The issue of whether John Howard or someone else leads the Coalition to the election is a distraction. Voter disaffection with the Federal Government goes much deeper than the choice of leader.
On many measures, John Howard has been an outstanding Prime Minister and he deserves to continue in the job. But the question from voters is: what are you going to do for me next? The PM has between now and election day to give an answer. As yet, we're not sure of his reply.
Like it or not, Australians are demanding the vision thing. And it's clear that we want to hear about more than just good economic management. So far the Coalition hasn't made enough of a case for its re-election.
Julia Gillard yesterday was able to exploit this lack of ideas when she claimed that the Government had even worse industrial relations plans.
In fact, the Government does not appear to have any plans, for industrial relations or anything else.
Labor hasn't offered much more of a program than the Coalition. But the Opposition doesn't have to spell out a comprehensive policy program to be appealing. Instead, Rudd can afford to be seen as merely a credible alternative.
With no new vision to present, Howard is struggling to retain voter attention. He is running on his record. And there are many highlights to that record. However, it is also a record that can best be described as one of big government conservatism.
Record surpluses have not resulted in record tax cuts. Real tax reform would not simply have reduced the top marginal rate for example. Real tax reform would also have addressed the disincentives that those on low incomes face when they move from welfare to work.
The pork-barrelling and advertising sprees that have served the Government so well in previous elections are no longer having the desired effect. Instead, these strategies merely paint the picture of a Government in pursuit of votes.
All of this is ironic because on many things Howard is a forceful and passionate advocate for choice. He's vigorously defended the right of parents to choose the school they want for children. So his instincts should be for lower taxes and a free economy. Instead, what we've got is more economic and social regulation, not less.
It seems there is no limit to the range of issues on which the Federal Government will preach. The latest example is the campaign to warn families of internet dangers. It's debatable whether it is the job of the national government to tell parents to monitor what their children do on the internet.
The Howard Government's approach to economic reform has been quantity, rather than quality.
There is no better illustration of this than WorkChoices. The Government is right to emphasise the growth in employment over the past two years, but the new industrial relations system is complex and confusing. The unions and the ALP have been able to exploit this issue precisely because few people understand the new system.
The so-called media reforms did nothing of the sort. Australia's traditional print and television media are still protected by the Government and insulated from competition by new technologies. The country could have had real broadband by now if the Government had allowed the private sector to build it.
What should have been a crowning achievement of the Coalition, the GST, has simply led to bigger and bigger government. GST revenue has flooded state governments with money but isolated them from any responsibility for collecting it. This has completely distorted notions of political accountability.
The AWB scandal should have been greeted by a comprehensive deregulation of wheat markets, and an abolition of that old protectionist bulwark, the single desk. Instead, we have had piecemeal reform designed to punish AWB, rather than deregulate the wheat industry.
The Liberal Party's commitment to federalism has largely been abandoned. The Prime Minister now calls himself a nationalist, but he may have misread the public mood on the issue. Support for federalism is not merely support for archaic notions of states' rights. People want government to be accessible and accountable, regardless of whether that level of government is federal, state or local. A Canberra takeover of state government functions doesn't fulfil these criteria.
Elections are about more than economic management, and so they should be. So far Labor has defined the terms of the debate. The task for John Howard is to tell Australia what else this election is about.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment