Amateur hour in non-Labor parties

Although enjoying swings of more than 7 per cent, the Liberal Party at the recent Tasmanian and South Australian elections failed to win government from Labor despite their long-term incumbencies and scandals.

These were not one-off failures. The non-Labor parties also failed to capitalise on similar large swings away from Labor in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory in 2008 (9 per cent) and in Queensland in 2009 (4.5 per cent). Only in Western Australia in September 2008 did the Liberals just get over the line.

Despite dissatisfaction with incumbent Labor governments in New South Wales and Victoria, voters remain suspicious of the quality of the non-Labor oppositions. In Queensland, doubts persist about the abilities of the Liberal National Party team. Labor governments may be bad, but the non-Labor oppositions are not yet seen fit to govern.

And federally, the real challenge facing Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is to convince the electorate that he and his team are serious contenders against Labor, led by a very focused and professional Prime Minister in Kevin Rudd. On-the-run policy making and questionable shadow minister appointments need serious attention.

The crux of the non-Labor problem and the cause of the leadership crises, disunity, weak frontbench performance, inept campaigning and missed opportunities is the lack of talent, in parliament to spearhead attacks against well-resourced incumbent Labor governments, and in quality candidates to win marginal seats.

Poor recruitment practices, including the inability to replenish their ranks and career plans to nurture and train their existing talent, are key problems.

This is an issue that has long bedevilled the non-Labor side of politics, but has become more evident as they are out of office across most of Australia.

This lack of capacity reflects the structure of non-Labor parties, the nature of their memberships and the sources of their support.

Organisationally, non-Labor parties have less formal internal factions and structures and more decentralised processes in selecting candidates compared with Labor. Non-Labor parties tend to be collections of individuals seeking office, pursuing their own careers and allowing less intervention by the party hierarchy about who gets what seat or in long-term career planning. It is a hit-and-miss, amateurish affair.

Further, non-Labor parties have looser connections to organised interests. Labor's strong links to trade unions, community groups, universities and particular professions provide a regular feed of personnel into the political mix, an ongoing training ground in the skills that matter and places to park party supporters when out of office.

Business may be aligned to the non-Labor cause, but it is unenthusiastic in employing former non-Labor members as lobbyists at their different organisational offices. This could taint relations with incoming Labor administrations. Dollars, not causes, is what counts for business. Look at the problems Peter Costello, former Liberal federal treasurer, had in gaining offers from business. No wonder he and other former Liberals grabbed offers of government posts from the Rudd Government.

Our left-of-centre universities also offer little refuge for former non-Labor members let alone their critiques of interventionist government policy.

The backgrounds of non-Labor politicians is a further problem. About 70 per cent of non-Labor parliamentarians come from a business and-or are self-employed, if you count lawyers, farmers and business managers, far more so than Labor. Hence they are less attracted to long-term political careers, many have to consider a drop in income to enter politics and given the party's lack of organisational links have to return to their professions if they lose seats or the party goes into opposition.

This is why non-Labor parties perform so poorly in opposition. They quickly shed members as they offer no immediate prospects or places to nurture promising stars.

A further factor is fewer non-Labor members have served in politics-related jobs before entering parliament, about 16 per cent to Labor's 70 per cent. Whether this is good for democracy is questionable, but such Labor careerists do learn their trade in these positions and hence play it better than the non-Labor side.

Recent events in Queensland and Victoria highlight some of these problems.

A couple of weeks ago the LNP in Queensland selected a 19-year-old political science student as the candidate for the very marginal federal Labor seat of Longman.

It was a local branch decision and although the person might have been the best candidate on preselection night, the more important issue is whether he adds to the party's capacity to tackle Labor. The failure to attract a better, more mature, candidate says a lot about the state of the LNP as does the unwillingness of the party executive to intervene.

Of course, in Queensland the amalgamation of the Liberal and National parties and the so-called grandfather clause has meant that all sitting LNP members will not have to face preselection. Consequently, it has prevented the party from cleaning out its dead wood. Safe LNP Queensland federal seats of Fisher and Fairfax are too precious a commodity in politics to be left to the present long-serving incumbents who hold no shadow ministry positions.

And in Victoria, former Liberal Party president Michael Kroger reminded us recently that the ageing state parliamentary team had received little new blood and this was an impediment to possible electoral success this year.

The non-Labor parties are facing a crisis of talent, of attracting, keeping and training it both to fight Labor more effectively and to show the electorate they have the capacity to lead the very governments they covet.

At present, they are not in the game.