It took Labor more than 15 months to have a rotten week, which is a pretty reasonable record for a first-term government. Rough trots, either self-inflicted or external in origin, are inevitable — it’s the way you respond to them that counts. On that score, Labor did not impress.
It’s still hard to believe that Qantas has been the cause of such a politically damaging run. For decades, Qantas has enjoyed a cosy bipartisan protection racket — one that Labor blithely assumed would continue. But it didn’t account for just how hated former CEO Alan Joyce was, how Qantas would become a lightning rod for discontent about big corporations racking up huge profits while the rest of us struggle with high inflation, and how this would expose weaknesses on Labor’s frontbench.
Caught up in the maelstrom was the government’s aviation green paper, which was suddenly viewed through the lens of how accommodating Labor was being of Qantas. And while certainly weak on that score, some in the media seemed frustrated about the very nature of a green paper, which is for discussion before developing a formal policy document.
“Most people don’t understand green and white papers or protracted bureaucratic processes for official policymaking,” whinged right-wing Australian Financial Review commentator Jennifer Hewett today.
As a senior commentator, Hewett is expected to understand them, and perhaps to note that after the Morrison government — in which a prime minister took over ministers’ jobs without telling them, and substituted announcements crafted purely with the goal of day-to-day political management in mind for real policy — a government developing policy properly through traditional channels is to be welcomed.
But Transport Minister Catherine King deciding on Wednesday to “launch” the green paper at a 7am presser at Canberra Airport the following day looked like half-smart timing. It certainly didn’t prevent a swarm of journalists from attending and peppering King with questions about the Qatar Airways decision — the actual green paper was the subject of just a couple of questions — and it didn’t stop King from again stuffing up her response by returning to Qatari police’s disgusting, misogynist assault on Australian women in 2020, which King had previously ruled in then ruled out as a factor in the decision.
The ongoing mishandling of the Qatar Airways decision — particularly the ability to choose one explanation and stick to it — is what raises questions about the capacity of the Albanese government to overcome serious political dramas. If something this anodyne gets botched, what happens when a real crisis comes along? At no stage has there been any sense that Anthony Albanese’s office has sensed the political threat in perceptions of the decision and brought its authority to bear — to determine a response (reverse the decision, or establish a coherent explanation for it) and ensure ministers stick to it.
That’s what the prime minister’s office is there for, among other reasons. As a result, multiple ministers have been burnt, most particularly King, who has looked like a rabbit in the headlights as she cycled through a series of half-baked explanations. The opposition — which everyone knows would have made exactly the same decision for Qantas — has rightly had a field day.
That’s extended to Parliament where, especially with Albanese abroad yesterday, the government has struggled to assert its authority. Having dullard Richard Marles as acting prime minister meant the government started question time on the back foot, even before the first question he faced was about his use of the RAAF as a taxi service.
In a week that was supposed to be dominated by industrial relations reform, Tony Burke — one of the government’s best debaters — was reduced to having to have a Dorothy Dixer asked about his IR bill.
A competent Labor government — even if it made the dud Qatar Airways decision in the first place — could have used the Qantas crisis to argue that the big economic debate in Australia should be about competition, which is why it has started a treasury taskforce to harden up competition law, and that Qantas’ behaviour is exactly what you should expect when you allow big business to do what it likes.
The appointment of Danielle Wood to the Productivity Commission after Chris Barrett decided to stay in Victoria would have been part of that — apart from being a fantastic appointment by the government, Wood has a strong background in urging greater competition.
And the green paper could have flagged the government’s interest in getting serious about aviation competition — either by tightly regulating Qantas as a monopoly provider, or by contemplating real change via cabotage and opening up international access. Its lame promise to do something about airport slots could have been a lot harder, too.
In other words, a competent government could have used the crisis as an opportunity to prosecute its agenda. But there’s no sign at all of that kind of thinking within the ministerial wing of Parliament House.
I think Albanese doesn’t want to be in Government. He has achieved the Prime Ministership, he is carrying a bunch of useless ministers foisted on him by the caucus system. There are major problems on all front and perhaps his heat is not in them. He is supporting an AUKUS solution, proposed by the Coalition, which will bring more problems than solutions as time passes. Why would you hang around after one term/
Despite all the talk about the wonders that will be achieved once Labor have been in office for a decade, I imagine that if the government is still this current lot, there will be many cries of “Oh crap! Don’t tell me that we actually have to do something significant now about emissions reductions/affordable housing/wages…?!”
The only way that realisation will strike is when they’re in minority, at the mercy of the crossbench.
Even then, they’ll probably just step up their cartel with the LNP to sideline the Greens and Indies.
I agree. Labor has more in common with the LNP than with the Greens.
The Political Compass site has been pointing that out forever, along with the fact that the Greens are more closely aligned with the general populace than either of the Scum parties.
I was really surprised when filling in Vote Compass last year to be marked as Green rather than Labor.
I just goes to show how much to the right the Overton Window has shifted that sensible people are more politically aligned to the Greens. The Greens aren’t as Left as they claim to be.
Yup. That’s the problem.
Unfortunately or should I say sadly, the Greens just have an Albo problem – they just can’t get their act together. Together they would run a “dry” function at a brewery.
What does that even mean ?
Given pretty much the entirety of mainstream politics and media is aligned against them, they’re making decent cut-through, at least on housing.
Yes, surprisingly, I too was marked Green in Vote Compass, rather than Labor. Looks like the Labor Party has left Labor voters behind, in the metamorphosis.
Not for this long term but disillusioned ALP member! Sadly, there is some truth in the statement but more in relation to the Govt/staffers and apparatchiks than ordinary members. I see the only hope as Labor NOT having a majority at the next election and being forced to work with Greens/Teals and Independents like David Pocock. the LNP are rendered useless and irrelevant!
Ditto.
Appearances can deceive. The Greens and the Coalition have a common enemy, Labor.
You may have noticed that the Greens are getting a good run with the MSM, as long as they are damaging Labor.
Agreed, Albo does not want to govern. He never asserts his authority as PM, every stuff up is not his fault. Labor’s only hope at the next election is minority government, if enough independents support Labor but refuse to accept Albo as leader he can retire “for the good of the Party” then live on his fat pension and several company board seats.
Governments unravel gradually, then suddenly. As BK points out, the Labor front bench is being roasted for doing the same things the Coalition front bench would do, more clumsily, in a heartbeat. But that’s one of the drawbacks of actually governing, as Pauline Hanson will never find out.
Us lefties are finding that the last three decades’ push to privatise everything that wasn’t nailed down, and much that was, has created a vast army of vested interests with ample resources to fight everything that Jennifer Hewett doesn’t understand. This army far exceeds the more malleable enemies around in the days of the post-war consensus. And big business is well aware that MPs of all stripes are essentially greedy twerps whose brief popularity (getting elected) has gone to their heads. Creating 227 new members of the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge will have pissed off a few legit chairmen and women but has probably also seen off Qatar and will hopefully keep Virgin on the NDIS.
To be fair there is quite a lot of bipartisan and shared centrism with dominant mass of above median age ‘skip’ voters both ALP & LNP.
Backgrounded by promoting of ‘free market’ policies by ‘libertarian’ imported Kochonomics, cost of living, taxes etc. and bipartisan grandstanding on borders, refugees, immigrants etc., linked into a now consolidated RW & shouty MSM, inc. in regions (ABC stands back); avoids serious issues of the day.
In toto, it’s more ‘corrupt nativist authoritarianism’ for the ‘top end of town’ comparable with Russia, UK and US; a return of 19thC eugenics, oligarchy and pecking order for the <1%.
This merely hints at a wider, deeper problem. Australia lacks people in sufficient numbers, of talent, training, integrity, foresight, trustworthness, decency, experience, so many areas. Here, politics, mining, media, retail, advertising, attitude, awareness, all are lacking and deficient.
Just like everywhere else?
NMo doubt.., dominated by those who promote themselves.., we have plenty of talent but thinly spread and often “quiet”.
Driven out by the noise of the empty vessels.
Neoliberal disinvestment in people and the systems which sustain them, in favour of petty fiefdoms.
Neoliberalism = neofuedalism. Hunger Games speed.
‘Australia lacks people in sufficient numbers, of talent, training, integrity, foresight, trustworthness, decency, experience, so many areas.’
Strongly disagree. There are plenty of these people, but they do not go into politics because our system of party politics values none of those things. It is the same in many countries. I have worked in countries with incredible (and deserved) reputations for corruption, but found there are amazing people out there who could run the government brilliantly. However they never go anywhere near government because of its culture and the immediate taint a person acquires from being part of it. There is also the not so small matter of the personal danger to someone espousing and attempting to deliver honest government in a corrupt system.
‘If something this anodyne gets botched, what happens when a real crisis comes along?’
Indeed. Albanese is apparently being feted with a State Dinner or some such shite, in his honour when visits the US in October. I genuinely fear for the commitments this long term seat warmer will make to assist the warmongers in The State Department.
This is worrying. The Whitlam government had great policies but botched the execution with poor teamwork. The Hawke government, whatever you think of its policies, ran a tight ship on policy coordination, successfully balanced by delegation. Rudd has been accused of over-centralisation. Getting this wrong gives the Opposition an opening, even the current D-Team.
D-Team indeed. As Monty Python would have had it, the nits who say “no”.
Difference is nowadays, not the formal ‘Opposition’, but behemoths of the RW MSM ‘Opposition’ whose role is to ‘wedge’ anything centrist, for hard right policies to prevail & others to be ignored e.g. carbon emissions; see UK and other less developed nations.