Aukus Folly and Ebike Frenzy: Two Tales of Australian Governance

The recent spat between Malcolm Turnbull and the current government over the Aukus submarine deal has exposed a worrying trend in Canberra’s approach to major decisions. This saga shares disturbing parallels with another area of policy-making where caution is being thrown to the wind: the regulation of electric bicycles.

Turnbull’s assertion that Australia’s faith in Aukus is “stark staring bonkers” highlights a stark reality – our government seems committed to pursuing a deal that may never materialize. The former prime minister’s critique centers on the lopsided nature of the agreement, which sees the US providing second-hand Virginia-class submarines from 2031. However, as Turnbull points out, the US’s capacity for building these vessels remains low, with its navy struggling to meet even its own production targets.

This raises serious questions about the government’s ability to manage risk and think critically about major policy decisions. The prospect of doubling down on a deal that may ultimately leave Australia without any new submarines is financially irresponsible and a worrying sign of a broader lack of scrutiny in Canberra.

Meanwhile, NSW Premier Chris Minns’ comments on introducing a minimum age limit for ebike riders have sparked debate. While some argue this measure is necessary to prevent injuries among children, others see it as an overreach by the government.

However, what’s striking about this development is how it mirrors the broader trend of caution and risk-aversion in Canberra. Rather than encouraging innovation and experimentation, our government seems more focused on mitigating potential risks, even if that means stifling progress altogether. The idea that introducing an age limit for ebikes will prevent accidents is an overly simplistic solution to a complex problem.

This fixation on risk management can have far-reaching consequences. By prioritizing caution over creativity and experimentation, we may inadvertently stifle the very innovations that could drive economic growth and improve public services. It’s a classic case of “better safe than sorry” turned upside down – where policymakers prioritize avoiding potential risks over taking calculated gambles to achieve real progress.

The parallels between these two issues are clear: our politicians need to take a more nuanced approach to policy-making, one that balances caution with creativity and experimentation. As Turnbull’s critique of Aukus illustrates, there needs to be greater scrutiny of major decisions – especially when they involve billions of dollars and long-term commitments.

Ultimately, this is not just about the specifics of these two issues but also about the underlying culture of risk-aversion that pervades our government. By embracing a more flexible and adaptive approach to policy-making, we can unlock real progress and create a more resilient future for Australia. Anything less will only serve to entrench the status quo – and that’s simply not good enough.

Australians deserve better than a government that prioritizes caution over creativity. It’s time to rethink our approach to policy-making and start taking bold steps towards a brighter future.