The Labor Party has been re-elected and will form Australia’s next government. The Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton, even lost his seat of Dickson. It was a devastating loss for the Coalition because, at one stage, it looked like a restless electorate would defeat the Labor administration. So, how is it possible to lose the election to what many people regarded as the worst Australian government since Whitlam?
Labor convinced enough voters to give it a second term. This is despite its unwillingness to assume responsibility for the drop in living standards. Labor conveniently blamed external factors during the election campaign for the demonstrable cost-of-living crisis. We saw this puerile practice when Labor repeatedly blamed the Ukraine conflict, the economic and geopolitical uncertainty, and President Trump’s tariffs for the cost-of-living crisis and the skyrocketing energy prices.
‘The imposition of tariffs is not the act of a friendly ally,’ the Prime Minister commented on ‘Liberation Day’. Yet, Labor’s claim that the United States, a friendly ‘ally’, had undermined Australia’s exports was discredited when it opportunistically abandoned Israel, a traditional Australian ‘ally’, in the United Nations and failed to take decisive action synagogues were torched and defaced. Private property owned by Jewish people was even destroyed. Labor also gave its preferences to the Greens in most seats, even though that party is known for its pro-Palestine stand. Labor’s hypocritical behaviour was instrumental in securing the electoral support of the Muslim community in Western Sydney.
The Prime Minister, asked what he would do about the prohibitive cost of groceries, indicated that he would establish a committee of inquiry or task force consisting of representatives of food stores, consumers, and government departments, the members of which would investigate the existence of price gouging. This proposal is yet another example of Labor’s practice of blaming third parties for the inflationary spiral ravaging ordinary Australians’ budgets.
The Coalition’s failure to unseat the government is due to a lacklustre campaign, an overcautious attempt at distancing itself from a Trump-like anti-Woke and pro-DOGE agenda (which may explain the limited role played by Jacinta Nampijinpa Price in the election), and crude vote-buying policies that sought to match Labor’s economically irresponsible spendathon promises. The Coalition, in trying to appeal to the undecided voters of middle Australia, failed to distinguish itself from Labor, even if it offered some sweeteners, for example, a 25 cent reduction of the excise duty on petrol for one year – a band-aid solution to the cost-of-living crisis at best.
What might have changed the result? For starters, the Coalition needed a memorable slogan that unmistakably differentiated it from Labor and enabled it to explain Australia’s cost-of-living crisis, for example: ‘Pull out of Paris and dump Net Zero.’ To solve the housing crisis, the Coalition should have promised to overhaul Australia’s immigration policies and targets. It should have declared war on the Church of Woke; promised the abolition of the Human Rights Commission and the eSafety Commission; privatised, partially defunded, or revamped the ABC to combat that organisation’s rampant political bias; strengthened Australia’s defence against an increasingly belligerent Russia and China; and commenced a comprehensive review of Australia’s taxation system. It should have used the tariff trade war to distance itself from Labor and show leadership. Instead, Dutton even indicated that he stood ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with the Prime Minister on the tariffs imposed by Trump. The tariffs issue provided the Coalition with a botched opportunity to advocate forcefully for the faithful implementation of the United States-Australia free trade agreement and zero tariffs, while acknowledging the reasons for America’s reliance on its reciprocal tariff policy and the perceived need to revitalise its domestic manufacturing. But it disregarded the advice of Winston Churchill, the UK’s wartime Prime Minister, who once said that every problem presents opportunities, for example, in this case, a chance to export, to the United States, goods that are subject to a higher tariff if imported into America from other exporting countries.
Election commentators praised Dutton’s ‘Work-from-Home’ backflip as a refreshing, yet embarrassing, admission of a mistake. But was it a mistake? The policy only ever applied to public servants, an already privileged group. Moreover, the work-from-home practices and ‘flexible’ work arrangements may well result in the substandard delivery of services to the public, workplace communication complications, and reduced profitability of cafes and other eating establishments that rely on this workforce for survival. The backflip became necessary because the Coalition never coherently communicated its message to the electorate that otherwise might have admired its candour.
The Coalition failed to enhance free speech as a fundamental right, even though there is ample evidence that this right is brutally repressed in Australia. It did not say anything about the transgender debacle that involves permanent surgical and chemical changes to young people who suffer from gender dysphoria, and the participation of biological men in female sports. In this context, state laws that criminalise conversion practices, such as prayer and counselling, and the disgraceful treatment of ‘Billboard Chris’ remind us of the relentless drive to repress free speech and demonise the Christian heritage of Australia. Dutton’s reluctance to welcome the decision of the UK Supreme Court that a woman is a biological female was shocking (as was his non-answer to the question whether he trusted President Trump), and, for conservatives, it was a reason not to vote for the Liberal Party. The suppression of free speech in our society is a diabolical development, exacerbated by the eSafety Commission overstepping its remit by seeking to ban legitimate speech. During the campaign, scores of voters would have disapproved of the dis-endorsement of Benjamin Britton for expressing the view that women should not serve in combat roles, and for failing to adhere to established Liberal Party policy on this issue. Why dis-endorse him for expressing an honestly held opinion? Is the Liberal Party, supposedly conservative, afraid of candidates adhering to one of its founding principles – free speech?
To its credit, in its campaign launch in Sydney, the Coalition promised that schools should be centres of education, not indoctrination. Dutton talked pleasingly about common sense and the right of parents to guide their children’s education. He also would have allowed young people to access $50,000 of their superannuation funds for a house deposit, even though it would increase the demand for housing and inflate house prices. Although he also foreshadowed tax relief worth $1,200 and announced a policy to combat bracket creep through indexation of taxable income, he did not present a vision to break the built-up corruption fed by a tax system that allows politicians to buy votes from targeted groups at the expense of other groups.
The Labor government will see the election win as a mandate to further promote the Net Zero lunacy, which will not make Australia into a ‘renewables’ superpower, but a begging pauper, the Venezuela of the Pacific. This prediction is based on the expectation that the government, goaded by a fanatical Greens Party and supercilious Teals, may well impose mandatory obligations on businesses to report on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals and unrealistic emissions standards. Also, commentators have warned that Australians must prepare for Labor’s new signature tax on unrealised capital gains. If these commentators are right, shares and property might be taxed on their increased value even though they have not been sold, or their value drops in subsequent years. It will be a case of leeching the veins of diligent investors.
As recently admitted by an over-confident Penny Wong, the re-elected Labor government will likely exacerbate racial friction by resurrecting the defeated Voice, not as an institution entrenched in the Constitution, but as a legislative monstrosity under a different name. If so, it will be another expensive quango that will divide Australia. This is regrettable because only when Australia distributes burdens and benefits based on one’s merit, not race, a characteristic over which people do not have control, will it be possible to create a harmonious society that respects the principle of equal citizenship. Specifically, property ownership rules need a major overhaul to resolve native title and Environment Protection Australia (EPA) obstructions to access and entitlement.
Australia is in decline. Why? Is it that the curse of not being able to defeat a one-term government has struck again? No, the Coalition has been defeated because there was no difference in substance between the two main parties, with the Coalition offering Labor-lite solutions to Australia’s problems. There was no courage to bring about fundamental changes, no promise to tackle the Woke agenda, no intention to restore free speech, and no desire to stop the Net Zero madness.
The Coalition could have won if it had demolished the fantasy of ‘Net Zero emissions by 2050’ and left the Paris Agreement. The spectacular blackout in Spain would have served as a timely reminder of the unreliability of a ‘renewables-only’ energy policy. But the Coalition failed to prosecute the unscientific allegations and rhetoric of the climate change lobby. It did not dare to unmask the global Net Zero narrative as a gigantic fraud and, undoubtedly, the single most important reason for the spectacular decline in people’s living standards. Instead, it should have focused on national transport systems needing a better balance between roads, rail, and shipping, and hardening of the associated infrastructure to better cope with extreme climatic weather events.
Commenting on the Coalition’s campaign performance, Peter Smith, a frequent contributor to Quadrant Online, recently remarked: ‘Essentially, it comes down to the absence of an opposition party with conviction and courage. The Libs, wet through and through, inspire very few. It’s time – to start inspiring.’ Indeed, there are no auspicious signs that reason and sanity can still prevail in times of political correctness and ideological insanity.
Overall, the Coalition conducted an inept and boring campaign, overshadowed by Labor’s slick social media advertisements, outright lies, and Medicare scare campaign. There were some beacons of hope, for example, the dominance of Angus Taylor in his debate with Treasurer Jim Chalmers, and the demolition of the Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen by the Shadow Minister, Jim O’Brien, in their energy debate.
For now, the Prime Minister’s infantile behaviour, aptly illustrated by his childish ‘lots of delulu and no solulu’ comments, will nurture the imagination of cartoonists. The next three years will determine whether Albanese belongs in this great country’s pantheon of responsible leaders.
Labor is now embarking on its second term, allowing it to pursue its ideological socialist goals of wealth redistribution and blind obedience to impossible and futile net-zero goals set by overseas committees with a globalist agenda.
Welcome to the Socialist Commonwealth of Australia. A place where people will be happily oppressed but have nothing to show for their arduous work.
