Pearls and Irritations

I do not expect that there would be an outbreak of existential angst, despair, or deep public sullenness, even among committed Labor voters, if Anthony Albanese were to fail to win the next election.

Traditional supporters, even true believers, would be sad and shake their heads. But they would not consider the outcome as their fault, a consequence of their failure to keep the faith, or desertion to the coalition, or even of party disunity and internal sabotage. They will instead blame Albanese himself, for conscious acts of self-harm. For leading a party afraid to govern, irresolute in the face of political risk, paralysed about doing good, and seeming to want to cynically imitate the worst features and policies of the Morrison government. To base policies around their susceptibility to criticism from Peter Dutton or the Reserve Bank.

Albanese’s advisers and minders, and some of his journalistic cheer squad are now putting it about that the prime minister has recently woken up after a year of daze that seemed to begin about the time of the Voice referendum. He now realises, it is said, that there must be an election within the next nine months, and begun to focus his thoughts, and concentrate on the things that matter. Things that don’t (policies on Aboriginal affairs would be a good example) are being jettisoned, either entirely or for the next year.

Mass rehearsals will prepare ministers and the caucus about discipline and avoiding panic, and the need to continue an austerity regime because the one big issue will be the cost of living. The main job, apparently, involves reining in public expenditure considered to be inflationary by the Reserve Bank, the money markets, and the columnists at The Australian and the Financial Review. Subsidies to the hydrocarbon industry, for nuclear submarine fantasies, propping up the mainstream media moguls, and tax cuts for business will not be thought to contribute to the cost of living. Contrary wise expenditure on health, education and welfare, on improving the public housing supply, or the environment, or doing anything serious about climate change, or the environment will be seen as wasteful and unaffordable.

The fear will be that Labor will not want to be bold, lest it suffer the fate of Labor under Bill Shorten for having policies of imagination, appealing to the heart, the soul and the emotions. For Albanese and his inner circle, now is not the time. He cannot use the self-indulgence of a James Scullin, winning government on the eve of the Great Depression, the careless days of a John Curtin or Ben Chifley, taking over in the crisis days of World War II, a Gough Whitlam during an oil crisis, or a Bob Hawke or Paul Keating, finding themselves only with the project of remaking the economy. Nor even a Kevin Rudd coping with a global financial crisis. Governing is not so easy these days, particularly if one lacks the courage and conviction to question old verities, to research, establish and sell new priorities suitable for the times.

Albanese has yet to make any positive mark on Labor history.

It would be simply impossible to construct any legend of Anthony Albanese, a leader for difficult times, one whose stock of policy and programs was premised on Labor values, ideas and ideals. Of a person whose integrity and principles made the advancement of working and disadvantaged Australians his constant priority. It is equally hard to imagine the true believers mobilising around nuclear subs, war with China, zeal for Israel’s war on Palestinians, and de minimus policies on the environment.

I am not suggesting that I expect Labor to lose the election. It should not, given the advantages it ought to have, including voters’ memories of the abuse and maladministration of coalition ministers, including Peter Dutton. But Albanese has squandered much of that moral advantage, not least by his half-hearted approach to reforming processes of government, his retention of many of the worst bureaucrats and dropping the ball on an anti-corruption agency.

It is now clear that the problems of the NACC embrace not only the watered-down approach to public hearings and public reports, but the unsuitability of some of the commissioners for the task for which they were chosen. The Albanese government, in short, has much of the style and lack of concern for integrity, due process and appearances of its predecessor. It’s getting a habit of putting purely political considerations ahead of principle, or “doing the right thing.” Proposed “reforms” to electoral funding laws, the administration by ministers and departments of FOI laws, and the chronic secrecy and lack of accountability venture into the corrupt.

Labor can warn against a restoration of the rogues and crooks in the previous regime. But Labor has already been in power long enough that voters can reasonably ask “so how have you changed that status quo?” No Albanese ministers have yet been shown to be personally venal. But all the old ways of rorting are unchanged. The coalition collection of mates, cronies and relatives are mostly now out the door, unless they are ex-ministers turned lobbyists, or ex senior soldiers now working disloyally to divert public money to business and themselves. But a new collection of lobbyists, spivs and urgers, determined to winkle public money for private purposes, has arrived. They have all of the same unaccountable access to ministers, minders and top bureaucrats.

The government promised to deal with the overuse of consultants, and, after a scandal soon after getting into power, criminal abuses and conflicts of interest by top consulting firms. It is now obvious that politicians, public servants and even the police have no intention of seeking systemic penalties for systemic abuses of power. They will reinterpret their task to be finding a few token scapegoats so that they can look tough. Nothing could be weaker, and no old mate, or future job, will suffer.

The reluctance to take firm and principled action, of a toughness that the United States demonstrated in imposing billion-dollar penalties on consultancy firms with similar scandals, is a consequence of the unhealthy cosy relationships and revolving door between politicians, bureaucrats and the consulting industry.

Corrupting links between Labor and clubs, gambling ads, alcohol and the media.

Another pressing problem, which has extended into Canberra involves the corrupting relationship between the NSW Labor Party and the gambling, club and liquor industry, including the media which has become hooked on gambling money. NSW Labor is effectively a wholly owned subsidiary of the gambling industry, something easily demonstrated by the refusal of the NSW Premier, Chris Minns to take any action on poker machines. Now a similar problem within the Commonwealth’s jurisdiction involves federal Labor ministers conniving to water down plans to move against gambling advertisements.

It is a most smelly and suspicious coincidence of interests, inviting the worst possible interpretation of the party’s motives. Weakened laws directly hurt poor people, especially Labor voters. Big Labor doesn’t care. It wants not only the generous gambling donations, hoped for favours from catering to media moguls, and the casual corruptions of freebies at sporting events. There will never be reform until Labor severs the donations link, and the easy promiscuity between the various industries involved and Labor politicians.

The same corruption of the spirit can be found in understandings between Labor and the coalition to put the two major parties at an improper advantage over independents and the minor parties in access to fund-raising. The rort purports to make the same rules for everyone at elections while allowing grandfathering arrangements and party trusts to keep the major parties at an enormous advantage. It is corrupt as well as wrong in principle because it handicaps anyone threatening to break down a two-party system which is already in decline. The big parties accentuate their advantage by not having to regard as donations the public money – averaging $100 million for each side – given as electoral funding.

Labor has lost righteous anger about the perversion of government and it’s back to same old, same old.

It is not my primary point here that Labor has multiple sources of institutional corruption it is making no effort to be honest about. If Australia had anti-corruption and integrity laws up to the systemic problem, and an integrity commission up to the task of wanting honest government, something might be done about it, even in spite of the dilution of the integrity arrangements originally promised. The point, instead, is that it has become clear that Labor in government, and its administrative apparatus, has succumbed to much the same old same old methods of taking dishonest and morally wrong short cuts and discretions in government.

Three years ago, senior Labor figures, from Albanese down, were full of rage about abuses of the very system of government and seemed genuine in their promises to fix it so it could never occur again. Put simply, once Labor achieved power, too many of its ministers, from the prime minister down, went native. They aggravated their somersault by instituting a system of secrecy that makes a complete joke of accountability, transparency or respect for the public interest. And the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, an ostensible champion of law reform has effectively dropped promises of effective whistle-blower laws and is embarked on further criminalisation of disclosure of government activity.

When Albanese was a leader of the opposition about to narrowly win a workable majority against a Morrison government that had forfeited any moral right to office, he was generally rated as decent and honest, meaning what he said. It was already clear that he was no radical, despite his notional attachment to the party left, and that he was somewhat timid and nervous, rather than bold and impetuous.

We know Albanese now. He cannot re-invent himself.

He has now been in power long enough that voters have had all the opportunity they need to form an impression of his character. So far, he has not acquired the image of slyness and professional insincerity that hung over Morrison. But he doesn’t explain. Impressions last, but so do signs of slipperiness, corner-cutting and the abandonment of principled government for partisan advantage.

Albanese cannot re-invent himself for electoral purposes. Nor can he easily change positions or courses on matters of principle without causing considerable disappointment and sometimes anger. People expect him to keep his promises. But they equally expect him to be consistent and predictable. He can, of course, openly drop policies, for a stated reason such as lack of resources or lack of public support at any time, but if his original policy was put in place to collect a constituency, the effect of retreat on that constituency has to be weighed against whatever political advantage is gained. When the main effect is of being seen to walk away in fright from something now seen as too hard, the party and its leader seem weaker, not stronger, dithering rather than decisive.

Albanese’s political advantage may be that he has devoted more time to shifting into the centre of centre-right by adopting policies from the coalition. He has disappointed his own true believers with his policies on submarines, on refugees, on strong support for Israel over Gaza. However this might dishearten them, few will cross to the other, at worst (from Albanese’s point of view) showing their disapproval by giving a first preference to the Greens before giving a second preference to Labor.

The risk of this pragmatic approach is lost enthusiasm for and reduced “ownership” of his cause. This can be seen with an ever-declining primary vote, and the creation of seats vulnerable to Greens and independents – candidates indeed, who seem to own the moral high ground. Labor can never hold power in the long term if it takes its natural constituencies for granted or fails to regard and respect the party’s traditions and values. Achievements over the cost of living or interest rates may win respect, of a sort. But they will never substitute for a belief among followers that it’s a real Labor government there.

Share and Enjoy !

SHARE TWEET SHARE COPY EMAIL PRINT