Election reflections

It is more than a week since the 2010 Australian Federal election and even though the drama is not yet over, there is much to reflect upon.

To begin with the mining industry assault on Labor has laid bare the real workings of power in this country, and the fragility of our democracy in a meaningful sense. No grassroots or popular organisation could match the mining industry “fear war-chest” that ran into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

And great sections of the media came on board for this assault on Labor too. Often the bias is subtle involving selective quotations, framing of debate or emotive language. At other times it is blatant. Even the ABC focused relentlessly for the first two weeks of the campaign on the “leaks drama”. This focus was at the expense of policy and substance - where the ALP could have made up ground given the opportunity.

Everything Labor did most of the mainstream media put a “negative spin” on it. For instance, former PM Kevin Rudd was brought on board to sell the message that whatever voters thought of the coup, too much was at stake to elect a Liberal government. The “Rudd legacy” was itself at stake. The idea was to put speculation about disunity and instability to rest and to show a united front. Instead we had commentary on Rudd’s body language, and more disruptive, and damaging media speculation.

The work of media in a democracy should be to provide balanced scrutiny and allowance for diverse viewpoints, including scrutiny of policy, not the pursuit of the most entertaining narrative. Was this just something to do with Australian media culture - or something more sinister?

Many voters were disillusioned with Labor on climate change and refugees, but the vast majority of these would have defected to the Greens and not the Liberals.

In pursuit of a majority, Labor has been on the back-foot for decades, as shown on the issue of asylum seekers. (Although for some much of the neo-liberal ideology was internalised, and thus support for its tenets is not even seen anymore as a compromise.)

Labor has to compromise to hold together a broad constituency marked by internal contradictions (i.e. the liberal middle class and traditional working class - some of whom are socially conservative). The rise of the Greens means there is now room for alternative (Left) perspectives to be voiced openly and publicly and thus influence the “terms of debate”. This could also translate into policy leverage in the context of critical and reasonably conditional support for Labor. But the broader support base now enjoyed by the Greens, and the imperative of maintaining the balance of power in the Senate, might mean the Greens also have to contain some of their most radical impulses. The Greens should also try and open lines of communication with the progressive Christian community in an effort to broaden their support base further.

Over the long term, change is a matter of mobilising the social and economic forces to counter the dominance of concentrated private wealth - in the public sphere, civil society, and in an industrial sense. Being a voluntarist I don't see this as impossible. But this is no easy task given the realignment of class forces in this country over recent decades. What I think is that we need to get unions, progressive NGOs and progressive political parties working together, pooling their resources and co-ordinating their efforts. Such a co-ordinated and determined effort could include marginal seats campaigning and efforts at establishing alternative media - especially where it's needed most.

Of course the importance of marginal seats in this country undermines the political leverage of most voters. The Greens are correct in supporting proportional representation. But even despite our electoral system ordinary people can have an influence by organising and intervening - in their communities, their workplaces and in the public sphere. A participatory culture is part of the answer to monopoly media and “one-way information flows”. On the other hand, many older Australians are not engaged with “new media”, so undermining the power of the monopolists could occur ultimately in the form of generational change.

The Liberals also pretty much got away with their campaign line on debt and waste without getting much in the way of media scrutiny. The Liberals blew these issues grossly out of proportion - especially debt - consequently progressives need to continue the work of putting the record straight.

It is extremely important that despite what's happened progressives cannot afford to let the Right determine the historical narrative. The Left and Centre-Left need to continue to contest this narrative vigorously by arguing that there was a need for a progressive stimulus, progressive tax reform, and for infrastructure investment, and how such policies resulted in positive outcomes.

The Left and Centre-Left need continue to emphasise that - based on their own statements - the Liberals would have seen Australia going into recession had they been in government. Despite the electoral outcome the ALP made up significant ground on the theme of “economic management” during the campaign. There was a movement away from neo-liberal consensus - and the credibility of neo-liberal ideology. There is a need to hammer this home as well.

In the long run contesting this narrative is amongst the most important of challenges, because if progressives don't do this then Left and Centre-Left forces in this country will be on the back foot - and possibly out of government - for a very long time.

The broad-Left also needs to focus on so-called “working class Tories” or “Howard's battlers”. It's unavoidable that some working people will be socially conservative, but there’s a need for a clearer appeal to economic and class interests to undermine this base of support for the Liberals.

In the election aftermath there are also other issues Labor must address.

The prospects of a minority Labor government are not yet “dead”.

Ex-National Bob Katter might hold the key to who forms government in Australia. We know he's a protectionist and so may try and use his position to get protection for Australian agriculture. But can he hold onto this in the long term? (Any hung parliament is unlikely to last.) This gives him an incentive for a long-term deal with Labor.

What if Labor offered a long-term deal that “locks agricultural protection in” for more than a decade, and delivers infrastructure to the bush (funded via the mining tax). This would be in return for consistent ongoing support elsewhere.

Katter has also been a long-time critic of privatisation: and his opposition to any sale of Medibank Private - as well as a preference for a public National Broadband Network - could also provide some common ground.

Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor may also be swayed in return increased spending on regional and rural infrastructure - financed via the mining tax - and locked in for a long-term deal. Without the mining tax, though, such resources would be very hard to find.

These independents could also be swayed with a commitment by Labor to “go the full term”; and by the prospect of stability stemming from co-operation between Labor and the Greens in the Senate: something Abbott cannot deliver.

The Greens should be offered something in return for their support also. Implementation of their proposed $4.3 billion dental health scheme could be a very good start. That and the $2 billion commitment they want for Education. Some robust compromise on climate change will also be necessary. Understandably - delivering meaningfully on the environment is crucial for Greens credibility.

Aged Care and Disability services are core concerns for Andrew Wilkie - who looks set to become the independent member for the Tasmanian seat of Denison. Wilkie has made it clear that neither party should take his support for granted and even Labor would have to deliver if it wants his support.

In recent decades Labor has been “pinned down” by pressures to reduce tax and contain public expenditure: but the complex situation emerging in Canberra could actually provide the context for genuine reform. It’s quite possible that - with Wilkie - the numbers could be mobilised in support of a “National Disability Insurance Scheme”, and for reform of aged care to provide dignity, care and social participation for our most vulnerable aged Australians.

There are also long-term trends; a variety of pressures that any new government - even one based on such a patchwork of interests - really ought to address.

There is a rising cost of living. Housing is increasingly unaffordable, and urban sprawl makes long transits expensive - worsened by a lack of public transport. Privatisation and corporatisation have seen the cost of basic utilities (energy and water) rise prohibitively. There is also an unfair tax mix which fails to give a “fair go” to those on low incomes, and an ageing population which will put pressure on public finances, as well as welfare and health services and infrastructure. Given these pressures, welfare and income support for students and the unemployed have failed to keep up, and so are manifestly insufficient.

These pressures necessitate investment in health, social housing and public transport, as well as progressive restructure of the tax mix, and more generous welfare and income support measures. These issues must be addressed as part of the exchange that decides which party forms government.

Of course big commitments would impact upon the budget, and it would necessitate progressive tax reform to finance them. On top of mining tax revenue, to provide for all these initiatives, any Labor government should aim to expand revenue (and hence scope for expenditure) in the vicinity of 1.5 per cent of GDP, or by around $16 billion annually in today’s terms (with further measured and incremental increases over several terms). One option - in the context of broader reform of the tax mix - could be to abandon planned Company Tax cuts.

Finally there is the issue of post-election reprisals within the Labor Party.

Some will believe that Labor should have held off going to the polls until later in the year, or even until 2011. And we will never know now what would have happened had the parliamentary caucus given Rudd a window of opportunity to turn public opinion around. Further, had Rudd resigned under circumstances of a voluntary agreement, the process would not have left such a bitter after-taste as it did for many.

So some are pointing to the leadership change; others are questioning the quality of the campaign. And then there is the issue of state Labor governments in New South Wales and Queensland - where infrastructure privatisation split the ALP within, and left some wondering if state Labor in New South Wales and Queensland stand for anything other than dividing the spoils of office. Certainly the intervention of the mining giants was crucial, comprising the real “turning point”. But the behaviour of the media - with sometimes-subtle, sometimes-blatant bias - was out of Labor’s control.

What’s crucial for the ALP now is that the process of reprisal and counter-reprisal not get out of hand. For the immediate future - while there is still some prospect of a minority Labor government - there is a need for internal discipline to maintain credibility.

But there will also be a need for analysis and reflection after the issue of who forms government is decided. What’s crucial in this context is the development of a structured and ordered process: honest reflection, but also inclusiveness to maintain cohesion (and hence credibility) and planning and mobilising for the next election.