A Tainted View 11.21.07: Australian Election Coverage
Posted by Andy Bracken on 11.21.2007
In the final week of the campaign, both sides are pulling out the stops to shore up their vote. This week we look at reasons to vote for the coalition, desperation politics and hidden policies.
You know, I didn't realise just how long a five week campaign would feel.
Here's a little useless information for you. Usually, when I write these things, I don't sit down and do the whole thing in one long session. Generally, I write it in several different pieces when the various stories break, and then tie everything together just before I submit it.
Last week was the same. I had a good three-quarters of the thing written, and when I came to finish it off, I realised just how uninteresting the previous week had actually been. No earth-shattering promises, no major gaffes, no revolutionary new initiatives, and no major poll movements. Just the same few talking heads hammering the same few talking points. So I scrapped it.
But now we have entered the final week of the campaign, so things have definitely started heating up. There is less than a week until what is possibly the most important poll of the past three decades, and the gloves are well and truly off.
One thing I'll say before I start, though: I have been amazed by the level of feedback that I have received since I started covering the election. Even more amazing is the quality of that feedback. Aside from the obligatory "union stooge" nonsense, most of the response has actually been pretty well considered. Reader feedback is like heroin for web writers, so the volume of interesting responses has been a pleasant surprise.
As much as anything, I think that this feedback is indicative of the mood of the electorate as a whole. As sad as this fact is, most elections turn into white noise for the public, with two barely-distinguishable sides making promises that we know they aren't going to keep, and the belief that the average life won't change much regardless of who wins. This year is different.
This election is about strongly held, diametrically opposed opinions. There is a clear point of different between the two parties, and there are two identifiably different leaders to choose from. It is a nice change, and one that is a long time coming.
One other thing- last week, Brandon Crow asked me to contribute to an international version of 411 Politics Fact or Fiction. I made a complete goose of myself, writing that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf would never relinquish control of his military, only to find a few days later (but before the column was posted) that he announced that he would do that very thing.
Many thanks to Mr. Crow, who pointed this timeline out in the column, but I'm still pretty comfortable with what I said. Fair enough, he will step down as the nominal head of the army- but I have no doubt that his successor won't be much more than a puppet. In my view, it will still prove to be no more than a superficial change.
Either that, or I completely tanked it and got it wrong. I'm happy being wrong every now and then.
Let's get into it.
Why You Should Vote Liberal
If you believe that it is entirely acceptable for a government to pass workplace relation laws, and then publicly support a company that blatantly breaks those laws in order to sack their union workforce and replace them with non-union workers on far less pay- you should vote Liberal.
If you think that is similarly acceptable for the government to promote the use of the Australian Army in order to facilitate this illegal act- you should vote Howard.
If you think that it is acceptable for a government to act in direct contravention of international law, merely to use the fallout from that intervention as a way of fleecing the public and winning an election- you should vote Liberal.
If you think that invading a foreign country on the basis of demonstrably false pretences, without any thought for how to achieve victory, with a force that is numerically insignificant to the alliance that you have joined, which has dramatically increased the risk of foreign terrorism at home is a prudent government policy, you should vote Liberal.
If you think that it is acceptable to partake in this invasion, with he only real goal being to promote your party leader as some sort of poor man's international statesman- you should vote Liberal.
If you believe that there really ISN'T another wave of WorkChoices ready to go, considering that the government has blatantly broken promises previously (GST? Never EVER!), has senior ministers (including the nominated heir-apparent) who have confirmed that more reforms are coming, after the government has fought tooth and nail for these plans to be hidden from the public, and who brought about the current WorkChoices regime without telling voters before the election, you should vote Liberal.
If you don't think that, after Howard retires, the standard rationale for breaking any and all election promises (ESPECIALLY the "no WorkChoices II" nonsense) WON'T be "but that was Howard's promise- not mine"- you should vote Liberal.
If you think that a government that champions the interests of the biggest of big business is more representative than one that defends the common worker- you should vote Liberal.
If you believe that a government that decreases it's spending in education, against the trend set by EVERY other OECD nation and against the backdrop of a potentially crippling skills shortage, is making a responsible investment in our nation's future, you should vote Liberal.
If you think that a potential Prime Minister that has committed to taking ownership of the health problems in this country, rather than one who has created the problems only to try and gain political capital by passing blame onto the states, is not the better choice for the leadership of our country, you should vote Liberal.
If you agree that the Prime Ministership of this country should be treated as an indulgent, glorified retirement lap, rather than as the most important job of the country, you should vote Liberal.
If you think that a government that has spent the last decade telling us that there IS no skills shortage, and that there IS no housing crisis, and that there IS no climate change has suddenly had a change of heart and now wants to fix these most pressing problems (rather than just opportunistically trying to bluff some votes), you should vote Liberal.
If you think that a government that sold you on the faulty premise that privatising our greatest assets (like Telstra, fr'instance), and then sold you shares on the premise that you will have a well-performed, secure investment- only to see half the value of those shares disappear in a few years- has done the right thing by you and the country, you should vote Liberal.
If you believe that the federal government should usurp power from the states when it suits them, but refuse to do so when it would curtail their ability to blame the states for the Commonwealth's shortcomings, you should vote Liberal.
If you think that it is acceptable for your children to work under an employment system that allows their employer to fire them for whatever reason they deem necessary- you should vote Liberal.
If you believe in a quality of government that actively restricts information from being revealed to the public and actively does everything possible to keep it's citizens in the dark- you should vote Liberal.
If you think that Peter Costello, one of the driving forces behind WorkChoices, a man who has gone on record as saying that workers shouldn't have any protections AT ALL (besides a common minimum wage) and the darling of the extreme H.R. Nicholls Society is a reasonable choice to be our next Prime Minister, you should vote Liberal.
If you think that the idea that all young people should be able to realistically aspire to home ownership on average incomes is unrealistic or undesirable- you should vote Liberal.
If you think that it is perfectly reasonable for a government to differentiate between election promises that they intend to keep ("core" promises) and ones that they have absolutely no intention of keeping ("non-core" promises) without letting the public know before the election which promises fall into which category- you should vote Liberal.
If you think that it is acceptable to protect our democratic freedoms by removing our democratic rights- you should vote Liberal.
If you accept that a government that is filled with highly-paid merchant bankers and lawyers is a better representative of the average citizen's interests than a government filled with people who have dedicated their working lives to protecting the average worker- you should vote Liberal.
If you believe that dismantling an effective public health system with a more expensive, less efficient and less effective one (based on nothing but ideology) is sound policy, you should vote Liberal.
If you think that the solution to our shortage of doctors is to import some from overseas, rather than training more students in our universities, you should vote Liberal.
If you think that it is appropriate for a government to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars on political advertising, then you should vote Liberal.
If you agree that the 17% interest rates under a past ALP government is relevant, but the 22% rates under the economic guidance of the current Prime Minister are irrelevant, you should vote Liberal.
If you think that a religious ideologue is the best person to make medical decisions in a secular democracy- you should vote Liberal.
If you think that the level of interest rates under the previous Labor government is relevant, but the level of interest rates under John Howard's economic leadership before that is irrelevant- you should vote Liberal.
If you think that is it acceptable for a government to lie about people throwing their kids into the ocean in order to win an election campaign, and then refuse to accept responsibility for such a blatant and disgusting lie- you should vote Liberal.
If you agree that our foreign policy should be subservient to one of our allies, rather than be seeking to be an influence to them, you should vote Liberal.
If you think that the above doesn't reflect your wishes or the best interest of your family, vote Labor. It's not a difficult decision to make.
Party Launches
Last week saw the curious anomaly of the official party launches that occurred weeks after the actual start of the campaign.
As strange as it may sound, there is a very important reason for the official launches being held so deep into the campaign. Under parliamentary convention, every sitting candidate has their travel and accommodation expenses paid by the taxpayer right up until the official launch. After that, those costs have to be born by the candidate themselves, or by the party that they represent. Needless to say, this is just another way that politicians have found to deliver a stiff one up the derriere of the public. Big shock.
I managed to catch the majority of both the Liberal and the ALP launches. The first thing to say about both is that campaign launches are mind-numbingly boring at the best of times. They are delivered to a room full of the party faithful, and as such are frequently interspersed with rapturous rounds of applause as a response to even the most mundane announcement.
The Liberal Party launch, predictably, bored me to tears. After the extraordinary spending spree that made up the 2004 launch, the 2007 version promised to be much of the same. With this in mind, there was only one policy area that held any curiosity for me- housing affordability.
As has been the case with a lot of the hot-button issues in this campaign, the housing affordability crisis has been an issue whose existence has been flatly denied by the government right up until the last few months.
The government's answer was to propose new home saving accounts, that would enjoy tax breaks and possible government contribution. The kicker is that the accounts would be set up and funded by the parents and grandparents of the eventual recipient.
There is another term that is used to refer to these accounts in other sections of the world- trust funds. Essentially, the government is proposing to create a place for the more affluent members of the community to place some of their excess cash, with favourable tax benefits and the ability for the money to be withdrawn at any time after the recipient turns 18.
The obvious question is this: what about the other part of the community? You know, the part that is currently struggling right now, and who doesn't have the disposable income to put money away for their offspring?
If you want to know just why I have such a pent-up dislike for Howard and his crew of dill holes, take a look at these sorts of initiatives. They are masters at creating a policy that only benefit's the big end of town (and that completely disregard those that have suffered most from their policies), mask it as something that will solve the very problems that they have created, and then scream "class warfare" whenever their motives are questioned. They flatly refuse to means test any of these initiatives, and make a mockery of their claims of suppressing welfare dependence. They merely redirect that welfare, from those on the bottom rungs of society to those a few steps further skyward.
The speech itself was, as would be expected, very flat. Regardless of who actually wins this election, it has become incredibly apparent that Howard has lost whatever dynamic delivery that hey may have previously enjoyed. He has turned into a dull, monotone, finger-wagging old man, and he is far from being a captivating oratorical presence. He is definitely not an engaging speaker.
Rudd was much better. Granted, given my support for his candidacy, I am going to be much more receptive to a Rudd presentation than a Howard one, but Rudd delivered a speech that while not great, had a period of ten or fifteen minutes that was incredibly engaging. It was flat to begin with, and sadly fell away somewhat towards the end, but there was a definite high spell that the Prime Minister couldn't match.
I managed to sit down and take a few notes during the ALP launch. I didn't get the chance to do the same for the Libs version, for which I am eternally grateful. That wouldn't have done any of us any good. So, for those who are interested, the following are my live notes, commentary and reaction from the ALP campaign launch.
ALP Launch
- Things are starting late. They are blaming mysterious "technical glitches", but I am assuming that they are finishing the speech. If things aren't nailed down this late into proceedings, they could have some issues. Definitely not ideal, particularly after roasting Abbott for showing up late to the health debate a couple of weeks ago.
- They introduce Rudd's family. Maybe it's just me, but I would suggest that he tell his girl that if she's going to be a focal point of a national TV launch, she should either wear a more modest top of stop heaving her breasts so vigorously. Just a tip…
- John Faulkner is hosting it. On his BEST day, Faulkner is unbelievably dull. Today isn't his best day.
- Why does Faulkner always look like he is suffering from the results of a bad vindaloo?
- Christina Anu is going to sing the national anthem. Sheesh. There's a reason why she hasn't had a hit in the last decade, you know. Usually, she only gets wheeled out when someone wants her to sing that "Island Home" atrocity. In comparison, the national anthem is a musical feast.
- They should have got that guy who sings the anthem to the tune of the "Gilligan's Island" theme. Can you imagine how many outraged RSL douches would have been front and centre on Today Tonight afterwards.
- Anna Bligh is next to speak. Why is she trying to turn this into HER re-election speech? Stop crapping on about Queensland, for crying out loud. Put a politician in front of a microphone and they just can't help themselves.
- Next up is Gillard. You know- she is apparently a genuinely sharp mind, but she sounds like a formal version of Kath and Kim.
- Now she's asking us to imagine a scenario where she is getting out of bed and pulling on her robe. Well, there goes any thought of a hearty lunch. Julia Gillard in her smalls is not a mental picture that I want to ever be subjected to again. Could be worse, though. Could be Vanstone. Brrrrrr…
- She is doing reasonably well, though. Strong message, nothing too out there. She is doing her job. Have a bit of a say, and build up for Rudd.
- Now to a Rudd montage. I wonder if he's taken his smug suppressants today?
- OK. Enough of the montage already.
- ENOUGH OF THE FUCKING MONTAGE!
- Thank you.
- Jesus crap- Gillard has one hell of a schnozz on her. No wonder she avoids the side profile pics. Don't get me wrong, I fully realise that it makes no difference to her ability as a leader, but a family of five could shelter under that thing. One way to solve the housing crisis.
- Rudd takes the stage, and is received as though he was a rock star. He starts out by taking three cheap pops about being in his home electorate, in his home city, and in his own state. We know where you're from, Kev- get on with business.
- Good start. Spelling out the basic reasons why we need change. Concise and to the point.
- Having a nice crack at Costello and WorkChoices. Go get ‘em.
- Much smaller auditorium than the Libs. That is definitely a mistake, it seems like the Libs held a major rally, while the ALP one seems like a guest lecture in comparison. Silly strategic move.
- He's really going after the lack of a mandate for WorkChoices. A very nice line about not mentioning WorkChoices at the Libs policy launch, too.
- Oh god. Of all the things to channel Howard on. Kevin, mate- trust me on this- no good speech begins with "when I was young…" Mercifully, the story was brief.
- NICE! He's explaining why work choices is bad for business. Excellent idea, and one that hasn't been fleshed out anywhere near as much as it should have been. It makes the argument against the policy that much more complete.
- "We will abolish work choices and AWAs." There's the soundbite for the news.
- Rudd's explaining how the Libs are out of touch, using quotes from Lib ministers. He's really taking it to them. This is how to beat the Howard government- just keep feeding them rope, and then hang them with their own words.
- He isn't delivering the speech as well as he has done in the past. He seems a bit more stuttery than usual, and is quite obviously reading from a couple of teleprompters at 10 o‘clock and 2 o‘clock. He's started a little nervously.
- Now he starts sticking the boots in. He knows that he has support, and he is using the goodwill from that support well.
- Wow- that takes some balls. "I will not mimic Howard's spending spree". "I will heed the warnings of the RBA, unlike Howard". "I will not hurt mortgage holders". Ripping Howard on reckless spending, and telling him it will stop is a fine strategy and a great selling point. He is really demonstrating that Howard is trying to spend his way out of trouble, and pointing out why it is bad for people. Go on, son.
- I spoke too soon regarding his delivery. He looks like he's about to start swinging at people. Very intense, very believable.
- This is, for my money, the defining quote of this election" "The buck will stop with me". The country has been waiting for someone to say that, particularly on health. He is really starting to ramp up. Good for him.
- We're on health now. He is detailing each individual problem with the health system, and then detailing his policy to fix it. It is very believable, and breaks his overall health policy down into small enough points to relate to even the most stupid voters.
- First real wedge issue- ratifying Kyoto. I would think that this would be a point for the Libs to attack.
- Now carbon targets. And renewable energy. Ho hum.
- Rudd has the "eye of the tiger" thing going on. I get the feeling that he knows that he can win the election right here. All bias aside, he is kicking arse. He has a hell of a speechwriter.
- Now for the biggie- education. He can literally win this right now if he nails it.
- His triumph is that he is effectively linking a problem with a policy that is designed to solve it. He is offering solutions that the average Joe will relate to. It is a far better way of communicating his message than simply taking the macro approach. The downside is that it makes him a bigger target
- He definitely has his own education policy. Lots of training places, lots of answers, lots of solutions. This education revolution thing, while somewhat idealistic, is a very sound platform.
- Droning on a bit, though. The pep has faded away a bit. Hopefully, the end of the speech is nigh, otherwise he is going to lose the impact of his message.
- Wishing his missus a happy anniversary. Give her a wink, dawg.
- Rounding things out now. Overall, he has been pretty impressive.
- And he's finished. Not bad at all. He lost the intensity towards the end there, but he chopped the dull bit down pretty well.
- Is he going to thank everyone in the auditorium personally?
- Lame exit. Raising his arms with a silly smile. Looked like a frigging tool. They should have cut away while he was shaking hands with the masses, rather than this. You're not f-ing Rocky, Kevin.
So, there you go. Started slow, punched on through the middle, and fell away a bit at the end. All in all, he did more than he had to do to maintain his lead.
Eligibility Overboard!
You just knew that something like this was coming, didn't you?
One thing that Howard can't be accused of is wanting to win a fair fight. He has made shady electioneering into an art form, and has shown himself to be a master at lying his way into office. There was the Tampa nonsense and the Children overboard nonsense, and most of us were waiting for the 2007 edition.
THE Liberal Party has claimed 13 Labor candidates are ineligible to stand in Saturday's federal election.
Melbourne's Herald-Sun has reported the shock development threatens to create a major distraction for Kevin Rudd's run to the poll.
According to Liberal Party headquarters, the 13 hopefuls are all ineligible because they failed to resign from Commonwealth jobs before nominating for parliament.
Under the relevant legislation, a candidate can only validly nominate for Federal Parliament if they no longer hold an office of profit under the Crown.
Legal advice suggests the ALP candidate for Wentworth, George Newhouse, may be ineligible for parliament and has compounded the problem by refusing to release relevant documentation.
Twelve other ALP candidates may be similarly affected, the Liberals claim.
This includes Victorian candidate for McKewen, Rob Mitchell, who the Liberal Party claims may still be employed as a senior adviser to the Brumby state government.
The others named by the Liberals are: Tony Zappia (Makin, SA), Yvette D'ath (Petrie, Qld), Peter Conway (ACT senate), Shayne Neumann (Blair, Qld), Garry Parr (Hinkler, Qld), Alan Neilan (Kennedy, Qld), Sharon Thiel (Kalgoorlie, WA), Belinda Neil (Robertson, NSW), Mark Buttugieg (Cook, NSW), Ross Daniels (Ryan, Qld), Mark Reynolds (Tangney, WA).
You may be wondering how the Libs came to learn about these supposed indiscretions. The "evidence" that they have comes from the fact that some websites haven't been updated to remove the candidates from their staff lists. THAT is what the Libs are basing this on.
Seriously. This is about as desperate a move as I've seen in Australian politics.
Let's get this out of the way nice and early. I have absolutely no doubt that all of those candidates are perfectly eligible, and have nominated within the relevant legislation. Considering I have absolutely no legal training whatsoever, and I have only a cursory knowledge of the act, it sounds like a big call, right?
Legal opinion on this matter has been pretty consistent. Even if they can't provide dated letters of resignation, most of the states provide a mechanism whereby a public servant's position is automatically resigned when they nominate. This is a beat up, and is the Libs' attempt at Tampa-ing this election. Unfortunately, there is definitely going to be a segment of the population that will fall for it.
Besides, I doubt that the party machine is that stupid.
That said, what happens if I am wrong? During the election, absolutely nothing. The candidates are still on the ballot, and their votes will still count. If their eligibility is challenged after the election (which, along with challenging the result, is the right of any elector) the AEC will investigate it and make a final decision. Should they decide that the winner was in fact ineligible, they will hold a by-election, where all of the original candidates can re-nominate. Thus, it matters very little. Besides, I know for a fact that at least one of the supposedly ineligible candidates resigned his or her position in plenty of time.
It should also be noted that the Liberal Party has declined to refer any of this to the AEC for investigation. The only opinion on this comes from Andrew Robb, the pre-eminent party apparatchik for the federal Libs. Funny that…
Coincidence? You be the Judge
Strangely enough, the non-story about campaign eligibility broke just days after possibly the most damaging story to hit the Libs during this campaign. Since 2005, the Seven Network has been fighting a Freedom-of-Information case against the government involving documents that showed the planned next wave of Industrial Relations reforms.
The government, after seeing the massive backlash against their WorkChoices regime, they shelved the further plans, ostensibly for good.
(In response to that, I would point to another occasion where a plan was put in to the "never ever" file. Remember when the GST would "never be a part of Liberal Party policy. Yep- me too. They WILL take WorkChoices further. Anyone who doubts that is a common fool.)
Anyway, the FOI request was turned down, and the government has fought tooth and nail to prevent their release under appeal. The fact that the government wouldn't release documents that DIRECTLY contradict their campaign promise, and the fact that they have fought tooth-and-nail to make sure that they remain hidden, is nothing short of a cover up. The sad thing is that this is neither out of character nor is it any surprise. It is merely standard operating procedure for this government.
So, for those of you that are following along, the past week or so went like this: first, the Commonwealth auditor delivers a report that brought questions about the political use of public funds in a regional grants scheme. Then news breaks about the government lying about their plans to implement even more extreme IR laws. After all of this, miraculously the Libs find "evidence" that ALP candidates don't have the right to stand for election.
The government has given up on trying to win the election on policy, and are now trying to have the winning side excluded. Don't fall for it.
Predictions
A few weeks ago, I took the step of putting my predictions for the outcome of this election on record, maintaining that the new parliament will have a house that is controlled by the ALP, by a margin of 12 seats. I picked the ALP to win 81 seats, the coalition to get 67, and two independent.
You may also have noticed that not a single mainstream pundit has had the sack to make such detailed predictions, or at least made THEIR predictions known. As I have explained previously, there is a good reason for this: pundits don't like to have to admit that they were completely wrong. They make broad generalisations, and if their general predictions fail to come to fruition, they leave themselves room to back away without losing face.
I still stand by my prediction. That said, I am definitely willing to admit that there is a range of results that are still certainly possible.
If the polls hold up, then my margin will be pretty close. As I expected, the two-party preferred vote has tightened to around 54-46, which lines up pretty well with the 53-47 that I expected. There is absolutely no chance that the Libs will get over the line on 2PP votes.
That doesn't mean that they can't win government. The way that the electorates are divided, it is conceivable that the Libs could retain government with something like 48.5% of the 2PP vote, providing that they get the vote in the right electorates. I will call it right now- if the government is returned, they will do so on the back of a minority 2PP vote. Not a question in my mind.
As for the actual result, I think that the range of possible results go from a slight coalition majority (no more than four to six seats), through a hung parliament, to a landslide ALP win. I think it is a certainty that the coalition will have a net loss of seats, with only two or three possible gains across the country and with at least ten likely (actually, almost CERTAIN) losses.
Look at it this way. There is literally only two realistic liberal gain in the country, those being the Western Australian seats of Cowan and Swan. For Cowan (a marginal ALP seat with a 0.8% margin) and Swan (ALP by 0.1%) to fall, the most optimistic poll numbers for WA have to be exceeded. The only other seats that are comparably close are Hindmarsh (ALP 0.1%) and Macquarie (ALP 0.5%), which are both in states (SA and NSW respectively) where the ALP poll numbers are strongest. There is always a chance of something strange happening, but they are essentially safe.
I have heard that some pollsters have quoted an undecided figure of around 20% right up until polling day, based on past elections. I highly doubt that those numbers will hold up this year, for reasons that I have mentioned before. I would suggest that less than 10% of voters would fit that bill, which suggests to me the range of possible results that I have predicted above.
Again, I am certainly not trying to back away from my earlier predictions- on the contrary, I think that they still represent the most likely outcome. Stranger things have happened, though.
And We're Done
Well, that's it from me. Unless something out of the ordinary happens later in the week, I won't be back until after the election this Saturday.
On Saturday, I plan on visiting the polling booth early in the day, and then settling down in front of the television for the live election coverage with a few bourbons and the wife. I know- romantic, right?
I'll be back early next week with my report on the election results and related shenanigans, possibly in the form of a "live" style report. Until then, keep safe.
STAY CURRENT