Of all the things which most frustrate about the Albanese government is the tendency of ministers to fall into a form of paralysis the moment it meets any sort of organised opposition, particularly from lobbies of the rich and powerful.
Even when negative reaction has been predictable and responses to it have been rehearsed, or dealt with in written distributed materials, the first noise from the enemy seems to send the government into a panic, one that has the nervous nellies wondering whether they went too far. Ministers, from the prime minister down, suddenly seem to stutter or to stumble into long and detailed explanations of the sort that usually appears only when it is obvious that they are losing the argument.
Most of the arguments advanced against Government budgetary measures about capital gains tax, trusts and negative gearing, or about the budget’s slight tilt of the balance towards the younger generation, do not stand up. Not by the Treasury logic and Labor’s statements of intent. Just as importantly by the economic and managerial theories that opponents of the Budget usually use to define ideal economic policy. The gap has been crude self-interest of a small but powerful group of older Australians, pretending a bogus concern for younger people.
The strongest opposition is coming from News Ltd and from segments of the old Fairfax press, not from principle but from the self-interest of a very limited number of taxpayers. Crikey.com.au has pointed to the fact that News.com is these days rather more a real-estate business than a media organisation.
Opposition Treasury spokesman Tim Wilson has convenient arguments for preserving the tax status quo. These contradict arguments he has made himself about the inequity of a system which has tilted the balance strongly against younger generations, many of whom are effectively shut out of the housing market. That examples of alleged disadvantage produced by the opposition, or from media commentators, come from perhaps five per cent of young voters already with a foot into the system, shows how dishonest many of the arguments are. Much fairer criticism, indeed, would come from the proposed slow pace of implementation, and the grandfathering clauses which will slow implementation of the system. It is also noteworthy that a good many of the more vociferous objectors seem to forget that most of the OECD nations, including the United States, have long had capital gains taxes at full rates and do not permit negative gearing on the Australian model. These comparable nations, incidentally, also have so-called “death taxes” in a far clearer form than anything proposed in Australia.
Hard to see that Angus Taylor will survive politically to a day of repealing the tax measures
Angus Taylor, leader of the opposition, has declared that a coalition government elected to power would repeal the revenue measures proposed in the Budget. What can be said, with some certainty, is that it is a meaningless promise, given the odds against election victory over the next six years. Most likely Taylor, who is hardly inspirational, will be well out of politics by then.
It seems clear from polling, for example, is that the number of Australians proposing to vote for One Nation has peaked. Even if One Nation support remains greater than the combined primary votes for the Liberals and the Nationals, the lot, put together, fall well short of the vote supporting the return of the present government, once one includes voters saying that they support the Greens. Indeed, if Labor and the Greens had the guts they would fight an election on a sensible immigration policy.
The idea that the combined anti-immigration vote has peaked, and will fall, makes sense. The One Nation vote is a protest vote, based primarily on general dissatisfaction with government. Its most consistent complaint is alleged high-levels of immigration, and complaints that many of the old coalition has joined, including with promises about artificial limits to immigration quotas. A few Liberals, including ones rather more on the conservative than the moderate side, have made it clear that they support Taylor’s immigration policies only through clenched teeth. They see artificially low targets as unwise, because Australia continues to have a strong demand for skilled workers, not least in affordable building housing for younger Australians.
Just as importantly, they have a marked distaste for the broad hostility to migration and migrants, and the dog whistling to Australians of European ancestry about restricting entry of those who might not assimilate, which is to say (cough cough) Indians, African, Chinese and others who would have failed the standards of the old White Australian policy. They are also very doubtful about the political wisdom of going into the gutter by aping One Nation slogans, rather than in focusing on clear policy differences, including on immigration. One Nation can be counted on to win any race to the bottom, and it is unlikely that Liberals can hold back the tide of disgust at the present state of the Liberals simply by echoing some of the worst of One Nation sentiments.
If Labor has, on paper at least, the arguments on Budget tax policies, why is it not advancing them with passion and with force? It might say that its efforts to do so are being drowned out by the shrill opposition of Murdoch media and the Australian Financial Review and many old Fairfax advocates. There was a time, however, when Labor could routinely win elections in the face of unanimous opposition from the commercial media, if it took the opportunities to enter the argument. In theory, at least, it ought to have many more platforms now from which it can not only argue its case, but refine its arguments for different target groups, including younger Australians, women, the better educated, and people who will be disadvantaged by cuts to aged care, childcare and education. Although disability care through the National Disability Insurance Scheme faces cuts whichever party is in power, many voters would fear that the knife would be sharper from groups, including One Nation, cobbled together to form a government.
It recalls the seeming incapacity of Julia Gillard to get any sort of traction or breakthrough with any of the “announceables” her advisers had her coming up with every Sunday. Always public relations rather than a policy construct, usually from her private office and/or one of her British strategic geniuses, it would, on a Sunday, seem to be bold, based on common sense and probably a good idea. It would be seen as substantial, a serious new initiative. Those doing the marketing would seem enthusiastic and firm, and Labor luvvies from the relevant lobbies would appear to gush over the decision and praise the government. The initial media would be neutral or positive. By Monday afternoon, other lobbies would have got to work pointing out holes in the plan, and unexpected consequences. It would soon become apparent that there had been no serious “workshopping” of the plan, that potentially adverse lobbies had not been informed or squared, and that cost estimates, made on a minder’s napkin were seriously awry. Ministers would suddenly become cautious and uncertain; media commentary would suddenly involve some sharp and well-informed questioning. At Tuesday’s question time, there would be some brave but defiant rowing back. By Wednesday the noble plan would have sunk with all hands and never be referred to again. Until next Sunday, of course, when some fresh gimmick in another area, because no one, especially in a prime minister’s office ever seems to learn.
It would send some more serious ministers mad, not least because the very amateurishness of some stunts would undermine any government reputation for being serious about policy development and carefully worked out proposals. Anthony Albanese was not, in those days, a great fan of Julia Gillard; he was a supporter of the return of Kevin Rudd. But he was determined that she would not fail at his hand, or by act of disloyalty by him. But his gloom about the prospects of the government at the election, and his conviction that something had to change, was much influenced by the then Prime Minister’s seeming inability to talk or bluff herself out of trouble.
Albanese is not so given to instant announceables, unless, sometimes as necessary distractions when some dirty business is afoot. He is instead criticised more for extreme caution in making any decisions at all, for timidity in advancing policy, and for quailing at the first sign of organised opposition, particularly if it comes from any of the lobbies with a firm grip on his, or Labor’s testicles, such as the gambling industry and the mining and gas lobbies. By comparison with the Gillard times, the making of policy is usually slow and deliberate and is often exhaustively discussed by ministers, one of the reasons the usual end-up point is the lowest common denominator.
A few brave ministers, such as the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, even advance policy alternatives in speeches or public gatherings, if ever careful not to make firm statements of intention before the prime minister is openly on board.
Even then, Chalmers, like any Treasurer, Labor or Liberal, knows from bitter experience, there is a substantial choice that the prime minister will walk away from a particular policy once the lobbies have got into his ears. Usually, it is for a prime minister to make the hard political calls, even after a broad consensus has been reached on desirable policy. Chalmers must be cheerful about the occasional repudiation unless he wants to make it the occasion for a challenge for the leadership.
Even so, Chalmers has some right to anger when it is apparent that the evaporation of the PM’s courage has been because he has been got at by lobbies whose views and interests have been thoroughly discussed before the initial decision. And only rarely is the Prime Minister one of those who advances the public debate by talking up deficiencies in existing policies, and the need for new policies for new circumstances. The Prime Minister may make observations at Question Time but rarely announces new policy there, and only rarely promotes known policy in anything much more than rhetoric and slogans. He may make boring speeches to organised constituencies of businesses and trade. There he may discuss some current problem and give some indication of how the government sees the issue.
He is certainly happy to discuss policy proposals – whether they have been through Cabinet – with interested parties but that is in private discussion with the lobbies or their professional advocates. As far as Albanese is concerned, private means private, and it will be almost impossible to get any form of written record of what was said, even through FOI. It appears that he learnt from John Howard the arts of never having a record showing his interventions or decisions in any matter, so that he will be able to deny that he was ever informed even when a note or submission was sent to the prime minister’s office. Open and transparent he is not, ever. And much less than properly accountable, except at elections when he must accept the blame for general failings in the government. At least, that is, if he has a serious opposition to face.
Politics is about listening, not telling. And having a two-way conversation
Modern Labor seems to have serious problems in talking to its constituencies. It is not a matter, as such, of being ignorant of the uses to which new media, and social media, can be put. Labor in election mode has been adept in using and abusing the internet in passing simple messages to voters, including targeting subsets of the electorate.
Where it falls is in argument, and debate, in consultation, and in two-way communication. It talks, to a point, but has little patience for listening. Internal party structures meant to encourage debate and to involve the genius of the party in devising, refining, and reviewing policy and programs have been allowed to wither away. Old forms of getting the message out, and getting it discussed, such as public meetings, leafleting and pamphleteering have also declined. There has never been as much raw information and advocacy available canvasing, with facts and figures, the state of the economy, the success, failure and opportunities of different policy and programs. But so far as the broad electorate is concerned, Labor in government is focused on the slogan, the short advertisement, and the attack on the other side.
The electorate is being dumbed down. Many in it are not being presented with reason and calm treatment of argument and counterargument. Many, who would like to participate and would like to get engaged in the processes of good government, are being left out. It is idle to say that most could get access to all the materials, and all the data, if only they made the effort to find it themselves. If Labor, or any other parties honestly believing in the democratic process, wants active, as opposed to passive support, it ought to galvanise citizens.
It is equally idle to suggest that because Labor faces an opposition in complete disarray, apparently determined on suicide, getting serious is not among its most urgent tasks. In fact, the coalition vacuum ought to be an opportunity to re-form and reform the party, ever widening the gap from the other side. Just as importantly, the lack of attention to any sort of conversation with voters is creating the chasm being seen as politicians struggle to defend Budget measures. This government by insiders, for insiders, can’t be bothered to listen or explain. Soon it will be losing arguments by default.
Republished from The Canberra Times
John Waterford AM, better known as Jack Waterford, is an Australian journalist and commentator.