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

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.