Dutton’s policies deserve ridicule, but at least they’re memorable

Predictability is a valuable commodity in politics. It lies at the root of that cliche “You might not like me, but you know where I stand”. Arguably, it lay at the root of John Howard’s longevity. You knew, more or less, what he would do. That’s reassuring.

It is possible, though, that the equation worked the other way around: that his longevity lay at the root of his predictability. That is, we only felt we understood him after he became familiar; his “predictability” lay not in any special quality he possessed, but in time. And it is possible, too, that this is partly why second-term governments often seem better than first-term governments: we like them because we have come to understand them.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at the Australian War Memorial last week.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

This benefit is not available to oppositions or first-term governments. Instead, they must provide some semblance of predictability by telling us what they’re planning. Which makes you wonder why, with limited time until the next election, both Labor and the Coalition have largely failed to do so.

Those failures are of different types. Peter Dutton’s is the more acute. It is increasingly pointed out that we don’t know the detail of his major policies or their cost. In fact, the problem is both simpler and more significant than that. At this late point, it is more true to say we have no idea what they are.

Last Sunday, Dutton said he would wait until government to decide how to cut public spending. Some pressure then came on Dutton – the government hammered the point in question time. But that pressure largely vanished after Dutton promised, later in the week, to release “costings” of public service cuts before the election – a broad commitment with no guarantee of detail.

It’s striking how often we hear some variation on this “after the election” formula. In the same press conference, Dutton used it about a 2035 emissions target. He used it in December, when seeming, at least briefly, to drop an earlier commitment on net migration (“We’ll have a look at the economic settings when we come into government”). He uses it to dismiss discussion of the fact his nuclear policy relies on states overturning bans (“we’re in opposition, so we’re not in position to be negotiating contracts with state governments”).

Of course, no party is entirely transparent – Labor, say, has also deferred its emissions target until after the election. But for Dutton, this vague “after the election” formula has been applied to most – arguably all – of his major policies.

There are two stunning things about this list. The first is that Dutton has escaped ridicule. The second thing is that his muddy offering for the next three years is, at this point, more memorable than Labor’s.

Last week, morale was apparently high among Labor MPs. Albanese’s efforts since the start of the year have seemed directed at reminding journalists, at least, of the government’s various achievements. That effort has been at least partly successful; perhaps its effects have spilled over to caucus.

Still, the government understands the past only takes it so far – Albanese said so two weeks ago. His record was “not how you win a second term. You win a second term through also what’s the offer for the second term.”

A fair point. So, precisely, what then is the agenda for the second term? If the government wants the election to be a vote on the next three years, rather than a referendum on the three just past, then it needs voters to have a clear and sharp sense of what that future looks like under Labor.

There are two things, then, voters need to know. What are the large policies in prospect? And does Labor, in its second term, intend to govern as it has for the past term – slow, cautious, conflict-averse – or will it pick up the pace?

An old political maxim goes: “hang a lantern over your problem”. That is, if voters have a problem with you, you’re better off dealing with it than ignoring it. It seems voters aren’t bitterly angry at the government. But there is certainly a sense of weary disappointment.

The government’s lines, interestingly, go some way to acknowledging this. All the talk of laying “foundations” seems an implicit recognition of the fact voters don’t have an overwhelming sense of the government having done a heap.

Which leads to a crucial political question: should Labor be “hanging a lantern” and making this case more proactively and explicitly than it has been? Should it concede that many voters – not just progressives, as Albanese sometimes suggests – want more? Should it then use its explanation as a way to make more of the scale of the obstacles it has faced: the negligence of the previous government and inflation? This carries risk: any admission will be used by Dutton. But often, in politics, taking a risk is the only way to get voters to listen.

And if the government does intend to argue that the next three years will look different, then very soon it will need to take a bigger risk again, by announcing policies which convince voters of that fact.

Of course, Labor might not think that argument is necessary. It may not believe a change is needed. When the prime minister made his point that second terms are won with the “offer for the second term”, he listed several policies in that “offer”. As usual, most slipped out of mind as soon as uttered. After two years of failing to convince voters it has done enough on cost of living, it seems possible Labor believes a few more piecemeal policies will do the trick.

With little time remaining, Peter Dutton has offered themes – nuclear, cutting migration and waste – with little substance. Anthony Albanese has offered substance, of a type, but few clear themes, and no sharp story about his second term. After years of dramatic uncertainty – pandemic, inflation, Trump – voters are tired. They might be ready to reward a political leader who offers them some clarity about their future.

Sean Kelly is author of The Game: A Portrait of Scott Morrison, a regular columnist and a former adviser to 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.