Election day and the state of policy debate

At the same time, there are calls to boost productivity growth which has declined from the 1990s average of 2.1 per cent to 1.4 per cent since 200 (especially since 2004).

Hewitt also asked how Australia would cut greenhouse gas emissions without a price on carbon. A survey by the Energy Supply Association indicates that electricity generators have already reduced capital spending on power stations by $10 billion because of the uncertainty over carbon pricing.

Ross Gittins (The Age) also addressed policy needs.

While he noted that national income has been growing strongly because of coal and iron ore exports, he expressed concern about whether Australia encourages lasting benefit from the extra revenue going to government - for a time when the resource boom ends.

Gittins urged Australia to focus on high-value services, not manufacturing. He called for greater public (and private) investment in education, training and research on the basis that this should raise productivity in the longer term. Gittins argued a key challenge is to “(temporarily) constrain consumer spending to make room for more business investment and public infrastructure spending”.

To address housing, Gittins urged supply-side reform “to remove state and local governments' obstructions to medium-density housing and the release of serviced land”. He also noted that high immigration makes a negative contribution to productivity improvement, and demanded increased investment in business equipment, housing and public infrastructure.

Finally, Gittins called for “a careful, evidence-based examination of what is a sustainable population, in which the economists, technological optimists and natural scientists box it out”.

So awareness of the complex and important issues remains evident, even on election day when the obsession is with who wins. It is the many important issues of concern that demand greater political action rather than a mere focus on who will deliver a budget surplus first and by how much, as reflected by Labor indicating a $3.1 billion surplus in 2012-13 and the Coalition $6.2 billion.

Of course, especially after the waste of Labor, there will be an ongoing need for government prudence. For instance, it is worth noting that Labor’s national broadband network (NBN) proposal (originally announced at $43 billion) aimed to produce Internet speeds of 100Mbps, yet Stephen Fenech (Daily Telegraph) noted on election day that his $20 upgrade to his Optus cable broadband service had already achieved this speed via an updated HFC (hybrid fibre coaxial) cable. Fenech rightfully questioned is there really a need to spend $8,000 per household via Labor’s proposal.

Once the government is formed, the media should give ongoing attention to policy needs that will help shape Australia’s future in coming years. The problems are immense: transport, infrastructure, housing, health, education, and water.

In regard to housing, arguably the most important need of most people, debate was almost non-existent among the major parties during the election campaign, despite an increasing minority of Australians confronting higher and higher prices for home purchase or rent.

If Australia’s political leaders do not deal with key issues sooner rather than later, then future generations of Australians will suffer. Sure short-term political considerations are important, but they merely postpone the pain, and a mining boom will not last forever.