Murdoch and population make electoral difference

THE demise of Labor in Victoria shows that it is all over bar the voting for Labor in NSW, but what of Labor in the ACT? And what is it that is causing a wholesale shift by voters away from Labor at state level?

In the 1950s and 60s and into the 70s, governments stayed in office almost interminably – the Liberals with Bolte in Victoria and Playford in South Australia and Labor in NSW and Tasmania.

Then Australia had huge spare capacity a lower expectation by voters so government has it easy. Moreover, the media was more respectful and benign to governments. Now the spare capacity is gone and expectations are higher. Much of the media is voracious, particularly against Labor Governments.

John Brumby’s Labor Government was seen as fairly competent and honest, if a bit secretive and prone to spin. Victoria seemed a reasonably well-run show. Unlike NSW.

So was it a question of voters wanting a change for change’s sake, or seeing the government as stale, or just giving the other lot a turn after 11 years? Before that Jeff Kennett’s Liberals had seven years and before that Labor under John Cain and Joan Kirner had 11 years.

Under that theory Labor, whether under Jon Stanhope or someone else, better watch out.

But I think there are significant differences in the ACT. And incidentally, I don’t see any suggestion that Stanhope will or wants to retire before the centenary in 2013.

Part of the reason Brumby lost was a sense that the health system, particularly hospitals could not cope; that roads were clogged and public transport was inefficient and over-crowded. Housing affordability got worse under Labor. Water and electricity went through the roof. Schools were under pressure. Fuel for commuting and food took a greater portion of income.

Of course, all of this would have probably happened with the Liberals in power. Labor just happened to be in power while external forces acted to the state’s detriment. All of those things were caused by high population growth dictated by Commonwealth immigration policies.

Victoria has the highest population growth of any state or territory at 2.2 per cent. No government can hope to keep up with infrastructure with that growth. Infrastructure lasts on average 50 years so replacing 2 per cent of it a year allows you to mark time. If you have population growth of 2 per cent you need to ad a further 2 per cent to mark time — that is double your effort.

The ACT is in a slightly better position. Its population growth is 1.6 per cent. But policies to attract more people to the ACT will result in similar problems as Victoria with the same effect on voters – blame the government if conditions get congested.

It is interesting that in the ACT one of the polices that has generated the most anti-government heat has been the population-driven questions of infill and ugly urban sprawl.

Voter dissatisfaction at stressed infrastructure will sound against long-term state governments. After a time blaming the previous government, making big announcements or engaging in spin wears off. It does not matter that the root cause is a Commonwealth one.

Perhaps a bigger difference between Victoria and the ACT, though, is that the Murdoch press has little or no presence in the ACT. My guess is that Stanhope’s position would be a lot worse if the highest-circulation newspaper were from the Murdoch stable.

The classic pattern for Murdoch papers against Labor Governments (federal and state) is the relentless emphasis on things that go wrong in government programs. Every Murdoch editor can put their hand of their heart and say that each of their stories is accurate and that the media has a duty to keep government accountable. And that, by and large, is true. But every government program will have a few glitches even if overall it is 95 per cent or more effective. If, however, you give relentless Page-One prominence to every minor glitch the overall impression will be of incompetence and waste – a quite inaccurate impression, even if every individual story is accurate.

Worse, material from newspapers trickles across to the broadcast media. No government can withstand that pressure.

My guess is that in the ACT a Murdoch newspaper would have journalists camped at the hospital and at the Gungahlin Drive extension running stories of anguished delay day after day after day.

Indeed, we had a small taste of this earlier in the term when the Daily Telegraph ran a mini campaign with headlines like “Stanhopeless”. But it is a Sydney paper and it gave up.

A Murdoch paper would have so undermined Stanhope by now so his party would have dumped him.

Other differences help Stanhope. The ACT is 95 per cent urban, which favours Labor. Also, the main industry in the town is federal administration. That tends to favour Labor, but federal public servants are ratepayers, too, and no more want to see local waste and incompetence than anyone else. We have had Liberal Governments at the state level here before.

Labor’s finances are in better shape compared to the Liberals here than in Victoria. The smaller parliament makes it better for Stanhope. Governments often have the help of the bureaucracy in policy development – under the guise of exploring options. That makes it difficult for Oppositions, but not impossible if you have a few dozen MPs and their staffers, as the Victorian Liberals had before the election. But if you have just six MPs and their staff, the task of creating coherent policy across all portfolios becomes near impossible.

Another element of the system that might help Labor if there is a further swing against it is the Hare-Clark system. It allows people to let of steam against the government by voting against some Labor candidates while still voting for others. The protest vote does not have to be totally against the Government.

Indeed, people against in-fill are thinking of campaigning that way against Planning Minister Andrew Barr, though it was tried without success when Simon Corbell was Planning Minister.

Perhaps the biggest difference between Victorian and ACT Labor, however, is that the voters have already given ACT Labor a kick in the guts – in 2008, when Labor lost majority government and had to rely on the Greens.

And that leads us to the final point where Stanhope himself is unduly pessimistic about long-term governments. He pointed out this week that as governments go on they gain more and more weight in the saddlebags. They inevitably offend more and more people.

But conversely, they learn from mistakes, gain experience and work on revealed weaknesses. Indeed, ACT Labor has done this during this term, learning though the mistakes of things like lack of consultation on school closures and the data centre.

Also, time often brings people around on some policies when they see the sky has not fallen in and indeed things have improved. Perhaps the ACT’s public art and arboretum are in that category. If you took them away now there would be louder squeals than when they were first funded.

Yes, it is difficult for governments to get a fourth term, let alone a fifth. But demise is not inevitable.
CRISPIN HULL
This article first appeared in The Canberra Times on 4 December 2010.