Democracy can deliver harsh outcomes, but whoever is the victor, it should be remembered the policy platforms of each major party have strengths and weaknesses. The challenge for each voter is to determine which best suits their preferences, or priorities (as outlined to a degree in this paper today and online with Fairfax Media's YourVote survey).
The choice made in the ballot on July 2 could usher momentous change. A double-dissolution election is a rarity in Australia, and the prospect of a party governing with control in both the lower house and senate, or for a fresh wave of independent actors to win seats, stands to profoundly reshape the political contest in the country.
There is a disturbing and growing gap between wealthy and disadvantaged schools.Credit: Glen McCurtayne
The Sunday Age urged a vote for Tony Abbott in the 2013 election, believing Labor under Kevin Rudd had forfeited the trust of the community.
Mr Abbott manifestly failed to live up to his promise of mature government, bringing down a crippling and unfair first budget in 2014 from which he never recovered and so was replaced by his colleagues. Malcolm Turnbull promised a fresh style, but his leadership remains shackled by the rigid ideological agenda of his predecessor. For all Mr Turnbull's talk of Australia entering an age of exciting opportunity, his government is looking to the past on questions of climate change and same-sex marriage. Its commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and fostering renewable energy falls patently short of what is required.
The PM has also fallen short with his vision for the National Broadband Network, which should be an essential tool of commerce and communication in a nation of innovation.
But it is also on questions of the economy that we now urge a return to Labor. The Coalition's pitch to be returned to government has principally revolved around company tax cuts and a belief the benefits will trickle down to the rest of the economy. Mr Turnbull has proposed reducing the corporate tax rate to 25 per cent for all businesses in the next decade. The estimated cost of this promised tax cut is staggering; approximately $50 billion, offset in part by a crackdown on multinational tax avoidance. Mr Turnbull argues that Australians should have faith the overall economy will grow as a consequence. But services will have to be slashed to fund this $50 billion policy.
Labor has instead pledged to target education, proposing to spend $37 billion over a decade to fund the Gonski reforms, with a focus on better outcomes in learning and teaching. The need for investment is urgent. There is a disturbing and growing gap between wealthy and disadvantaged schools. Labor has proposed to fund its education plan by increasing the excise on cigarettes and targeting multinational tax avoidance.
It is welcome that both parties have recognised the problem of companies shifting profits overseas to minimise tax obligations. Both parties have also sought to limit the perks of superannuation, which, as is often remarked, is intended as a scheme to fund retirement, not generate wealth.
Different economists will argue about specific details, but a survey by the Economic Society of Australia and Monash Business School last week found most agreed that Australia's economy would benefit more in the long run by spending on quality education, rather than offering a tax cut to business. This sensibly acknowledges a smarter society will be more productive.
Australia should also strive for fairness and address what has become a crisis in affordable housing. The rules around a negative gearing skew the property market in favour of wealthy investors. Labor has proposed to restrict negative gearing to new homes from July 2017, and halve the capital gains tax discount to 25 per cent. The Coalition has responded with a scare campaign, warning small "mum and dad" investors of a crash in house prices.
The warning is misplaced. Australia simply cannot afford to persist with this system. Tax deductions for negative gearing in the 2014 financial year totalled a hit to the budget of about about $11 billion. The Grattan Institute has demonstrated the top 10 per cent of income earners receive almost half the benefits. Given government debt sits at about $430 billion, with annual interest payments to rise to $19 billion by 2020, negative gearing as it now stands is a luxury we cannot afford.
Labor has run a scare campaign of its own, warning the Coalition intends to privatise Medicare. The claim is patent rubbish, and diminishes Bill Shorten's credibility. The Labor leader should have focused his argument on the government's decision to extend the freeze on Medicare rebates to doctors until 2020, threatening the ability of general practitioners to offer bulk-billing, one of the central tenets of universal healthcare. The Coalition has effectively introduced by stealth its much maligned "co-payment" proposal, shifting the burden to doctors.
Labor has risked a big-target campaign by presenting bold policies, and while the party is yet to resolve its vexed relationship with unions, Mr Shorten deserves the chance to govern.