Do Australian voters care about sleaze in politics?

There is a political scandal in Australia that, with the laudable exception of The Australian, has not received much coverage in country’s the mainstream press.

It is the arrest and charging of Tasmania’s dumped deputy premier, Bryan Green, with conspiracy under the state’s Criminal Code.

Mr Green has been charged over a secret deal he signed in February, when also infrastructure minister, with private building industry accreditation company Tasmanian Compliance Corporation.

Also charged were TCC director and former Labor health minister John White and Mr Green's political adviser Guy Nicholson. As The Australian reports, the deal was later ruled to be illegal by Solicitor-General Bill Bale because it bound any future government ministers responsible for building matters to an arrangement that was contrary to Tasmania's building laws.

The maximum penalty under sections 297 and 69 of the Criminal Code is 21 years' imprisonment.

Although Tasmanian politics rarely makes a mark on the consciousness of most commentators, the way this particular saga plays out should be an interesting case study on how scandal affects incumbent governments, and whether oppositions can take advantage.

I imagine that politicians and their advisors around the country are “going to school” on what is happening in the island state at the moment.

The most important question for them is this: will Paul Lennon’s Labor government be permanently damaged? After all, the premier himself, with only a hint of understatement, said on the day Bryan Green was charged, “Obviously, it's not a good day for the government”.

Not a good day indeed - but is it the beginning of the end for Labor?

On the evidence, the answer is “Perhaps”, but more likely, “No”.

There are many variables still to be factored into the political equation before any confident predications can be made. The most important of these is how the trial of Mr Green and his co-accused plays out. But even if the court case goes badly for Mr Green and Labor, it would be foolish to think that the Lennon Government is, by default, finished.

There are three key reasons why the government has a good chance of surviving.

The first is that this event has occurred early in the elections cycle. Yes, it is a cliché to say that a week is a long time in politics, but that doesn’t make it less true: voters have notoriously bad memories. There are three and a half years until Labor has to ask Tasmanians for another term - plenty of time for this act to be played out and for other events to dominate the electorate’s consciousness.

The second is that, in modern Australian politics, incumbency is king.

We are seeing at state and federal level incumbent governments seemingly immune to all types of scandal: the sacking of ministers, charges of corruption and plenty of inept handling of portfolios. Through all this, governments keep getting re-elected and are now into three and even four terms.

One conclusion to draw is that voters have simply switched off when it comes to political scandal. They are more interested in the things that affect them directly - particularly interest rates, house prices and jobs - than what they see to be the unavoidable antics of politicians.

We know that, in Tasmania, Paul Lennon managed to steer Labor to over 50 per cent of the vote in the March election this year, despite a string of bad news stories dogging his term.

The third reason Labor has a good chance of survival is that the Liberal opposition has still to convince Tasmanians that it is a viable alternative government. Sure, voters may be thinking Labor is not covering itself in glory, but are the Liberals in a position to do better?

That final factor - the voters’ perception of the opposition - I believe is the key to how well the government survives this latest setback.

You can’t say that Labor is not opening the door for Liberal leader Will Hodgman, but it remains to be seen if he can take real advantage. But opposition leader is the hardest job going in Australian politics at the moment. The electoral landscape is littered with failed pretenders - no state opposition leader in the country has been in the position for more than 12 months.

My view is that Mr Hodgman’s best chance of elevating his team from honest tryers to genuine contenders is not, perhaps paradoxically, to “muscle up” to Mr Lennon on the economy. Labor has strong credentials on economic management so it is hard to see the Liberals winning if that is the focus of the next election.

No, I can only see success coming to the Liberals if they avoid playing Labor’s game. What might help, for example, is a long-term plan on issues that are biting into the everyday life of ordinary Tasmanians, issues as diverse as the ageing of the workforce, water quality and availability, and crime and safety at the community level.

If Will Hodgman can convince Tasmanians he has answers to these three questions, then I think he will be half way to the Treasury benches. On the other hand, Labor will be hoping that, as long as there are “cranes in the sky”, voters will not care about political scandal and will continue to opt for the status quo.

I get the impression that Tasmanian now feel they know this government - warts and all - and to an extent accept the rather gruff image of their premier and the political shenanigans of his ministers.

The real political focus from now until the 2010 election is not on Mr Lennon, or Mr Green or even the new deputy premier, Steve Kons; no, it sits squarely on Will Hodgman. He will never have a better opportunity.

So this is the lesson for politicians in Australia: while the economy remains strong, electors may be largely desensitised to government impropriety. That is not to say that, when scandal bites the incumbent, there is no hope for the opposition - just that voters need to see a viable alternative before they jump.