Gillard versus Abbott: does it really matter who wins?

In terms of security issues, both major parties are likely to remain committed to the US alliance, including efforts to directly confront terrorism fears in Afghanistan. Already Gillard, in a 20-minute phone conversation with the US President on June 25, assured Obama of troop backing in Afghanistan. This is despite public opinion turning further against Afghanistan involvement with the deaths of Australian soldiers.

On asylum seekers, public opinion is likely to force a tough stance by both parties. As Abbott highlighted at his address to the Menzies Research Centre on May 4, 2010 concerning immigration, a recent March 2010 Morgan poll (Finding 4482) found that 64 per cent believed that asylum seekers arriving by boat “should be returned and apply through normal refugee channels”. With Abbott noting “that each unauthorised arrival at Christmas Island costs more than $80,000 to process” at a time when every developed country’s social security system is under pressure, Abbott states how the detainment and processing of asylum seekers at Nauru soon gave people smugglers and their customers “the message” with boat arrivals virtually ceasing.

In regards to immigration, Australia is likely to retain a high per capita intake by developed nation standards under either party.

However, as Abbott indicated at his address to the Menzies Research Centre, the Coalition has led the political debate at a time when the Treasury’s Intergenerational Report in 2010 predicted Australia’s population would rise from about 22 million to 35.9 million in 2050 if current trends in overseas migration and fertility continued. Abbott stated that “a large migrant intake would not be in Australia’s interests if our schools and hospitals are bursting, there is a severe housing shortage and our big cities are choking on their own traffic”. He has declared that a Coalition government would re-constitute the Productivity Commission as the Productivity and Sustainability Commission and task it with an annual independent review of Australia’s infrastructure needs for short, medium and long term projected population numbers.

Such sentiment by Abbott is in line with growing public concern. Already, with Australia’s economic growth slowing during 2009 and 2010, an April 2010 Morgan poll (Finding 4482) found that 81 per cent did not want Australia’s population above 35 million by 2040 (60 per cent actually wanted less than 30 million). A 2010 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes also found that about 70 per cent of Australians did not think that the country needed more people with the top concern that “we should train our own skilled people, rather than take them from other countries”.

And surprise, surprise. Regarding a “big Australia”, Gillard has now declared, “we need to stop, take a breath and develop policies for a sustainable Australia”, and “I support a population that our environment, our water, our soil, our roads and freeways, our busses, our trains and our services can sustain”. This was despite Rudd already backing away from his earlier comment that he favoured a “big Australia” in light of public opinion after immigration levels reached 300,000 last year.

Both parties, despite some differences, will also urge immigrants to learn English, Australian history and respect Australian values including the rule of law and the equality of men and women.

To conclude, while many voters may cite important differences about why they vote Labor or the Coaliton (or others), this article has suggested that it is often public debate which shapes policy direction on many issues. Hence, fears about a certain political party are often overstated as Australia’s pragmatic tradition means that both have to remain near the centre and seek incremental change in line with their different centre-left and centre-right perspectives over the degree of government intervention.

For myself, the Australian experience suggests that we have little to fear from a vote for Gillard or Abbott, although our votes will be determined by very different reasons.