By Sean Kelly

Photo: Abbott is attempting to convince the Australian people that a vote for him is a vote for change. (Getty Images: Matt Roberts)

Tony Abbott wants to thrust us back into the heat of arguments we've already had. Only a re-elected Labor government would allow us to finally move on, writes Sean Kelly.

Of the many things that keep Labor voters awake about the prospect of an Abbott government, boredom probably isn't one of them.

The threat of a radically interventionist conservative government, the secret policy agenda we're told about by commentators from the left (in a bid to convince us Abbott is scary) and commentators from the right (in a bid to convince us Abbott has a policy agenda), embarrassing gaffes on the domestic stage, embarrassing gaffes on the international stage - at the very least, Labor voters should be enthralled by the imagined prospect of constant entertainment.

But the fact is that after the last few years of HBO-quality political drama, we are about be hit with mind-numbingly boring reruns of the most tedious bits of those years.

Abbott is attempting to convince the Australian people that a vote for him is a vote for change. "The best way to get a new way is to get a new government," he trumpets.

But the reverse is true. A re-elected Labor Government will settle the debates on carbon and mining that have plagued our nation for half a decade and allow us to move on. A newly minted Abbott government will thrust us back into the heat of arguments we've already had.

An election has the power to wipe the slate clean for a re-elected government. It acts as an unofficial stamp of approval on the actions of the past three years. It's the final say, the DRS (if DRS actually worked) of political debate.

This is what Labor missed out on after 2010. The unique combination of a removed leader and a hung parliament meant Labor's alleged failings - the three plagues of debt, waste and boats - were never consigned to the graveyard of failed political attacks. Instead, they had new life breathed into them.

If Labor wins the election, then the debate over carbon pricing will be over. It will become part of the Australian policy firmament. The same goes for the mining tax. If not, we will be forced into another prolonged debate on this "so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one" (Abbott's words, not mine). I'm always surprised more isn't made of this: does anyone really want to spend another few years talking about carbon? And that's before we get to the spectacle of the double dissolution election which Abbott has threatened to call.

The problem here isn't really boredom, of course. Firstly, it's that throwing reforms into reverse gear is bad for the country. That's true if you agree with the thinking behind pricing carbon.

But even if you don't, it's a fact that revisiting old debates sucks up oxygen and distracts us from getting on with doing the next big thing, something this country is usually good at.

As every commentator and his dog has noted in the past few weeks, the challenges facing Australia are productivity and prosperity - how we increase the first to keep the second. This is what we need our leaders focused on.

And this is where we come to the campaign itself.

Rudd has two chances going into the last two weeks. Both are about showing Rudd is the leader for the times, and Abbott is not.

The best attacks do two things. They amplify something voters already think. At the same time, they remind voters of the strengths of the attacker. Think of Howard's immortal line about Beazley lacking ticker. It neatly captured what voters believed about Beazley, and underlined that Howard was exactly the opposite - strong and determined.

The attack on Abbott's secret cuts is based on substance and therefore rings true. The Liberals have yet to fully explain the cost of their promises, and therefore how they will pay for them. This is the first necessary ingredient in a successful attack. Improved polling suggest it's working.

Labor now needs to build on Abbott's negative to emphasise a Rudd strength. In last week's debate, Rudd tried to do this by contrasting Abbott's plan to "cut for the future" with Labor's plan to "build the future". But these words need flagship policies to give them backbone.

In practice, Labor is acting - schools, hospitals, the NBN. But because none of these policies are both new and big it has been hard to politically ram home the contrast Rudd needs to get across.

Voters have started listening to the argument that Abbott will cut. For that negative to really land they now need to be convinced that Rudd will build. The announcement on high speed rail was in this sweet spot. It is big, it is new, and it positively reeks of the future. Labor will need more of this as the campaign races to its end.

The second chance lies in Rudd's proven ability to act under pressure. So far Labor has bloodlessly pointed out on umpteen occasions that Labor prevented recession. True. But shorn of its human element, it's a drab statistic. The important thing to communicate is that when it counted, Rudd was able to think on his feet, and act. Abbott, on the other hand, is great at soundbites, but cannot cope with surprises. He was once literally paralysed with fury when confronted by difficult questioning from Channel Seven's Mark Riley.

If the country is really heading into difficult times, if the resources boom is over, if productivity is an urgent priority, then the last thing we need is a leader intent on cuts, unable to cope with new challenges, concerned only with reprosecuting old debates.

This is Labor's opportunity. Kevin Rudd has two weeks left to show the country he is the only leader ready and able to fight the battles of the next three years, not the last three years. Or we'll all just have to get used to reruns.

Sean Kelly was an adviser to prime ministers Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. View his full profile here.

Want more of the same? Vote Abbott - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)