Our can-do nation needs its leaders to lead on climate

A Rainbow over Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: Gary Ramage

Since Federation, Australia has led the world on vital political, social and economic reforms, or it has been right up there supporting nations that have.

Prodded by activists, women were granted the right to vote as well as the right to stand for parliament. Protesters, aka voters, helped force the end of the Vietnam War and apartheid. They compelled action to punish polluters and pushed for laws to promote equality in everything from education to marriage. Despite the pressure from protectionists, the dollar was floated and the economy opened (by a Labor government, not the party of free ­enterprise) to market forces. ­Australians generally have accepted that free trade is synonymous with prosperity, so our best interests lie in promoting it.

Money has flowed to medical research, building on a remarkable record of invention of everything from penicillin to a vaccine for cervical cancer. Australians have been in the vanguard mapping the components of COVID-19, a major step towards creating a vaccine to fight yet another human-driven epidemic now battering an economy already weakened by drought and fire.

There is little that Australians, living in the bush or the cities, cannot do if they have the incentive or are pointed in the right direction. Ordinary people are prepared to play their part on climate change, but they also need governments to play theirs, for leaders to lead.

The prospect of the major parties coming together on this is remote, however they have shifted, albeit on parallel paths. Labor has committed to an emissions target but with no road map. The government is working on a technology road map with — at this stage — no target to reach.

Scott Morrison has delivered high-decibel (can someone please tell him to stop shouting?) ridicule of Anthony ­Albanese’s target of net zero emissions by 2050, which free enterprise has been begging for, and which Liberal and Labor states have adopted.

Fearing the power of the dwindling number of deniers, the Prime Minister has baulked at a target so enthusiastically embraced by that raving socialist, Boris Johnson. Morrison’s justification is that no one can tell him it would not lead to job losses or increases in electricity prices.

If this rule had been applied to other reforms — say, the introduction of the GST in 2000 — we would still have a wholesale sales tax. There were losers, jobs were lost, the price of some goods and services went up, others went down. But before too long the benefits far outweighed the costs.

Embarking on such reform takes a lot of ticker, hard work, informed advocacy and persistence. Oh, and leadership. Luckily John Howard and Peter Costello were up for it. It took meticulous planning, it almost cost them government, but eventually after more than two years they succeeded against overwhelming negativity and questioning every day on every conceivable front, including internally from nervous Nellies, from the media and from the ­opposition.

Like it or not, believe in it or not, the economy, and society, will be transformed by climate change and the technology to deal with it, in ways we cannot imagine, assuming we are not wiped out before by a pandemic.

Governments can help the adjustment by setting the parameters, or they can run scare campaigns that continue to diminish trust in politicians, especially if voters sniff they are doing it to distract attention from their own misadventures — such as declaring they had delivered a surplus when they hadn’t and being forced to explain why they may not. Morrison asks “hands up” who predicted a coronavirus epidemic? Fine. Hands up all those who warned last year it was wrong to say a surplus had been produced when it hadn’t, driving Morrison to produce this crime against English and the truth: “We’ve brought the budget back to surplus next year.”

One of the main concerns among senior Labor MPs about the Opposition Leader’s decision to announce Labor’s target so early was the ­potential for that scare campaign that Morrison has done his best to excite.

When shadow cabinet adopted the target on January 29, it also decided Albanese could announce it at a time of his choosing. The first many of them knew it was happening last week was when they read about it.

Albanese told colleagues he moved because he was convinced Morrison was going to announce the same target. He wanted to get in first. Colleagues left and right thought that was bizarre, although Morrison has transmitted conflicting signals following heavy criticism of his handling of the bushfires and increasing pressure from moderate Liberals, soon muted by the Nationals.

The other concern of Labor MPs, despite the growing number of voices demanding action, was that the most vocal opponents, commanding the most powerful platforms, had not budged one iota. Their stand before the fires remained the same after the fires.

Which brings me to certain prominent members of the commentariat who dived into a moral quagmire to defend the indefensible. When it came to pedophilia or murder, a few lost sight of the crimes perpetrated, so intent or so anxious were they to condemn perceived enemies — whether the ABC or feminists.

Gerard Henderson and Andrew Bolt have partly built careers on criticising journalists, often unfairly, sometimes inaccurately, often simply because they expressed opinions different from their own or dared criticise people or institutions they revere (Tony Abbott, George Pell, the Catholic Church). A lack of perspective — nay, common humanity — led them to dismiss the gravity of sexual abuse offences against a 15-year-old boy by a much older man in a position of trust, then to defend those who sought to defend the convicted perpetrator. As I wrote years ago, you can hang yourself in three sentences on live television.

As for Bettina Arndt, she should have paused for 30 seconds to ask herself in what universe is it possible to keep an open mind when a man pours petrol on his three children and his estranged wife, then sets them on fire. It is not possible. It would still be impossible if a woman had done it.