For anyone who, like me, still clings to the notion that ‘good policy is good politics’, especially if based on ‘good process’, this federal election would have been a particular disappointment. ‘Good’ policies — ones that stand a good chance of making the community better off — were few and far between, with good process rarely apparent.
I believe this played a significant role (alongside various other problems) in the Coalition’s monumental defeat. With a leader who, to put it kindly, lacked charisma, and plenty of seats needing to be won back, the Coalition required a strong policy agenda, one that could persuade the public that a change of Government was warranted. It did not have one.
Many Coalition policies appeared to have been made ‘on the run’ in a reactive rather than proactive way. And without being burdened by much consultation or analysis. They can be grouped under the headings ‘me too!’ or ‘gotcha!’.
In the first category, mainly spending policies, the Coalition either added more money to what Labor was handing out, or fiddled with the detail. This made it hard for the public to distinguish it’s offerings from those of Labor; who, let’s face it, is widely acknowledged as the champion of big spending. So it was easy for Labor to sow seeds of doubt about the Coalition’s commitment. Such doubts would have been reinforced by how late policies appeared and how little effort was put into selling them. Moreover, those front benchers who might have been expected to perform that critical role — and been better at it than the leader — were largely missing in action.
Where real policy differences with Labor existed, they were mainly in the ‘gotcha’ category: intended to exploit Labor’s blindspots or ideological commitments. Fair enough. But at least two of the more politically significant of these — the sacking of Albo’s 41,000 public service recruits and ending work from home — had clearly not been thought through. They required backtracking that left egg on the Coalition’s collective face and made it impossible to convince the electorate that it would be better at policymaking than Labor.
Dutton and Hume diminished the Opposition’s perceived policy credentials further by explaining that the reason for the WFH turnaround was that “we’ve listened to what people say.” That would translate in many minds as, ‘we did not bother to listen beforehand’.
On the ‘sacking of Canberra’ the Coalition got the numbers wrong, again and again. Their errors and mis-steps made it hard to credibly deny that front-line services would be affected, making it not just an issue for Canberra but for the rest of the country too. Eventually asserting, on the back foot, that there would be no forced redundancies, made the infeasibility of the policy even more evident. In any case, ‘natural attrition’ or ‘voluntary redundancies’ are rarely the best way to go — too slow in the first case, too costly in the second, as well as dumbing down the workforce.
It would have been immediately apparent to anyone with knowledge of the public sector that both of these initiatives were bound for trouble. Listening first would have avoided the traps that caused such grief later. In the case of the 41,000, the lack of preparation was no doubt due to the urgent need to come up with savings to cover newly increased spending proposals. But desperation is not a good look for an Opposition trying to win support.
The Coalition’s controversial nuclear policy had elements of both ‘me too’ and ‘gotcha’ about it. It was pretty much an add-on to the Government’s own energy policy, and committed to the same net zero target. But that very target, the global viability of which is now seriously in doubt, made it look problematic in the time frame. That’s apart from the issue of cost, always a focal point for Government attack, but not well handled.
As many have said, as the election approached what the Coalition really stood for became harder to discern from its grab-bag of policy announcements. The exact opposite to Abbott’s winning mantra. In the end, all that Dutton was left with was his petrol price ‘gotcha’ and endless photo opportunities at the bowser. Hardly a good policy, and politically outweighed by not going along with Labor’s (equally opportunistic) tax cut. Better to have held back on some of the extra spending instead.
‘Policy on the run’ is not conducive to building public trust in the policymaker. In uncertain times, the electorate can’t be blamed for sticking with the devil it knew.
GARY BANKS