island, and could build many more modern and stealthy diesel boats that could prowl our littoral and defend our sea lanes for a fraction of the cost? There are those who believe the era of manned boats, nuclear or otherwise, is coming to an end. How many underwater drones could we acquire for the price of one nuclear sub?
More fundamentally, we could give a strong message about our sovereignty to both "friend" and "foe" alike if we separate our fleet from those of countries who seem intent on a policy of containment of China and redirect it towards an emphasis on littoral security. The last time the US attempted to contain an emerging Asian power did not end well. My use of quotes around friend and foe by the way, is more than accidental.
Our Westminster system does not hold the formation of political parties as absolutely necessary. They have grown out of a convention largely of convenience, which should ensure stability and consistency. The achilles heel of the party system is paralysis caused by two parties adopting contradictory positions on critical issues. That's what we're seeing now.
Perhaps the growth in numbers of independent candidates elected is evidence that the situation is self-correcting. I hope so.
What we're seeing now is dysfunctional.
