Australia Prepares to Vote

The Australian electorate will go to the polls on Sept. 7 to choose a new federal government. The current minority Australian Labor Party (ALP) government has done everything possible to provide the best opportunity for the opposition Liberal-National coalition to form the next government. A quick rundown of recent developments will make this conclusion clearer.
 
The social-democratic ALP won the federal election of 2007 under the leadership of Kevin Rudd. As re-election was coming closer, the popularity ratings of both himself and the party were decreasing. His Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard deposed him in a bloodless intra-party coup. Becoming prime minister, she led her party into the 2010 federal election to re-emerge as the largest party in parliament, albeit short of a working majority. Gillard gathered parliamentary support from third parties and was able to form an effective administration. During her term in office, Rudd worked under Gillard as her foreign minister until February 2012 when he unsuccessfully challenged her for the party leadership.
 
Rudd's return to the backbenches led most political observers to believe that this was the end of his political career. As the 2013 federal election drew closer, this time it was Gillard's turn to experience low ratings in the public opinion polls. The ALP decided to replace Gillard with Rudd at the helm to contest the forthcoming election. Once again the polls effectively decided the fate of the leadership election. Rudd's personal ratings have always been very high, -apart from a blip in 2010- generally outperforming the party that he leads. According to opinion polls, his party still trails Tony Abbott's Liberal Party. Nonetheless, the polls also indicate that since he was re-elected as party leader in June, he has started to close this gap.
 
From this very brief summary of the last six years of Australian politics, we can see that the governing ALP is about as far from united as possible, having called four party leadership elections and held three while in office and having changed prime ministers twice -- in three years. These are opportunities that opposition parties can only dream of. Therefore, most political commentators believe that the next Australian prime minister will be the leader of the Liberal-National coalition, Abbott, who is no stranger to government, having served as employment as well as health minister in the governments of John Howard in the 2000s.
 
Televised debate
 
The major differences between the two political parties were highlighted in the first televised leaders' debate that took place last Sunday, Aug. 11. During the hour-long debate Rudd declared his belief that all Australians have a right to a fair and equal opportunity, with the election in essence being about the future strength of the economy and who is best placed to secure it. He highlighted the fact that it was his government that helped to keep interest rates low -- the lowest in the last 60 years. Australia's international credibility was also alluded to by mentioning the maintenance of its AAA credit rating by the international credit agencies.
 
Abbott, on the other hand, pursued and portrayed a classical conservative election manifesto focusing very much on cutting taxes, thus, balancing the budget. The Liberal-National coalition has offered to build roads in all the federal states, thereby appealing to as wide a range of the electorate as possible.
 
One of the problems facing the opposition leader is the accusation that his sums do not add up. If his party cuts taxes so heavily, how will they find the funding to finance government programs? He himself has stated that he is committed to cutting AU$17 billion ($15 billion) which he believes will be counterbalanced by a series of savings equal to that amount.
 
During the debate Rudd seized on the fact that the treasury spokesman for the opposition coalition had said that there was in fact an AU$70 billion ($64 billion) funding gap. Furthermore, he warned that this gap between taxation and spending would end up being filled by an increase in the goods and services tax, a regressive tax similar to value-added tax. Despite frequent denials from Abbott that this would not be the case, it left a lingering impression that there was no other alternative to find the required revenue for such programs.
 
Rudd accused his opponent of being too close to big business through proposing tax cuts -especially abolishing mining taxes- which would help very large corporations while not affecting small and medium enterprises. Abbott accepted carbon tax cuts designed to increase jobs, which should help people to meet their costs of living. He forecast that abolishing the carbon tax would mean an AU$550 ($500) saving for the average household. He admitted that an educational assistance scheme called the ‘School Kids Bonus', which according to Rudd costs AU$410 ($373) a year for a primary school child and doubles to AU$820 ($746) a year for a secondary school child, would end with his government. Naturally, this scheme is something very much appreciated by poor families.
 
The government's central accusation against the opposition is that they care far more about businesses than they do about Australian families. That is certainly going to be an important issue which will be weighed against other promises by the Australian electorate on Sept. 7.
 
Opinion polls
 
Throughout the debate, Abbott did not make any mistakes, but neither was he able to deliver a knockout punch. Perhaps he did not need to, as his party is leading the ALP. However, that lead is as close as 51-49 according to some pollsters. Moreover, he was uncomfortable providing detailed answers to specific questions. A good example of this was when he mentioned that "as far as an incoming coalition government is concerned, the priority will be on things like reducing the cost of living pressure and increasing job security." While this of course holds a certain appeal to the electorate, it is rather bland and general, while in an election campaign the voters clamor for more specific promises and policies. Abbott did make one specific pledge, however, proclaiming that his coalition was committed to delivering a 5 percent reduction in carbon emissions.
 
In terms of firm pledges this was matched by Rudd's commitment to same-sex marriage, thus nailing his colors of social equality to the electoral mast. Along with the success that his government had made in terms of job creation, he highlighted his support for families facing difficulties with the cost of living, as well as its investments in education, declaring that "nearly 190,000 more kids are in university than when we first came to office." Furthermore, other investments were also emphasized and in terms of technology, the National Broadband Network, which connects every home to high-speed Internet was another popular theme.
 
In the final analysis, the central tactic used against the opposition was identification of the areas where they would spend, and equally importantly where they could save better.
 
With three weeks until the Australian electorate's decision, the federal election is not for Rudd to win, but for Abbott to lose. Should he continue making political gaffes during his campaign and maintain a lackluster style, the result could be similar to the previous election of 2010: a hung parliament. The only difference this time might be that, instead of the ALP being the largest party in parliament, it will be the Liberal-National coalition. If Rudd emerges victorious and remains prime minister, the ALP should call him Lazarus.