POLITICAL parties frequently underestimate their likely performance at the next election. They do not like to be seen by the electorate as cocky and perhaps they like to keep their own side on their toes. Even so, the ACT branch secretary of the Labor Party, Doug Thompson, painted a fairly grim picture of Labor’s electoral prospects at the party’s annual conference at the weekend. He said that if an ACT election were held now Labor would not win. Mr Thompson pointed to the attacks on Canberra by the Howard Liberal Government, but said people did not yet see Labor locally as an alternative, even though they voted Labor in federal elections. Mr Thompson asserted that the branch was more united than ever and had completed a comprehensive review of policies, but the community felt Labor had nothing new to offer, he said, even though that was not the case.
With this background it is pertinent to ask how this state of affairs has come about. One would have thought that the treatment meted out by the Howard Government on Canberra that Labor should be waiting for government at the territory to fall into its lap.
There are several reasons why not. Obviously, the electoral system makes it difficult, if not impossible, for either side to win majority government in Canberra. Further, sitting independents and sitting minor-party candidates tend to do reasonably well at all levels of government, even if they find it difficult to get elected in the first place. Mr Thompson correctly identified these as being a significant obstacle to a Labor Government.
Secondly, Kate Carnell has done a reasonably good job in difficult circumstances in the past two and a half years. In particular, she and her government have recognised the need to diversify the ACT economy, to build on the educational and infrastructure base to attract new wealth- and job-creating industry. And she has had some success in this.
Reality and market forces have required more than just relying on the construction and tourism industries to provide the jobs required in the wake of federal cuts.
Thirdly, Labor recent record in government was not very distinguished.
Fourthly, and perhaps most important, Labor has not demonstrated that it will be a credible alternative. Labor’s leader, Andrew Whitecross, has failed to sell his message. Of course, it is always difficult in Opposition, especially against a first-term government.
Fifthly, Labor’s team does not look too healthy. Labor’s most well-known and best performers, Terry Connolly and Rosemary Follett, have moved to judicial or quasi-judicial jobs. Their replacements leave Labor vulnerable in the centre seat of Molonglo with two inexperienced MLAs standing against the Government’s two best performers, Mrs Carnell and Gary Humphries.
Labor has less than eight months before the election to put itself forward as a credible, serious alternative for the voters of the ACT.
It will need to focus on some of the Government’s poor priorities — like the Manuka development when the territory is flooded with excess retail space — instead of attacking the Government’s efforts in attracting a stronger employment base, as Mr Whitecross did at the weekend.
To its credit Labor has shed much of its looney-left image and appears more unified. The heated factional in-fighting of past conferences was not evident at the weekend.
Of perhaps more importance was that, as evidenced by Mr Thompson’s speech, the party was sensible enough to recognise that as things stand it is in electoral strife, which is a good start to doing something about it.