Are voters really influenced by their view of which of the party leaders is the stronger? Peter Dutton obviously thinks so; for a year and more he has been attacking Anthony Albanese in almost every speech and utterance as being “weak” and trying to persuade voters that he himself was strong.
It’s part of his campaign rhetoric too – “weak as water”, last Sunday, is the latest. That followed “limp-wristed” a few days earlier, a homophobic slur that was called out by some Teals as well as by Foreign Minister Penny Wong.
For at least six months, commentators and columnists have been echoing this same refrain. It got to the point where the prime minister at his first major event this year — an appearance before the National Press Club — was asked to comment on the accusation that he was weak.
He responded strongly (that word — but everyone in the audience seemed to agree) first by saying how strong he had been in adopting the stage 3 tax cuts for all taxpayers instead of the cuts in the original LNP package he inherited — but which he had said at the election he would not reject) which benefitted only high-income earners.
He then said that weakness was what had been displayed by Dutton in refusing all invitations to appear before the National Press Club where he would be questioned by journalists from the press gallery. Dutton, notoriously, gives few media conferences in Canberra, preferring locations elsewhere where his interlocuters are mainly locals not necessarily up to speed with the latest political dramas.
Dutton’s “strong” dialogue is clearly directed primarily at male voters. Whether it carries as much electoral weight for women voters may be doubted. However the Coalition doesn’t appear to be concerned. Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie has dumped on Albanese saying he “would be the guy hiding in the toilets” during a bar fight – this because he hadn’t been strong enough in resisting Trump over tariffs.
The real problem with this language, however, is that the dichotomy it invites us to make our political judgments upon is largely irrelevant. It ignores and distracts us from considering more important issues such as whether the “weak or strong” leaders and the “weak or strong” policies that have been adopted or proposed are right or wrong, good or bad, appropriate, timely, affordable, in the national interest or not.
Albanese made no secret of his political strategy ahead of the last elections – don’t scare the horses, avoid being wedged. Weak, yes. But a political strategy designed to avoid antagonising voters who wanted to get rid of Scott Morrison and the Coalition Government. His eye was on winning a second term, which meant he would follow the same policy approach after he won government.
Weak, yes. Disappointing, undoubtedly, for many Labor voters who thought their party would implement more of its platform when it gained office. Policy free, largely, though he did rack up some policy successes in areas such as health, education, welfare, childcare, etc. But it also meant failing to fully deliver over the National Anti-Corruption Commission, protection of the environment and elsewhere. And he avoided facing up to problems such as AUKUS and the nuclear submarines which he had put in the two-hard basket while in Opposition.
Despite all of this, come the election he presents a united team – notwithstanding Opposition efforts to make Tanya Plibersek rebel. No defections, no leaks from cabinet or even from caucus. Some disquiet over the failure to address gambling and some other issues, but very little. On the other hand, Dutton has had to lecture his team about leaks and dissent, despite his strong-man image.
Strong can be wrong. Dutton’s exemplar, Donald Trump, who treats his allies, friends and neighbours as enemies, demonstrates that failing on a daily basis. Indeed, it seems that Dutton is beginning to suffer electorally for the growing public concern about Trump and the policies he has espoused and is putting into effect, policies which Dutton and his backers, such as Gina Rinehart, until now, had wanted to appropriate and apply in Australia.
David Solomon is a former legal and political correspondent. He has degrees in Arts and Law and a Doctorate of Letters. He was Queensland Integrity Commissioner 2009-2014.