Labor can’t make a thing stick to Dutton, the Mr Teflon of empty politics

On Friday, the head of the Productivity Commission, Danielle Wood, published an opinion piece in The Australian. Wood was appointed by the government, but anyone doubting her independence was chastened early in her term, when she criticised one of Labor’s darlings, Future Made in Australia.

In the column, Wood strongly commended Labor’s childcare policies. Specifically, she and her colleague Martin Stokie praised higher wages for childcare workers as “the fundamental first step” in a series of necessary reforms. Last week’s announcement of $1 billion for more childcare centres in places where there aren’t enough was, they wrote, a “welcome next response”.

Credit: Artwork: Joe Benke

As for the government’s most significant announcement so far, taking large steps towards removing the activity test (which means more disadvantaged kids with unemployed parents will be able to get the benefits other children already get from childcare); this would “help centre the child” as part of future childcare policies, and should be taken further.

As you can tell from their comments, Wood and Stokie were not only pointing to the worth of the policies. Crucially, they were praising the manner of delivery. They were “encouraged that the government is going about its reforms in a systematic and considered way”. The order of steps taken was “as important as the steps themselves”.

This was not the only policy area to receive detailed commentary from a reputable government body last week. Earlier, the CSIRO had released an updated report on the prospects for nuclear energy in Australia. The Coalition had criticised the CSIRO over an earlier report on the same topic – so this time the CSIRO took the Coalition’s suggestions into account.

That the new report was not significantly better for the Coalition and its nuclear hopes was obvious from the Coalition’s response. Ted O’Brien, the opposition spokesperson, sought to cast doubt on the organisation’s expertise and methodology. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton went further, peevishly suggesting Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen had been involved in some way. Being charitable, I suppose you could say: well, what other option did they have? The CSIRO, even taking into account the Coalitions’ concerns, still found nuclear would likely be more expensive than renewables and unlikely to be working until 2040.

The contrast between these episodes points to a divide that has been on display for most of this term. It would be going too far to describe the Albanese government as a paragon of policy development – witness Wood’s early criticisms (some of which the government later addressed) or its debatable social media ban. Still, it would be reasonable to say this has been a government with an earnest commitment to traditional policy processes, a willingness to engage at the level of detail, and a faith in expert advice and institutions.

Dutton’s approach has been quite different – as his attacks on the CSIRO suggest. And on both migration and nuclear – Dutton’s most significant policies – we have seen multiple shifts now. Just last Sunday, Dutton dropped his previous commitment on immigration numbers.

Meanwhile, Dutton’s announcement on nuclear policy left a large number of big questions. Was it really possible to build a new industry so fast? What about this country’s appalling record on infrastructure projects?

Won’t coal plants mostly stop working before nuclear starts, leaving a gap that needs to be filled – an issue raised by coal plant owners themselves on Friday? Will this plan actually produce enough electricity? And – an issue reportedly raised by Coalition MPs – what will this mean for power bills?

And yet there is a sense that with just months until the election Labor has barely laid a glove on Dutton’s policy problems. Why?

The media may be a factor. Albanese was justified in telling his cabinet, as reported in this masthead, that the Murdoch press is cheerleading for the Coalition. It may also be that credibility on details is simply not what matters about Dutton: his image is of toughness, not policy smarts.

Another possibility is that Dutton has benefited from a disturbing new phase in our politics, in which details don’t matter. Overseas, people talk about living in an “era of vibes”. Here, journalist Michael Pascoe put it well in The Saturday Paper when he called this “the age of impressionist politics … the colour and movement, the reflected light, the fleeting sense of an image”. In this view, a lack of detail has switched from hindrance to advantage: “Dutton is gaining momentum precisely because he is operating without detail.”

Which brings us back to the contrast between Labor and the Coalition. In policy terms alone, attention to detail and process is preferable. But being a politician is not the same as being a public servant: there are moments you must be able to fly a little more freely, unburdened by the task of having to get through every item on your spreadsheet. As Labor responded to Dutton’s nuclear announcement, it seemed initially unable to settle on a clear line of attack, to deploy a sharp line to point everyone towards one major failing that might drive headlines.

By Sunday, it seemed to have sharpened its focus with claims of a $4 trillion economic loss under Dutton’s policy.

Labor’s trouble with responding to Dutton is similar to its problem with prosecuting its own agenda. This is Labor’s other major contribution to Dutton’s Teflon run. Across 2½ years, the Albanese government has mostly failed to make the case for its significant policies sharply enough that Dutton feels cornered and has to respond.

It was telling, then, that in the many problems Labor outlined with Dutton’s nuclear policy, the argument that Labor’s transition to renewables was working and would be derailed if his plan was adopted, was quite far down its list. Even less prominent was the argument that Labor is doing something about climate change. Labor did a reasonable job of listing the very important problems with Dutton’s approach; unwittingly, it pointed to some of the shortcomings of its own.

Sean Kelly is a regular columnist and a former adviser to prime ministers Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.