Does anyone know if this election is going to include an election policy speech in the traditional sense from Rudd or Howard (or has there been one that I missed?). In every election I can recall, the party leaders made a speech setting out their major policy commitments. With two weeks to go and the big money spent long ago, I’m wondering if this tradition has been abandoned.

Mark Latham has a piece in the Review section of today’s Fin, excoriating the policy convergence that has characterized the election campaign, and Australian politics more generally. The catchphrase that’s caught media attention is “a Seinfeld election, a show about nothing”.

I generally agree, though I’ll note that, to complete the case, Latham needs to do a bit of convergence of his own, arguing that the election doesn’t matter as regards climate change because the big powers will decide everything. I disagree. Howard’s status as Bush’s most reliable ally makes this one of the rare occasions when what Australia decides will make a difference.

A “gaffe” in Australian politics normally consists of speaking the truth when it is politically inconvenient. So, are Peter Garrett’s remarks that Labor would “change it all” after the election a “gaffe” in this sense, as suggested by the reporter in question, a joke, as Garrett said, or something in between.

My view is “something in between”. That is, there is no secret plan to junk Labor’s promises, but a lot of people wish there was.

In most elections, parties make promises, to secure electoral support, that they would rather not keep, either because they regard them as bad public policy or because they reward interest groups that are not seen as actually deserving such rewards. This election has seen plenty of that from both sides, with the biggest single example being Labor’s decision to match Howard’s tax cuts. Most Labor supporters would regard this as a bad promise in several ways. First, large advance commitments of this kind are bad macroeconomic policies. Second, it would be better to allocate more money to services like health and education. Finally, the tax cuts mostly reward the upper income groups that are the natural constituency of the Liberals.

Following the last two changes of Federal government, the incoming party fabricated a crisis and junked their inconvenient (“non-core”) promises. Much though I dislike a lot of the (com)promises Rudd has made, I hope Labor does not do the same. Democratic processes are more important then getting the best policy outcome in the short term.

Over the fold is an excerpt from a Fin article I wrote in September, suggesting that, despite the “me-too” nature of the campaign, the outcome will make a difference. I think the analysis is still right, except that the ferocity of the government’s anti-union campaign has shifted the ground a bit. If the government gets back in, even with a narrow majority, they will clearly feel justified in pushing through their maximal anti-union agenda. Conversely, the unions now know they have to stick with Rudd come what may, and he has an obvious interest in demonstrating his supremacy. So I suspect he’ll give them nothing more than the minimal changes that have been promised.
Read More »