Are fears about inadequate debate about key Australian political issues warranted?

Don’t believe some of the recent generalisations floating around about Australian politics. I refer to claims of Australia’s media dumbing down policy debate, supposedly dominated by right-wing Murdoch newspapers. I also refer to the assumption that the Coalition, as Australia’s major centre-right political party, is void of ideas and is just being obstructionist as illustrated by its opposition to the carbon tax.

First, the Australian media is much more diverse than assumed given that many online news and politics sites provide coverage of key issues from different perspectives. As noted in 2008, despite concern that 80 per cent of Australians got most of their news from television, there is an abundance of domestic and international Internet sites along with additional choice through pay television and digital radio.

Second, it is misleading to suggest that the Coalition is void of good ideas, or never leads debate. While the Coalition has opposed Labor over mining and carbon taxation, it is ridiculous to suggest that all arguments should not be given full representation. While the Gillard Government may not like the outcome of the carbon tax debate thus far, a Newspoll (4 May 2011) found that 60 per cent opposed the Gillard Government’s carbon tax despite 72 per cent believing that global warming was partly or mainly caused by human activity. Quite simply, there are reasons why the Australian people are siding with the Coalition, and any other explanation is an insult to their intelligence given that the Australia media is hardly right-wing with the ongoing importance of the ABC alone.

Further, it is a mistake to conclude that the Coalition does not express sentiment on behalf of the vulnerable. After all, it was the Coalition that advocated greater spending on mental health prior to the 2010 federal election before Labor upheld such sentiment through 2011 legislation.

At the same time, many voters accept that the Coalition is more willing to make tough policy decisions, especially after years of higher spending by Labor. Thus, the political cycle of Labor and Coalition governments goes round and round with both important to the political process and debate.  

There are also many policy issues where divided opinion on key political issues helps promote public and media interest and leads to a more balanced policy approach on behalf of the nation. One can remember the influence of the Democrats over the final design of the GST. Further, while the Howard government initially addressed longstanding public concerns about high levels of immigration, levels again increased in better economic times as public opposition softened.

So what are the key challenges ahead?  Yes, the carbon tax is important, although not because it will save the environment. After all, global emissions will continue to rise for some time yet as long as developing nations (especially China) continue to develop and purchase Australia’s raw materials. Rather, the carbon tax debate has to be settled because investors need certainty if they are to start addressing Australia’s critical energy infrastructure needs to deal with a rising population.  

In terms of spending possibilities, Australian governments may have to make tough policy decisions if they are to meet a variety of old and new policy needs.

Already, NSW is experiencing tough decisions taken by the O’Farrell Government. While O’Farrell’s industrial relations reforms are indeed controversial if you are a public servant, there is no doubt that considerable public savings need to be made if other important policy needs are to be addressed, including infrastructure.

With Australians already having a high household debt to income ratio, consumers cannot be expected to carry the burden of debt forever. Hence, major spending and taxation reform may be needed to boost public housing and/or help first home buyers as resources to assist must come from somewhere.

Of course, the need to juggle the consumption capacity of workers to spend along with addressing budgetary constraints is an extremely difficult task for any Western government. But both Labor and the Coalition must argue the virtue of each case if we are to get a sensible balance. The people will decide the fate of the O’Farrell Government at the next state election.

As for social welfare, further cuts are likely if Australia is to live within its means, although the urgency of reform will depend on budgetary circumstances. Any cutbacks have to place an emphasis on those most in need, an approach that should advantage Labor. Although the Coalition argues that the private health insurance rebate reduces pressure on the public system.   

In terms of industry and trade, Australian policy-makers are sadly mistaken to believe that all will be well if only all nations adhere to comparative advantage just because we have an abundance of minerals in the ground. Quite clearly, most Western societies will face tougher times ahead because of the cost of their welfare system and higher wages. Hence, just as other Western nations alter their policy positions to meet their industry needs, so more Australians are likely to debate our growing reliance on mining while manufacturing continues to wane and agriculture faces greater pressure. While a November 2010 Roy Morgan poll indicated that 90 per cent of Australians are “more likely to buy products labeled made in Australia”, it remains to be seen whether Australian consumers can resist cheaper Asian products.

As far as addressing the environment, the importance of the economic imperative may long win the day, unless an environmental catastrophe becomed evident to all. This is despite an April 2011 Roy Morgan poll noting that both environmental and economic issues rated nearly equally as the most important international and domestic issues.The difficulty to balance economic and environmental considerations is also indicated by a  March 2011 Roy Morgan poll indicating 61 per cent of opposition to Australian nuclear power plants, yet 59 per cent support for the export of uranium for peaceful purposes.

Tougher attitudes toward asylum-seekers are also likely to remain, especially if Australia faces greater budgetary limitations in the future. While Australia should take its fair share of refugees, a reasonable obligation as we remain a relatively prosperous nation, most Australians will only support a limited number.

The same can be expected of public attitudes towards immigration. While the overwhelming majority of Australians rightfully have very tolerant views about race, as do most Australian politicians, it will be public sentiment that dictates any greater effort to encourage cultural integration and the extent of immigration.

Again, while the Left will accuse the Coalition of exploiting issues, it is often the public that leads the debate as indicated by growing pressure for Labor to reverse previously relaxed foreign investment rules that saw a major increase of overseas buyers into the Australian housing market.

But individual policies must also be linked if we are to deal with major issues, as evident by increasing housing unaffordability which has recently seen home ownership levels for Australians under 35 decline from 44 to 38 per cent between 2001 and 2008, and the proportion of Australians aged 55 to 64 with mortgages increasing from 13 to 30 per cent between 1996-97 and 2007-08.

Again, Labor has no monopoly on discussion of complex issues, although solutions still are largely absent. As the Coalition’s Kevin Andrews indicated in May 2010, Australia’s housing problems are being caused by a number of factors including “shortages of land, a growing number of heads of households, the ageing population”, and higher immigration. Hence, the Coalition indicated that an annual independent review would determine Australia’s infrastructure needs for short, medium and long-term projected population numbers to decide whether future infrastructure bottlenecks were being addressed, or whether limits of immigration numbers were needed.

There are many issues ahead that will attract extensive coverage by a variety of old and new media sources, and involvement by both major parties (and minor parties and independents). Hence, it is simplistic to suggest that the Australian media is dumbing down debate, or that the Coalition is merely obstructionist. The adversarial nature of Australian politics, representative of some social division (although tempered by bipartisanship on many other issues), will ensure that policies are debated and outcomes are acceptable to the majority of Australians, at least most of the time.