A Tainted View: 2007 Australian Election

Posted by Andy Bracken on 06.21.2007

The election is still a few months away, but the battlegrounds have been drawn and the campaign has begun in earnest. I preview the players, the parties and the issues.

I've learned a valuable lesson. Painkillers and sedatives do not a good column make…

I had surgery a few weeks ago that went a bit pear-shaped, and was prescribed a nice cocktail of various medications (including a weekly shot of morphine, which was more fun than I could have ever imagined) to dull the pain and let me get some sleep. Unfortunately, the combination of insomnia, benzodiazepines and opiates meant that everything I managed to punch out ranged from the humorously illegible to the downright disturbing. Luckily, the wife usually reads whatever I write before I submit it, so she stopped some pretty embarrassing stuff being posted.

Anyway, I'm (almost) back in action, and I thought I'd kick off with a rundown on the upcoming Australian election. Before we get into it, though, a few things…

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to make this a regular column. Until the end of August I will be pretty swamped in my personal life, and just don't have the time. Jason and Ashish have kindly allowed me to post a column whenever I have the time, and for that I thank them. So, while I will be around, I won't be around every week. Not that it is a great loss, though- the Politics zone is really humming along these days.

Also, I am going to try to keep the format of this column fluid. Sometimes I'll do a column, sometimes it will be more of a news reports, and sometimes it will be something else- basically, whatever I think is relevant at the time.

Lastly, the upcoming Australian election will figure prominently in my columns. With that in mind, I am going to deviate from the usual in that I am not going to try to convince you that I am truly impartial, while lampooning one party incessantly and excusing the other for any transgressing, a la typical opinionists.

Be under no illusions that I detest the current Australian Prime Minister John Howard both for what he stands for personally and politically. His party is completely moulded in his own image, and for that reason I support the removal of the current government at the next election with Kevin Rudd's Labor party governing in their place. That said, though, I certainly don't think that the opposition brings with them some sort of utopia, and will certainly highlight their errors.

Bottom line, I will be doing my utmost to accurately explain the issues and the platforms of the respective parties with some degree of disconnection. To some extent, I also expect to fail in this mission, but at least you know where I stand.

For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the Australian political spectrum I'll just run down the parties and the main players.

Australian has a bicameral Westminster political system, made up of the "House of Representatives" (the lower house, from which the Prime Minister is elected which consists of members elected to represent their seat, all of which have a roughly equal population), and the "Senate" or upper house, which acts as a house of review and a house of equal state representation. As a constitutional monarchy, the crown's representative is the largely ceremonial Governor-General, who provides royal assent to any legislation.

The current parliament is dominated by the Coalition, which is made up of the Liberal Party of Australia (which confusingly is the conservative, right wing party in this country) and the Nationals, which claims to represent the rural voters. The coalition is led by the current Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader John Howard, who has led for the past 11 years. The coalition draws its support from the business and farming sectors, as well as the various wowsers and socially conservative.

The main opposition party is the Australian Labor Party (ALP), led by Kevin Rudd. The ALP is the more socially and fiscally liberal party, influenced heavily by the trade unions. Also in opposition are a few minor parties, including the Greens (superficially environmentalist, but in fact a far-left party), Democrats (founded by a disgruntled Liberal Party member but which has gravitated towards the left), and the Family First Party, which is a socially hyper conservative party that was formed by the Uniting Church before the previous election, and has a single Senator.

Generally, the electorate delivers government with a simple majority (hung parliaments are quite rare) with a hostile, opposition dominated Senate. The current government holds the majority in both houses, though, which is a historical anomaly.

Anyway, if you don't have the gist of things now, I'm sure you'll pick it up soon enough. Let's get into it.

Background

Three years ago, John Howard and his conservative government was returned for a fourth consecutive term, with the largest majority of his reign as well as control of both houses of parliament for the first time. The Labor opposition were led to their spectacular defeat by the unfailingly mental, taxi-driver-bashing Mark Latham. Curiously, the government ran on an almost policy-free platform. Realistically, Howard's main argument ended up being, "Well, you might not like me, but at least I'm not Latham." Unfortunately, he was probably right.

The aftermath saw three major effects for the country. Most obvious was the cherished control of the previously hostile Senate. For the first time, Howard would be able to shunt through any piece of legislation he saw fit, without the usual Senate (and, for that matter, public) scrutiny. As an unabashed hard-right conservative, no one was under any illusions that there would be some pretty extreme changes.

Next was the impact of the loss on the opposition. Latham, who made the decision to control almost every aspect of the campaign, effectively crumbled toward the end of the campaign and self-destructed shortly afterwards, then turned his back on the party and resigned both the leadership and his seat in parliament. The Labor party was in tatters, and with no obvious successor they again turned to past leader Kim Beazley, who started the process of rehabilitating the image of the party.

Third was the prospects for the next election. Almost every pundit in the country (myself NOT included) immediately claimed that it would be impossible for the opposition to win the next election, and that Labor's only chance was to accept that they would be in opposition for at least two terms, and to strategise accordingly.

To his credit, Beazley didn't take that advice. He made steady inroads against the government, and remained a vocal presence during the ideological drive in the first eighteen months of the new term, until he was deposed by new leader Kevin Rudd.

Since taking over from Beazley, Rudd has created something of a whirlwind around himself and has led every poll over the past few months, making a mockery of the predictions made after the 2004 defeat. On a two-party preferred basis (the most telling statistic in the Australian preferential voting system), Labor is currently ahead by a margin of around 54-46, give or take.

The Battlegrounds

The greatest fallacy in the modern democratic process is the concept of a universal electoral mandate. While the warring parties may offer policies in many areas, most elections come down to a few core points of difference. The 2007 election is no different, and will come down to three key issues.

Industrial Relations

Industrial relations is the rock that will win government in 2007. It has become the primary hot-button topic over the past few years, and the difference between the two parties is so pronounced that the electorate will have to decide based primarily on what the parties' respective platforms mean to them.

Howard has implemented the most extreme IR laws in the nations history, and has changed the balance greatly in favour of employers. As much as they would like to protest otherwise, the new regime is based on the presumption that employers should have almost complete control over the workplace, and the employees should either be prepared to accept whatever conditions an employer offers or find themselves another job.

Business groups have applauded the move, claiming that productivity will increase and the economy will grow faster. Unions, on the other hand, have predictably claimed that employees will be downtrodden and reduced to the status of indentured servants. The government has defended the regime based on the assumption that employers will be generally restrained and benevolent- and besides, if you are a good enough worker, why wouldn't your boss want to give you what you want to keep you on board?

The opposition has basically vowed to overturn the new regime, and move things back to something close to where they were a few years ago. As is typical of politicians, they have tacked on a few extra reforms to boot, leading to the accusation that they will allow the union movement to dictate terms to the detriment of the country.

The division is as simple as it is stark. If you think that the unions are the root of all evil in the country and that it is about time that lazy workers be made to earn their pay, you will vote to retain the current government. If the concept that employers will do the best by employees at the expense of possible extra profit elicits a healthy dose of scepticism, you will vote for the opposition. It is a polarising issue, and will decide a lot of votes.

Leadership

One of John Howard's core strengths has been the unequivocal control he has held over his government, and the way in which he has been viewed as a solid, strong, reliable leader in the electorate.

He didn't always enjoy such strength. Before winning government, he had been elected and deposed as his party's leader twice, and was widely derided in his own party as an unelectable relic of the past, where hyper conservative values held sway. When he was elected to lead the party for the third time, he was seen as the second best option in deference to his later deputy, Peter Costello.

His leadership was built on his ability to pull a rabbit out of his hat when it was needed most. His electoral strategy (and his propensity to bend the truth,- "children overboard" for example) won elections, and his colleagues took notice. The allure of government dissuaded any challenge.

His marginal seat strategy won the 1998 election (when he had a majority in the House of Representatives, despite the opposition winning 51% of the two-party preferred vote), and his deft handling (read: lying out of his slimy arse) of the MV Tampa affair won the 2001 election after trailing heavily just two weeks before the poll.

However, his lustre has faded in the past couple of years. After having a semblance of balance in governing over his previous terms, his image has taken a bit of a battering over the more extreme reforms of the past three years. The debacle that is the Iraq War (while Australia's contribution has been miniscule and hardly noticed globally, it has been a notable topic domestically) has come back to bite him, and the way in which he latched onto the coattails of the unpopular US President lost him a lot of electoral respect.

The other skeleton in the Prime Minister's closet is the speculation regarding his potential successor. The heir apparent, deputy Peter Costello, is almost unelectable, and should the opposition push the point that a vote for Howard is essentially a vote for a Prime Minister Costello, the government could be in trouble.

More than anything, Howard will have to counter the argument that he has run out of ideas after eleven years at the top. There have been suggestions that Howard's age and length of service will be a liability against the younger, more vibrant opposition leader.

On the other side, Kevin Rudd has taken to the opposition leadership with gusto. After unseating the venerable veteran Kim Beazley, he has created an image of being almost a "third way" leader, complimenting some government policies, while attacking the divisive issues. His polling has been remarkable in that he has maintained a lead that was initially written off as nothing more than a honeymoon period. He as worn a steady stream of attacks against his leadership and personality (not to mention his choice of wife), without suffering any of the expected slide in the polls.

Polling indicates that the is a real mood for a change in the electorate. If the Liberal Party strategists don't find a way to turn the focus onto the benefits of his experience rather than any perceived staleness of leadership, the Labor Party will be hard to beat.

Climate Change

While it won't influence nearly as many votes as the other two issues, the effect of climate change is going to still be a key issue. Public awareness is at an all time high, and being an issue that the Howard government has downplayed and ignored for the past decade, they are going to find it very difficult to score any points on the subject.

As the only country in the world aside from the US to refuse to sign the Kyoto Protocols, Howard has joined George Bush in his position that economic growth is a consequence of addressing climate change. With the recent prominence of the climate change debate, Howard has been forced into the position of needing to appear to be acting on climate change, without admitting that he may have been wrong to dismiss the issue in the past.

Howard's solution was to angle the country toward adopting nuclear power generation as the clean, green solution to the issue. For a man who has made cynical political manipulation an art form, Howard outdid himself with his method to achieve nuclear power generation.

Howard decided to form a committee to look into whether or not nuclear power is a positive path for the country. The man handpicked by the PM to chair the committee was a guy by the name of Ziggy Switkowski, the former Chairman of Telstra and current director of a company that was formed to lobby for and build nuclear power stations in Australia, as well as the current head of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. Obviously, there was little doubt as to the committees findings.

The opposition has made their distaste for nuclear power in Australia clear. Led by Shadow Environment Minister (and former Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett) they have been advocating alternative power generation methods such as clean coal and renewable resources. Also, they have promised to immediately ratify the Kyoto Protocols and rejoin the efforts of the international community.

The fact remains, though, that viewed in isolation neither party's policies will have much of an immediate environmental impact. Regardless, whichever party gains the most traction with their environmental platform will have a significant advantage in the polls.

Electoral Strengths

Liberal Party

Economic Credentials

Howard's greatest illusion has been the way that he has taken complete credit for the supposed economic prosperity of the country over the past few years. From the infamous "budget black hole" that they drove into the political lexicon soon after winning government in 1996, they have consistently managed to position themselves as the party with the greatest economic nous, against a supposed inability of the Labor Party in the area.

Frankly, the truth of the matter is somewhat different. The coalition has been quite astute in some areas of the economy, but they have been immeasurably helped by favourable global economic factors and reforms started under labour in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

None the less, the perception in the electorate is that the coalition are better economic managers than the opposition. This is going to be the key message in Howard's re-election campaign.

National Security and Border Protection

There is little doubt that Howard has been seen as a strong leader on security issues. He has aligned himself internationally to the Bush administration in the "war" against terror (and no, it's not a f-ing war, but that's an issue for another column), which has been an electoral goldmine over the past few years.

Unfortunately, as the tide of public opinion has slowly turned against the efforts around the world, Howard has lost currency on this issue. Should Howard suddenly be informed of conveniently-timed "credible threat" against the country, I have little doubt that it could be fortuitous for his re-election hopes. Hey- it worked once, remember?

Experience

The coalition is in the position of having a effective monopoly on ministerial experience on the respective front benches. Significantly, the three most powerful positions in the federal cabinet (Prime Minister, Treasurer and Foreign Affairs Minister) have been held by the same people since the coalition was first elected to govern in 1996. That's a combined three decades of experience on the big stage against the oppositions zero.

There is no doubt that the coalition will try to get mileage out of the disparity in experience between the two parties. Whether or not this will be successful is yet to be seen.

ALP

New Ideas, New Faces

Just how long can you have power before running out of new ideas? The sentiment that has been bandied around in the media that there is a real undercurrent amongst the public that the time for John Howard's coalition has come and gone, and that new blood is needed to run the country. Ironically, it has turned the political weakness of the opposition (that being their lack of experience) into something of a strength.

Kevin Rudd has been a bit of a revelation since assuming the leadership. He had a much more light-hearted, jocular image before taking the top job (thanks to some frankly inane morning TV exposure), and has translated that into a youthful "everyman" persona since, against the stoic, reserved statesman nature of the PM. Policies aside, that has been a large reason for his polling numbers.

The Small Target

When Kevin Rudd started building a lead in the opinion polls, the party line from the government that the polls were an inaccurate aberration, and that their support was still strong. After the poll results were consistently repeated over the following months, the government changed tack.

They started attacking Rudd with everything they had. Weeks of parliament time was spent laying into the opposition leader, and it was thought that this would dent his sudden popularity. It didn't- in fact, it didn't even make a scratch. The reason is that Rudd, unlike his predecessor Kim Beazley, wasn't around during the ALP's last term in government, and therefore couldn't be tarred by attacking the mistakes of the past. To put it plainly, the electorate sees Rudd as somewhat of a cleanskin.

This makes Rudd a very small target, which is a huge advantage in modern politics. Howard is the master of the negative campaign (as seen in the last election), but he has been shown that he doesn't have that option this time around. By taking Howard out of this comfort zone, he has neutralised some of the PM's strategic acumen.

Industrial Relations

This is Labor's core strength, and the issue that can deliver government.

There is little doubt that the WorkChoices IR laws are desperately unpopular with the community, which has been recognised and tacitly admitted by the government judging by the recent amendments. Howard didn't so much misjudge the opposition for the reforms as disregard it in his ideological pursuit.

The term "Howard's Battlers" was coined to represent the electoral support base of the coalition over the past ten years. The battlers were essentially the families with young children that relied on the various payments and tax breaks that Howard focused his attention on, as well as the wealth that was created by rising housing prices and economic growth. The problem is, those young families are a decade older, and parents are now looking at the future prospects of their children. Sending their kids into an environment where they will basically have no workplace rights has made them more than a little uneasy.

The fact is, these laws are bad and the electorate knows it. They may not agree with Labor's alternative, but it is seen as a better option than allowing the coalition to continue on their current path. This issue will be the cause of a real swing against the government.

And We're Done

I realise that I have barely scratched the surface so far, but I'll go further in depth in coming columns. Also, I will delve into some of the minor parties, as well as some of the marginal seats that will decide this election. Until then, be good, be happy and be safe.

Bracken.