Unless there’s a sudden turnaround in the polls, Tony Abbott will become Prime Minister of Australia. This will be the third time in my life that a Federal Labor government has been defeated, the other two occasions being 1975 and 1996. On both those occasions, despite substantial and enduring accomplishments, the government had made a mess of macroeconomic management, and the electorate, unsurprisingly, wanted to punish them. And, despite my strong disagreements with them (and with the way Fraser came to office), the incoming Prime Ministers had serious views on how best Australia’s future could be managed. Fraser has only improved since leaving office, making valuable contributions on the national and global stage. My evaluation of Howard, following his defeat, starts with the observation that he was ‘the most substantial figure produced by the Liberal party since the party itself was created by Menzies’.
Nothing of the sort can be said this time. The case put forward by the LNP is based entirely on lies and myths. These include the claims that
* Labor has mismanaged the economy and piled up unnecessary debt and deficits
* Australian families are ‘doing it tough’ because of a soaring cost of living
* The carbon tax/price is a ‘wrecking ball’, destroying economic activity
* The arrival of refugees represents a ‘national emergency’
None of these claims stands up to even momentary scrutiny.
Then there’s Abbott himself. After 20 years in politics, I can’t point to any substantial accomplishments on his part, or even any coherent political philosophy. For example, I’m not as critical of his parental leave scheme as some, but it’s totally inconsistent with his general political line, a fact that his supporters in business have been keen to point out. On climate change, he’s held every position possible and is now promising, in effect, to do nothing. His refusal to reveal policy costings until the second-last day of the campaign debases an already appalling process. He treated budget surplus as a holy grail until it became inconvenient, and has now become carefully vague on the topic.
Obviously, the fact that such a party and such a leader can be on the verge of victory implies that the Labor side has done something dreadfully wrong. It’s the oldest cliche in politics for the losing side to claim that the problem is not the policies but inability to get the message across. In this case, however, I think it’s true. Gillard lost the voters early on with stunts like the consultative assembly, and never managed to get them to listen to her for any length of time. Rudd was doing well in communicating his vision from his return to the leadership until he called the election. He then wasted three weeks on small-bore stuff apparently aimed at Katter party preferences. He seems finally to have rediscovered his voice, with the launch speech and his Q&A appearance, but I fear it’s too late.
Still, in the unlikely event that any undecided voters are reading this, I urge you to take a serious look at the alternative government, and place the LNP last on your ballot in both houses of Parliament.
John Quiggin 
According to the ABC in the Senate ALP and Greens could still form the dominant bloc. Might be some problems disbanding the carbon tax. This where it could all backfire if we get the double dissolution by October 2014, a date which has been suggested.
Very gracious of Abbott to form a government which is ‘competent’ which I don’t think was meant in the legal sense. I’d like the seer in SBS ‘Vikings’ to do a longevity prediction on Abbott.
As expected, the extreme right-wing ALP got slaughtered.
Good. They deserved it. All the ALP “Abbott would be worse” yay-yay crowd have no idea how real people work or think.
The reason that the Palmer party and Greens did well whilst Labor got massacred is that they actually stand for something other than neo-liberalism and “Abbott would be worse”.
The people want an alternative to the corporatist duopoly.
The lesson for the ALP should be that they shouldn’t try to be LNP-Lite, they should respect the views of those who have now abandoned them in sufficient numbers to render them a “rump”.
They won’t, though. The ALP is so hopelessly corrupt that the LNP is probably not that much of an issue in the governance of Australia.
In fact, Julie Bishop – incoming Foreign Minister, tonight called for restraint on the idea of bombing Syria. Bob Carr was calling for the opposite yesterday.
How exactly will this country be worse without the ALP? Scum.
do you think clive palmer is still going sue rupert murdoch for willfully misrepresenting him during the campaign? -a.v.
Should be an interesting year in politics.
I hope you are happy, Prof Q. We will never know how Gillard would have done today if she had been given the respect and clear air she has given Rudd. I dare say it would have been better, given the economic credentials of her administration and the lack of substance from Abbott, if it had been a fair fight on her record. You and other Rudd supporters are to blame for this loss. You enabled him to destroy a good government and get Abbott elected. Enjoy.
@alfred venison
I think that one billionaire’s outrageous hyperbole is comparable to another’s.
The difference is that one billionaire is an Australian and talks about Australian interests whilst Murdoch is just a piece of manure.
The big loser from this election is the advertising arm of the Murdoch empire. How can you tell people that an expensive ad with Murdoch’s hate media will turn people your way when a war-like effort can hardly swing 5% against a much hated government?
“It Wozn’t Murdoch Wot Won It”
It was quite obviously Labor that lost this election – on policies, not anything else. (Refugees especially)
“It was quite obviously Labor that lost this election – on policies, not anything else. (Refugees especially)”
So people voted LNP because they didn’t like labor policy on refugees? …
Labor lost it because of a minor China down turn, which busted off the mining boom.
Any political party in a modern day representative democracy in Australia is doomed to be a minor sideshow relative to the vagaries of Asia.
@iain
Too simplistic. They voted LNP because, in part, the ALP said it wanted to be judged by LNP benchmarks. It helped a lot that the LNP didn’t have to pass these benchmarks, and later adopted ALP ones, which were presented by the Murdoch press as wise and unremarkable.
megan – a serving billionaire parliamentarian suing a billionaire newspaper proprietor over truthiness. i can’t wait. billionaire on billionaire “violence”. -a.v.
but saying labor lost it because of refugee policy isn’t too simplistic?
a swing of 3% against the greens, and a swing towards “stop the boats” because labor policy on refugees (especially) was the real issue?
Clive Palmer’s face was on TV more than Milne’s and that’s how the average protest vote voted.
This isn’t simplistic – this is reality.
Representative democracy is fundamentally flawed.
Disunity, allowing the Coalition to control the narrative about the economy and a failure to provide a clear vision of what the ALP stands for made the defeat inevitable.
I think we’ll have six years of Mr Rabbit before myxomatosis sets in.
I am not writing off an early election and a rout of the government Rob Borbidge style. Now that the ALP is gone Federally, and there are some fissures in the conservative side in QLD, and Barnett has had a setback in WA and is running deficits, if the ALP can sort out NSW, put a line under Thomson and Obeid, and sort out their governance issues, they could be back in office mid-2015.
Hardly. The loser was the citizenry, which failed the practical and moral tests presented to it. It voted for more climate change, to continue the destruction (already quite well advanced) of Australia’s ecosystems (including the Great Barrier Reef), and for a system of international apartheid in which the victims of our consumption frenzy will have no recourse. This will all come back to bite, with more natural disasters, more war, less international respect to an Australia which, under the Abbottolypse, will come to be seen as the mad white dog of the Southern Hemisphere. The majority will deserve what it gets. Unfortunately the rest of us get to suffer along with it.
I don’t expect consumers to to suddenly open their wallets and employers to start hiring. With the barbs flying in the next few months a bunker mentality might prevail, the opposite of what some might have hoped. As for repeal of carbon pricing the big utilities are crying out for some policy certainty. They are not going to make a 40 year investment if the policy changes every few years.
@Megan
Let’s see: Queensland Senate, Greens losing a seat to Palmer.
SA Senate, Greens losing a seat to Xenophon’s number 2.
The Greens have done well. Well done Greens.
My one sentence post mortem: the method in Abbott’s madness prevailed over (or perhaps because of) the madness in Rudd’s method.
In more than one sentence: in the fullness of time the past six years of Labor government will not be judged harshly on policy (except insofar as contemporary governments of all persuasions in all capitalist democracies will be judged harshly for ineptitude and timidity in the face of the challenges Crispin alludes to). A large part of what did it in was its capacity for spectacular public displays of seaminess and sloppiness politically, even when it was more or less doing the right thing on policy. Then there is the moral turpitude of the Murdoch press, the mining industry and others who have Mr. Rabbit’s back, but that is a factor beyond the left’s immediate control.
“It’s not whether you’re up or down in the count of votes, it’s whether you’re up or down in the count of seats”
Bob Brown explaining the Greens cynicism towards democracy…
..while Milne leads the biggest against-swing (in absolute percentage terms) of votes for a “serious” party, this century…
@Paul Norton
That’s an awfully significant exception though! I think you’re right, but your parenthesis contains the most important part: it’s increasingly looking like democracy lacks the chops to deal with issues that are not immediate crises. Yet almost every significant issue we face falls into this category. The price of liberal democracy will be a smouldering planet.
@iain
In our system, only seats count. In our system, it’s more important where you get support than how much support you get.
In the 2010 election 11.7% of the vote for us returned fewer than 1% of the seats in the lower house — a discount for inefficient distribution of more than 90%.
That’s wrong, but it is the context within which we work.
Iain @167:
..while Milne leads the biggest against-swing (in absolute percentage terms) of votes for a “serious” party, this century…
Iain, you’re welcome to your own opinion about the Greens, but not to your own facts – unless you’re suggesting that the ALP at this election and in 2010, the Liberals in 2007, the Democrats in 2004 and One Nation in 2001 are/were not “serious” parties at the elections in question.
@Chris O’Neill
Sorry, Palmer didn’t like Xenophon’s number 2 and The Greens are expected to hang on with Labor Party and preferences cycled through the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics Party: http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/senate/sa/
But The Green candidate is expected to lose in NSW: http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/senate/nsw/
The Greens are a serious party, and they have some seriously good talent. They are represented in both houses of government. They have returned Adam Brandt in Melbourne, a seat where Labor ruled supreme until 2010, when they got knocked off under a Gilliard ALP government. Who are Labor kidding, when they complain about the Greens? Labor chose to shift even further to the right—as Fran Barlow has pointed out—and it was a strategic mistake: Rudd has to cop the blame for that, in full or part.
Personally, I think that Labor screwed up when they ditched Rudd the first time, and couldn’t adequately explain to us—the Australian people—why the ALP thought that was the only viable option. They compounded the error by making public pronouncements about how terrible trying to work with Rudd was, and leaking stuff to damage Rudd’s public image; that is a classic example of poisoning the well, making it impossible for anyone in the party to vote Rudd back as leader, but at the same time making the ALP look appallingly bad to the public. If Rudd was that bad, why on Earth did they knock of Gilliard to replace her with Rudd again? That is a rhetorical question, one that the public answered in spades, judging by the election.
Bill Shorten, the guy behind, not one, but two, big mistakes of leadership change, is damaged goods now. With Rudd returned, the fight for opposition leadership position is likely to be messy and protracted, once someone thinks they are up for it instead of Rudd. It is a pity that Rudd didn’t lose his seat, as that would have cleared the air and allowed a clean change of leadership in opposition.
Abbott has had about the best trot for government that an opposition leader could wish for, having built his position over several years in opposition. I expect he will be quite secure as leader of the Liberals now. What will be interesting is to see how Abbott deals with his myriad contradictory policies…and whether the senate will play ball with him or not. Remember, according to Abbott, “…climate change is cr*p!” So much for evidence-based policy making.
@Paul Norton
He’s probably doing the statistical trick of measuring percentages relative to total base — so that if we fall from, say 11.7% to 8.5% we haven’t suffered a 2.2% reversal but a 2.2/11.7% reversal (i.e nearly 20%). (Though that doesn’t account for the Democrats and ON declines).
oops … 3.2% reversal –> 27% decline …
@Donald Oats
Adam Bandt Donald. AIUI Mr Adam Brandt is some sort of country-western entertainer …
@Fran Barlow
That’s Adam Brand, ma’am….I suspect you’ll have to get to know your ‘country’ ‘artists’ even better now the folks have spoken!
I think Donald’s assessment is spot-on ,except for his over-generous assessment that Abbott actually ‘built his position’…like Dr Q I see no position whatsoever from Abbott,just a plethora of half-assed mumblings enabled by lazy journalists and the Labor death-wish,and his tenure was subject to a fair bit of party speculation until very recently….truly the luckiest mediocrity in our recent political history
Fran, the other thing is that the Greens vote always increases in post-election night counting.
The Greens aren’t helped by the fact that about 600,000 under 25s haven’t bothered enrolling to vote.
Anyway, I’m glad the Greens were hammered, as it is now obvious that lax border control is electoral poison. Thank God for good ol’ Aussie common sense.
If we’re lucky we may now be able to avoid the white/gay/”scantily dressed” female no-go zones that are now a feature of many European cities.
@Mel
True, though of the tiny fraction with whom I’m in contact, many express a general disgust with official politics. It’s hard to argue with that.
Not at all. We look to have added a senator and protected our one HoR rep. Yes, our vote declined overall, but this was a plebiscite on the ALP regime in which the ALP invited the right to reflect on how good it had been at presenting themselves as social conservatives and xenophobic populists. Apparently, not so well.
Neither of the major parties ran on the issue of compassion to asylum seekers and one doubts that any Greens voters switched on this issue.
@Nick
The day I listen to Adam Brand’s music is the day I start listening to John Howard or Sloppy Joe speaking. My ears would bleed.
After june 2014, there will be 8 senate cross benchers. DLP! nick no pokies, new family first from SA! LDP from NSW!! Palmer senators from QLD and Tassie, motoring enthusists party from vic, and australian sports party frm WA?
the sumulations using the registered preference tickets on the ABC elections
Further to Fran’s response to Mel, there is very strong evidence that the fall in the Greens’ primary vote is largely accounted for by voters switching to the PUP, which has an asylum seeker policy that won Bob Brown’s blessing.
@Fran Barlow
Drat, I’ve not only got that one wrong, I’ve also written “Gilliard” instead of “Gillard.” Drat, drat, drat.
@Nick
By “built his position,” I mean his internal position within the party, not the party’s (or Abbott’s) policy positions—they were either implacably opposed to whatever the Labor/Green/Indep coalition put up, or acted as policy weathervanes, changing policy to draw a few mug voters into their tent. I think Abbott has gained the confidence of his party, to the point where his (leadership) position is solid. If the economoy goes south on them after a year or two in power, that could change.
Of course, the entire right wing media (meaning all MSM) is gloating over the victory it gained for Abbott by relentlessly propagandising in his (the LNP coalition’s) favour. Equally, they are gloating over the “no carbon tax”, “no mining tax”, “no environmental studies” outcomes.
It’s quite bizarre to see people so blindly and openly gloating over policies which will destroy their world as a passably benign place for human habitation. I wonder what kind of strange world their minds inhabit. It certainly isn’t the world that the enlightenment and the scientific revolution made explicable to us. It certainly isn’t a world where real quantities accrue exponentially along with percentage growth. It certainly isn’t a world of a finite size (even though astonomy and earth sciences tell us the earth is of a finite size).
I think we are truly living in the post-scientific age. Neoliberalism and neoconservatism have departed from the scientific world view (taking most of the population with them) into some kind of fantasy world where all the discovered laws of physics (especially of thermodynamics) are non-operational. This is a totally delusional society headed for total disaster.
Drop in Green vote in the ACT in the House of Reps seems to have gone to the Bullet Train Party in line with what happened in the ACT Assembly election,
Green vote in the Senate held up just about the same level as 2010 – close but probably not quite close enough to knock off the Liberal Senate candidate.
Votes in the senate have gone to minor parties because of the past 3 years of relentless negativity by the Coalition and the media. This has reinforced people’s negative perceptions of mainstream politicians. So they vote for PUP or other minor parties.
I think the Greens used to get some of the disenchantment vote, but they are perceived to be a bit mainstream, so no longer qualify for the “pox on both their houses” vote.
@Doug
Apparently the Bullet Train Party have promised to abstain from all votes not involving Bullet Trains …
Nice work if you can get it … I’m just on the beach with a drink — is it about Bullet Trains? No? Deary me … what a shame …
What utter rot! Less international respect? From whom, Indonesia with her chronically corrupt political and business regime and active violent oppression of minority groups? Malaysia perhaps with recent joke of an election and again active oppression of minority groups? China as she plunders and bullies her way around the region? Japan as she plunders the oceans? Seriously have some of you people never traveled or lived outside of Australia.
As for the hyperbole that a vote for Abbott means people want to go and hack at the great barrier reef, for heavens sake grow up!@Crispin Bennett
Pr Q said:
I agree that the ALP’s problem is with the messenger, rather than the message. But the problems with the messenger go much deeper than unpopular leaders and poor campaigning, bad though these be. The ALP itself is not fit for ruling and needs root and branch party reform to return itself to public favour, especially in NSW.
The first point to make about this election is that it falls withing the range of a landslide victory, that is the nearly 8% margin of victory (54-46 TPP) is beyond one standard deviation from the mean 4% margin of victory (52-48 TPP) that typifies most AUS federal election results, at least in the post-Menzies era. This is the conclusion of MUMBLE:
The second (and most important) point to make is that the ALP blew it, it should have won this election in a canter, given the good way things were going for them up until April 2010, when their TPP lead was an impressive 54-46. This is one of the biggest electoral turnarounds in AUS federal election history. How, in the space of 30 months did the ALP manage to reverse that position? That is the $64 question for psephologists to mull over.
The third point to make is that Oppositions dont win elections, governments lose them. The two biggest causes of Government losses are: 1. poor economic management and 2. internal party division. The ALP failed miserably to promote its successful economic administration, blame for which falls mainly on Swan who was incapable of articulating a coherent economic philosophy (contrast this with Keating). The ALP failed miserably to maintain party unity, the blame for which falls mainly on Rudd, who was incapable of managing consensus cabinet government (contrast this with Hawke.)
The fourth point to make is that the ALP is on the nose at both state and federal levels throughout the mainstream Australian public. It’s TPP vote is now mostly below 50 % in all the states (the exceptions are the territories (ACT and NT) which tend to favour statist parties which maintain funding from the federal tit. So far from the ALP being “the natural party of government” there is now not much in the way of an ALP heartland any more.
The timing and placing of the ALP’s dramatic plunge in popularity (a 3.5 % national swing relative to the 2010 election) indicates that its decline was a two-era/two-area process. Relative to the 2007 election baseline its national TPP has declined 7 %, from 53.5% to 46.5%. From 2009-2011 its vote crashed in the North Eastern rugby/tourist states (NSW-QLD). And from 2011-2013 its vote crashed in the South Eastern footy/rust belt states (VIC-SA-TAS). The major anti-government swings in this election occurred in VIC (5.98 %), SA (5.33 %), TAS (11.14%). The ALP’s TPP is now on average below 50 % in these states (VIC 50.29 %, SA 47.83 % and TAS 49.41 %). Still, the ALP’s TPP vote in NSW (45.84 %) and QLD (44.03 %) are now at dangerously low levels.
So there is a substantial decay in the “Labor brand” apparent in all jurisdictions, as evidenced by poll-driven politics broken core promises, opportunistic policy changes, ministerial re-shuffles, factional division and leadership struggles.The comparison to the L/NP, which stuck with the same triumvirate of Howard/Costello/Downer for 11 years and voted with its heart for Abbott over the past three years is striking. My gut feeling is that this is the “NSW disease” creeping through all state and federal branches. As proven by the ICAC indictment of NSW ALP, but also through the NSW Right diastrous management of ALP federal electoral strategy. The public are reluctant to vote for a party that is chronically opportunistic to the point of criminal malfeasance.
The fifth point to make is that the ALP decision to switch from Gillard to Rudd in the latter stages of the cycle was vindicated in that a complete wipe-out was avoided. The Coalition does not have control of the Senate and “the furniture was saved” (only just) in Sydney and Brisbane.There were anti-government swings in NSW (2.99 %) and QLD (0.86 %) but they were below the national average swing.
The sixth point to make is that there is a paradox at the heart of the AUS polity: the public appear to despise the Centre-Left’s psephologically whilst broadly agreeing with the Centre-Left ideologically. Thus the Centre-Left has been wiped out at both state and federal levels, yet there is no great public enthusiasm for austerity or Hewson “Fightback” program. This is demonstrated by Abbott’s Big Government me-tooism on the subjects of Gonski education, national disability and some kind of national broadband program. He is also reluctant to revisit industrial relations, a traditional favorite of the L/NP Right.
The seventh point to make is that the GREEN vote has slumped by about 20%, from 11.7 % to 8.5 %. This is consistent with my Decline of the Wets thesis, particularly the GREENs utter failure to convince the public on the issue of asylum seekers (hint: its not a good idea for democratic politicians to suggest that democratic voters are closet racists). But it probably points more to a waning of public concern about global warming and the resignation of their founding father Bob Brown.
The eighth point to make is the improvement in the vote of the minor parties of the rat-bag Right, particularly Clive Palmer and assorted shooters and hooners parties. This is indicative of a certain crankyness in the electorate
The ninth point to make is that Abbott is the most culturally conservative party leader in the Parliament. He opposes gay marriage, supports monarchy, turn back the boats. This is in spite of the fact that national security and cultural identity issues (traditional winners for the L/NP) are off the boil somewhat – even favouring the Left-liberals on homosexual marriage. Thus the Decline of the Wets has not been averted or reversed. I can take some heart from that, if little else.
The tenth and final point to make is that the ALP did not really deserve to lose this election. going by the its performance, politicians and policies. Its economic administration was competent, there were no appalling ministerial scandals (apart from leadership tussles which were finally settled), its headline policies were broadly popular. At some basic level the electorate has made a bad decision – especially given that revoking the carbon and mineral taxes will empower the oligarchy. I draw this conclusion reluctantly as I am a fervent populist. I can only hope that the electorate comes to their senses in due course. In the meantime the ALP must work overtime to make themselves fit for government, as they did after the 1975-77 disasters.
stupid & proud of it; congratulations.
Ah, “growing up” (being a good Aussie bloke, and pretending everything’s OK while hanging around the barbie yawping about sport and shopping). I’ve seen it done, but am not entirely impressed with the results.
Mr or Ms Nails, everything isn’t “OK” and the LNP’s alignment with the Coal industry and opposition to renewables, and Abbott’s own hostility to science, is all on the public record. The population has been consistently warned since the ’90’s that continuing current fossil fuel use trends will materially threaten the GBF’s health, and it has now voted in a government that is explicit about its lack of interest climate change (to the point where it’s dumping Australia’s first serious legislative foray into pricing carbon emissions).
Queenslanders recently voted in an openly anti-Australian Premier whose response to concerns (stated with unusual bluntness by many reef scientists) about his plans to build vast coal ports inside the reef is a bland and unconcerned “we’re in the coal business”.
Australians may by and large be thick, but not so thick that they’re unaware of realities so often and so publicly repeated. A choice to sacrifice the GBF has been made, and its consequences will have to be lived with.
Ah, “growing up” (being a good Aussie bloke, and pretending everything’s OK while hanging around the barbie yawping about sport and shopping). I’ve seen it done, but am not entirely impressed with the results.
Mr or Ms Nails, everything isn’t “OK” and the LNP’s alignment with the Coal industry and opposition to renewables, and Abbott’s own hostility to science, is all on the public record. The population has been consistently warned since the ’90?s that continuing current fossil fuel use trends will materially threaten the GBF’s health, and it has now voted in a government that is explicit about its lack of interest climate change (to the point where it’s dumping Australia’s first serious legislative foray into pricing carbon emissions).
Queenslanders recently voted in an openly anti-Australian Premier whose response to concerns (stated with unusual bluntness by many reef scientists) about his plans to build vast coal ports inside the reef is a bland and unconcerned “we’re in the coal business”.
Australians may by and large be thick, but not so thick that they’re unaware of realities so often and so publicly repeated. A choice to sacrifice the GBF has been made, and its consequences will have to be lived with.
From the starting gun Abbott seems to be pandering to boofhead Australia, not thoughtful Australia. He and his circle seem like cave dwellers who have been teleported to behind the controls of an Airbus and they’re not sure which buttons to push first. Therein I suspect will be his downfall.
I wonder what the public will think when Abbott uses the ‘I have a mandate’ line when he knows he can’t get carbon tax abolition through the Senate. That’s the same public who installed Rudd in 2007 on the CPRS promise. Meanwhile for some reason the Queensland grazing belt is not getting spring rain. If carbon pricing undoes Abbott it will be the third PM in succession.
As the boats trickle in we’re also waiting for the Navy to begin towing them back. Abbott will need to start making runs fairly soon.
The die is cast. Our distant descendants, if any, will be living in tropical Antarctica.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/17/antarctica-tropical-climate-co2-research
I haven’t looked closely at the Senate numbers yet, but isn’t it shaping up that there may be enough loony right small-party senators to pass the CT repeal legislation when drafted? I also wonder if the Lab contingent will really have the courage to hold its ground.
The respect for the Abbott mandate should be the same respect that he showed while opposition leader.
@Crispin Bennett
The assembled Rooters and Shooters are a strange mob who seem to like the mining tax but not carbon tax. If the ALP senators don’t stick their guns they are spineless and deserve electoral oblivion.
@Hermit
Agreed, but with the government side only needing 6 or 7 for a senate majority, the CT abolition will
presumably get through. And no doubt the nutters will demand some nasty exchanges. I fear for our National Parks (not sure to what extent fed legislation affects them, but given the hostility of most of the current State governments to unconcreted/unmined land, adding hostile feds can’t help).
I see that the LDP have got a senator up. Count that one for a repeal of the carbon tax. Paid parental leave will not attract any help from this quarter.