Federal election 2025: The good, the bad and the ugly of the campaign unpacked
You can hardly blame Australians for being late to the party when it comes to elections.
Many people don't tune in until the last minute because, let's face it, who really wants to watch two men in suits talking themselves up while sticking knives into their opponent.
How many times can they really bang on about the cost of living, housing, energy prices and Medicare without seeing voters' eyes glaze over?
But as much as politicians can try and talk us into a state of lethargy, there are factors outside of their control that have made this election one to watch.
A supposed Chinese 'spy ship'. Russian war planes. A seemingly innocent fall off a Newcastle stage. And the ever unpredictable US President, who has emerged as the third candidate in this election.
Here are some of the defining moments of the past five weeks.
THE GOOD
The Coalition started the campaign on a competitive footing, with opinion polls pointing to a narrow gap in the two-party preferred vote and a likely outcome of a hung parliament. If the pollsters are to be believed, it's the high point for the Coalition before Mr Dutton's campaign unravelled . . . or failed to get off the ground, depending on which way you look at it.
THE BAD
Labor is given a free kick in the first week when Mr Dutton said he wouldn't live in The Lodge if he becomes prime minister, telling Sydney radio hosts he would 'take Sydney any day over living in Canberra'. Labor seized on the comments, accusing the Opposition Leader of 'measuring the curtains at Kirribilli House' while having no respect for the people of Canberra.
Mr Albanese experienced his roughest day of the campaign, copping the fallout from Donald Trump's Liberation Day tariffs before literally falling off a stage at a Mining and Energy Union conference while in Cessnock in NSW. The simple mishap turned bizarre when the PM tried to claim he 'didn't fall . . . just one leg went down, but I was sweet.'
THE UGLY
Extremist gatecrashers made their presence known early in the campaign. A climate protester was able to get within an arm's reach of Mr Dutton on his first day campaigning in Queensland, triggering heightened security that limited spontaneous interactions with the general public. The PM was also targeted by alleged neo-nazis who gatecrashed his press conference in Brisbane.
THE GOOD
Many — including from within the Coalition's camp — have found it difficult to crack Mr Dutton's 'hard man' persona and convey a softer side to voters. But the Opposition Leader spoke personally on a range of issues at The West Australian's Leadership Matters event in Perth, including how politics is a 'brutal business' after a Brisbane boy was charged over an alleged terror plot targeting his home. In another moment of emotional candour, he described his family and his experience on the beat as a police officer in the 1990s as a driving force behind his ambition for the top job.
THE BAD
Just when the PM thought he was done with Chinese ships, a sea-floor research vessel appeared off the South Australian coast. Mr Albanese said he would 'prefer' it wasn't there but admitted he couldn't do anything about it. He said Australia conducts similar moves in the Taiwan Strait, sparking a furious reaction from the Opposition who said it was equating the behaviour of the Australian Defence Force to the Chinese Communist Party.
Mr Dutton admitted the Coalition's plan to force public servants back into the office was a 'mistake' in his first major backflip of the campaign. Polling shows both leaders are on the nose with female voters but Mr Dutton doesn't say whether this impacted his decision. He also walks back plans to axe 41,000 government jobs over the next five years through forced redundancies.
THE UGLY
The first blood is spilled after a cameraman is hit in the head by a footy following a stray kick from the Opposition Leader in Darwin. Mr Dutton apologised to the man, who was later seen sporting a bandage around his forehead and joking with colleagues after the accident.
THE GOOD
The leaders held their campaign launches with party faithful on the same Sunday (April 13), with the PM in Perth and the Opposition Leader in Western Sydney. Both unveiled last-ditch appeals to voters and sweeteners on tax cuts and mortgage relief. It's good to see first-homebuyers and young people finally getting some attention, but it's also clear this election has become a spendathon.
THE BAD
Mr Dutton made another blunder, jumping on a report that Russia was trying to base military aircraft in Indonesia — which would put fighter jets about 1400km north of Darwin — and incorrectly claiming the country's president had publicly announced Russia's request. While neither the Australian Government nor Indonesia categorically ruled out the request from Russia, Mr Dutton admitted during the second leaders' debate he wrongly claimed Indonesia's president had first made comments on the issue.
Housing is apparently fine to talk about as a policy issue — just don't ask what goes on behind closed doors. Both Mr Albanese and Mr Dutton dodged questions around whether they would help their own children with housing deposits after announcing policies to help more Australians crack the market. Mr Dutton, who brought his son Harry on the campaign trail and spoke about how first-homebuyers shouldn't have to rely on 'the bank of Mum and Dad', eventually said he would help him 'at some stage'. The PM argued 'families don't have a place in these issues'.
THE UGLY
There's nothing more embarrassing than going in for a hug and being snubbed — except for when that moment is caught on national TV. The PM appeared to block a hug and a kiss from Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek as he greeted members of his frontbench during his campaign launch. A number of others were also given the cold shoulder including Resources Minister Madeleine King, Assistant Minister Patrick Gorman and Veterans Affairs Minister Matt Keogh. They insisted they weren't offended, but a post-election cabinet reshuffle could reveal otherwise.
THE GOOD
The Coalition gets some serious momentum this week. Its pledge to inject $21 billion into Australia's defence is the shot in the arm the it needs in the penultimate week of the campaign. Mr Dutton has vowed to increase defence funding to 2.5 per cent of GDP within five years, if elected prime minister, before lifting that figure to the Trump administration's 3 per cent target. He also delivers his strongest performance yet in the third leaders' debate.
Labor also manages to cut through with its pledge to spend at least $1.2 billion buying critical minerals to stockpile, which will form part of Australia's response to Mr Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs and is tipped to be particularly beneficial for WA.
THE BAD
The world is rocked by news of the death of Pope Francis, who passed away on Easter Monday at the age of 88. Campaigning is briefly suspended out of respect for the late pontiff.
Another confusing backflip by Mr Dutton, this time on scrapping Labor's tax breaks for electric vehicles. The Opposition Leader pledged not to repeal the fringe benefits tax exemption for electric vehicles, which has soared in popularity since it was introduced by Labor in 2022. However, he has since confirmed the Coalition would axe the scheme, describing it as 'wasteful spending'.
THE UGLY
The stage saga refuses to go away. Just when we think Mr Albanese has finally admitted his blunder — confessing his worst moment of the campaign was when he fell off a stage in the first week of campaigning — he backtracked at a press conference later by saying he 'stumbled' off the stage and 'didn't fall over on my backside'. Of all the hills to die on, this one hardly seems worth it.
Disruptions during Indigenous acknowledgements at Anzac Day dawn services in Perth and Melbourne left crowds stunned and were slammed as an 'act of low cowardice' by Mr Albanese. Mr Dutton echoed his sentiments.
THE GOOD
Western Australia received yet another visit from both leaders as they made their final pitches to voters before polling day, cementing the State's status as a crucial battleground. Voters in a handful of WA electorates could decide the fate of Mr Albanese and Mr Dutton, with Bullwinkel, Tangney, Curtin and Pearce among the seats to watch.
THE BAD
Mr Dutton gets the price of a dozen eggs wildly wrong during Channel 7's Leaders' Debate. He says a carton costs $4.20, which is about half of the average price in supermarkets at the moment. We know the leaders don't do their own shopping, but Australians expect them to be across the cost of living — which has been the foundation for both campaigns.
The wheels all-but fell off the Coalition's campaign when one of its buses broke down in the middle of central Sydney traffic. Fortunately the bus is carrying the travelling media, who are able to capture the hiccup before their muscles are needed to help push. The one saving grace is that the bus wasn't branded with the Coalition's campaign slogan pledging to get Australia 'back on track'.
THE UGLY
The Brisbane electorate office of Mr Dutton is vandalised for the third time in two weeks, with litres of red paint splashed across its windows. An 18-year-old woman has since been arrested and charged.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Paul Murray: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his Government are torpedoing relationship with the US
It's brutally realistic that the compulsion to fight for your life and your country's existence can affect someone's thinking about national defence. Israelis don't have the luxury of wishing and hoping that the world was a more peaceful place. Nor do the Ukrainians. Or the Taiwanese. An existential threat will focus the mind on how much to spend on your survival. Do Australians need a more obvious regional menace before we start to think seriously about our national security? As if China didn't make it plain enough with a live firing drill off Sydney and what was obviously meant to be a humiliating circumnavigation of our coastline by part of its navy just to ram home how defenceless we really are. If and when China wants to do anything about it. Should we just bet that it doesn't? Instead, stand back wishing and hoping while China buys off another of our regional neighbours that before President Xi Jinping's elevation — and his aggressively expansionist mindset — it didn't care a fig about. Cash-splashing agreements like the so-called Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with the far-distant Cook Islands, all demanding adherence to the One China policy, hardly reflect an altruistic interest in the welfare of the region's inhabitants well beyond its horizons. In the face of a more dangerous world, Australia's dripping-wet lefties write letters to the editor calling for peace. Write them to Xi. And Putin. Or the Ayatollah. Good luck there. The peaceniks admire our Foreign Minister, who always finds some mealy-mouthed way of censuring Israel's efforts to defend itself, words that barely conceal her contempt for the Jewish state. Our Prime Minister, who never matured his political leanings from indoctrination as an undergraduate Bolshevik, waves away demands for increased defence spending like an unwanted smell. The only thing Anthony Albanese ever publicly professed a desire to fight is 'Tories.' And he's obviously far more comfortable in the ideological trenches than confronting the real emerging threats to our national security. Albanese was saved a potential confrontation with Donald Trump this week over his resistance to commit to a realistic national security target because the US President was too busy helping a worthy ally. One that more than pulls its weight in making the world a safer place. But Albanese's day of reckoning for his neglect of our national security will arrive one way or another soon enough. Reality has a nasty way of crashing in. We should all pray that we never face the same sort of existential threats that Israelis wake up to every day. But look at how it responds. Israel spends about 8.8 per cent of its GDP on defence, some US$46.5 billion provided this year. We have set aside US$38.5b ($59b) which represents a shade over 2 per cent. Israel's economy is about a quarter the size of Australia's, 34th in the world against 13th. We are significantly wealthier with GDP per capita of US$57,000 against US$42,000. It has a population of 9.5 million against 27 million. You could fit Israel's land mass 350 times into Australia's. Tasmania is three times bigger. And it is squeezed between countries that want to destroy it while we sit in the splendid isolation of an island continent at the bottom of the world. In the cyberworld, that isolation offers no defence. When Israel launched its attack on Iran's nuclear and missile launching facilities eight days ago, it had more than 200 fighter planes in the air simultaneously. Our air force notionally has 87. Obviously, the defensive needs of our two counties are vastly different. There's no way Israel has the same requirement as us for submarines, but it still has five German-made diesel-electric boats with air-independent propulsion for stealth operations. All are believed to be capable of carrying nuclear-armed missiles. We have six conventionally-armed Collins-class diesel-electric submarines of which only two are believed to be operational at any time. Which is why our commitment to the AUKUS deal and its provision of long-range stealthy nuclear-powered submarines from the US by the early 2030s is fundamental to our defence posture. And which is why the US decision to review the AUKUS deal against Trump's America First policy settings is far more serious than Labor is conceding to the public. Australians need to have a very clear understanding of the timeline that has led to this very serious brinkmanship and how our 'gift horse' attitude has been so damaging. The annual Shangri-La security dialogue in Singapore, much of it held behind closed doors, is one of the most important meetings held by world leaders to discuss the Asia-Pacific region. There were two notable firsts this year. A European, President Emmanuel Macron of France, delivered the keynote address, signifying piqued interest in the region's tensions, and the Chinese Defence Minister was not present for the first time since 2019. But the highlight was the address by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth who said America was 'reorienting towards deterring aggression by communist China' and seeking a situation of 'peace through strength' in which China 'cannot dominate us or our allies and partners.' 'Any attempt by communist China to conquer Taiwan would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world,' Hegseth said. 'We are not going to sugarcoat it. The threat China poses is real. And it could be imminent.' He laid down the gauntlet: 'President Trump has said that communist China will not invade Taiwan on his watch.' Hegseth also had a public message for America's allies in the region: 'We ask — and indeed, we insist — that our allies and partners do their part on defence. Sometimes, that means having uncomfortable and tough conversations.' And he set a standard for the commitment: 'NATO members are pledging to spend 5 per cent of their GDP on defence, even Germany. 'So it doesn't make sense for countries in Europe to do that while key allies in Asia spend less on defence in the face of an even more formidable threat, not to mention North Korea.' While that was immediately reported, Hegseth's private demands to Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles were not. As the heat rose around Hegseth's comments, Albanese was again asked about America's demand to the Europeans to lift defence spending commitments — and again he came up short. 'What you should do in defence is decide what you need, your capability, and then provide for it,' Albanese said. 'That's what my Government is doing.' He was leaning, not lifting. Typically. In a clear response to that, the Americans immediately released a readout of Hegseth's bilateral meeting with Marles in which he said Australia should increase its defence spending to 3.5 percent of its GDP as soon as possible. That the Americans saw the need to do that should be deeply embarrassing to Albanese and Marles. But they attempted, as usual, to deflect it. And then the Americans announced the review of AUKUS. That is the pickle we are in. If it is their genuine intention to measure the deal against America First principles, it is hard to see how it can stand in its present form. The so-called 'assurance' Trump gave on the fly to the UK Prime Minister at the G7 on the future of the deal is meaningless for us. It needs output of 2.3 new Virginia-class submarines a year by the early 2030s, but is currently running at 1.2 with no signs of immediate improvement despite an extra injection of $10 billion to boost production. The Americans have already decided that Australia is dragging its feet on defence spending after repeated proddings. Trump has almost certainly concluded that Albanese is recalcitrant. Regardless of what is going on behind the scenes, Trump requires his allies to make public shows of fealty. Albanese was given plenty of opportunity, but preferred to stubbornly decline. The proposal by former home affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo, author of the 2009 defence white paper, to offer the submarine repair shipyard at Henderson, south of Perth, as a joint US/Australian facility went unheeded. The US Navy has a severe backlog in its submarine maintenance program and assured access to Henderson would help clear that, allowing more boats at sea. That in turn would reduce the risk of a US president in 2032 not certifying the transfer of US subs to Australia — as required by law — on the grounds that it would degrade the US submarine capability. Albanese's ingrained leftist instincts against increased defence spending — which traditionally drops under Labor governments anyway — are obvious to everyone. And that includes Trump. For electoral gain, Labor ruthlessly demonised Peter Dutton to look like he was standing too close to Trump. Now Albanese will be made to pay for not being close enough.
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Steve Martin: Government's response to concerns about trains shows Labor's arrogance
Over 300 WA train drivers blew the whistle on the Government with major concerns about the safety and operability of WA Labor's Metronet C-series trains. The arrogant and dismissive response from Transport Minister Rita Saffioti should horrify every Western Australian. A six-railcar C-series train has 400 seats and can carry more than 1000 passengers. So, when the union that represents the people driving those trains releases a survey stating that the majority of drivers support withdrawing the trains until the issues can be resolved, you would expect the State Government to pay attention. The survey is genuinely shocking: 94 per cent of train drivers believe the trains weren't ready for service when they launched; 91 per cent believe the training they received was inadequate; 83 per cent report serious safety issues such as braking, speed and communication issues; 73.8 per cent of drivers said they themselves have felt unsafe while operating a C-series railcar. The 59-page report from the Rail Tram and Bus Union raised a plethora of specific issues. Doors opening or closing when they shouldn't, braking inconsistencies, difficulty communicating using the passenger emergency intercom, auto speed issues causing surging and/or over-speeding. There were also pages of testimony from drivers not holding back with their criticisms. The report also states that drivers felt the introduction of the C-series was 'politically motivated and rushed.' When 75 per cent of train drivers tell you they feel unsafe operating these massive machines, you sit up and pay attention. So, it has been surprising to see the level of willingness of the Cook Labor Government to completely deny and dismiss genuine concerns raised by professional train drivers. Premier Roger Cook, after spending quite a bit of time during the last election campaign riding around on the trains, had this to say: 'We understand that, you know, changing the model of trains always challenges the work force.' Ms Saffioti was even more blunt, responding to questions in Parliament from Opposition Leader Basil Zempilas by saying: '… drivers need to get used to the new trains.' It is difficult to think of a more disdainful response from the State Government to train drivers than to tell them that they, not the machinery they are paid to professionally operate, are the problem. It is the sort of arrogance that is becoming a constant theme from WA Labor in their third term. The drivers have good reason to be cynical of the Minister's priorities. The Bussell Highway duplication was 'opened' in time for Easter this year after years of delay — but the red warning cones, lane closures and speed reductions were swiftly back in place afterwards and roadworks continue to this day. The ultimate disdain of the Minister, who is also the Treasurer, is for WA taxpayers. Metronet has now blown out by over $12.5 billion. That's not her money, that is yours. Western Australians deserve better than a Transport Minister and Treasurer who is it in for herself and not for you. Steve Martin is Shadow Transport Minister
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Michelle Grattan: Key tests looming for Opposition leader Sussan Ley
On Wednesday, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley will front the National Press Club. So why is that a big deal? For one thing, her predecessor Peter Dutton never appeared there as Opposition leader. For another, it's a formidable forum for a new leader. It could all go badly wrong, but she's right to make the early appearance. It sends a message she is not risk-averse. Ley wants to establish a better relationship with the Canberra Press Gallery than Dutton had. He saw the gallery journalists as part of the despised 'Canberra bubble' and bypassed them when he could. That didn't serve him well — not least because he wasn't toughened up for when he had to face daily news conferences (with many Canberra reporters) on the election trail. Ley's office has set up a WhatsApp group for gallery journalists, alerting them to who's appearing in the media, and also dispatching short responses to things said by the Government (such as links to ministers' former statements). This matches the WhatsApp group for the gallery run by the Prime Minister's Office. One of Ley's press secretaries, Liam Jones, has also regularly been doing the rounds in the media corridors of Parliament House, something that very rarely happened with Dutton's media staff. To the extent anyone is paying attention, Ley has made a better start than many, including some Liberals, had expected. She came out of the tiff with the Nationals well, despite having to give ground on their policy demands. Her frontbench reshuffle had flaws but wasn't terrible. She's struck a reasonable, rather than shrill, tone in her comments on issues, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's failure thus far to get a meeting with US President Donald Trump. Her next significant test will be how she handles at the Press Club questions she and her party are confronting. So here are a few for her. One (the most fundamental): How is she going to thread the needle between the two sides of the Liberal Party? John Howard's old 'broad church' answer no longer holds. The church is fractured. In an era of identity politics, the Liberals have a massive identity crisis. The party's conservatives are hard line, have hold of its (narrow) base, and will undermine Ley if they can. Its moderates will struggle to shape key policies in a way that will appeal to urban small-l liberal voters. Two: How and when will she deal with the future of the Coalition's commitment to net zero emissions by 2050? She has put all policies on the table (but made exceptions for several Nationals' core policies). There is a strong case for her staking out her own position on net zero, and getting the policy settled sooner rather than later. With younger voters having eschewed the Liberals, Ley told The Daily Aus podcast this week,'I want young people to know first and foremost that I want to listen to them and meet them where they are'. One place they are is in support of net zero by 2050. If the Liberals deserted that, they'd be making the challenge of attracting more youth votes a herculean one. For the Opposition net zero is likely THE climate debate of this term — and such debates are at best difficult and at worst lethal for Liberal leaders. Three: Won't it be near impossible for the Liberals to get a respectable proportion of women in its House of Representatives team without quotas? Over the years, Ley has been equivocal on the issue. She told The Daily Aus: 'Each of our (Liberal State) divisions is responsible for its own world, if you like, when it comes to (candidate) selections'. This is unlikely to cut it: she needs to have a view, and a strategy. Targets haven't worked. Four: Ley says she wants to run a constructive Opposition, so how constructive will it be in the tax debate Treasurer Jim Chalmers launched this week? Ley might have a chat with Howard about the 1980s, when the Liberals had internal arguments about whether to support or oppose some of the Hawke government's reform measures. Obviously, no total buy-in should be expected but to oppose reforms for the sake of it would discredit a party trying to sell its economic credentials. More generally, how constructive or obstructive will the Opposition be in the Senate? This raises matters of principle, not just political opportunism. In the new Senate the Government will have to negotiate with either the Opposition or the Greens. If the Opposition constantly forces Labor into the arms of the Greens, that could produce legislation that (from the Liberals' point of view) is worse than if the Liberals were Labor's partner. How does that sit with them philosophically? Five: Finally, how active will Ley be in trying to drive improvements in the appalling Liberal State organisations, especially in NSW (her home State) and Victoria? The Liberals' Federal executive extended Federal intervention in the NSW division this week, with a new oversight committee, headed by onetime premier Nick Greiner. But the announcement spurred immediate factional backbiting. Ley is well across the NSW factions: her numbers man is Alex Hawke — whom she elevated to the shadow cabinet — from Scott Morrison's old centre-right faction. In Victoria, the factional infighting has been beyond parody, with former leader John Pesutto scratching around for funds to avoid bankruptcy after losing a defamation case brought by colleague Moira Deeming. That's just the start of the questions for Ley. Meanwhile, the party this week has set up an inquiry into the election disaster, to be conducted by former Federal minister Nick Minchin and former NSW minister Pru Goward. Identifying what went wrong won't be hard for them — mostly, it was blindingly obvious. Recommending solutions that the party can and will implement — that will be the difficult bit.
