Australia’s Choice: Back to the Future?

In the so-called “lucky country”, complacency usually rules. Most Australians care little about the which party wins its regular parliamentary elections, held every three years. On May 21, with a splintering society, shattered regional relationships and persistent failure to reinvent the economy for the 21st century, Australians have the chance to re-elect a widely despised government or to hand the reins to a cautious opposition with a surprising choice of leader.

If the opinion polls are to be believed, the opposition has the upcoming Australian election in the bag. This was, however, the same result expected by pollsters and expert observers at the last election three years ago. Nothing is certain until the votes are counted, and much can influence disinterested and disengaged voters in the crucial weeks of an election campaign.

Thirty years ago, it seemed Australia was finally ready to resolve its central identity dilemma. It abandoned the disgraced notion of terra nullius, which had dismissed the plight of the continent’s indigenous peoples. Australians seemed ready to recognize the central place in the nation’s identity of its First Nations. Further, Australians seemed ready to become a republic so that contemporary Australia would reflect its egalitarian, multicultural and democratic values. Yet these hopes remain unfulfilled.

Governments of the last decade have spurned the idea of leaving a legacy and have become comfortable simply to play politics as a game, rather like the complacent Australia of the 1950s and 1960s, which author Donald Horne famously scorned as “The Lucky Country”. The prime minister, Scott Morrison, lurches from one glib, smirking photo opportunity to the next, a marketing man who appears to be totally focused on announcements, with no interest in the capacity of government to implement change. Morrison’s character has been under relentless attack from his own colleagues and even French President Emmanuel Macron, who has described Morrison as a liar. (This was after Australia abruptly abandoned a nuclear submarine deal with Paris to forge another one with the US and the UK.)

Indeed the government is facing an internal rebellion of its liberal-leaning members and supporters, who reject its sharp turn to the right, in particular its truculence in keeping Australia well behind most of the world in its response to climate change. Smart, articulate independent candidates – many of them women – stand a chance of displacing ruling party candidates at the election. Yet, more conservative states, in particular Queensland, may yet dig in deeper in support of the government’s rightward direction.

Meanwhile, the opposition has played it coy, keeping a low policy profile and hoping the government will defeat itself. Rarely has such a ploy worked, although these are strange times and it is an uncommonly incompetent government. The opposition has rolled out policies on work security, aged care and more action on climate change, all of which only appear bold in comparison with a moribund government. There is little that is ambitious or transformational. Its leader – a longtime leader of the Labor Party’s left wing - is an unconventional choice, and will either prove to have been too unconventional or may just be the right person for these times.

I spent a lot of time with Anthony Albanese, the opposition leader, back in our 20s. While we were young and probably said and did things older and wiser people would not, I do believe I took the measure of the man. I have no doubt about what kind of leader he will be, if he is elected by the Australian people to be prime minister on May 21. He is authentic, inclusive and entirely up to the job of restoring long term, strategic governance. I would not agree with everything he does, just as I did not all those years ago, but he is the real deal.

Through his long parliamentary experience, he has demonstrated a passion for the institutions of liberal democracy, embraces the rough and tumble of parliamentary debate and the forensic process of weighing evidence before making policy decisions. Further, he has a track record in previous Labor governments of achieving parliamentary outcomes, sometimes against all odds. He is a respectful listener and a loyal person, unlike most politicians in my experience. The battered institutions of Australia’s democracy could do with a breath of fresh air, not least an anti-corruption body and an infusion of new talent that is more representative of Australia’s diverse society.

Might Australia really be at a tipping point? Australia needs to restructure its economy to realize the opportunities of renewable energy, new technologies, new jobs and new infrastructure needed for the green and technological industrial revolution. It needs to find an authentically Australian way to understand itself, including First Nations and Australia’s uniquely multicultural reality, to strengthen its social cohesion at a time when divisiveness has too often been tactic of choice. It needs a serious debate and, ultimately, a grand strategy to position itself to be safe and to prosper from the changing world balance, by learning how to better build partnerships with its own region and globally. It must address climate change. All of these imperatives point to the need for change. That is in the hands of the Australian people on May 21.