A Can-ning of Worms

Regardless of the result, the Canning by-election on 19 September is shaping as a catalyst for an early trip to the polls for the rest of Australia’s voters.

 

Brought about by the untimely and unfortunate death of the personally popular Liberal member Don Randall, the 19 September poll is both a leadership test for Prime Minister Abbott and a potential stop gap for a disaster-prone coalition government.

 

Early Newspoll results in the apparently safe Western Australian Liberal seat (currently held on a margin of 11.8%) are, however, broadly in line with national polling and show that a swing against the Liberals in the region of 11% is possible.

 

Whilst this is not an by-election-winning prediction for the Opposition it does make the contest in Canning far more interesting than perhaps it should be.

 

Canning has gone with the Government in 21 of the last 26 elections and was last held in a Labor Government way back in 1993 in the days of the 2^nd term Keating Government. Canning was also held from 1998 – 2001 by Labor’s Jane Gerick who won the seat with a resounding 53.5% of the two party preferred vote during the near miss re-election of the 2^nd term Howard Government. Gerick lost the seat in a contra-landslide to Randall as part of Howard’s 3^rd term Government in 2001. (Ominously for the 19 September by-election candidates, Gerick also died prematurely from a brain haemorrhage on Christmas day 2003.)

 

Perhaps on the proven success of the national security and counter-terrorism agenda that has played so well for Abbott from time-to-time during this Government, Former Special Air Service Captain Andrew Hastie has been endorsed as the Liberal candidate for the seat. Look out for media appearances with senior ministers in the national security space replete with a phalanx of national flags.

 

The Barnett Liberal Government in Western Australia has arguably lost control of the political high ground in the State and WA Liberal fortunes have traditionally been reflected in Canning’s federal polling. None of this bodes well for a decisive victory for Liberal’s Andrew Hastie.

 

The only other confirmed candidate at the time of writing is the curiously aptly named Teresa Van Lieshout whose pedigree is from the conservative side of the fence with former links to One Nation, the Palmer United Party and the religious right.

 

Should Canning be returned to the Liberals against this State trend, it will be viewed by a nervous Federal Coalition party room as something of an endorsement of the general direction of the Abbott Government and will provide the Prime Minister with just the fillip he needs to maintain his tenuous hold on the prime ministership. The opportunity to deliver a coup-de-grâce on the struggling but improving fortunes of the Labor leader on the back of an inevitable poll lift would be difficult to resist and an early Federal election would be a great temptation.

 

A loss in Canning, particularly to an as yet unnamed Labor candidate, would undoubtedly sound the death knell on the Abbott prime ministership and would inevitably herald the return of Malcolm Turnbull to the Federal Liberal Leadership.

 

Turnbull has recently polled as high as 57% as preferred Liberal leader(SMH 18 August) and, despite being roundly despised by many of his colleagues, offers the Coalition their best hope of avoiding a complete routing at the next Federal election.

 

The inevitable “sugar shock” in the polls that the re-emergence of Malcolm Turnbull would almost certainly provide will prove too much to withstand and it would not be long before he was knocking on the door of Government House in Canberra. 

 

Either way you cut it, the Canning by-election on 19 September is a landmark moment in the Australian political calendar and will prove most interesting viewing for those interested in the political future of the current government.

 

Make sure you’ve got Antony Green’s* blog in your favourites and don’t touch that dial.

 

*ABC Election analyst whose blog appears here:

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/

 

ScoMo - A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

In the wash up from Tuesday’s coalition-party room decision denying a free vote to Coalition Ministers on same sex marriage, a number of Coalition protagonists, most notably the Prime Minister, have come out in support of either a plebiscite or referendum to decide the issue once and for all.

 

This seems somewhat at odds with the Prime Minister’s formerly stated position, following the unprecedented Irish referendum, that this should be a matter for the party room.

 

If the motivation behind this is to differentiate themselves from the Labor party, whose majority (but not unanimous) position is to allow a free vote, at least until 2019, it seems a curios tactic.

 

The cost to the taxpayer of a plebiscite or referendum notwithstanding, the reactionaries within Coalition ranks are falling in behind the Prime Minister touting the party line that the Coalition will let the people decide but Labor want the politicians to decide. 

The Coalition, therefore, has made this an election issue despite the fact that the Prime Minister explicitly stated that the plebiscite or referendum would not happen concurrently with the next federal election.

 

This could prove notoriously poor judgement. In the next three years there will be a general election, a referendum on constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders and, either a plebiscite or a referendum on same sex marriage. 

 

Current voter disengagement with politics will be exacerbated by voter fatigue and resentment at the additional cost. And, as Malcolm Turnbull points out, the same sex marriage debate remains live until the plebiscite or referendum “resolves” the issue. 

 

The issue will remain live until after the election and, quite possibly, until after the constitutional recognition referendum. It threatens to stay unresolved for many years to come. Given the apparent appetite for change in the community on this issue, that can’t be good for the Coalition.

 

Referendums and Plebiscites

As ABC election analyst Anthony Green explains: “[A] ‘referendum' is generally reserved for votes to amend the Australian Constitution…” whereas “a] ‘plebiscite' is … used to mean a simple national vote”. One requires majority support in a majority of states to change the Constitution; the other is merely a decisive indicator of public opinion. The former is notoriously difficult to achieve; the latter, well, it’s merely a decisive indicator of public opinion.

 

Social Services Minister and Member for the federal electorate of Cook in Sydney’s south, Scott Morrison, is one right faction Liberal minister who favours a referendum.

 

Morrison outlined his position on Wednesday evening’s 7.30 program, and, while ostensibly falling in behind his leader on this issue, is positioning himself in the party for the long game and for a more self-serving outcome.

 

Morrison’s stated preference for a referendum to change Section 51 (xxi) of the constitution is designed to fail.

 

Section 51 outlines the Commonwealth’s powers and clause (xxi) simply says “marriage”. Morrison’s proposal to include “opposite and same-sex” into this clause is both unnecessary and disingenuous.

 

Section 51 is gender-unspecific so “marriage” in this context neither implicitly nor explicitly excludes same-sex marriage. A change is simply unnecessary. It is disingenuous because Morrison knows, as John Howard ably demonstrated in the November 1999 Australian republic referendum, a tricksy wording of the proposal will almost certainly cause it to fail regardless of the weight of public opinion.

 

A failed referendum cements Morrison’s reactionary views and his position as a leadership front runner for the LNP’s right faction. A position that he hopes will catapult him into the Liberal leadership.

 

However, it might be enlightening to commission a poll in Kurnell, Cronulla or Kirrawee (suburbs in Morrison’s electorate of Cook in Sydney’s south) to gauge support on the ground for same sex marriage. If results follow the national trend of 60 – 75% support, Morrison’s 3.69% margin might not be as strong as he thinks. 

 

As same sex marriage becomes a defining electoral issue for both parties Labor’s National Secretary, George Wright, might just be commissioning that poll in the Shire very soon.

Polls, Damned Polls and Statistics

A strange anomaly of opinion polls in Australia is that, since the big one on September 7 2013, the Australian Labor Party has enjoyed a 5.5% swing to them in 26 consecutive Newspolls.


By any reasonable metric, a sustained swing of this magnitude should indicate that whatever strategy the leader of the party has adopted up until now, more of the same should be done.  And yet there’s a strenuous debate about Bill Shorten’s continuing leadership.


The Opposition Leader is “enjoying” some of the most invidious and irascible attention from the political commentariat that a leader should endure.  Rather than lauding a series of remarkable poll results, his very future as Federal Parliamentary Leader of the ALP is in serious doubt.  Well, it is with media commentatariat.  (Aside from a few loud and proud warriors on social media, there’s scant indication from the folks that actually matter – members of Federal Labor Caucus, for instance – that there is even the remotest risk to Bill Shorten remaining in the top job.)


In the latest Newspoll, the Opposition Leader’s satisfaction among voters fell by seven points and his dissatisfaction level rose by 10 giving him a net satisfaction rating of -28 points.  (Incidentally, his nemesis has a net satisfaction rating of -27 points – not statistically different - yet the cacophony of the commentariat regarding Mr Abbott’s leadership tenure seems to have died down in recent weeks.  Clearly not from any turn around in the polls.)


These are unquestionably poor figures but they do not reflect the obvious success that the ALP is enjoying and consistently maintaining, poll after poll, from pollster after pollster - an election-winning lead over the Coalition.


Optimistically, a theory regarding this anomaly could indicate that the electorate is looking for other points of differentiation between the two major parties.


Arguably, for good or ill, there is a “struck match of emphasis” between the centre-right and centre-left positions on fiscal policy, general economic management, the role of the reserve bank in determining economic performance and all those other middle-of-the-road policy settings that aren’t reflected by a diversity of public opinion.  (What Tariq Ali would describe rather dramatically as the “Extreme Centre”.)


Yes the ongoing background noise that is the dichotomy between Keynesian verses free market economics is important.  But it only remains so where there is a wide divergence in how these philosophical positions effect the everyday of economics like cost of living, income disparity and personal income tax.  Day-to-day the philosophical basis of economic policy probably doesn’t rate in public perception.  Generally there is little significant difference because that is not what fires up the electorate.


What does resonate are issues like justice, fairness and equality.


And we can see this in spades in the debates surrounding marriage equality, asylum seeker policy, indigenous recognition and domestic violence.


The problem for the Opposition Leader, though, is that the cacophony of opinion about his popularity feeds perceptions among that part of the electorate, who only keep half an ear on the machinations of federal politics, that his hold on the leadership is temporary.  It then becomes inevitable that his hold on the leadership will slip – a self-fulfilling prophesy if you will.


No doubt this perception will be playing on Bill's mind as he faces the Trade Union Royal Commission this week and prepares for the up-coming ALP National Conference at the end of July.
Various, largely unsolicited I imagine, testimonials surrounding Bill’s time as AWU Chief testify to the fact that Shorten oversaw some of the most successful industrial relations deals in Australian union history.  Successful for both employer and employee alike but this will likely, and not surprisingly, be a feature in omission in the work of Jeremy Stoljar SC on Wednesday.


Shorten, like Gillard and Rudd before him, will front the Royal Commission and provide his evidence and I have little doubt that, like Gillard and Rudd before him, he will have no case to answer.


The Royal Commission appearance will have little long-lasting effect on Bill Shorten’s standing within the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party.  A poor performance may well be used by Mr Abbott to justify an early election but remember, those 26 consecutive polls show the Coalition is consistently up to 5 points behind the ALP.  It would have to be a revealingly bad performance from Bill to kick that can down the road.


National Conference, on the other hand, presents a more useful platform for Shorten to cement his position at the apex of the party leading up to a 2016 election.  A nuanced concession to the left on asylum seeker policy, the correct attenuation of party rules for the right and a compelling Leader’s Address aimed squarely at those points of differentiation that actually matter to the electorate and the background noise of bad personal poll numbers will fade.


And the commentariat?  They’ll be looking for the next bright shiny thing -maybe an MP misleading parliament would be a worthy subject.

First World Problem

Whilst debate rages in the Australian Parliament over the Abbott Government’s misguided bill to repeal the ‘Carbon Tax’ Australia is becoming a climate pariah on the world stage at the UN Climate Summit in Warsaw.

Delegates at the UN Climate Change Conference in Warsaw
Photo courtesy of Brookings Institute 

 Let’s face it; the entire point of introducing an emissions trading scheme preceded by a fixed price on carbon emissions, is to slow down and then reduce Australia’s carbon pollution output.  That this needed a market-based, arguably punitive scheme is self-evident.  Businesses, however, will constantly base their objections to the ETS on the spurious justification that it will hurt local business in a trade-based economy.  Well, yes it possibly will in the short term, but this approach will induce business innovation and, ultimately, will have the required effect on the outrageous carbon emissions result that Australia currently boasts – along with Canada we are ‘the worst performing industrial country in the world’ (Giles Parkinson, Crikey 19 Nov 13).

And here’s the thing: a great deal of the clamour coming from those opposed to an ETS/a price on carbon/climate action is on a purely economic basis.  Because Australia is an economy primarily based on commodity sales, it is argued that to make the production and sale of these commodities more difficult and expensive will wreak havoc on our economy.  Well, here’s a news flash, China (arguably our most important commodity market) has recently ‘shut down nearly 500 inefficient coal-fired power plants and plans to scale down coal use’ (Ross Gittins The Age 20 Nov 13).  Surely this news alone would lead (and is leading) businesses to invest in R&D in the renewables sector. 

Early Start to 2013 Bushfire Season
Photo courtesy of Frontiergap

Business motivation being what it is in a capitalist society we are never going to reduce carbon emissions through the fanciful approach embodied in the direct action policy propagated by the Abbott Government.  Businesses will not be motivated to change through good will and will continue to press their competitive advantage to maximise profits regardless of the negative environmental outcomes.  Clean and green, except where (even the illusion) of these ideals increases profits, will never form the motivation for businesses without a concurrent penalty for failing to be so.  In the same article quoted above (Ross Gittins The Age 20 Nov 13), Ross Gittins reminds us that the cost of producing renewable energy has also fallen.  Businesses are not stupid.  They will follow the money and, particularly if compelled to do so through market-based conditions, they will apply their expertise to the development of profit-creating strategies; ergo clean and green energy production.  Without the market-based compunction?  Not so much.

Executive secretary of UNFCCC Christiana Figueres.
Photograph: Jeon Heon-Kyun/EPA

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change executive director Christiana Figueres has told the coal industry that it needed to “look past next quarter’s bottom line and see the next generation’s bottom line”.

Climate change, and more specifically, anthropogenic climate change, is a quintessential ‘first world problem’.  Australia needs to step up and reclaim its former position as a constructive and engaged participant in international climate change action.  Before it is too late and we simply abrogate our responsibilities to future generations we need to stop our slide into irrelevance in this debate. 

In a stunning example of politically-motivated grandstanding for domestic consumption, Tony Abbott has made the ‘unprecedented step of dissenting on the final communique at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka, joining with Canada in refusing support for the UN-sponsored green climate fund, which he dubbed the “green capital fund”’ (Ross Gittins The Age 20 Nov 13).  He has refused to commit Australia to a fund that will assist developing nations in the Commonwealth combat anthropogenic climate change.  But this is exactly what we, in concert with other developed nations, should be doing.

‘Without more funding, poorer countries won’t be able to get on a path to low-carbon development. Nor will they be able to deal with the huge issues of adapting to the temperature increases, extreme weather, ecosystem collapse and sea level rise that will result from climate change.’ (Ian Macgregor – The Conversation 20 Nov 13).

Typhoon Haiyan Survivor
Photo courtesy of Reuters

That Australia (accompanied by Canada, Japan and Russia) is now retreating with haste from its international obligation to combat climate change is remarkable.  Situated as we are on the Pacific Rim; surrounded by many nations who critically feel the effects of climate change every day and whose very existence depends on international action on climate change, it is both morally and strategically imperative that we return to our former position as world leaders in this space. 

There is another week of negotiations and talks to be held in Warsaw but there seems to be little hope that Australia will reclaim the progress that has been made, put aside the short-sighted economic arguments and redouble our efforts to counteract the growing perception that we are, indeed, the environmental pariah at the table.  Far from crab-walking away from our obligations as a developed and wealthy country, we need to take up this first world problem and act decisively, sensibly and expeditiously.  Nothing else is good enough.  And our planet and it’s future generations (our children) depend on it.