Coronavirus blame game borders on futile, except when playing politics

Nothing highlights the disconnect between the commonwealth and state governments more sharply than the divide on border rules.

Illustration: Tom Jellett

Nothing highlights the disconnect between the commonwealth and state governments more sharply than their differing approaches to border rules.

The commonwealth wants borders between states opened up as quickly as is conceivably possible, whereas premiers are mostly cautious about doing so, happy to keep their borders closed for longer than the federal Coalition government would like. On Thursday, Trade and Tourism Minister Simon Birmingham said state border restrictions shouldn’t remain in place “for one more day than they need to”, adding that it will be the responsibility of state governments to cover the financial burden on their tourism sectors if borders do remain closed.

What constitutes borders staying closed longer than is necessary is highly subjective. The commonwealth took the view borders should have been more open than they were ahead of the Victorian outbreak. That now looks rather silly. That’s why Scott Morrison instructed his Attorney-General to withdraw the commonwealth from Clive Palmer’s High Court action against the WA government over borders. For Birmingham to use rhetoric criticising states for keeping borders closed “one more day than they need to” suggests the commonwealth has learnt little in the caution stakes.

One day doesn’t leave a lot of room for the unknown unknowns surrounding the spread of this virus. The demand for speed from the commonwealth is driven by its fiscal responsibilities, whereas the caution of most states comes from a focus on the health and wellbeing of their communities. The dichotomy is because the commonwealth controls the purse strings, courtesy of what's known as “vertical fiscal imbalance”. The federal government collects most of the taxation revenue, whereas the states do most of the spending. The fiscal consequences of closed borders (highly damaging to the economy) is therefore largely a commonwealth problem.

In contrast, premiers are largely accountable for what happens in their states when it comes to fighting the virus. That’s is, the health fallout of potential mismanagement. If a second wave strikes, it's the individual premiers (not the Prime Minister) who are more likely to be blamed. Just look at Victoria right now. The causes of the outbreak come back to quarantine failures. Even though quarantining is technically a federal responsibility under the Constitution (section 51 part IX), at a practical level states are in charge, so the states are in the line of fire. The same goes for the management of hospitals. Even though the commonwealth is responsible for aged care, and that’s the sector the royal commission says wasn’t prepared for the crisis when it should have been, it is still premiers, not the PM, who are being put to the sword. So premiers are incentivised to minimise the chances of the virus spreading into their states, which means tight border restrictions. In contrast, the federal government is incentivised to get the economy moving as soon as possible, which means twisting the arms of the premiers to hurry things along. The desire of the commonwealth to lift restrictions quickly is heightened by the fact the Liberals are in power. Their economic creed further tilts their desires in that direction.

I suspect there is also politics at play when it comes to the premiers being so strong on closed borders. During this crisis state governments (not always, but often) win applause for tough border restrictions. It is similar to the applause the federal government receives for tough border rules when it comes to asylum-seekers. The popularity of premiers goes up when they talk tough on state borders. Certainly, that is the case in Western Australia, but it is also true of Queensland, Tasmania and even South Australia.

It was true in Victoria prior to the second wave too, but Daniel Andrews’s state is now the one everyone is trying to shut themselves off from, lest the virus spills across borders. NSW is the exception that proves the rule. Gladys Berejiklian has long been slow to shut her borders. Partly because NSW has never been a particularly parochial state; partly because her economic liberal instincts are to avoid too many restrictions. Partly because of her closeness to Morrison, and capacity therefore to be influenced by him.

With state elections due shortly in Queensland (October) and WA (March) — two of Australia’s most parochial states — don’t expect to see a let-up on border restrictions anytime soon. While both governments need to be mindful of the damaging impact on their tourism sectors, Queensland in particular, that cost is minor compared to the potential damage an outbreak in either state would cause. Politically and, of course, in health terms.

The other point premiers inclined towards restricting access to their states are mindful of is that outbreaks also devastate the economy. So preventing such outbreaks penetrating state borders is also economically important. Of course, what we witnessed this week in New Zealand has done harm to the cause of advocates of pursuing an elimination strategy over suppression strategy. In particular, their argument that elimination achieved means the end of yo-yoing in and out of lockdowns.

Whatever the strategies, goals, incentives and political considerations of state and commonwealth governments, there is little doubt the health and economic consequences of this virus are profound. And there is no 100 per cent right way to handle it, without hindsight dishing out alternative pathways that would have had better outcomes. Which is why the public seemingly has more tolerance for policy missteps now than it has in the past. This no doubt frustrates Andrews and Morrison haters, as they watch failures of hotel quarantining and in the aged-care sector continue to be exposed.

It is also why politicians backgrounding against leaders immersed in crisis management should perhaps think twice about trying to tear them down too soon for mistakes made.

In the fullness of time the policy and political missteps during this crisis will be picked over and, even if the health downsides are largely avoided, as the long-term economic costs of the crisis grow, people doing it tough will want to lay the blame somewhere. They may simply put it down to bad luck, living in a world struck down by COVID-19. But they may also lay the blame at the feet of the politicians in power during the crisis.

Peter van Onselen is a professor of politics and public policy at the University of Western Australia and Griffith University.