By Sue Boland
To convince voters that harmful policies will be "good" for them in the long run, politicians need to create the impression that they are honest and trustworthy, and that they are concerned about people's suffering. Politicians do not need to possess these attributes; they just need to appear to have them. They need to be convincing actors.
Such an ability is more important for politicians than 10 years ago. This is because people are losing confidence in the whole political system, rather than just the governing parties.
This was demonstrated in 1998 with the level of support for the One Nation party in the Queensland state election and the federal election. In the federal election, the combined vote of the major parties was the lowest ever — less than 80%.
It was the argument that "you can't trust a politician to elect the head of state" that convinced the majority of people to vote "no" in the republic referendum last year.
Less than a third (27%) of respondents in a Roy Morgan Social Survey poll — a detailed survey of more than 24,000 people's attitudes towards the government covering the 12 months to September — published in the Bulletin on February 15, said that they trusted the current federal government. Forty-seven per cent said that they did not trust the government and 26% were unsure. The survey showed that dissatisfaction and distrust of the government is higher in country areas.
Prime Minister John Howard has generally managed to maintain an "honest, trustworthy and sincere" demeanour. But occasionally he forgets his lines and drops the pretence, such as on January 26 when he gave a "tough luck" response to the plight of the National Textiles workers, who were sacked without being paid their entitlements.
He said: "It's very difficult for an industry like textiles ... to remain completely competitive with low-wage countries ... that's just an economic reality and the only way you can do that is to have absurdly high tariffs ... It's not possible, so unfortunately some firms close."
This incensed the National Textiles workers, some of whom had switched their support from the ALP to the Liberals at the 1996 and 1998 federal elections.
Howard realised that he had slipped up. On February 5 he said: "I think the community and the government has a responsibility to help people who are the victims of economic change". On February 8, federal cabinet approved a bailout package for the workers.
In the past, this might have been enough to quell public hostility towards the government, but not this time. The government was immediately confronted with other groups of workers in a similar situation as the National Textiles workers, but who the government had refused to help.
Just last September, Howard had refused to meet with workers from a textiles factory in the outer suburbs of Melbourne which had gone into liquidation and reneged on paying workers their entitlements. He palmed the workers off to the industrial relations minister Peter Reith, who refused to offer any government help.
Given Howard's first callous response to the National Textiles workers' plight, what changed his mind?
Queensland by-elections
One factor could have been the two Queensland state by-elections held in Queensland on February 5, just three days before cabinet's decision to help the National Textiles workers.
The by-elections were in the seats of Bundamba and Woodridge. Bundamba is the state seat that coincides with the federal seat previously held by One Nation party leader Pauline Hanson. While both are traditionally Labor seats, the Liberal party suffered disastrous results.
One Nation did not field a candidate in Bundamba because it had been deregistered, but two former One Nation candidates stood as independents: Colene Hughes and former One Nation senator Heather Hill, now with the City-Country Alliance. Between them they scored 18.34%. This was a drop of more than 15% from the 34% vote won by One Nation in Bundamba in the 1998 state election.
Despite this desertion by former One Nation voters, the Liberal Party managed to increase its vote by only 1.5%. Most former One Nation voters switched to the ALP, boosting its vote by 9%.
In Woodridge, despite the previous Labor MP being dubbed "the Phantom" (because he was rarely seen in the electorate) and facing charges of sexually abusing children, the Liberal vote plummeted by 5% to just 8.9%. The ALP vote fell by 1%.
The Woodridge result was particularly worrying for the Liberals because the ALP candidate, Mike Kaiser, turned the by-election into an anti-GST campaign. Queensland Liberal leader David Watson has stated that anti-GST sentiment was a significant factor in the Liberals' poor result.
Another factor in Howard's change of heart towards the National Textiles workers could have been the extremely damning opinion polls, published in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Bulletin on February 15.
Public opinion
The Bulletin-Morgan poll, which was conducted on January 22-23 and January 29-30, before the cabinet's decision to help the National Textiles workers, found that the federal government's support had dropped to 37.5%. On a two-party preferred basis, the ALP would have won an election held on those weekends with a vote of 56.5%. When asked why they would vote that way, a common response by voters was: "I don't trust the Liberals" and "They're worse than Labor, who can't be trusted either".
The AC Nielsen poll published in the Sydney Morning Herald on February 15 — conducted after the cabinet's decision to help the National Textiles workers on February 11-13 — found that Coalition's support dropping to 38% and the Labor Party dominating the two-party preferred vote by 55% to the Coalition's 45%. The poll also revealed that Labor also dominates the Coalition in country areas as well as the capital cities.
Another AC Nielsen poll published in the Sydney Morning Herald on the same day showed that opposition to the GST is mounting, with a record 60% opposed to the tax, while support has dropped from 40% to 34%. Only 13% of voters surveyed thought they would be better off under the GST.
A Bulletin-Morgan opinion poll published on February 22 found that support for the ALP has increased to more than 50% in New South Wales and Victoria.
These opinion polls, combined with the Coalition's devastating losses in the Victorian state election last year and the Queensland by-elections, is a worry for the Howard government — especially the growing level of dissatisfaction in among country voters.
This was the catalyst for Howard's decision to visit country towns and regional centres in January. He hoped that he could placate the rural opposition to the government's policies, which have resulted in massive cuts to government services in the bush.
It is unlikely that Howard has been successful. All he offered to do was to listen to people's problems. It is hard to see level of anger towards the federal government lessening if Canberra does not restore funding and re-establish regional services.
Regional services
Howard did make one promise, which he repeated a number of times during his tour. On January 30, he said that he would immediately instruct his ministers that no more government services were to be closed in regional areas.
That promise was immediately dented on February 1 when Employment National announced on that it would close 28 offices in regional areas. The outcome of the latest round of Job Network contracts and the Employment National's decision to close offices, is likely to result in 55 towns and centres having fewer job agency services.
Howard did not promise to restore services to country and regional areas, or to maintain services at the same quality. His promise that no more government services would not close was qualified by saying that the services might be carried out differently. This could mean privatised services, or services delivered through call centres.
One such "solution" being trumpeted by the government is its plan to open 500 Rural Transaction Centres, where clients can access a number of government agencies at once.
While such centres may be better than nothing, they are no substitute for face-to-face contact with the specific government agencies and services. It is almost impossible to sort out complicated problems unless you can directly talk to knowledgeable staff of the government service or agency involved.
Another of Howard's "answers" to problems in the bush is to promise big investment in infrastructure if the government is allowed to sell the remainder of Telstra. Hopefully, this attempt to bribe rural and regional voters will be dealt the same blow that NSW voters gave the NSW Liberals' attempt to bribe support for electricity privatisation.
Some rural Liberal and National Party backbenchers have indicated that they would support the privatisation of the remainder of Telstra, as long as there are guarantees about maintaining the level of service. The experience in Victoria shows that such guarantees are worthless after public utilities are privatised. Despite "guarantees", after the State Electricity Commission was privatised electricity services worsened.
The federal government is also considering other options for rural infrastructure investment. One option raised by the National Party leader and deputy prime minister, John Anderson, in November was a proposal for more joint projects between government and private companies, such as highways and railway lines. Anderson acknowledged that this would result in national highways becoming tollways.
While Howard and the Coalition are trying to fend off political disenchantment in regional areas, there is also growing disenchantment on a national scale as the GST implementation date gets closer and as voters begin to realise what it will mean for them.
The GST
The GST has the potential to trigger greater hostility towards the government, not only because most people will be worse off once it is implemented, but also because the government's lies about the impact of the GST will be exposed.
The following lists some of the government's GST lies and deceptions.
- That inflation would only rise by 1.9%. Experts disagree about how much it will increase but even the treasurer acknowledges that it will go up by at least 2.5%.
- Health and education will be exempt. Most people interpreted that to mean that they would not pay GST on anything connected with health or education, such as tampons. Now people are discovering that a lot of products and services will be subject to the GST.
- Rents will be exempt. GST will be charged on caravan park residents.
- The benefits of the withdrawal of wholesale sales tax, where it is higher than the GST, will be passed on to the consumer. Car companies say that it is unlikely that the price of cars will be reduced after the GST is introduced.
- No price will increase by more than 10%. It was exposed in January that the government had a deal with business to allow some companies to round up prices to a price increase of greater than 10%. It was only after a public outcry that the government reinstated its original promise. Companies will also be allowed to pass on the cost of implementing the GST to the consumer and then charge the GST on that extra cost.
- Everyone will be compensated for the GST. Compensation to welfare beneficiaries was worked out on the basis of a 1.9% increase in inflation, and so are likely to be worse off. The income tax cuts will also not adequately compensate workers, especially now that interest rates have increased.
Given the political disenchantment flowing from the closure of government services and the impact of the GST, the government is looking for issues to distract attention from its performance and sow divisions between working people. This is one key purpose of its campaign to whip up racism against refugees.
Democracy
With 60% opposition to the GST, massive sympathy for workers who have not been paid their entitlements and a high level of anger over the withdrawal of government services from regional areas, we have to consider how we can force the government to heed majority opinion on these issues.
The problem is, our political system does not bind politicians to implement majority opinion. That is why the government persists with implementing the GST and the Labor "opposition" refuses to promise to abolish it if elected.
The universal suffrage campaign of the 19th century sowed the illusion that if all workers had the right to vote, then their opinions would have more weight than the capitalists because workers make are the vast majority.
This proved to be a false hope. Having the right to vote for a government, does not give workers control over that government or over the economy which remains in the hands of a tiny minority of rich capitalists. Governments in such a system are always going to be beholden to the needs of these.
When majority opinion is passively reflected through opinion polls and elections, it is easy for the governing parties and the loyal "opposition" parties to ignore it and implement the policies demanded by big business .
However, when majority opinion is mobilised on the streets, as it was last year to demand that the government end the slaughter in East Timor, governments can be forced to implement the views of the majority.
Howard and his government have to go. The longer they remains, the more damage they will do to people's livelihoods. It is time for the passive opposition to this government to be converted into active opposition.