Choosing a leader for the challenges of tomorrow
We must endure our political class when we ache instead for inspiration. Too many voters feel let down, confused and confounded, leaving them in contempt of men and women of generally good standing who play with their lives and tug at their emotions. The kids call it gaslighting. And for many Australians who may have tuned into party politics only during this campaign, they would be left with a distorted idea of the country they live in and love. They could be forgiven for not knowing with any confidence what they are being asked to consider by our major parties before casting their vote. Both major parties have sought to make this election about the character, capacity and competence of the men vying to be prime minister – a not unreasonable proposition, but perhaps only a consideration if due weight was also given to fundamental questions at stake when it comes to the future of our families and our country. Over the past six weeks, voters have had ample time to make an instinctive call on the nature of the two men. One has been Prime Minister through the most extreme political, economic and social upheaval. He has stumbled on occasion, chosen the wrong phrases here and there, trusted the wrong advice and sometimes made the wrong calls. He has obviously not been perfect, and has left it open to his opponents to seize on and exploit a vibe that he is a man lacking in compassion, courage and good character; that he is even a man presiding over a corrupt government, prone to rorting and misspending government funds for their own political ends. The characterisation is as absurd as it is outrageous. Whatever the outcome on Saturday, Labor would do well to consider to what depths they have fallen in character assassination in an attempt to win an election, no matter the cost.
It is true that Mr Morrison has bulldozed his way through situations, clumsily handling issues that required a deft touch, a soft word or a steadier hand. But ultimately, Mr Morrison has steered a government and his country through the most extraordinary, almost indescribably difficult period of our lifetimes. If he were to lose government on Saturday, he will have left Australia a more economically sound, safer and healthier place than it could have been if he had not managed the Covid-19 pandemic as successfully as he unquestionably did.
Likewise his opponent, Mr Albanese is a formidable politician. A man of great depth, if little non-political experience, thoughtful, considerate; an authentic man who over many years has shown himself to be a collegiate and capable figure of substance in the labour movement, who seems to have transformed himself from the loony university left of Labor to a centrist. His foundation political views on a range of topics cannot be ignored. He did not leave them at the cloisters of the University of Sydney when he graduated, he brought them into parliament in 1996 and has failed to explain why and how he has changed his mind on so many substantial obsessions of the hard left, including their attitude towards Israel.
While Mr Morrison’s personal shortcomings have been exposed, tested and teased out as treasurer for three years and Prime Minister since 2018, Mr Albanese’s have come to the surface for most observers only over the past six weeks. He has shown himself to be surprisingly poor on detail and at times muddle-headed; either deliberately avoiding questions on key policies or incapable of answering them. This presents him as a risk to many, and has left some in his party worried about his capacity to handle the magnitude of the challenges that confront a prime minister.
Likewise, Mr Morrison also has left some in his party wondering whether, despite his formidable skills as a campaigner, he is the right man to take Australia into a new era of shifting allegiances and uncertain horizons. Australians will form their own views on what it takes to be a leader during difficult times, and whether liking him is as important as trusting him to make the right decisions when they are required or when circumstances demand.
In judging the candidates on offer, voters must assess that on areas of serious concern to the future of our nation – managing the economy, dealing with the unexpected pandemic and subsequent crises, and handling national security and international affairs – Mr Morrison has been strong. Mr Albanese has held ministerial positions in government, and managed the affairs of parliament, but he is untested on the bigger questions and demands required of a prime minister. He has some experience and talent on his frontbench, but he also has too many close ties to the disastrous Rudd era. Kevin Rudd remains close to Mr Albanese, and is influential on his thinking. The raging Wayne Swan, whose hatred of Mr Rudd defined politics throughout Labor’s last residency on the government benches, is also still a senior figure in the party, and his protege, the ambitious Jim Chalmers, will be the most influential person in an Albanese government. Mr Albanese’s affable deputy, Richard Marles, is emerging as a liability with confounding obsessions.
Voters will take many cues as stated, such as character, performance and potential, when deciding on where to settle their vote. But ultimately the most important considerations must be on policy. How do the parties propose to exercise their power?
The narrative running through this election has consistently played that Labor under Mr Albanese has run a small-target campaign, mimicking the government on national security, including border control, and a range of policy areas to de-risk its pitch for power. To a degree this is true. But on closer inspection, there is a clear philosophical divide between the two. There is no clearer example than housing policy, where Labor leans towards government intervention and the Coalition prefers individual aspiration.
Labor has laid out a distinctive course far removed from the Coalition, which should leave voters clear-eyed about the contenders. Mr Albanese won’t detail how, but he has repeatedly stated very loudly that he wants to change the country. There are hints, universal childcare for example, but little more. In fact, Mr Albanese has indicated he will unveil his detailed agenda only after winning government. This is presumptuous but also preposterous. Mr Albanese should proudly tell Australians exactly what change he hopes to impose on the country now, rather than let us in on his secret only after he secures power on a cut-down platform of vague directions and deliberate obfuscation. This is the time to tell Australians who you are, Mr Albanese, and what you want to do as prime minister.
Equally, Mr Morrison, who at least has shown his hand on past performance, has failed to outline a broad vision for Australia. It is managerial government, pragmatic rather than reforming leadership. He may well contend that is exactly what Australians want in their national leader right now. The Australian has urged the government to do more on education after a promising start. The government has struggled to complete serious reform, troubled by silly distractions and absurd personal scandals. But Mr Morrison should be credited for ending the climate wars, despite Mr Albanese’s attempts to revive them throughout this campaign, and for taking on the tech giants and standing up to China’s brackish behaviour. Should Mr Morrison’s term end this weekend, history will judge him well on serious consideration even if skittish commentators, and dishonest and divisive media outlets campaigning against his government at present do not.
Australians must ask themselves if they believe Mr Morrison deserves credit for managing the nation’s fortunes through the pandemic, a growing economy and historically low unemployment. Alternatively, can Mr Albanese be trusted to preserve the nation’s strong position and deliver the better, more caring future he demands? In our judgment, the answer is clear. Mr Morrison has endured the worst a world can throw at a national leader and Australia has emerged stronger. Mr Albanese has not proven himself ready to assume the high office he seeks.
More Coverage
Government spending and jobs are productivity killers
Business needs to push back harder on efficiency-busting IR laws. It must challenge head-on union claims that shorter working hours for the same pay is somehow good for productivity.
The climate lawyers’ grand buffet
The International Court of Justice has provided the setting for what is likely to be an international environmental lawyers’ picnic.
Australians of voting age have no choice come Saturday. Collectively, voters are required to exercise their democratic responsibility to choose between the only two parties capable of commanding the numbers in the House of Representatives to form a government. There are no other options. Australians must decide whether the Liberal-National Coalition led by Scott Morrison or the Labor Party led by Anthony Albanese will sit on the government benches for the next three years. This is a considerable responsibility, all too often treated as a burden. Nevertheless, Australians rarely get this decision wrong, if hindsight is the judge. Voters will not fail the country this weekend, even if many head to polling booths with a heavy heart and a drag in their step. Sadly, for many busy Australians, the all-consuming realities of life – managing families, friends and careers – overshadow the importance of our democratic process. This is compounded, perhaps created, by our political leaders, who all too often treat elections as a game and voters as fools.