Well before the campaigning had commenced, readers from across the national ACM network, including this masthead, were asked what issues were likely to determine their vote at the 2022 federal election and what personal qualities were most important in a prime minister.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Our online survey attracted responses from more than 7200 readers all around the country.
From small towns like Bunbury in WA, Bega on the Far South Coast of NSW and Beaudesert in Queensland to larger population centres such as Canberra, Newcastle, Launceston and Warrnambool, your responses provided a snapshot of what Australians living beyond the major metropolitan cities are demanding and deserve from the next Australian government.
Over the past six weeks, between the relentless rounds of promises, gaffes and gimmicks, ACM's federal parliamentary bureau team in Canberra and our fellow reporters covering electorates around the country have examined the policies put forward by the parties.
Today, we score the Coalition and Labor on their commitments to the top 10 issues according to our readers.
Environment and climate change
The Coalition: The Coalition has committed to reaching net zero emissions by 2050, saying it will do so by investing in carbon-reducing renewable technologies and pouring money into building a local hydrogen industry. There are many questions and uncertainties about its climate policy, including about the percentage of carbon emissions cuts it assumes will happen through future and undeveloped technologies.
Labor: Labor is promising net zero emissions by 2050, but also a 43 per cent drop in carbon emissions by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. It plans to get there by upgrading the electricity grid to improve transmission, making electric vehicles cheaper, extending the safeguard mechanism to reduce the emissions of the largest polluters, and restoring the Climate Change Authority.
The verdict: The Coalition's commitment to net zero by 2050 may have been an achievement, given the resistance it faced internally from the Nationals, but its 2030 targets fall well short of not only Labor's but those of other Western nations. Labor's offer of a 43 per cent carbon reduction by 2030 puts Australia on a clearer track to the 2050 target than the Coalition's. Neither of the major parties' policies will be enough to avert the problems scientists warn are around the corner when it comes to climate change.
Health
The Coalition: Scott Morrison has promised to reduce the cost of medicines listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by $10 in January if it's re-elected, and to lower the PBS Safety Net threshold from July 1. It's also promised to expand eligibility for the seniors health card.
Labor: Labor moved swiftly to better the Coalition's promise of cheaper PBS medicines, offering to make them $12.50 cheaper. It also promised to match the government's expansion of eligibility for the seniors health care card. Its promise of nearly $1 billion more funding for Medicare and access to GPs forms the centrepiece of its health platform.
The verdict: Labor is offering more money for Medicare than the Coalition, has a policy aiming to make it easier for people to see a GP, and has one-upped the government on cheaper medicines. These promises put Labor ahead of the Coalition when it comes to health policy.
Leadership
The Coalition: Through the campaign as in government, Mr Morrison has deflected questions on his government's record, pivoted to the Coalition's talking points and tried to suggest its mistakes were the fault of others. He should be marked down on "honesty", "trustworthiness", "accountability" and "responsibility" for this.
Mr Morrison showed decisiveness over the last term in government, in rolling out economic measures against the pandemic downturn and holding firm against pressure from China. Indeed, it's his reputation for "strength" and "decisiveness" that is behind his self-described "bulldozer" quality.
Meanwhile, his failure to collaborate and consult is arguably no clearer than in his decision to install "captain's picks" in multiple races for seats this election, which led to Katherine Deves' candidacy for the seat of Warringah. Mr Morrison's resolute backing of the controversial candidate - despite her comments about transgender people - and some of his own commentary about transgender people have stoked a damaging and hurtful debate about transgender issues this election.
Labor: Anthony Albanese's first-day campaign stumble, when he wasn't able to name the unemployment rate or cash rate, was a blunder that rightly called into question his ability to handle the economy.
While his failure to recall all six points of Labor's NDIS plan was more understandable, it also showed he is not a detail-oriented leader but someone who instead deals in themes and overarching "vision". As prime minister, it would be reasonable to anticipate he would leave it to his ministers to be across the specifics of policies.
How accountable Mr Albanese would actually be in government remains unknown. He started the campaign promising to answer all journalists' questions at press conferences, trying to frame himself as more transparent than Mr Morrison. Fairly soon, his press conferences became shorter, and he often seemed flustered and ill-at-ease under questioning from journalists.
The verdict: It's no wonder the polls show voters are not embracing either Mr Morrison or Mr Albanese. Each have distinct flaws, and enough of them to leave it an open and unresolved question as to who would make the better prime minister. If voters are looking for someone who is across the details of policies and issues, can be decisive, understands the economy and has experience in the top job, Mr Morrison is the choice. Mr Albanese is a better option for people looking for trustworthiness, accountability and honesty. The choice will ultimately hinge on which faults voters are willing to live with, and whether voters are willing to take a bet on someone different, or stick with what they know regardless of the flaws.
Federal anti-corruption commission
The Coalition: There's a lot of reason to doubt the Coalition's commitment to a federal anti-corruption commission. Mr Morrison has attacked the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption for its public hearings, calling it a "kangaroo court" that had unnecessarily delved into politicians' personal lives, and warning an anti-corruption agency with too much power would be a "public autocracy" that undermined elected officials. Integrity advocates have panned the Coalition's proposed model - which would not allow public hearings for MPs or referrals from the public - as too weak to deal with government corruption.
Labor: Labor is promising to legislate a federal anti-corruption watchdog by the end of 2022, if it wins government. Its model would have the power to investigate allegations of serious and systemic corruption that occurred before it was established, and would have the power to hold public hearings where the commission determines doing so is in the public interest. It would also be able to start inquiries on its own initiative or in response to referrals, including from whistleblowers and the public.
The verdict: Labor is offering a much stronger federal anti-corruption commission, and appears far more committed to creating an integrity agency. If voters want a watchdog with serious power to stamp out corruption, Labor has the better offer. The Coalition's model is too weak to have an impact.
Handling of the pandemic
The Coalition: The vaccine rollout was without doubt a shambles, and the delays kept Australians in lockdown far longer than necessary. As if that wasn't enough, the government's failure to secure supply of rapid antigen tests ahead of the Omicron wave earlier this year added to the frustrations.
Overall, Australia has emerged from the pandemic with fewer deaths than most countries, and its unemployment rate did not reach the shocking highs of 15 per cent first predicted. That is due in great part to the JobKeeper program, which helped save a large portion of the economy, and the temporary lift in JobSeeker payments. JobKeeper involved a lot of waste, and many companies that didn't need the payments received them. These criticisms are important to consider, but it should also be remembered they are made with the benefit of hindsight.
The government ultimately listened to the advice of its health officials in its decision-making - it could easily have ignored them and bowed to pressure from businesses to loosen restrictions before the right time.
Labor: It's hard to score Labor on managing the pandemic, given it wasn't in government when COVID arrived. However it should be acknowledged the ALP played a constructive role in opposition during the crisis.
The verdict: Mr Morrison makes the heady claim that the Coalition government "saved the country" in the pandemic. That's over-egging it, but he has a fair point in saying the government's massive spending during that time helped keep the economy intact.
Labor: n/a
Economic management
The Coalition: Unemployment is low, especially by the standards of other advanced economies, and that's due in large part to the Coalition's massive spending in COVID. When it comes to spending and debt, the Coalition says an efficiency dividend and changes to super contributions will offset its $2.3 billion in spending promises this campaign.
Labor: Mr Albanese's day-one clanger, when he didn't know the jobless rate, immediately had Labor on the back foot about its economic credentials, leaving it open to arguments from the Coalition that it didn't know how to manage the economy. While the Labor leader since then hasn't been convincing in demonstrating any detailed understanding of economics, he has a strong candidate for treasurer in Jim Chalmers and finance minister in Katy Gallagher.
Labor's overall argument is that it will prioritise "quality" of spending, targeting cash at programs that will bring a return on investment through greater productivity - for example, childcare.
The verdict: Both the Coalition and Labor have essentially abandoned the idea that budgets should be balanced and spending reined in accordingly. Labor makes a compelling argument that government spending should enhance productivity and reshape the Australian economy for the post-COVID world. But it's hard to argue against the fact that the Coalition has succeeded in keeping unemployment lower than it might have been.
Aged care
The Coalition: The Coalition has promised $19.1 billion in spending over five years to improve aged care since the royal commission. It has also accepted the commission's recommendation for nursing staff to be on premises 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It has committed to 16 hours for a registered nurse onsite and 200 minutes of care starting next year.
Labor: Mr Albanese made aged care reform the centrepiece of his budget reply speech this year, highlighting the issue as one of Labor's priorities and seeking to lead on it during the campaign. He promised $2.5 billion over four years to improve aged care. Labor has made nurses and care minutes one of its main election promises, and has said it would have 24/7 registered nurses by July 2023, 200 minutes of care per day by October that year, and 215 minutes of care by October 2024.
The verdict: Both the Coalition and Labor appear to have grasped the extent of the crisis in the aged care sector - but after COVID, and the royal commission, it was past time they did. They have each promised huge amounts of spending to improve the system. While the Coalition eventually called the royal commission, and is beginning to act on it, the failures in the system have happened under its watch for the last nine years.
Household cost of living
The Coalition: On cost of living, the government has helped ease the strain with a temporary lifting of the fuel excise, and assistance for households. But beyond this, it hasn't had the answers this campaign when asked what it will do to help people in the long-term - except to promise that its better economic management will make wages rise.
Labor: Mr Albanese's comments supporting a 5.1 per cent minimum wage rise - that is, a pay increase keeping pace with inflation - brought on what was an overblown backlash.
The verdict: It's hard to score the parties on this, as so much of the problem lies in factors happening overseas. Neither is offering much in the way of long-term relief. There is no clear winner in the debate over cost-of-living.
National security and defence
The Coalition: The Coalition has moved to reshape Australia's defence posture in the last term of government and has comprehensively aligned the nation with its ally the United States in striking the AUKUS agreement. It has lifted defence spending, and held firm under immense pressure from China in the form of trade tariffs after the superpower retaliated following the Coalition's government call for an inquiry into the origins of COVID.
While the Morrison government landed the AUKUS security agreement with the US and Britain, it came at the cost of damaging Australia's partnership with France, which lost a lucrative submarines contract as a result of the new deal. The pact between China and Solomon Islands raises questions about the Coalition government's efforts to prevent the security arrangement, however defence experts argue there was little it could do to stop the deal.
Labor: Labor has supported the Coalition government's defence spending, has backed the AUKUS agreement, and has largely been in lockstep with the government on matters of national security. While the Coalition has tried drawing attention to Labor deputy leader Richard Marles' meetings with Chinese officials in previous years, there is no substantial reason to believe the ALP would be any less firm against China than the Coalition.
The verdict: There's not much between the Coalition and Labor on national security - eminent former defence officials have said as much previously. Both have taken firm stances against China, support increased defence spending and will pursue the AUKUS agreement. And each will have to prove, if elected, it can deliver on important defence projects.
Housing affordability
The Coalition: The Coalition has promised to unlock superannuation for first home buyers, limiting the amount they can use to the lesser of $50,000 or 40 per cent of their super balance. The money will have to be paid back into their superannuation - including with a percentage of any profit - when they sell the house.
Labor: Labor has proposed a scheme where it would co-purchase a home with people trying to enter the property market. It involves a shared equity arrangement where up to 40 per cent of the dwelling value is purchased by the federal government, potentially saving up to $380,000 on a loan. The package would cost $329 million over four years, and target low- to middle-income earners.
The verdict: At least they've each proposed a solution. The debate has turned into an ideological argument, which isn't all that helpful for home buyers. It comes down to a question of whether they would prefer to dip into their own superannuation to purchase a house, or receive help from the government. The Coalition's policy has received mixed (and sometimes scathing) reviews. Ultimately, the government's proposal does raise concern about the impact on superannuation balances in the long-run, and risks creating moral hazard for future governments that may want to let people draw on their super for other purchases.