Introduction
On May 21st 2022, voters will once again make their way to the polls for a Federal Election. The following is a quick look at the following areas of policy offered by the Coalition, Labor, and the Greens;
- Aged Care
- Anti-Corruption
- Child Care
- Climate Change
- Defence
- Education
I’ve unfortunately run out of time in the lead-up to the election to cover more areas such as electric vehicles, farming, health, housing, the NDIS, refugees, social security, taxation, and more. I would have also loved to have debunked some popular political smear, as well as popular political boast. However, that will have to wait for another time.
With that said, let’s jump into some facts with a sprinkle of opinion.
Aged Care
Policy around aged care is largely situated around the recommendations of the 2021 Aged Care Royal Commission, which among other things found that an estimated one-in-three people living in aged care in Australia experience neglect, and physical or emotional abuse.
The Coalition is committing funds to additional home care packages, requiring that a registered nurse be on site for at least 16 hours per day, mandating that at least three hours and 20 minutes be spent with each resident per day (with 40 minutes of that time being with a registered nurse), subsiding education and training for those looking to enter the industry, embedding pharmaceutical services within aged care facilities, strengthening regulations around the use of restraints, extra regional funding, and more. However, they have critically refused to support an increase in aged care worker pay. Instead, they have promised existing workers 2 bonus payments of $400, which I find insulting and inadequate. Additionally, the amount of at-home care packages is expected to fall short of clearing the backlog of those waiting to receive one, despite arguments to the contrary from the coalition. They have also rejected these improvements be funded by a ‘Medicare levy-style’ tax and will instead fund from existing tax revenue.
Labor promises a registered nurse on-site 24/7 and will mandate that at least three hours and 35 minutes with each resident — 15 minutes more than the Coalition and in line with the aged care royal commission’s recommendation. I agree wholeheartedly with Anthony Albanese’s comment “This is just common sense – and it is common decency.” Labor is also supporting (and has claimed it would fund) an increase in aged care worker salary but have not said how much.
“This is just common sense – and it is common decency.”
– Anthony Albanese, 2022
The Greens are offering some unique views, the standout being their focus on ensuring; culturally appropriate aged care facilities (particularly for First Nations people). However, I disagree with their view to eliminate physical and chemical restraints, which I believe have a place within a well-trained workforce. Additionally, they would like to see the sector become not-for-profit.
Anti-Corruption
The need for a national Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has never been more prominent in Australian politics, with Australia falling from rank 7 to rank 18 on Transparency International’s Anti-Corruption Score over the past decade. Political statement or not, this also aligns with the current Government’s term in office, and it is not difficult to find corruption allegations with real teeth against the current Government.
The Coalition first proposed its ‘Commonwealth Integrity Commission’ (CIC) before the last federal election in 2018. However, the legislation was never introduced to make it law. The CIC would have two branches, one for law enforcement and one for the public sector. The latter would cover politicians and people who work in government agencies or departments. However, there are three major flaws of the CIC. Firstly, it would only hold public hearings for people working in law enforcement, and not for politicians. Secondly, only matters specifically referred to the CIC would be able to be investigated. And thirdly, the commission would be banned from investigating things that happened in the past.
Labor and the Greens, on the other hand, say they would create a national ICAC before the end of the year if elected. It would also have two branches as described above, however; Labor’s model would have public hearings for everyone – including politicians. It would also have the power to commence its own investigations without having to wait for a matter to be referred to it and is free to investigate matters of the past.
I view the strict ban on investigating matters of the past under the proposed CIC as a terrifying admission of guilt.
Whilst I agree that more transparency is not always better, the same cannot be said when it comes to an anti-corruption commission. I view the strict ban on investigating matters of the past under the proposed CIC as a terrifying admission of guilt. This one is a firm win in the Labor and Greens column.
Child Care
Policy around childcare is all about cutting childcare costs for low- and middle-income earners so that more women are allowed to enter the workforce. It is addressing the social issue that it is often cheaper for (disproportionately) women to become stay-at-home mums as opposed to working and simultaneously paying for childcare. From an economic perspective, the idea is that greater participation in the workforce will lead to economic growth – and remember, working mums are tax-paying mums!
The Childcare Subsidy (CCS) introduced by the current government is too expansive to cover in full detail here (read > https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/child-care-subsidy), however, I’ll cover the basics. It is a percentage-based rebate paid directly to childcare providers, who then pass 100% of that fee reduction onto families. The amount you can get is jointly determined by the following factors:
| Factor | Impact | Example |
| Household income | Impacts the % rebate received. Acts on a sliding scale. | Maximum 85% rebate received at income at or below $70,015 gradually reducing to 0% up to $354,305. |
| Number of children | Impacts the % rebate received, tied closely with household income. | Families with two or more children in care under age 6, will receive an additional 30% subsidy for the second child, up to a 95% cap. |
| The type of childcare used | Impacts the cap placed on the hourly aged care fee covered by the CCS | E.g. Centre Based Day Care hourly rate is capped at $12.31 |
| The number of hours worked by you or your partner (“activity level”) | Impacts the cap placed on the hours of subsidised care covered each fortnight. Will use the lower of you or your partner’s hours worked. | E.g. more than 48 hours worked = 100 hours of subsidized care per fortnight. |
So, that describes the Coalition’s current policy and recent changes and is slated to cost $1.7 billion over four years.
Labor has promised to raise the maximum subsidy percentage from 85% to 90% and adjust the sliding scale and would increase the maximum household income threshold to $530,000 from $354,305. This would cost $5.4 billion over four years.
“(Labor’s childcare policy) is not a welfare measure. This is economic reform”
– Anthony Albanese, 2020
The Greens want to give all families access to 100 hours of fully subsidised care per fortnight, up to existing hourly rate caps, and do away with all other assessment factors. They have also promised to invest more in childcare centres to accommodate the inevitable increase in demand. This would cost $19 billion over 4 years.
Whilst I admittedly know nothing about the financial complexities of raising a family, and I acknowledge my privilege as a white man, I believe the Coalition may have a slight edge on childcare. Making childcare essentially free under the Greens would lead to overbooking, which makes positions less accessible, and drives up prices. Labors’ policy is not that different from the Coalition, and despite all of their criticism of the government, we have yet to see whether the outcomes of the current program are sufficient as it has undergone several key changes over the past 9 months, including the removal of the childcare subsidy cap of $10,655. Additionally, the increase of the maximum income threshold to $530,000 under Labor feels completely unnecessary – I don’t want my tax dollars going towards paying for 20% of the childcare fees of a family earning more than half a million dollars a year.
Climate Change
The Government has committed to net zero emissions by 2050. They also claim that Australia is on track to achieve a 30-35% reduction in emissions by 2030 compared to 2005 levels but have refused to commit to anything other than its previous target of 26-28% by this time. Concerningly, 15% of the Government’s emissions reduction target relies on technologies which do not exist yet, including carbon capture and storage (CCS), and low-emission steel production. Additionally, many climate scientists believe that CSC is not a genuine alternative to existing wind and solar. The Coalition’s plan also champions the use of “clean hydrogen” to lower fuel emissions. However, transforming hydrogen into a pure and useable form involves processes that can produce a lot of emissions.
Only “green” hydrogen is produced entirely through renewable power and has zero emissions, whereas the government’s plan for “clean hydrogen” will see fuel made using both renewables as well as energy from (polluting) natural gas.
Labor has also committed to net zero emissions by 2050. However, their 2030 commitment is a 43% reduction in emissions compared to 2005 levels. Their plan includes investing in green metal production, a national electric vehicle strategy, transmission infrastructure for the fossil fuels industry, upgrading the electricity grid to allow it to handle more renewable energy, restoring national climate change authorities and representatives, installing community batteries and solar banks around the country, and more.
The Greens want 75% reduced emissions on 2005 levels by 2030, and net-zero by 2035 at the latest. Since climate change policy is the Greens’ “thing”, it makes sense that they carry the heaviest hands. They want to phase out coal and gas completely and switch to 100% renewable energy usage as soon as possible. To do that, the Greens want to develop more batteries, upgrade the electricity grid, and reduce the cost of electric cars. Their policies would be funded by taxing large corporations.
The above has only scratched the surface of party climate change policy, so I encourage you to check out: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/australias-major-parties-climate-action-policy-2022/ for an excellent detailed comparison.
Instead of giving a further opinion on these policies, I’ll instead end with some facts:
- Climate change policy has barely been addressed on the Liberal campaign trail
- The National Party (i.e. the other half of the Liberal-National Coalition) has only agreed to Liberal climate change promises “in principle”
- According to the 2021 Climate Change Performance Index, Australia ranked 64th out of 64 countries on climate change policy – worse than the world’s biggest polluter, China.
- According to the 2021 Sustainable Development Report, Australia scored last out of 193 United Nations member countries for action taken to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
- Liberal-National Coalition climate change policy is dwarfed in scope and investment compared to that offered by Labor and the Greens, who are the huge winners in this space.
Defence
There is little difference between the Coalition and Labor when it comes to Defence, with both the Coalition and Labor promising defense spending equal to 2% of GDP in response to growing global tensions, especially with China. However, unlike the Coalition, Labor has not put a figure on how much they will be spending on the ADF if they win the election. Labor has also promised an independent “Defence Posture Review” into Australia’s military resources and strategy.
The Greens, however, wish to reduce defense spending to 1.5% of GDP. They are committed to seeking out more non-violent ways to resolve conflict and want to focus on defensive security. Additionally, they would like to utilise the ADF more for peacekeeping and natural disaster aid, raise the age people can join the ADF to 18, and end ad campaigns encouraging people to join.
Perhaps I’m just bitter, but the Greens’ approach sounds more pretty than practical. If the war on Ukraine has taught us anything, it’s that diplomacy may not be enough when it matters most. Additionally, I don’t think there is anything inherently evil about ADF ad campaigns. It is a career like any other, and a necessary one at that.
…when you need defense spending, odds are that you really need defence spending.
At the end of the day, most people do not want a big defence budget (…except the U.S?), but when you need defense spending, odds are that you really need defence spending. Let’s stay ahead of the curve.
Education
Both the Coalition and Labor are largely focused on investing in tertiary education in ways that support industries where there are currently skills shortages. However, they are going about it differently.
In 2020, the Coalition changed university funding in ways that significantly increased the cost of some degrees where the labour market is saturated and decreased the cost of degrees where there is a skills shortage. Take a look:
The Coalition has also already increased funding to regional and remote schools. Moving forward, they would like to incentivize universities and university researchers to produce work with commercial outcomes and get them to partner more frequently with industry. They also want to create 800,000 new training places across TAFEs and private providers over the next five years and modify its apprenticeship wage subsidy scheme by shifting some cash payments away from employers and towards apprentices for some high-demand industries.
Labor is heavier-handed on the incentives and less heavy-handed on the disincentives. They are promising 20,000 new university places in areas where there are skills shortages, offering more enrolments for regional / remote / First Nations students / those from disadvantaged backgrounds, has pledged to cover the cost of 465,000 TAFE which includes 45,000 new places, and will spend $50 million upgrading IT systems, workshops, and laps nationally. Finally, they want to create 10,000 new apprenticeships for people training in renewables.
Finally, the Greens want universities and TAFE to be free for everyone, and all student debt to be wiped out. They also want to end ‘for profit’ training providers and boost university funding by 10%.
With such a mixed bag of policies, it is honestly dealer’s choice what you prefer. Firstly, it is worth noting that Labor has said nothing about reserving the price increases listed above, so if we are forward-looking, both parties are the same in that respect. It pays to remember that all degrees on the price increase list are still attainable for non-international students because of our HECS HELP system. Additionally, disincentives might be required to drive people away from the “I don’t know what I want to do” and “I watched Suits” degrees in Communications and Law respectively, as opposed to simply increasing the number of places in desirable fields. There is already a surplus of young people going to university simply because they are told it is the right thing to do after school, and if the reality is that there are not enough jobs for everyone carrying degrees on the chopping block, then maybe we should save students the trouble of ending up in a non-relevant role with a $50,000 debt. I believe the future offered by the Greens would only exacerbate the problem that the other parties are trying to solve. That aside, I think society could benefit greatly from the commercialisation of university research offered by the Coalition, which I’ve seen firsthand is overly focused on getting published and cited as much as possible as opposed to creating meaningful change and development in a field of study.
Closing comments
When going to vote, I encourage you not to fall back on the age-old adage “they’re all as bad as each other.” Whilst no single party or politician is perfect, I can’t help but feel that this is a comment designed to excuse ourselves from becoming politically literate. It also relinquishes the responsibility that we should be taking, for the outcomes of policy enacted by those we vote for.
Once again, the above is only a snapshot of the political environment we find ourselves in. It is far from covering all areas of policy, or all your available voting options. I simply hope it made you a little wiser.