In the weeks before Malcolm Turnbull's downfall, the Australian public was treated to a strange and unusual spectacle. Almost to a person, the national media was urging the Liberals to make a "popular" decision and agree to Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme. For a while it seemed as though the only test of good policy was whether it was popular with voters.
It's not difficult to fathom why the press gallery stressed the popularity of an ETS as they barracked for the Liberals to pass the scheme. It was a happy coincidence that a policy many journalists personally believed in, namely reducing carbon emissions, appeared to be also popular with the public. And when it became obvious that Rudd wouldn't succeed in his ambition to go to Copenhagen with parliamentary approval of his scheme, the sense of disappointment from commentators was palpable.
As one senior member of the gallery lamented: "Australia has reverted to a pre-Howard state of climate change denial ... How did it come to pass that a bipartisan consensus, with overwhelming public support, could collapse so completely?"
The problems with turning policy into a popularity contest are obvious. Does every popular policy get implemented or only some of them? And what about unpopular policies? It's lucky floating the dollar, reducing tariffs and implementing the GST weren't put to a referendum.
It's noteworthy that other seemingly popular policies, for example, capital punishment, aren't championed by journalists with quite the same gusto. And there are some popular policies like those of the Howard government on border protection to which the Canberra press gallery is absolutely hostile. It looks as though journalists are happy to pick and choose which popular things they support and which they reject. Once upon a time politicians pursuing popular policies were accused of "dog whistle" politics.
It's no surprise Canberra's commentators enthusiastically warned of electoral oblivion for the Liberals if they didn't follow the electorate's wishes "to do something about global warming". But it is surprising that up until the morning of the Liberals' leadership vote, Turnbull's shadow cabinet seemed to believe what the media were telling them. The Higgins and Bradfield byelections demonstrate that Turnbull's shadow cabinet should have had more faith in the electorate. Or at least that part of the electorate who care about their household bills increasing by $1000 a year because of an ETS.
Whatever might be said about Turnbull, he has never wavered from his commitment to an emissions scheme. He supported Labor's legislation as a matter of principle. But most of the rest of his shadow cabinet appeared to agree with the government's policy because that was easier than disagreeing with it. Joe Hockey's suggestion that Liberal MPs get a conscience vote on the ETS was proof that the issue seemed too hard. For a couple of days it looked as though in the absence of a principle to guide it, the Liberals would have had to rely on opinion polls to determine policy.
In September a survey from the BBC showed 67 per cent of Australians want more government regulation. Presumably if the Liberals had passed the ETS because it was popular, they would next agree to bigger government and higher taxes because those things are popular too.
Because of Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister is now going to have to explain how his ETS will work. It's easy for the public to be in favour of something it doesn't know anything about.
Australian political history is replete with policies that were popular until people got to vote on them. In November 1991 -- a few days after John Hewson launched Fightback! -- the coalition had an 18 per cent lead against Labor in the opinion polls.
If there's one thing that we do know about the current political situation, it is that at least at this moment, the electorate believes Labor is successfully managing the economy. Of course this might change as interest rates rise, and as Barnaby Joyce as shadow finance minister prosecutes his case that the nation is now carrying unsustainable levels of public debt.
Every minute the Prime Minister spends explaining his Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is a minute he's not explaining how his economic recovery plan saved Australia from recession. As bizarre as it sounds, a federal election fought on the issue of climate change might be Abbott's best chance against Rudd.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment