Rorting is rife. But do voters care? Perhaps not

Labor is ramping up its attack on the government’s history of blatant and systemic misuse of taxpayer funds, pushing again for a federal anti-corruption commission and proposing an “anti-rorting” bill in the Senate.

It’s a sign that the opposition sees growing political capital in calling out the Coalition’s “industrial-scale” rorting, particularly in the wake of the $660 million commuter car park scheme that funnelled millions of dollars to Coalition-held seats ahead of the last federal election.

It’s a noble strategy: any improvements to government transparency and accountability benefit all Australians. But in the midst of the vaccine rollout bungle does the public actually care about rorting? And could this strategy win votes? 

Stop the rorts

Labor has been careful to frame the Morrison government’s rorting as being on a scale not seen before, presumably because they know all voters believe both sides of politics indulge in it. 

Its “anti-rorting” bill would require ministers to explain when they reject recommendations from their department. But it’s only a small tweak to existing rules and would not stop the loopholes that have allowed schemes like the commuter car park scheme being rorted.

Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus has also outlined plans for a federal anti-corruption commission, delivering on a key promise that Labor has made for some time. 

Labor confirmed it was stepping up its social media push highlighting rorts, and a new analysis by Crikey shows the line is one of three major areas that Labor is focusing on in a new digital advertising blitz. 

But will this rising rhetoric have cut-through? 

A matter of trust

It comes down to a question of trust, and how much voters can tell both parties apart when it comes to bribing constituents. 

The latest data from polling company Essential Media shows that the number of Australians who view Scott Morrison as a “trustworthy” leader has fallen eight points to 47% since mid-March — a considerable drop, but still a high proportion. It also revealed that more Australians believe the PM “avoids responsibility” — up six points to 54%. 

But Essential Media’s Peter Lewis says there is nothing in the data that suggests Australians are frustrated enough about the government’s abuse of taxpayer funding to change their vote. 

“I don’t think it’s a winning electoral strategy,” he told Crikey. “If you ask people ‘Should you stop rorts?’, of course everyone agrees … It’s an important policy in terms of good government. But I don’t think, in the line of issues that will be counted in the next election, that will be one of them.”

Rort fatigue 

Part of the reason why people’s anger may not turn into votes may be a broad acceptance that politicians of all stripes can’t be trusted.

Compounding this is the scale and frequency of scandals in the past year and a half, from the Leppington Triangle land purchase to sports rorts and the Community Development Grants scheme — a scandal 10 times bigger than sports rorts. In the minds of the public, these depressing episodes are all blending into one. 

“People are outraged by the misuse of public funds,” governance expert Yee-Fui Ng said. “But at the same time, when you see rort after rort happening again and again, without any repercussions, voters feel a kind of hopelessness that things won’t change, and that could lead to lethargic attitude that it doesn’t matter who is in power.”

There’s certainly evidence that the Coalition is trading off this sense of apathy. Even amid scrutiny over the commuter car park scheme, the government has pursued new other rorts in the making — such as the $800 million modern manufacturing scheme, which will be signed off by Industry Minister Christian Porter and the Prime Minister himself. 

“They are trading on an apathy and a sense of hopelessness that things won’t change,” Ng said.

That’s not to say that Labor, minor parties and independents shouldn’t push for radical change to hold the government and public servants to account. But it does not guarantee the public will vote them in and give them the power to bring real change. 

It is possible, however, that the rhetoric could help to actually limit the amount of money the government attempts to rort in the next election. 

“Blocking off that taxpayer-funded, easy and cynical pathway to votes by shining a light on it could still be a strategically significant achievement,” Lewis said.