5 years ago
JOHN CURTIN RESEARCH CENTRE PRESENTS ‘PATHWAYS TO GOVERNMENT’
BRENDAN O’CONNOR MP
Can I start by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land upon which we meet and pay my respects to their elders past and present.
I’d like to thank the John Curtin Research Centre for the invitation to speak tonight about the election result and to explore in a preliminary way, pathways to government.
It has been just over four months since this devastating loss and to date, I’ve avoided making any public comments about the result.
On a personal level this electoral loss, by a clear margin, was the most shocking given everyone’s expectation.
Now, I was aware and I think most people were aware, that things would tighten, but there was still a realistic expectation of victory.
And the sense that Labor had been focussed, disciplined, united and accompanied by the most comprehensive policy agenda since Whitlam, was as ready as any Opposition for the government benches.
After out-campaigning the government in 2016 winning 14 seats and prevailing in all Labor by-elections caused by Section 44 breaches, we felt justifiably confident.
This misplaced confidence was reinforced by the constant affirmation provided by the published polls for several years, and most remarkably, right up until the exit polls, predicted a comfortable Labor victory on election night.
But the polls were wrong and we were wrong.
And being confident, we were not prepared for the loss, which in part explains why it felt more like a landslide, rather than a close result.
And with that dread, the dread that comes with letting down so many people, there have been some calls to jettison almost everything we presented to the electorate before May 18.
This would be a mistake.
When searching for the elusive causes of defeat, we have to be particularly careful not to abandon those proposals which had support and are critical to this country’s future.
Some of the critiques to date, especially from outside the party, remind me of those absurd footy match reviews where despite the margins being close, extol only the excellence of the winners and denigrate the virtues of the vanquished, even when there was just a kick in it.
So not only does the close margin advise against abandoning all our policies, it is also a telling reminder that however difficult federal election wins are for the Labor Party, the next election is within striking distance.
To be sure, we need a dispassionate, comprehensive, evidence based review, which no doubt Craig Emerson and Jay Weatherill are conducting. We shouldn’t avoid the awful truth about why things went wrong.
We must identify our failings, but we should not be so foolish to consign what we did well to the political scrap heap.
And only fools would listen to what their opponents think they should do.
Since the election, Labor has sought to find its feet.
The Caucus and the Shadow Ministry, led by Anthony Albanese, has done, I think, a good job in very trying circumstances, to recover, regroup and prepare for the next election.
As for what went wrong, what were our political and policy shortfalls, as I’ve said that is being carefully examined under the Emerson-Weatherill review.
So in discussing with you tonight, the likely conditions to succeed at the ballot box in 2022, I won’t be pre-empting our formal review process. I will, however, share some reflections as other colleagues have done, on where to from here and what more generally we could do to improve our electoral chances.
And firstly I’d like to start by agreeing with Anthony Albanese when he said we need to review our policies without revising our values.
I’m of the view that while some policies should be discarded or significantly amended, many policies proposed last term were meritorious.
At a time of record low wage growth, and a record number of underemployed Australians, I considered many of the employment policies to be essential to restore balance in the industrial relations framework.
Enterprise bargaining, for example, is in steep decline and our award system is not delivering fair outcomes for many workers. Only a Labor government will attend to these problems.
Now, it is true that all industrial relations policies we brought to the last election are rightly under review, led by my colleague Tony Burke, but I’m still very proud to have developed proposed solutions to existing and growing problems in the labour market that sought to tackle job security and low wage growth.
So too with our health and education policies. Relieving the burden of out of pocket expenses for those with a serious illness.
Or providing free or low cost preschool for three year olds – a noble pursuit in keeping with Labor’s values.
And our tax policies sought to make it a less uneven playing field for young entrants seeking to purchase their first home competing with cashed up investors wanting to buy their 10th property.
We looked at structural fiscal reform, but we also offered 10 million workers bigger tax cuts than that of the Liberal party.
Small business also would have been given more tax relief under Labor. Not only did we support the tax cuts from 30 – 25 per cent, we supported the Instant Asset Tax Write Off and also had the added support of the Australian Investment Guarantee, ensuring businesses could depreciate assets over $20,000.
The problem is, I don’t believe these messages got out sufficiently either – whether it was the tax relief for workers or for small businesses. We either failed to amplify this message or it was drowned out by our opponents scare campaigns or possibly were crowded out by our own other policies.
So even if it is the case that overwhelmingly, our policies were good, with the advantage of hindsight, we to need to look at the breadth of these policies being proposed and assess to what extent the message frayed, lacked clarity and simplicity, a much needed element in political campaigns.
Whether we thought enough about whether some policies should not be emphasised because they were too difficult to explain or whether they were going to be easy to misrepresent by our opponents.
Whether we just needed to focus on fewer policies, a distilled message, which would have given us greater success in the campaign.
Labor’s policy agenda was comprehensive, however some have argued that it was also overflowing and ripe for fear campaigns.
And at times it was complex, which made selling the message more complicated.
Everybody knows it’s much easier to run a scare campaign than to have a detailed plan. Just think, for example the death tax scare campaign, which had no basis in fact, but went viral.
Now I believe in the values that underpinned our policy development, but when it comes down to it, it is arguable whether we sold them sufficiently.
I mean we need not only to have a plan, we need to be able to communicate that plan and have a narrative Australians can believe in and advocate for.
As I say, Labor took to the election more generous tax cuts for people on low and middle incomes than the government did but this did not get the traction it needed. There’s a lesson to learn in this area.
Another area that I would like to touch upon is the Palmer factor.
We have never in history experienced one person and their vested private interests seeking to buy the outcome of an election.
Clive Palmer spent an unprecedented amount of private wealth on such a relentless assault, not on both the major parties, but on the Labor party and Bill Shorten.
It is estimated that Clive Palmer spent $60 million on advertising, $8 million in the last week, and outspent the Liberal Party and the Labor Party combined.
As Labor’s President Wayne Swan recently said, “The future of democracy is under threat when an individual can spend $60 million in chequebook democracy.”
There are those who want us to believe that the impact of the Palmer campaign was negligible and concerned that if we identify it as a contributing factor to our loss we will be attacked for blaming others for our defeat.
I disagree. All factors internal and external must be considered.
To de-emphasise Palmer and his money would be as inexcusable as ignoring those deficiencies for which we were responsible.
And whether we like it or not Palmer has created a template for wealthy individuals to mug voters in future elections, by expending obscene amounts of money and deploying an entirely misleading campaign.
So in examining all that we did wrong we will need to examine the impact of Palmer with a view to preventing a repeat of this abuse in future.
It is therefore not surprising that there are calls to put caps on donations and on election spending.
Caps which are used in Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and indeed some of our own state jurisdictions.
I think caps need to be considered in light of the role of Clive Palmer.
So Labor has a lot of work to do and plenty of soul searching too. As I said earlier I think we have recovered well and we are starting to find our voice and confidence is slowly returning.
For the Leader, and the rest of us, we’ve been spending much of our time listening.
In my case, I’ve been travelling the country, assisted by my colleague Matt Keogh, listening to small and medium enterprises about what they need from a Federal Government.
I’m also talking to all sectors of our economy about how government can assist enabling their industries to thrive.
We’ve also not been drawn into every fight the government wants to have with us. We will stand up for our values but will not be enticed to fight on the terrain Scott Morrison wants.
And it’s clear too, that if we were not ready for the loss, the Liberal/ Nationals Coalition were not ready for the win.
In the last four months we’ve seen little evidence of a government plan for Australia’s future.
Not an energy policy, not a wages policy, not even a plan to deal with the devastating drought experienced by people on the land.
The government is bereft of ideas and an agenda which explains in part why Morrison wants to have gratuitous fights with Labor.
And I think too, that people are listening more closely to the Prime Minister and worry about his obfuscation and evasiveness.
First he couldn’t answer questions because it was an “on water” matter. Then he couldn’t answer legitimate questions because it was a “Canberra bubble” matter. Then he expected us to believe him when he first said he’d never used the phrase, “Shanghai Sam”. And now he says he won’t answer if he believes the question is “gossip” regardless of whether it’s in the national interest or not.
This is unbecoming conduct by the nation’s leader and should not be tolerated by the media or the Australian public.
Labor will continue to learn from our loss, consolidate and hold the government to account and prepare for the next election.
Over time we will announce policies that have been informed by genuine stakeholder involvement and community consultation.
The policy list is for another time but you can be assured, as Anthony has made clear, they will be policies informed by our values.
And if you need reminding ...
Labor believes in the dignity of work and ensuring people can find secure and fairly paid work.
We believe in a progressive taxation system so our country tackles the growing disparity between the very wealthy few and the many, struggling to keep above the poverty line.
We want to see our children be given access to the best education standard in the world.
We want our workforce to be the most skilled and knowledgeable they can be.
As the authors of Medicare we continue to think about how we can improve the universality of our healthcare.
We believe we must tackle climate change by listening to the science and basing decisions on the facts not fiction.
We want industry policy to encourage investment in research and development and to grow our economy.
We want our infrastructure, like fast speed broadband, to enhance economic growth and improve our quality of life.
We accept we are the custodians of our environment and we want to bequeath to future generations a sustainable plan.
We need to invest in the regional cities and towns to avert the decline of communities in the bush. And much more.
Much to do but we don’t believe the current government has the answers to tackle the challenges we face.
Time will tell.
In the meantime we will continue to listen to the voters to inform our future policy, continue to stand up for those too vulnerable to do it alone, and continue to hold the government to account while preparing ourselves worthy for the people’s trust at the next election.
Thank you.
ENDS
I’d like to thank the John Curtin Research Centre for the invitation to speak tonight about the election result and to explore in a preliminary way, pathways to government.
It has been just over four months since this devastating loss and to date, I’ve avoided making any public comments about the result.
On a personal level this electoral loss, by a clear margin, was the most shocking given everyone’s expectation.
Now, I was aware and I think most people were aware, that things would tighten, but there was still a realistic expectation of victory.
And the sense that Labor had been focussed, disciplined, united and accompanied by the most comprehensive policy agenda since Whitlam, was as ready as any Opposition for the government benches.
After out-campaigning the government in 2016 winning 14 seats and prevailing in all Labor by-elections caused by Section 44 breaches, we felt justifiably confident.
This misplaced confidence was reinforced by the constant affirmation provided by the published polls for several years, and most remarkably, right up until the exit polls, predicted a comfortable Labor victory on election night.
But the polls were wrong and we were wrong.
And being confident, we were not prepared for the loss, which in part explains why it felt more like a landslide, rather than a close result.
And with that dread, the dread that comes with letting down so many people, there have been some calls to jettison almost everything we presented to the electorate before May 18.
This would be a mistake.
When searching for the elusive causes of defeat, we have to be particularly careful not to abandon those proposals which had support and are critical to this country’s future.
Some of the critiques to date, especially from outside the party, remind me of those absurd footy match reviews where despite the margins being close, extol only the excellence of the winners and denigrate the virtues of the vanquished, even when there was just a kick in it.
So not only does the close margin advise against abandoning all our policies, it is also a telling reminder that however difficult federal election wins are for the Labor Party, the next election is within striking distance.
To be sure, we need a dispassionate, comprehensive, evidence based review, which no doubt Craig Emerson and Jay Weatherill are conducting. We shouldn’t avoid the awful truth about why things went wrong.
We must identify our failings, but we should not be so foolish to consign what we did well to the political scrap heap.
And only fools would listen to what their opponents think they should do.
Since the election, Labor has sought to find its feet.
The Caucus and the Shadow Ministry, led by Anthony Albanese, has done, I think, a good job in very trying circumstances, to recover, regroup and prepare for the next election.
As for what went wrong, what were our political and policy shortfalls, as I’ve said that is being carefully examined under the Emerson-Weatherill review.
So in discussing with you tonight, the likely conditions to succeed at the ballot box in 2022, I won’t be pre-empting our formal review process. I will, however, share some reflections as other colleagues have done, on where to from here and what more generally we could do to improve our electoral chances.
And firstly I’d like to start by agreeing with Anthony Albanese when he said we need to review our policies without revising our values.
I’m of the view that while some policies should be discarded or significantly amended, many policies proposed last term were meritorious.
At a time of record low wage growth, and a record number of underemployed Australians, I considered many of the employment policies to be essential to restore balance in the industrial relations framework.
Enterprise bargaining, for example, is in steep decline and our award system is not delivering fair outcomes for many workers. Only a Labor government will attend to these problems.
Now, it is true that all industrial relations policies we brought to the last election are rightly under review, led by my colleague Tony Burke, but I’m still very proud to have developed proposed solutions to existing and growing problems in the labour market that sought to tackle job security and low wage growth.
So too with our health and education policies. Relieving the burden of out of pocket expenses for those with a serious illness.
Or providing free or low cost preschool for three year olds – a noble pursuit in keeping with Labor’s values.
And our tax policies sought to make it a less uneven playing field for young entrants seeking to purchase their first home competing with cashed up investors wanting to buy their 10th property.
We looked at structural fiscal reform, but we also offered 10 million workers bigger tax cuts than that of the Liberal party.
Small business also would have been given more tax relief under Labor. Not only did we support the tax cuts from 30 – 25 per cent, we supported the Instant Asset Tax Write Off and also had the added support of the Australian Investment Guarantee, ensuring businesses could depreciate assets over $20,000.
The problem is, I don’t believe these messages got out sufficiently either – whether it was the tax relief for workers or for small businesses. We either failed to amplify this message or it was drowned out by our opponents scare campaigns or possibly were crowded out by our own other policies.
So even if it is the case that overwhelmingly, our policies were good, with the advantage of hindsight, we to need to look at the breadth of these policies being proposed and assess to what extent the message frayed, lacked clarity and simplicity, a much needed element in political campaigns.
Whether we thought enough about whether some policies should not be emphasised because they were too difficult to explain or whether they were going to be easy to misrepresent by our opponents.
Whether we just needed to focus on fewer policies, a distilled message, which would have given us greater success in the campaign.
Labor’s policy agenda was comprehensive, however some have argued that it was also overflowing and ripe for fear campaigns.
And at times it was complex, which made selling the message more complicated.
Everybody knows it’s much easier to run a scare campaign than to have a detailed plan. Just think, for example the death tax scare campaign, which had no basis in fact, but went viral.
Now I believe in the values that underpinned our policy development, but when it comes down to it, it is arguable whether we sold them sufficiently.
I mean we need not only to have a plan, we need to be able to communicate that plan and have a narrative Australians can believe in and advocate for.
As I say, Labor took to the election more generous tax cuts for people on low and middle incomes than the government did but this did not get the traction it needed. There’s a lesson to learn in this area.
Another area that I would like to touch upon is the Palmer factor.
We have never in history experienced one person and their vested private interests seeking to buy the outcome of an election.
Clive Palmer spent an unprecedented amount of private wealth on such a relentless assault, not on both the major parties, but on the Labor party and Bill Shorten.
It is estimated that Clive Palmer spent $60 million on advertising, $8 million in the last week, and outspent the Liberal Party and the Labor Party combined.
As Labor’s President Wayne Swan recently said, “The future of democracy is under threat when an individual can spend $60 million in chequebook democracy.”
There are those who want us to believe that the impact of the Palmer campaign was negligible and concerned that if we identify it as a contributing factor to our loss we will be attacked for blaming others for our defeat.
I disagree. All factors internal and external must be considered.
To de-emphasise Palmer and his money would be as inexcusable as ignoring those deficiencies for which we were responsible.
And whether we like it or not Palmer has created a template for wealthy individuals to mug voters in future elections, by expending obscene amounts of money and deploying an entirely misleading campaign.
So in examining all that we did wrong we will need to examine the impact of Palmer with a view to preventing a repeat of this abuse in future.
It is therefore not surprising that there are calls to put caps on donations and on election spending.
Caps which are used in Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and indeed some of our own state jurisdictions.
I think caps need to be considered in light of the role of Clive Palmer.
So Labor has a lot of work to do and plenty of soul searching too. As I said earlier I think we have recovered well and we are starting to find our voice and confidence is slowly returning.
For the Leader, and the rest of us, we’ve been spending much of our time listening.
In my case, I’ve been travelling the country, assisted by my colleague Matt Keogh, listening to small and medium enterprises about what they need from a Federal Government.
I’m also talking to all sectors of our economy about how government can assist enabling their industries to thrive.
We’ve also not been drawn into every fight the government wants to have with us. We will stand up for our values but will not be enticed to fight on the terrain Scott Morrison wants.
And it’s clear too, that if we were not ready for the loss, the Liberal/ Nationals Coalition were not ready for the win.
In the last four months we’ve seen little evidence of a government plan for Australia’s future.
Not an energy policy, not a wages policy, not even a plan to deal with the devastating drought experienced by people on the land.
The government is bereft of ideas and an agenda which explains in part why Morrison wants to have gratuitous fights with Labor.
And I think too, that people are listening more closely to the Prime Minister and worry about his obfuscation and evasiveness.
First he couldn’t answer questions because it was an “on water” matter. Then he couldn’t answer legitimate questions because it was a “Canberra bubble” matter. Then he expected us to believe him when he first said he’d never used the phrase, “Shanghai Sam”. And now he says he won’t answer if he believes the question is “gossip” regardless of whether it’s in the national interest or not.
This is unbecoming conduct by the nation’s leader and should not be tolerated by the media or the Australian public.
Labor will continue to learn from our loss, consolidate and hold the government to account and prepare for the next election.
Over time we will announce policies that have been informed by genuine stakeholder involvement and community consultation.
The policy list is for another time but you can be assured, as Anthony has made clear, they will be policies informed by our values.
And if you need reminding ...
Labor believes in the dignity of work and ensuring people can find secure and fairly paid work.
We believe in a progressive taxation system so our country tackles the growing disparity between the very wealthy few and the many, struggling to keep above the poverty line.
We want to see our children be given access to the best education standard in the world.
We want our workforce to be the most skilled and knowledgeable they can be.
As the authors of Medicare we continue to think about how we can improve the universality of our healthcare.
We believe we must tackle climate change by listening to the science and basing decisions on the facts not fiction.
We want industry policy to encourage investment in research and development and to grow our economy.
We want our infrastructure, like fast speed broadband, to enhance economic growth and improve our quality of life.
We accept we are the custodians of our environment and we want to bequeath to future generations a sustainable plan.
We need to invest in the regional cities and towns to avert the decline of communities in the bush. And much more.
Much to do but we don’t believe the current government has the answers to tackle the challenges we face.
Time will tell.
In the meantime we will continue to listen to the voters to inform our future policy, continue to stand up for those too vulnerable to do it alone, and continue to hold the government to account while preparing ourselves worthy for the people’s trust at the next election.
Thank you.
ENDS