Capitalising on 'me-tooism'

Health care took up a fair amount of column inches and airtime but at the end of the day all we got was a further commitment to the principles of Medicare. It is has long been rusted on policy position in both camps in recognition of its popular appeal.

When it comes to health we did get the threat from Rudd that unless the states cleaned up their act he would move to bring hospital management back to the commonwealth. That position did excite a few commentators but in principle it is consistent with the progressive centralisation of control to which the then government aspired. They certainly wanted to wrest the control of hospitals and health services from the states; they merely lacked a plan and the will, at the time, to do so.

The Coalition flattered itself on its economic credentials. John Howard together with Peter Costello led an economically conservative government. Kevin Rudd too is an avowed economic conservative. He is committed to budget surpluses. In fact from a Labor point of view budget surpluses seem mandatory at a federal level and indeed in all the states.

In spite of the assertions that both leaders are economic conservatives both major parties were keen to give armfuls of money back to the electorate rather than engage in infrastructure spending. Spot the difference if you can.

But also spot the error. Many economists will tell you we missed out on a golden opportunity to re-invest in national infrastructure. But both parties keener on forming government than nation building promised to give us tax cuts knowing full well they were inflationary and soon to be eaten up with rising mortgage rates and fuel prices. This flawed policy position is a direct result of the avarice described by Ted Mack back in 2001.

Errors like that are destined to continue unless we seek real political change.

While refugees and immigration were glossed over in the election campaign it was harmony that reigned over both camps. Neither party wanted to frighten the horses on immigration this time around. The Labor party even supported the introduction of the cosmetic citizenship test. Years before the current paranoia about immigrants infected the community it was Labor that brought in mandatory detention. Even though the coalition turned the management of this process into and art form there is no real talk of dismantling the policy.

Education was a big-ticket item for both parties. Rudd touted a revolution and quoted very many chapters to it. Both parties want better standards as does the community but little if anything really sets them apart. In fact the only policy divergence of substance on the education front was during the Whitlam years. It was his policies that saw many of the incumbents in Parliament benefit from free tertiary education. No such luck for their children.

That largesse changed. But it was a Labor Government that brought in the changes. They introduced the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. The coalition has merely gilded that particular lily. Even though the costs of higher education are spiralling it is unlikely that there will be any real change to the underlying principles about funding higher education.

Some might say defence represents a marked point of difference. But the Labor party will maintain a presence in Afghanistan. They will also continue to play a role in Timor and the Pacific nations if required. Both parties are committed to the alliance with the American’s on most things military.

Sure, Labor will get out of Iraq, in part at least, but our presence there was at best tokenistic. Just as our presence there was merely symbolic so too will be our partial withdrawal from that war zone. Labor party adherents will again use it as a sign of political differentiation but in reality it is a sign of how insignificant our role really was. To be really different you need to be different on something that really matters.

And most recently we had the National apology to the Indigenous population. The Leader of the Opposition Dr Nelson, it seems, largely agreed with the position of the Rudd Government. And so it seems did many of his colleagues in Parliament today along with former Senator Fred Chaney and former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. Still, with a generous dose of bi-partisanship backing him, Nelson felt compelled by the irresistible forces that seem to possess oppositions to deliver an unnecessary and largely irrelevant and different take on the matter of our past treatment of Aborigines.