The Structural Integrity of the Status Quo.

Australia has a beautiful relationship with the concept of reform. We treat it like a distant, wealthy aunt we constantly invite to stay, confident she will never actually show up. We write letters demanding the Prime Minister fetch her from the airport. The moment her Uber pulls into the driveway, we turn off the lights and pretend we've gone to the bowls club.

The Federal Budget landed and, right on cue, Australia discovered it had been misunderstood. Not the budget. Us. We had wanted reform, yes, loudly, and at length, but there had apparently been some confusion about what reform was supposed to involve. The general understanding, widely held, was that it would involve other people making adjustments. The budget, to its partial credit, didn't entirely oblige.

For years the conversation has been consistent and comfortable. The tax system rewards the wrong people. Negative gearing is a structural distortion eating the future of younger Australians. The capital gains discount is a gift to asset holders dressed up as economic policy. Fix it, we said. Be brave. Stop protecting vested interests. The budget moved. Not perfectly, not without compromise, but it moved.

And the people who had been loudest about fixing the system discovered, with some urgency, that they had not meant quite this. The investment property acquired a new tenderness. The holiday rental became retirement security. The depreciation schedule, previously an embarrassment to mention at a dinner party, became a matter of fundamental fairness. The couples still renting in Nambour and driving an hour to work each morning remained, as always, a genuine concern, but in the abstract, where concerns of that kind are most comfortably kept. Nobody said they had changed their position. They had simply clarified it.

The energy debate followed the same pattern, with a bit of added theatre. We want a clean energy future. The budget allocated serious money toward it. Wind, solar, storage, transmission, the infrastructure of a grid that doesn't depend on digging things up and burning them. This was, in principle, exactly what had been demanded. Then the turbines became specific. Our ridge. The coastline. A particular horizon.

The view, it has emerged, is non-negotiable. Not the view as metaphor, the actual view, from an actual deck, across an actual valley that did not move here to look at a wind turbine. The genuine environmentalists had legitimate questions about specific sites and wildlife corridors. Fair enough. But running alongside that, steady and patient, came the Facebook science, the infrasound studies, the bird mortality statistics, the cancer clusters that mainstream research has somehow missed, the observation that solar panels are fine in theory but have you seen the cloud cover in winter. And beneath all of it, the quiet suggestion that coal is reliable, gas is local, and perhaps we are rushing. Nobody said they opposed renewable energy. They had simply clarified their position.

This is not a piece about bad faith, though some of it is bad faith. It is about something more interesting, the gap between the reform we demand in the abstract and the reform we accept when it arrives.

The budget is imperfect. Some of it is genuinely brave. Some of it sidesteps the harder questions by redecorating around them. That argument is worth having seriously, and it is being had, by people engaging with the actual numbers. But the loudest woe chorus is not that argument. It is the sound of a country that spent years insisting the system was broken, and is now standing in the doorway demanding to know who gave the carpenter permission to park.

Our bluff got called. Not cleanly, not completely, but called. And the response, from left and right, from the asset-rich progressive and the One Nation small businessman, from the genuine environmentalist and the man who just doesn't want anything built where he can see it, was essentially identical.

We wanted the aunt to visit. We just assumed she'd sleep in the car.

If you know someone who’d appreciate this, they probably will. Please share. Sharing's nice.
...
If you enjoyed this article and would like to see more, 'Buy the Goose a Coffee →'.
...
The views expressed are those of the correspondent. Factual claims draw on publicly available sources.