Posted Mon Aug 5, 2013 2:33pm AEST
Photo: Australian voters are concerned about three main principles: choice, change and trust. (Brigid Andersen: ABC)
Many factors influence the choice Australian voters will make on September 7 but some will have more significance than others. Listening to Kevin Rudd's and Tony Abbott's campaign launch speeches, it seems the 2013 election will be about choice, change and trust, writes Paula Matthewson.
Election speeches are like mirrors: they tell us as much about ourselves as they do about a party or politician's campaign strategy.
They reflect our highest aspirations and our basest fears. No word is uttered without being carefully selected to push the buttons of voters in general, but particularly those in the 20 or so marginal seats who will decide the election.
The first thing we learned about ourselves from the speeches made by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his opponent Tony Abbott when the 2013 federal election was announced yesterday was that Australian voters demand the reinstatement of their right to choose (the governing party and by proxy) the prime minister.
Kevin Rudd tapped into resentment about this lack of choice back in June when he formally declared himself a candidate for the leadership. Rudd offered himself as a "real choice" then and echoed that promise yesterday:
The Australian people therefore face a real choice for this election: a real choice. A choice between a new way for the future, with positive plans for managing the new economic challenges we face as opposed to the old negative politics.
Unsurprisingly, the Coalition's market research appears to be telling them the same thing. While Rudd ended his remarks emphasising the reinstatement of voter choice, Abbott's opening gambit focussed squarely upon it:
At last, the choice is yours, it's not the choice of the caucus, it's not the choice of the faceless men, it's your choice about the government you have; about the PM you have. And the choice couldn't be clearer. The choice is between the positive plans of the Coalition and more of the same under the Australian Labor Party and Mr Rudd.
The next thing we learned about ourselves from yesterday's speeches is that Australian voters want change; however the nature of the desired change is perceived differently by the two main parties. According to Rudd, we're yearning for an end to negative politics and a 'new way' that balances economic growth with ensuring there's a 'fair go for all'.
Abbott upped the ante with a combination of 'choice' and 'change' in the Coalition's election slogan (Choose real change. A stronger Australia. A better future) and by advocating a change of government as a universal inoculation against the next three years of government being like the past six:
There's almost nothing wrong with our country that wouldn't be improved by a change of government.
Former Rudd staffer Lachlan Harris noted on Twitter yesterday that it is unusual for both the main protagonists in an election to be arguing that a vote for them is a vote for change. Harris concluded:
KR arguing keeping him as PM best way to change govt. TA arguing dumping him the only way to change. Whoever wins that argument wins elec.
While many factors may influence the choice Australian voters will make to wreak their preferred change on September 7, some will have more significance than others. Traditionally the principal policy issues that voters say are important in deciding their vote are: the economy, jobs, health and education, and the latest Essential Poll has found no divergence from this list.
Any lingering doubt about the pre-eminence of these issues in voters' minds is dispelled by yesterday's speeches. Rudd lists education, jobs, the NBN and health as Labor's past successes and future priorities. He advocates the need for new ways of doing things to guide Australia safely through the economic turbulence that will be caused by the "great economic transition" following the end of the resources boom.
Abbott, on the other hand, more deftly and yet more blatantly pressed a number of voter hot-buttons when canvassing some of the same issues.
"The functions of government," Abbott proclaimed, "are to deliver a stronger economy, to provide national security, and to build a stronger and more cohesive society."
The latter point is a catchall for better services, schools and hospitals etc.
Why did Abbott specifically include border security? Because the Rudd and Gillard governments' inability to "keep our borders secure" will be a key contributor to Abbott's potential success at this election. Abbott seeks to equate Rudd's "failure" on border protection with incompetency on a broader scale, particularly on jobs and the economy. Abbott is using border security to demonstrate that voters cannot rely on Rudd's competency.
While Rudd may be signalling that an economic winter is coming in the hope of generating a low level of voter anxiety that will drive them to choose the devil they know, Abbott is playing directly to voter concerns about imagined hordes arriving on our shores, taking our jobs, crowding our hospitals and roadways, and increasing the wait for government housing.
"This election will also be about who the Australian people trust to steer our economy through the great economic transition that therefore lies ahead," said Rudd yesterday.
Abbott reframed Rudd's claim on voters' trust by making it more about voter confidence in the leaders' relative competency - who was more 'fair dinkum':
Now, Mr Rudd talked about who do you trust? Well, it's really about who is more fair dinkum, who can you rely on to build a better future? The people who have been stable and consistent for the last three years or a government which has been wracked by division and dysfunction and which promises more of the same if it's re-elected. Who do you think is more fair dinkum? The people who actually stopped the boats in the past, or the person who started them up again in 2008?
Choice, change and trust. According to the leaders' speeches that kicked off the 2013 federal election campaign yesterday, these are our principle concerns as Australian voters and the elements that will determine our voting decisions on polling day.
For every thinking voter who weighs up party platforms, election policies and candidate commitments, there will be many more who cast their vote with limited information, if any at all. The unengaged or uninformed voter will base their vote on a combination of gut instinct and hearsay. Choice, change and trust will guide their visceral reaction.
Paula Matthewson will be writing weekly for The Drum throughout the 2013 federal election campaign. She is a freelance communications adviser and corporate writer. View her full profile here.
Federal election about choice, change and trust - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
