POLITICAL scientists, journalists and others frequently refer to the advantages of incumbency, but this parliamentary session, particularly this week, it is better to talk about the advantages of Opposition.
Yes, sitting MPs get big postage allowances and get their names in the news. And there are more Government MPs than Opposition ones. Yes, Governments can control information flows and can, up to a point, set the agenda with releases of policies, reports and actions. Yes, Ministers can big-note themselves overseas.
But Government have to deliver. When things go wrong, as they invariably do with program delivery, voters get agitated.
Oppositions, on the other hand, do not have to deliver. They can get away with just opposing, arguing, promising and commenting. And if the electorate is not very sophisticated – as is often the case – there is no need to build up a coherent and comprehensive set of policies, just a promise of not messing things up like the government has done.
Indeed, this is what the Opposition has been doing under Tony Abbott. To a lesser extent it was done by Malcolm Fraser in 1975 and John Howard in 1996.
It can be shallow and populist, but nonetheless effective and dangerous.
This week a litany of populist ideas and simplistic spot policies came from Abbott or people leaking from his party: approval of capital punishment, banning takeaway alcohol and forcing school attendance in indigenous communities, halving spending on consultation and complaints in the Northern Territory intervention, work for the dole, annual medical tests for people on disability pensions, axing an upgrade to a Public Service office, higher alcohol and tobacco taxes and an un-means-tested mothers’ benefit.
All easy targets for the boot or largesse.
On the idea of student numbers for an education database, Abbott gave the quick, simplistic reaction that would have popular appeal: we don’t want our children to be reduced to numbers.
But anyone with an ounce of brain who thought about it for a moment would know that name databases are unworkable. For as start, there are 276 “A Abbotts” in the Australian White Pages. And is it Anthony, Antony, Tony, Tone or Ant? Is it Robert, Rob, Robbie, Robby, Bob, Bobbie or Bobby? James, Jamie or Jim? For a database to work every student will have to have a unique number.
But the quick populist line prevailed.
Abbott says that if the states do not give him the power to ban takeaway alcohol in Aboriginal communities he will have a referendum on it at the 2013 election.
What crass idiocy and ignorance. Of all the things to have a referendum on to fix our many constitutional glitches, giving power to the Commonwealth to impose booze bans surely does not rate.
Besides, the Commonwealth almost certainly already has the power. Section 51(xxvi) gives the Commonwealth power to makes laws with respect to “the people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”. And the High Court has said those laws can be adverse; they do not have to be beneficial.
How silly is that: calling for a referendum to give you powers you already have?
But it makes a good line for the masses.
Therein lies the danger. The masses are quick to swallow the quick-fix and the appeal to emotions. Meanwhile, a government has to plod away, its successes barely noticed and its failures magnified.
John Howard’s two policy triumphs: guns and the GST were never mentioned in 2007. The third – ridding Australia of government debt – was unappreciated. In 1996, the Hawke-Keating financial reforms counted for nought.
The advantage of incumbency has been over-stated and that advantages to the Opposition under-stated, particularly if the public is apathetic, ignorant and dumb.
In Australia, the advantage to an Opposition in the days of spin and media baying for government blood is perhaps greater because of the closeness of the contest.
Take the past three changes of government. In each case the losing government was not especially incompetent and certainly not corrupt or venal. By and large the Fraser, Hawke-Keating and Howard Governments ran the show reasonably well, though no doubt everyone can point to particular policies in each that they detested.
Therein lies the point. In the present media climate the media’s negative coverage of glitches in government programs will always out-weigh its coverage of government competence. The latter is expected; the former is news. The glib lines of an Opposition can hit the mark irrespective of whether they are thought-out or responsible.
In this environment, the days of responsible Oppositions are over. Witness the demise of the thoughtful and principled Malcolm Turnbull.
Abbott’s tactics should not be under-estimated.
As it happens, the Opposition has another advantage in the next election. The electoral boundaries favour it. Malcolm Mackerras’s pendulum shows the point. It would take an even swing of just 1.6 per cent of the vote for the Coalition to win the 13 seats it needs for Government. In that case,the Coalition would win with just 48.9 per cent of the vote. Of course, swings are never even, but the hypothetical proves the advantage point.
Most people assume that a second Rudd term is inevitable. I think is quite likely, but Abbott should not be ruled out. The advantages that an Opposition has with apathetic, gullible and ignorant masses, a media rightly down on any glitches with government programs, easy populist one-liners, plus the present electoral-boundary advantage suggest an Abbott victory is not out of the question.
Bear in mind that Australian elections are usually very close – closer than most people imagine. The average difference between the sides (the two-party preferred vote) in the 24 elections since 1949 has been just 4.5 per cent. That means just two and quarter per cent of voters needed to change their vote, on average, for the result to change.
And to illustrate the point about the poor judgment of the masses, the largest victory delivered to a Government in those 24 elections (still only 56.9 per cent) was to Harold Holt in 1966 on a policy of all the way with LBJ in Vietnam — the most ill-fated public policy pursued by an Australian Government in the history of our federation.
Democracy is wasted on the masses. But there is no other legitimate way.
CRISPIN HULL
This article first appeared in The Canberra Times on 27 February 2010
Yes, Mr Hull, you would think the emergence of Tony Abbott is ‘dangerous’ given your political narrative is obviously informed by the left’s ideological fantasies. No doubt on Abbott’s ascendancy you laughed in condescencion across the dining table with the clots who share your shit. Now, in week when the Government has reached the political depths, you can only attack the Opposition. I writhe in pleasure at your evident discomfiture.
But the give away of your dirty hubris was your ugly reference to the common people. While I have no faith in your purile newspaper – I only read it because of the article on the retirement of a local politician who I respect and have known for 35 years – I did not think its pages would ever stench of the fascism conveyed in your article. You should have faith in the ‘ordinary people’ and a course in democratic theory. Fie on you!
Enjoyed your article so very much.It recalled Churchill’s observation that democracy was the worst form of government except etc. I assume you have read Chomsky’s book ‘Manufacting Consent’ – chilling!
Thanks for your continuing efforts!