dot dot dot

SMH
Voters' verdict: can do better, must do better
March 26, 2007

The worst Government in the country has been re-elected. The Liberals have lost the unloseable election. A Government that a majority of voters believe did not deserve to be returned will run NSW until 2011. So what happens now?

There was a symmetry about the election's main contestants: two mediocre politicians chosen by the right-wing faction of their parties. The critical difference is why each was chosen. Labor's right chose Morris Iemma to replace Bob Carr as premier because he was the least unelectable candidate available. The Liberals chose Peter Debnam not because voters might take to him, but because the powerbrokers could not stand the only alternative - Barry O'Farrell. Mr Iemma was oh so lucky that the Liberals' right-wingers have less political nous than Labor's. But to misquote the late Kerry Packer, you only get one Peter Debnam in your life, and Morris Iemma has had his.

Mr Iemma has said with due humility that he has been given a mandate with a message. He is right. Without doubt, voters do want him to get back to work, keep his promises and get services they can rely on moving in the right direction. But there is more to it than that.

Mr Iemma's first task will be to reshape his cabinet, to remove those who have underperformed. Having won an election in his own right - and against the odds - he should have the authority now to get the team he wants. It will be an interesting test of his ticker and political clout to see how far he goes. The first to be stood down from the present ministry, we believe, should be Joe Tripodi, who has shown neither the administrative ability nor the political skill to merit inclusion. Frank Sartor should be moved out of the planning ministry, where his autocratic tendencies have simply got out of hand. Elsewhere, it is essential that the police and transport portfolios be given to different people. The Deputy Premier, John Watkins, who has been holding both until now, is an able man, but it is not humanly possible for one person to do both jobs well at the same time.

Having selected his team, Mr Iemma must set about reordering the state's finances. In large part this will mean rescuing the budget from the consequences of ill-advised public service pay rises handed out during Labor's last term. Whatever the justification for such increases, salaries for teachers, nurses and police have been increasing faster than state revenue - an unsustainable situation. Despite Mr Iemma's election rhetoric, there will almost certainly have to be cuts to the public service. Without them, the budget will be unable to allocate enough money for the new infrastructure that is needed, and on reducing the backlog of maintenance on what exists.

The great temptation for Mr Iemma and his Government, of course, is arrogance. His first statements contained the conventional ever-so-humble pieties of the newly elected leader, but we shall see for how long he and his Government can maintain that attitude after this victory against the odds. Saturday's results in one region above the others might help preserve the Government's perspective: its abysmal showing in the Hunter. In this heartland of the ALP, three seats are now under threat after big swings to independents. A combination of scandalous misconduct alleged against some MPs, and elsewhere, the party's arrogant disregard for local wishes, has turned voters away in droves. If Labor, like a triumphant Roman general, needs a servant whispering in its ear that it is only mortal, the role can be filled by the put-upon voters and party members of the Hunter.

The Liberals - surely - must now realise how much of a disaster factionalism has been for them. Whether John Brogden would have won the poll which Mr Debnam has lost is a question pointless and unanswerable. There is no call for any but the briefest of post-mortems. Despite a modest swing to the party and the return of two seats held by independents, the Liberals have done badly, whatever Mr Debnam and the Prime Minister, John Howard - notably distancing himself from Mr Debnam - may claim. Certainly the party must not revert to factional bickering. It must get on with doing what it has done so well federally and so poorly in each state: preparing itself carefully to capture the centre ground of politics. The Liberals must choose a new leader - one who can do what Mr Debnam could not: cut through to the electorate with a distinct Liberal message. Apart from his water policy, Mr Debnam offered no clear alternative view to Labor's. His policy on most issues was: let's fix it. What precisely he meant by that in education, health or transport was quite obscure. And if the message was unconvincing, the messenger lacked the talent to make up for its deficiencies.

For both parties the lesson of the 2007 election is: must do better. The electorate will not forgive another four years of Labor's bumbling. For the Liberals, further ineptitude will lead some to question whether the state party has a future at all.