Why Governments Can Leave Oppositions In A Flap

by John Warhurst - Canberra Times

The single most important political lesson of the past few weeks is that governments can do things but oppositions cannot. By definition the opposition cannot govern. Ultimately that is why it is governments that lose office rather than oppositions that win office.

This fact gives governments an advantage, one of the many benefits of incumbency. But they do have to deliver in order to reap the benefits.

Supporters of an opposition naturally find it galling, to say the least, that governments can do anything, much less popular things, less than six months before an election. But they have to grin and bear it.

An opposition, in turn, has several strategies at its disposal. The best long-term strategy is to react as it would to any government initiative. It should avoid the temptation to treat any issue differently just because of the approaching election. This may seem naive advice, but any other approach will lead to an opposition sounding unconvincing. If an opposition really likes what a government is doing, it should say so enthusiastically.

That is what Kevin Rudd has done with the Howard Government's anti-child abuse initiative in the Northern Territory. But it must do more.

If it has an alternative strategy it should offer one. If it does not yet have such a strategy it should make sure that it has one by the time of the election.

That might look as though it is playing follow the leader. That's too bad. Governments set the agenda. That is how the Westminster system often works. An opposition must be flexible enough to adapt.

At the same time, there are a range of other legitimate points that an opposition can make in such circumstances.

It can say "what took you so long?" This can be a potent strategy to use against a long-term government, but it is not a knock-out blow because the obvious retort is better late than never. One cliche deserves another.

It can also argue that the new government policy hasn't been thought through well enough, primarily because it has been rushed out to gain maximum political advantage.

Oppositions hope that the wheels will soon fall off such a policy. But this may only become obvious in the longer term.

What an opposition can also do in a practical sense is to embark upon those necessary things it says a government hasn't done but should have before it announced the policy.

The obvious one that comes to mind in this instance is consultation, both with indigenous communities and with state and territory governments.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more obvious public consultation between the current federal Opposition and the state and territory Labor governments, for instance, to develop an alternative plan. I'm surprised also that Labor hasn't formed and publicised its own formal indigenous advisory group. Labor should be consulting furiously on both fronts.

Lobby groups, including doctors, lawyers and churches, face the same dilemma as an opposition.

This has been shown in the somewhat tortured responses that have been forthcoming from them.

The big difference between an opposition and lobby groups is that lobby groups are only concerned with a narrow range of outcomes. Lobby groups have to grapple with the short and long term too. Privately they may wish for a change of government, but publicly they have to address the issue on its merits because they are not running for office themselves.

Lobby groups have to take their chances too.

They can't choose their own timing. They are aware also that a government in spending mode, like the present one, might only ever address an issue in the desperate last months before an election.

Afterwards, the issue might be forgotten, whichever party wins the election. This might be the opportunity of a lifetime for an interested lobby group to gain financial support from a government.

The media statements from lobby groups in this instance have often been long and complicated, giving credit where credit is due to a government, but also offering a range of serious criticisms at the same time.

Many lobby groups must have agonised over whether to lead with support or opposition, because it makes such a difference to how their reading of events is publicised by the media.

Unfortunately for lobby groups, such a strategy delivers them into the rough hands of the media, which doesn't want responses that say "on the one hand, on the other hand". Most media reports just want a short grab rather than a full discussion of a complicated issue.

This leaves the reaction of the voting public. The public won't have a long memory of the history of who has done what, when and how, and it can't be expected to devote much time to comprehending the details of process, consultation and implementation. The public wants it kept simple too.

The public might end up in a state of confusion. The public opinion polls suggest that is what has happened recently. The public will judge a government initiative on its merits, when asked to, as this week's Newspoll has done. But it also will have a sense of a government's motivation and will judge that accordingly when asked to, as last week's Galaxy Poll did.

On its merits Howard's Northern Territory initiative has been popular, while its genesis and motivation have been treated with suspicion.

There is a comparison between the Iraq commitment and the Northern Territory initiative. Once the troops have been committed there is some reluctance, even among opponents, to pull the rug out from under the feet of those on the ground.


John Warhurst is professor of political science in the Faculty of Arts at the Australian National University.