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.

A Question of Leadership

New Year’s Day saw the release of Cabinet Papers from the Hawke era and a revelation that then Prime Minister Bob Hawke had unilaterally decided to extend student visas to Chinese students in Australia who otherwise may have been caught up in the melee of Tiananmen Square if forced to return to China.

That Bob Hawke made this decision without reference to his Cabinet colleagues or the Labor Party Caucus signifies either one of two things: the abuse of power by an ego-driven megalomaniac or the astute exercise of executive power by a compassionate leader.  Compare and contrast this to the frankly bizarre nomination by the current Prime Minister of Prince Philip, the Queen's consort, for an Australian knighthood on Australia Day.  The motivation for which is being thoroughly questioned by almost everyone.  Also a "captain's call.

Clearly, this commentator regards the former as visionary; the latter as, well, misguided.

Compassionate leadership, decisive solutions and an ability to “bring the people along” with them are rare and valuable attributes in a profession that has suffered an incredible downturn in its public profile in the last decade: namely, politics.

A recent Australian National University study has shown that under 45% of people regard it as relevant which of the two major political parties are in power and, by inference, wish “a pox on both their houses”.  Politicians are held so much in disdain that the old adage about knowing when a politician is lying by seeing their lips moving has never been truer in the public’s opinion. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-11/poll-data-reveals-waning-interest-in-politics/5662568)

The rise of “personality” politicians: everyone from Pauline Hanson to Jackie Lambie, may be one response to the general demise of the political class.  And this is exacerbated by the rise of the Presidential-style leadership model that has become the norm in modern Australian political parties.

The phenomenon arguably began with “Honest John” Howard and his gratuitous appeal to the “Howard’s Battlers”.  A carefully managed persona, heavily scripted talking points and carefully stage-managed public “events” beginning with the Lazarus-with-a-triple-bypass accession to the Prime Ministership through the morning walks in Australian tracksuit to appearing in front of the gun lobby in a bullet-proof vest following the buy-back scheme.  And this careful image management has carried on until today.  Indeed, it could reasonably be argued that the Abbott Prime Ministership is the most heavily controlled or presidentialized performance ever seen in the Australian Polity. 

And the Australian public have seen through it.

Wary of three-word slogans, zingers and scripted lines delivered like automatons reading straight off the autocue, Australians have turned off in droves to the political debate in this country.  And who can blame them.  Australians don’t like politics but they are savvy enough to know that politics affects them every day.  They don’t want choreographed responses to problems they don’t even know exist in the first place.  What Australians want, and, I would argue, need given the concerning state of the nation’s moral compass, is strong, compassionate and decisive leadership.  Leadership that: identifies problems; proposes reforms; and, shapes the future direction of the nation.  A future direction that inspires us.

And I'm absolutely convinced that the conferring of a knighthood on the Queens Consul is not in resonance with the general mood of the Australian population and does not reflect the kind of leadership we are looking for.

It remains to be seen if there is a leader from either side of the political spectrum out there who can bring the people along with them and provide the decisive leadership that Hawkey showed in 1989.  There are always some glimmers of hope but it would indeed be a tragedy if another Tiananmen Square was required to flush one out.

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.

A Question of Perception

It is an evident truism that the perception of impropriety is often more damaging than the inappropriateness of the act itself.

 

Nowhere has this been more patently displayed than in the recent revelation of the use of Stoke Lodge, the Australian High Commissioner’s Residence in London, by the Federal President of the Liberal Party Richard Alston and billionaire Sir Michael Hintze, the founder of an Australian-British hedge fund to host a party (or let’s call it a “function”).

 

That High Commissioner and former Howard Government Minister Alexander Downer was not present at the time, and, therefore, arguably not furthering Australia’s national interests, compounds the perception of impropriety.  That Federal Liberal party president, Richard Alston was there in his capacity as a member of the hedge fund’s board and not in his capacity as Federal Liberal President becomes largely irrelevant.  The look is everything and the look is bad.

 

Political fund raising is a minefield into which even the bravest venture with some trepidation.  That money buys access and access begets influence is quintessentially where perception is king.  Any perceptionthat money has bought a favourable outcome is a one way trip to the 7.30 report and the ICAC dock.  Both former Senator Sinodinos and a swag of former New South Wales Labor members can attest to this.

 

But it’s not all about the perception of wrongdoing.  There’s also the perception of arrogance.  The “born to rule” attitude or the arrogance generated by an apparent mandate handed to you by the electorate on poling day also grates with electors and will be punished come election day.  (Losing site of the fact that you are subject to the vagaries of a minority Senate is an error that has been made to the government’s great cost.)

 

Hapless treasurer Joe Hockey has featured in more than a few examples of this: dancing with his wife before handing down the most unpopular budget in political memory or chomping on cigars in a parliament house courtyard with fellow conspirator and Finance Minister Senator Mathias Cormann on the eve of delivering that self-same budget are just two.  Again, the acts themselves might have been without meaning but the perception was replete with symbolism.

 

He has not been on his own.  Education Minister Christopher Pyne has made an art form out of his own eccentric brand of self-belief and has displayed more hubris than tact on many occasions as both Leader of the House and in prosecuting his apparently unpopular higher-education reforms.

Inevitably, stories like these “have legs” in today’s political environment.  Whether they should or not is a matter of opinion but anything that sullies the image of public and particularly political figures is likely to remain a target for speculation regarding the propriety of the protagonists for some time to come.   And recovery is a hard road – once again, just ask NSW Labor.

 

The longevity of such stories reinforces widely held perceptions and inevitably serves to amplify the contempt with which the public hold members of political parties and promotes the disengagement that the populous has with politics and politicians.  That this is unhelpful to the political process is as obvious as it is inevitable.

 

The perception of impropriety is an easy weapon to wield, a hard one to defend against and a necessary part of the political life.  Above all it is the means by which we can hold public office holders to account, provides copious column inches to inform us of the calibre of our political leaders and endless hours of intimate inquiry for Senate estimates.

 

Following “Stoke Lodge-gate” Labor Senators Wong and Dastyari have a surfeit of material for the Foreign Minister come next estimates sessions.  Best they keep their own house in order before then.  Australian voters are watching.