Election 2013 underlines pitiful state of Australian politics
That doesn't even include the sexist whisper campaign against an unmarried, childless, atheist woman. Or the 2011 television show At Home With Julia, which depicted Gillard lying naked under an Australian flag after having sex in her office with her boyfriend. Or the abiding image of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott at a Parliament House rally alongside protesters carrying a "Ditch the Witch" banner.
And it was all for naught. If there were ever proof that Gillard wasn't dispatched for her performance, this election campaign is it. Other than co-opting her signature ideas on education, disability care and other issues, Abbott and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd have offered nothing new or insightful to voters.
Rudd dispatched Gillard in a party coup three years after she had done the same to him. He claimed revenge wasn't driving him, but audacious ideas about accelerating growth, raising competitiveness and preparing for the day Australia's mining boom winds down apparently weren't either. After calling an election in hopes of profiting from his personal popularity, what has Rudd offered? Hardline policies on asylum seekers to pander to the right and small-beer tax policies.
Although he's the favourite, Abbott has hardly distinguished himself either. Sure, he's against the carbon-emission policies and taxes on excessive mining profits favoured by Gillard and Rudd. But he's moved in their direction on a variety of public welfare initiatives.
The real problem is that neither man has come up with a plan to redefine Australia's economy and its place in the world. Neither has connected with younger voters.
Abbott seems to think he doesn't need to think big - that he can just sit back and watch Labor implode, declare the party isn't worthy of governing, and, voila! election landslide. According to polls, this strategy may well work. Rudd's sliding approval numbers must have Gillard supporters drowning in schadenfreude.
But the run-up to September 7 doesn't bode well for Australia's future, especially following a 2010 vote dubbed the Seinfeld Election, meaning that it was about nothing. Here we are, three years on, and Chinese demand is slackening. Commodity markets are in turmoil. Climate change is intensifying. Dismayed by the complacency he sees in Canberra, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has warned about a "crisis down under".
Stiglitz is worried about "deficit fetishism". The candidates seem obsessed with who's spending a couple of billion dollars more than the other. Yet in a world where red ink is flooding Europe, Japan and the US, Australia's national debt is comparatively tame. If government debt peaks at $370 billion in April 2016, as expected, it will still only be equivalent to South Korea's currency reserve. In a global context, the ink on Australia's balance sheet is a faint shade of pink.
On the other hand, short-term thinking in Canberra risks shortchanging high-return investments in technology, education, broader internet access, and a state-of-the-art rail and highway system. Australia needs to make these kinds of investments now if it's ever to develop a growth strategy that doesn't depend on digging stuff out of the ground and shipping it to China.
Part of the problem is the legacy of 13 largely wasted years under John Howard (1996-2007) and Rudd (2007-2010) before he returned to power. The heavy lifting done by former prime ministers Bob Hawke (1983-1991) and Paul Keating (1991- 1996) turned Australia into a Group of 20 power. It is now the world's 12th biggest economy thanks to their steps to float the dollar, open the financial industry, remove import barriers and create a compulsory national pension program. On the economy, Howard and Rudd kept the plane on autopilot.
When Gillard proposed setting a price on carbon emissions, when she wanted to shake up education, spread the mining wealth, empower the nation's indigenous people, and achieve greater gender equality in a "blokey" society, she was leading and reading from the Hawke-Keating script. Rudd and Abbott? Strictly Seinfeld.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
The 2013 Australian election highlighted political instability — with Julia Gillard ousted in June and Kevin Rudd calling an early vote for September 7 — and a lack of bold economic plans from the major parties. For investors, that translates into policy uncertainty that can increase market volatility, especially in areas exposed to government decisions like mining, climate policy and infrastructure spending.
The article notes China’s demand is slackening and commodity markets are in turmoil as Australia’s mining boom winds down. That environment can pressure resource stocks and related sectors in portfolios. Everyday investors should be aware that heavy exposure to commodities or miners could carry heightened risk while the economy adjusts.
The piece describes Julia Gillard proposing a price on carbon and taxes on excess mining profits, positions supported by Labor leaders, while Tony Abbott opposed those measures. Policy shifts on carbon pricing or mining taxes can materially affect energy, resources and industrial companies, so investors should monitor party platforms and possible changes in regulation or tax settings.
No — the article quotes concerns about excessive focus on deficits but reports Australia’s national debt is comparatively tame. It cites an expected peak around $370 billion in April 2016, which would still be modest in a global context. That suggests macro debt risk is lower than in many other advanced economies, though fiscal choices still matter for long-term growth.
Yes. The article warns that short-termism in Canberra risks underfunding high-return public investments — such as technology, education, broader internet access, and modern rail and highway systems — which are important for developing a growth strategy beyond resource dependence. Underinvestment in these areas could limit future economic growth and opportunities for investors in related industries.
Based on the article’s analysis, investors should watch the resources/mining sector (given the slowing boom and commodity turmoil), technology and education-related sectors (linked to long-term growth), infrastructure and transport (rail/highways), and areas affected by climate policy such as energy and emissions-intensive industries. Tracking policy announcements will be key.
The article cites Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz’s concern about ‘deficit fetishism’ and notes campaign focus on small differences in spending. For investors, that means campaign rhetoric may emphasize short-term budget comparisons rather than long-term growth strategies. It’s important to look beyond headline spending battles to whether governments plan productive investments that support sustainable economic expansion.
The article argues that neither Kevin Rudd nor Tony Abbott presented big ideas to boost competitiveness or prepare for the end of the mining boom, and neither connected with younger voters. For investors, the lack of a coherent long-term economic reform agenda could imply slower structural change, meaning opportunities tied to deep reform (advanced tech, education, modern infrastructure) may be delayed while uncertainty persists.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
