The Coalition believed it was Australia's anointed leader - now it has no plan B
'Impasse' is among the multitude of French words that English speakers over the centuries have borrowed and repurposed. In English, impasse means a seemingly irreconcilable disagreement or deadlock. In French, its more common meaning is a physical dead end – an alley that leads to nowhere. The predicament in which the Liberals and Nationals find themselves looks mostly French to me.
Nationals leader David Littleproud, with the support of most of his party room, was the one who pulled the trigger on ending – or more correctly suspending – the Coalition arrangement, but the Liberals had helped fashion the bullet. They have simply not been able to cope in any meaningful way with the searing reality of a Labor government.
Due to the slimness of the parliamentary majority won by Labor in 2022, they were able to indulge themselves on the way to this month's election that the Albanese government lacked legitimacy. The key assumption was that if the government was met with relentless criticism and a portrayal of the country under Labor that was close to dystopian, the public would quickly come to its senses and realise it had made a mistake by handing the keys to Anthony Albanese.
This attitude first emerged after the election of the Whitlam government in 1972. You need to have lived through that period to fully comprehend just how outraged the Coalition parties were that the public could actually elect the Labor Party. The denial ran deep. When Whitlam was re-elected in 1974, Liberal leader Billy Snedden memorably observed 'we didn't win, but we didn't lose'. To get the Coalition back into office, his successor Malcolm Fraser engineered a constitutional crisis the following year.
That crisis, which came to be known as the dismissal, took its toll on the Liberals. When Bob Hawke led Labor to power in 1983, the Liberals didn't try to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the new government. They were exhausted from the years under Fraser, which were often turbulent, and they attempted to sort themselves out. The rivalry between Andrew Peacock and John Howard and an internal ideological schism between moderates and neoliberals took up the party's energies. These issues took five terms and 13 years to resolve, but it set up the Coalition for four consecutive, stable and effective terms under Howard.
Loading
When the next Labor government, led by Kevin Rudd, won office in 2007, there was little appetite within the Liberal Party to spend time on reflection or a reset. In its first two years in opposition, it burnt through leaders. Brendan Nelson made way for Malcolm Turnbull, who made the terrible mistake of accepting the Rudd government's legitimacy and the reality of climate change. Turnbull negotiated with Labor on an emissions trading scheme. This was all too much for his colleagues. Even though they had gone to the 2007 election endorsing an ETS, they saw their job as frustrating the government. Before the scheme could be legislated, Turnbull was toppled by Tony Abbott.
That was a decisive moment for the Liberals and its repercussions have continued all the way to this week. Abbott was firmly of the view that voters had not consciously elected the Rudd government; really, they had just got a bit tired of the Howard government. Abbott was a negative campaigner par excellence, and he exploited the public's second thoughts about putting a price on carbon to fight climate change. Most voters had embraced the need to fight climate change, but increasing numbers baulked at the unavoidable prospect of it coming at a cost.
Under Abbott, the Liberals smashed their way to a hung parliament and a minority Labor government under Julia Gillard at the 2010 election and a landslide victory three years later. Nine years in office and more leadership churn followed. Few can readily nominate the lasting big-ticket policy achievements of that period of Coalition government. But the main political KPI for the Liberals – keeping the Labor Party in opposition – was met, which merely highlights its current problem.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Chalmers has earned the right to snub the Coalition, but here's why he shouldn't
Jim Chalmers slammed the door shut this week on doing a deal with the Coalition on tax changes to superannuation. The treasurer is perfectly entitled to thumb his nose at the opposition. Labor first announced these tax changes last term, the government took them to the election, and it then secured a thumping majority on May 3. But Chalmers is making a mistake. The much-depleted Coalition has not yet decided whether it plans to be constructive, in a legislative sense, in this second term on the opposition benches, or whether it will continue with the monomaniacal impulse to say 'no' to most proposals. Chalmers could not agree to the Coalition's twin requests – that the tax change be indexed so that over time the impost does not affect more than the initial estimate of 80,000 people and second, that the tax would not apply to unrealised capital gains (such as a family farm or an expensive artwork) held by an individual's self-managed super fund. Instead, the treasurer has chosen to negotiate with the Greens, who also want tweaks, but who are much more likely to eventually pass the tax in its original form. So, notwithstanding the huffing and puffing from the opposition and some in the more conservative sections of the media, this debate is likely to end up with Chalmers getting his way and securing the new tax – which raises the tax rate to 30 per cent on superannuation balances over $3 million – in its unamended form. The treasurer's mistake is not so much in not compromising on the detail with the Coalition (arguments can be made for and against the proposed changes). Rather, it's in the signal sent to the Coalition about how he intends to negotiate in the coming term of parliament. Chalmers' PhD, Brawler Statesman, was written about Labor's legendary former treasurer and prime minister, Paul Keating and how the one-time member for Blaxland implemented and then bedded down ambitious and necessary economic reform over more than a decade. Keating's record of reform (backed by Bob Hawke) is part of political folklore now – he floated the Australian dollar, opened up the economy, reduced tariffs, welcomed foreign banks, privatised major government-owned companies such as Qantas and more.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Chalmers has earned the right to snub the Coalition, but here's why he shouldn't
Jim Chalmers slammed the door shut this week on doing a deal with the Coalition on tax changes to superannuation. The treasurer is perfectly entitled to thumb his nose at the opposition. Labor first announced these tax changes last term, the government took them to the election, and it then secured a thumping majority on May 3. But Chalmers is making a mistake. The much-depleted Coalition has not yet decided whether it plans to be constructive, in a legislative sense, in this second term on the opposition benches, or whether it will continue with the monomaniacal impulse to say 'no' to most proposals. Chalmers could not agree to the Coalition's twin requests – that the tax change be indexed so that over time the impost does not affect more than the initial estimate of 80,000 people and second, that the tax would not apply to unrealised capital gains (such as a family farm or an expensive artwork) held by an individual's self-managed super fund. Instead, the treasurer has chosen to negotiate with the Greens, who also want tweaks, but who are much more likely to eventually pass the tax in its original form. So, notwithstanding the huffing and puffing from the opposition and some in the more conservative sections of the media, this debate is likely to end up with Chalmers getting his way and securing the new tax – which raises the tax rate to 30 per cent on superannuation balances over $3 million – in its unamended form. The treasurer's mistake is not so much in not compromising on the detail with the Coalition (arguments can be made for and against the proposed changes). Rather, it's in the signal sent to the Coalition about how he intends to negotiate in the coming term of parliament. Chalmers' PhD, Brawler Statesman, was written about Labor's legendary former treasurer and prime minister, Paul Keating and how the one-time member for Blaxland implemented and then bedded down ambitious and necessary economic reform over more than a decade. Keating's record of reform (backed by Bob Hawke) is part of political folklore now – he floated the Australian dollar, opened up the economy, reduced tariffs, welcomed foreign banks, privatised major government-owned companies such as Qantas and more.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Labor is 'gaslighting the Australian people' on unrealised capital gains tax proposal, Geoff Wilson warns
Labor is 'gaslighting the Australian people' by claiming its proposed super tax will impact a small sliver of the population, a leading fund manager has warned as the government and the Greens close in on a deal. The Albanese government's controversial plan to double the tax rate on funds in super accounts above $3m and hit unrealised gains could soon be legislated. Labor has claimed the tax will hit just 80,000 super accounts, however, Wilson Asset Management founder Geoff Wilson, who has launched a petition opposing the plan, said by forcing Aussies to pay taxes on paper gains it will hinder investment in Australia. 'Both Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers - and probably most of the government - are gaslighting the Australian people by saying: 'Look, this will only impact a very small percentage of people that pay the additional tax',' Mr Wilson told Sky News. 'That's correct, but what it'll do is actually impact about how $4.2 trillion in superannuation is invested. 'We anticipate that the money will come out of self-managed super funds (SMSF), which is about $1.1 trillion, and billions of that will go into the housing market and push house prices up . ' He cautioned Aussies who use their SMSF as a low tax investment vehicle will be discouraged from funding projects and businesses in the Australian market. 'People won't want to take risk on their superannuation in in the self-managed super funds,' Mr Wilson said. 'The angel investors and the startups and the small companies in Australia that find it hard to raise capital, particularly at this point in time - that tap's going to be turned off.' He pointed to the taxing of unrealised gains in Norway that drove investment out of the country despite initial expectations it would bring in millions. 'It was only for the ultra-wealthy, they thought they were going to raise $150 million,' Mr Wilson said. 'Instead of raising that, they were minus half a billion.' He also noted the capital gains tax hike in the United Kingdom which resulted in the government taking in 10 per cent less capital gains tax revenue. 'People change their behaviour,' Mr Wilson said. 'We've done economic models, we think it'll be negative to the tune of $94.5 billion on the Australian economy.' Alongside taxing unrealised gains, Labor's super tax has drawn criticism for its failure to index the $3m threshold over time. The Greens want Labor to lower the threshold to $2m and index it to the rate of inflation. New analysis from the Financial Services Council shows that under Labor's plan more than half a million Aussies currently in the workforce will be captured by the tax. Of those impacted, more than 200,000 are currently under 30, while 135,000 are between 30 and 34 and 65,000 are between 35 and 39. The number of impacted taxpayers greatly drops off for Australians 40 and over. The Greens' proposal would hit more than 200,000 Aussies currently in the workforce and is more evenly spread across the age ranges. Financial Services Council CEO Blake Briggs urged Labor to listen to feedback from consumers, industries and economists on how the tax will impact future generations. 'The superannuation industry recognises the government has the capacity to force the new tax through the Parliament with the support of the Greens, but encourages the two parties to take a more constructive and consultative approach,' Mr Briggs said. 'The Financial Services Council encourages the Government to consult on options that would not unfairly target future generations of Australian superannuation consumers and undermine confidence in our retirement system by introducing a new, contentious tax on unrealised capital gains.'
