Australia is now back into the same debate as it had in April, only with the two sides carrying slightly different standards. Back then, it was full lockdown versus a graduated response. Now it’s elimination versus suppression.
There are extremists on both sides — some business figures who just want to let the virus rip and let the corpses pile up so they can get back to making money; some progressives who accuse anyone who tries to take economic factors into account of putting money before lives.
But the different terms obscure that it’s the same debate between the same camps as earlier in the year: those who regard the economic impacts of lockdown as less important than dealing with COVID-19, versus those who, either because they have a more nuanced understanding of the health impacts of lockdown, or can’t afford to focus only on one issue to the exclusion of others, aren’t prepared to countenance the kind of economic shutdown necessitated by elimination.
In the former camp are a growing number of public health advocates and commentators; in the latter camp are public health experts like Peter Collignon, and the federal government, the NSW government and their health advisers. All are plucking aspects of the successful New Zealand and unsuccessful Victorian responses to back their case.
Neither side, however, has an answer for a more fundamental question that both approaches inevitably lead to — at what point, and how, will Australia reopen its borders?
The elimination strategy requires closed borders until a vaccine is found, but suppression also relies on keeping foreign arrivals to an absolute minimum — particularly after the Victorian failure, and particularly given other states have said they can’t handle the quarantine requirements from even the return of expatriate Australians at the moment.
Over a million people work in the higher education and tourism sectors, both of which rely heavily on foreign students and tourists, who provide $60 billion worth of exports each year (not to mention an abundance of easily-exploited labor for avaricious industries like retail, hospitality and horticulture).
The massive construction sector relies heavily on a high volume of temporary and permanent migration to drive continuing residential construction and the endless appetite of state governments and metropolitan local councils for infrastructure.
While the government appears to regard the higher education sector as an enemy and refuses to provide any assistance, it has lavished support on tourism and related industries and provided some limited assistance for residential construction, in addition to the JobKeeper program that the latter two sectors have access to. But for how long can those sectors be propped up by taxpayers?
Do we wait for a vaccine, which is years away, if it ever arrives at all, to reopen our borders? That will cripple two major sectors and undermine a third, cost hundreds of thousands more jobs than those already being lost, and condemn Australia to, at best, a significantly deeper stagnation than that of 2019 and, at worst, an extended recession — with all the health problems that we know will flow from that.
If not, how do we handle the quarantine load of reopening our borders, especially when we can’t even handle the number of expatriate Australians who want to come home now? Foreign students and temporary workers can be quarantined on arrival, given the length of their stay. But quarantining foreign tourists, who make up a quarter of all tourism spending, is unlikely to work, and will add substantially to the cost of visiting Australia.
Pointing out the lack of answers to these questions isn’t a criticism. It’s just one of a number of immensely difficult policy challenges that state and federal policymakers have to grapple with — and which next week’s economic statement must squarely address.
Before the pandemic — even before the bushfires over summer — there was a real question of where growth was going to come from in Australia in coming years, given declining residential construction, a dearth of business investment, a contractionary fiscal policy and a slump in productivity.
That same question now screams out for attention given border closures mean we’re going to see contractions in two major industries and sustained pressure on a third, with second-round effects of those impacts in turn hurting the rest of the economy.
How should Australia approach reopening? Let us know your thoughts by writing to [email protected]. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say section.
Support journalism that makes things better, not worse.
Rupert Murdoch had never had a US president in his pocket before Donald Trump landed there in 2016.
This week, we explored the relationship between the two men and why Murdoch should be held to account for the making of Trump.
Where do you start with dismantling the media empire that delivered us a phenomenon like Trump?
Here’s one thing you can do: Support the journalism that makes things better, not worse.
Subscribe to Crikey today with the promo code MADEMEN and get 50% off an annual membership.
Hurry, 48 hours only.
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
Leave a comment
This is certainly a very vexing situation. I don’t think anyone really has the answer but it does appear from recent studies that the decline in economic growth and the increase in unemployment is happening in every country regardless of the strategy adopted to deal with Covid-19. The only difference is that in the ‘let it rip’ countries the death rate is dramatically higher.
Just out of interest, which countries have a “let it rip” position? Not requiring masks, social distancing etc? Or are you talking about lockdown v not lockdown?
Well we certainly DON’T want to return to population growth as the only driver of economic activity, so perhaps these are the wrong questions to be asking?
A better one might be
“what key areas for government investment might replace population growth as an economic driver”?
Then the answer – massive investment in renewables and an appropriate grid, habitat and species rescue, public housing, education and care services, public transport- becomes pretty damn obvious!
Consider the viability of “growth”; if it’s not gonna end in disaster we can ONLY have economic growth on a basis of COMMON WEALTH
Absolutely. We also need to measure economic activity better, including non-market work, depletion of environmental and other resources etc.
Agree totally Linda. The immigration economy was a false economy in the first place. This pandemic has shown how destroying our major manufacturing sectors and governments hell bent on buying overseas items, like trains, has killed our economy and greatly weakened our ability for a quick turnaround when things improve.
I believe we should not be allowing immigration like we had until this pandemic is well over and a major focus in re-establishing our manufacturing sectors to ensure we have a sound future.
But with Trade Agreements still in the conservative mind, I doubt there will be any real change. Just big announcements that result in disappointment for the masses.
The borders are open, just not for invisible exports (or “spreaders” as they’re known).
A cherished belief is that we can reboot Australia as a manufacturing nation. This is a lovely thing to believe, but it’s best not to enquire too deeply into what might need to revert for that to happen.
My mythology says that Australians wanted to buy the coolest stuff as cheaply as possible. This meant that the stuff would have to be manufactured by people paid much lower rates of pay, leave, leave loading, long service leave and super. Everyone knew we were exporting jobs in order to buy cheaply; it wasn’t a government or deep state thing.
So. Can we bring manufacturing back and retain current pay rates and entitlements?
Why don’t we try instead of continuing the death spiral.
Even the PRC is allocating low-end manufacturing to Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia and Indonesia, in about that order, because its own domestic costs have increased.
A decade ago a reasonable meal in air-conditioned restaurant cost 5(Y) or RMB. A decade hence the same meal would be close to 18(Y); certainly 15(Y)+
Thailand is becoming a motorcycling manufacturing world leader. All the big players have factories there. It’s the same for cars I think, but I am only sure about motorcycles.
I think what peeved many off was when some major fashion houses went overseas, we didn’t see a proportional price drop in garment prices. This combined with a consolidation of the retail environment, left us no option but to pay top Aussie prices for imported products.
Another example: a trip to Vietnam, local dressmakers were making wedding dresses for around $300 under order from Australia. Aussie retailers were on selling them for around $3,000. Jewelry a similar story Aussie consumers have been ripped off for many years
This is not only the small retailer’s fault, shopping centre landlords, shire, and utility rates, and mass media must also share some of the blame.
I hope that we will return to some notion that things have value and are less disposable. And that they are worthy of repair rather than automatic replacement.
And maybe this means they shouldn’t break so readily.
Whatever we do in regard to this infection, we are in a process of reducing the material wealth of ordinary people.
We are, of necessity, going to have to accept that we cannot live at the levels of consumption and waste to which the corporate and commercial worlds have accustomed us.
You mention a disruption of the tourist industries: Do tell – where is the ‘productivity’ in people simply travellng about at whim? Yet that monetary movement is included in the Gross Domestic Product figures as if it produces material benefit.
“Economics was invented to make Astrology seem respectable.” is about as accurate a statement as is imaginable.
Politics has never been ‘respectable’ for all the “Honourable” prefixes to the participants’ names: It is the dirtiest of occupations, second only to Diplomatic services and their attendant espionage and ‘security’ divisions.
I’m old, and tired of such naïvity and assumption by political journalists that they have some kind of magic mirror which enables them to see into the dark and occult corners of the world of power, wealth and privilege.
Well spoken, Rolly. I think you just stabbed the beast that was, is not, but will be. Not BK, the other beast.
“Do tell – where is the ‘productivity’ in people simply travellng about at whim”?
People enjoy it. Surely there’s utility in that? Or must all productivity be about absolute needs only? While I agree that consumerism has run rampant, and tourism probably is a bit overdone, I don’t agree with outlawing fun.
Geez rolly you sound about as cranky as me
In line with Linda Connolly’s comment, a major problem is having “growth” as the economic fundamental. And in how “growth” and economic activity and “productivity” are measured. But these ideas are too far-out for “rational” discussion.
Bernard, the answers to your questions are really quite simple. (a) businesses that rely on mass cross interational border movements of people either adapt to domestic customers (tourism), online education, or they fail, and other businesses will develop in their place with redirection of investment and resources, just like happens with technological or market changes;
(b) the ‘elimination’ doesn’t rely on closed borders as you say; cross border movement (ie. the vast bulk of international trade) of goods and services continues, as it does now..so the border is well and truly open still. And even with ‘elimination’, cross border movement of people with quarantine can still occur. …It will just be more costly;
(c) inadequate quarantine facilities is a federal government responsibility and perhaps they should be directing spending on expanding existing and building new facilities, instead of spending on propping up industry sectors that will contract with less cross border movements of people.
The debate about the financial or commercial cost (I’m avoiding ‘economic’ cost as most people misunderstand that economic matters extend being just money) versus deaths is something well balanced in transport economics, such as where to upgrade roads to reduce death and injury. It is frequently attempted in health/hospital administration to try to have a more rational and logical allocation of scarce medical resources — do you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to increase the longevity of a few aged patients or to save newborn infants? However, time again studies show people in general, refuse or reject to accept this as a basis for allocating medical resources.
I similarly doubt very much that people will accept the PMs recent blurts that ‘we can’t afford another lockdown’, meaning financial and commercial benefits outweigh the reduced burden of deaths and illness.
Of-course, the big difference from April is that we now know that even if you let the virus rip through the population, letting dead bodies stack up, a la Sweden, UK, USA, Kuwait, Brazil etc, your economy is still stuffed. I note China has just announced growth in their economy as indicated by that poor measure, GDP.
Perhaps there ought to be a policy based upon (all) economic costs (which I suggest is googled for those new to the term). As to ‘dead bodies’ the count in Sweden is in the order of 5,600 from a population of 10 million. It is misleading to mention the USA, Brazil etc in the same sentence.
As to young verses old is the infant destined to be a research genius or an axe murderer. I’m sure that you see the point. However, more to the point, the decisions by the policy makers have been made more with the electorate in mind that with epidemiology in mind. Ultimately the Ro is high for the virus with is consistent with low (2% of infection) death rate so the virus is not going to wipe out Homo sapiens and it will get to the stage where it will have similar effects, over the long term, to the common flu even if the latter is upper-respiratory and the corona-virus is lower respiratory.
The proposal of a (e.g) 28 day (alcohol and internet free – just mum’s cooking) vacation on Leper’s Island does hold merit for all arrivals. Forget hotels in CBDs. The question becomes “who pays”?
We’re already paying for Christmas Island so send them there. I hear it is 5 star…
“As to ‘dead bodies’ the count in Sweden is in the order of 5,600 from a population of 10 million. It is misleading to mention the USA, Brazil etc in the same sentence. ”
So on a per capita basis, the death rate in Sweden is still higher than that in the USA – although it may well be that the rankings change in the future.
Why is it is mislading to mention USA and Sweden in the same sentence?
Thanks for the question. We need to compare ‘models with equivalent models’. The approaches that exist in the USA differ, largely, from State to State. Indeed the rate of infection is quite large. To this extent Brazil, as a country, cannot be compared on the same basis.
Secondly, the Swedish model made no attempt to suppress the virus other than through voluntary social-distancing. So, your comparison is not valid because we need to take specifics into account – which, incidentally, would (or should) include a uniform recording of deaths through Covid19.
“Secondly, the Swedish model made no attempt to suppress the virus other than through voluntary social-distancing”
That is not true – universities and senior high schools have been closed since mid March.
But I would agree that Sweden is best compared to its Nordic neighbours and the comparison, as you know, is far from favourable.
So far. I think we’ll only realise the best strategy in about 12 months. Too late for many, I know.
To a large degree this is nitpicking. The data is very rubbery, and the factors causing the outcomes are much more than just government policies. NZ’s success is a much to do with their remoteness. My lumping in together Sweden, USA and UK was because they all had a ‘let it rip’ policy (OK the USA like Australia has states as a barrier against federal centrist idiocy and its policy is probably better referred to as the Ostrich strategy).
To Mark: I agree that there is a good deal of nitpicking that occurs on these pages but your own comment of 16Jul-13:55) amounts to an appeal for accuracy. So, in this case, Mark, it isn’t about nitpicking but about (as I conveyed) the need to compare ‘like-with-like’. As an aside there doesn’t seem to be a comparable case (in terms of administration) with Brazil.
As to browser, from a collective population of 10 million, for Sweden, the number of students at schools (age 1-14) is about 1.2 million with about an extra 300,000 for teachers, support staff and more senior students. University enrollments (and higher ed.) have been under 400,000 for the last decade. The subtraction of this cohort from the total isn’t material; i.e. it is well under 3%.
A valid question is also, as an article I read yesterday (maybe in fairfax) discussed, is are people, typically in aged care, dying “of” Covid or are they dying “with” Covid. The medicos are saying that consideration of this changes the stats significantly.
Perhaps 14 days is enough?