Parties pick campaign tactics

Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten agree that the Coalition can’t win the next election on the single issue of border protection.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten speaks at the Australian Education Union's annual federal conference in Melbourne yesterday. Picture: AAP

Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten agreed on one thing this week: the Coalition can’t win the next election on the single issue of border protection.

The Prime Minister and Opposition Leader also obviously agreed that Labor’s shambolic changes to the laws governing offshore processing of asylum-seekers on Nauru and Manus Island changed the political dynamic, undermined the ALP’s credibility and handed the Coalition a vital morale-boosting parliamentary victory in the first two sitting weeks of the election year.

Even more significantly, the Coalition victory came when Morrison was supposed to be facing crushing tactical defeats from Shorten and even claims that the “chaotic” government would be forced to an immediate and disastrous election.

Despite a revival of hope within Coalition ranks, signs of a poll boost, a sense of Coalition competitiveness where there was none and a blocking of Labor’s tactical agenda on the banking royal commission, both leaders are right to say the Coalition isn’t yet in a winning position and simply can’t win on the single issue of border protection.

The campaign for Liberal re-election has to be broader and include fighting on the ground for every seat where Labor still holds a winning lead.

Because of the by-election loss in Wentworth following Malcolm Turnbull’s removal, a defection and electoral redistributions, the Coalition is starting the 2019 ­election campaign in a position of needing to win at least five seats with no net losses to hold ­government.

Given the polling there is a likelihood Labor will pick up seats in Victoria, Queensland, the ACT and Western Australia, with fewer potential Coalition gains in Tasmania, NSW and Queensland.

Optimistically, there are outside chances for the Coalition in the Northern Territory, but the weight of net gains rests with Labor.

The game of wins and losses is complicated by the vast differences in attitudes in different areas to issues for both sides: border protection is a strong Coalition issue in Queensland, Western Australia and parts of NSW, but a turn-off in Victoria; Labor’s essentially anti-coal policy is a drag in Queensland and Western Australia but an advantage in Victoria and parts of NSW and South ­Australia.

The distribution of people over the age of 55 and under the age of 25 — on pensions and self-funded retirees; mining workers and public servants; and employed and welfare recipients — is going to be key in specific seats and has been the subject of close analysis by both sides.

All of these issues are subject to sudden change — the arrival of an illegal boat or a prolonged Chinese holdup on Australian coal, which already shaved a full cent off the Australian dollar and will send a shiver through the economy in the week Labor frontbencher Richard Marles said a collapse of the global coal trade “would be a good thing”.

But the inescapable conclusions are that the Coalition can’t win on border protection alone and that Labor is taking a big risk with its “big target” policy on border protection and radical policies on investment and climate change.

Liberal MPs’ spirits began to rise on Sunday when it was revealed Nine polling had the Coalition at a six-month high in two-party preferred terms — 49 per cent to Labor’s 51 per cent. But behind closed doors, Morrison warned his leadership group and backbenchers they could not win on one issue.

The way the Coalition pursued Shorten over border protection and exposed deep rifts in Labor over the handling of asylum-seekers and illegal boat arrivals, it looked like they thought they could win on one issue. In fact, strength on this issue must be used as a base to launch other campaigns.

Liberal backbenchers heard their leader’s three-word summary of the upcoming campaign — record (border protection and economic management), plan (return to budget surplus to fund services and keep taxes lower) and unity (a common purpose).

The record is the Coalition’s strongest point on stopping illegal boat arrivals and delivering a budget surplus, the plan is developing, and unity is the weakest point, not just because of three prime ministers in six years of Coalition ­government but also because the Nationals are desperate to differentiate themselves from the ­Liberals.

Morrison told parliament this week: “We will campaign on creating 1.2 million jobs, the lowest unemployment rate in more than seven years and the first budget surplus in more than a decade.”

The Prime Minister wants to keep talking about Labor’s “reckless disregard for border protection” up to the May election, but he knows he has to talk about more: the cost of living; energy; taxes; wages; climate change; promoting industry; and the budget.

“We stand for a strong economy and strong border protection,” was Morrison’s encapsula­tion of his election campaign this week. Labor’s blunder on border protection, compounded by failings in the amended legislation, was a gift to Morrison but it wasn’t an election winner.

While many have been quick to draw a parallel with John Howard’s election boost in 2001 after turning back the Norwegian vessel Tampa, which was loaded with asylum-seekers, Morrison has spent more time speaking about Howard’s issues from the 2004 election, which started with the general theme of “who do you trust?” and branched into supporting industry — particularly forestry and beef — and economic management.

The Prime Minister doesn’t want the public conversation to exclude border protection and Labor’s weakening of the laws and internal divisions — if border protection and national security are still on the agenda in May the ALP will be losing — but he does want to talk as well about the economy.

While Shorten knew Labor had failed to live up to expectations in these first two parliamentary weeks, he didn’t panic, continued to seek distractions and tried to get the debate back on to his favoured ground of wages and redistribution of wealth. He’s never, rightly, given up on stressing the ALP’s unity and stability in the last five years. Shorten declared yesterday: “We believe in strong borders, we back regional processing, people who come by boat won’t settle in Australia. But you and I know that the government want to talk about one issue and one issue only.”

But he sought to get back to Labor strengths, saying: “What affects Australians is the conduct of the banks, for example. That’s why Labor wanted to have more days of parliament to talk about the banking royal commission.

“That is why we want to talk about cost of living. Everything is going up in Australia except people’s wages and the government want to distract people from that and talk about one issue and only one issue.”

Yet he was constantly brought back to divisions over the treatment of asylum-seekers and whether he supported the coal industry, falling back on “this government is a one-trick pony. They’ve only got scare, fear, negativity.”

Labor’s Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen also tried yesterday to talk about the economy and play up Labor’s long policy development on tax and investment. The ALP is confident its contentious policies on removing retirees’ tax credits and limiting negative gearing on housing investments will not lose seats unless the government can succeed in convincing enough pensioners and young investors respectively that they are affected.

Bowen is refusing to change policies this side of the election on the same basis Howard refused to water down the GST ahead of the 1998 election, because there is a strong possibility Labor’s winning majority will not be large in the House of Representatives and the certainty that there will be no outright Senate control.

Yesterday, as China’s actions on Australian coal sounded like a costly bureaucratic blockade, as was the case with Australia’s wine last year, Bowen avoided talking about mining and concentrated on Labor’s economic policies and stagnant wages.

Sounding like John Hewson launching his Fightback GST plan in 1993, Bowen said: “We go to the election with the most comprehensive policy agenda of any opposition in generations. We do so because for reform to be successful, a government must have the moral authority of a mandate, of having been brave enough to share your thoughts with the Australian people before asking them to cast judgment on them.”

His conclusion could cover the campaign approaches of Morrison and Shorten: “The choice for the Australian people is between a united party that’s been bold on policy, taken risks and has made some big calls. And another that has been mired in disunity, too often focused on itself rather than the big issues.”