Australian Election 2016
So the much talked about double dissolution election campaign is now in full swing. The way Turnbull’s approval was going he really had to call it. Unfortunately with polls pointing to a close race, a win for his government will not see him any more free to follow any of the progressive policies many Australian’s hoped he would, if he ever stood for them at all. It is arguable that we have election being primarily fought between Malcolm Turnbull- a man whose best quality is that he is not Tony Abbott- and Bill Shorten- a man whose best quality is that he is not Malcolm Turnbull. While a slightly dispiriting experience, there is always the hope that we can at least remove national embarrassments such as Jacqui Lambie and some of the more repugnant sitting MPs (Peter Dutton I’m talking about you). Of course there is also the frightening possibility that we end up with more of their ilk. While there is no way I can discuss every aspect of the campaign I thought I would make a view observations from what I have seen so far.
The leaders
I had high hopes for Turnbull when he became prime minister, but that was sadly misplaced. He has really shown little evidence that he will deliver either the progressive policies or the more mature form of government he promised. The concept of another term of Coalition government led by this man scares me, because he is not up to it.
So what of the alternative? Bill Shorten looked dead in the water six months ago, but a lot (or just as tellingly very little) can happen in that time. Inaction and weakness by the PM on a range of issues gave him a lifeline and he is doing his best to make the most of it. He also presented a clear juxtaposition to our indecisive PM, by coming out with some clear policies, some of which could be politically risky.
Tactically, I would think Shorten’s idea for 100 positive policies is an unnecessary risk. It does give the government ammunition to rant about Labor spending, which the media will pick up and run with. Prior to the raft of policies he has started announcing- many of which have a strong whiff of pork-barrelling- he actually has a pretty strong case to say the current government has been worse economic managers of the country than any Labor government. While I don’t think it hurts to attempt to define themselves as a government that will spend more on the people that need it, this could be done with five or six key policy differences. 100 policies means 100 chances to make a mistake.
Media coverage
There has been saturation coverage of this campaign that still manages to miss a lot. I really don’t care if Turnbull catches a train in Sydney or Shorten visits a school in Launceston. Those photo-op events are not news in themselves. I also would like to see the media give less priority to completely unsubstantiated statements both sides make about their opponents- it is all exaggeration and spin that is never properly backed up– in favour of properly analysing and holding them to account for what they say.
Unfortunately this tit-for-tat retaliatory dialogue and insultingly disingenuous scare campaigns plays well into the sensationalist agenda that is relied to sell papers. Our media organisations feed off fear and drama and you don’t get more theatrics and hyperbole than when a politician starts trying to discredit a rival’s policy position.
It is also clear that impartiality is a challenge for many covering the election. The Murdoch press are known to support conservative agendas and the LNP and this election has been no exception. The government’s performance in the last term has been treated incredibly kindly in comparison to its predecessor at the last election.
Other agencies try to present a more balanced analysis, but that is not always easy. You can almost sense the frustration many reporters and interviewers have with our PM in the way they write and speak. I am sure I am prone to some of this too. Something else that is notable about this election is the plethora of online journalism from non-traditional media outlets that provide alternative perspectives and I wonder if this pattern will slowly decrease the impact of mainstream media bias on politics.
Economic policies
Neither side really gives me any confidence in their economic management. For all the noise the coalition makes about profligate Labor spending promises, they have made over a billion dollars worth of pork-barrel promises in marginal electorates since the start of the campaign. There is a decent case to say no government in the last few decades (including the John Howard era that many conservatives point to as an example of good financial management) has done a particularly good job of economic management.
Both sides are looking at changes to superannuation and I think that is probably appropriate. The tax advantages of superannuation are considerable and winding them back would provide much-needed funds for other areas of the budget. As with any reform, there will be winners and losers from this but the only people who stand to be significantly disadvantaged are those with huge amounts of money in super and as such they don’t have too much to complain about, having made the most of a generous system for as long as they could.
Labor’s negative gearing policy is another point of difference that has significance to me. As the owner of a rental property I was a little concerned about the personal impact it would have on me, but having read the statistics on how much it is costing the federal budget and who is benefiting from it, I reluctantly decided if I had to give up negative gearing I would suck it up.
When the policy was released in full, I realised I would not be affected at all, as the policy would limit negative on properties purchased after July 2017 and later so people like me who rely on negative gearing provisions to afford their rental property will be able to continue to do so. This cleared up a few things for me. Firstly, since my existing property will be unaffected, landlords like myself will have no need to raise rental prices. Secondly no one is going to be forced to sell their houses immediately which would create an oversupply and could potentially have significant impact on property value.
I accept that restricting negative gearing may have some effect on property prices, but again I will wear this if it contributes to a fairer more prosperous country. Because let’s not forget that sometimes we do have to give things up. If there is a problem with our national debt it is not going to fix itself without some action being taken. Malcolm Turnbull started this discussion of tax, stating that our tax system did need to be reformed to provide greater revenue. Then he basically did nothing. It took Bill Shorten actually proposing something get the prime minister to do anything, but his only action was to castigate the Labor proposal with the kind of rhetoric I thought we had seen the end of when Tony Abbott was deposed.
By contrast, the major change the Coalition is proposing is now a tax cut but not for income tax. Still clinging to the anachronistic argument about trickle-down economics- as if the revelations of tax avoidance by companies and the wealthy never happened- Turnbull and Morrison claim that the key to generating greater revenue will by cutting company tax. I know economic modelling is an imprecise art (far too imprecise to call it a science) and maybe they are right, but I am a bit sceptical that this will have the affect we are told it will.
Social policies
Sadly both parties are pretty much in lock-step over our shameful refugee policy. It is a sad indictment on the Australian people and both men themselves that neither leader has the courage to say what everyone knows about these awful camps. On other important policies such as marriage equality and climate policy there is a pretty clear divide. The Labor Party has signalled its intention to move in both of these areas, while the ultraconservatives of the government seem to hold a deathgrip over its social policies. Senior government ministers are still suggesting the science of climate change is undecided- even as the Great Barrier Reef is dying and the country is struck by ever more climate events. Why listen to scientists when you can listen to your political donors from the coal industry, I suppose.
There is also a stark divide between the Labor Party and the Coalition over funding education and health, with the Bill Shorten clearly identifying these as areas of weakness for the government and seeking to exploit it. Strategically this seems a sound strategy, as it is hard to find someone who thinks they are not important priorities for government. I certainly don’t disagree, but I also don’t want to see money thrown at either with no purpose other than wedging political opponents. If money is being pledged in key areas of health and education, I would hope that it is well planned to provide the maximum benefit. More bureaucrats, cosmetic building upgrades and other measures may look good on paper but have little real impact on Australia’s health and education.
My verdict
I think the myth that the coalition handles our economy better has taken a fair battering through the Abbott/Turnbull prime ministership, but I am not convinced by Shorten either. The continued abuse of refugees in our offshore prison camps is something I find especially upsetting, but I don’t see it ending regardless of who wins the election (although Shorten has pledged to increase our refugee intake, which is something I suppose).
Our inaction on climate change is something that does worry me and the COALition is continuing to put its head in the sand, despite the PM’s own stated position on the matter. We had the chance to get on board with the majority of the world with the Paris Talks and add to the momentum for change and we didn’t. We have had years to invest in renewables and we aren’t. This is bad policy and one of the key factors that will sway my vote. I don’t expect an ALP government to move quickly on climate, but I believe they will be better than a party that still tries to pretend climate change is not a confirmed scientific fact.
Unfortunately the election won’t be decided by people carefully considering each party’s position and performance on a range of issues. It is far more likely that it will be decided through the manipulation of people’s fears so that close scrutiny is not required. I expect to hear a lot more from the Coalition about asylum seekers and negative gearing, while Labor will go hard about the Coalition’s cuts to company tax. Sadly I suspect Malcolm Turnbull will get another term (or at least part of another term- wouldn’t surprise me if he was replaced mid-term).
The leaders
I had high hopes for Turnbull when he became prime minister, but that was sadly misplaced. He has really shown little evidence that he will deliver either the progressive policies or the more mature form of government he promised. The concept of another term of Coalition government led by this man scares me, because he is not up to it.
So what of the alternative? Bill Shorten looked dead in the water six months ago, but a lot (or just as tellingly very little) can happen in that time. Inaction and weakness by the PM on a range of issues gave him a lifeline and he is doing his best to make the most of it. He also presented a clear juxtaposition to our indecisive PM, by coming out with some clear policies, some of which could be politically risky.
Tactically, I would think Shorten’s idea for 100 positive policies is an unnecessary risk. It does give the government ammunition to rant about Labor spending, which the media will pick up and run with. Prior to the raft of policies he has started announcing- many of which have a strong whiff of pork-barrelling- he actually has a pretty strong case to say the current government has been worse economic managers of the country than any Labor government. While I don’t think it hurts to attempt to define themselves as a government that will spend more on the people that need it, this could be done with five or six key policy differences. 100 policies means 100 chances to make a mistake.
Media coverage
There has been saturation coverage of this campaign that still manages to miss a lot. I really don’t care if Turnbull catches a train in Sydney or Shorten visits a school in Launceston. Those photo-op events are not news in themselves. I also would like to see the media give less priority to completely unsubstantiated statements both sides make about their opponents- it is all exaggeration and spin that is never properly backed up– in favour of properly analysing and holding them to account for what they say.
Unfortunately this tit-for-tat retaliatory dialogue and insultingly disingenuous scare campaigns plays well into the sensationalist agenda that is relied to sell papers. Our media organisations feed off fear and drama and you don’t get more theatrics and hyperbole than when a politician starts trying to discredit a rival’s policy position.
It is also clear that impartiality is a challenge for many covering the election. The Murdoch press are known to support conservative agendas and the LNP and this election has been no exception. The government’s performance in the last term has been treated incredibly kindly in comparison to its predecessor at the last election.
Other agencies try to present a more balanced analysis, but that is not always easy. You can almost sense the frustration many reporters and interviewers have with our PM in the way they write and speak. I am sure I am prone to some of this too. Something else that is notable about this election is the plethora of online journalism from non-traditional media outlets that provide alternative perspectives and I wonder if this pattern will slowly decrease the impact of mainstream media bias on politics.
Economic policies
Neither side really gives me any confidence in their economic management. For all the noise the coalition makes about profligate Labor spending promises, they have made over a billion dollars worth of pork-barrel promises in marginal electorates since the start of the campaign. There is a decent case to say no government in the last few decades (including the John Howard era that many conservatives point to as an example of good financial management) has done a particularly good job of economic management.
Both sides are looking at changes to superannuation and I think that is probably appropriate. The tax advantages of superannuation are considerable and winding them back would provide much-needed funds for other areas of the budget. As with any reform, there will be winners and losers from this but the only people who stand to be significantly disadvantaged are those with huge amounts of money in super and as such they don’t have too much to complain about, having made the most of a generous system for as long as they could.
Labor’s negative gearing policy is another point of difference that has significance to me. As the owner of a rental property I was a little concerned about the personal impact it would have on me, but having read the statistics on how much it is costing the federal budget and who is benefiting from it, I reluctantly decided if I had to give up negative gearing I would suck it up.
When the policy was released in full, I realised I would not be affected at all, as the policy would limit negative on properties purchased after July 2017 and later so people like me who rely on negative gearing provisions to afford their rental property will be able to continue to do so. This cleared up a few things for me. Firstly, since my existing property will be unaffected, landlords like myself will have no need to raise rental prices. Secondly no one is going to be forced to sell their houses immediately which would create an oversupply and could potentially have significant impact on property value.
I accept that restricting negative gearing may have some effect on property prices, but again I will wear this if it contributes to a fairer more prosperous country. Because let’s not forget that sometimes we do have to give things up. If there is a problem with our national debt it is not going to fix itself without some action being taken. Malcolm Turnbull started this discussion of tax, stating that our tax system did need to be reformed to provide greater revenue. Then he basically did nothing. It took Bill Shorten actually proposing something get the prime minister to do anything, but his only action was to castigate the Labor proposal with the kind of rhetoric I thought we had seen the end of when Tony Abbott was deposed.
By contrast, the major change the Coalition is proposing is now a tax cut but not for income tax. Still clinging to the anachronistic argument about trickle-down economics- as if the revelations of tax avoidance by companies and the wealthy never happened- Turnbull and Morrison claim that the key to generating greater revenue will by cutting company tax. I know economic modelling is an imprecise art (far too imprecise to call it a science) and maybe they are right, but I am a bit sceptical that this will have the affect we are told it will.
Social policies
Sadly both parties are pretty much in lock-step over our shameful refugee policy. It is a sad indictment on the Australian people and both men themselves that neither leader has the courage to say what everyone knows about these awful camps. On other important policies such as marriage equality and climate policy there is a pretty clear divide. The Labor Party has signalled its intention to move in both of these areas, while the ultraconservatives of the government seem to hold a deathgrip over its social policies. Senior government ministers are still suggesting the science of climate change is undecided- even as the Great Barrier Reef is dying and the country is struck by ever more climate events. Why listen to scientists when you can listen to your political donors from the coal industry, I suppose.
There is also a stark divide between the Labor Party and the Coalition over funding education and health, with the Bill Shorten clearly identifying these as areas of weakness for the government and seeking to exploit it. Strategically this seems a sound strategy, as it is hard to find someone who thinks they are not important priorities for government. I certainly don’t disagree, but I also don’t want to see money thrown at either with no purpose other than wedging political opponents. If money is being pledged in key areas of health and education, I would hope that it is well planned to provide the maximum benefit. More bureaucrats, cosmetic building upgrades and other measures may look good on paper but have little real impact on Australia’s health and education.
My verdict
I think the myth that the coalition handles our economy better has taken a fair battering through the Abbott/Turnbull prime ministership, but I am not convinced by Shorten either. The continued abuse of refugees in our offshore prison camps is something I find especially upsetting, but I don’t see it ending regardless of who wins the election (although Shorten has pledged to increase our refugee intake, which is something I suppose).
Our inaction on climate change is something that does worry me and the COALition is continuing to put its head in the sand, despite the PM’s own stated position on the matter. We had the chance to get on board with the majority of the world with the Paris Talks and add to the momentum for change and we didn’t. We have had years to invest in renewables and we aren’t. This is bad policy and one of the key factors that will sway my vote. I don’t expect an ALP government to move quickly on climate, but I believe they will be better than a party that still tries to pretend climate change is not a confirmed scientific fact.
Unfortunately the election won’t be decided by people carefully considering each party’s position and performance on a range of issues. It is far more likely that it will be decided through the manipulation of people’s fears so that close scrutiny is not required. I expect to hear a lot more from the Coalition about asylum seekers and negative gearing, while Labor will go hard about the Coalition’s cuts to company tax. Sadly I suspect Malcolm Turnbull will get another term (or at least part of another term- wouldn’t surprise me if he was replaced mid-term).