I love my rugby league, as do many Australians. But one has to wonder about the decision Anthony Albanese is set to formalise in the coming weeks: to spend $600 million to support the creation of a new NRL team to represent Papua New Guinea.
In politics, timing is almost everything, and right now our economy is on the brink, growth rates are anemic, and interest rates may be about to rise.
The cost of living crisis affecting Australians is compounded by persistently high house prices, a shortage of housing stock and a per capita recession.
Yet amid all this, the federal cabinet is on the verge of approving Albo’s decision to send hundreds of millions of dollars abroad to help a nearby neighbour establish a new rugby team.
When welfare advocates asked Treasurer Jim Chalmers why his recent budget did not include an increase to the Newstart allowance, he said the government needs to make decisions about where a finite amount of taxpayer dollars can be spent.
The Labour Party had other, more pressing priorities, he hinted.
How can it be considered a good use of taxpayers’ money at this time for so much money to be spent abroad to support the expansion of a commercial sports enterprise?
It would be quite bad if that money was allocated to national sporting activities similar to those carried out in Papua New Guinea.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the federal cabinet are hoping to sign off on $600 million to support an NRL team representing Papua New Guinea. Above, he meets players during a rugby league match involving Papua New Guinea in 2022.
While the government sees what it is doing as an important example of soft diplomacy (keeping Papua New Guinea close and out of China’s reach), that doesn’t change the fact that the amount spent could have helped in other, more needy areas of the country.
For example, to address the aged care crisis or to help the government meet its target for building new homes, which it has currently missed.
When Australia is doing well and has the opportunity to extend its generosity to nations in need, that is one thing.
But when we are on the brink of a technical recession and unemployment is projected to rise in the coming years according to the May budget, pledging $600 million to a foreign power in order to create a sports team just seems wrong.
And what about the values that the Labour Party claims to uphold? Is the money shared equally by gender or is it only allocated to men’s football?
But perhaps more importantly, why can’t the government find money like this to support women’s sports in the country, such as netball, the most popular sport played across the country?
Peter Van Onselen suspects that Team Albo made the decision to create an NRL team for Papua New Guinea in a misguided quest for votes
Helping netball become a viable commercial business to compete with other highly paid televised sports would be just one way the Labour Party could lead by example on gender issues rather than just talk the talk.
I suspect the Whites made the decision to create an NRL team for Papua New Guinea in a misguided quest for votes, hoping, indirectly, that the promised money would endear the government to rugby league-loving fans eager to see the game’s reach expand.
Labor is hoping to win seats from the Coalition in Queensland, and needs to retain its share of seats in New South Wales to have any chance of maintaining a government majority after the next election.
It is no coincidence that these two league-loving states are the most likely to applaud Papua New Guinea’s investment.
I wonder if they will actually do so, given the current economic difficulties. The money going out the door doesn’t even provide tangible assets for key seats, such as a shiny new stadium in the heart of a marginal seat that needs to be won.
Instead, it will focus on a combination of overseas infrastructure, security deals and grassroots support for gambling in Papua New Guinea. All of this is a far cry from the seat-by-seat grassroots campaigns that will decide the next election.
While the Coalition is unlikely to object or even point out the opportunity costs associated with allocating this money to go abroad, if voters take the time to stop and think about the amount being given away, they might wonder why Albo can find so much money to help another country.
But it doesn’t seem to be able to find the funds needed to raise the standard of living of Australian citizens. Shouldn’t charity start at home?
