Richard Marles is an ambitious man who hasn’t given up the dream of one day reaching the top job. But, despite being deputy prime minister, his profile is much lower than that of Treasurer Jim Chalmers, the candidate considered most likely to succeed Anthony Albanese as Labor’s leader.
The treasurer was at his most hyperactive this week, with an economic statement to parliament, reforms to superannuation, and a new set of priorities (investment in housing, the energy transition, and infrastructure) for the Future Fund, the nation’s $230 billion sovereign wealth fund. The latter immediately opened the government to opposition claims it was trying to bend the independent fund to its will (Chalmers’ retort was to accuse the opposition of wanting less investment in these areas).
But it was Marles’ dead-bat performance in question time that was most useful to the government in this penultimate parliamentary week of the year.
The government appeared blindsided, and the opposition was delighted, by a US–UK agreement to accelerate the deployment of “cutting-edge” nuclear technology. The agreement was released during the COP29 climate conference in Baku, which Energy Minister Chris Bowen was attending.
Australia refused to be party to the agreement; the government’s awkward position was accentuated by the UK government’s statement on the agreement initially (mistakenly) saying Australia was expected to join.
On Tuesday and Wednesday Marles, acting prime minister while Albanese was overseas, kept his answers on script, sticking to the formula that Australia doesn’t – and under Labor wouldn’t – have a domestic nuclear industry and so wasn’t signing up. He couldn’t smother the issue, but he did limit the smoke.
The parliamentary week had started badly for the government, with the opposition refusing to support its plan for caps on universities’ foreign students.
This had been a surprise, and adds a layer of uncertainty to a university sector already in considerable chaos, with the finances of some institutions in deep trouble, leading to extensive job cuts.
The government continued to pile new legislation into a stretched parliament, notably bills for a ban on children under 16 accessing social media, and for a far-reaching shakeup of electoral donations and spending. The Coalition is supporting both.
The social media ban has been panned by some (though not all) experts, but will be very popular with parents. Platforms, rather than parents or children, will have the responsibility for compliance, facing hefty fines for systematic breaches.
The legislation is “about helping families”, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland told parliament in Thursday’s question time. Unusually, her opposition counterpart David Coleman jumped up immediately to support her, saying “this issue of the safety of Australian children online from social media is one of the defining issues of our era”.
Like the social media ban, the electoral changes are also on track to be passed next week, given a deal between the major parties. But they have sparked angst from the minor players including the teals.
There is general agreement “big money” should be taken out of politics. However, one person’s “big money” is another person’s positive support to “level the playing field” for new players.
Most would see Clive Palmer’s about $120 million spend for the last election as over the top. But many would take a different attitude to the $13 million spent by Simon Holmes à Court’s Climate 200, that helped a number of teals become MPs.
When it comes to electoral reform, it’s a matter of balance – curbing excess but enabling aspirants who do not have the backing of big parties or incumbency to have reasonable access. There’ll be continuing argument about whether the government’s package has that balance right.
The Liberals’ interest in signing up was not unexpected, in light of their vulnerability to teals and other independents. Although the changes don’t come in for this election, the Liberals want to contain what could be a longer-term trend.
So does Labor. It has not yet been hit like the Liberals have by the wave of community candidates (although it lost its previously safe NSW seat of Fowler to one). But with a primary vote around 30% and no sign the public disillusionment with the main parties is waning, it knows the risk that’s looming. It also has the challenge of Greens candidates in its inner-city seats.
The electoral legislation has given the teals an issue for next year’s poll. They can use it to boost the case for their own re-election (before the system changes) and it possibly opens the way for them to say that if there is a minority government they might press for changes to make the arrangements, in their view, “fairer”.
Meanwhile, voters’ attention remains firmly on matters closer to the kitchen table. They don’t see much good news. The prospect of interest rate falls appears to be receding even further into the depths of 2025, and the economy is likely to remain stagnant for the time being.
Chalmers, in his economic statement, was upbeat. We’re having a “soft landing”, he said. Inflation is falling. Treasury is expecting a “gradual recovery in the economy”. Real wages are growing (slowly).
People’s experiences and perceptions are, however, baked in hard. The Freshwater poll in the Australian Financial Review this week found the top issue of concern to people, the cost of living, had risen in the past month by 5 points to 77%. When people were asked about managing key issues, the Coalition had a 12-point lead on cost of living and a 17-point lead on economic management.
By Thursday, Albanese was back in parliament after his week away at APEC and the G20. He was just in time to hear his old rival Bill Shorten, the former Labor leader who came close to being prime minister, deliver his valedictory.
It had a salutary message in what, for Australia, is a time of division.
“I’m a proud moderate,” Shorten said. “Being in the centre is an acknowledgement that Australians hold broad, diverse views. The majority in the middle should never be hostage to the intolerant few on the zealous fringe.”
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
