Playing the man and not the ball could be own goal

Peter Dutton should take as a compliment, and as confirmation of the Albanese government’s concern, Labor’s resort to ad hominem attacks on his character. But he also must concentrate on developing cost savings and good policy, and be ready to take the hard decisions in what will be an uphill battle if the Coalition wants to make the Albanese team a one-term government. The Opposition Leader has started to lay the ground with promised cuts to Labor’s numerous off-budget programs, but much more detail is needed to judge properly if the Coalition has learned its lessons from defeat. These include a lack of courage when in government to continue the task of industrial relations reform to drive increases in productivity. In opposition, the Coalition has had to watch as Labor has unwound decades of progress in workplace flexibility and in the process re-energised the trade union movement. Above all, Mr Dutton must deliver a credible plan to address the dire conditions in the energy market and rebuild confidence that Australia is a safe place to invest for major energy projects.

Ironically, Labor’s antics provide a platform for Mr Dutton to tell voters what he is really all about. The ALP has been going out of its way to paint a picture for voters of what it says is Mr Dutton’s divisive character. It is no doubt hoping to repeat the success it found in framing an unflattering narrative for voters around Scott Morrison.

But in politics it is always a risk to highlight an opponent. Confident leaders seldom deem it necessary to mention a challenger by name. There is a danger that Labor is giving Mr Dutton brand awareness and that voters will see its characterisation of him as being hollow and off-beam. This was the case with Labor’s mischaracterisation of John Howard. While Labor was convinced about Mr Howard’s unlikeable character, voters did not agree. They were more focused on the good economic management of the Howard-Costello team and were prepared to reward Mr Howard’s determination to stand on his convictions, however unpopular they might be among those in the chattering class. Labor’s portrayal of Mr Dutton as being divisive for insisting that potential refugees are properly vetted regarding their support for a proscribed terrorist organisation is likely at odds with how mainstream opinion sees the issue. But, as Mr Dutton said in response to the latest attack from Jim Chalmers, Labor was intent on giving him free publicity.

It raised serious questions about why the Treasurer would stray so recklessly from his primary task. On the economy, Dr Chalmers said the federal government had made substantial progress since 2022. Inflation was half its peak, real wages were growing in annual terms, the gender pay gap was the smallest it had ever been and participation was at record highs. But he conceded that retail was slow and unemployment had gone from the mid-3s to 4.2 per cent in a year. Growth in the economy is flat, discretionary spending has disappeared, household saving rates have fallen. Dr Chalmers presented the ambitious claim to be presiding over the creation of a new fourth economy, which in reality is being shaped by global forces out of our control. But he undermined the event with a personal attack on Mr Dutton, who he said was “the most divisive leader of a major political party in Australia’s modern history – and not by accident, by choice”.

“At a time when most sane people see political divisiveness around the world and want to reject it, he wants to embrace it,” Dr Chalmers said. “It is the only plank in his political platform. He divides deliberately, almost pathologically. This is worse than disappointing, it is dangerous. His divisiveness should be disqualifying.”

Dr Chalmers’ attack on Mr Dutton in what should have been an elevated speech on economic policy and political direction was both unseemly and unnecessary. Opposition Treasury spokesman Angus Taylor got it right when he said Dr Chalmers was guilty of playing the man and not the ball. “When someone starts playing the man and not the ball, it tells you that they’ve got it wrong and that’s all they have got left to focus on.” It is another sign that with an election nearing, the Albanese government has lost focus and risks losing its way. Mr Taylor’s assessment of Dr Chalmers was of a man fighting on many fronts except the one that matters most. “He’s fighting the Reserve Bank, he’s fighting the Productivity Commission and he’s fighting the laws of economics in this country, because he thinks that the way to beat inflation is to throw more money at it, and that has never been true and never will be true,” Mr Taylor said.

The inflation figures due out on Wednesday will be a big test for how Dr Chalmers is doing his day job. This is where the political fight should be. Voters deserve a contest over how best to ease the cost-of-living burden without simply shifting the pain on to future generations. As we editorialised earlier this month, Mr Dutton’s challenge, after taking the fight up to Anthony Albanese, is to prosecute an alternative vision. The Opposition Leader’s next step should be to provide a blueprint of how a Coalition government would change the nation’s direction that currently seems fixated on big government without a strategy for improving productivity, which is key to reducing inflation and lifting growth.