THE long-term effects of political "scare campaigns" can be expected to be very significant, generally ruling out any future reform in the policy areas in which they were run.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
For example, while any objective assessment of the health and hospital sector would conclude that there is a significant need for reform, across many areas, the recent "Mediscare" campaign waged by the ALP in this campaign virtually ensures that neither Government or Opposition will be prepared to attempt any serious reform in this sector for many years.
So, all the inefficiencies, the over-servicing, the shortage of hospital beds, the power exploited by certain groups of doctors, surgeons and specialist service providers, the outmoded billing and payment technologies and processes, and a host of others, will continue and distort, costing more, and probably working to reduce the quality, and sustainability, of medical and hospital services to the detriment of many patients.
The "scare" was exaggerated as "Turnbull will privatise Medicare". Yet, given that "privatisation" is usually interpreted as "sell", nothing could be further from the truth, as a practical possibility. Given the reality of the demographics of ageing, the increasing application of expensive technology and drugs, and the expanding requirements of clinical practice, Medicare is a large "financial hole" into which must flow enormous amounts of cash over many years - really, who would buy it?
However, our politicians never actually let the truth or facts stand in the way of their scare. This is not a partisan comment. We have seen it from both sides. Recall the Abbott campaign against a "carbon" and "mining" taxes.
These were two eminently sensible and defensible taxes, completely destroyed by the Abbott negativity, again frightening off either side from proposing such a "tax" in the foreseeable future, even though the budget repair task and the climate challenge are mounting rapidly, by just being kicked down the road.
You might also recall various past, very effective, scare campaigns against the GST, and in relation to industrial relations reform in the form of 'Work Choices".
The bottom line of all this is that very significant policy areas - including health, industrial relations, tax and climate - all requiring more or less urgent reform, will effectively be also just kicked further down the road.
They have all been placed in the "too hard basket". Yet, by ignoring them, and leaving them to drift, the problems and challenges simply mount, and the ultimate, required policy adjustments accelerate, making it even more difficult politically to contemplate or deliver the essential changes.
The policy task is now even more complicated by the significant impact of minor parties and independents in this campaign outcome, most of who have simply run a very populist agenda, striking some key electoral sensitivities. It is so easy to promise all sorts of "solutions" when you know that you will never be in government, never have to deliver.
With these minor parties and independents now expected to hold the balance of power in both Houses of Parliament there are only two ways in which we can hope to see the essential reforms.
Either we see very strong leadership from the new Government, or the two major parties sit down together to agree a bi-partisan agenda, on at least the key policy challenges, and the work together to deliver it. It is inconceivable that serious reform could be driven through both Houses without either.
In recent years, we have seen genuine bi-partisanship on national security and defence, mostly on foreign policy, and on specific issues such as the NDIS. Why not just start with a few key areas of essential reform, such as budget repair, Medicare, Federation and tax, and climate, where the actual differences are not that significant, but where the national interest should dominate?
This bi-partisan approach would certainly side-line the minor parties and independents, who could of course be consulted, even at times formally included, in this process, but the result would be much better government than otherwise would be the case.