One of the few policy positives of the Abbott government was the vigour with which it dealt with one of the longest-running blights on the Australian economy: our protection of the automotive industry. For too long cossetted by governments at the expense of taxpayers and consumers, the industry met its match in the newly elected Abbott government. Led by Treasurer Joe Hockey, the government declared that enough was enough and that the days of protectionism would be over once existing subsidy programs ended.
It was a gutsy decision, but the right one, and signalled that the government was up for the challenge of economic reform. But that government now seems to have faded into the history books.
In the aftermath of the confirmation that multinationals General Motors and Ford would cease their subsidised operations here, the government correctly reasoned that further support was unnecessary and that the remaining years of funding under current programs should be retained by the taxpayer. But today that decision was partly reversed, at a cost of $500 million.
Given the government was unable to secure passage of the relevant legislation through the Senate, it could be argued it is simply making a virtue of necessity. But the signal that it sends to every rent-seeker and opportunist in the country is a powerful one: this government is now weakened and unable to stand up even for its good decisions. Along with the retreat on the Medicare co-payment and the cave-in on ADF pay, this is another flip-flop that might serve the government’s short-term political interests, but will do nothing but damage to its policy reputation and its budget bottom line.
Why on earth are we protecting an industry that will shut the year after next?
I’ve long had an issue with the term “flip-flop” when it comes to “strategic recanting” – too banal?
When it comes to this government’s and it’s leader’s conviction gymnastics, “prolapse” seems so much more appropriate?
For a start they’ve become such pros at lapses?
The lifters being intellectually anorexic have found a new vocation in leaning.
Why blame the Abbott government when the truth is front and centre of your own editorial?
Labor and the Greens see narrow political opportunism in making all visionary legislation by the Coalition difficult to pass, aided by that pathetic unrepresentative circus act known as the Senate cross benches who are addicted to feel good photo opportunities and positions that make voters like them with no regard for the consequences for the country.
After all Lambie et al will not be blamed if this vital reform falls over.
Why not write an editorial attacking our dysfunctional senate instead of beating up the Coalition yet again over something they do not control?
Well, we all know why don’t we.
I thought that Abbott had cornered the market on photo opportunities! I reckon that this article is in part factually incorrect- the ADF are not being paid as much as the govt had originally budgeted for; also if the GP copayment stuff was correctly reported (by anyone) what the govt have done in freezing the Medicare rebate to GPs is far more lucrative to them and will have the same effect in time, that is a copayment will eventuate and no more bulkbilling. This money they are supposed to be giving to the car manufacturers will not amount to what they have announced, only $100 million apparently, that is if they front with it at all. Cadbury have not had their money paid, suddenly there appeared to be conditions attached to it that we weren’t told about at the time. I have never agreed with crikey about support for the car industry, all those skills lost and what miracles have the govt got to employ all those thousands of workers when they become unemployed?
Why not write an editorial attacking our dysfunctional senate
By definition any dysfunction in the senate is a result of senators representing their parties rather than their states.
There are 76 senators in the house which means each senator represents 1.32% of voters. Only spoiled brats from the born to rule debt cult think that garnering one point something percent of votes to get one seat is unrepresentatvie.
We are lucky (but not enough), that in this parliament enough voters didn’t vote for Liberal or Labor in the senate and hence delivered a range of people who can see through the “visionary legislation by the Coalition” (LOL – wtf?)