By Simon Hukin:
Despite the proliferation of turgid slogans, the 2010 campaign is shaping up as the direct opposite to that of 2007.
In 2007 it was Rudd’s ambition to make himself appear Howard’s natural successor – fiscally responsible, economically literate, and yet socially progressive enough to appeal to both the younger, left-wing voters who had been alienated by previous unresponsive ALP leaderships, and the moderate swing voters who had become increasingly concerned that Howard’s conservatism would lead Australia down the path of destruction on issues from climate change to health care.
Rudd made a play for differentiation, with policies such as the much touted Education Revolution and proposed Emissions Trading Scheme capturing the imagination of his base and those disenchanted with a Liberal government less liberal and more conservative. Rudd was the happy-clappy, sleeves-rolled-up beach striding candidate who posed no threat but still had an interesting vision to carry the nation forward.
This time around, however, the Opposition under Abbott is struggling to find ways to set itself apart. Indeed, part of its strategy seems to be to mimic government policy and pretend to more expertise in implementation. In many cases (such as the RSPT, or the MRRT, or whatever it’s called these days) this has meant opposition for opposition’s sake, in others a reversion to petty name calling (take, for instance, the nit picking over the notion of a “Timor Solution” to the problem of processing asylum seekers, which the opposition can not disagree with ideologically – as it’s essentially identical to the “Pacific Solution” their Immigration Spokesperson Scott Morrison still advocates – and finds itself resorting to quibbling about who called whom first). Only in a few areas has Abbott managed to craft a truly different policy position – nowhere near enough to differentiate himself and his party. Perhaps this is what he wants. After all, a close scrutiny of Abbott’s previous personal positions on issues ranging from abortion to indigenous Australians to his daughters’ virginity reveals a man not many Australians would call mate. He’s certainly not the moderate his present stances make him out to be.
One of the most notable points of difference in the Opposition’s policy armoury is climate change. A radical departure from the standard position (that anthropogenic climate change poses a significant threat to ecosystem stability, and that action on it ought to be fast, widespread, effective and carried out employing a market mechanism – either a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme) their policy in this area seems to treat the very notion of anthropogenic climate change with scorn. It consists, in essence, of planting more trees and unfunded promises to invest heavily in renewable energy technology and research. Sure, there are mutterings about improving energy efficiency, but there’s no stick to force polluters to stop polluting. While this may be, to quote Sir Humphrey, a thoroughly courageous position, it’s certainly different.
By contrast the ALP stands by its long-term commitment to implement the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme after the election – even if it has to negotiate with the Greens to do it. Considering the rise in the Greens vote, it seems neither has particular appeal for moderate voters.
The Greens are an interesting factor in this campaign. Judging by their record high polling results they ought to do well at the ballot box. But then, I’d suggest the rise in their vote is not, as they would like to think, as a result of their ‘excellent policy’ but rather simply disaffection on the part of voters with the inaction of the Rudd government and the ludicrous similarity of the Opposition. After all, nobody really knows what their policy is. Some may have heard talk of an interim carbon tax, others whispers of onshore processing and immediate community release of Asylum Seekers, but that’s pretty much as far as it goes. With a new leader at the helm the ALP has a strong chance of regaining a great many swinging voters apparently lost to the Greens.
However, both major parties face a problem far greater than the Greens. The uncertainty of their leadership teams post-election will cause great problems both within their party rooms and in the eyes of the public. The twin problems of replacing Faulkner and Tanner and the question of what to do with Kevin loom large. Faulkner’s retirement leaves a hole in a department wracked with problems, and the loss of Tanner represents a significant blow to the Government’s talent pool (and opens the consequent possibility of the first Greens lower house seat in Melbourne).
For the Coalition, however, the problems are both greater and more systemic. The lack of depth in their talent pool is evident when Abbott resorts to invoking the (previously thankfully corpsified) names of Bronwyn Bishop and Phillip Ruddock. The Opposition’s core leadership team consists of Abbott, Hockey, Pyne, Julie Bishop, and Dutton. Of these only Abbott and Dutton have the talent to lead a nation. Hockey, while charismatic, is gaff prone and economically inept, as clearly demonstrated in his many media appearances. Julie Bishop has proven, despite a previous life as the managing partner of Clayton Utz in WA, to prefer being a bimbo in the chamber and media to real policy debate, and Pyne is universally loathed for his manner everywhere outside Sturt. Abbott, by this reckoning, faces real problems selecting his cabinet, especially given Dutton’s preselection bumbling.
Abbott’s best hope, and one to which he most likely will not turn, is Malcolm Turnbull. Eloquent and erudite, excellent in most regards, Turnbull in a senior portfolio would placate the Liberal moderates and vastly improve the standard of debate both in and out of the chamber. However, given their history, Turnbull’s ambition and the undoubted bitterness in the Liberal party room over the Machiavellian machinations of Minchin and co., Abbott might consider Turnbull a risk too far.
With voters hedging their bets in the polls – either answering third party or undecided, with Labor down in the primary vote and marginal tracking Morgan polls, both parties need to consider if not taking risks – running to the centre – is a risk worth taking. Inaction and moderation, as well as some badly implemented policy, brought down Rudd. He failed to convincingly pursue his big ticket, high risk policy platform – the ETS, the National Health and Hospitals Network (being waylaid by Barnett in WA), and even the RSPT – on the back of most of which he was elected. The electorate responds to bold, risky, and different policies done well. They responded to the economic reforms of Hawke and Keating, they responded to Whitlam’s bold promises of change, and they even responded to Howard’s GST (eventually). A more contemporary example was the huge public support for the apology to the stolen generations – a big, meaningful gesture which signalled a shift in the policy landscape of indigenous affairs. High risks pay off. By sticking to the middle and playing it safe, you might win, but you’ll never win big. Campaign 2010 will prove that.
Share on FacebookSimon Hukin is a student at the Australian National University, General Secretary of the Western Australian Secondary Students’ Association, peripatetic music teacher and general curmudgeon. He is heavily involved in politics and the union movement.
