When neither side wants to talk about the real election issues

Despite Labor’s dire start to the election campaign, there are two things from this week’s Newspoll that would be worrying Coalition strategists. First is that the Coalition’s primary vote remains in the unwinnable mid-30s even with Anthony Albanese’s latest economic and border security failures, which should disqualify him from the nation’s top job. And second, that “anyone other than the two major parties” has a record high vote at 29 per cent.

Will it tighten? Undoubtedly, but right now it appears voters are over the faux fight between small-target Labor and the Labor-lite Liberals. This isn’t an election where policies to shape our country’s future are being debated; instead it’s a personality contest between two unpopular leaders, with the Coalition’s best pitch “better the devil you know”.

To win, the Coalition needs to claw back support from the “anyone but” bloc and lift its primary vote. To do that, it has to get off the fence and go on the policy front foot to split Labor; easy to say but hard to do when resolve seems to be missing.

Imagine how different it might have been had Scott Morrison not forced net-zero emissions by 2050 on a reluctant Coalition in a so far questionable attempt to defend well-heeled inner-city seats against the teal independents.

Indeed, given the climate change pause that Boris Johnson has declared because of the Ukraine war and further demonstration out of Europe that energy security is national security, the Coalition would have been ahead of the game. Instead, both sides hold that you can cut emissions and protect jobs, even though all experience says you can’t.

While this election will settle who leads the country for the next three years, it won’t settle the direction the country takes because that’s what neither side wants to discuss. The Coalition says it has done a great job so nothing much needs to change. Labor says the government has completely failed but all that really needs to change is the prime minister. Any wonder voters are walking away?

Take the economy. A government that came to power promising to address Labor’s “budget emergency” has produced record debt and deficit. Sure, there are reasons for this: Labor “Abbott-proofing” the budget by baking spending into legislation; then the pandemic. Both sides are relying on economic growth (and ever-higher immigration) as the pain-free way back to surplus and debt reduction. Improbably, they both imply the key to growth is yet more spending rather than economic reform: for the Coalition, it’s programs to boost business, while for Labor it’s health and education. Even though, thanks to the pandemic cash splash and supply-chain disruption, the inflation genie is out of the bottle, meaning interest rates will increase and government borrowing won’t be as cheap.

Then there’s the likelihood of higher costs as global supply chains further adjust to strategic competition with China and the consequences of war in Europe. Real living standards are almost certain to be squeezed, even if there’s a terms-of-trade boost for some exports, yet neither side is preparing us for tougher times ahead because that would require credible policy to deal with it.

Take the pandemic. The Coalition says we’ve come out of it well because of government policy while Labor says we’ve come out of it well despite government policy. Yet millions of Australians were locked down for months, large swathes of the economy were shut down and all students largely lost two years. That’s apart from the $300bn federal budget hit and the damage to our federation via squabbling premiers.

At no stage has pandemic policy been fully debated in any parliament because no politician wants the public to question the decisions and who really made them. Yet shouldn’t a country that has royal commissions into mental health, aged care, veterans’ suicide and bushfires to see how things might be done better, and that normally applies cost-benefit tests to health measures, want to learn from the biggest domestic upheaval in 70 years?

Take nuclear power. Anyone serious about net zero must consider the only proven emissions-free form of 24/7 baseload power. Yet neither side will countenance eliminating the legal ban, let alone fostering civil nuclear energy. The bipartisan commitment to nuclear power at sea but not on land underlines the perversity of this. So too the failure to treat the community as adults and at least have an informed, honest debate.

Take the voice for Indigenous people. Both sides say they support it: the Coalition preferring to do it, at least initially, via legislation; Labor wanting it entrenched in the Constitution. But it’s another issue that won’t figure in the campaign because both major parties don’t really want voter scrutiny. So, we inch ever closer to something that would create two classes of citizen: Indigenous people with their own institutionalised voice and every­one else who must make do with the normal political process.

Interestingly, Labor’s concern that Australians would reject the voice in a referendum says it all. Yet here we are, still moving closer towards systemic distinctions based on race without the public having any real choice or say.

Take national security. The Ukraine invasion has underlined the need for a stronger Australian military. There’s every reason to think China will try to take Taiwan by force within the next few years with immense ramifications for the peace and security of our region, never mind its incipient bases in the South Pacific – now real with Tuesday’s Solomon Islands deal. Yet our plan for nuclear-powered subs and 20,000 more military personnel is still two decades away.

Take the diet of cultural self-loathing fed to students, with “Invasion Day” lessons and Anzac Day a contentious idea. The pandemic has amplified to parents what their children are (and are not) learning yet the Coalition has failed to make this the campaign issue it should be.

Take gender fluidity. Morrison first said Claire Chandler’s bill to permit women’s sporting bodies to exclude biological males from competition was terrific and he encouraged her. Then he said it wasn’t government policy. So what is it? Defending the rights of women and girls shouldn’t be this hard; it isn’t about denigrating the small number of trans people in society but allowing our hard-fought rights to prevail.

An election to form a government this certainly is. But there’s no way it’s a campaign about the big issues facing our country.

Peta Credlin is the host of Credlin on Sky News, 6pm weeknights.