Political Corrections

with Mungo MacCallum

Burning the Midnight Oil

The Howard government already holds an enviable record for devoting vast amounts of taxpayer funds to some of the worst examples of public policy in Australian history.

Who could forget the $400 million propping up of the sugar industry in the hope of retaining the votes of a few thousand farmers who can never again hope to become profitable on the world market?

Or the repeated attempts to bribe the Mitsubishi company to keep its Adelaide plant alive in a market too small to support even three motor vehicle manufacturers, let alone the four still struggling on with their taxpayer subsidies?

Or the private health insurance rebate, in which money desperately needed by the public hospital system was diverted to lining the pockets of those who could afford private cover, yet further distorting the system?

Or the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway, described by John Howard as an exercise in nation building, but derided by his erstwhile colleague in the waterfront disputes, Chris Corrigan, as being unlikely to yield a profit the size of a tick's testicle?

All were absurd and irrational, not just in the narrow economic sense but in defiance of ordinary logic; they simply flushed money down the gurgler while actually worsening the underlying problems they were allegedly designed to solve. But even these pale into insignificance compared to the various fiascos on oil pricing.

In 2001 Howard, panicked by the polls, decided to subsidise the cost of petrol to the bush, a subsidy that was later quietly withdrawn so that the money could be squandered on something more electorally rewarding. But he went further; he removed the indexation from fuel excise altogether, thus ensuring that a declining and polluting resource would become progressively cheaper in international terms and discouraging any serious attempt to find alternatives.

And now, again in election mode, he has topped even this performance. Last week's much boomed energy statement did indeed include token gestures towards sustainable energy, but these were side shows. The thrust was that coal is still king and will remain so for as long as Howard holds dominion over the mines, and that oil is to become cheaper still.

No less than $1.5 billion is to be devoted to new subsidies for the bush, not only for easily rortable on-farm use, but also for long distance transport. The headline should have been CHEAP DIESEL FOR BIG TRUCKS.

Howard attempted to justify this 19th century policy by saying that the emphasis should not just be on alternative fuels, but on reducing emissions. He proudly produced the word subsequestration, which basically means burying the nasty stuff - something which, after all, has always been one of the chief aims of his government. A South Australian Democrat put it more earthily: "It's like you break wind and you put it in a bottle and somehow you're more polite." But wherever you put it, the environmentalists were not impressed. Which is what was intended; in electoral terms Howard has written them off.

The Liberals believe that they were never going to get Green preferences ahead of Labor, and that in any case the environment vote is declining: between them the Greens and Democrats used to get up to ten percent, but the polls show it's now closer to five. For Howard, it makes much more sense to concentrate his efforts on the rural seats he needs to hold and Labor needs to win.

And in this sense he has made Mark Latham's much boomed recruitment of Peter Garrett a bit irrelevant. The point about the long-standing activist, incongruously introduced to the faithful at a race meeting at which his formidable bald head could be seen lurching menacingly over the crowd like a giant rampant penis, was that he was meant to attract wavering green voters to the cause.

But if Labor is going to get them anyway, if not directly then at least through preferences, the obvious benefits disappear and Labor is left with the possible alienation of rural votes in seats like Bass in Tasmania, which it must hold, and Eden Monaro on the NSW south coast, which it needs to win - not to mention an undercurrent of resentment among the long time stalwarts who see Garrett as a usurper and a blow in.

It would have made more sense if Garrett had been installed in a marginal seat - he would have won Richmond in a canter - but putting him in a Labor stronghold looks like a waste.

Certainly Howard does not appear too concerned. While Alexander Downer twittered about how the Americans really, really, wouldn't like it and reached for his smelling salts, Howard simply said it was a matter for the Labor Party, and smiled like a shark.

So far Garrett has given one press conference, at which he behaved impeccably. But if he is to make any real impression on the campaign, he will have to move more quickly and purposefully than he ever did on stage. The dogs are now barking that the date will be August 7, and although I still have my doubts - I think Howard would really like a bit longer to spend the surplus in blatantly political advertising, to get other dirty tricks like the Centenary House inquiry underway and to generally throw muck at Latham - time is clearly starting to run out.

Having deliberately created speculation about a snap election, Howard is now in a position to say that the only way to end the speculation is by holding one. If he genuinely believes he can win it, he will. CHEAP DIESEL FOR BIG VOTES.