Why Labor under Gillard deserves a second chance

We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.

Advertisement

This was published 13 years ago

Why Labor under Gillard deserves a second chance

AFTER all the bluster and debate, after all the handshakes and promises, after all the claims and counter-claims, we reach the moment of truth. Who do we want to lead the country for the next three years? Gillard or Abbott? Labor or the Coalition? It is no straightforward choice.

It has not been an inspiring campaign; few policies or issues have captured the public's imagination. This is not 2007, when John Howard, for all his many admirable qualities, had clearly held on to power too long; when Kevin Rudd offered a fresh approach on climate change, reconciliation and workplace relations; and when whoever won would inherit a healthy budget balance and a booming economy. In 2010 things are more complicated. We have to pick between two untested leaders, who for five weeks have played an elaborate and at times dispiriting game of policy chess which has confused onlookers – as it was at times clearly intended to do.

What do these people actually stand for? Tony Abbott has apparently buried his belief in workplace change; Julia Gillard has done her very best to convince the electorate that she, too, will stop the boats and won't be hitting households over the head with a big new tax to tackle climate change. So, if this election can be cast as a referendum, what would it be on? The national broadband network versus paid parental leave? These are important issues. Labor will give the nation the NBN, a vital tool for the nation's future, but, at $43 billion, a very expensive one. They have yet to convince the country that this enormous sum will be well spent. Abbott's party promises 26 weeks' paid parental leave, a positive idea, especially for female workplace participation, but again it comes at a high cost – a tax impost on larger employers for up to a decade, perhaps more.

As ever, the central question is: who do you trust? Labor has done much to make voters pause at that question. This has been a government of broken promises and unfulfilled ambitions, large and small. It was, for instance, going to deliver an emissions trading scheme; it has not done so and appears to have no intention of doing so – a thoroughly bad decision. It was going to give us GroceryWatch to keep a lid on household prices; it did not. It promised a similar scheme to push down fuel prices; it has been abandoned.

It is true Labor faced entrenched, sometimes mindless, opposition in the Senate. Yet it has also shown a remarkable inability to explain its policies and bring voters along with it. The mining tax debacle shows that. And in deposing Kevin Rudd, the ALP not only re-emphasised that politics is brutal – it always is and will be, on every side – but highlighted the unpalatable fact that the prime ministership is a plaything of factional leaders. Labor's reputation has sustained considerable damage from being associated with the performance of state governments, especially in NSW and Queensland. Even though this election should be decided on national issues, it is understandable that many voters in places such as Sydney's west are angry and feel betrayed. There is little doubt NSW Labor will be shown the door next year, as it should.

3,1But for all the above, we believe Labor at a federal level deserves another chance. Why?

First, it did successfully get us through the global financial crisis; the nation is not suffering from the crippling economic malaise – the loss of confidence and jobs – still found in the United States and throughout Europe. It is true, some of the economic stimulus was wasted or went astray – but it has to be understood and judged as an emergency measure enacted and managed in haste. That does not excuse it, but it goes a long way to explain it.

Second, Labor does have a plan – properly costed – to reduce national debt and get the federal budget back in surplus; its economic policy settings seem about right.

Third, it has promised to build the national broadband network and increase taxpayer value in the crucial areas of education and health, by forcing the states to perform and be accountable.

Fourth, it has performed well, if not better, in important though less than contentious areas such as defence, national security and foreign policy.

Advertisement
Loading

And last – what is the alternative? For all his obvious leadership qualities, Tony Abbott has not yet articulated a cohesive and positive plan for the nation. He has been correct as Opposition Leader to highlight waste in some of the government's stimulus spending. He is also justified in asking whether federal and state Labor governments can deliver on big spending promises such as the Epping-to-Parramatta rail link. He has run a good campaign – one that, if the polls are correct, will bring him very close to a historic victory. He has shown a steadiness during the campaign that has not been obvious during his political career. Until the last few weeks, he was worryingly inconsistent in many policy areas. He needs to show the Australian people that in government he would not revert to policy flip-flops as the political wind changed. If he wins, then we wish him all the best. But it really isn't yet his turn.

Modern life is increasingly fast-paced; many people feel time-poor – and under constant pressure of change. Nowhere is that more true than in politics, judging by the turnaround of leaders on both sides since the 2007 election. But we think Julia Gillard has done enough to be given a chance to lead the nation; and not to be the first Prime Minister in 80 years to lead a government tossed out after one term. Surely we are not so addicted to change. We will be back here in three years or less – and then we will be able truly and fairly to judge Gillard and her government. And we will be able to do so in the light of experience, not simply this campaign.

Most Viewed in Politics

Loading