As it watches the stupid stumbling and bumbling of the Liberal Party’s current leadership woes, the ALP should remember policy is always paramount over politics.
The real crux of any leadership story is rarely about the politics, but the policy.
Policies got Tony Abbott in to this mess. The 2014 Budget with its cuts to services and welfare, the handling of the GP co-payment, the decision to re-instate knighthoods and all the other matters are the reasons his polls numbers are low.
Voters never have liked him but it was the policies that really tipped the scales against him. It’s why he will be desperate to make any talk of change about policy rather than politics.
His speech on Monday at the National Press Club was, for the most part, a limp recap of every speech he has given over the past 3-4 years. He did, however, make a couple announcements: the axing of his paid parental leave scheme, and another on national security.
National security is that old stand-by for any government in polling trouble. Mr Abbott's announcement went hand in hand with the legislation currently being examined by a joint parliamentary committee on having a mandatory data retention regime.
The committee hearings have been a cross between a horror story and an amateur comedy night. Seeing Philip Ruddock preface the statement that “Skype is a telephone you use on a computer” with the line “I am very ignorant of these matters” is rather humorous. That is, until you remember that he is on the committee in charge of investigating legislation into matters on which he is “very ignorant”.
The proposition that every person’s metadata needs to be retained for 2 years hit a fairly big stumbling block in the committee hearings this week when Greens Senator Scott Ludlam asked officials from the Attorney General’s Department to provide any evidence that such a regime when used overseas has in anyway helped in securing criminal convictions.
The officials fairly flailed away (the footage is well worth watching). In lieu of any evidence, the best they could argue was it was too hard to determine.
It was a line used on Thursday by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Andrew Colvin, who told reporters “Our systems aren’t configured to be able to tell us with that level of validity what role metadata played in a broader investigation. As we’ve said many times, it is a foundation building block for all our investigations.”
In other words, “we need it, but I can’t actually provide any evidence to prove we do.”
Methinks the Commissioner’s case rather fails to meet the “beyond reasonable doubt” test.
Tony Abbott instead sought to shamelessly link it to the Sydney siege, saying “in the wake of the Martin Place siege ... the public want protection and this gives the public the protection they have a right to expect”.
Except no one has suggested the proposed laws would have prevented that siege from occurring.
Moreover, it is becoming very clear that any actual terrorists or criminals who wished to evade their data being retained would only have to use a public wi-fi – such as at a McDonalds or a library – use a web based email account, or just set up a VPN.
But those who will be captured in this web of data will not just be (dumb) terrorists and criminals, but those involved in civil matters such as custody disputes and the downloading of movies.
Given the experience of the UK where the retention of data has been used to try and uncover journalists’ sources, it’s clear that given the Australian government already has a predilection for referring journalists to the police were these laws to come into place, the freedom of the press will be seriously eroded.
But where this policy becomes important in the current leadership squabbles is this: Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull is behind it, and certainly Julie Bishop who believes she resurrected her leadership ambitions by looking to talk tough about national security would also implement them.
So we come to a change of leadership and what will change?
Very little.
But what of a change in government. Where is the ALP on this issue?
When pressed on the issue by reporters on Thursday, Bill Shorten responded blandly that “When it comes to fighting the dreadful scourge of terrorism, we are all in this together”.
He then added in respect of the suggestions the government wants to pass this new legislation by March, that “what Australians expect of their Parliamentarians is that on the one hand we prioritise national security and the safety of Australia and balance it with ensuring in the process of making Australia safe, we still retain the individual liberties which make Australia such a fantastic place to live. Rush and haste will not help improve Australia's security.”
Given last year the ALP helped pass laws which were rushed through parliament to increase the powers of surveillance by ASIO, and also to greatly restrict reporting on security matters, this does not bode well.
No one expects the ALP to begin releasing a full suite of policies, but with a government in disarray, it is time for the ALP to be a bit more bold than opposition parties have been for the past decade.
Running a small target strategy has helped some opposition parties get elected, but it does not lead to longevity once attaining government. Being “all in it together” on national security doesn’t mean you have to agree with the government on how that security is done.
It would good, (if sadly surprising), to see Bill Shorten and the ALP to show themselves not afraid to lead, rather than adopting the strategy of hoping to win by the government stupidly stumbling and bumbling.
Share
