Debnam must shun extremes

September 2, 2005

The new state Opposition Leader, Peter Debnam, confronts a political landscape reshaped by the upheaval in the Coalition and the dramatic change at the top of the Labor Government. However, even the extraordinary events of the past few days do not change the fundamentals: state politics is about the effective delivery of services. The Opposition must persuade the electorate it can make a better job of public transport, health, education, law and order, and other mundane endeavours. State government is much more about quality of management than a battlefield for ideologies. The opportunities for extremes - of either the right or the left - are strictly limited. Yet the Liberal leadership vacancy sparked an intense and divisive contest between conservative ideologues and liberals within the NSW parliamentary Liberal Party.

Mr Debnam is the conservatives' choice. That is why he is the new leader, despite Barry O'Farrell's greater effectiveness in the shadow cabinet and deservedly higher public profile. The conservatives were prepared to threaten Liberal MPs to get their way; Liberals in both houses of Parliament were told that supporting Mr O'Farrell might cost them preselection for the next state poll. Not for nothing are the conservatives called the Uglies: these faceless Liberal operatives would be right at home in Sussex Street. But how does any of this behind-the-scenes intrigue move the Coalition closer to government? Mr O'Farrell's face-saving excuse for bowing out was that he did not want to divide the party. Will the Liberals be any more united under Mr Debnam? The resentment at the heavy-handed methods used to install the new leader will not quickly dissipate. And what end do these backroom deals serve; what do the conservatives stand for, and how might it shape policy? There are no answers. One thing, though, is clear: steering the NSW parliamentary Liberal Party in a more ideologically rigid direction is not the way to make the Coalition more appealing, and to take the fight up to Labor.

With an election only 18 months away, the Opposition must switch from criticism to credible alternatives. It has to make clear what it supports, not just what it opposes. Labor's failures are obvious - the Coalition must spell out how it would remedy them. Yet the Coalition's central election pledge to "Rebuild NSW", which was announced early this year, remains little more than a slogan. In framing alternatives to put to the people of NSW, the Opposition must focus on what is electorally viable. There is no room for extremism. If Mr Debnam needs an argument against those who might seek to drag policy to the right, there is none more eloquent than the example of the Prime Minister, John Howard. Mr Howard is an effective politician because he is not captive to any clique nor hostage to any ideological faction. He is free to be pragmatic, even opportunistic, when that is what his political instincts suggest.

Mr Debnam must learn the lesson offered by Mr Howard: political success comes from effective engagement with the electorate, not from bowing to the demands of a party power base.

A category five lesson

For a hurricane, the Katrina story had a deceptively quiet start. The storm was downgraded from category five to four before it made landfall, and the eye was forecast to miss New Orleans. There may be damage, an observer might have predicted then, but no catastrophe. Not so. Ever since Hurricane Katrina ploughed into the southern United States, the estimates of the death toll and damage have been rising: 50 dead … 100 dead … up and up the toll goes, while the damage estimate is now measured in billions of dollars, among the country's worst ever, says President George Bush. In the richest, best-prepared nation in the world whole swathes of countryside are without power or water, telephones or transport. Tens of thousands are homeless. Food supplies are dwindling. Thousands are still trapped by the seawater lapping through one of the region's great cities, New Orleans.

Still rising, too, is alarm at the likely economic consequences of the disaster. At the weekend the estimate of the likely insurance payout was up to $US2 billion ($2.65 billion). By Wednesday the figure had reached $US25 billion, and was being compared to that which followed the worst storm in US history, Hurricane Andrew, in 1992. The world oil price has been quick to register the markets' concern, rising above $US70 a barrel on news of damage to energy infrastructure - oil drilling platforms destroyed, and oil terminals damaged. If the Mississippi River has silted up enough to disrupt the transport of the US grain harvest, other world markets may also feel the effects.

The scenes of sodden destruction on the southern US coast recall the epic scale of the Boxing Day tsunami. Though its death toll is much lower, in one respect Katrina may be more shocking: the possibility that human activity contributed to the hurricane's strength. Scientists have warned that global warming, induced by human activity, will increase the frequency and power of tropical storms. Even small changes in temperature can produce disproportionately large weather events. Though their predictions have been greeted by some with scepticism, finance markets have penetrated to the heart of the matter - the effect on the bottom line. Actuaries already expect the cost of natural disasters brought on by global warming to double in the next decade, and are aligning insurance premiums to match. Others fear the changes to weather patterns, being unprecedented, provide no guide for calculating risks, and that insurers may have to vacate the field, leaving it to governments to compensate victims. The lesson of Hurricane Katrina may well be that the abnormal has become normal.