The post-Howard identity of the Liberal party has failed to gel into a contemporary form. Now is the time for reflection
It was a tall order for Peter Dutton to topple a first-term government – and so it proved. But first-term governments have often gone backwards.
The scale of the Labor victory highlights structural problems with the Liberals that have been papered over for years.
Dutton lost because of mixed messaging and not the medium.
Labor had done its best to lose the election over the last three years but came good at the right time when people were switched on and thinking about the election. Labor was well organised and coherent, their presentation firmly grounded in Labor values and appealed across various demographics.
Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter
There was a clear choice and Australia opted for a version of relaxed and comfortable over a leap into the unknown. The risk of a prime minister Dutton was leveraged with none too subtle references to the 'Americanisation' of policies. Just as in Canada, the Trump factor played to the incumbent's strengths. All politics is local.
The danger for Labor now is hubris and overreach. In no small measure, this victory is thanks to their opponents' fumbles. If they think this victory is an endorsement of the status quo they are setting themselves up for a mighty fall. Labor does not have a proper mandate to grapple with the tough questions of economic reform and grand strategy in a world order that is changing rapidly. Australia cannot stand still.
Grievance politics was not enough to win. An opposition must have a clear and coherent plan that demonstrates they are ready to govern.
The polls over the preceding few years were a false dawn for Liberals. They were not an indicator of final voting intention but a snapshot of voter frustrations. Dutton amplified those frustrations and acted as if the deal was sealed before the campaign started.
As the election came into view, the scrutiny of the opposition increased, and things fell apart.
Matching your opponent's policies only works if you then move the agenda on to your preferred areas of battle, for the Liberals this has always been the economy and national security. They fluffed both. Too little too late on defence and mixed messages on the economy (higher deficits in the next two years and then budget improvement).
Now is the time for serious reflection.
When the Liberals lost in 2022 it was easy to pin it all on Scott Morrison who ran a very centralised operation.
The Abbot-Turnbull rivalry pitted the broad church of liberals and conservatives against itself. Longstanding differences over climate crippled the government.
The Morrison era moved somewhat on issues like net zero but was consumed by the urgency of dealing with a once-in-a-century pandemic. Necessary deficit spending in that era played into a public insouciance about debt and deficits.
The Coalition franchise has been very successful in winning elections but in a world of AI, changing geopolitical circumstances and wall-to-wall social media, there is room for adaptation. This can be done without abrogating long-held values and principles that can help us navigate the current trends. Liberals preserve the best of the past while adapting to the future.
The decision to target outer suburban and regional seats made sense, given Dutton's persona – but it conceded inner-city seats to the teals and other minor parties.
A broad church has an all-of-the-above seat strategy.
Sign up to Afternoon Update: Election 2025
Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
The Menzies Liberals were not populists and would be bemused by the so-called culture wars. Menzian Liberals do not divide the electorate into us and them. No snide references to the elites v 'the real people'. We value education and science, and meritocracy based on having a fair go. Pragmatism and practicality are preferred to social experimentation and ideology.
Liberals eschew identity politics, considering people on their own merits rather than as part of a group, and upholding the rights of the individual in the face of the collective.
Economic populism or business bashing is also at odds with traditional Liberal equities around smaller government and lower taxes. The argument for these traditional policies is economic efficiency (a bigger pie that makes more fairness possible) and restraining the power of government over people. Effective competition policies are the best way to restrain the power of big business.
A further round of economic reforms in the Hawke-Keating and Howard-Costello mould has become increasingly urgent. Along with smart industrial policies to leverage sovereign capabilities in critical and emerging tech. But advocates need to stand up and explain why and how. It won't happen by itself.
Rational economic policies are entirely compatible with a strong social safety net that balances protection with incentives to self-improvement. Strong families and communities are part of that safety net. The social role of housing is an important priority given the fracturing between generations that we are witnessing in Australia.
On social cohesion, the Liberal creed used to be that the things that unite us are greater than those that divide. Social cohesion is not a function of enforcing conformity to a predetermined set of national characteristics.
In liberal democratic Australia, freedom to celebrate one's heritage, religion or beliefs is baked into our values. The only caveat is an overriding loyalty to Australian institutions like democracy and the rule of law that make this freedom possible. Rights and responsibilities in equal measure.
This second-term opposition should go back to first principles and build policy on those foundations, in tandem with keeping the government of the day accountable.
Listening to our fellow Australians, grappling with the complexity of demographic and social change in a way consistent with Menzian values will succeed if we do the hard work.
The countdown to the next election has begun.
Arthur Sinodinos is a former Australian ambassador to the US. He is the partner and chair of the Asia Group's Australia practice and was a former minister for industry, innovation and science
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
2 days ago
- Reuters
Thai PM faces call to step down to avert coalition revolt
BANGKOK, June 20 (Reuters) - Thailand's embattled Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was facing the prospect of losing her government's majority on Friday as a vital coalition partner looked set to demand her resignation after just 10 months in power. Paetongtarn, the politically inexperienced daughter of divisive tycoon and former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, is fighting fires on multiple fronts, struggling to breathe life into a stagnant economy facing steep U.S. tariffs and under pressure to take a tougher stand on a territorial row with Cambodia that has seen their troops mobilise at the border. The United Thai Nation party, the second-largest partner in her alliance, will demand Paetongtarn, 38, step down as a condition for it to remain in the Pheu Thai Party-led coalition, two UTN sources told Reuters, requesting anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to media. "If she doesn't resign, the party would leave the government," one source said. "We want the party leader to tell the PM as a courtesy." Though Paetongtarn received a boost on Friday with another coalition partner, the Democrat Party, pledging its support, Thailand's youngest premier is still in an untenable position, with her majority hinging on UTN staying in the alliance following Wednesday's exit by the larger Bhumjaithai Party. UTN has not said when it will announce its position. Asked about its decision, UTN spokesperson Akaradej Wongpitakroj declined to provide details. "We have to wait for the party leader to inform the prime minister first," he said. Reflecting concerns in financial markets, the Thai baht THB=TH, opens new tab weakened for a fifth consecutive session on Friday and was on course to log its worst week since late February. Paetongtarn's battle to stay in power demonstrates the declining strength of Pheu Thai, the populist juggernaut of the billionaire Shinawatra family that has dominated Thai elections since 2001, enduring military coups and court rulings that have toppled multiple governments and prime ministers. But Paetongtarn is facing domestic anger and the prospect of an internal revolt over Wednesday's embarrassing leak of a phone call between her and Cambodia's influential former leader Hun Sen - once seen as a Shinawatra family ally - which her critics say posed a threat to Thailand's sovereignty and integrity. During the conversation, Paetongtarn called for a peaceful resolution of the border dispute and disparaged an outspoken Thai army general who she said "just wants to look cool", a red line in a country where the military has a high profile and significant political clout. Political activists met on Friday to schedule a major protest in Bangkok starting on June 28 to demand Paetongtarn resign and coalition partners leave the government. Those included groups with a history of crippling rallies against Shinawatra administrations. Paetongtarn has not commented on the turmoil in her government and has tried to present a united front on the Cambodia issue, appearing on Thursday alongside military chiefs and vowing to defend sovereignty. The premier will make a morale-boosting visit to military units at the Cambodia border on Friday, where she is due to meet Lieutenant General Boonsin Padklang, the regional commander whom she criticised in the leaked call. Paetongtarn's options for staying in power are limited unless her allies can succeed in behind-the-scenes horse-trading to keep her alliance from crumbling. A snap election could damage Pheu Thai at a time of dwindling popularity and play into the hands of the progressive opposition People's Party, the largest force in parliament. Two Pheu Thai sources told Reuters the party is confident Paetongtarn can avoid resigning or dissolving parliament and her government is considering a major cabinet reshuffle to fill vacant positions.
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Daily Mail
He's one of Australia's leading minds on super - and he's got a sensible idea about changing Albo's laws. But do YOU think Jim Chalmers will budge on his flawed tax grab?
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has declared Labor has a 'mandate' for a sweeping plan to tax superannuation before assets are sold - despite a warning it could amount to a new form of death duties. Labor needs the Greens' support in the Senate to pass its Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions bill that would see a new 15 per cent tax levied on unrealised gains on balances above $3million. The Opposition and superannuation groups are opposed to the idea of taxing assets in a self-managed super fund before they are sold, based on the paper or notional value of holdings. Labor's policy would mark a radical departure from the usual practice of applying the capital gains tax once something has been sold. Now a leading superannuation expert - Professor Robert Breunig, the director of the Australian National University's Tax and Transfer Policy Institute - has argued the government should consider a change to its proposal. Prof Breunig said the government should look into allowing the unrealised gains tax to be paid years later, when someone eventually sells an asset. He likened it to the standard practice of paying undue council rates after a house had been sold. 'If you're going to tax unrealised gains, I think you should be giving people the opportunity to defer paying the tax until they dispose of the property,' he said. 'That would be my preferred policy.' But Chalmers on Wednesday rebuffed a suggestion Labor would revisit the concept of taxing unrealised gains, even though someone inheriting a self-managed super fund could be left with a new tax liability. 'First of all, we're not changing the policies we took to the election,' he told the National Press Club. 'We've got a mandate for that change... What we're looking for here is an opportunity to build on the progress that we've made, including in the economy as you point out. 'We're looking for, not opportunities to go back on the things that we have got a mandate for, we're looking for new ideas.' 'Inheritance' tax accusations Labor's tax on super balances above $3million could effectively amount to an inheritance tax, along with a new tax on franking credits - or tax refunds for owning shares in a company that has already paid company tax. Senator James Paterson, the Opposition's finance spokesman, said the government needed to explain if taxing unrealised gains on super amounted to an inheritance tax by stealth. 'Labor's super tax grab has been on the public record for two years,' he told Daily Mail Australia. 'The Albanese Government should be able to fully explain the implications of their policy, including for people's wills. 'We should not be reliant on independent experts, the media or the Opposition to explain how this policy will work in practice. 'Jim Chalmers must be upfront about how his unrealised capital gains tax interacts with franking credits and inheritance.' A self-managed super fund can be passed on to a dependent or left to someone in a will. Professor Breunig said someone inheriting a self-managed super fund with more than $3million, upon the death of a parent, would effectively be paying a new form of inheritance tax with the 15 per cent tax on unrealised gains. 'Yes, sure it is, but that's true of a lot of our taxes - that's true with council rates,' he told Daily Mail Australia. 'It would be an inheritance tax if you were somehow paying back taxes on it - you inherit the liability.' A self-managed super fund, with a balance above $3million, would be subject to an unrealised gains tax if there was a property in the portfolio, under the government's Division 296 plan. That would be a departure from existing rules allowing someone to avoid paying the capital gains tax on a property they inherited, outside of a super fund. Prof Breunig said Treasury would benefit from being able to tax unrealised gains in a super portfolio, catching out those who left property in a self-managed super fund. 'Currently, we have a subsidy in the system that subsidies people passing out wealth to their children and you're kind of removing that subsidy,' he said. 'That is one of the attractions of the unrealised gains tax.' Future of the tax The Greens want the $3million threshold lowered to $2million but indexed for inflation. Prof Breunig said that would mean applying an unrealised gains tax to accounts typically producing an annual annuity, or guaranteed retirement living income, of $100,000. 'Two million's too low - how much money do people need to have a comfortable retirement?' he said. 'Now you're talking about a lifetime income stream that's more like $100,000, which for a lot of people isn't that much relative to how much they made in their lifetime.' Australian abolished inheritance taxes at a national level in 1979, with all the states getting rid of that tax by 1981. Labor's planned tax doesn't effectively levy a new charge on a superannuation fund balance being transferred to a loved one.
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Daily Mail
3AW host Neil Mitchell sounds the alarm about Jim Chalmer's tax plan
Neil Mitchell has slammed Anthony Albanese 's government for having a plan to punish baby boomers as younger Australians increasingly decide elections. The 73-year-old 3AW host, from the boomer generation, suggested Treasurer Jim Chalmers had an agenda to tax older Australians over 60. 'Boomers beware. Jim Chalmers is taking about "intergenerational justice" in tax,' he said. 'That means a tax on boomers, who actually did a bit to build this country.' Chalmers used his National Press Club address this week to suggested Labor would use its landslide re-election to help younger Australians, with a hint about new taxes being considered to pay for this new relief. Millennials and Generation Z voters - born after 1981 - outnumbered boomers at the last election for the first time ever. 'The decisions we make in the 2020s will determine the sort of living standards and intergenerational justice that we have in the decades to come,' Chalmers said. 'I think there is a broad recognition of that.' Labor was re-elected last month with a plan to slash student debt by 20 per cent, saving the average graduate $5,520 at a cost to taxpayers of $16billion. It also offered tax cuts for low-income workers earning $18,200 to $45,000, with students, apprentices and part-time workers more likely to be young. This relief is set to cost the Budget $17.1billion over four years. That means Labor would either have to cut spending or increase taxes to fund relief that overwhelmingly favours the young, with Treasury only forecasting Budget deficits in coming years as gross government debt soars above $1trillion. That could see Labor review generous tax concessions on things like family trusts that can avoid paying tax on income generated from within the trust. Former Labor leader Bill Shorten lost the 2019 election proposing a new 30 per cent tax on family trusts as funds were distributed to beneficiaries. While that policy was scrapped, the government's upcoming productivity roundtable in August is expected to explore a range of new revenue-raising options, with Chalmers hinting at tax changes. 'The easiest thing in the world is for people to come to us and say we want you to dramatically cut the taxes in our part of the economy and spend dramatically more on our industry, without recognising that there are necessary trade‑offs associated with that,' Chalmers said. Treasurer Jim Chalmers used his National Press Club address this week to suggested Labor would use its landslide re-election to help younger Australians, with a hint about new taxes to pay for new relief The government is still proceeding with plans to impose a new 15 per cent tax on unrealised gains on superannuation balances above $3million, in a bid to raise $2.3billion a year in revenue. In Opposition, Albanese vowed to leave untouched franking tax credits for company shareholders and negative gearing tax breaks for investor landlords, even though house prices have surged at a faster pace since the pandemic. Labor also has no plans to introduce a capital gains tax on the family home. These existing arrangements favour boomers who were able to buy a house to live in cheaply after the capital gains tax debuted in 1985. Chalmers this week downplayed a point about government payments making up 27 per cent of the economy - the highest level since 1986 outside of the pandemic. 'It's not the highest spending since the 80s. I know that you mean absent Covid, but I think it's unusual that we absent Covid,' he said. 'Quite frequently I'll hear we've got the weakest growth in 40 years, or we've got the highest spending. That's not true.' Boomers still have political power with both Albanese and Opposition Leader Sussan Ley hailing from that generation, covering those born from 1946 to 1964. Chalmers belongs to Generation X, spanning 1965 to 1980, along with every state premier. Only the Northern Territory has a Millennial leader.
