IF our political system’s order and good government depends on the presence of a vigorous and competent Opposition, South Australia could find itself in parlous straits as we enter 2004. There may have been the odd fiery moment in Parliament, a difficult question unanswered, or an embarrassing reminder to the Government that it is not always practising what it once preached. Yet most people outside the immediate precincts of North Tce would not question whether the Opposition has been sufficiently vigorous; rather if they have been there at all.

It is probably too charitable to say the Opposition is “missing in action”; this implies there has been some contest, some fierce engagement, and that they have suffered honourable casualties. In truth, they are “missing in inaction”; lost, not in the fog of political battle, but in a cloud of political inertia.
As we move to the half-way point of the Rann Government’s term, the Opposition appears not to have fully come to terms with what it takes to regain office. If they have a strategy for wresting government, it is not apparent.

The Opposition and its leader seem content to stick with the tactics they took to the 2002 election campaign. For this, they contrasted their “nice bloke” leader – positive, bipartisan, offering a breather from in-your-face politics – with a brash, aggressive opponent and an untried team with a dubious financial pedigree. It almost worked, as Labor was denied the swing in support and the seats required to win Government in its own right. Peter Lewis changed all that, so natural assumptions of leadership that attach to incumbency are no longer available to the Liberals. The world, and the electorate, has moved on.

Mike Rann continues to grow into the job of Premier. His ministers are confident; enjoying their jobs and ticking off progress on objectives they have set themselves. With the help of the credit ratings agencies, Kevin Foley is burying any suggestion that Labor runs second on financial management. And any idea that a minority Labor Government would implode under the weight of managing the whims of independents must have now have disappeared. Peter Lewis will not vote himself an early exit from the Speaker’s Chair; Rory McEwen is not going to relinquish his seat at the Cabinet table. In any event, Bob Such is on board if either did.

The Opposition cannot hope to score political points on a failing economy. The economic fortunes of a small state such as SA will always be delicately balanced, and the State Government still has work ahead to convince voters that it can deliver a secure future. But economic indicators are good and any likely difficulties will be hard to sheet home to the government, as their origins are largely external to the State, if not Australia. Given the closeness of the vote in 2002, the Opposition may believe the mood will naturally swing back its way; after all, last time it won more than 50 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. No doubt they believe they will win back the seat held by Peter Lewis, now that voters understand the consequences of voting for him. They might also take comfort from the fact that based on the result of the last election, Labor needs to get a uniform swing of more than two per cent to win the extra seat it requires to govern without relying on support from independents. Or, if they didn’t, that McEven and Such would switch back to their Liberal Party origins if the next election was to deliver another hung Parliament.

Such optimism would ignore what has happened elsewhere at the next election after a close result. It also ignores the experience of what has happened elsewhere at the next election after a close result. In NSW under Carr, Queensland under Beattie and Victoria under Bracks, voters were more than willing to give the new government another go. While our voting system makes second term landslides a difficult proposition, a satisfied electorate is largely prepared to deliver a greater margin for the second term. So far, the electorate seems more than satisfied.

The Opposition has to differentiate itself as a prospective government, not as a former government arguing that it still deserves to be there. How it plans to do this remains uncertain – though it must start at the top.
There is no doubt Rob Kerin is a good bloke and more at ease with face-to-face campaigning than promoting himself and his ideas through the media. But surely the Liberals have learnt from recent tribulations of the Federal Labor Party; a decent, honest, hard-working leader counts for nothing if they cannot communicate a simple message that resonates with the electorate. The medium to transmit that message is the media, particularly television.

There has clearly been a change in the atmospherics of political leadership after September 11 and the “war on terror”. Community desire for security appears to have been translated into a preference for decisive leadership, in which taking tough decisions is regarded as a virtue. If Mark Latham can bounce in the polls after a week’s detailed analysis of his negotiation tactics with taxi drivers, perhaps SA voters can handle an Opposition leader being a bit more “up-front”.

This attitude should flow through the Shadow Cabinet, as I suspect most voters would be hard pressed to name more than three of its members. It is not that they are inactive; a glance at the Party’s web site demonstrates they are pumping out media releases on a wide range of subjects. But there is no discernible theme, no overall message that each statement reinforces, and no obvious indication that the Opposition is targeting a specific demographic, group of voters or key electorates.

The Opposition has also shown it not always a smart move to put former Ministers in the role of Shadow Ministers in their old portfolios. In the short term, former Ministers work through their notes to catch the new incumbent out on points of detail – but in the longer term it suggests too much concern with proving something about the past, rather than being focused on the future.

The electorate is not stupid; each time a Shadow Minister speaks the question forms, “wasn’t he running that before? Why didn’t he fix it?” Dean Brown is an obvious case in point.

There is also evidence that deeply personal antagonisms that drive factional division within the Liberal Party are getting in the way of co-ordinated, concerted action.

Iain Evans has won a few rounds against the Government, most notably when he led Environment Minister John Hill into the trap of misleading Parliament. But Evans was seen as too successful by those in the party who reject any claim he might have to the leadership – and so the knives came out.

The Opposition may feel some sense of security because two years is a long time in politics and there is obviously some way to go before it needs to face an election. If so, I fear they are sadly mistaken. Barring dramatic events, it takes time to mould the collective mind of the electorate, particularly where it does not perceive an urgent problem. It also takes much exposure through the media, backed by a constant presence in the community – not just loud and occasional noises in Parliament. Above all, it needs clear themes and messages to differentiate one lot of politicians from another.

Time is short for the Opposition, who do not seem to have noticed Mike Rann has been running a full-scale campaign since the polls closed in 2002. I do not think it unreasonable to say that they are behind – and that the government is looking more and more secure.

Benjamin Disraeli, the 19th century statesman and Prime Minister of Great Britain, is credited with the observation that “No government can be long secure without formidable opposition”. At this stage, the current State Opposition seem intent on proving him wrong.