Nearly one year has passed since the Rudd Government came to power on the promise of a new generation of leadership. In its early days in office, it seemed Rudd might just deliver on the promise. The apology to the Stolen Generations and signing the Kyoto Protocol in particular, showed a Government intent on putting some distance between itself and its predecessor.
With each passing month since, the Government has seemed to stall, leaving the impression that it is running out of ideas and lacks any compelling idea of what the country's future could or ought to be.
First there was the tax on pre-mixed alcoholic drinks which is currently facing opposition in the Senate. It was supposed to be bold and radical, showing that Labor wasn't a soft touch when it came to tackling alcohol-related violence and was willing to take a stand on public health, even if it meant taking on the powerful liquor lobby. In reality it's a poorly disguised tax grab that's unlikely to have much effect on public health.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that liquor companies would protect their profits by pushing cheaper spirits at young people, or that young drinkers would simply switch to alternative poisons. FuelWatch and its cousin, GroceryChoice, are in the same mould as the alcopops debacle.
The problem with FuelWatch is that it doesn't actually do anything to lower the price of petrol. There is a very good reason for this: namely, that the Government doesn't control the price of fuel. The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries does. Unless they happen to be sitting on a large reserve of oil, as in the case of OPEC countries, national governments have very little control over the price of globally traded commodities like oil.
Similarly, the GroceryChoice website doesn't actually do anything to bring down prices at the checkout. It simply alerts consumers to the average supermarket prices in different regions. GroceryChoice is based on the optimistic assumption that consumers will switch to cheaper supermarkets rather than opt for convenience.
In reality, many of us shop at whatever supermarket is nearest (and, given the cost of fuel, who wouldn't?). Even assuming we do switch to the cheaper supermarket chain, it's hard to find detailed information about how GroceryChoice arrives at its average price. The site simply says that the price survey includes ''branded and private label (eg 'Woolworths Select' and 'You'll Love Coles') grocery products that make up a large proportion of the average Australian household's grocery expenditure''.
Short of price controls and other regulations which are unlikely to lower the cost of grocery items anyhow it's difficult to see how governments can affect grocery prices. The simple fact is, they are dictated by the market (which includes whatever the supermarket chains think they can gouge out of consumers).
None of this is to suggest that the Rudd Government isn't willing to get its hands dirty. It's just that, when it does go beyond ineffectual tinkering around the edges of social and economic policies, this Government prefers its targets to be vulnerable and voiceless. The recently announced plan to block welfare payments to parents of children who play truant is a case in point. The clear inspiration for the plan is the previous government's intervention in the Northern Territory's remote indigenous communities.
Howard's intervention showed Labor it could take a more punitive approach to the management of people's lives with minimal electoral fall-out. It was only a matter of time before policies applied to indigenous people living in remote communities would be applied to non-indigenous Australians living in suburbia.
As with the NT intervention, the justification for the plan to curb truancy is to protect children. According to the Prime Minister, breaking the poverty cycle means getting kids educated. While education is undoubtedly important, it's not certain that cutting people's welfare will help matters. The reality is that the reasons for truancy are complex. No doubt, neglect and drug and alcohol abuse by parents is part of the equation. But so is mental health and a lack of education.
Frequently, these problems are intertwined in complex ways. Simply withholding welfare payments is a blunt and counterproductive instrument to address what are complex problems. It's astounding that a Labor Government thinks threatening people who are already vulnerable with destitution is a solution to these complex problems.
With its first anniversary in office fast approaching, the Rudd Labor Government seems to vacillate between ineffectual tinkering and socially authoritarian moralising. If the Government is to be more than a footnote between Howard and whatever comes next, Rudd will need to do more than potter round in the nation's grocery aisles and the petrol bowsers while kicking the vulnerable.
If it is to offer a more imaginative vision of the country's future, it needs to rediscover the courage that saw it sign up to Kyoto and give a long overdue apology to the Stolen Generations.
Christopher Scanlon lectures in the journalism program at La Trobe University and is online editor of Arena Magazine and Arena Journal.
Email a friend
Favourites
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Digg
StumbleUpon
MySpace
Reddit
Newsvine
LinkedIn
Kwoff