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 article argues the 2013 campaign offered little policy clarity or big ideas, creating political uncertainty for markets. With both major parties largely recycling ideas and not presenting a cohesive long‑term strategy, investors face heightened policy risk—especially around resources, taxes and climate policy—so watching election outcomes and subsequent policy detail is important for portfolio positioning.
The piece notes Australia’s mining boom is expected to wind down as Chinese demand slackens and commodity markets are in turmoil. For investors, that suggests exposure to commodity producers may be riskier and underscores the need to consider diversification into sectors less tied to raw‑material cycles.
According to the article, carbon pricing and taxes on excess mining profits were signature issues pushed by Julia Gillard and opposed by Tony Abbott, though Abbott has shifted on some welfare policies. These policy debates create regulatory uncertainty for energy and resources companies, so investors should factor potential carbon or tax measures into risk assessments for affected sectors.
The article points out that, globally, Australia’s national debt is relatively tame and is expected to peak at about $370 billion in April 2016—still modest compared with many other economies. However, commentators like Joseph Stiglitz warn that an obsession with short‑term deficit cuts could undercut high‑return public investments, which investors should monitor for their long‑term growth implications.
The author argues Australia risks shortchanging high‑return investments in technology, broader internet access, education and modern rail and highways due to short‑term political thinking. For investors, that means these areas could become policy priorities in the future — worth watching for government spending commitments and private‑sector opportunities if long‑term growth strategies emerge.
The article highlights slackening Chinese demand as a key headwind contributing to commodity turmoil. That dynamic can pressure resource companies, related equities and regional economic growth, so investors should consider the sensitivity of holdings to China’s growth and commodity price moves.
The article criticises both major leaders for failing to present a plan to redefine Australia’s economy beyond reliance on mining. For investors, the lack of a clear long‑term strategy increases policy uncertainty and makes it important to focus on businesses and sectors that can thrive irrespective of short‑term political cycles.
The author suggests some election tactics—like hardline asylum policies or small tax tweaks—are aimed at short‑term political gain rather than structural economic reform. Such measures can shift sentiment temporarily but are unlikely, by themselves, to create durable investment trends; investors should watch for substantive policy shifts that affect regulation, infrastructure or fiscal priorities.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
