South Australia January to June 2023

IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY Australian Journal of Politics and History Pub Date : 2023-12-01 DOI:10.1111/ajph.12955
Andrew Parkin
{"title":"South Australia January to June 2023","authors":"Andrew Parkin","doi":"10.1111/ajph.12955","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The first half of 2023 in South Australia marked the one-year anniversary of Labor's return to governmental office after the election of March 2022. It is telling how quickly memories have faded of the four-year tenure (2018–2022) of the Marshall Liberal government which Labor's victory had brought to an end. Labor under Premier Peter Malinauskas now seems well entrenched and set to continue a Labor dominance which, apart from the Marshall interregnum, has governed the State since 2002.</p><p>Labor's election campaign had emphasised one key claim: that the Liberals had badly mismanaged the public hospital system. The most conspicuous evidence for this was the persistent “ramping” of ambulances outside hospital emergency departments unable to accommodate additional patients. Labor, their campaign slogan had promised, would “fix the ramping crisis”.</p><p>As the Liberal Opposition has been keen to point out, the Labor government has not yet been particularly successful in addressing this problem. At some points during the period under review, the incidence and duration of ambulance ramping reached record levels (<i>InDaily</i>, 6 April 2023). On the defensive, Labor pointed to its increased investment in the hospital system, to flaws in the national Medicare system which were diverting patients to public hospitals, and to chokepoints in the aged-care system keeping elderly patients in hospital beds (<i>Advertiser</i>, 27 March 2023). Each of these plausible responses had been proffered by the predecessor Liberal administration.</p><p>Labor added a new defence: that the fine detail of its electoral promise was not actually aimed at reducing levels of ramping. Rather, it was to improve ambulance response times. On that measure, there had indeed been an improvement (<i>Advertiser</i>, 22 March 2023). The Liberals were not convinced by what they regarded as mere verbal sophistry, though its March motion of no confidence in Health Minister Chris Picton was predictably defeated along party lines in the House of Assembly (<i>SA Parliamentary Debates</i>, 23 March 2023).</p><p>In late March, South Australia became the first Australian jurisdiction to institutionalise a formal Indigenous Voice to Parliament. For Premier Malinauskas, the <i>First Nations Voice Act</i> was “a momentous piece of legislation for our First Nations people” (<i>Advertiser</i>, 27 March). Prime Minister Anthony Albanese acknowledged the achievement in similar terms, as a “momentous and historic moment – not only for South Australians but for all Australians” with implications for the national Voice referendum anticipated for the second half of 2023 (<i>Advertiser</i>, 26 March 2023).</p><p>The Act creates a State-level First Nations Voice interconnected with six regionally defined “local” Voices. First Nations people residing in the State will elect members (half to be “female persons” and half to be “male persons”) to their respective local Voice. Each local Voice will have two presiding members (“being persons of different gender”) who in turn will comprise the membership of the State Voice, thus producing a State Voice with twelve members. The stated chief purpose of the State Voice is to “engage with and provide advice to the South Australian Parliament and the South Australian Government on matters of interest to First Nations people”. Its role is advisory; there is no obligation on the Parliament or government to accede to any advice (<i>First Nations Voice Bill</i>, 2023).</p><p>The State Voice is empowered to engage with the State Parliament and with the executive branch of the SA government in several specific ways. On the parliamentary front, it will deliver an annual report to a joint sitting of both Houses. It will be notified of each bill introduced into Parliament and is entitled to address either House (but not both) in relation to that bill. On its own initiative or in response to a parliamentary request, it may present its own reports to Parliament “on any matter … of interest to First Nations people”. On the executive government front, the State Voice must meet with the Cabinet at least twice per year and, with the same frequency, meet with “the Chief Executives of each administrative unit of the Public Service”. There will be an annual “engagement hearing” which will “allow the State First Nations Voice to ask questions of the Ministers and Chief Executives relating to the operations, expenditure, budget and priorities of administrative units” (<i>First Nations Voice Bill</i>, 2023).</p><p>Passage of the <i>First Nations Voice Act</i> through both Houses of the SA Parliament was assured when the Greens in the Legislative Council pledged support. The Liberal Party, however, voted against the bill. Opposition Leader David Speirs declared his party “in principle supportive of the concept, but very concerned about the model”. For Shadow Minister Josh Teague, the legislated model was “not … [what] we regard as effective or most effective, particularly in terms of engagement with Parliament” (<i>Advertiser</i>, 26 March 2023). It was “rushed, impractical, and will do nothing to improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people”, and it “ignores existing engagement methods” (<i>Advertiser</i>, 21 February 2023).</p><p>Sensitivity around “existing engagement methods” had been apparent during the government's public consultation on its initial draft bill. Native Title holders had complained that the proposed model would bring “another layer of complexity” to a “Native Title network [which] already exists and … already perform[s] the functions prescribed” in the draft bill. It is, they asserted, “the traditional owners who speak for country and what happens – no one else has that ability” (<i>InDaily</i>, 20 January 2023).</p><p>The <i>First Nations Voice Act</i> as eventually passed establishes a First Nations Elders Advisory Committee, a First Nations Youth Advisory Committee, a Stolen Generations Advisory Committee and a Native Title Bodies Advisory Committee. These committees embody a doubtless sincere attempt to recognise and accommodate different and perhaps inconsistent representational perspectives. Their creation arguably also lends support to the “layer of complexity” complaint.</p><p>An extraordinary bipartisan crackdown on “obstructive” protests revealed, in the process, considerable disquiet among political “progressives” with some of the actions of the Labor government. The episode began with Extinction Rebellion activities in May protesting against an Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association conference being held at the Adelaide Convention Centre. Peak-hour traffic on the major CBD thoroughfare abutting the Convention Centre, and a short distance from Parliament House, was disrupted for about an hour by a protester abseiling down from an overhead bridge. Next day, the Extinction Rebellion action moved several blocks away to the headquarters of Santos Limited where climate change messages were daubed on the building including its independent ground-floor café.</p><p>Opposition Leader Speirs denounced the “out-of-touch greenie leftie losers” behind the disruptions. During a radio interview, he foreshadowed an amendment to the <i>Summary Offences Act</i> to sharply increase the penalties for obstructive activity. Whereas the existing law allowed for a maximum $750 penalty, with no jail option, for obstructing a public place, Speirs proposed new maxima of a $50,000 penalty and three months' imprisonment. Within a day, Premier Malinauskas had agreed. The House of Assembly then took just 22 minutes to approve an Amendment Bill incorporating the new penalties, thus sending it to the Legislative Council for consideration (<i>InDaily</i>, 18 May 2023).</p><p>A range of organisations expressed their surprise at and condemnation of the government's wholesale adoption of the Liberals' proposal. A rally at Parliament House attracted expressions of concern from, among others, Amnesty Australia, the Human Rights Law Centre, SACOSS, the Ambulance Employees Association (a key Labor supporter during the March 2022 election campaign), the Australian Education Union and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (<i>Advertiser</i>, 30 May 2023). The Law Society of SA also expressed its misgivings. The Secretary of SA Unions, the umbrella trade union organisation, sought to remind the Labor government that the “Labor party was born from the protest movements of the late 1800s” and that the legislation was “at odds with [Labor's] proud history of protest and demonstration” (<i>InDaily</i>, 29 May 2023). There were unverified claims that Labor's parliamentary Left faction, led by Deputy Premier Susan Close, was “furious” at being locked into the Right faction Premier's precipitous decision on the matter (<i>InDaily</i>, 26 May 2023).</p><p>Bipartisan Labor-Liberal support guaranteed passage of the bill through the Legislative Council in the face of protracted opposition from crossbench members. Greens MLC Robert Simms was “aghast by this assault on our democracy” (<i>InDaily</i>, 19 May 2023). SA Best MLC Frank Pangallo described the “rushed, populist legislation” as “the beginning of the slippery slide into autocracy” provoked by “largely harmless, grey-haired old rebel hippies and boomers with a modernist cause to pursue: climate change activism” (<i>SA Parliamentary Debates</i>, 18 May 2023).</p><p>In response, the Premier explained that there was no change to the right to protest as protected by the <i>Public Assemblies Act 1972</i>. The increased penalties were aimed instead at the deliberate obstruction of the public: “there's peaceful protests and then there's deliberately disrupting, obstructing people from being able to get on with their lives” (<i>InDaily</i>, 29 May 2023).</p><p>Notwithstanding marathon filibuster efforts from the Greens and SA Best crossbenchers, the Summary Offences (Obstruction of Public Places) Amendment Bill passed the Legislative Council after a 14-hour all-night sitting. Twelve amendments were formally proposed, of which three were accepted because, according to the Premier, they did not weaken the core objective of increasing penalties. Not satisfied with his surprising achievement in co-opting the government into his initial proposal, Opposition Leader Speirs complained that the Premier, in accepting these amendments, had been “pushed around” by the unions and the Labor Left (<i>Advertiser</i>, 1 June 2023).</p><p>More in keeping with a traditional Labor approach was the Malinauskas government's fulfilment of an election pledge to return Adelaide's privately-managed train and tram services to public ownership. The services had been privatised under the Marshall Liberal government in 2021. The trains have been operated since then by Keolis Downer and the trams by Torrens Connect under eight-year contracts.</p><p>The government negotiated a return to public ownership without incurring financial penalties by agreeing to a phased transition period. While train operations will be back in public hands by January 2025, Keolis Downer will retain customer service and security work until June 2027 and continue with train fleet and infrastructure maintenance until 2035. The tram system will be in public hands by June 2025. The estimated transition cost to government will be approximately $33 million.</p><p>For the Premier, this all constituted a redress of “the former Marshall Liberal government's failed privatisation of train and tram services”. For the Opposition Shadow Minister Vincent Tarzia, it was a regrettable reversal: there had been “better service at a lower cost over the last two years” and, in any case, the continuing role for Keolis Downer represented “a variation of the contract, not a termination as Labor had promised” (<i>InDaily</i>, 3 April 2023).</p><p>The Malinauskas Labor government's second annual budget statement was delivered in June by Treasurer Stephen Mullighan. It was aimed, explained the Treasurer, at “the government's key priorities of health and housing … [and] substantial cost-of-living support” (<i>SA Parliamentary Debates</i>, 15 June 2023).</p><p>The budget speech noted an odd conjuncture of ostensibly positive economic news alongside alarming negative trends. The SA economy, Mullighan exclaimed, “has never been stronger”, as measured by employment statistics, and “export figures have broken all records”. Yet households and businesses were experiencing “the dual blows of soaring inflation and the fastest increase in interest rates in a generation … compounded by soaring housing costs” (<i>SA Parliamentary Debates</i>, 15 June 2023).</p><p>The cost-of-living and housing challenges were addressed through several initiatives. Energy cost relief was promised through a targeted subsidy program for which around 420,000 households and 86,000 small businesses are estimated to be eligible. Stamp duty was to be abolished for first-home buyers (again targeted, applying in full to properties up to $650,000 in value and phasing out at $700,000 or to vacant land up to $400,000 phasing out at $450,000). Housing supply was to be expanded via a raft of measures. These included building 564 new public housing units, not proceeding with the sale of 580 others, and a commitment to the development of 700 new “affordable” homes (<i>SA Parliamentary Debates</i>, 15 June 2023).</p><p>Given its electoral prominence, health expenditure was inevitably a major focus. The budget included $1.3 billion over five years to “meet activity demand pressures in our hospitals” and more specifically $200 million for “measures that seek to reduce ramping”. Projected capital works included $1.2 billion over four years to start construction on a new Women's and Children's Hospital and $100 million for a renewed Mount Barker Hospital in the rapidly-growing Adelaide Hills commuter belt (<i>SA Parliamentary Debates</i>, 15 June 2023).</p><p>Among various transport and infrastructure projects identified for capital expenditure, the allocation of $5.4 billion over four years for the next phase of “the north-south corridor”, the long-awaited 80-kilometre motorway traversing the Adelaide metropolitan area, stood out. The future submarine project received modest funding for the establishment of a new State Office for AUKUS.</p><p>Consistent with Labor's election manifesto, no new or increased taxes were proposed. A predicted surplus for the current (2022–23) financial year had evaporated, replaced by a projected $249 million deficit, but a return to an annual surplus was expected from 2023–24. The State's estimated net debt will grow from $26 billion to more than $37 billion by the end of 2026–27 (<i>Advertiser</i>, 16 June 2023).</p><p>Reactions to the budget were predictable. For Business SA, the budget was “a missed opportunity” to provide “much-needed relief” for business. For the welfare advocate SACOSS, the budget included “an admirable effort to lessen the impact of spiralling costs for many South Australian households” but only through “a short-term, one-off measure” (<i>Advertiser</i>, 16 June 2023). For the Opposition Leader, the revelation about the current-year deficit was evidence of the government's “fiscal ill-discipline” while the statement as a whole lacked “a central vision for economic development for South Australia” (<i>SA Parliamentary Debates</i>, 27 June 2023).</p><p>As the party in office, Labor continues to enjoy the advantages of incumbency as political life, so distorted during the pandemic years, returns to a more familiar pattern. Premier Malinauskas appears to be firmly in control of his party as evidenced by his success in holding it together despite apparent internal reservations about his handling of the public disruption legislation. Malinauskas seems to have gained public kudos from a couple of sporting triumphs enticed via the expenditure of public funds: an extension of Adelaide's role as host of an annual Australian Football League “Gather Round” and (more controversially) hosting an international tournament associated with the Saudi-sponsored LIV professional golf tour.</p><p>For the Liberals, matters are more challenging. There are evidently continuing tensions within the party organisation between its progressive and conservative wings (<i>Australian</i>, 14 May 2023). In April, the Liberals released a seven-point “values statement” (“Opportunity”, “Individual, Family and Community”, “Freedom”, “Home”, “Responsibility”, “Service” and “Compassion and Respect”). Opposition Leader Speirs, in launching the statement, explained that “I want to lead a sensible middle-of-the-road but centre-right party”, an ideological positioning whose imprecision may be telling (<i>Advertiser</i>, 18 April 2023).</p><p>Speirs closed his budget-reply speech in June with a somewhat wistful characterisation of Labor's enduring dominance of South Australian politics: “when they [the Malinauskas Labor government] came to power last year, they shrugged their shoulders and thought, ‘Well the planets have realigned: the four-year aberration is over. The Liberals will go back to being hopeless and we will go back to being in government’”. He concluded bravely: “That is not my vision for this opposition” (<i>SA Parliamentary Debates</i>, 27 June 2023). The March 2026 election is a considerable time away but, from the vantage point of the first half of 2023, it will surely take extraordinary leadership, considerable effort, and good fortune for the Liberals to disrupt the long-term continuation of Labor's political dominance.</p>","PeriodicalId":45431,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Politics and History","volume":"69 4","pages":"725-731"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajph.12955","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Politics and History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajph.12955","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The first half of 2023 in South Australia marked the one-year anniversary of Labor's return to governmental office after the election of March 2022. It is telling how quickly memories have faded of the four-year tenure (2018–2022) of the Marshall Liberal government which Labor's victory had brought to an end. Labor under Premier Peter Malinauskas now seems well entrenched and set to continue a Labor dominance which, apart from the Marshall interregnum, has governed the State since 2002.

Labor's election campaign had emphasised one key claim: that the Liberals had badly mismanaged the public hospital system. The most conspicuous evidence for this was the persistent “ramping” of ambulances outside hospital emergency departments unable to accommodate additional patients. Labor, their campaign slogan had promised, would “fix the ramping crisis”.

As the Liberal Opposition has been keen to point out, the Labor government has not yet been particularly successful in addressing this problem. At some points during the period under review, the incidence and duration of ambulance ramping reached record levels (InDaily, 6 April 2023). On the defensive, Labor pointed to its increased investment in the hospital system, to flaws in the national Medicare system which were diverting patients to public hospitals, and to chokepoints in the aged-care system keeping elderly patients in hospital beds (Advertiser, 27 March 2023). Each of these plausible responses had been proffered by the predecessor Liberal administration.

Labor added a new defence: that the fine detail of its electoral promise was not actually aimed at reducing levels of ramping. Rather, it was to improve ambulance response times. On that measure, there had indeed been an improvement (Advertiser, 22 March 2023). The Liberals were not convinced by what they regarded as mere verbal sophistry, though its March motion of no confidence in Health Minister Chris Picton was predictably defeated along party lines in the House of Assembly (SA Parliamentary Debates, 23 March 2023).

In late March, South Australia became the first Australian jurisdiction to institutionalise a formal Indigenous Voice to Parliament. For Premier Malinauskas, the First Nations Voice Act was “a momentous piece of legislation for our First Nations people” (Advertiser, 27 March). Prime Minister Anthony Albanese acknowledged the achievement in similar terms, as a “momentous and historic moment – not only for South Australians but for all Australians” with implications for the national Voice referendum anticipated for the second half of 2023 (Advertiser, 26 March 2023).

The Act creates a State-level First Nations Voice interconnected with six regionally defined “local” Voices. First Nations people residing in the State will elect members (half to be “female persons” and half to be “male persons”) to their respective local Voice. Each local Voice will have two presiding members (“being persons of different gender”) who in turn will comprise the membership of the State Voice, thus producing a State Voice with twelve members. The stated chief purpose of the State Voice is to “engage with and provide advice to the South Australian Parliament and the South Australian Government on matters of interest to First Nations people”. Its role is advisory; there is no obligation on the Parliament or government to accede to any advice (First Nations Voice Bill, 2023).

The State Voice is empowered to engage with the State Parliament and with the executive branch of the SA government in several specific ways. On the parliamentary front, it will deliver an annual report to a joint sitting of both Houses. It will be notified of each bill introduced into Parliament and is entitled to address either House (but not both) in relation to that bill. On its own initiative or in response to a parliamentary request, it may present its own reports to Parliament “on any matter … of interest to First Nations people”. On the executive government front, the State Voice must meet with the Cabinet at least twice per year and, with the same frequency, meet with “the Chief Executives of each administrative unit of the Public Service”. There will be an annual “engagement hearing” which will “allow the State First Nations Voice to ask questions of the Ministers and Chief Executives relating to the operations, expenditure, budget and priorities of administrative units” (First Nations Voice Bill, 2023).

Passage of the First Nations Voice Act through both Houses of the SA Parliament was assured when the Greens in the Legislative Council pledged support. The Liberal Party, however, voted against the bill. Opposition Leader David Speirs declared his party “in principle supportive of the concept, but very concerned about the model”. For Shadow Minister Josh Teague, the legislated model was “not … [what] we regard as effective or most effective, particularly in terms of engagement with Parliament” (Advertiser, 26 March 2023). It was “rushed, impractical, and will do nothing to improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people”, and it “ignores existing engagement methods” (Advertiser, 21 February 2023).

Sensitivity around “existing engagement methods” had been apparent during the government's public consultation on its initial draft bill. Native Title holders had complained that the proposed model would bring “another layer of complexity” to a “Native Title network [which] already exists and … already perform[s] the functions prescribed” in the draft bill. It is, they asserted, “the traditional owners who speak for country and what happens – no one else has that ability” (InDaily, 20 January 2023).

The First Nations Voice Act as eventually passed establishes a First Nations Elders Advisory Committee, a First Nations Youth Advisory Committee, a Stolen Generations Advisory Committee and a Native Title Bodies Advisory Committee. These committees embody a doubtless sincere attempt to recognise and accommodate different and perhaps inconsistent representational perspectives. Their creation arguably also lends support to the “layer of complexity” complaint.

An extraordinary bipartisan crackdown on “obstructive” protests revealed, in the process, considerable disquiet among political “progressives” with some of the actions of the Labor government. The episode began with Extinction Rebellion activities in May protesting against an Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association conference being held at the Adelaide Convention Centre. Peak-hour traffic on the major CBD thoroughfare abutting the Convention Centre, and a short distance from Parliament House, was disrupted for about an hour by a protester abseiling down from an overhead bridge. Next day, the Extinction Rebellion action moved several blocks away to the headquarters of Santos Limited where climate change messages were daubed on the building including its independent ground-floor café.

Opposition Leader Speirs denounced the “out-of-touch greenie leftie losers” behind the disruptions. During a radio interview, he foreshadowed an amendment to the Summary Offences Act to sharply increase the penalties for obstructive activity. Whereas the existing law allowed for a maximum $750 penalty, with no jail option, for obstructing a public place, Speirs proposed new maxima of a $50,000 penalty and three months' imprisonment. Within a day, Premier Malinauskas had agreed. The House of Assembly then took just 22 minutes to approve an Amendment Bill incorporating the new penalties, thus sending it to the Legislative Council for consideration (InDaily, 18 May 2023).

A range of organisations expressed their surprise at and condemnation of the government's wholesale adoption of the Liberals' proposal. A rally at Parliament House attracted expressions of concern from, among others, Amnesty Australia, the Human Rights Law Centre, SACOSS, the Ambulance Employees Association (a key Labor supporter during the March 2022 election campaign), the Australian Education Union and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (Advertiser, 30 May 2023). The Law Society of SA also expressed its misgivings. The Secretary of SA Unions, the umbrella trade union organisation, sought to remind the Labor government that the “Labor party was born from the protest movements of the late 1800s” and that the legislation was “at odds with [Labor's] proud history of protest and demonstration” (InDaily, 29 May 2023). There were unverified claims that Labor's parliamentary Left faction, led by Deputy Premier Susan Close, was “furious” at being locked into the Right faction Premier's precipitous decision on the matter (InDaily, 26 May 2023).

Bipartisan Labor-Liberal support guaranteed passage of the bill through the Legislative Council in the face of protracted opposition from crossbench members. Greens MLC Robert Simms was “aghast by this assault on our democracy” (InDaily, 19 May 2023). SA Best MLC Frank Pangallo described the “rushed, populist legislation” as “the beginning of the slippery slide into autocracy” provoked by “largely harmless, grey-haired old rebel hippies and boomers with a modernist cause to pursue: climate change activism” (SA Parliamentary Debates, 18 May 2023).

In response, the Premier explained that there was no change to the right to protest as protected by the Public Assemblies Act 1972. The increased penalties were aimed instead at the deliberate obstruction of the public: “there's peaceful protests and then there's deliberately disrupting, obstructing people from being able to get on with their lives” (InDaily, 29 May 2023).

Notwithstanding marathon filibuster efforts from the Greens and SA Best crossbenchers, the Summary Offences (Obstruction of Public Places) Amendment Bill passed the Legislative Council after a 14-hour all-night sitting. Twelve amendments were formally proposed, of which three were accepted because, according to the Premier, they did not weaken the core objective of increasing penalties. Not satisfied with his surprising achievement in co-opting the government into his initial proposal, Opposition Leader Speirs complained that the Premier, in accepting these amendments, had been “pushed around” by the unions and the Labor Left (Advertiser, 1 June 2023).

More in keeping with a traditional Labor approach was the Malinauskas government's fulfilment of an election pledge to return Adelaide's privately-managed train and tram services to public ownership. The services had been privatised under the Marshall Liberal government in 2021. The trains have been operated since then by Keolis Downer and the trams by Torrens Connect under eight-year contracts.

The government negotiated a return to public ownership without incurring financial penalties by agreeing to a phased transition period. While train operations will be back in public hands by January 2025, Keolis Downer will retain customer service and security work until June 2027 and continue with train fleet and infrastructure maintenance until 2035. The tram system will be in public hands by June 2025. The estimated transition cost to government will be approximately $33 million.

For the Premier, this all constituted a redress of “the former Marshall Liberal government's failed privatisation of train and tram services”. For the Opposition Shadow Minister Vincent Tarzia, it was a regrettable reversal: there had been “better service at a lower cost over the last two years” and, in any case, the continuing role for Keolis Downer represented “a variation of the contract, not a termination as Labor had promised” (InDaily, 3 April 2023).

The Malinauskas Labor government's second annual budget statement was delivered in June by Treasurer Stephen Mullighan. It was aimed, explained the Treasurer, at “the government's key priorities of health and housing … [and] substantial cost-of-living support” (SA Parliamentary Debates, 15 June 2023).

The budget speech noted an odd conjuncture of ostensibly positive economic news alongside alarming negative trends. The SA economy, Mullighan exclaimed, “has never been stronger”, as measured by employment statistics, and “export figures have broken all records”. Yet households and businesses were experiencing “the dual blows of soaring inflation and the fastest increase in interest rates in a generation … compounded by soaring housing costs” (SA Parliamentary Debates, 15 June 2023).

The cost-of-living and housing challenges were addressed through several initiatives. Energy cost relief was promised through a targeted subsidy program for which around 420,000 households and 86,000 small businesses are estimated to be eligible. Stamp duty was to be abolished for first-home buyers (again targeted, applying in full to properties up to $650,000 in value and phasing out at $700,000 or to vacant land up to $400,000 phasing out at $450,000). Housing supply was to be expanded via a raft of measures. These included building 564 new public housing units, not proceeding with the sale of 580 others, and a commitment to the development of 700 new “affordable” homes (SA Parliamentary Debates, 15 June 2023).

Given its electoral prominence, health expenditure was inevitably a major focus. The budget included $1.3 billion over five years to “meet activity demand pressures in our hospitals” and more specifically $200 million for “measures that seek to reduce ramping”. Projected capital works included $1.2 billion over four years to start construction on a new Women's and Children's Hospital and $100 million for a renewed Mount Barker Hospital in the rapidly-growing Adelaide Hills commuter belt (SA Parliamentary Debates, 15 June 2023).

Among various transport and infrastructure projects identified for capital expenditure, the allocation of $5.4 billion over four years for the next phase of “the north-south corridor”, the long-awaited 80-kilometre motorway traversing the Adelaide metropolitan area, stood out. The future submarine project received modest funding for the establishment of a new State Office for AUKUS.

Consistent with Labor's election manifesto, no new or increased taxes were proposed. A predicted surplus for the current (2022–23) financial year had evaporated, replaced by a projected $249 million deficit, but a return to an annual surplus was expected from 2023–24. The State's estimated net debt will grow from $26 billion to more than $37 billion by the end of 2026–27 (Advertiser, 16 June 2023).

Reactions to the budget were predictable. For Business SA, the budget was “a missed opportunity” to provide “much-needed relief” for business. For the welfare advocate SACOSS, the budget included “an admirable effort to lessen the impact of spiralling costs for many South Australian households” but only through “a short-term, one-off measure” (Advertiser, 16 June 2023). For the Opposition Leader, the revelation about the current-year deficit was evidence of the government's “fiscal ill-discipline” while the statement as a whole lacked “a central vision for economic development for South Australia” (SA Parliamentary Debates, 27 June 2023).

As the party in office, Labor continues to enjoy the advantages of incumbency as political life, so distorted during the pandemic years, returns to a more familiar pattern. Premier Malinauskas appears to be firmly in control of his party as evidenced by his success in holding it together despite apparent internal reservations about his handling of the public disruption legislation. Malinauskas seems to have gained public kudos from a couple of sporting triumphs enticed via the expenditure of public funds: an extension of Adelaide's role as host of an annual Australian Football League “Gather Round” and (more controversially) hosting an international tournament associated with the Saudi-sponsored LIV professional golf tour.

For the Liberals, matters are more challenging. There are evidently continuing tensions within the party organisation between its progressive and conservative wings (Australian, 14 May 2023). In April, the Liberals released a seven-point “values statement” (“Opportunity”, “Individual, Family and Community”, “Freedom”, “Home”, “Responsibility”, “Service” and “Compassion and Respect”). Opposition Leader Speirs, in launching the statement, explained that “I want to lead a sensible middle-of-the-road but centre-right party”, an ideological positioning whose imprecision may be telling (Advertiser, 18 April 2023).

Speirs closed his budget-reply speech in June with a somewhat wistful characterisation of Labor's enduring dominance of South Australian politics: “when they [the Malinauskas Labor government] came to power last year, they shrugged their shoulders and thought, ‘Well the planets have realigned: the four-year aberration is over. The Liberals will go back to being hopeless and we will go back to being in government’”. He concluded bravely: “That is not my vision for this opposition” (SA Parliamentary Debates, 27 June 2023). The March 2026 election is a considerable time away but, from the vantage point of the first half of 2023, it will surely take extraordinary leadership, considerable effort, and good fortune for the Liberals to disrupt the long-term continuation of Labor's political dominance.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
南澳大利亚州 2023 年 1 月至 6 月
在南澳大利亚,2023年上半年标志着工党在2022年3月选举后重返政府办公室一周年。工党的胜利结束了马歇尔自由党政府的四年任期(2018-2022),人们对这一任期的记忆很快就消失了。在总理彼得·马利纳斯卡斯的领导下,工党现在似乎已经站稳了阵脚,并将继续保持工党的主导地位,除了马歇尔的间歇期,工党自2002年以来一直统治着该州。工党的竞选活动强调了一个关键的主张:自由党对公立医院系统管理不善。这方面最明显的证据是,医院急诊科外的救护车不断“停靠”,无法容纳更多的病人。他们的竞选口号承诺,工党将“解决愈演愈烈的危机”。正如自由反对党一直热衷于指出的那样,工党政府在解决这个问题上还没有特别成功。在本报告所述期间的某些时候,救护车匝道的发生率和持续时间达到了创纪录的水平(InDaily, 2023年4月6日)。在防守方面,工党指出其增加了对医院系统的投资,国家医疗保险系统的缺陷将患者转移到公立医院,以及老年护理系统的瓶颈使老年患者留在医院病床上(Advertiser, 2023年3月27日)。这些看似合理的回应都是前任自由党政府提出的。工党增加了一个新的辩护:其选举承诺的细节实际上并不是为了减少税收水平。相反,它是为了改善救护车的反应时间。在这方面,确实有所改善(Advertiser, 2023年3月22日)。自由党不相信他们所认为的仅仅是口头上的诡辩,尽管他们3月份对卫生部长克里斯·皮克顿的不信任动议可以预见地在议会众议院被党派击败(SA议会辩论,2023年3月23日)。3月下旬,南澳大利亚成为澳大利亚第一个将土著向议会发出正式声音制度化的司法管辖区。对马林瑙斯卡斯总理来说,《第一民族声音法》是“我们第一民族人民的一项重要立法”(《广告人》,3月27日)。澳大利亚总理以类似的方式承认了这一成就,称其为“不仅对南澳大利亚人,而且对所有澳大利亚人来说,都是一个重要的历史性时刻”,这对预计将于2023年下半年举行的全民公投具有重要意义(《广告人》,2023年3月26日)。该法案创建了一个州一级的第一民族之声,与六个地区定义的“地方”之声相互联系。居住在该州的第一民族人民将选出各自当地声音的成员(一半为“女性”,一半为“男性”)。每个地方之声将有两名主持成员(“不同性别的人”),他们又将构成国家之声的成员,从而产生一个有12名成员的国家之声。国家之声的主要目的是“与南澳大利亚议会和南澳大利亚政府就土著人民感兴趣的问题进行接触并向其提供建议”。它的作用是咨询;议会或政府没有义务接受任何建议(First Nations Voice Bill, 2023)。国家之声被授权以几种具体方式与州议会和新南威尔士州政府的行政部门进行接触。在议会方面,它将向参众两院联席会议提交一份年度报告。它将被告知提交议会的每一项法案,并有权就该法案向任何一院(但不是两院)发表讲话。委员会可主动或应议会要求,就“与第一民族人民有关的任何问题”向议会提交报告。在行政政府方面,国家之声必须每年至少与内阁举行两次会议,并以同样的频率与“公共服务部门各行政单位的首席执行官”举行会议。每年将举行一次“参与听证会”,“允许国家第一民族之声向部长和首席执行官提出有关行政单位的业务、支出、预算和优先事项的问题”(《2023年第一民族之声法案》)。在立法委员会绿党的支持下,《第一民族声音法案》得以在新南威尔士州议会两院获得通过。然而,自由党投票反对该法案。反对党领袖大卫·斯皮尔(David Speirs)宣布,他的政党“原则上支持这个概念,但非常关注这个模式”。对于影子部长Josh Teague来说,立法模式“不是……我们认为有效或最有效的,特别是在与议会的接触方面”(Advertiser, 2023年3月26日)。 它“仓促,不切实际,对改善土著和托雷斯海峡岛民的结果毫无帮助”,而且它“忽视了现有的参与方法”(Advertiser, 2023年2月21日)。在政府就条例草案初稿进行公众咨询期间,围绕“现有参与方式”的敏感性显而易见。土著所有权持有人抱怨说,拟议的模式将给“已经存在的土著所有权网络带来另一层复杂性”,并且已经履行了法案草案中规定的功能。他们断言,是“传统的所有者代表国家和发生的事情——没有其他人有这种能力”(InDaily, 2023年1月20日)。最终通过的《第一民族声音法》设立了一个第一民族长老咨询委员会、一个第一民族青年咨询委员会、一个被偷走的世代咨询委员会和一个土著权利机构咨询委员会。这些委员会无疑体现了一种真诚的尝试,即承认和容纳不同的、也许不一致的代表性观点。可以说,它们的诞生也为“复杂层”的抱怨提供了支持。在此过程中,两党对“阻碍性”抗议活动进行了非同寻常的镇压,显示出政治“进步人士”对工党政府的一些行为感到相当不安。这一事件始于5月份的灭绝叛乱活动,抗议在阿德莱德会议中心举行的澳大利亚石油生产和勘探协会会议。一名抗议者从一座高架桥上滑下来,导致CBD主干道上的高峰交通中断了大约一个小时,这条主干道毗邻会议中心,距离国会大厦不远。第二天,“灭绝叛乱”行动转移到几个街区外的桑托斯有限公司总部,在那里,气候变化的信息被涂抹在大楼上,包括一楼的独立咖啡厅。反对党领袖斯皮尔谴责这些破坏事件背后的“脱离现实的左翼环保失败者”。在一次电台采访中,他预示将修订《简易犯罪法》,大幅增加对妨碍活动的处罚。现行法律规定,妨碍公共场所的最高罚款为750美元,没有监禁选项,而斯皮尔提出了新的最高罚款为50,000美元和监禁三个月。不到一天,马利纳斯卡斯总理就同意了。随后,众议院仅用了22分钟就批准了包含新处罚的修订法案,并将其提交立法会审议(InDaily, 2023年5月18日)。一系列组织对政府全盘采纳自由党的提案表示惊讶和谴责。在议会大厦举行的集会引起了澳大利亚大赦国际、人权法中心、SACOSS、救护车雇员协会(2022年3月竞选期间工党的主要支持者)、澳大利亚教育联盟和澳大利亚护理和助产联合会(广告,2023年5月30日)等人的关注。南澳律师会也表达了担忧。总工会组织南非工会(SA Unions)的秘书试图提醒工党政府,“工党诞生于19世纪后期的抗议运动”,该立法“与[工党]自豪的抗议和示威历史不符”(InDaily, 2023年5月29日)。有未经证实的说法称,以副总理苏珊·克洛兹(Susan Close)为首的工党议会左翼对被锁定在右翼总理在此事上的鲁莽决定中感到“愤怒”。两党工党和自由党的支持保证了该法案在立法会获得通过,尽管该法案遭到了跨党派议员的长期反对。绿党议员罗伯特·西姆斯(Robert Simms)“对这种对我们民主的攻击感到震惊”(InDaily, 2023年5月19日)。南澳议会议员弗兰克·潘加洛(Frank Pangallo)将“急躁的、民粹主义的立法”描述为“滑向独裁的开始”,其导火索是“基本无害的、白发苍苍的老反叛嬉皮士和婴儿潮一代,他们追求的是现代主义事业:气候变化行动主义”(南澳议会辩论,2023年5月18日)。对此,总理解释说,受1972年《公共集会法》保护的抗议权没有改变。增加的处罚针对的是故意阻碍公众的行为:“先是和平抗议,然后是故意扰乱,阻碍人们继续生活”(《印度日报》,2023年5月29日)。尽管绿党和新州最佳交叉席位议员进行了马拉松式的阻挠议事,《简易程序犯罪(妨碍公共场所)修正案》在立法会经过14个小时的通宵审议后获得通过。 正式提出了12项修正案,其中3项被接受,因为根据总理的说法,它们没有削弱增加刑罚的核心目标。反对党领袖斯皮尔对他在最初的提案中取得的令人惊讶的成就不满意,他抱怨说,总理接受这些修正案是被工会和工党左派“摆布”的。更符合工党传统做法的是,马林诺斯卡政府履行了选举承诺,将阿德莱德私人管理的火车和有轨电车服务归还给公共所有。在马歇尔自由党政府的领导下,这些服务于2021年私有化。从那时起,火车由Keolis Downer运营,有轨电车由Torrens Connect运营,合同为期8年。政府通过谈判,同意分阶段过渡,在不招致经济处罚的情况下,恢复了公有制。虽然列车运营将于2025年1月回归公众手中,但Keolis Downer将保留客户服务和安全工作,直到2027年6月,并继续负责列车车队和基础设施维护,直到2035年。有轨电车系统将于2025年6月正式向公众开放。政府的过渡费用估计约为3300万美元。对总理来说,这一切都是对“前马歇尔自由党政府失败的火车和电车服务私有化”的补救。对于反对党影子部长Vincent Tarzia来说,这是一个令人遗憾的逆转:“在过去两年中,以更低的成本提供了更好的服务”,无论如何,Keolis Downer的继续角色代表“合同的变化,而不是工党所承诺的终止”(InDaily, 2023年4月3日)。马林诺斯加工党政府的第二份年度预算报告是由财政部长斯蒂芬·穆利根(Stephen Mullighan)于6月发布的。财政部长解释说,它的目标是“政府在保健和住房方面的关键优先事项…[和]大量生活费用支助”(南非议会辩论,2023年6月15日)。预算演讲指出,表面上积极的经济消息与令人担忧的负面趋势并存,这是一个奇怪的巧合。Mullighan惊呼,以就业统计数据衡量,南非经济“从未如此强劲”,“出口数据打破了所有记录”。然而,家庭和企业正在经历“通胀飙升和利率增长最快的双重打击……再加上住房成本飙升”(南非议会辩论,2023年6月15日)。通过若干倡议解决了生活费和住房方面的挑战。能源成本减免是通过一项定向补贴计划承诺的,估计约有42万户家庭和8.6万家小企业有资格获得补贴。首次购房者的印花税将被取消(再次成为目标,全额适用于价值不超过65万美元的房产,在70万美元时逐步取消,或者不超过40万美元的空置土地,在45万美元时逐步取消)。政府将通过一系列措施扩大住房供应。其中包括建造564套新的公共住房,不继续出售580套其他住房,并承诺开发700套新的“经济适用房”(SA Parliamentary Debates, 2023年6月15日)。鉴于其在选举中的突出地位,保健支出不可避免地成为一个主要焦点。预算包括在五年内投入13亿美元用于“满足我们医院的活动需求压力”,更具体地说,投入2亿美元用于“寻求减少激增的措施”。预计的资本工程包括在四年内投入12亿澳元开始建设新的妇女和儿童医院,并投入1亿澳元在快速发展的阿德莱德山通勤带重建Mount Barker医院(SA Parliamentary Debates, 2023年6月15日)。在确定为资本支出的各种运输和基础设施项目中,四年为“南北走廊”下一阶段拨款54亿美元,这条期待已久的80公里高速公路穿越阿德莱德大都市区,引人注目。未来的潜艇项目为建立一个新的AUKUS国家办公室获得了少量资金。与工党的竞选宣言一致,没有提出新的或增加的税收。本财政年度(2022-23)的预计盈余已经消失,取而代之的是预计2.49亿美元的赤字,但预计从2023-24年将恢复年度盈余。到2026-27年底,该州估计的净债务将从260亿美元增加到370亿美元以上(Advertiser, 2023年6月16日)。人们对预算的反应是可以预见的。对于商业SA来说,预算是一个“错失的机会”,为企业提供“急需的救济”。对于福利倡导者SACOSS来说,预算包括“令人钦佩的努力,以减轻许多南澳大利亚家庭成本螺旋式上升的影响”,但只能通过“短期的一次性措施”(Advertiser, 2023年6月16日)。 对于反对党领袖来说,关于当前年度赤字的披露是政府“财政纪律不良”的证据,而整个声明缺乏“南澳大利亚州经济发展的核心愿景”(SA议会辩论,2023年6月27日)。作为执政党,工党继续享受着执政的优势,因为在疫情期间如此扭曲的政治生活,正在回归一种更熟悉的模式。总理Malinauskas似乎牢牢地控制着他的政党,他成功地将其团结在一起证明了这一点,尽管他对公共干扰立法的处理显然存在内部保留意见。Malinauskas似乎从公共资金的支出中获得了几项体育胜利,赢得了公众的赞誉:阿德莱德作为年度澳大利亚足球联赛“集团赛”的东道主的角色延长,以及(更有争议的)主办与沙特赞助的LIV职业高尔夫巡回赛相关的国际锦标赛。对自由党来说,事情更具挑战性。显然,党内进步派和保守派之间的紧张关系仍在继续(澳大利亚,2023年5月14日)。今年4月,自由党发布了七点“价值观声明”(“机会”、“个人、家庭和社区”、“自由”、“家园”、“责任”、“服务”和“同情和尊重”)。反对党领袖斯皮尔在发表声明时解释说,“我想领导一个明智的中间道路,但中间偏右的政党”,这种意识形态定位的不精确可能会说明问题(广告商,2023年4月18日)。斯皮尔在6月的预算回应演讲中,略带渴望地描述了工党在南澳大利亚政治中的长期主导地位:“当他们(马林诺斯卡斯工党政府)去年上台时,他们耸耸肩,想,‘好吧,行星已经重新排列了:四年的失常结束了。自由党将再次陷入绝望,而我们将再次执政。”他勇敢地总结道:“这不是我对反对派的看法”(南非议会辩论,2023年6月27日)。距离2026年3月的大选还有相当长的一段时间,但从2023年上半年的有利位置来看,自由党肯定需要非凡的领导力、相当大的努力和好运,才能打破工党长期持续的政治主导地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: The Australian Journal of Politics and History presents papers addressing significant problems of general interest to those working in the fields of history, political studies and international affairs. Articles explore the politics and history of Australia and modern Europe, intellectual history, political history, and the history of political thought. The journal also publishes articles in the fields of international politics, Australian foreign policy, and Australia relations with the countries of the Asia-Pacific region.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Commonwealth of Australia January to June 2025 Victoria January to June 2025 Tasmania January to June 2025 Western Australia January to June 2025
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1