Unlikely as it once seemed, Shorten on cusp of becoming PM

Whatever you think of Labor’s plans for government, there is no denying the opposition’s willingness to present a large target.

Illustration: Eric Lobbecke

Whatever you think of Labor’s plans for government, there is no denying the opposition’s willingness to present a large target. It has spelled out detailed policies and has gone ahead with its national conference on the eve of an election campaign.

Liberals, those who think ­beyond the end of their nose, worry that Labor’s policy ­approach taps into the political zeitgeist, with scripts advocating higher taxes, but with the goal of more spending — an issue voters care about — and reintroducing more rigidity in the ­industrial relations space at a time voters are more concerned about their workplace rights than union power.

Many readers won’t ascribe to such an approach to government, but the problem is that a growing cohort of the voting public does, especially younger Australians who haven’t experienced the dividends of liberal economic reforms and the importance of fiscally sustainable policies when hard economic times hit.

Throw in just how out of touch the conservative side of politics looks on issues such as gender and the environment, and it’s hard to see what levers Scott Morrison can pull to lift the government’s standing.

It’s also hard for Liberals to combat Labor’s approach. Philosophical disagreements run against the community mood, and the ­Coalition government has been deeply inconsistent on this front anyway, with interventionist policies on energy, rejection of a market mechanism on climate change and an unwillingness to pursue major policy scripts in traditional Liberal areas of reform such as consumption tax and IR.

A failure to reform can be forgiven in a conservative government if it is seen to be stable and competent. However, the leadership churn and the divisions within expose the Coalition to criticism. It can’t rely on its policy track record, and the call for backing the incumbent to maintain ­stability is hard to listen to with a straight face.

The old adage is that the chief role of a conservative government is to keep Labor away from the Treasury benches lest it worsen our fiscal position. To be sure, there are genuine risks on this front looking at Labor’s agenda.

But voters know that national debt has doubled on the Coalition’s watch and genuine tax or federation reform has been squibbed. Although this week’s mid-year economic and fiscal outlook statement charts a (semi-) credible pathway back to surplus, it does so off the back of an unexpected improvement in our terms of trade, driving growth in nominal GDP — in other words, more taxes coming in than anyone expected to be the case.

Meanwhile, Labor has been bold on policy. Negative gearing reforms and changes to capital gains tax concessions and franking credits are significant. Even with a slowing housing market, the opposition is proving its mettle by not shifting its position. This presents a political opportunity for the Coalition to mount a scare campaign, but if voters have ­already switched off to its messaging because of the divisions within the government, such a campaign is unlikely to hit its mark.

Having held firm, Labor will be able to argue that it has a strong mandate for enacting its reforms if elected. It won’t fall victim to the circumstances of Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott, who surprised voters with policies that weren’t spelled out at the election or were explicitly ruled out. In ­Abbott’s case, the contrast was ­especially egregious and unnecessary, given how dysfunct­ional Labor in government had become.

Even if the Senate blocks Labor’s agenda, doing so may save the new government from ­itself. Although I wasn’t opposed to John Howard’s final-term Work Choices laws, many Australians were. Winning control of the Senate at the 2004 election — against a hapless Mark Latham — meant that the traditional check and balance role of the Senate wasn’t there during Howard’s final term. Such a check will be there during Bill Shorten’s first term, and it just may save Labor from itself. Perhaps the only cav­eat on that is if the Greens wrest the balance of power from a broader mix of the crossbench. Such circumstances may make it more difficult for a Labor government to resist calls to drift too far left, knowing it can enact such policy scripts with the support of the Greens.

Labor also has the ministerial experience to avoid falling victim to what new governments often do: not being ready for the challenge of actual policymaking. This was the case in 2007 when few Labor MPs had experienced government after nearly 12 years of Howard in power. Even fewer had frontbench experience from the Keating years. This led to a chaotic start that never really improved.

Most of Shorten’s frontbench has ministerial experience from the Rudd and Gillard years. Many were in cabinet. Even poor performers from the life cycle of the previous Labor government can be expected to have learned from their mistakes. It’s hard not to gaze over the respective frontbench line-ups and be more impressed by what Labor has to offer.

And having witnessed first-hand the debilitating effect politically executing leaders can have on a new government, surely Labor won’t make that mistake again. I never would have expected the Coalition to emulate Labor’s mistake on this front, not once but twice.

Nonetheless, I’m even more certain Labor won’t do it again, ­especially with the changed leadership rules that have protected Shorten. His authority appeared to grow during the national conference and he won’t face another one for two years.

The biggest uncertainty for a Labor government led by Shorten is whether he’ll get the chance to build a bond with the public. Shorten’s personal popularity has ­always been low but that may not be a barrier. Opinion polls told the same story about Abbott, yet he started his prime ministership with goodwill and a positive net satisfaction rating to prove it.

Australians gave Abbott the benefit of the doubt before the budget of broken promises, the reintroduction of knights and dames, and a dysfunctional prime minister’s office saw that benefit of the doubt erased. Shorten is nothing if not a student of political history. He will have observed the mistakes of near contemporaries and will seek to learn from them.

Since the moment Shorten was elected Opposition Leader he has been underestimated. Yet five years later he is still leader and is on the cusp of becoming an unlikely prime minister. His politicking from opposition has contrib­uted to the downfall of two Liberal prime ministers and he appears to be getting the better of the third.

If Shorten does win next year’s election he will become the first person since Andrew Fisher in 1914 to take over as opposition leader straight after a defeat and go on to become prime minister.

Peter van Onselen is a professor of politics at the University of Western Australia and Griffith University.