By now the dust has settled and it appears the Liberal-National coalition will be returned to the government benches in Canberra with a slim majority in the lower house. The senate looks to remain a mess, and one imagines significant politicking will be required in order to pass any legislation. But, by and large, the question appears to be, what legislation? There appears to be the start of some scrutiny about the government’s promises that was, for the most part, absent from the rest of the campaign. Already some of the government’s limited promises are falling apart – there appears to be no tax cut for workers this year, as it won’t be possible to legislate it in time. There have been the usual demands from employer groups to crack down on unions, but this is vague and almost ritualistic at this point; there’s certainly no clear avenue or direction to this policy. As a unionist myself, I ask what more cracking down can they do before it becomes clear that the government cares little for worker’s rights? And of course, there was the last minute housing bubble idea – but even
On the face of it, this was a win for the LNP. In reality, while they will govern, very little has really changed. Certainly there was no huge mandate in terms of first preference votes. In fact, the LNPs first preference dropped a little across Australia. (So too did the ALPs). There was no Australia-wide affirmation of their policies or approach; instead I would say that the electorate was confused. There will be lots of criticisms of the ALP campaign, but to be honest, I don’t think there was much wrong with it. The big ticket items – environment, fixing the tax system, more for health and education – were, i think, important. I don’t think that they were categorically rejected by voters, either. Neither were they enthusiastically endorsed. Instead, voters seemed to throw up their hands and say, ‘Meh.’
There will be a rash of hot takes. I’ve already seen a few from Liberal voters outlining how proud they are to have voted for the liberals. Fair enough; what is present in all of these pieces that I’ve seen is that they are almost entirely self-centered. There is no discussion about the value of policy to the good of the community, instead, they are entirely motivated by what is in their best interests. Sure, it’s often cloaked in weasel words about how it’s not in anyone’s best interests to provide handouts to the poor, or my parents worked hard all their lives for this — but it does little to consider the genuine issues relating to poverty, racism, the environment and Australia’s treatment of refugees, amongst others. As a side note, I saw someone rather laughably claim to be lower middle class – in the same piece they said that they owned a house and an investment property. Worth thinking about, for a moment. Of course, this is what the liberals count on: they are a party that has institutionalised selfishness and self-interest – and it’s effective because it’s difficult to convince people to vote against a tax cut.
The real winner, even though it might seem counter-intuitive, is of course Clive Palmer. He didn’t win a seat in parliament, but that was never really his goal. Palmer has already worked out that he can buy his way into parliament – he did that a few elections ago. Instead, he chose to ran completely unsuitable candidates in seats across Australia, on little to now policy, and then set up a preference deal with the LNP. I suspect that this was always his plan to ensure that the LNP got back into power, which means that he could then lobby (and perhaps he already has) them to deliver on coal mines in the Galilee basin. If that’s the case, Clive might be the winner, but the environment – and all of us – will be the losers.