By Shaun Carney
Australia's political debate is more and more about slogans and marketing, and less and less about ideas.
Trucking magnate Lindsay Fox found himself buying into the resource rent tax debate yesterday. There had to be a compromise between the Rudd government and the mining companies, he said. ''You can't just go in for a big bite of money and not have consultation,'' Fox told the ABC.
Fox is right. That's why the government is consulting with the companies, two years ahead of when it plans for the tax to take effect. But what a wealthy businessman regards as consultation does not always conform to what the rest of us might think it means.
When the heads of big companies ask for consultation on such things as tax, they can be counted on to go along with the name of the tax and perhaps even the method of collection being changed, but not necessarily the amount they pay - unless the amount paid is to go down.
What we have with the resource rent tax battle is pretty simple: the elected government wants to change the tax system and an important, powerful, cashed-up section of industry wants to frustrate it.
The resource rent tax is not a thought bubble cooked up in a political office. Nor is it some long-cherished ideological goal on the part of the ALP: it is a proposal from Ken Henry, the man Peter Costello and John Howard appointed the head of Treasury, formulated as part of a comprehensive tax review.
In times past, that fact might have given pause to the participants in the debate. Ideas from a disinterested public service, and especially Treasury, counted. But policy and politics are indivisible now. Strategic and tactical advantages are about the only thing that modern politics is about.
The political debate is now fully infected with slogans and bumper-sticker speak. For the government, its mission is to look after "working families". The Coalition referred to the carbon pollution reduction scheme as "the government's great big new tax on everything". Now, it refers to the resource rent tax as "the great big new tax".
The operating principle here is that if Labor was to refer to "voters" rather than working families or the Liberals to the tax by its proper name, potential supporters might be turned off. Really.
The tendency towards verbal infantilism is so ingrained in our politics that it's not even remarked upon in the media. Politics is more and more about marketing, and less and less about ideas. It's just a given.
This all comes at a terrible potential cost. Our political system is at a crucial juncture: can it still function effectively or will it go down the American road, where there are no agreed facts, only rejection and abuse, and the legislative process becomes dysfunctional? What is at stake in the resource rent tax controversy is the authority and legitimacy of not just this government, but any Australian government.
The players on both sides are tough and willing to play for big stakes. The announcement by the Swiss mining company Xstrata that it was placing two projects on hold because of the government's tax plan represents the first real sign of a capital strike, the likes of which Australia has not seen since the Whitlam years.
In fact, Xstrata's "deferral" is more wind than substance; the company has form in using its projects as political bargaining chips. In March last year, it told then Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull in private that it would stop $7 billion in investment, close four mines, sack 1000 people and deny future employment to another 4000 if Labor's carbon pollution reduction scheme went ahead.
Turnbull blabbed the lot in Parliament and the company was forced to admit that it had not been serious. Xstrata's announcements should be handled with care. All the same, this latest "decision" shows how far the mining corporations are willing to go to embarrass the government as they try to bend it to their will.
Kevin Rudd has brought on the bulk of his recent problems through a series of political missteps and bad communications. But it is not all his own work.
A crisis of legitimacy is emerging within our political system. On Wednesday, Rudd outlined the key themes of Labor's re-election pitch, first in reply to a question in Parliament from Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and later in a speech at a Labor Party function.
In the speech, Rudd outlined his values. "In government, I have strived to remove the obstacles and expand opportunities, so that no Australian is held back from fulfilling their potential. I have sought to support the daily efforts of individuals, families and communities around the country as they work hard, raise kids, build businesses, create communities - and through both success and adversity, sustain hope in their future."
He then listed what the government had done: ended WorkChoices; introduced an education rebate; increased the childcare rebate; handed out three rounds of tax cuts; increased spending on health and education; extended training.
I suspect that if you asked most voters what the government had done, hardly any of them would nominate any of these policies, apart perhaps from the first.
Labor's communications have been poor but there is surely more than that going on.
Australian voters do not seem happy and they do not seem particularly attached to the government. The nation escaped the recession that hit every comparable country and, according to the budget, the insurance bills will be paid within three years, but it's seemingly not enough.
What we've seen so far this year is the political contest coming to a sort of standstill - or perhaps that should be a stand-off. Neither of the major parties and their leaders is getting a decisive endorsement from voters, according to the opinion polls. Up to one in four people are parking themselves away from the major parties.
This is why the mining companies' assault on the government's legitimacy - its right to set taxation - is so important. If the companies prevail, it will be a powerful sign that our political system is fragmenting, getting weaker, and governments in the future will be reform-free zones.
Shaun Carney is Age associate editor.