Policy differences exist

Apparently this is the most insipid federal election in living memory.  So say journalists, commentators and academics.  The election is ''pretty dull, boring, issue-less'', according to John Keane, professor of politics at Sydney University and author of The Life and Death of Democracy.

On the ABC's PM program last week he called it the ''K-Mart election''.  The theory is that the parties want to minimise whatever difference there is between them.  Both want to be K-Mart.

Keane says ''apolitical politics'' has replaced policy and politics.

It's easy and fashionable to describe this election as dull, boring, and issueless -- but it would be wrong.

Even at its most superficial level the campaign is enthralling.  The effort of ALP insiders to sink Julia Gillard via a series of audacious leaks against her is the most flagrant effort to derail a campaign since Joh-for-Canberra.  But this time it's worse.  Joh Bjelke-Petersen and John Howard were in different parties, and Howard was in opposition.

In this campaign the finger is being pointed at a former prime minister to whom Gillard was deputy, and someone she has promised will be in her cabinet if she's re-elected.

And now we have the PM admitting that up until a few days ago she'd allowed herself to be presented as a fake, and from now on she'll be ''real''.  There's nothing boring about that.

Some of the policy differences are stark.  Supposedly there's no bigger issue than climate change.  The ALP is committed to imposing a price on carbon.  The Coalition has said it won't.

That's a pretty fundamental difference on what we're told will be the defining policy issue of the next few decades.

Similarly the ALP is committed to raising taxes on mining companies.  The Coalition opposes the tax.  And then there's the story of the largest and most costly infrastructure project in the nation's history.  The ALP wants to build a national broadband network.  The Coalition says it will abandon it.

On population policy there's a large measure of agreement between the parties.  And while you can argue about the merits of the parties' policies, nonetheless they each actually do have a position on the issue.  What's more, there are many policies that are not getting the attention they deserve.

There's superannuation, for example.  Labor wants to increase the level of compulsory superannuation.  The Coalition is uncommitted.

There's also the debate about the direction of education policy.  Chris Pyne, Coalition spokesman on education, wants to allow parents to claim a tax rebate of up to $1000 on the fees they pay to government and non-government schools.  It's a major reform and another step towards introducing vouchers, which would give parents a real choice between schools.  Vouchers are controversial and will be bitterly opposed by the teachers' union.

This week Gillard announced a program to give principals in government schools more autonomy.  Again it's a contentious policy, and while it doesn't go far enough because it doesn't give principals the right to hire and fire teachers, it's nonetheless a positive development.  Pyne and Gillard's announcements are important and both contain a fair chunk of policy and politics.  Their policies are hardly symptoms of ''apolitical politics''.

It's true that political campaigns in Australia usually don't have the grand visions and sweeping rhetoric of United States campaigns.  Americans get ''Yes We Can''.  We get ''Moving Forward''.  At this election we're forced to choose Gillard or Tony Abbott for prime minister.  Americans got to pick from Barack Obama and a war hero for president.  Australians get the substance, and Americans get the glamour.  Fortunately Australia isn't America, and luckily neither Gillard nor Abbott are Obama.

This is far from an ''issue-less'' election.  If you can't find the issues of this campaign, you're not looking very hard.  Many of the big issues of this campaign have something in common -- they're about economics and finance.  Which is why people think the campaign is boring.

To most journalists economics issues are worthy, but dull.  To most, delving into the minutiae of the uplift factor for tax losses for resource companies isn't as interesting as debating whether Australia should be a republic.

It might just be that the people who think this election dull and boring are the same people who think economics boring.  The problem with the 2010 federal election campaign might not be the campaign itself, it might be with the people who are writing about it.

ADVERTISEMENT