Albanese Govt Silent on Russia’s Remarks to Indonesia
The imbroglio over the reported Russian request to Indonesia to base planes in Papua initially tripped Peter Dutton, and now is dogging Anthony Albanese.
After the respected military site Janes said a request had been made, the Australian government quickly obtained an assurance from the Indonesians there would be no Russian planes based there.
Moreover, the government was able to score a hit on Dutton, who had wrongly named Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto as having said there’d been a Russian approach. Later, Dutton admitted he’d stuffed up.
One might have thought the story would have died as the election caravan moved on. But it continued when it became obvious the government would not say, despite repeated questions, whether it knew a request had in fact been made to the Indonesians.
Then Russia’s ambassador to Indonesia, Sergei Tolchenov, leapt into the fray. Tolchenov wrote a letter to The Jakarta Post, responding to an article by Australian academic Matthew Sussex on The Conversation , which was republished in the Post .
His letter dripping with sarcasm, the ambassador wrote :
Meanwhile, Employment Minister Murray Watt strayed off the government’s script of diplomatic silence when he told Sky on Sunday, “There is no proposal from Russia to have a base anywhere in Indonesia in the way that Peter Dutton and his colleagues have been claiming”.
The questioning intensified.
Late Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles was back on Sky to impose the official blackout over what the government knew of the alleged discussions between Russia and Indonesia.
“What we know about that, and when we knew about it, is obviously not something I’m going to ventilate in the public domain.
“What matters here is that the Indonesians have made it completely clear to us that they have absolutely no intent of having Russian aircraft operating from their nation,” Marles said.
Another instalment of “What the Russians Asked” may come in Tuesday night’s third leaders debate on Nine.
We keep getting lectured in this campaign about various significant issues (such as tax reform) that are being pushed under the carpet. But there’s something else that’s being overlooked: whether our institutions are in need of a big overhaul.
With public trust low, accountability vital but often wanting, and our democracy sometimes resembling a car urgently needing a service, there are plenty of reforms that could be considered.
John Daley (formerly of the Grattan Institute and now an independent consultant) and Rachel Krust, in a report released Monday and titled Institutional reform stocktake, propose a rich agenda for change. The stocktake was sponsored by the Susan McKinnon Foundation, a non-partisan body committed to promoting all aspects of better government.
The report identifies short-term priority reforms as well as ones that would take longer to achieve.
Parliamentarians often claim we’d be better governed with four-year terms. But given that would require a referendum, it is effectively out of reach. So the stocktake advocates a next-best option: fixed three year terms, which could be legislated. Four year terms would be a more distant aim.
The advantage of fixed terms is they’d stop the disruption of months of speculation about the timing (that we saw before the current election). The disadvantage to the party in power is the prime minister can’t choose the day best suiting them.
The Albanese government recently brought in caps for political donations and spending, to take effect in the coming term. Daley and Krust advocate these be revisited. The donation and disclosure caps should be lowered, they argue, and an expert commission should consider the caps on spending (which were criticised by some as limiting small and new players).
Other priority recommendations are to beef up civics education, enhance parliamentary committees, put more structure around the appointment and termination of departmental secretaries, and better resource independent members of parliament, particularly if they hold the balance of power.
One reason institutional reform is important is to achieve better policy outcomes, the report says. “Australian governments are getting worse at delivering policy changes that make a big difference to long-term problems.”
While identifying a prospective advantage for policy, the report puts its finger on why such reform faces resistance.
The report says if the election produces a hung parliament this “may widen the window for reform”.
“Crossbenchers usually have strong electoral incentives to prosecute institutional reforms, because they are usually both popular and not supported by incumbent parties.”
But the crossbenchers need to be quick. “This window of opportunity may narrow again. The power of independents to push for institutional change is greatest during negotiations immediately following an election.”
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.