The Political Weekly: The political fortunes of an MP, party or even a government, can change in the wink of an eye as Bill Shorten and Bronwyn Bishop learned this week.
While it’s true that a week is a long time in politics, and politicians’ careers can be made or unmade in the course of a day, there are still some things in the political domain that tend to follow the same pattern over the years.
One such thing is the cyclical approach taken by governments, particularly those that are new, to what should be done over the course of an electoral term.
Traditionally the first year is when exclamations are made about budget black holes, the other side’s profligacy and the need for “tough decisions” to be made. This is the best window for implementing such decisions, thereby giving time for voters’ memories to fade before the next election.
The mid-term period is for developing and implementing the government’s new policy initiatives. Any contentious matters should be dealt with well before the final 12 months of the electoral term, leaving that year for the government to hand out goodies at the pre-election budget and focus on the re-election campaign.
The Abbott Government has adopted this approach, as did the Howard and Rudd-Gillard governments before it. In fact, the first Howard government budget is considered to have been tougher than the one handed down by Treasurer Joe Hockey last year, although certainly not as unfair.
This strategy becomes difficult when governments have only three-year terms, leaving only 12 months or so to undertake policy reform. That’s not a lot of time to research, consult, negotiate and formulate draft legislation, let alone get it through the parliament.
We saw this with key policies implemented by the Rudd-Gillard Labor governments, such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Gonski education reforms. Both were initiated during Labor’s first term under Rudd but not implemented until the second term under Gillard.
Perhaps the need to have more than one term to put policies in place is why voters have traditionally been disinclined to toss out first-term governments. That of course assumes voters support an incumbent government’s policy agenda.
The Abbott Government is now well into its mid-term, and is receiving considerable pressure from corporate and other business sectors to reform taxation and workplace relations laws. However, these are not reforms the broader Australian community necessarily supports, and it doesn’t seem likely the Government will be able to convincingly explain them to a public already made cautious and sceptical by last year’s budget.
Until now, Abbott’s reform plans have assumed his government would be given at least two electoral terms. The PM has consistently stated that following inquiries into taxation and workplace relations laws, and public discussion of the issues, he would take any proposals about changing the GST or labour laws to the 2016 election.
In fact, Abbott may even be depending on this plan to revive his flagging leadership. It has become folklore in Liberal circles that PM Howard revitalised his electoral standing in 1997 with his “bold” tax reform strategy, which delivered victory at the 1998 election. Others argue the GST almost lost Howard the election.
Granted, business and welfare groups were both calling for taxation to be reformed then, as they are now, but it was a huge risk for Howard to take a new tax (albeit one that replaced 10 others) to an election. Abbott may think he can emulate this feat but he should keep in mind that taxation reform (and a possibly expanded GST) is not the only policy minefield he is trying to navigate during this mid-term period.
Abbott is also trying to meet demands for workplace relations reform from a business community grown impatient and frustrated by the previous Labor government’s dismantling of Howard’s WorkChoices: a policy reform, it should be remembered, that Rudd and the union movement used to bring Howard down in 2007.
Taxation, workplace relations, and also the nature of our federation – these are the complex and fraught policy reform agendas PM Abbott is attempting to wrangle – within the confines of this mid-term period, which for all intents concludes at the end of 2015. Meantime, Abbott is also trying to draw a line under the previous, tainted budget while positioning the upcoming budget as being about jobs and families.
Aside from its evident lack of humanity, the biggest flaw in last year’s budget was that it tried to do too much, too fast. Abbott’s policy reform agenda is similarly defective. The PM has only this year to get his policy reforms under way, but he mustn’t lose sight of the need to get re-elected in order to implement them.
In pursuing what are likely to be major reforms on both the taxation and workplace relations fronts, Abbott is inviting his opponents to run a double-barrelled scare campaign against him. The 2007 federal election as well as recent state elections in Victoria and Queensland show how formidable Labor can be when it campaigns closely in association with the labour movement. The next federal election will be no different.
Howard almost lost, or only just managed to win, his second term of government by taking a new tax to the election. He lost his final election thanks to a masterful campaign by Labor against his workplace relations reforms.
If Abbott takes proposals to expand the GST and change workplace relations laws to the next election, he will be combining the electoral risks that Howard chose to face individually at two separate elections. Abbott would be crazy-brave, bordering on foolish, to think he could win an election proposing both.
The Queensland election offers the spectacle of a conservative government headed by a deeply unpopular leader facing off with a still-shellshocked Labor headed by an almost invisible opposition leader. It makes perfect sense to view these proceedings as a possible forbearer of the federal election to come.
More than a decade after the Howard Government introduced a goods and services tax, political pundits remain divided over whether the accompanying GST campaign was effective.
Despite the lack of consensus it appears the Abbott Government is using the same campaign blueprint, this time in an attempt to create public acceptance for increasing or broadening the GST.
Back then, Howard was saddled with an earlier promise to “never, ever” introduce a GST but was being pressured to introduce one. According to one account, senior members of the business community were openly questioning Howard’s economic reform credentials, while the press gallery were asking why he wouldn’t lead (or at least follow).
So the then PM created a situation where journalists and economists, business and welfare organisations and even voters called for him to “reverse” the never-ever promise for the good of the nation. Howard did this by focusing the numerous fragmented commentaries into one national discussion: one that centred on Australia’s “broken” tax system and how it could be “fixed” by scrapping a bunch of inefficient taxes and replacing them with just one.
The mechanism Howard used to focus the conversation was a taxation taskforce (incidentally chaired by Treasury official and former Keating adviser, Ken Henry). It was established to prepare options for tax reform, and recommended that a consumption tax be part of the mix.
A year later, following much public discussion, the Howard government presented voters not only with a proposed GST but an entire package of tax reforms. The package included personal income tax cuts, increases in the tax-free threshold and pensions, and the scrapping of wholesale sales tax. Nine other taxes imposed at the state and territory level were also slated for elimination. Most importantly, all the money raised by the GST was to be provided to the states and territories, supposedly ending their dependence on the federal government’s largesse.
Howard then blitzed voters with a controversial advertising campaign before immediately plunging the nation into a moderately early federal election, which he either cleverly won, or foolishly almost lost, depending on whose analysis one finds more convincing.
PM Abbott is clearly banking on the campaign having been a success for Howard, because his “increase the GST” campaign looks eerily familiar.
A bevy of Treasury boffins is currently developing a tax reform paper, while the general public’s awareness is slowly being raised through discussion in the media about the need to broaden or increase the GST.
Comments such as those made last week by government backbenchers and ministers serve to kick along the public discussion while keeping the PM’s hands clean of the debate until the Treasury report is released later this year.
Those Treasury findings will shape a tax reform package that Abbott will – like Howard – take to the next federal election, which is due in mid to late 2016. Unfortunately for Abbott, even if one accepts the Howard GST campaign blueprint was a winning strategy, his is unlikely to deliver similar dividends.
For a start, the Abbott Government’s “budget emergency” narrative is a harder sell than the “broken tax system” one used by the Howard government to justify its tax reforms.
Back then, voters could see the impact of inefficient taxes on their everyday lives, such as the balance on their bank statements being whittled away by a debit tax AND a credit tax. They also took quickly to the notion that wholesale sales tax was illogical and expensive to administer. In short, voters understood the proposed tax reform was for the public good.
In contrast, the Abbott Government has singularly been unable to explain the budget emergency or what it means for voters. Not long after the budget was announced, 32 per cent of voters remained unconvinced there was a budget emergency, and while another 24 per cent accepted the need to fix the budget they didn’t think the new measures would help.
This lack of a compelling narrative is going to make it considerably harder for Abbott to focus public attention and discussion on the benefits his tax reforms would bring.
It should also be remembered that much of Abbott’s GST conundrum is of his own making. He is hindered by the voter perception that new and increased taxes are bad – largely created by him in opposition – and by the expectation that his would be a low-taxing government.
This difficulty is compounded by the fact that the main tax in people’s lives these days (other than income tax) IS the GST. While Howard offered to scrap 10 taxes and replace them with one, Abbott will be constrained to offering what is essentially an increase to an existing tax, perhaps with modest income tax cuts and compensation for those on low incomes.
Lastly, Abbott’s Finance Minister, Mathias Cormann has helpfully placed the bar particularly high in identifying the level of support the Government will take as being permission to change the GST. According to Cormann, any proposed change will have to have broad support across the community and the parliament as well as the unanimous support of all state and territory governments.
That will be no easy feat, particularly with a contested strategy, a distrusted salesman, and a dubious product.
It is said by those who favour Howard’s tax reform campaign that it rejuvenated his electoral prospects by giving the then PM a new purpose and stature in the eyes of voters. Even if this were true, it’s hard to imagine any reform proposal involving the word “tax” endearing estranged voters to Abbott or making him more electable.
Plenty of Australians are suckers for embarrassing overacting in daytime soaps and semi-scripted reality shows. But even those faux drama queens pale into insignificance next to the Liberal state leaders’ unconvincing collective dummy spit in response to the federal Budget this week.
The Budget revealed cuts to health and education funding for the states and territories commencing in four years’ time (which is conveniently after the next federal election).
By 2024-25, the Federal Government plans to be spending $25 billion a year on schools (compared to $30 billion) and $25 billion a year on hospitals (compared to $40 billion). This is an $80 billion cut on the amount previously promised by Labor.
State and territory leaders lined up to express their considerable displeasure at being raided to improve the feds’ bottom line in 10 years’ time.
Queensland LNP Premier Campbell Newman, who’s down in the polls and facing a state election in the first half of next year, says the cuts will not “be taken lying down”.
Victoria’s Liberal Premier Denis Napthine, who has an even more imminent election on November 29 this year, vowed “to absolutely shake the Federal Government from their top to their bottom so that they understand their responsibility to meet their share of public hospital payments”.
And newbie NSW Liberal Premier Mike Baird accused the feds of outsourcing their budget problems to the states. Baird will convene an emergency meeting of the state and territory leaders this weekend to discuss the cuts. Incidentally, his state election is on March 28, 2015.
Tasmania’s Will Hodgman and Western Australia’s Colin Barnett appear much more sanguine about the cuts. This may be a product of their next elections being some way off.
Depending on whether one buys their amateur theatrics, the states are either being wedged by the Federal Government to initiate a national conversation about increasing the rate or coverage of the GST, or the state Liberal governments are in on the act.
The smart money is on the latter explanation. Exactly two weeks ago state and territory leaders were in Canberra for the latest Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting with the Prime Minister.
At that meeting the leaders considered the draft terms of reference for a white paper on Reform of the Federation and draft themes for a white paper on taxation reform. Through these processes, Tony Abbott wants to see “sensible adjustments” to funding arrangements, while Joe Hockey wants to “realign” the federation.
This is clearly code for revisiting the GST and perhaps repatriating some other revenue-raising powers back to the states and territories.
It’s not too long a bow to imagine Abbott holding a private meeting with the Liberal premiers – outside of COAG – to advise that they’d take a haircut in the Budget but would be the beneficiaries of federation and taxation reform. That is, play along and you will be rewarded.
The other clue to this being the true state of play is the states protesting that they only want a fairer share of the existing GST pie. This is an unsustainable position if the pie remains static.
For every state that gains more GST revenue there will be another that gets less, so the only way for all states to get more (in actual terms) is for the overall pie to grow. And to do that the GST must be increased or broadened.
The states and territories know this. They also know they must play the reluctant bride if they are to avoid the worst of the opprobrium for requesting that the GST be increased.
Just the right amount of squealing will make everyone look good, even Abbott.
Despite confected howls of indignation from the Opposition and the labour movement, the Abbott Government’s mooted Productivity Commission inquiry into workplace laws is an election promise kept, not broken.
The PC inquiry was foreshadowed prior to the 2013 federal election, partly to placate those in the business community and media clamouring for IR reform. But it’s also part of a bold plan to take WorkChoices Mk II to the 2016 federal election and secure the people’s mandate in order to deliver what the business community wants.
Not that the Coalition’s new IR policy will be called any such thing – for WorkChoices is dead, buried AND cremated. Abbott’s campaign to make WorkChoices-by-another-name electorally palatable will closely follow the blueprint created by his mentor, John Howard, when he successfully took the GST to the 1998 federal election, paving the way for the tax to be established in July 2000.
Keeping in mind that, following John Hewson’s humiliating loss to the unpopular Paul Keating in 1993 predominantly because of the GST, and that he himself had vowed to never, ever propose a GST, Howard didn’t just plonk it on the table during the election campaign and ask voters to trust him. Instead he spent more than a year preparing the ground and shaping voters’ expectations to ensure the new tax had the best chance of success at the ballot.
To counter its rocky past and reputation as a partisan plaything, the GST was first considered and then recommended by a taxation taskforce established by the government to prepare options for tax reform. (Said taskforce was chaired by Treasury official and former Keating staffer, Ken Henry).
Exactly one year after establishing that taskforce, Howard’s treasurer Peter Costello presented voters with a package of tax reforms that included not only a GST but also personal income tax cuts, an increase in the tax free threshold and pensions, and the scrapping of wholesale sales tax, as well as the elimination of nine other taxes imposed at the state and territory level. Then the government blitzed voters with a controversial advertising campaign before immediately plunging the nation into a moderately early federal election.
Abbott is wise to be treating industrial relations reform as carefully as Howard did the GST. While he hasn’t explicitly gone back on an undertaking in the way Howard did, Abbott will be subject to that accusation right up until the next federal election and it has a good chance of getting traction.
Like Howard, Abbott is trying to create a sense of vision, momentum and inevitability around a vexed policy that obliterated one of his predecessors. Instead of sending it to a bureaucratic taskforce, Abbott has chosen to launder the policy by sending it to the economically dry (and therefore reasonably predictable) Productivity Commission, which will simultaneously bestow a sheen of objectivity on the essentially predetermined recommendations to urgently reform Australia’s workplace laws.
The media scandals and union angst generated by the Royal Commission into union governance and corruption are intended to build complementary support in the general community for Something To Be Done and soften resistance to the Government reigning in union power. This should create a favourable environment for the PC recommendations to be handed down in April next year, leaving a year for the government to release its workplace relations policy in response and perhaps run a controversial advertising campaign before calling the 2016 election.
It’s a matter of record that Howard narrowly won the GST election, securing less than 50 per cent of the vote and shrinking his majority from 40 seats to 12. Less certain is whether the GST dragged Howard down or propped him up.
At this early stage it’s equally difficult to determine whether IR reform will be a bane or bonus for Abbott. He has only a majority of 30 seats and consequently less scope for failure than Howard.*
The key is likely a rarely discussed element of the successful GST campaign. Political scholar Richard Eccleston pointed out that particularly influential opponents of the GST in the 1993 election – namely welfare advocates – joined with the business community after the regressive indirect tax increases announced in Keating’s 1993-94 budget in 1996 to find common tax reform objectives. These ultimately included agreement that a low rate, broad-based consumption tax should be part of a wide tax reform package. According to Eccleston:
A combination of changing economic conditions, the Keating government’s consequent deceit in relation to indirect taxation, and the disciplined promotion of the need for reform by the welfare-business coalition from 1996 convinced a majority of voters that indirect tax reform was necessary.
Abbott is going to need a similar convergence of traditionally disparate interests to get his IR reforms across the line in 2016. He’ll need to bring workers and employers together to support workplace reform in the same way that ACOSS and ACCI jointly supported tax reform in 1996. Demonising the union movement and creating a common “foe” for employees and bosses appears to be the chosen way.
Yet 55 per cent of Australians say they’re concerned about job security, 61 per cent think unions are important, and 45 per cent say workers are better off with stronger unions. So it will be interesting to see how Abbott fares with the IR reforms he is prepared to make during this parliamentary term.
The Government introduced legislation last month to implement the Coalition’s Fair Work Laws election policy. The bill aims to amend the Fair Work Act to tighten right-of-entry rules for unions, allow employees to trade penalty rates for more flexible hours and close “strike first, talk later” loopholes.
Of course that won’t occur any time soon because the legislation won’t be passed by the current Senate. Instead the legislation is little more than a platform upon which the parties, unions and employer groups can continue to wage their industrial relations battle.
Abbott and his Employment Minister Eric Abetz may have introduced the legislation purely to create this opportunity to further denigrate unions in the eyes of the public. But if voter sympathy for the labour movement is generated instead, Abbott’s bold plan may well be dashed before it’s even really under way.
The Coalition and conservative media might as well stop flogging the dead horse known as JuLIAR. They’re wasting their breath because the public just doesn’t care if a politician is accused of, or even found to be, lying.
These days, lack of truth is what voters expect from all politicians: there’s no political capital to be gained or lost from one MP pointing an outraged finger at another.
Politicians are, however, taking a big political risk if their behaviour suggests they can’t be trusted to do what’s right for the country.
The public’s inoculation against political dishonesty seems to have started in the Howard years.
While voters were considerably unhappy with Keating’s broken L-A-W promise on tax cuts in 1993, and sent him to the lowest ever approval rating for a modern Prime Minister, PJK was still able to drag that rating up enough to dispatch two Opposition Leaders during his term. It’s clear this breach of faith nevertheless contributed to the wave of anti-Keating sentiment that swept him from office in 1996.
During the Howard years, however, it’s as if voters became accustomed to, and then unfazed by, political deceit. John Howard first swore as Opposition Leader in 1995 that he would “never, ever” introduce a GST; then as Prime Minister he successfully took such a tax to the 1998 election. Some would say Howard was not actually “successful”, having only secured 49% of the vote, but I’d argue that his success was measured by the two election wins that followed the GST. Howard also backtracked on numerous commitments made during the 1998 election campaign, dismissing them as “non-core” promises.
Even more memorable are the claims made against the PM in 2004 that he lied about children being thrown overboard by boat-bourn asylum seekers in 2001.
Political observers were puzzled at the time that this revelation did not cause voters to desert the Coalition. Newspoll’s tracking of how voters perceived Howard’s trustworthiness found that his rating had dipped only slightly from 60% in 1995 to 57% at the height of the furore.
Howard’s trustworthiness rating dropped further, to 51% at the time of his election win over Opposition Leader Mark Latham, whose own trustworthiness rating at the time was 61%.
Almost counter-intuitively, Howard fought that election on a platform of trust. He announced the election with a direct call to voter values: “Who do you trust to keep the economy strong and protect family living standards?” “Who do you trust to keep interest rates low? Who do you trust to lead the fight on Australia’s behalf against international terrorism?”
The ALP clearly thought they had an edge over the PM in the trustworthiness stakes. Latham’s response was to claim: “We’ve had too much dishonesty from the Howard Government.” “The election is about trust. The Government has been dishonest for too long.”
Unfortunately for Latham, he and the ALP did not differentiate between a voter’s trust in a politician to tell the truth and their faith in that politician to run the government responsibly.
Politicians as a group haven’t been trusted by voters for a very long time. The Roy Morgan “Image of Professions Survey”, conducted over the past 16 years, ranks state and federal politicians 22nd and 23rd out of 30 professions when it comes to perceived honesty and ethical standards. (Union leaders rank 24th and newspaper journalists 27th.)
An interesting print article on honesty in politics and the children overboard issue in 2004 quotes a pollster explaining the contrast between voters believing politicians and actually trusting them to do their job: “We have total faith in almost nobody, but we put conditional trust in each of our institutions to perform their function. We trust the bank enough to move our money from one account to another; we trust the politicians enough to run the country. It’s only when we think they are not taking any notice of us at all that we rebel and invent something like One Nation to get their attention. We basically trust them just enough.”
This argument applies equally today and goes some way to explaining the popularity of the Greens.
The article concludes by suggesting that “while leaders deliver on our core demands, it seems that we are prepared to live with their dishonesty ….. [yesterday’s poll] found 60% believed Howard had deliberately lied over children overboard, [but] only half that level – 29% – thought he should lose his job over it.”
This is why PM Gillard can privately dismiss current accusations of deception over the carbon tax. As long as she can convince Australian voters that she is running the government responsibly and making the right decisions on behalf of the whole community, as opposed to conceding to the whims of a few (that is, Green voters), she is inoculated against this attack.
This post also appeared at The Drum / Unleashed
How did it all go so wrong? Perhaps that’s what Gerry Harvey is thinking right now. And so he should. In the space of a day, the canny retailer has succeeded in turning his own reputation from a positive to a negative.
Earlier this week Harvey was the home-grown success story, the eccentric billionaire with a canny ability to predict and tap into the psyche of everyday Australians.
Today he is the public face of a badly crafted campaign to force and shame Australians into curbing their online shopping behaviour. Harvey is now perceived as an arrogant capitalist, interested only in lining his own pockets with the limited cash earned by hard-working Australians.
How did it all go so wrong? To an interested observer it is quite clear. The campaign by the Australian retail industry is flawed no matter which way you look at it.
Politically, there are no votes in it. It pays to remember that it took three politicians to attempt bringing in a GST (Keating, Hewson, Howard) before it was successfully introduced by Howard in 1998. Even then it was a high-risk strategy and it would take a brave politician to extend the GST’s scope even now.
At a policy level, the imposition of GST on online purchases increases rather than lightens the regulatory load, with no discernable public benefit delivered as a result. No modern government would interfere in a market by increasing regulation without being able to point to a considerable public benefit.
From a behavioural perspective it would take more than a 10% tax to dissuade online shoppers, particularly when the price differential is often more than that and online shoppers still don’t have to contend with carparks, checkout queues or limited choices on the shelves.
And perhaps most importantly, the campaign is flawed from a communications perspective. Its key messages have no resonance with the people whose behaviour it is trying to influence, namely the politicians and the shoppers.
It appears the retailers’ campaign was neither strategically planned nor deployed.
No organisation should try to influence or change public policy without covering all these bases. The retailers should have been armed with market research and economic modeling to demonstrate that their case was legitimate and that it could deliver both political and public benefits as well as the behavioural change they sought.
They should have engaged on this issue at the departmental level first, with complementary briefings provided to MPs, key ministerial advisers and relevant journalists. This “pincer movement” strategy has the best chance of securing the attention of decision makers and creating the necessary momentum to get a favourable policy decision.
If these avenues have been tried and failed, it may have then been appropriate to take out ads in the newspapers.
But there is an old saying in the world of lobbying and advocacy: if you have to run to the media, then you are admitting that your other lobbying strategies have failed.
Going to the media is the final resort, a very public last-gasp attempt to shanghai a minister into a favourable decision. More often than not, this tactic will fail too because it is seen by both politicians and public servants as unnecessarily aggressive, overtly disruptive and ultimately self-centred. None of these perceptions serve well when one is trying to influence government.
And finally, perhaps the greatest weakness in the retailers’ campaign is its demonstrated misunderstanding of shopper motivations and behaviour.
Instead of spending mega-dollars on newspaper ads, the retailers should have taken steps to understand why customers shop online and how they might be enticed back.
The GST campaign suggests they have not done this even this basis homework, because it is clear that people shop online for more reasons than price alone.
At the end of this week, just before the official start of summer, the Australian Parliament will rise, politicians will head home to their electorates and voters will focus on how many meats to serve on Christmas Day or the quickest route to the beach. For many, the summer break is for relaxation; yet for others it evokes reflection about the year just passed. Given the political year we’ve just had, the reflective folk will have much food for thought.
From my perspective, the two leadership challenges, two state elections and the federal poll have challenged conventional wisdom and rewritten election playbooks, but also confirmed some political trusims. I don’t pretend to be a psephologist or political pundit, but I’m hopelessly attracted to the world of politics. I can’t help but look for patterns and cause-effect relationships and wonder how these might alter the path of political endeavour in the future.
With that caveat, I offer up for your degustation these observations from the political buffet of 2010.
Appetiser: Australian voters want their politicians to be genuine
At times during the federal election, it was hard to distinguish a 7.30 Report interview from the latest instalment of Kath and Kim, such was the broadness of Aussie accent on display. Both Gillard and Abbott went to great lengths to prove they were genuine and in touch with real Australians – particularly compared to their predecessors, the densely verbose Rudd and the tree-hugging patrician Turnbull.
However, Gillard’s authenticity was somewhat inconsistent during the early days of the campaign. At one point she morphed into a Stepford Prime Minister, nodding sagely to the cameras while using the calming tones of a pre-school teacher. This persona grated on voters’ sensibilities and she was quickly cast off in favour of the New! Real! Authentic! Julia. While undoubtedly relieved, voters were nevertheless left to wonder about the previous incarnations of Ms Gillard and their authenticity.
Tony Abbott’s misstep was equally unsettling, telling Kerry O’Brien that he couldn’t necessarily be held to account for words spoken in the heat of the moment, but that his written word was trustworthy. While operatives tried to spin this blunder as candour, it undoubtedly left a crack in Abbott’s everyman persona.
While there were many factors that contributed to the federal election outcome, I believe the genuineness of the party leaders was one of them. Faced with two relatively unknown politicians, both of whose authenticity was in question, many voters chose neither. The perception that neither Gillard nor Abbott was genuine contributed to the shift of votes to the Greens.
Gillard and Abbott are now on probation – the media and voters are alert for any more cracks in their authenticity. So too will the country independents be scrutinised to see if they are as genuine as they currently seem.
Entrée: Unfulfilled expectations will come back to bite you
Kevin Rudd’s downfall was that he didn’t deliver on the expectations he created in the 2007 federal election. As I wrote back in June, Rudd deftly positioned himself prior to that election as Howard-lite, framing himself as the “other” safe pair of hands, but with bonus features such as the ratification of Kyoto and the scrapping of WorkChoices. While Rudd did apologise to the Stolen Generation he did not deliver on any other major promise. The Labor MPs and operatives who eventually deposed Rudd did so because they knew voters were waiting to take out their anger on him, just as they had done to Keating in 1996.
PM Gillard almost paid the ultimate price by making the same mistake soon after she replaced Rudd. Gillard became Prime Minister promising to resolve three issues: Australia’s response to climate change; the battle with the mining industry over the Resource Super Profit Tax; and a more humane approach to sea-borne illegal immigrants. Instead she announced a clumsy citizens’ assembly on climate change; gave ground to the mining industry and replicated some of the most reviled elements of the Howard Government’s detention scheme. Voters would have been forgiven for wondering why the PM who couldn’t fulfil commitments was brutally torn down for another with the same failings.
Gillard was damaged by that early mismanagement of expectations. It will be interesting to see whether the Labor Government, the Greens and the independents are wary of creating (or maintaining) expectations in 2011 that cannot be met.
Main: Re-enfranchised rural Australians are watching carefully
Rural Australians are a canny bunch: they may have grown up in the arms of the Country or National parties, but they are open to any other party or individual who can protect their chosen way of life. This is clear from the diminishing number of National Party members in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both the ALP and Liberals have developed “country” arms of their parties to capitalise on this opportunity.
Country independents are not new to our parliament. Up until now, most have languished on the cross-benches because their votes were not important. Now with deciding votes in the lower House, the current country independents are being watched very carefully by rural Australia. No doubt, National MPs are closely watching them too. Rogue WA National, Tony Crook, managed to do what the rest of his fraternity could only dream of by swiftly dissociating from the Nationals soon after the election and putting his vote up for auction.
If the independents and Crook can materially improve the lot of rural Australians with their pivotal votes, then National MPs could be faced with the unenviable choice at the next federal election of either becoming an independent themselves or being beaten by one.
Dessert: The Greens run the risk of dis-enfranchising their constituency
More than a decade ago the Australian Democrats held the balance of power in the Senate, just as the Greens will do on 1 July next year as a result of this year’s election. In order to extract certain concessions from the Howard Government, the Democrats agreed in 1999 to support the GST legislation in Senate. This decision was portrayed as a sell-out of Democrat principles. It undoubtedly contributed to the leadership tensions and internecine manoeuvrings that wracked the Democrats from that time on, until they lost their last Senate positions in the 2007 federal election.
When the Greens attain the balance of power in July next year, they will discover as did the Democrats that it’s much more difficult to be a political or policy purist when your vote actually counts. Negotiations will inevitably lead to concessions, sometimes on the part of the Government but also of the Greens. The Greens will need to manage member expectations better than the Democrats did to avoid the pitfalls that decision-making can bring.
Cheese: The current model for election reporting is broken
Much has already been said and written about this final point. Political parties have so tightly orchestrated the involvement of mainstream media in election campaigns that the resulting coverage is so contrived that it’s meaningless. Senior journalists rarely travel with the Leaders’ teams any more, preferring to observe and opine from the comfort of their office. Journalists who do travel with the Leaders are told little, shepherded from venue to venue, and given little time to absorb policy announcements before being given access to the Leader who merely parrots the line of the day.
The current model is broken and probably cannot be repaired. I look forward instead to mainstream media outlets refusing to put anyone at all on campaign buses next election, the parties having to instead produce campaign footage for placement on YouTube, Leaders choosing to hold numerous town hall meetings around the country instead of pic-facs, and MP and candidates dealing directly with their constituents through Twitter, Facebook and Skype.
Now that will be an election to reflect upon!