Voters feel locked out

The most surprising thing about the federal elections is not the result but the attitude of the Liberal leadership in the last days of the campaign and their reactions afterwards.

The results were foreseeable if not predictable. In an election in which:

• there was not a single, dominant issue;
• the Liberals had undermined their economic credentials by raising and dismissing in quick order raising the GST, requiring the states to re-introduce state income tax changes and significant changes to superannuation rules; and
• Malcolm Turnbull’s apparent, initial popularity was exposed for what it was - a dream,

the likelihood was that the Coalition would lose between six and ten members.

In the end, the Liberals lost 13 seats in net terms, despite winning the Victorian seat Chisholm following the retirement of a popular, local member...

One explanation for the loss of a few extra seats and the high vote for minor party candidates is the Brexit vote.

The fact that the Liberals promoted as the outcome of the Brexit vote a desire for stable government reinforces just how out of touch the major parties and the inner suburban elites are with mainstream Australia.

The major parties and the self-appointed elites do not want to accept that mainstream Australia has given up on political parties which they believe do not know what life is like for them at the coalface and do not care. For them the Brexit vote demonstrated that, sometimes, it is possible to strike a blow which hits the mark.

Labor’s Medicare campaign reinforced that instinct. While they do not think that Labor is in touch with mainstream Australia any more than the Liberals are, at least Medicare is an issue which affects their daily lives.

On the other hand, Malcolm Turnbull pontificated from his Potts Point mansion about a bright future with innovation - which sounded like code for an insecure future.

In these circumstances, the Liberals’ behaving in the last week of the campaign as if the results were in the bag, and indeed that they thought they could win seats, smacked of arrogance, complacency and incompetence.

The Herald Sun and internal critics of Victorian premier Daniel Andrews have tried to blame state issues, and especially a dispute involving the Country Fire Authority (CFA) volunteers, for the loss of Chisholm and Labor’s failure to win seats in Victoria, thereby costing Labor the election. Not surprisingly, the Liberals have encouraged this view, no doubt hoping it will flame internal tensions.

This idea also deflects attention away from Labor’s campaign in Victoria and the question as to why the Medicare campaign was effective in other states but not Victoria.

The claim relies on arguments about the variation of votes within different parts of the same electorate and especially in two electorates - Corangamite and La Trobe.

However, Labor obtained a swing of almost 8 per cent to it in its most marginal seat McEwan - a seat in which all the fire stations are CFA stations. It also obtained a swing of 2.5 per cent to it in its second most marginal seat Bendigo - another seat in which all the fire stations are CFA stations. There also was swing of 5 per cent against the Liberals in McMillan which has a popular local member. Again all the fire stations are CFA stations.

Mr. Andrews’ decision not to wait until after the federal elections to bring the dispute between the firefighters’ union and the CFA Board and the volunteers to a head is strange, if not bizarre. However there is no evidence that it had a decisive influence in the outcome which does not augur well for those Liberals who think that it will be an issue in the state elections in 2½ years’ time.

Malcolm Turnbull’s petulant speech in the early hours of the Sunday morning after the closing of the polls brought back memories of his reaction to the result of the republic referendum in 1999.

He was the victim. Then the fault laid with a tricky John Howard. This time it laid with a devious and unscrupulous Labor Party and the dim-witted voters who fell for their lies. Not a thought was spared for those who had lost their jobs.

The following Tuesday Deputy Leader Julie Bishop’s performance on the 7.30 Report reinforced the perception that the Liberal leadership was in denial despite Mr. Turnbull’s finally delivering a mea culpa earlier that day.

Since then nothing appears to have changed. There were media reports after the Liberal Party’s meeting last week that the threatened revolt over the leadership’s dismissal of the significance of proposed changes to superannuation fizzled out. However, it appears that serious discussion of the Liberals’ campaign was deferred on the basis that there will be a comprehensive review.

Since then any doubts about the level of angst over the superannuation changes have been removed by the intention of George Christensen, the Member for Dawson which is based on Mackay, to vote against the proposed changes. This threat is an early reminder of the fragility of the Coalition’s position.

Then there is the suggestion promoted by Malcolm Turnbull supporters that the effectiveness of Labor’s Medicare campaign is really Tony Abbott’s fault because two years ago he sought to introduce a Medicare co-payment.

The impression that Mr. Turnbull is determined that it will be his way or the highway has been reinforced by his not seeking to make a peace offering to his internal critics. Time will tell if this act of defiance rebounds on him.

It may have limited Mr. Turnbull’s ability to make changes to the Cabinet and the outer ministry, both of which have seen marginal changes only and increases to accommodate the demands of the Nationals. Unlike the Liberals, the Nationals had a successful campaign re-gaining the Victorian seat Murray from the Liberals and holding all their current seats including the Queensland seat Capricornia which is essentially a Labor seat.

The most significant Cabinet move was Christopher Pyne’s appointment as the Minister for Defence Industry, which in real terms translates to the minister for South Australia. Consequently Greg Hunt moved to Mr. Pyne’s former portfolio, Josh Frydenberg became the Minister for Energy and Environment, an interesting but logical coupling and the Nationals’ Matt Canavan became the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia.

Kelly O’Dwyer, who many consider responsible for the superannuation angst, lost small business which went to the Nationals’ new addition to the outer ministry, Michael MCormack.

Meanwhile, on the Labor side, most focus was on Victoria’s shadow ministers with the Left faction’s marshalling the forces to force Kim Carr to make way for new blood and the Right’s determining to dump David Feeney after, what was for him, a disastrous election campaign. While Mr. Feeney held out the Greens despite a swing of more than 9 per cent against him in two-party preferred terms, most Labor observers think that holding Batman is a fight which Labor will lose sooner rather than later, just as they think Labor will lose the fight to retain Wills in the medium term and Melbourne Ports when the current member Michael Danby decides to retire.

Kim Carr has survived the assassination attempt by Mr. Shorten’s expanding the shadow ministry. The support he has given Mr. Shorten both during and since the leadership contest between Mr. Shorten and Mr. Albanese three years ago, and the threat of his Victorian supporters to form a sub-faction within the Left saved him.

Mr. Feeney was not so fortunate. It was revealed during the campaign that he had failed to declare a $2 million house he owns but in which he does not live. In addition to the embarrassment this failure caused Mr. Shorten, with whom Mr. Feeney has been a close ally, it is said that Mr. Feeney further blotted his copy book when he took umbrage at being questioned by Mr. Shorten’s office about the matter.

Mr. Feeney was a big loser from the implosion of his power base, the Hospital Services Union. This latest incident was enough to bring about his dumping from the shadow ministry. If Mr. Feeney wishes to move to greener pastures than Batman, just as he moved from an unwinnable third position on a Senate ticket to Batman in 2013, it will be interesting to see if this outcome inhibits him.

The Greens also have fared poorly. They championed the changes to the Senate election system because they thought they would be winners if some of their competitors (i.e. micro parties) were forced out of the contest. However, their Senate vote is down by about one per cent.

Despite the fact that there was a double dissolution and that having senators elected should have been easier to achieve than it is during a normal, half Senate election, they have lost a South Australian senator to Nick Xenophon’s party and they could lose another. While their longer-term prospects in seats like Batman, Wills and Melbourne Ports remain unchanged, they barely increased their vote in Grayndler, Anthony Albanese’s seat, and went backwards in two-party preferred terms.

While the Senate results still are uncertain, it is clear that the Coalition’s teaming up with the Greens and Nick Xenophon to change the electoral rules to reduce the prospects of micro parties has failed. The Liberals seem not to want to understand that at least 25 per voters do not want to vote for major parties in upper houses and that transparent efforts to put impediments in their path is likely only to increase their determination to do so.

In these elections, for example, about 25 per cent of voters have voted for micro parties and more than 8 per cent have voted for the Greens. All that has changed is the faces, and particularly Pauline Hanson and former Victorian radio announcer Derryn Hinch. Only Nick Xenophon has profited from the exercise.

If Pauline Hanson’s team comprised three senators it would be a more impressive achievement than that of Nick Xenophon whose team has secured three Senators and a lower house seat. It would mean that her team would have won in three states without either the publicity Nick Xenophon attracts or the advantage of incumbency.

Further, not only is Nick Xenophon’s success limited to one state, but also it is built on the legacy of the Australian Democrats whose success, in turn, was based on the foundations laid by Liberal state and federal politician Steele Hall and Labor premier Don Dunstan.

Even the Nick Xenophon’s candidate’s success in Mayo, the Downer stronghold, brings back old memories. In 1998 Australian Democrat candidate John Schumann finished second in the primary count and gave Alexander Downer a fright on the back of Labor preferences.

If South Australian Bob Day and NSW senator David Leyonhjelm are defeated, the Liberals may pay a heavy price for making changes to the Senate voting system before a double dissolution. On economic issues, Nick Xenophon, Pauline Hanson and the Greens may have more in common than what people assume.

However, the most significant event during the election campaign may be that Malcolm Turnbull personally donated at least a million dollars to the Liberal Party during the campaign. If this report were true, its primary significance would not be that it provided evidence that the superannuation issue cost the Liberals votes at least indirectly, if not directly, through a diminution of resources.

It would be more fundamental. When the Palmer Party was at the height of its political influence, there were Liberals talking about the precedent Mr. Palmer was setting and the dangers to democracy presented by wealthy individuals buying political control. Comparisons were made with Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi.

If this suggestion were true, some might ask what is the difference between any precedent set by Clive Palmer and the precedent set by this donation - other than the fact that Mr. Turnbull is the leader of a majority party and therefore more likely than Mr. Palmer to be in a position to wield the power exercised by Mr. Berlusconi.

Others might say that such a donation would be just an extension of the existing understanding, in some states at least, that Liberal candidates in winnable seats are expected to self-fund by campaigning full time without pay in the twelve months prior to an election.

Liberals might retort that they need to resort to measures such as these to counter the advantage Labor has through the involvement of unions; and it is true that the support of a union for a candidate not only endorsed for a winnable seat but also seeking endorsement as the candidate for a safe or a winnable seat is important if not critical. One needs look no further that the role played by unions in determining the outcome of the pre-selection for a Victorian seat, Wills.

However such a defence would be cold comfort to mainstream Australians. All that this development would do is reinforce their belief that they are locked out of the political process, that neither of the major parties knows or wants to know about their priorities and aspirations and that they are wasting their time thinking otherwise