Perhaps it's because of continuing government backbench panic about declining prospects of re-election. Perhaps it's because of prime ministerial panic at prospects of retaining backbench confidence. Or perhaps it's a mere continuation of barnacle-clearing, of listening, hearing and attempting to regain public confidence. Whatever it is, this is a government increasingly looking a pushover, likely to fold whenever it encounters determined opposition.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Unpopular measure after measure - each initially claimed to be absolutely necessary and right, have gone by the board; almost always after initial vows from ministers, from the prime minister down, that government would not retreat one step. Not so much a government which makes a few unwelcome compromises in order to secure whatever it can, but a government which gives up. Which does not, at the end of the stay, have the spine to fight on.
In only the past month we have seen the final collapse of most of the "tough" measures of the first Hockey budget. Pretty much all that is left are the cuts imposed, generally in future years, on state governments.
Defeat, retreat and the habit of losing does not seem to much temper aggressive tough talk from Tony Abbott. Indeed, the volume of some of the tough talk, at least against notional enemies of the Liberal right (such as Human Rights Commissioners, remotely-living Aborigines, asylum seekers and jihadis) has increased.
But the lobbies, know that this is now a rabble reluctant to do anything unpopular (or able to be made seem unpopular) with the public or critical interests. All one has to do to make the government go to water is to signal that some measure is likely to be resisted, or to be subject to any sort of determined campaign.
Perhaps Abbott is clearing the deck, rather than the barnacles. Perhaps the forthcoming budget will be the beginning of a whole new story, undistracted by the disasters of the first 18 months of the Abbott government.
If that is the plan, it will be yet another surprise, given all of the timid noises about a "family-friendly" budget, and given the extent to which the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, and the ministry generally are now gun-shy about perceptions of unfairness.
But if there is grit within the gravy, there's little evidence either of the cooks being already at work, or the menu being prepared so that people will regard it as a necessary diet.
It is hard to see how the intergenerational report, given its impact so far, or a tax reform paper due at the end of the month can set a completely new strategy in motion. Or that some new polarising front, say on industrial relations, could make for a new start. Or make it successful, given that it must somehow galvanise ministers who failed to sell any idea of austerity last time, and inspire a backbench that has had few grounds to support fresh risk-taking. Or to terrify and intimidate obdurate senators. Or to woo back a generally unimpressed, and by now very cynical, electorate.
And now the government, under whatever leadership, has only about 12 months, at best two budgets, to sell its story. Perhaps less, if it could manoeuvre Labor into some position by which it caught it at a political disadvantage (on boat people or national security, the government would hope) so that it could demand of the Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove, an election, perhaps a double dissolution, to "clear the air" and give the Coalition a clear mandate.
Its problem with this is that, right now, politics is all about the Coalition, not about the calibre, or lack of it, of the alternative government.
Strictly, the government looks weak, irresolute and a bit of a pushover because it cannot secure passage of its measures through the Senate. Labor and the Greens see no point in waving through government measures, and, irresponsible as they may or may not be, they have ample recent Coalition precedent on their side. Independents will generally judge proposals through the prism of opinion polls, some personal guiding principle or their calculations about what is necessary to get an eighth (or a 15th) of the vote in their state at a future election. The antics of an independent, or member of a small party (including the Greens) are always different from those of a party trying to secure the support of 50 per cent of an electorate.
Those whose interests are adversely affected by any proposal know that even a small investment in lobbying independents, or in panicking the Coalition backbench, will secure big rewards. More likely than not, the interests who stand to benefit from the relevant proposals will be standoffish about promoting or loudly supporting the change, if only because of the risks of being found consorting with a capricious government which may not be around much longer, which seems to have big problems in keeping its promises, and which will probably not stay the course on the particular measure.
Maybe the Senate has done the government some favours in rejecting some of its more unpopular measures. The senators, after all, were emboldened by a furious public reaction to surprises, and to impressions of unfairness - as well, no doubt, as to Abbott's (and other ministers') obvious and foolish prevarication in denying breach of promise.
And it is now clear, with measures other that university de-regulation at least, that many of the present retreats are from loss of nerve, after concerns have been expressed in the caucus, rather than collision with an immovable object.
