The article argues that criticisms of the recent Australian election as lacking in substantive policy are misguided. It highlights several instances of meaningful policy proposals, including Labor's standard tax deduction and the abolition of non-compete clauses. These were seen as productivity enhancing.
The author draws parallels to past elections, noting that policy-heavy campaigns haven't always translated to electoral success. The 1993, 1998, and 2010 elections, which included significant policy debates, resulted in mixed outcomes. The 2019 election, with its focus on substantial tax reform, saw voters reject the proposal.
The author challenges complaints about the campaign's tone, pointing to the harsh treatment of previous Prime Ministers like Julia Gillard. They argue that the accusations of Labor 'demonizing' Peter Dutton pale in comparison to the attacks on Gillard. Examples include past election campaigns with harsh rhetoric and negative advertising.
The author notes that the campaign's focus on stability was influenced by numerous global events. The global financial crisis, wage stagnation, the rise of Trump, COVID-19, inflation, the war in Ukraine, and the conflict in Gaza created a climate in which voters prioritized stability. This provided a background to the voters' choices.
Ultimately, the article contends that the election, while perhaps not ideal in terms of policy depth, reflected voters' desire for stability amid a backdrop of significant global uncertainty. The author suggests that a campaign focused on stability in times of upheaval is not necessarily a bad thing.