NICOLA SMITH: Election campaign without bold vision, passion, or anything new to say has voters switching off

There are still ten days of hard campaigning left before the Federal election, but in the absence of bold vision, passion or anything new to say, fatigued voters are already switching off.

With no clear narrative and little to differentiate their electoral offering both major parties are now resorting to insults and fearmongering, making the choice all the more confusing.

There have been three debates in the last 24 hours, between the treasurers’, health ministers’ and major party leaders. But you’d be forgiven if the tsunami of spin doctoring and cherry-picking of facts and context had washed over your head.

What began with an uninspiring face-off on Tuesday night between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton continued in a fiery exchange between Treasurer Jim Chalmers and his opposite number Angus Taylor on Wednesday.

Both sides’ finance chiefs lashed each other with accusations of economic mismanagement.

“Today is the best opportunity for Angus to come clean on what he will cut from the budget,” said Dr Chalmers.

The cuts would come from opposing “your bad spending,” Mr Taylor fired back.

As in the leaders’ third election debate, it was hard to decipher which polished and confident performance clinched the win.

But with neither side able to land a killer blow, the most important goal appears to be simply not to trip up in the final stretch, rather than convince voters to pick either side.

Debates at this stage in the campaign were all part of the “political theatre” that posed “high risk” to the participants, with a “very low reward,” said Dr Zareh Ghazarian, senior lecturer in politics and international relations at Monash University.

“The leaders have to demonstrate that they have a mastery of the figures, of the data, of the policy details, and if they appear to not know or not be on top of the policy issues, then it has the potential to significantly backfire,” he said.

“At the same time, a competent, polished performance isn’t necessarily going to change any votes out there — only if things go wrong.”

Even before the leaders lined up for their third bout in the debating ring, an unprecedented 542,000 people had rushed to early voting centres, compared to 314,000 for day one in 2022, according to the Australian Electoral Commission.

“It’s reasonable to expect around half of all voters will have voted before election day (early and postal),” the AEC said on Wednesday, reflecting a developing trend.

That means millions will likely have cast their ballot before Mr Albanese and Mr Dutton reach round four of what voters can expect to be another assured argument over policy details, with neither offering a vote-swinging narrative.

“It’s like two companies that for reasons of some sort of corporate ructions order have ended up being run by the human resources managers,” said Professor Mark Kenny, director of the Australian Studies Institute, summing up the debate.

“Neither of them are very charismatic or interesting, or they don’t have a lot of vision for where they want to take their respective companies. So, there’s a very pedestrian level kind of discussion.”

And if the political experts are throwing their hands up, where does that leave voters struggling with a housing crisis and punishing household bills and who are trying to decide between a smorgasbord of small target cost-of-living policies?

Reaching for their calculators, perhaps.

On the one hand, they could opt for a Labor tax cut of up to $268 in 2026-27, followed by up to $538 in 2027-28 — all relative to 2024-25 tax settings — plus the option of buying their first home with a 5 per cent deposit, avoiding lenders mortgage insurance.

This is on top of a $150 energy bill rebate for each household until the end of 2025, a plan to reduce the price of batteries for households, small business and community facilities by 30 per cent, a $25 cap on PBS medicines, cheaper childcare, 20 per cent off all student debts. And free TAFE.

On the other, they could be attracted by the Coalition’s one-off tax cut of up to $1200 that benefits about 85 per cent of those earning an annual taxable income of up to $144,000, with the full offset available to those earning between $48,000 and $104,000.

This is alongside allowing first-time buyers of newly built homes to be able to deduct mortgage payments from income taxes, an immediate cut in fuel excise by 25 cents a litre for 12 months, a three per cent reduction in power bills through an east coast gas reservation policy. And cheaper lunches for small businesses.

With little difference in policies — bar an aspirational nuclear power plan and as yet opaquely costed defence spending hike — both major parties are now leaning into negativity and the politics of fear.

Tuesday night’s exchange was distinguished more by personal jibes and accusations of lies than stand out policies.

“Prime Minister, you couldn’t lie straight in bed. Honestly, this is unbelievable,” said Mr Dutton while under fire over past cuts to health and education budgets.

“You can go to abuse. That’s a sign of desperation,” retorted Mr Albanese.

“As is lying,” Mr Dutton hit back.

As the campaign nears the finish line, the mudslinging has hit levels that leave fact-checkers heads in a spin.

Labor’s charge the Coalition will cut education and health to pay for their $600 billion nuclear reactors is met with the Opposition’s claim the Government’s “renewables-only” policy has led to some of the highest power prices in the world.

The Coalition’s accusation Australia has had the biggest drop in living standards of any other country in the world is countered by Labor’s warning a Dutton government would axe urgent care clinics and keep wages low.

It’s a selective choice of facts and partisan perspective that allows parties to present any narrative they want to.

“Fear is always an element in election campaigns,” said Prof. Kenny. “I don’t think voters like it, but it doesn’t mean that it’s not effective.”

In a time of global instability, fear of things becoming worse was more likely to be an advantage to the government than opposition, he said.

“An uninteresting election favours the incumbent as well,” said Prof. Kenny, although he cautioned against over-interpreting the Coalition’s recent slide in the polls.

Unpredictable swathes of younger and floating voters are also plunging the election result further into the great unknown.

Gen Z and millennials were deploying “very astute” tactical voting that would have an impact on the major parties and “how they lose votes and how they win seats,” Kos Samaras, director of strategy and analytics at the Redbridge told the National Press Club this week.

With the intense focus on debate theatrics, the main players may be missing the bigger picture.

“Both major parties have been challenged from their flanks in a very significant way by young Australians who are going to behave very differently with regards to voting and upend their political system as we know it,” said Mr Samaras.