New Dick Smith party could be a winner

Dick Smith told the Weekend Australian he was considering setting up a new political party with two near-billionaires. There is space available in the market.

The founders of Flight Centre, Graham Turner and Geoff Harris, have approached Smith about lending his name to a new party to be called the Sustainable Australia Party. A policy limiting immigration to around 70 000 per year, eventually stabilizing the population, would be the core to an unspecified broader range of sustainability ideas.

Turner and Harris are each reported to have more than $800 million. Harris is a noted philanthropist. They have previously provided funds to the Sustainable Population Party, but to no avail as that party has failed to attract any attention. At the last Federal Senate election in NSW 31 parties outpolled their 0.07%, including the Pirate Party and the Smokers Party. They did get around 3% in the North Sydney by-election on Saturday but various other small parties also did better than usual.

A new start and much more money will be required if there is to be any impact from their latest efforts. As Einstein mentioned, doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result is the definition of madness.

There are 49 political parties registered for Commonwealth elections, not counting the separate registrations of State branches of major parties. Each one has to get at least 500 people to sign up as members so there is clearly no shortage of people willing to join a single-issue party with no hope of achieving anything much.

There is however a great reluctance to sign on to a party that could actually take responsibility for governing. And that makes support from wealthy backers virtually mandatory for political success.

There is still room in the market for something new, but only if it offers a big picture based on a stable population. If it keeps on banging the single-issue drum it will probably stay at the 1% or less level.

Clive Palmer managed to win one Reps seat and three senate seats by spending a lot of money and proposing an odd and incoherent set of policies. But Palmer also put himself on the line and worked very hard in the campaign, projecting an amusing and positive persona. He offered a chance for voters to go for entertainment rather than the pompous posturing of the major parties.

Dick Smith is apparently only prepared to contribute his name to SAP. It appears Turner and Harris may contribute more money than in the past but possibly not enough to kick-start the scale of venture they are imagining. They are not likely to stand themselves or even campaign much so that leaves a huge gap in the drive to replicate Palmers success.

The chaos of the Palmer Party means its vote has evaporated and theoretically is available for another minor party pushing a popular barrow. But it may be that seeing what happened to the party they voted for last time, and with Turnbull rather than Abbott leading the Liberals, these votes will revert to the big parties.

Any serious party has a meta-narrative, or big picture that sets out the broad thrust of how they will approach problems and opportunities to build a better future for the voters. Individual policies are only useful politically if they serve to strengthen the appeal of this big picture.

It is the credibility and attraction of the big picture that decides how most people vote.

Malcolm Turnbull's success as PM is due to his personification of the optimistic, calm and prosperous image that people expect of the Liberal Party. It has been amusing to see gay marriage and other 'rights' issues that thrived under Abbott fade away under Turnbull. They were basically ways to punish Abbott for telling the wrong stories.

The Greens are trying to move beyond self-righteous moralising to develop a narrative about sensible transition to a future based on new energy sources but they have not succeeded yet. Their great weakness is population policy. They still appear to think refugee and high migration policy is core to their big picture but it is actually contrary to it. Continued population growth defeats any attempts to reduce greenhouse emissions and to alleviate many other environmental concerns. The Greens used to own the word 'sustainable' but not any more.

The ALP is lost in the wilderness because it, and most of the voters, can no longer recognise any big picture. The unions are a problem, public health, education and broadcasting are no longer defended, if there are foreign or defence policies they remain well hidden.

Then there are the policy specifics like the incredible huge rise in tobacco tax. As Health Minister Ley has said, that would hit a lot of people who have big problems with addiction and other mental health issues that make smoking the least of their worries. And the tax hits people who should be natural ALP voters but now almost certainly won't be.

The ALP could announce a new policy every day from now to the election and it will make no difference at all unless they can magically find a new meta-narrative that gives voters confidence they know what will happen if they vote Labor.

In this highly volatile political environment a new party proclaiming sustainability built on a stable population could be successful if was adequately capitalised, had a charismatic leader and a coherent meta-narrative.

Without those three basic requirements it will be just a few rich guys dipping their toes in the water.