Policies for the Opposition Leader: three paths to electoral success

One of the many benefits of being a member of parliament is the amount of advice received. It is an endless bounty. Quite a lot relates to character assessments, such as, "You're a useless parasite". But some, not a lot, is actually constructive, intended to help the member get re-elected. Sometimes it ought to be heeded.

I would not want to be leader of the Opposition – it's a tough job. The volume of advice is an order of magnitude greater than for an ordinary member, and very little is constructive.

The challenge is to recognise useful advice when it arrives. What policies could be adopted to convince swinging voters? Will the party's "Labor-lite" faction agree to it?

Although they have been disappointingly ineffective for as long as I can remember, I broadly prefer the Coalition in government to Labor. They just do less harm. With that in mind, I've decided to give the Opposition leader three pieces of advice. It's not what I would do if I was Prime Minister; I'm simply offering constructive advice.

First, while it is abundantly clear that the pursuit of net zero is devastating the economy, the challenge is to find a way to abandon the policy without losing votes.

I believe the answer is China. Certainly, China is building wind and solar farms, but there are far more coal fired and nuclear power stations under construction. Its aim is to achieve net-zero emissions by 2060, perhaps. Moreover, the country's greenhouse gas emissions are so substantial they completely negate any reductions that Australia might achieve.

The solution is for Australia to adopt the same policies towards climate change as China. Whatever China says and does on the issue, we will do the same. In practical terms it means we will say one thing and do another.

This is electorally saleable for two reasons. First, China is no longer a developing country, as anyone can see. Second, more importantly, China is by far our most important export market, buying more than twice as much as our next biggest market. It makes sense to be in alignment. It also makes more sense than emulating economically irrelevant countries such as Germany and the UK, both of which are suffering similar devastation from net zero policies.

Second, Australia has a massive government spending problem which is not only contributing to inflation but creating a massive debt problem that will last for generations.

The problem is, Australians consistently vote for candidates that promise both tax cuts and increased government spending. The challenge is to find an electorally acceptable way to balance the budget.

My solution is, first, to eliminate bracket creep by indexing income tax rates. This is not a new idea, but it will win votes; average Australians dislike paying tax rates originally intended to apply to high income earners. It will also starve the government of increasing tax revenue.

Of course this will necessitate cuts in government expenditure, although not immediately. I propose a simple policy of strictly means-testing all welfare, with no exceptions including the NDIS. This will be presented as 'more welfare for those who need it, less for those who don't'.