It is a mere three weeks since the formation of the new Coalition government, and the first decisive as well as symbolic signs of the new conservative era are already under way.
The lack of female representation in the new Abbott ministry, the disappearance of portfolios such as science and multiculturalism, the shutdown of the climate commission, the lack of information regarding the arrival of new asylum seekers, the ‘review’ of the National Broadband Network, the sacking of heads of departments, are all important political, ideological and symbolic initiatives.
The government of the ‘grown ups’, as it was heralded by its supporters well before its ascendancy to power, is changing fundamental aspects of the role and the scope of the state in this country. Its supporters in the media, like senior columnist in The Australian Nick Cater, are telling us that “the Abbott administration will not bow to political correctness and has little time for the nanny state”.
No one can question the fact that as a result of the election outcome the new Coalition government does have a mandate to govern this country. However, the question is whether or not the Abbott government has a mandate to drastically alter the fundamentals of Australian politics such as the role, the size and the scope of the state.
In the two party preferred vote, the difference between the victorious Coalition and the recently defeated Labor government was 800,000 votes. The Coalition received 6.4 million votes, Labor 5.6 million votes, the informal vote was just over 800,000. Almost one million people did not cast a vote and more than 1.2 million Australians did not register to vote. These numbers are not mentioned in the public discourse very often, even though they tell us an important story.
The Coalition does have a mandate to govern, but it does not have the right to fundamentally change the way Australia functions, or the way the state sets its priorities on behalf of all people, especially those less fortunate.
In every country decisions are made by those who participate in the political process and in elections. However, these decisions need to be in line with the expectations and the needs of the whole of society, not only of the lucky few. Depending on who exercises power, political decisions are either skewed to the right or to the left of centre, but in a western liberal democracy such as Australia, these decisions cannot go towards the two ends of the political spectrum.
It is for this reason that for the general good of the country Labor needs to emerge from its own internal leadership battle united. It is important that both Anthony Albanese and Bill Shorten are asking for the support of the 43,000 membership strong Labor party by engaging in a public debate that offers a political alternative from day one to the policies of the Coalition government. In this alternative Labor narrative, the role and the scope of the state needs to be highlighted.