Morrison’security wedges
Turnbull on AUKUS
Putin’s invasion or Ukraine has given Morrison and Dutton an opportunity to try to wedge Labor on national security, but their tactics have been so obvious that they don’t seem to be having much effect.
The latest attempt has been a proposal to construct a $10 billion submarine base somewhere in a marginal electorate along the east coast, to service those nuclear submarines that will turn up some time in the never-never, if and when the AUKUS deal ever goes through.
Ignoring the fact that the government had said that it would take 18 months to make firm decisions on what type of submarines it would buy, Dutton said that a choice will be made within the next two months . Morrison had to back-track on that one, confirming for all nations, friend or foe, that the present Australian government is making up its security policies on the run.
Labor hasn’t taken the bait. But Malcolm Turnbull, speaking on the ABC’s Breakfast program, has given a scathing assessment of the proposal, identifying it clearly as a political exercise designed to wedge Labor. He re-iterated his criticism of AUKUS as an “abandonment of sovereignty”. In carefully-chosen words he says of AUKUS that it “makes us less safe, less self-reliant, and undermines our national security”. (8 minutes).
Speaking on the same program the following morning Senator Rex Patrick, a former navy officer who knows a little more about submarines than a marketing spin doctor or a Queensland cop, gave a similarly scathing assessment of the Morrison Government’s shortlisted locations – Brisbane, Newcastle and Port Kembla. There are much better places along the east coast to build a submarine base: Nuclear sub bases selected for pork-barrelling. (11 minutes)
No Scott, China hasn’t invaded Ukraine: it was Russia
Morrison and Dutton cannot refrain from ramping up fear of China as a wedge issue.
Writing in Eureka Street – Bull in the china shop – Andrew Hamilton describes the consequences of Morrison’s anti-China rhetoric. “It is harmful because it fosters division between nations and leads to discrimination and abuse of people within the Australian community”.
Without any suggestion that he approves of Xi’s aggressive rhetoric, Hamilton sharply criticises the way the Morrison has used growing geopolitical tension as a political opportunity to run an anti-Labor scare campaign:
In targeting other politicians for being soft on China the campaign does not contribute to necessary political debate about how to balance the complex sets of relationships between China and Australia in a time of tension. It is not an invitation to conversation but a divisive and self-serving campaign designed to deflect anger and resentment away from the failures of politicians and political parties on to China and on to all people and things Chinese. Popular disrespect for China and Chinese people is both its goal and a means to electoral success. It is not the side effect of a necessary conversation.
Albanese’s speech on security
Albanese commenced his speech to the Lowy Institute – Stronger in the world, united at home – with a reference to John Curtin, the Labor prime minister who led Australia through the Pacific War (after the United Australia Party, the predecessor to the Liberal Party, collapsed in on itself).
In saying that Curtin asserted “Australia’s right and indeed our [a] responsibility to act in our own interests, to make our own alliances, to decide our place in our region, for ourselves”, he clearly differentiated Labor from the Coalition – or at least the Morrison-Dutton approach to security.
He also took a broad approach to security, seeing it beyond boots and weapons, to include cyber-security, energy security, economic security, and environmental security. (Russia’s war against Ukraine has brought home to us the fact that security has many interrelated dimensions.)
Some may be surprised to see environmental security in the same context as military security, but Albanese is in good company. On the ABC Breakfast program former chief of Australia’s defence forces, Admiral Chris Barrie, said that Australia is unprepared for climate threats to national security. Barrie is most critical of the government’s failure to see the security consequences of our failure to protect against climate change. (He makes frequent reference to the Australia Security Leaders Climate Group Missing in Action report.)
In case anyone believes Labor is soft on defence, he re-committed Labor to reinforcing our naval capability, in line with the Rudd Government’s Defence White Paper, while noting the present government’s shortcomings, with its “enduring focus on announcements, but not on the delivery of them”, and its bungles on frigates and submarines.
And in case anyone buys the Dutton-Morrison line that had Labor been in office we would be spending $10 billion less on defence, Albanese re-asserted a commitment to keep defence spending above the 2.0 percent benchmark. (The Coalition is renowned for its use of riadicicolous counterfactuals: “If Labor were in office {inset horror scenario}”.
Notable in his speech is a short section on strengthening our communities and institutions. “Democratic strength is also critical to our long-term stability and security” he said, noting the damage the Morrison government has inflicted on our democratic institutions. (The western response to Putin’s aggression rests on its ability to call on the moral authority of strong democracies.)
Polls – the wedge isn’t working
The latest Morgan poll has Labor commanding a 13 percent two-party-preferred lead over the Coalition (56.5:43.5). The more reliable primary vote figures are 37.5 percent for Labor (33.3 percent at the 2019 election) and 32.5 percent for the Coalition (41.4 percent at the election). These figures, showing a large fall for the Coalition and a modest rise for Labor are broadly in line with other polls.
Morgan has disaggregations by states and estimates for minor parties, but these are necessarily based on small sample sizes. It is notable, however, that the total Labor plus Coalition support is only 70 percent, leaving 30 percent for other parties and independents.
Morgan points out that the poll was completed on February 13 (now close to a month old), before Russia invaded Ukraine. It has conducted a subsequent out-of-cycle poll, between February 14 and March 2, to check for any Ukraine effect, but it finds none: the 2PP figures stand at 56.5:43.5.
The Essential Political Insights poll has Labor’s primary support at 35 percent and the Coalition’s at 36 percent. These results are more favourable for the Coalition than most other polls, but they still have Labor well ahead after the likely distribution of preferences. It also has the usual questions on approval of Morrison and Albanese and on preferred prime minister: they essentially show Morrison and Albanese running neck and neck in any presidential-style contest. Just a few months ago Morrison was well ahead on these ratings.
The more general Essential poll, published on March 8, includes the question “Which political party do you think is better equipped to understand and react to the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine?”. Labor and the Coalition are level pegging on 24 percent, and “no difference” scores 33 percent. Older people think the Coalition would do better (how quickly we forget the Vietnam War). There are huge differences relating to people’s voting intention: Coalition and Labor voters alike believe that only their party can handle the conflict. A majority of respondents (58 percent) support the idea of providing financial support to NATO to buy weapons for Ukraine, and even more (68 percent) favour providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine.
The same poll has some questions on gender equality. Men and Coalition supporters are more likely to believe gender equality has gone far enough, but 75 percent of us agree that “although there has been significant progress on gender equality there is still a long way to go.”
The poll has no question on voting intention, but it asks people whether they think the Coalition “deserves to be re-elected” or if it’s “time to give someone else a go”. Only 32 percent think the Coalition deserves to be re-elected, down from 36 percent in August, while 48 percent think it’s time to give someone else a go, up from 41 percent in August. (It’s a poorly-worded pair of questions, because the choice isn’t binary. The first question is about political morality, while the second is about a pragmatic choice. In 1975, after the coup that saw the Whitlam government sacked, many people who disapproved of the Coalition’s bastardry and disregard for democratic institutions believed that Labor deserved to be re-elected but they pragmatically voted Coalition.)