Talk about the kiss of death. No sooner do I overcome my years-long aversion to Nicola Roxon and give her a nod of acknowledgement than she goes out and muffs her talking points on tax and health. Just goes to show you should not for a moment stop being nasty and cynical in this job.
The Opposition seized on her comments — and after all, that is what Oppositions are paid to do — but the media did as well because it is much more comfortable talking about tax and scare campaigns than about the reform of health policy, which is slightly more complex than whether things will go up or down. Behold yet another case of how the public interest is dudded by poor quality media coverage.
And if, instead of talking about some of the problems Rudd’s health reform plan throws up (for example, Gavin Mooney has raised a number of serious issues at our health blog about the role proposed by the Government for clinicians in Local Hospital Networks), we want to discuss how effective a Coalition tax scare campaign will be, try this. What’s the next installment of tax reform from the Rudd Government? The Henry Review? Nope. It’s the income tax cut on July 1, that the Government put in place two years ago. That’s the only evidence most voters will see or hear about on taxation between now and the election.
And any discussion of taxation has to be asterisked with the note that Barnaby Joyce is the shadow Finance Minister. This morning he told ABC NewsRadio that the only reason health spending would ever rise in the future was because of Labor profligacy. It’s good to know the fundamental budgetary problem of an ageing population has been solved by the senator from Queensland.
The other problem for the Government is that the media is still evidently in payback mode. Putting aside The Australian, whose political coverage now more closely than ever resembles the outpourings of the mad old woman on the bus, many in the media still appear determined to belt the Government, even if it means giving a voice to the state Labor governments, so long mocked as incompetent and incapable of managing health. Although, and I know I keep saying this, Laura Tingle’s Canberra Observed column today provided the best analysis of the politics of the reform plan in the mainstream media, and John Hewson’s piece next door was a close second. Hewson’s Fin pieces are rather uneven, but sometimes the residual bitterness gives way to post-partisan sagacity and his point that we’ve entirely buggered up our federal structure in terms of allocating responsibility for policy, funding and service delivery is one that will, as he notes, remain entirely unaddressed by the current generation of politicians.
The Government, and Rudd in particular, needs to concentrate less on the immediate news cycle and more on prosecuting the case for health reform directly to voters. Rudd also needs to spend more than five minutes on the issue. One of the most valid criticisms of this Government is its tendency to go for an announcement a day rather than spending time actually selling its key policies. You’d never know from the amount of selling time the Government devotes to policies what’s important and what isn’t. This week began, if you remember back that far, with a major announcement about a national curriculum. That in itself is a significant, if not exactly huge, micro-economic reform, and yet it was overtaken within 48 hours by health reform, as if the Government was keen to distract attention from it. The Government looks like it has the attention span of a five-year-old.
At least Rudd is following up his initial media blitz of Wednesday night and yesterday morning with a radio interview this morning and a trip to St Vincent’s in Sydney as well as his usual side-splitting slot on Sunrise. Politicians might complain that the media cycle moves faster than ever, but that doesn’t mean they need to encourage it. If this is the most important health reform in three decades, let’s see more than three days spent explaining it.
If your observations are correct, and I see no reason to doubt you, The Rudd government feels the electorate is so juvenile it will only remember the latest quote. Put this mentality alongside the Opposition’s leader-the mad, bad and utterly naked Tony Abbott who strips off yet another layer of clothes whenever he feels inclined to criticise Kevin Rudd. Joined by the Nationals very own Barnaby-the bullock breaker Joyce.
And we think we are a democracy? Not so. The Oz electorate is a chook raffle run by religious fundamentalists.
For the last 2 years, of Rudd rule, the media has been craving something different, like “honesty” and openess – heaven knows, after 12 years of Howard how they would know what it would look like ….. but that’s what they wanted – Roxon gave it to them.
This health reform after that 12 years of Howard “devolution” and diversion of tax dollars from infrastructure spending (dearer uni fees, less home-grown doctors, more foreign doctors, dental care slashed, carers dumped etc) to “tax-cuts for votes” (while the more affluent could still afford such basics, and the less well-off had to make do without “subsidised services”) – is going to cost lots. What happened to her for it? Did she actually say one way or the other anything about “taxes”? – or was the “news” that “interpretation” of Joe Hockey’s (who wants to sell off Medicare and let the market regulate premiums) of “what Roxon means”?
Did the “cock-or-two’s” of the media concentate on what was actually said and take exception to the alarmist misrepresentaion or parrot “Curly Joe” Hockey and “leaven” that politically inspired half-baked alarmist “beagle-bagel”? Parrots were trumps of course.
Oh dear, Roxon said we may have to have a debate about how we’re to fund health care into the future. Talk about stating the bleeding obvious but the media needs conflict to justify its existence. Thank goodness Joe and Barney are always there to supply it for them.
Laura Tingle, writing to-day in the AFR, says that , broadly, there are two views about the plan Rudd has announced, best characterised as the ‘utter cynicism’ or the ‘utter stupidity’ school of thought.
Laura sounds as though she puts herself in the former. I’m definitely in the latter.
The cynics think Rudd knew that he’d never get this over the various political ‘speed humps’ to which Julia Gillard so often fondly refers, beginning with getting the agreement of the States.
The ‘school of stupidity’ thinks Rudd is just a glutton for punishment, with his penchant for presenting incomprehensibly detailed policy options that, like his equally incomprehensible ETS, are going NOWHERE.
Two things. When Wong was negotiating the ETS with Ian MacFarlane, the govt had every reason to believe that by reaching agreement on amendments, it would pass. And while M Turnbull was opp leader, that belief was justified. The fact that Minchin and his right-wing cohort rolled Malcolm (by a small vote, remember) was in many ways unexpected. Does everyone remember the utter surprise of the events of that week?
No govt or politician is going to spend two years of their time and money on a plan they feel will get rolled, either. Everyone forgets these policies come about by long considered consultation. So with the Hospital plan.
The other cynical thing that gets me is that the media keeps saying the govt doesn’t do anything (in an attempt to sway the electorate to back the coalition). But when the govt does try to do something it is treated with contempt. Today, the critics were saying that Rudd was trying to do too much in too short a space of time. You can’t have it both ways … oh wait, since the media cycle is getting so short the media believes the electorate does have the attention span of a 2-year-old, you can.