Library Denizen versus Oxford Blue

But in light of the resonance of this issue in the electorate given families' concern for their loved ones – and for their own future – it is puzzling that a 'National Aged Care Insurance Scheme' is not on the table. The Greens – it should be noted – could capitalise in a big way by championing this issue and pressing it to the forefront of public debate. Improving pay, conditions and career paths for Aged Care workers and nurses is part of the picture; as is established 'baseline' staff to patient ratios for high intensity care facilities. There are a whole host of other issues – which we have not the scope to explore comprehensively. But meaningful reform would demand many billions in new budget expenditure.

Both leaders were much of a muchness on asylum seekers – as we've come to expect there is a playing to 'the lowest common denominator'. The lack of a Greens presence was especially telling, here – as they are the only 'mainstream' party questioning the 'hard line' of the majors.

Rudd's response to cost of living pressures was also very disappointing. (Basically he blamed cost of living pressures on public ownership of utilities in the case of New South Wales) What Rudd didn't face up to was the ways in which privatisation itself has intensified those pressures – with duplication of administration and marketing costs, the need to provide for private profit margins and dividends, and an inferior cost of raising finance in the private sector.

But also note the following: If the state governments are currently driven to complement their budget expenditure with utility dividends, what would the consequence be of privatisation? If state governments cannot afford to pay for infrastructure and services as is, what would the consequence of utility privatisation be? Even aside from the aforementioned inefficiencies of utility and infrastructure privatisation, for this question we could well ask Kevin Rudd 'where the money would come from'.

Importantly: Abbott also failed to address cost-of-living pressures satisfactorily. With the impact of the carbon tax only marginal once compensation was taken into account, it's not clear at all which Abbott policies would make a difference for average families. Abbott is full of rhetoric on Cost-of-Living - but has little substance so far. Ideologically - he is even less predisposed to consider the effect of privatisation, here, than Labor under Kevin Rudd.

Finally: Abbott refuses to move on the National Broadband Network. Refusing to concede an inch to Labor, or give the government credit for anything, Abbott is playing a fundamentally destructive role here. The NBN has the potential to radically renew our economy in areas as diverse as education, health, information, communications and recreation: and to open up possibilities that have not even been conceived of yet. Think back twenty years and consider the information-based industries that have arisen over that period! And the broader impact of information and communications technology on all our lives. But Abbott's 'NBN on the cheap' will require households to pay thousands if they want to access higher-quality fibre-to-the-household technology. And over the long term his alternative simply will not stand the test of time.

To conclude: Abbott and Rudd are both reading 'from the same book' when it comes to small government, low and often regressive taxes, and a failure to respond sufficiently to the pressures of an ageing population, and a growing population. Though it is the Liberal Party who proposes a review which will consider an expanded GST specifically.

Meanwhile: Rudd recognises the challenges posed by a declining China resources boom – but in the debate was 'light on details'. Interventionist industry policies to nurture high skill, high wage industries 'don't appear to be on the agenda' for anyone. Also, neither side seems to have a clear and comprehensive proposal for redressing the infrastructure deficit without socially destructive and unfair austerity elsewhere to offset the cost.

Abbott says again and again "who do you trust"? But how can voters trust a man who waits until the last moment to deliver his policies, his savings, his costings – quite blatantly because he wants to avoid accountability and scrutiny?

Both leaders put on less than ideal performances at the debate last Sunday. But there are more frightening questions pertaining to Tony Abbott's Budget agenda than with Kevin Rudd. Abbott's expenditure commitments and his commitment to sweeping tax cuts simply do not add up. It is Abbott who has worked systemically to avoid scrutiny of his costings and related budgetary savings. And the most vulnerable welfare-dependent would likely be expected to pay the price.