In the last few weeks, international events and their local consequences are slowly but constantly changing the dynamics and the focus of every day politics in Australia. The shooting down of the Malaysian Airlines civilian aeroplane in Ukraine and the loss of innocent, including Australian, lives is one such event. The war in Gaza, as well as other violent conflicts in the Middle East and the real or imagined threats that they pose to Australia is another. The ever present asylum seekers issue also dominates the news and political cycle. All these events have given the Abbott government the opportunity to play a proactive role and to become a protagonist of everyday political and social life in this country.
The unfair measures of the May Federal Budget, that amongst others helped widen the polling gap between the government and the Labor Opposition, in favour of the Opposition, have been denied lately by the above mentioned events and by their handling by the government and its allies crucial public breathing space. Furthermore, when we talk about the budget, it is only as a response to the truncated initiatives of the government in the Senate. Initiatives such as the repeal of the carbon tax. Initiatives that are laid out in order to advance the tactical and strategic priorities of the Coalition.
Even when the government was soundly defeated politically earlier on this week and was forced to retract its planned changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, this defeat was packaged as part of another announcement that attracted most of the public’s and media’s attention, namely the proposed new tough terror laws to counter the possible return from the Middle East of jihadists who might pose a real or an imagined threat to Australia.
The Abbott government in the last few weeks is taking full advantage of almost all the political ‘opportunities’ presented to it in order to successfully re-define (so far) the scope of political debate in this country to its advantage.
No one will be surprised if this government ‘comeback’ is also reflected in the polls of the near future. However, the question is whether this ‘comeback’ will prove to be temporary or more permanent.
Treasury documents obtained by Fairfax Media journalists recently indicate that the government’s proposed spending cuts would cost, on average, $842 a year for lower income households and $71 a year for higher income households. Furthermore, polls also show that the opposition to quite a few new budget measures is fired not so much by self-interest but by a long held Australian tradition, that of giving everyone a fair go.
The contestants of the next federal election in this country will be trying to frame the public and the political debate around issues that they think are of a tactical and a strategic advantage to their own side of politics. The Coalition will be trying to take advantage of the insecurities of a large section of the people, with law, order, anti-terrorism and anti-asylum seeker initiatives. Abbott and his allies will also be trying to keep in the public domain other pet issues of theirs such as union corruption, for example.
The question is whether or not ‘bread and butter’ issues can also be kept on the surface of public debate by the centre left side of politics. Bread and butter issues that affect the lives and the needs of many, and not only issues of human and democratic rights, for example, need to define the main political demarcation lines between now and the next federal election.
Every day passed and defined by other ‘side’ issues for the lives of the many, every day spent ‘manipulating’ the emotions and the imagination of the electorate, instead of addressing real and basic life concerns and needs of ‘ordinary’ people, needs such as fee co-payments for doctors, or increased child care and tertiary education fees, is a day that will bring the Coalition government closer to a possible re-election.