05-08-2020, 09:39 PM
I know I am not getting much traction here, but I do think the contrast in the "success" of the current Prime Minister of Australia exactly proves my point. In the case of the fires, he had a brave, competent, and totally inadequate fire fighting force to deploy against a set of fires that was larger than ever seen before. The proper role of the Commonwealth in this action is a little muddied, but in any case it didn't go well and the public was mad. The fire responses, being volunteer, aren't directly under Commonwealth control. OTOH, when COVID-19 hit, the Commonwealth had an adequate, highly professional force that was up to the task. The same "idiot" who messed up the fire response now gets high marks from the public because things went well. It is certainly true that a chief executive can mess up even a good situation, but if you don't have the tools it isn't going to go well, period. That is the "lesson" from Australia's experience.
It is also true that NSW has powers independent of the Commonwealth, as does California vs. the Feds. However, once again, if the resources are already available and working, it is a lot harder to mess it up than if you are improvising in the fly. That is just a fact, IMHO, and we ignore it at our great peril. If you have a good system in place, the Prime Minister can just get out of the way and let it work. If the system is inadequate, almost no matter what action he takes, things will not go well and he will be blamed.
It is also true that NSW has powers independent of the Commonwealth, as does California vs. the Feds. However, once again, if the resources are already available and working, it is a lot harder to mess it up than if you are improvising in the fly. That is just a fact, IMHO, and we ignore it at our great peril. If you have a good system in place, the Prime Minister can just get out of the way and let it work. If the system is inadequate, almost no matter what action he takes, things will not go well and he will be blamed.