National security, living standards are on the line

At the start of the five-week federal election campaign, voters were encouraged to see the contest as a sliding doors moment for the nation. One path led to more of the same from Labor – higher spending, rising debt and tightening the grip of trade unions on the economy. The other path, we were told, under the Coalition would result in more disciplined spending and greater focus on private sector productivity to grow the economic pie. The third option was backing niche interest independents and protest parties such as the Greens and teals, who would make governing harder.

In the final hours before polling day, the three-quarters of voters yet to cast their ballots must ask themselves whether the major parties have done enough to demonstrate what their success on Saturday would mean for the nation. Has Anthony Albanese demonstrated he has a good understanding and firm commitment to address the significant issues we face? Amid dangerous strategic and economic global circumstances, these include national security, economic reform and risks to the reliability of our electricity grid. Does he have the right plan to deal with the issues that have dominated the campaign – cost of living, housing, Medicare and funding his long list of promises – without sending the country into deeper deficits? Can he be taken seriously after being economical with the truth on major issues such as threats to Medicare, lower bulk-billing rates and the cost of Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plans. And has the Prime Minister done enough to challenge the grotesque rise of anti-Semitism?

Despite a frontbench that is short on talent, the Opposition Leader has delivered stable leadership for a first-term opposition that has put it in an electoral position few would have predicted. But the confidence Mr Dutton was able to assert during the voice to parliament referendum, which put the Coalition briefly ahead in the polls, has been missing from the campaign proper. Too often, Mr Dutton has presented a confused pitch to voters and been quick to back down on issues to avoid conflict or to mirror Labor on exorbitant spending plans, including maintaining open eligibility rules for the fiscally untenable National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Many Liberal Party supporters worry that Mr Dutton has been unable to project the image of a conviction politician in the mould of John Howard or Tony Abbott, who successfully wrestled government back from Labor. His defence policy is an important point of difference with Labor but he produced it too late.

It may be true that campaigning today is more demanding in a society that is quick to take offence and amplify minority disappointments through social media. In many ways, the poor standard of debate has been a mirror on Australian society, revealing a culture focused on government provision and blind to the storm clouds building globally on the security and economic fronts.

Mr Albanese entered the race with distinct disadvantages. Top of the list was the broken promises from his first term, such as the promise of a $275 cut in electricity bills and presiding over seven quarters of negative GDP per capita. His bigger sins were those of omission. Labor was not honest in the 2022 campaign about its plans to remake the industrial relations landscape to buttress the trade union movement. IR changes have added to the cost and compliance burden for small business and threaten to disempower the major industries that have powered our prosperity.

Mr Albanese appears divorced from the realities of running a small business. The tax, IR and red tape records of Mr Albanese’s term one provide little hope for what might unfold in a second term. Most concerning are the potential for even more red and green tape, so-called “portable’’ long-service leave and pernicious changes to superannuation including a tax on unrealised capital gains.

The warning from ratings agency S&P that without corrective measures, Australia risks losing its AAA credit rating and incurring higher debt on government borrowings, which Mr Albanese brushed aside, must not be ignored. The deteriorating budget position, mounting debt and addiction to spending should raise very real concerns in the minds of voters.

After enjoying success on the international stage early in his prime ministership, Mr Albanese dropped the ball on diplomacy. He did not attend the swearing-in of the new Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto. He has failed to acknowledge publicly the significance of China’s naval baiting of our territory or Russia’s growing influence and ambitions in our region. He deserves some credit for restoring diplomatic relations and securing a resumption of trade with China following the serious tensions during the Morrison prime ministership. But there is now no doubt that he is sending the wrong signals on China and its aggressive strategic ambitions at a time of great global uncertainty.

This masthead has been critical of Mr Dutton throughout this campaign for a lack of policy work in key areas, a paucity of vision, and a misreading of the Australian public. There have been many missed opportunities. The failure to set out a clear policy on reforming the school curriculum is one strong example. But Mr Dutton has done well with his promise of a significant lift in defence spending. And he is unconvinced, rightly, about Chris Bowen’s renewables-dominant approach on energy.

If given the chance, Mr Dutton must quickly put detail into his defence plan and provide a credible road map for an energy transition that focuses on security of supply of affordable power. Mr Dutton has been audacious in embracing a nuclear energy strategy and has defended the critical significance of gas for both domestic use and export.

Energy, economic policies and national security are the areas in which the prospect of minority government is of most concern. Regardless of disillusionment with Labor or a perception that the Coalition is not ready for government, voters must carefully weigh the temptation to look to minor parties and independents as an alternative. The Greens manifestly present a very serious risk to national security. They have also made no secret of their ambition to stop coal and gas developments, and in this they are likely to find enthusiastic support from their protest party bedfellows, the teals. Other Greens’ policies, too, such as “robin hood economics’’ and free university places, run the risk of propelling a minority Labor government down a destructive path.

The experience of Julia Gillard leading Labor in alliance with the Greens and independents after 2010 does not engender confidence that any minority government, relying on minor parties or independents, regardless of their priorities, would deliver the efficiency and discipline the nation needs at a far more vulnerable time than we faced 15 years ago. The chaotic records of minority governments around the world are also a salutary lesson why voters should avoid that outcome. Minority government points to weak government and policy stasis.

The solution cannot be another term similar to the past three years, characterised by bigger government, rising debt and the shrinking of the productive private sector relative to the state. It is concerning about two-thirds of the 882,000 jobs created under the Albanese government to September last year were funded by taxpayers. This included work in “non-market sectors” of the “care economy”. Growth in the size of the care economy is, to some extent, fuelled by demographic factors. This makes it critically important for governments to provide policy settings to stimulate strong growth in the private sector.

The campaign, regrettably, has fallen way short of the contest of ideas that circumstances demand. On defence, we must prepare for an intensification of the great-power rivalry that is rapidly escalating between the United States and China both globally and in our region. On energy, we must heed the warnings of industry leaders that there are great risks in the transition to a less carbon-intensive economy. Global uncertainty is currently most pronounced in the area of the economy. A global trade war has big implications for inflation and the stability of financial markets. With high levels of debt and a structural budget deficit, we are less prepared than at other times of global economic turmoil, whether that be the dotcom bubble of the late 1990s, the GFC in 2008 or the Covid-19 pandemic, to weather the storm.

As a paper, we are guided by the same set of principles that has motivated us for 60 years: a society of opportunity; a robust defence and national security agenda; a strong, productive economy that enhances living standards; labour market deregulation; and a strong but balanced immigration system.

We owe our allegiance to no party but rather to what is in the national interest. The choice facing the nation – one of great consequence – must be made against the backdrop of a dispiriting campaign characterised by short-term thinking and a paucity of vision from both sides. But in the key areas of defence, energy and the economy, the Coalition provides the best option for managing the demands of challenging and uncertain times.