How the opposition makes a difference.(Politics)

HAVING STUDIED political science since 1995, culminating in my completion of a PhD during 2005, I remain mystified by a major generalisation made in Australia's political science literature that there are no longer significant policy differences between Australia's two major political parties, Labor and the Coalition. For instance, Ashley Lavelle in the November 2004 issue of the Australian Journal of Political Science asserted that "understanding recent developments in Australian politics, particularly since the 1990s, requires an emphasis on the parties' similarities, rather than any remaining differences". Clive Hamilton suggested in a 2006 Quarterly Essay that Labor was no longer a political party with a purpose consistent with social democratic aims.

Another simplistic generalisation was made by Philip Mendes, in a 2003 issue of the Journal of Australian Political Economy, that the Howard government has committed Australia to a neo-liberal agenda which has merely benefited the business community. This argument, when combined with the generalisation about policy convergence, suggests that Australia's major political parties are neither passionate nor astute enough to promote policies which are necessary to protect the national interest.

Such generalisations are highly problematic, as suggested by Murray Goot in the Australian Journal of Political Science when he highlighted reasons why the public continues to differentiate between the major parties. Further, they say little about why such policy trends evolved, why they have been accepted by the Australian electorate, and what they suggest about Australian society and future policy possibilities and limitations.

In fact, Labor continues to have substantial influence through both its policy differences and similarities with the Coalition, and both parties continue to try to address Australia's various needs. Many recent policy stances have taken account of public attitudes that have become evident during the continuing political struggle between Labor and the Coalition.

Any adequate discussion of recent federal government policy trends should incorporate the role played by interest groups and public opinion, given their obvious importance to the political process. This is a point often absent from left-wing political commentary when it simply analyses a government through the writer's own views and values.

This is not to suggest that public opinion always drives policy trends, although there is considerable evidence to indicate that the Howard government's electoral success has been heavily influenced by its ability to take heed of public attitudes. Rather, there is a need to evaluate how various players in Australia's liberal democracy interact in order to influence policies, and how the resulting policy stances reflect a government's determination to show policy leadership, or its willingness to listen to interest groups or public opinion. This aspect is given greater importance by Labor's willingness to promote an alternative view in opposition.

Public concern may be expressed at the extent to which Australians have borrowed to maintain their standard of living, or the need for greater assistance to protect or develop Australian industries, or Australia's response to asylum seekers and illegal refugees, or its minimal commitment to establishing renewable energy sources. It should be of crucial importance for any political commentator--and makes a nonsense of the left-and-right divide in providing sophisticated analysis of federal policy trends--to incorporate a discussion of all the important players. This is necessary not only to highlight past and present policy differences and similarities between the major parties, which are influenced greatly by public opinion, but to give greater justice to the efforts made by the Coalition and Labor.