Numbers fly as unedifying campaign draws towards its close

Well, Margaret, after an unedifying campaign, from most of which you have spared yourself, you could find your choice challenging (OK, I'm not directly answering your question).

You may dislike Scott Morrison (large numbers of women do). But you know the government's stripe, and the PM has promised he'll listen and show greater empathy if he's installed for another term.

But can you believe him? Equally likely is that once he's vindicated by victory, we could see even more of the arrogance for which he's so widely criticised. And he's given little idea of how he'd use another term. Just being the manager?

You might like Anthony Albanese better, with his "caring" pitch. But would he be up to the job? He was competent enough as a senior minister. But it's a big step from opposition leader to PM. And he's run a seriously poor campaign, peppered by slip-ups (on Thursday he mistakenly said "our [national] borders are closed").

It's understandable Albanese has made Labor a small target after Bill Shorten's 2019 experience, but that's meant we don't have a broad feel for what Labor would do over the medium term.

If you were in a "teal" seat, Margaret, you could escape the Morrison v Albanese dilemma by voting for one of those very reasonable-sounding professional women whose priorities are climate, integrity, and gender equity.

But you might be concerned about how a hung parliament would work out. It would be an adventure into the unknown, with much depending on whether Morrison or Albanese ran it.

This election comes when people are exhausted after the pandemic, and highly disillusioned with politicians. The campaign has been beset by noise and sledging. Spending promises, to bribe marginal seats, have been thrown around like confetti by both sides.

There are some policies on view, but what has been missing is big ideas for the nation's future. Neither side dared to talk about serious "reform". There's been little to grab the attention of the disengaged, or indeed even of the engaged.

When I contacted Margaret, a professional rider, to ask if I could report her text, she told me politics "is just something I don't focus on. It's not part of my life - which is ridiculous, because it affects every part of my life."

Margaret is one of thousands of voters around Australia who have left their decisions to the last minute - even to election day itself, as they go to the polling booth. They've been the prime targets as the leaders made their late pitches, dashing from seat to seat. In some electorates, voters deciding on the death-knock could be crucial.

On Friday, former prime minister Julia Gillard appeared with Albanese in Adelaide, urging women to support him. Morrison was in Perth, trying to protect vulnerable seats in a state previously a bulwark for the Liberals. Meanwhile the Australian Electoral Commission was scrambling to make last-minute adjustments to ensure all who'd tested positive for COVID can vote.

In contrast to the late deciders, millions of Australians have pre-polled - for convenience, for COVID safety, or just because they were anxious to be over the election.

As the opinion polls this week showed the contest tightening, the final few days have brought their manic moments.

Morrison, in pursuit of yet another photo opportunity, knocks a kid to the ground during a soccer encounter; the kid later says "it should have been a penalty". In Kooyong, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg films a verbal altercation between "teal" money man Simon Holmes à Court and Superannuation Minister Jane Hume.

The dying days also saw some new economic figures that go to the heart of this election battle.

The wage price index, released on Wednesday, underlined how people are going backwards in our now high-inflation environment. It increased by 2.4 per cent over the year to March, when inflation was 5.1 per cent.

This played for Labor, which has run hard on the cost of living.

READ MORE:

Then on Thursday, the latest unemployment number, 3.9 per cent in April, reinforced the government's mantra on jobs.

But the conundrum remains. Normally one would expect our very tight labour market to drive up wages growth, but it hasn't been happening and there is no prospect it will happen any time soon. The Reserve Bank doesn't expect any growth in real wages, as measured by the wage price index, before the end of 2023.

Albanese has indicated Labor hopes the Fair Work Commission will give workers on the minimum wage a rise that keeps them up with inflation. Morrison, on the back foot on wages, has tried to have things both ways - saying he wants to see wages rising, but condemning Albanese's stance as irresponsible.

Labor left its release of its policy costings until Thursday. It admitted it anticipated a scare campaign. But it gambled that, now that deficits are enormous, having a cumulative deficit just $7.4 billion above the government's $224 billion in the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook (PEFO) won't be politically damaging. [The figure was $8.4 billion when a last-minute government saving is taken into account.]

Compared to the PEFO, the Labor differences are: $1.1 billion in 2022-23; $1.7 billion in 2023-24; $2.2 billion in 2024-25; and $2.3 billion in 2025-26.

The opposition said its larger deficit was accounted for by investment in "key economy-growing areas" of childcare, training and education, and clean and cheaper energy. In other words, Labor argued it had a gap of only a few billions, and cast the extra spending as boosting productivity.

But these same few billions were used by the government to reinforce its claim Labor couldn't manage money.

"I think Australians think $7.4 billion is a lot of money," declared Morrison, who in the March budget spent, in payments and tax breaks, an extra $30.4 billion.