Australian election “debate”: A stage-managed farce By Patrick O’Connor 12 August 2013 Last night’s televised debate between Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and opposition leader Tony Abbott underscored the hollow and deceitful character of the official campaign for the September 7 election now underway. Throughout the stage-managed proceedings the two leaders demonstrated a right-wing bipartisan approach on every issue raised, while concealing the real agenda to be implemented after the election. For the corporate elite and its media outlets, the contest between Rudd and Abbott largely comes down to who can be best relied upon to implement US and European-style austerity measures, eliminating welfare, public healthcare and education. These issues dominated the hour-long debate. David Speers of Sky News chaired the event and put the first question to Rudd, why government spending was now higher than it was under the former Howard government. Questioning Abbott, Speers asked how he was going to cut spending. Peter Hartcher from Fairfax Media asked the same question more stridently. He cited recent statements by former Treasury secretary Ken Henry, that any future government, Labor or Liberal, would be compelled to implement “a permanent process of cutting spending.” Hartcher demanded that Rudd and Abbott explain which spending programs they would eliminate. Neither leader provided a direct answer. Rudd and Abbott are well aware that they would not be elected if they openly spelled out the next round of spending cuts demanded by big business. Both suggested that the problem could be avoided by “growing the economy” but neither explained how that could be done in conditions of global economic slump. Rudd repeated his vacuous slogan—the need for a “transition” now that the mining boom is over—but when questioned could not explain what that meant. Rudd’s strategy has been to make coded promises to big business on the one hand, while on the other accusing Abbott of preparing “slash and burn” spending cuts targeting health and education. In his opening address, the prime minister pointedly referred to the record of the Hawke-Keating Labor governments from 1983–1996 in making the “transition” from “the old economy”—the period of major pro-market restructuring that led to a massive transfer of wealth from the working class to the corporate elite. He also cited the spending cuts contained in the government’s recent “mini-budget” which also contained a pledge to make any additional cuts required to eliminate the deficit. Rudd then turned on Abbott, declaring that it was “important to be transparent about what you’re going to cut and what you’re going to save”, adding that Abbott had “a continued policy of evasion on this.” Journalists also asked how Abbott was going to keep his promise to balance the budget while cutting corporate taxes and boosting spending. Insofar as Abbott has a strategy, it is to lie and rely on the widespread animosity and distrust towards the Labor government. Time and again, he repeated his slogan: “We cannot afford another three years like the last six.” He flatly denied that a Coalition government would increase the regressive goods and services tax (GST) and rejected claims he would need to implement $70 billion of new cuts to balance the budget. At one point, Abbott declared indignantly: “This idea that the coalition is ready with a great big scalpel to slash health, to slash education, to slash jobs, is simply wrong.” This is a blatant lie. Abbott’s shadow treasurer Joe Hockey spelled out the ultimate agenda of both major parties in a major speech last year. He called for an end to the “age of entitlement”, with all spending on welfare and social services to be eliminated. But Rudd did not press Abbott on the issue, knowing full well that a Labor government will also have to meet big business demands for “slash-and-burn” budget cuts. In fact, no one really challenged anyone on any issue of substance—indicating the underlying agreement throughout the political and media establishment about the corporate agenda that must be implemented. Issues affecting millions of working people—unemployment, low wages, poverty, deteriorating services—were not discussed at all. But, unsurprisingly, the reactionary campaign against asylum seekers featured strongly in last night’s debate. Leaders and panel journalists alike agree on making refugees the scapegoat for the social crisis. Debate host David Speers declared that in addition to the question of the economy and spending cuts, the entry of asylum seekers into Australia by sea was “the other big issue in this election campaign.” Rudd and Abbott engaged once again in their obscene bidding war to prove who can be “toughest” on some of the world’s most vulnerable people. Rudd attacked Abbott from the right, boasting of his policy of permanently barring refugees from ever claiming asylum in Australia by illegally dumping them in Papua New Guinea. The problem with the former Howard government’s “Pacific Solution”, the prime minister stated, was that the majority of refugees deported to Nauru “used it as a wait station and within a couple of years were in Australia anyway.” A single question on social policy was put to Rudd and Abbott, on their respective aged-care plans. Here, right-wing bipartisanship was again on display. The opposition leader declared “on this issue there isn’t an enormous difference between the coalition and the government,” adding that he agreed with the government’s agenda. Neither leader spelled out the policy, which is to promote more privatised care services and compel the elderly to pay the full cost of this care. The debate only served to demonstrate the debased character of official politics in Australia, and the chasm that separates the entire parliamentary setup from the interests and concerns of the working class. During the hour-long event there was no mention of foreign policy. This underscored the main purpose of the debate, to chloroform public opinion. Since the 2010 election, the Obama administration has advanced its strategic “pivot to Asia” with plans to shift 60 percent of US naval and air forces to the Indo-Pacific in an aggressive attempt to encircle China. Australia has been placed on the front line of US war preparations, with a new American Marine base in Darwin and greater US access to other Australian military bases. Whistler-blower Edward Snowden has revealed that US-controlled spy bases in Australia including Pine Gap play a central role in Washington’s vast illegal global surveillance programs. The absence of any discussion of these issues in last night’s debate reflects a conscious decision within ruling circles to maintain an election campaign blackout on the implications of the US “pivot” and the growing danger of a US-China war. Copyright © 1998-2013 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved
Posted on: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 06:50:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015