Wednesday, 9 October 2019
Australian Politics 2018 to 2019: as good an explanation as any
This is an excerpt from a version of the speech delivered by RMIT University Adjunct Professor Barrie Cassidy at the Capitol on 3 October 2019:
Consider this. The Labor Party in Australia has now won a
majority of seats in the House of Representatives, where
governments are made and unmade, a majority just once in
the last 26 years. Once since Paul Keating won the 1993
election. That once was Kevin Rudd in 2007. Julia Gillard
didn’t do it. She won minority government only. And in May
Labor failed again. Not against well-established Liberal Party
heavyweights like John Howard and Peter Costello – but
they lost to a government led by Scott Morrison, a
government that Morrison himself described as ‘The Muppet
Show’. And a government that lost so much talent from its
front bench when so many moderates simply couldn’t go
on any longer.
So why? What happened? What’s going on?
So much of went wrong for Labor is only transparently
obvious after the event. But it’s obvious just the same. First
and foremost, their agenda was too ambitious – too cluttered.
Kevin Rudd won with a single-minded attack on work choices.
Paul Keating with an attack on John Hewson’s Fightback
document, Bob Hawke with a non-specific promise of bringing
Australia together.
Labor this time had a myriad of policy and political approaches.
A combination of poor planning and poor salesmanship led to
hundreds and thousands of people who will never see a
franking credit in their lives, fearing they were about to lose
something. Fearing it to such an extent that, faced with a blunt
choice – franking credits or increased childcare benefits – they
chose the franking credits.
Now franking credits are unsustainable and at some stage
something will have to give; the numbers in just a few short
years from now will be compelling. The cost will grow
exponentially. There will have to be at the very least a trimming
of the benefits.
But having said that, it wasn’t sensible to go so hard right off
the bat at the problem, and it wasn’t sensible to put the policy
out so far ahead of time. It went out in isolation from the upside
– the benefit to community – the revenue … the money that
would then flow to other priorities.
Here’s the evidence for that. The Age and the Sydney Morning
Herald, to their credit, put out these numbers themselves. They
surveyed their own papers and what did they find? The dental
plan that was to be paid for with the franking credits policy –
that got 10 mentions; the cancer funding, virtually free cancer
treatment for older Australians – that got 21 mentions.
Franking credits ... 700.
That’s how big a start that issue – the negative issue – got over
the positive.
Same with negative gearing. It wasn’t just the policy shift – but
what in their minds it represented.
To so many it was an illustration of Labor’s inability to manage
the economy; to threaten economic welfare.
A huge lesson: you can’t take anything away from people
without a very good reason. If it’s hard to explain then it’s easy
to exploit. But more than that, the policies left Labor exposed to
a government campaign built around higher taxes. They built a
fear that taxes would go up across the board, to such an extent
that an internet-led scare campaign around death taxes even
got traction.
In retrospect, Labor would have been better off running a far
narrower campaign built around climate change and wages.
The rest could have waited until after the election. That is not
to say Labor should be forever gun-shy: too timid now to
address long-term budgetary problems that negative gearing
and franking credits represents. They should not be gun-shy.
As I said, those issues will have to be dealt with, by either a
Labor or a coalition government. But more gradually, certainly
initially impacting on fewer people.
But what we are seeing right now is a Labor Party knocked
about by a shock loss and in real danger of overreacting …
ready to abandon so much; a party that now seems hesitant to
take on the government even on some of the bigger issues.
Herein lies the dilemma now for Labor. Research has shown
that at the last election – if that election had just been held in
Victoria, NSW and the ACT – Labor would have won 48 seats
to 37. That’s probably not surprising. But throw in SA,
Tasmania and the NT – a large part of the country – and Labor
still wins 57 seats to 43. Now add the capital cities of Brisbane
and Perth – still Labor by 67 seats to 54. That only leaves the
rural and regional seats of Queensland and WA: but there are
a lot of them. 25 in fact – and 23 of those went to the Coalition.
That put the Coalition comfortably in front.
Now I’m not suggesting in any way that skewers the result. It
doesn’t. The people in those rural areas are Australians too.
Their vote counts in the same way as those in the capital cities.
The point though is this. That demographic carried it for the
Coalition. The rest of the country voted marginally Labor.
So how does Labor deal with that? What do you say to
Queenslanders? I recall 30 years ago saying to Bob Hawke:
I’ve noticed when you’re in WA you remind people that you
were educated there; when you’re in SA you remind them that’s
where you were born; when you’re in Victoria you talk about
your ACTU days; and now as PM you spend most of your time
in NSW. What are you going to say to Queenslanders? And
he said with a twinkle in his eye. I could tell them that’s where
I’ll retire!
But the serious dilemma now for Labor is essentially this.
Do they abandon policies because regional Queensland hates
those policies? Do they appease Pauline Hanson and her ilk?
Do they make compromises simply aimed at winning back a
share of that vote? Do they appease the regions of Queensland
but in the process risk looking and sounding wishywashy in
other parts of Australia?
One answer surely is to be true to yourself. Back yourself to
grow the vote in the rest of Australia; without abandoning
Queensland altogether. Sort out what you stand for and be
resolute behind those values.
Labor lost the last election, sure, but by and large they died
on their feet. If they’re not careful they’ll over analyse and die
on their knees at the next one.
Read the full speech here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment