In this week’s Newspoll 55% believed Labor would win next year’s
election, compared with just 24% who thought the Coalition would. These are figures to frighten Scott Morrison, and make Bill Shorten just a touch
If most people think the government is finished, it is hard for
Morrison to get their attention – though he is certainly trying hard
enough, with his frenetic activity.
On Thursday he had a double-header news conference, with two major,
unrelated, announcements – a proposed new federal integrity body, and
a plan for a Religious Discrimination Act. In normal times, each would
have had its own day in the spotlight.
Shorten might be privately very confident, while doing his best to
avoid giving the government evidence to back its accusation he’s
measuring those Lodge curtains. But an overwhelming expectation of an
ALP victory must also produce niggling fears in Labor ranks: could
something derail what appears a relatively straightforward ride ahead?
The strong belief Labor will triumph could have contrary effects on
voters. It might encourage some to get behind the likely victors. But
the Liberals could also use it to frighten wavering supporters back
into the fold.
In the lead up to next week’s ALP national conference, which Shorten
needs to run smoothly, the government has been trying to exploit what
it sees as a Labor weak point – border protection.
It homed in on the opposition’s support last week for the proposed
amendment to facilitate medical transfers from Nauru and Manus. (This
was the legislation the government prevented reaching the lower house,
because it would have lost the vote.)
Around the edges of asylum seeker-refugee policy there are
distinctions between the two sides. But on the central element of border protection – turnbacks – they are at one.
Key Labor left figures including Anthony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek
have put aside doubts to ensure the government can’t drive in a wedge.
Another factor is helping Labor against the Coalition’s scare campaign – without boats arriving, the issue has slipped lower
with voters. There has been a softening in community views – the
public are more open to appeals for compassion towards those on Nauru
Whatever vulnerability the ALP has in this area comes from
previously allowing the boats to restart. Probably the people
smugglers would test a Shorten government early on. But knowing the
stakes, and remembering what happened before, it’s a sure bet that government would respond robustly.
The area of greater uncertainty under Labor is a very different one –
that is, how much of the unions’ agenda a Shorten government would be
willing to embrace.
Notably, the opposition still has to fill in key gaps in its
industrial relations policies. Some commitments are clear, including
the promise to restore penalty rates. On other matters the detail isn’t
there yet – such as how broadly an ALP government would permit the
reintroduction of industry-wide bargaining. We only know its priority
would be low paid industries.
Workplace relations spokesman Brendan O’Connor addressed the National
Press Club this week, but didn’t make announcements. He promised Labor
would have “more to say” on multi-employer bargaining, the right to
strike, the minimum wage, and addressing the gender pay gap.
Just as the ALP conference will be kept in line by the approaching
election, so (at least to a degree) so will the ACTU over coming
months. It desperately needs a Labor government.
The trade unions’ resources – money and manpower – will be of huge
benefit to Shorten in the election campaign. Harder to predict is how they would operate under and with a Shorten government.
In this context, a useful reference point is the “accord” the Hawke
government had with the union movement. That was a highly productive,
co-operative association, which enabled the government to make reforms
vital to opening the Australian economy.
Shorten said this week he wanted to bring employers, unions and the
government together in his first week in office, although there’s no
suggestion of any “accord” framework with the unions.
It is hard to imagine ACTU secretary Sally McManus, an industrial
radical, having the sort of symbiotic relationship with a Shorten
government that then secretary Bill Kelty had with Bob Hawke and Paul
Morrison tries to demonise Shorten’s union background and links,
labelling him “union bred, union fed and union led”.
Common sense and history indicate a union background can be a positive
for public policy, as Hawke demonstrated. On the other hand, there are
legitimate questions about what influence can be wielded on a prime
minister whose power base is in sections of the union movement,
including the CFMMEU. Until Labor releases its full industrial
relations policy we can’t start to get a grip on how this would likely
Labor has been working for months to manage next week’s conference, to
avoid it detracting from the impression of an alternative government
fit for office. In contrast the government struggles with its image in
a more ad hoc manner.
Monday will be a good day for the government – the budget update will
see impressive numbers. But on particular issues, it is another story.
Take Thursday’s announcements. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission
isn’t something the government actually thinks is needed or even a
good idea. Rather, it is a counter to Labor’s policy and aimed at
mollifying the public and the crossbench. But it immediately came
under attack as inadequate, and the conditions put on it will be seen
as letting politicians off the hook.
The religious freedom measures had their genesis in the unhappiness on
the right over same-sex marriage. But many voters will regard them as a
side issue or worse; meanwhile the right wing Institute of Public
Affairs condemned them as an attempt to “regulate religion” and “a
significant threat to the freedom of conscience of all Australians.”
Neutralising negatives is critical for both sides in the run up to an
election. At this point, Labor is making a much better fist of it than
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.