Wednesday, May 25, 2016
What's more, various of the tax increases it ended up copying from Labor – the further swingeing increases in the excise on tobacco, the crackdown on multinational tax shirkers and the cutbacks in superannuation tax concessions for the wealthy – it had earlier criticised Labor for doing.
Partly because of its change of leader, the Coalition has had trouble deciding what it will or won't do. But also, I suspect, Malcolm Turnbull is the kind of leader who tends to make up his mind in semi-public, weighing the pros and cons before deciding which way to jump.
Labor, on the other hand, made up its mind early about its key policies. That's partly in response to the public's reaction against Tony Abbott's extreme negativity while in opposition.
It's also because, lacking much to offer in the personality department – and anxious to counter memories of division and instability in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years – Labor decided to be the first Opposition since John Hewson and his phonebook-sized Fightback! program to make itself a large target not a small one.
It's been announcing policies for about a year and talking incessantly about its "positive policies" on 100 topics.
The broader point, however, is that the parties aren't nearly as far apart as it suits them to have us believe during election campaigns, when they're whipping up partisan feeling and trying to convince us the choice we make between them will determine whether the economy heads for heaven or hell.
What in recent months we've observed more clearly than usual is the parties manoeuvring for advantage in this year's election campaign.
Most of us have highly stereotypical, caricatured views of the parties' respective strengths and weaknesses.
The Liberals, being the party of the bosses, are better at running things, particularly the economy. They're better at keeping inflation and interest rates low (except that, at present, they're probably too low). They're better at keeping the budget on track, avoiding wasteful spending and excessive taxation.
Labor, being the party of the workers, is better at ensuring wages and working conditions are reasonable. It will do more to keep unemployment low. Being less of a monetary taskmaster, it will do more to ensure government spending on health and education is adequate.
Or so we imagine.
The goal of the parties' manoeuvring is to ensure the main issues over which the election is fought are those that suit their perceived strengths relative to their opponents'.
When an issue arises that favours your opponents, you neutralise it as quickly and quietly as possible – even if that involves going against your stated values.
When, for instance, Abbott tells us of his implacable opposition to higher taxes, so Julia Gillard tries to "wedge" him by proposing a 0.5 percentage-point increase in the Medicare levy to help pay for the national disability insurance scheme, hoping he'll oppose it, he quickly agrees to the increase.
Since the media know election campaigns are about conflict – not about making sure your audience understand what the pollies are doing to them – this two-party conspiracy to raise our taxes is never mentioned again.
Bill Shorten may not have Turnbull's good looks, but I suspect his long experience in the union movement makes him better at political tactics.
Turnbull's vulnerability is that he's easily portrayed as a rich man – Mr Harbourside Mansion – who's out of touch with ordinary Australians, and is in politics to deliver for the Libs' big business backers.
There's a spate of stories about the banks mistreating their customers, so Labor promises a royal commission into banking. Turnbull says that would be quite unnecessary, especially since we already have that ferocious attack dog the Australian Securities and Investments Commission on the job.
What's more, though he's been cutting the commission's funds until now, now he'll increase them.
Who do you think won that skirmish?
At a time when young people are being priced out of home ownership, Labor promises to act against negative gearing. Turnbull thinks of doing something similar, but decides against it. He's defending negative gearers, claiming Labor would cause house prices to collapse.
Who do you think won that skirmish?
There's a spate of stories about big foreign companies paying next to no tax in Australia. Labor promises new taxes to catch them. Turnbull follows suit. What's more, though he's been cutting the Tax Office's funds until now, now he'll increase them.
Because Labor is, as we're always being told, the tax-and-spend party, it has proposed some big tax increases to be paid by smokers, foreign companies and rich superannuants.
It proposes to use the proceeds mainly to restore the funding to health and education cut by the Coalition.
Turnbull copies Labor's three tax increases, but uses the proceeds to help pay for a tiny tax cut for the top quarter of income-earners and a 10-year phased cut in the rate of company tax which, he claims, will do wonders to generate "jobs and growth".
The public believes companies should be paying more tax, not less. Who you think jumped the right way on that one?