Australian Politics In 2013

Budget deficit, national debt, spending, employment, unemployment and under employment, promises, promises, promises and the Gonski Report on education, the National Broadband Network, the Mining tax and Carbon tax, a National Disability Insurance Scheme and Labor’s unpopularity among its traditional voters, industrial relations reform and the problem of “boat people”… these issues began an election year with a difference as Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced the election date as 14 September 2013 – more than six months out. Troy Bramston, a columnist for The Australian and the author of Looking for The Light on The Hill  and For the True Believers: Great Labor Speeches joined Niki Savva, also a columnist with The Australian and the author of So Greek at The Sydney Institute on Thursday 7 March 2013 to discuss some of what voters can expect before election day. 

AUSTRALIAN POLITICS IN 2013 

TROY BRAMSTON

 It is a great pleasure to be back here at The Sydney Institute to talk about politics in 2013. There is no better place in this great city for an informed discussion about the big issues in which we all have a stake. And it is good to be here again with Niki Sava, my colleague from The Australian.

Scorecard

Let me start with a scorecard on what I said last year about politics in 2012. If I don’t, I’m sure Gerard – or Nancy – will do it for me. I argued then that it was hard to think of anything that could save the Gillard Government from defeat at the next election. I said both the major parties lacked credibility in a raft of key policy areas. And that they faced significant organisational challenges, as their membership has hollowed-out and community links have weakened.

These assessments remain unchanged.

I also said that Tony Abbott was the most unpopular opposition leader in the history of Australian opinion polling. While that comment, in terms of depth and length of unpopularity is still true, Abbott’s personal ratings have improved relative to Julia Gillard. According to last week’s Newspoll, Abbott has regained his lead as preferred prime minister – 40 per cent to 36 per cent. His net satisfaction rating – his approval minus his disapproval – is minus 22 per cent. Hardly a ringing endorsement. But Gillard’s net approval is minus 28 per cent.

The only thing that Gillard had over Abbott – given Labor’s primary vote is stuck at record lows in the early 30s and is well behind on a two-party preferred basis – was her relative popularity. That has vanished, at least for the time being.

I also noted last year that a leadership challenge by Kevin Rudd was not only “inevitable,” it was “imminent”. Indeed, just a day after I spoke here last year, Rudd announced his resignation from the ministry, precipitating a leadership showdown with Gillard. After what really was one of the worst leadership challenges ever mounted, he was trounced by 71 votes to 31. It was the largest winning margin by a prime minister who has faced a leadership challenge.

But of the three previous prime ministers to have faced a leadership vote – John Gorton (1969), Malcolm Fraser (1982) and Bob Hawke (1991) – none of them went on to unite their party and win an election. It is a bad omen for Gillard.

Rudd redux

So the big question again this year is will Kevin Rudd replace Julia Gillard before the election? Rudd replacing Gillard is the only factor which I believe has the potential – and I stress potential – to stop Tony Abbott becoming Australia’s 28^th prime minister. Whatever your view is about Rudd or Gillard – the reality is that all of the available polling evidence shows that if Rudd returned, he would improve Labor’s chances at the election.

One of the most ironic polls was in last week’s Fairfax newspapers. It showed that Treasurer Wayne Swan – who famously said Rudd “does not hold any Labor values” – would lose his seat of Lilley if Gillard remained as leader – but he would win his seat if Rudd returned to the leadership.

Rudd Redux would be a game-changer. It would upend Australian politics and dramatically recast the election campaign. But would it save Labor, I don’t know. I also have serious doubts that a leadership change is “likely” or “inevitable” as many commentators have suggested.

Of course, Rudd wants to be prime minister again. But consider the downside for Rudd in returning, but failing to win the next election. First, Gillard and Swan will escape some of the blame for the government’s demise. They will argue that Rudd must now shoulder some responsibility for the defeat. Second, if Rudd leads Labor to defeat then it is more likely that the Labor caucus will opt for Bill Shorten or Greg Combet as leader post-election.

Rudd has not ruled out leading Labor in opposition where, as a popular former prime minister, he could chart a comeback. Rudd’s closest supporters concede that winning an election is unlikely. His mission, if it is offered and if he accepted it, will be to save seats, not win a third term. But Rudd will not challenge.

Gillard is highly unlikely to resign. To hand over to Rudd would be a repudiation of the leadership coup that she was conscripted for, and ultimately led, and also her prime ministership. There is no party elder with the weight to force Gillard to abdicate.

The prospect of faction leaders who were behind Gillard’s elevation, such as Shorten, switching to Rudd is remote. Pressed to sketch out a scenario conducive to a leadership change, party figures suggest that first, there has to be a clear shift to Rudd among caucus members. Second, they have to use these numbers to force Gillard to resign. And third, they have to persuade Rudd that his return can work without too much destabilisation.

And if there is a caucus stampede for Rudd, how will the inevitable cabinet resignations be managed? Gillard and Swan will not serve under Rudd. Given what they said about Rudd, how could Tony Burke, Stephen Conroy, Peter Garrett and many others serve again in his cabinet? The Gillard camp will fight any leadership change.

Still, Rudd’s supporters are confident that Gillard will eventually be forced to resign – more bad polls, a serious blunder or a scandal could spark a leadership change. Those who have been analysing the numbers suggest Rudd is probably still sub-40 votes in a caucus of 102. Other say it could be as high as 50. But what has happened is that a bunch of MPs who were once wedded to Gillard are now regarded as undecided or leaning toward Rudd.

The Gillard camp, in their defence, argues that Rudd is treacherous and disloyal, that he lacks Labor values, that his popularity is illusory and that he led a chaotic and dysfunctional government. To change leaders again would invite ridicule from voters. (Tell that to the Victorian Liberal Party.)

The Rudd camp, in their defence, argues that Gillard has lost the trust of voters with broken promises, she continually makes errors of political judgment, lacks credibility, and will lead Labor to slaughter. They say Rudd will save Labor seats. If Labor is considering Rudd Redux, then it must formulate an effective transition plan. Otherwise a leadership change – Labor’s fifth in 10 years – is far from inevitable. Yet, as long as the polls stay bad for Labor, a leadership change – at anytime – cannot be ruled out.

What to do with Rudd

So what does the party do with Kevin Rudd? As always, he’s everywhere. He is a perpetual reminder of the leadership coup – which voters never liked – and he is far more popular than Gillard. Party sources say he will easily win his Queensland seat of Griffith. Recently, Simon Crean, Bill Shorten and Anthony Albanese have described him as an “asset” to be used in the campaign.

Maybe, but he is also a reminder of things best forgotten in an election year. As a senior party figure said to me recently, whenever he is out on the campaign trail, he simply reminds voters that he was replaced with an unpopular leader who is untrusted by voters. Rudd’s future, in government or in opposition, is often speculated upon.

In October 2010, I recorded a long interview with Kevin Rudd – not all of which has been published. He had lost the prime ministership just three months earlier. He had been Foreign Minister for three weeks. On his mind were two things: his place in history and his future. “I’ll be around for a while yet,” Rudd told me. “Politics is a funny business, mate. We never know how it’s all going to turn out.”

Indeed we don’t know how Rudd’s future will turn out. But at least in six months time, we will know who won the election.

Election campaign

Although the spectre of Rudd Redux overlays politics in 2013, just as it did in 2010, 2011 and 2012, it is not the only factor shaping politics this year. Julia Gillard’s announcement of an election date – 227 days before it was to be held – baffled the party’s most experienced campaign professionals. It ceded a huge advantage to the Coalition, as they can now plan their campaign logistics to a firm date.

Everything from advertising, polling and focus groups, campaign teams, flights and cars and accommodation, signs being  printed, events being scheduled – can now be done without guesswork. By announcing the date, voters will also view much of what the government does as campaigning rather than governing. This is precisely what happened in Western Sydney this week.

The timing of the election announcement couldn’t be worse. It was bookended with suspended Labor MP Craig Thomson’s arrest and the corruption hearings into the former NSW government. And, just after – the resignation of Chris Evans and Nicola Roxon. Plus a speech by Tony Sheldon – the party’s vice president, who said Labor was suffering “a crisis of belief brought on by a lack of moral and political purpose”.

One of Gillard’s biggest challenges – after so many broken promises, policy blunders and political stunts gone bad – is that few voters believe anything she says. In politics is hard to gain, but is easy to lose.

On Sunday, Gillard made a pitch for the hearts and minds of voters in Western Sydney, promising “to deliver five things to make your life easier”. They were: supporting “Aussie” jobs, broadband, improving education, better health and disability services, and “help” to manage the “pressures of modern family life”.

You’ll hear more about those things in the coming months – and also about local roads, public transport and crime. It could be a federal election with all the hallmarks of a state election. But the western Sydney “blitz,” including a sleepover in Rooty Hill, has undermined anything Gillard says or does.

Not even race-baiting and economic nationalism – or pure Hansonism – over 457 visas will save Labor. Indeed, this is a new low for Labor – even though we often hear racially tinged statements from the likes of the Liberal’s Scott Morrision.

Labor’s bigger problems

Disappointingly, it is not within the finer traditions of Hawke and Keating Labor. This week is the 30th anniversary of Bob Hawke leading Labor to power in 1983. Recently, I interviewed Gareth Evans, who highlighted the elements of Hawke’s success. He said:

 With strong leadership, a strong team, strong organisational discipline, a strong policy focus and a willingness to argue hard political cases — rather than be driven by focus-group angst — you can have not only (a) very good government, but (an) electorally very successful government.

 In addition to a talented cabinet with a diversity of experiences, it was a disciplined, focused and pragmatic government dedicated to reform. Of course it was not without mistakes. But as Kim Beazley told me recently: “nobody (but Hawke) seemed better placed — certainly no one else was likely to build a public consensus around a process of deep reform.’’ As a quick aside, this is why I was pleased that Bob Hawke launched my new book of great political speeches – For the True Believers: Great Labor Speeches That Shaped History (Federation Press).

The words that join together to make a speech is the oldest form of political communication. A speech is the most effective way to present an argument by linking policies, political messaging and philosophy into a framework for persuading the public. But amid flashes of great speechmaking the art of oratory and the quality of public discourse is generally in decline.

Most speeches would win accolades for their ability to spin a political message rather than win a complex argument. So learning from some of the greatest Labor speeches over the past century, couldn’t be timelier.

Hawke practised consensus politics, he rejected the politics of division and class warfare. He worked with business, unions and the socialwelfare sector. And he successfully communicated the case for reform. And the policies that he and Paul Keating delivered energised productivity and produced more competitive and efficient markets. They were fundamental to economic prosperity and social progress. Without these reforms, we would not have the great enterprising, aspirational middle class in places such as western Sydney.

But many of these voters are alienated by the party that created the opportunities to improve their lives.

Today, in The Australian I wrote the first account of Mark Latham’s new Quarterly Essay, which is out next week. In it Latham urges the party to rid itself of union-based factionalism and rent-seeking union influence on policy and to recapture Paul Keating’s economic legacy:

 The party is confused on economic policy,” Latham argues, “not knowing whether to embrace the Keating legacy of microeconomic-reform and productivity growth or to accede to the sectional demands of union/factional bosses and the anti-competitive comfort of industry welfare.

 He’s right. These are big challenges for Labor and how it addresses them – if it does so at all – will determine if the party remains a viable political force into the future.

Tony Abbott

Labor strategists say the May budget will be the last big chance to sway voter support back to the government. This will also be a test for Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party. Abbott’s reply to the budget will provide a key opportunity to present costed and funded policies within a philosophical framework for governing.

We are yet to see an effective speech from Abbott that unites his policies with his approach to government and his personal values. Abbott’s advisers know this. Recently, an email from one of Abbott’s advisers was leaked, which argued for more of the “vision thing” in speeches. Abbott, however, just wanted the media to think he was “a good bloke”.

This statement underscores the concern about Abbott’s low personal approval ratings, even though he now out-rates Gillard. One Coalition MP told me that the shift to “the real Tony” or “positive Tony” is being addressed in three key ways. First, is the message that Abbott is a “common man” as Margie Abbott described has described him. Picture Abbott the family man, the community firefighter and the athlete raising money for charity.

Second, he is a conservative on most issues, like his mentor John Howard – which may appeal to voters as the political pendulum swings away from Labor. And third, Abbott has experience as a minister in government, which neither Rudd nor Gillard had. This will be used to create the perception that Abbott will lead with stability and capability after years of blunders and backflips, scandals and crises.

But some Coalition MPs are worried about the lacklustre C-team from the Howard years dominating the shadow ministry, the potential for policy errors and Abbott’s perennial habit of putting his foot in his mouth, exaggerating and overreaching.

Abbott looks set to lead the Coalition parties to victory, but there is no sign yet of a detailed plan for governing or that voters have a good sense of who he is personally. Labor will exploit Abbott’s promise to slash $70 billion from the budget and abolish the carbon and mining taxes – while still promising that people will be better off under his government. His $3.2 billion “direct action” climate change policy is one of the worst policies ever proposed by a major party. It is an inefficient and costly policy that will achieve little. I can’t see any evidence as to how their border protection policy will stop boats coming. None.

Abbott is putting a tax on business to pay for paid maternity leave. He’s promised to fully fund a national disability insurance scheme and a new dental program under Medicare. He’s going to the election without a plan to reform industrial relations. He’s got Andrew Robb, in full agrarian socialist mode, promising a food bowl in the north and dams all over the place.

None of this reflects the Liberal Party of John Howard.

Election and post-election

Nevertheless, Labor is likely headed for a landslide defeat – which on the strength of the economy alone, will rewrite the political rule books. The rebuilding process for Labor will be long and hard. An Abbott government, unthinkable just a few years ago, will not be trouble-free – no government ever is.

But Labor is the one in deep, deep trouble right now. As the election falls on the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, the party will not be able to escape its Day of Atonement.