Labor can’t make a thing stick to Dutton, the Mr Teflon of empty politics

Meanwhile, Dutton’s announcement on nuclear policy left a large number of big questions. Was it really possible to build a new industry so fast? What about this country’s appalling record on infrastructure projects?

Won’t coal plants mostly stop working before nuclear starts, leaving a gap that needs to be filled – an issue raised by coal plant owners themselves on Friday? Will this plan actually produce enough electricity? And – an issue reportedly raised by Coalition MPs – what will this mean for power bills?

And yet there is a sense that with just months until the election Labor has barely laid a glove on Dutton’s policy problems. Why?

The media may be a factor. Albanese was justified in telling his cabinet, as reported in this masthead, that the Murdoch press is cheerleading for the Coalition. It may also be that credibility on details is simply not what matters about Dutton: his image is of toughness, not policy smarts.

Another possibility is that Dutton has benefited from a disturbing new phase in our politics, in which details don’t matter. Overseas, people talk about living in an “era of vibes”. Here, journalist Michael Pascoe put it well in The Saturday Paper when he called this “the age of impressionist politics … the colour and movement, the reflected light, the fleeting sense of an image”. In this view, a lack of detail has switched from hindrance to advantage: “Dutton is gaining momentum precisely because he is operating without detail.”

Which brings us back to the contrast between Labor and the Coalition. In policy terms alone, attention to detail and process is preferable. But being a politician is not the same as being a public servant: there are moments you must be able to fly a little more freely, unburdened by the task of having to get through every item on your spreadsheet. As Labor responded to Dutton’s nuclear announcement, it seemed initially unable to settle on a clear line of attack, to deploy a sharp line to point everyone towards one major failing that might drive headlines.

By Sunday, it seemed to have sharpened its focus with claims of a $4 trillion economic loss under Dutton’s policy.

Labor’s trouble with responding to Dutton is similar to its problem with prosecuting its own agenda. This is Labor’s other major contribution to Dutton’s Teflon run. Across 2½ years, the Albanese government has mostly failed to make the case for its significant policies sharply enough that Dutton feels cornered and has to respond.

It was telling, then, that in the many problems Labor outlined with Dutton’s nuclear policy, the argument that Labor’s transition to renewables was working and would be derailed if his plan was adopted, was quite far down its list. Even less prominent was the argument that Labor is doing something about climate change. Labor did a reasonable job of listing the very important problems with Dutton’s approach; unwittingly, it pointed to some of the shortcomings of its own.

Sean Kelly is a regular columnist and a former adviser to prime ministers Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.