Peter Dutton has become a victim of timing – but no one said politics was fair.
And the argument that the problem with the orange man in the White House has crept up on him is unconvincing.
Liberation Day has been on the calendar for months. The Coalition campaign has had plenty of notice to plan for more than one scenario.
Yet Dutton presents as a leader forced into a shift of posture as if surprised by what was almost inevitable.
But Donald Trump poses a challenge to both leaders. While Dutton is now on a reactive footing, Anthony Albanese must still overcome his greatest vulnerability leading into this election – a perception of his weakness in leadership.
Dutton’s strategy is to turn this issue into another question of competence for Albanese.
Secondly, that Trump’s actions demonstrate an even greater need for a change to a stronger leader.
Albanese must operate within the constraints of diplomacy while demonstrating a firmness by standing up for Australian jobs and defending our institutions. He has more to lose than Dutton in this contest.
But for the Coalition to gain any advantage from this, it must convince voters than Dutton could not only have struck a deal with Trump, but he would be better positioned as prime minister to manage the fallout.
All this gets turned on its head if, as The Australian reveals, there is the possibility that the White House commits a volte-face within weeks. Such an outcome would flip the dynamics demonstrably in Albanese’s favour should it occur before May 3.
The fact that Trump slapped tariffs on every country in the world makes it hard for Dutton to argue that there was a deal he could have struck and that Albanese and Labor have failed.
That Australia avoided anything further up the scale beyond the mandated minimum 10 per cent tariff adds weight to this argument.
Considering the US is not a large export market for Australia, the economic impacts of the direct tariffs will be minimal.
It is what happens in China, and even Japan, South Korea and Europe, that has the potential to sap growth out of our economy.
And equity markets will matter for those approaching retirement as they see their super funds tumble.
Yet Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do.
He learned from experience that exemptions for one friend, Australia, only lead to a conga line of leaders seeking one too.
This time around it was a blanket “no” to everyone. It is questionable whether anyone could have engineered a unique carve-out for Australia.
But for Dutton to win the argument, he would need to present a convincing case that Albanese is as liable for this outcome as Trump.
But there must be concern that Dutton hadn’t tried to preposition for the outcome.
The test is whether the Coalition can successfully argue that the trade crisis is now yet another reason not to trust Labor with another three years with its hands on the economic tiller.
The issue is already sapping oxygen from the campaign atmosphere.
Most voters would view Trump as a nutter.
But given the outcome was relatively tame for Australia, the focus might quickly shift back to hip-pocket issues.
What will matter, with both Albanese and Dutton having taken a firm line, is the perception that lingers for voters as they assess both leaders’ response to this.
More Coverage
High Court dismisses CFMEU challenge
The court rejected a legal challenge to the federal government’s takeover of the CFMEU’s construction division, in a win for Labor and a defeat for the union’s sacked officials.
This is Libs’ chance to expose Labor on super tax
Offering to improve a bad tax policy and simultaneously behaving like the political grown-up in the room is a start. Over to you, Sussan Ley.