For months, all signs pointed to a khaki election, with a hawkish Morrison government desperate to corner Labor as weak on national security.
The Coalition frontbench went on the attack during the final parliamentary sittings, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison labelling Deputy Opposition Leader Richard Marles a “Manchurian Candidate”, as Peter Dutton snarled about Labor being China’s preferred party. Despite all that, Labor is pretty much in lockstep with the Coalition on national security issues, boosting defence spending, and how to deal with China.
But the government’s language was enough for the spy chiefs to come in from the cold and deliver a rebuke, with ASIO boss Mike Burgess warning that politicising national security was unhelpful for the agency’s work.
Surprisingly then, it took some time for national security and defence to become major attack lines during the election campaign proper. Campaign insights prepared exclusively for Crikey by Isentia reflect this. During the opening week, national security, defence or China didn’t crack the top 10 issues in terms of campaign chatter.
It wasn’t until the aftermath of Wednesday’s first leaders’ debate that national security became the most discussed issue – in this case, China’s security pact with the Solomon Islands.
During the debate, Morrison accused the government of siding with China, while Labor Leader Anthony Albanese labelled the situation a “Pacific stuff-up” and a major foreign policy failure.
The government wants to fight the election on defence and national security issues, because they are traditionally considered, by some voters at least, areas where the Coalition dominates. But the Solomon Islands debacle could turn an electoral asset into more of a liability.
For starters, it raises questions about how Australia’s national security agencies, and a government that prides itself on being tough on China, were caught asleep at the wheel as Beijing grew its influence in the Pacific.
While the Biden administration sent its “Asia Czar” Kurt Campbell to Honiara, the Morrison government put junior minister Zed Seselja on a plane. Foreign Minister Marise Payne was busy campaigning in the Victorian marginal seat of Corangamite when the deal broke.
All this should give Labor a big, obvious strategic gain deep in Coalition territory. When the government attacks them for being “weak on China”, it’s easy pickings for shadow foreign affairs spokesperson Penny Wong and others to point to what the opposition calls the worst foreign policy failure since 1945.
While it makes it a whole lot easier for Labor to neutralise the China attack, it won’t go away. On the front page of The Australian this morning was an attack piece about past comments made by Marles suggesting Pacific nations should be free to deal with China as they please.
It was, according to Morrison, “chilling” stuff, and a sign that Labor’s deputy “has actually been advocating for what the Chinese government has been seeking to do”.
It’s a sign that despite the obvious failings on the Solomon Islands, the government will continue to push the khaki election line. But there’s another reason why this is a potential trip-wire for the Coalition.
Since 2020, the Morrison government has doubled down on incredibly hawkish rhetoric towards the Chinese Communist Party. Relations between Canberra and Beijing are at their lowest ebb, and there’s little sign of that changing.
That’s led to a feeling among some in Australia’s million-strong Chinese diaspora that the government is anti-China. And while that group is diverse, both in its politics and relationship with the CCP, the government’s stance on China could hurt in key marginal seats, with high Chinese-Australian populations.
In the Melbourne seat of Chisholm, Gladys Liu is barely clinging on. In the Sydney suburbs, Labor is feeling optimistic about winning Reid, and are increasingly talking up the prospect of flipping John Howard’s old seat of Bennelong, with nearby Banks also a chance.
All seats have a high Chinese-Australian population. And while the group isn’t a monolith to which the government’s China rhetoric is uniformly alienating, it’s reason for the government to handle things with care.
It does mean that while the Coalition have always seen borders, defence, national security – all the khaki stuff — as pillars of strength, it’s a far more contested, risky issue for them this time around.
