Things That Matter

‘One of the things about elections is that … they are a chance to have a national conversation about things that matter.’

So said Labor’s Shadow Assistant Treasurer, Dr Andrew Leigh, to a gathering of Labor faithful at the home of Pat O’Neill Labor candidate for the Federal seat of Brisbane last Wednesday evening.

Photo courtesy of alp.org.au

Leigh’s context was inequality and he went on to talk about inequality being one of the deep currents that will run through the 2016 campaign.

Whether you agree with his politics or not, Leigh makes a good point.  Elections should encourage a national conversation and a refocusing of the national awareness onto matters that will affect us in the years to come.

‘Australians believe the state of the economy, interest rates, unemployment, the cost of living, and the gap between rich and poor are more concerning than immigration, environmental issues, and social problems.’ Reported Gareth Hutchens in the Sydney Morning Herald earlier this year. Hutchens was reporting on a late 2015 Morgan poll.

Prime minister Turnbull, banking on terminally linking Shorten to union corruption and malpractice wants to fight the election on Industrial Relations.

The double dissolution trigger for a July 2 election was the return of the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) legislation. Turnbull asked the Governor-General to recall parliament on April 18 to debate the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 (which will reinstate the ABCC). The Senate cross benchers rejected the Bill giving Turnbull the trigger and justification he needs to request the Governor-General to dissolve both houses and lock in the July 2 federal election.

But there’s a small problem – nobody outside State Circle in Canberra actually cares much about reinstating the ABCC. As Gareth Hutchens mentioned, employment, inequality, cost of living and interest rates are engaging the population – the proposed resurrection of an arcane ABCC is not.

Second tier issues energizing voters’ minds include immigration, health and the environment and on these issues there has been little or no solid achievements by the government – certainly not enough to base a campaign around – and nothing new on the horizon.

Photo courtesy of miapplesinteractive.blogspot.com

Immigration minister, Peter Dutton, who staggers from disaster to disaster in his portfolio - of which last Thursday’s reports of young people being beaten on Nauru is just the latest - at least has the advantage of a chimera of bipartisanship between Coalition and Labor asylum-seeker policies to hide behind - his penchant for gaffs notwithstanding.

Photo courtesy of no fibs.com.au

The Paris agreement on climate change was significant but, given that the “announceables” for that were late last year, those achievements will not be front of mind for voters come July and it is beyond Environment Minister Greg Hunt to prosecute a decent case based on them. He has little else to work with after former climate change advocate Turnbull capitulated to the deniers in the Coalition and ruled out any changes to the Coalitions widely criticised Direct Action policy.

Photo courtesy of article.wn.com

Health Minister Sussan Ley’s, recent announcement regarding health care packages for chronically ill patients has little to differentiate it from Medicare Locals or Primary Health Networks and will, in any case, be totally drowned out - as will any future announcements by Education Minister Simon Birmingham - by claims that the Abbott/Turnbull government has ripped $80 billion dollars out of the states health and education budgets.

Photo courtesy of smh.com

Birmingham has already discovered the depth of feeling there is in the higher education community with his proposed changes to deregulate university fees.

Photo courtesy of https://theantibogan.wordpress.com

As for the hapless Treasurer, apart from not being in his prime minister’s inner circle as Phillip Coorey in the Fin Review of 23 March revealed, Scott Morrison has been emasculated on every single economic policy position he has taken from raising the GST through changes to negative gearing. In the end, all the Treasurer has left are company tax cuts and tax cuts for the wealthy and even company tax cuts are looking shaky following the prime minister’s comments regarding the up-coming budget.

Morrison’s woes were compounded last week with the revelation that the Australian Tax Office is investigating over 800 wealthy Australians following their exposure in the Panama Papers. If Andrew Leigh is right, and inequality is the deep current running through the campaign, then the Treasurer has only broken arrows in his quiver to fight the election with.

In September last year, advocates of same sex marriage had high hopes for the newly minted and hugely popular prime minister. Marriage equality was, by Turnbull’s own account, a signature policy. What remains of that hope was dashed by recent reports that even the plebiscite to which Turnbull had conceded to placate the right wing of his party is now likely to be postponed indefinitely. Mungo MacCallum, writing in The Monthly, suggests that: ‘… the actual vote on the plebiscite will drag well into 2017. And even when it comes, it will be hedged around with caveats and loopholes.’

Malcolm Turnbull’s personal approval rating, though on the wane, is still a significant factor when discussions regarding the outcome of the up-coming national poll occur and Bill Shorten’s less than impressive approval rating is touted as a lead weight to Labor’s chances.

However, electoral analyst for the Guardian Australia, Ben Raue, wrote in last Thursday’s edition that ‘personal popularity is no guarantee of poll success for prime ministers’.

The reality of our political system is that leaders’ personal popularity is completely relevant only in the federal electorates of Wentworth (Turnbull) and Maribyrnong (Shorten). It’s not irrelevant, it’s just less so while-ever the major parties are fundamentally responsible for electing federal leaders.

It will no longer be sufficient to rely on the personal popularity of Malcolm Turnbull to get the Coalition over the line for a second term.

And all this underlines Leigh’s broad message. Not on inequality, necessarily, but on elections providing the opportunity for greater national awareness and a deeper national conversation.

In May last year, celebrated Australian musician Mark Seymour said in an interview with ABC News 24 Breakfast: ‘The national conversation has narrowed down almost to a dangerous level’, and he was right.

Australian voters are looking for an opportunity to expand the conversation in the lead up to the likely July 2 election and the dwindling grab bag of policies on offer by the government won’t meet their needs.

Around the dinner tables of middle Australia, the conversation will be about all of these issues – marriage equality, climate change, immigration, the gap between rich and poor – all of them. Our politicians would do well to heed Seymour’s warning. These issues – things that matter - are what will guide the pencils of the voters on their ballot papers in July.

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.