Will voters fear PM Peter Dutton would be a surprise packet?
- Written by Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra
Australian politicians on both sides of the house say protectionist policies are bad, right? That Australia, as a country, believes in and benefits from trade being as free as possible.
But what about some voluntary protectionism in the wake of the government’s failure to win an exemption from Donald Trump’s tariffs? Not counter tariffs of course – the government has ruled out that brand of retaliation. But it is looking to find ways to encourage consumers to buy locally-produced products rather than defaulting to (often cheaper) imports.
Anthony Albanese flags this will be a feature of the March 25 budget. All in the name of supporting “Team Australia”.
“I would urge Australians, if they’re in a local shop, to look to buy Australian,” the prime minister said on Thursday. “That’s one way that consumers can assist to create jobs here and to support our local industries.”
Despite the unfortunate circumstances in which it comes, this exhortation actually fits with the government’s pre-Trump policy of “Future Made in Australia”, with its incentives for projects especially in the clean energy area. Critics thought the policy was too interventionist, indeed protectionist. The government argued it was securing Australia’s place “in a changing global environment”.
Just as he seems to be wreaking havoc around the world, Donald Trump is now embedded in Australia’s domestic politics in the run-up to the election. Both sides are struggling to deal with the consequences of that.
Albanese is trying to contain the damage of the exemption failure, while pinning the “Trumpist” label on Dutton, accusing him of being “a cheer squad” for the Trumpites. “He had a choice yesterday of backing in the Trump administration in this decision or backing Australia. He chose to not back Australia”
Dutton is attempting to exploit the government’s inability to sway Trump but duck the accusation of not being on the national team.
The opposition says the tariff affair shows Albanese is weak, using this latest problem to feed into a general theme it is running about the PM. Dutton (though without evidence) claims he could get the Americans across the line. Kos Samaras from the political consultancy Redbridge, which does extensive research, says voters do think Dutton would be the better leader to deal with Trump.
Dutton’s challenge on the tariff issue is to criticise the government while not appearing to exult in Australia’s misfortune. It’s just one of the fine lines the opposition leader is needing to walk at the moment.
Dutton is tantalisingly close to power, but the last steps will be the hardest.
A Newspoll finding published this week must give him cause for worry. More than half (55%) doubted the Coalition was ready for government. The poll found while this feeling was strongest among young voters, 61% of those aged 35 to 49 doubted its readiness.
No wonder some Coalition MPs are worrying Dutton has left it too late to release and flesh out much of his policy,
He contests claims of a policy vacuum, pointing to the nuclear policy, housing measures and some other initiatives.
Nevertheless, because Dutton has run a basically small target strategy (nuclear apart) there will be a feeling among some voters that in government he could be a surprise packet. We know more of what he is against than what he is for, what he would do.
Many voters would recall Tony Abbott going out of his way to reassure people in the 2013 election campaign, and then unleashing the shock 2014 budget. A logical (and reasonable) question is, what would Dutton’s first budget be like?
If Dutton wouldn’t act like Abbott, would he follow the example of John Howard, whom he highlights as a role model?
Howard promised before the 1996 election that there’d “never ever” be a GST under him, then unveiled one (which he took to the following election).
In such uncertain times, it will be particularly important for Dutton to be able to reassure voters that they will get what they vote for, not something completely unexpected.
For an opposition, especially one with the smell of possible victory in its nostrils, there is always a tension between spelling out what it would do in office, and leaving itself flexibility.
For example it’s clear that Dutton has strong views on education policy. He told The Conversation’s podcast[1] he thought this was “one of the most important areas”, and pointed to declining school completion rates and the need for a more back-to-basics approach.
But what would this mean in detail? How much would he seek to impinge on the states, which have prime responsibility for government schooling?
The more general point is that it is not clear whether Dutton would be an incrementalist or have his eyes on radical reform in government. Yet voters want more signals. Samaras says Dutton in recent weeks has been looking “flat-footed”, that he is not going to be able to get away with the small target strategy. “He needs to build a case for change.”
In some areas, the Coalition is leaning to potential heavy intervention. It has said it would break up supermarkets if they exploited their market power.
More recently Dutton has ventured further, saying (and re-confirming on the podcast) that insurance companies could also face divestiture.
But on the insurance issue there has been open division and confusion.
Some Liberals were unhappy with the supermarket divestiture policy, which was substantially driven by the Nationals.
On insurance companies, shadow treasurer Angus Taylor and deputy leader Sussan Ley both asserted divestiture was not opposition policy, before Dutton brought the team into line.
That raises another problem Dutton has. His team remains weak. Taylor still can’t stack up effectively against treasurer Jim Chalmers. This is a potential vulnerability in the election campaign.
Politicians facing elections often liken their situation to climbing Everest. For Dutton the last stage will be treacherous.
