A Tainted View Special 10.16.07: Australian Election Coverage
Posted by Andy Bracken on 10.16.2007
The election has finally been called, and both parties have hit the campaign trail in earnest. What promises have been made, who has made the first gaffes, and which marginal seats are going to fall?
Well, it has begun.
After a seemingly interminable phoney campaign, Australian Prime Minister John Howard visited the Governor-General on Sunday to ask permission to dissolve parliament before a federal election to be held on November 24. Now the REAL games start.
The interesting thing about the announcement is the length of the campaign. Six weeks is unusually long for a campaign, and has been openly admitted by Howard as a strategic decision. An extended campaign will give the government the opportunity to turn the screws on the Opposition, and in particular the Leader of the Opposition Kevin Rudd.
The government goes into this battle trailing quite badly. It has been months since they have been even close in the published opinion polls, with the lead ranging between ten and eighteen points. The last poll, published by Newspoll, claims an 12% advantage to the opposition.
The way things stand at the start of the campaign is that the opposition need a net gain of 16 seats across the country in order to form government.
Before we get into things, I want to comment on the fact that this will be the first Australian election campaign that truly embraces the power of the internet, particularly the video sharing media like youtube. Actually, I'll let our venerable PM explain it to you:
Heh. Yep- he's cool. He's hip. He's a twenty-first century kinda guy. He's youthful and in touch with the tech-savvy community.
I wouldn't pick him in a game of backyard cricket, though…
I know, I know- it's a cheap shot. Still pretty funny, though.
As for the "the government has done a great deal to make information accessible" crap? I would strongly suggest checking out this website, and the book that it promotes. Accessible information and this government are mutually exclusive concepts, I'm afraid…
I agree with him in one aspect, though- The internet IS going to be a factor in this campaign. As seen in the 2004 US Presidential election, the freedom of information that the net provides is truly a way to liberate information from the hands of the normally controlled environment that the major parties crave.
Besides, anything to get a bit of influence away from the Packer/Murdoch grasp is a good thing, right?
Let's get going…
The Marginal Seats
The last election provided an electoral triumph for the coalition. Led disastrously by the phenomenally unhinged Mark Latham, Labor was on the receiving end of a certifiable hiding, leading almost all leading commentators (not including my good self, I might add) to suggest that Labor needed to plan a two-term election strategy, as the deficit was just too much to reverse in three years.
The upside to the calamity that was Latham was that the margin between the two parties was somewhat inflated. The national two-party preferred spilt was 53-47 in favour of the government. To extrapolate the current poll situation, that margin has shifted to a 56-44 break against the government.
Conservatively, Labor could aim for a swing of around 7-8% nationally. Should those numbers hold up, the opposition would hypothetically be looking at a net gain of somewhere in the vicinity of 31 seats- more than enough to deliver government, and enough to facilitate a similar advantage as the government has enjoyed in this term.
Those figures, of course, assumes a nationally uniform margin, which, obviously, isn't going to happen. For that reason (not to mention the proven ability of Howard to conduct an effective marginal seat campaign, looking at the seats individually makes for a better analysis.
The first obvious Labor gains are the Tasmanian seats that were lost in 2004. These two seats, generally safe Labor electorates, were lost on the back of an asinine Tasmanian forestry policy on the part of Latham's Labor. Given the fact that Latham is but a distant memory, both of these seats (Braddon and Bass, held by 1.1% and 2.6% respectively) should return to Labor.
Another two seats which can be pencilled in as Labor gains are the two most marginal Queensland seats of Bonner (LIB 0.5%) and Moreton (LIB 2.8%). Recent polling in Queensland have indicated that both will fall easily, and the home state factor will only strengthen Rudd's claim.
Next on the list are a couple of Western Australian seats, Hasluck (LIB 1.8%) and Stirling (LIB 2.0%). Won on the back of the effective interest rates scare campaign in 2004, both are extremely precarious, especially considering the string of rate rises suffered by the mortgage belt since Howard promised to keep them low. Both of these seats should return to Labor, and by the same rationale the seats of Swan (ALP 0.1%) and Cowan (ALP 0.8%) should be retained by Labor, with an increased buffer.
The same holds true for a trifecta of South Australian seats- Kingston (LIB 0.1%), Makin (LIB 0.9%) and Wakefield (LIB 0.7%). All three sit with the government by obviously wafer thin margins, and should be easily swallowed by the opposition.
Looking at these seats brings into focus just how precariously the government's hold on office really is. Without looking at any seats above a margin of 3%, the opposition is, assuming my analysis is reasonably close, more than half way toward gaining enough seats to form government.
Two other seats to look at are a pair of New South Wales seats that have nominally changed after the last redistribution. Parramatta (nominally LIB 0.8%, but held by Labor) and Macquarie (nominally ALP 0.5%, but held by Liberal) have had their demographics shifted, but both should be Labor wins, giving them a net gain of one seat.
Two other markedly interesting NSW seats are Bennelong (LIB 4.1%) and Wentworth (LIB 2.5%). The curious fact about both seats is not simply the margins, but the sitting members- Bennelong is held by Prime Minister John Howard, and Wentworth is held by the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Malcolm Turnbull.
The shift of Bennelong from safe Liberal to marginal Liberal is a huge factor in this election. The shaky status of this seat means that Howard is going to have to spend a lot more time campaigning in his seat than he otherwise would have liked, especially when you look at the profile of his opponent, former ABC journalist Maxine McKew. McKew, with her public profile and obvious media access, is going to be a formidable challenger, and while I don't think she will ultimately get over the line, her efforts as a spoiler candidate are going to be extraordinarily valuable to the election hopes of the opposition.
The government has a huge challenge to hold Wentworth. While Malcolm Turnbull is a viciously ruthless operator, his seat is definitely on the chopping block, and his efforts to retain may end up having a negative effect on the rest of the national campaign. He will do whatever he can to cling on to the seat, and if he pushes too far (which, judging by the way that he deposed the former sitting Liberal member Peter King, is a distinct possibility) his status as a minister will lead to far more fallout than it did in 2004, when he was just a rookie candidate. My gut tells me that Wentworth will fall to Labor, with the preferences of the Greens being vital.
Assuming no Labor losses (which, I might add, is unlikely), that is 11 of the 16 seats that Labor need to form government. Also note that I haven't touched on Victorian or Territorian seats.
The message is that the government face a huge battle to retain government, and if they do, it will be at a drastically reduced margin in both houses.
When In Doubt, Go For The Wedge
You can always rely on the Howard government to say true to form…
THE Howard Government yesterday slammed the door shut on refugees from Africa.
Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said that no more Africans would be allowed into Australia under the humanitarian refugee program until at least July next year.
And he said there were no guarantees any Africans would be accepted in the next intake.
Announcing a move critics slammed as simplistic and inhumane, Mr Andrews said the program's quota for Africans had already been filled.
"We won't be considering any new applications until June or July next year," he said.
Australia has already accepted, or is processing, about 3900 Africans this year - 30 per cent of the total humanitarian refugee intake.
This quota was cut from 50 per cent in 2005-06 and 70 per cent in 2004-05, due to what Mr Andrews said were concerns about Africans' ability to integrate.
"Whether we leave it at 30 per cent or take it up or down will depend very much on whether we are having success in terms of their integration into the broader community, and what other humanitarian refugee needs there are around the world," he said.
Africans are being replaced in the program by Iraqi refugees from camps in Syria and Jordan and Burmese awaiting resettlement in camps in Thailand.
Mr Andrews said Africans, particularly Sudanese, had experienced serious problems settling in Australia.
"They tend to have more problems and challenges associated with them. Their level of education, for example, is a lot lower than for any other group of refugees," he said.
"They've been in war-torn conflict for a decade, many of them. Many are young and many have been in refugee camps for decades.
"It doesn't make much sense to me to acknowledge you have a problem but not actually slow down the rate of intake until you've dealt with it," he said.
Now, if only the Sudanese had been picked up by a Norwegian cargo ship, the government could have REALLY got some press…
There is no doubt that some problems exist in the integration of certain immigrants into society, and those that come from the more lawless regions of the world head that list. I also have no issue with the notion that the ability of refugees to integrate should be a major factor in the decision to accept or reject them.
My opinion on this issue is based on my view that the accepting refugees shouldn't negatively impact the society that receives them. Realistically, I think that there are some societies that have a limited capability of integrating into a community that is so drastically foreign to them, and that there are other countries that would provide a far better fit for them. The idea of humanitarian refugees is a noble one, and should lead to a situation where both the refugee and the society that accepts them benefits, rather than it being at the expense of that society. I also realise that my view on this topic leaves me open to being called xenophobic and racist. The accusation is baseless, but I understand that it is an accusation that can be made.
Narrowing that general opinion to the current situation, I have deep reservations about the wisdom of accepting large amounts of Somali refugees. Coming from an environment that has been ravaged by tribal warfare for years, the disparity between their native culture and that of Western society is massive, and far too great to be bridged within a generation. I realise that there is a need for them to flee their own country, but that need doesn't necessarily mean that they have to come here. I realise that it is a harsh assessment considering the environment that they are trying to escape, but in my view it is accurate.
Regardless, the biggest problem I have with the question of refugee intakes is that the issue is so heavily politicised. Using the fate of people trying to escape a war zone as a wedge to gain political points (which Kevin Andrews has undoubtedly done) is absolutely abhorrent, regardless of whether or not you agree with the ensuing policy. Just as the government did with Tampa, and just as they did with the Children Overboard affair, they are desperately trying to hang on to power with race politics. Governments should strive to close the wounds of society, rather than the Howard government's track record of doing everything they can to widen them.
The really sad part is that only an idiot would think that this would be the extent of the Howard government's race politicking in this election campaign. They aren't finished yet…
Lessons Learned
I've said it before, when it comes to electioneering, John Howard is certainly gifted. True, he hasn't met a fact he can't twist and distort, but he knows how to learn from past efforts, and he knows how to implement that knowledge.
During the 2004 election campaign, the Liberals ran a series of print, radio and TV advertisements with a less-than-flattering photo of Mark Latham superimposed over a ‘L' plate (the symbol of a learner driver on the road, for those unaware), referring to the fact that Latham had no experience in government and would therefore make a poor leader. There was no doubt that the adverts were reasonably effective, especially considering the personality of the target.
(Of course, the argument is pretty idiotic, as the vast majority of leaders of the opposition haven't been Prime Minister before- which is sort of the reason why they ARE the leader of the opposition…)
In the first day of this campaign, the same ads have been rolled out, this time with the current opposition leader's face in the place of Latham's. Whilst the impact of the adverts are yet to be seen, very few actually know where the idea for these ads came from.
Apparently, immediately prior to the 1996 election campaign (when Howard first gained power over the incumbent Keating government), the Liberal Party did some internal studies into likely ALP election strategies and how to best counter them. One of the more obvious areas where the Libs thought that the ALP would attack them was on the basis of experience, considering that the ALP had been in power for 13 years- obviously mirroring the current situation.
The Liberals produced crude mock-ups of possible ALP advertisements, using the same sort of images as the current Liberal adverts. They then screened these ads to test audiences in order to gauge their likely effectiveness, and what counter-measures they could implement to combat them. The results startled the Libs, and they found that not only would advertisements of than nature be damaging to the point that they would lose the election, but that none of their counter strategies would gain any traction. In other words, if the ALP had the same strategists, Howard would have lost.
Of course, the ALP didn't have anything similar, and the results are history. Just goes to show, politics isn't about being the best for the people, it is just about having the better electoral strategy. Then again, the fact that Howard has won so many elections is proof enough of that…
Unlike 1996, though, the ALP actually has a way of fighting back. Rudd has addressed the "L-plate adverts" head on, with what could be an effective response:
Hopefully, this is a sign that the ALP has found a strategist worth his salt. I guess that anyone would be better than in 2004, when the campaign was controlled lock, stock and barrel by Latham.
At Last!
You know, I will never understand why it took so long for the ALP to fight back on the government's favourite scare campaign tactic, the level of interest rates.
For years, the Libs have tried to claim the high ground on interest rates, pointing the rates under the previous Labor government as proof that if you vote for Labor, rates will automatically rise. Aside from the fact that the higher rates under Labor were largely a result of world conditions, rather than domestic ones, it is indisputable that the highest rates in recent history actually happened under the Fraser Liberal government, while the Treasurer was a certain John Winston Howard.
Finally, the ALP has decided to hit back at the government, releasing this advertisement:
Nothing like showing the country that the emperor doesn't have a stitch of clothes on, eh?
Strategy Number One: Vote For Us, And We'll Give You Free Cash!
The big policy announcement on the first day of the campaign proper came during a joint press conference with the leadership "team" (and I use that term in the loosest possible way) of Howard and Costello. While announcing the results of the mid-year budget review, Howard passed over to the Treasurer to detail his five year plan for income tax reform.
THE Government has unleashed its first big hit of the federal election campaign, announcing a plan to restructure the tax system to lower tax rates and raise the tax-free threshold.
Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello have announced the plan, which would take effect over five years - well into a second term if Mr Costello became prime minister.
The plan would see the tax-free threshold raised to $14,000 next year, while the lowest tax rate would kick in on earnings over $34,000.
In following years, the top tax rates would be lowered while the tax-free threshold would be lifted again.
Mr Costello has said the goal of the restructure was to arrive at a tax-free threshold of $20,000 and for there to be only four marginal tax rates, with the top rate set at 40 cents in the dollar.
Now, as far as tax reform goes, there is very little that is revolutionary in this plan. Basically, they are just going to drop rates for everyone, and are using the vast budget surpluses in order to pay for it. A few aspects of the reforms, though, are quite interesting.
The downside of wholesale tax cuts is the impact on interest rates, which is going to be a major stumbling block for the government. Tax cuts of this scale will undoubtedly mean upwards pressure on the official rates, but the government has cleverly tried to minimise the electoral impact by making the tax cuts effective down the line. Any immediate cuts could influence the Reserve Bank into raising rates this month, and needless to say, a rate rise during the election campaign is effectively a torpedo for Howard and his crew.
Trust me on this one- Howard and Costello will do ANYTHING to make sure that the Reserve doesn't raise rates when they meet next. They both know how much damage a rate rise will do to their chances of re-election.
Frankly, I don't agree with the notion that Australians pay too much income tax. My view is that taxation is the price you pay to live in a functioning society. The cost of the proposed tax cuts will reach $34 billion dollars over the next five years, which could be used far better as a social dividend in the areas of education and health- areas in which the Howard regime as absolutely decimated over the past decade.
Income tax reform should, at the moment, be limited to addressing bracket creep and nothing else. For a large segment of the population, income tax is offset greatly by the vast tracts of middle class welfare that have been introduced by the government in recent years (which, frankly, makes a mockery of Howard's claims to have reduced the welfare costs of the country- in effect, they have merely shifted a lot of the expenditure from the lower class to middle and upper class) to the extent where the net taxation of a lot of families is significantly reduced.
The announcement was, however, a well planned first shot by the government. Detailing a major policy on the morning of the first day of the campaign was an astute tactical move, and put the government on the front foot early.
The government hasn't wasted this opportunity, either. Costello has immediately demanded a response from the opposition, claiming that not replying in detail within a day shows a lack of tax policy on the part of the ALP. Needless to say, that is a silly claim to make, but it does give them a sound bite to cling onto for a couple of days.
I would have a big problem with Labor if the DID respond so quickly. Taxation is a major part of a party's platform, and it takes more than a day to properly formulate a plan. I would bet good money that Costello's team spent more than a day coming up with THEIR policy.
On another note, I actually watched this press conference live as part of my busy schedule of watching cable and working on my truck, and the performance of the two senior leaders of the Liberals.
Peter Costello was decidedly awful. He actually announced to the press that he had forgotten to bring his own copy of the policy press kit with him, and had to ask his staff to grab one so he could respond to questions. His delivery was incredibly dull, resembling a monotone drone rather than a dynamic policy announcement. He wasn't engaging in the slightest, and caught himself gazing at the slideshow while stuttering along more than once. Also, not once during the entire presentation did Howard look at Costello. These two hate each other, and I am pretty sure that they have given up trying to hide that fact.
Howard wasn't a great deal better. During the press questions, he absolutely snapped at journalists a couple of times, even accusing one of them of getting their information from an ALP policy meeting when he didn't like the question. I know he's on this "I don't care if you don't like me, but you know how I roll" kick, but coming across as a grumpy old man isn't going to do his chances any favours.
I will be interested to see how Labor respond, but I don't expect it anytime soon.
Land Ahoy
The first major policy announcement from the opposition for the campaign has been a response to the burgeoning problem of the inaccessible market for first home owners.
Federal Labor Leader Kevin Rudd has pledged to unlock $6 billion worth of Commonwealth land for housing if the ALP wins government.
Mr Rudd chose former Labor leader Mark Latham's old seat of Werriwa in Sydney's mortgage belt to unveil plans to force government departments to justify why their surplus land should not be released for housing and community use.
"So we want a new Commonwealth housing policy, a new Commonwealth land release policy and one which will unlock this $6 billion worth of land," he said.
"What we would require is each year every Commonwealth Government department to come back to the Minister for Housing and say 'here is the surplus land we have' and show cause why it should not be released for housing development and wider community infrastructure development."
The pre-election pledge adds to previous Labor commitments to introduce tax credits to encourage developers to invest in low-cost housing and a fund to ease infrastructure costs.
Prime Minister John Howard has dismissed the Labor initiative as yet another replicate of the Coalition's policy.
"Really he is just following us again, I mean the whole idea of having an audit of land was Mr Costello's idea," he said.
"Thank you Mr Rudd, for imitation is a very sincere form of flattery we thank you very, very warmly again but that was Peter's idea."
But Ron Silberberg from Housing Industry Association says the Labor plan is a positive move.
"Currently the disposal act requires the Commonwealth to get the maximum for surplus Commonwealth property so it could end up being utilised for anything," he said.
"So in the interest of having more affordable housing it's a valuable step."
Now, I would suggest that Howard is being slightly disingenuous about the genesis of this policy.
Granted, Costello did announce a one-time audit for some government departments, so that excess land could be identified and released. They have never, to my knowledge, committed to a regular review process, in order to continually maintain reasonable land prices.
This is the difference between electioneering and sound, effective policy. The government, having had years to come up with a strategy to maintain reasonable house prices and first home market accessibility, left it until the problem is almost insurmountable before releasing a token strategy. The opposition have extended that idea into a genuine solution to the excessive house prices.
Not to mention, however, the fact that Howard and Costello have actually tried to get electoral mileage out of the recent boom in house prices. People who were in the market early enough have made a killing on their property values, at the expense of the bottom end of the market, who find themselves priced out of the housing market for life.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again here- if a couple with a kid or two, both on full time incomes, can't afford to buy their own home, then that is a failing of government, not a success. It is just another example of the "I'm alright, so to hell with everyone else" attitude that the Howard government has preyed upon in order to retain power. They have consigned a whole generation to being in the rental market for the rest of their life, as well as their children and grandchildren, which, in this election, is coming back to bite them. So, as they have a want to do, they release a superficial policy that papers over the problem in the short term, while doing nothing to actually solve the issue.
I realise that other countries have the same issue, but the one major difference is that it is totally unnecessary in Australia. The drastic increase in land prices, in a country that has more land than we could ever use, is baffling. Even country town land prices, where the demand should be low and the supply should be phenomenal, have shot through the roof. Whereas previously a family could consider moving out of the city in order to enter the market, that option is just not available.
Labor's policy is very, VERY good. It addresses a major problem in a way that is comprehensive, well thought out and effective, and should be applauded. I would also suggest that it is going to be a true vote-winner.
Quick Hits
The mid year budget review has shown that the total amount of taxpayers money spent on publicising government IR propaganda reached $121 million.
Predictably, Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey has defended the obscene waste under the pretence of "informing the public", despite the fact that while they spent $55 million promoting the "WorkChoices" brand, they then spent $66 million trying to distance themselves from the tag.
Sorry Joe, but there is a huge difference between an information campaign and wasteful propaganda- and that line was crossed well over a year ago. These adverts (particularly the most recent run) used party opinion as the basis, rather than impartial advice. The fact that these adverts were funded by my tax dollars is abhorrent.
Rudd has asked for three debates throughout the campaign, using three different venues and three different formats. Howard has tried to sidestep this request, as well as putting certain pre-conditions on the debates including getting rid of the much loved "worm" from the broadcast. Other little conditions included having the debate moderated by the outrageously pro-government Sky News channel (which, aside from stacking the deck has no merit at all, considering the fact that there are plenty of free-to-air personalities that would be more credible to the vast majority of non-pay TV households), and having no time limits to answers.
A single debate just a week into the campaign is as ridiculous as it is pointless. Having the debate before most of the major policies have been released is nothing more than a cynical attempt at controlling any scrutiny of policy, leaving Howard to converse with the public in his favourite forum, the carefully controlled and vetted talkback radio atmosphere.
Rudd needs to stick to his guns here. If Howard doesn't relent, Rudd needs to absolutely hammer the point home that Howard is scared to debate Rudd in anything resembling a neutral environment. The electoral damage that he would cause the government is immense, and would resonate greatly across the electorate.
John Howard has already made his first gaffe of the campaign. When asked some quick questions about the official interest rates, he fouled up the answer, claiming that the rates were 6.25%, rather than the correct answer, 6.5%.
Normally, I would deride any attempt by the opposition to make political mileage out of what is really an innocuous blunder, but the fact is that Howard has dug his own grave on this one. When Rudd made a similar error a few weeks ago (regarding income tax rates), the government was quick to jump on it, using the mistake as some kind of justification for their views on Rudd's economic credibility. With this in mind, I would suggest that Howard can eat a bit of humble pie over this, and remember not to try and make something out of nothing in the future.
And We're Done
That'll do for today. I'll be back in the next few days to continue the coverage of the election, where we'll look at the phenomenon of electoral betting markets and their accuracy, as well as whatever else is happening in the campaign.
Keep in mind, I welcome your thoughts, whether you agree with me or not. Click the link below to send me your thoughts.
STAY CURRENT