2025 election campaign set to be Australia’s dirtiest and most divisive

Building Australia’s Future and Australia Back On Track are facile campaign slogans but there’s one that sums up the feeling in the electorate: Surely Australia Deserves Better.

The political year has barely begun, yet the sounds of a federal election can already be loudly heard. Despite January being a month that is usually reserved for rest and reflection, both major political parties have started positioning themselves for the inevitable contest that must result in an election before 17 May. As the stakes rise, so too does the rhetoric, with Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton charging into the fray – as he usually does – leveraging a mix of typical conservative Liberal Party talking points and calculated distortions to rally his base.

Dutton’s recent soft-launch in Melbourne under the slogan “Let’s get Australia back on track” provides an early glimpse into the Coalition’s strategy. While it’s better than John Howard’s “Incentivation” slogan from the 1987 Liberal Party campaign, what is the track that Dutton wants Australia to get back to? The long list of incompetence and corruption between 2013 to 2022, when the Coalition was last in office? An economy that was careering towards recession in late 2019 before the Coalition’s undeserved economic reputation was rescued by the onset of COVID? Austerity budgets that undermine social cohesion? Record deficits? Daily division and pitting communities against each other? That track?

The choice of Melbourne – a battleground where the Liberals lost heartland seats to the community independents in 2022 – was no accident, and it highlights their attempts to regain urban and suburban electorates disillusioned with the party’s leadership and policies in the past. Yet, the messaging from Dutton reveals very little that is new and is likely to result in the same disillusionment: his attacks on renewable energy, unsubstantiated claims about government complicity in rising anti-Semitism, and promises of lower taxes that history repeatedly disproves, shows a strategy steeped in the politics of fear and division.

Dutton’s most inflammatory remark came in the context of anti-Semitism, an issue he pushes with little regard for accuracy or responsibility. He claimed a staggering 700 per cent surge in anti-Semitism and placed the blame squarely on the Prime Minister’s supposed “dereliction of leadership” following protests at the Sydney Opera House after Israel’s actions genocide and ethnic cleansing commenced in Gaza in October 2023. Such rhetoric is as audacious as it is baseless – the exploitation of deeply sensitive issues for political gain is a tactic as old as politics itself – but its overuse risks alienating an electorate weary of hyperbole and does result in harmful social division.

Dutton attempt to resurrect that perennial promise of lower taxes, a pledge that has rarely materialised under previous Coalition governments, also fails: economic data shows that the Howard and Morrison administrations presided over higher tax-to-GDP ratios than many of their predecessors, and taxing levels under Labor governments are consistently lower, undermining the credibility of Dutton’s claims. When pressed for specifics, he reverted to that nebulous mantra of “cutting government waste,” a trope designed to appeal to fiscal conservatives without committing to meaningful or achievable policy reform.

Dutton’s targeting of the public service as “inefficient” is both predictable and disingenuous, ignoring the essential services they provide to the community and the economic stability they support.

Energy policy is another example of the Coalition’s empty rhetoric, with Dutton now doubling down on his claim that the government’s focus on renewables is undermining Australia’s energy security.

His assertion that a “renewables-only policy” has caused market uncertainty is a serious oversimplification and a deliberate misrepresentation. Gas will continue to play a transitional role in Australia’s energy mix – whether we like it or not – as highlighted by the government’s Future Gas Strategy, and Dutton’s comments ignores the approach outlined in that very document, an approach that has its antecedents in Coalition policy from when they were last in government. Dutton’s framing of renewables as “part-time power” ignores technological advancements in storage and grid stability, pushing a false choice between economic growth and environmental responsibility.

Beneath the surface of Dutton’s rhetoric lies a broader strategy: stoke fears of instability and economic decline under Labor’s time in government, while offering no alternatives. This is not just political positioning; it is a calculated attempt to shift the narrative, leveraging misinformation to undermine public confidence in the government’s ability to manage complex challenges.

However, the contemporary electorate is different to electorates from the past. Australians are more politically engaged, environmentally conscious, and discerning in their assessment of political commentary and claims. The question for Dutton and the Coalition is whether their reliance on old tropes and half-truths will resonate in a landscape where voters are increasingly demanding transparency, accountability, and forward-thinking solutions.

Choices in the leadership for Australia’s future

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s response to Dutton’s campaign rhetoric has been quick, countering the opposition leader’s divisive strategies with an alternative vision of unity and progress. The Labor government’s slogan, “Building Australia’s Future,” is a rebuke to Dutton’s fear-driven narrative and this response perhaps reflects a broader frustration with this reliance on negative politics and empty promises.

Albanese’s response to Dutton’s inflammatory claims about anti-Semitism also shows the difference between the two leaders – Dutton’s attempt to politicise the deeply sensitive issue of anti-Semitism was met with a measured yet forceful response, in which Albanese detailed the numerous ways he has supported the Jewish community and Israel. While Albanese’s support for Palestine has been weak, inadequate, and pathetic, his support for Israel has been unwavering and undeniable – much to the dismay of Palestine’s advocates – and aside from Dutton and Zionist lobby groups, who would prefer Albanese to adopt a stance calling for the complete destruction of Palestine, no one can deny this.

The broader response to Dutton’s campaign launch has been equally damning, where his launch was characterised as “38 minutes of empty rhetoric” by members of the Labor government, with offered no tangible policies to alleviate cost-of-living pressures – for a leader attempting to frame himself as a saviour for struggling households, Dutton’s failure to present substantive solutions undermines his credibility.

It is easy to critique; it is far harder to constructively contribute, and Dutton’s campaign so far reveals an opposition that remains mired in the politics of negativity. And in an attempt to replicate Donald Trump’s proposed Department of Government Efficiency in the U.S., Dutton is proposing $368 billion in spending cuts would inevitably target essential services such as pensions, Medicare, and energy bill relief, and this highlights the dangerous implications of his rhetoric.

Dutton’s vagueness on fiscal policy – deliberately avoiding specifics while gesturing at “government waste”, a meaningless mantra if there ever was one – shows a reluctance to confront the real impact of austerity measures. Austerity will fail – as it always does (and more recently in Argentina and New Zealand) – and this lack of transparency leaves voters questioning what, if anything, the Coalition genuinely stands for beyond opposition to the government of the day.

Albanese, in contrast, has sought to frame his government as a “builder” – focused on creating a future that balances economic growth with social equity. His emphasis on providing support as something more meaningful than a “sugar hit” reveals a philosophy grounded in long-term nation-building rather than short-term political gains. This perspective, combined with his focus on uniting rather than dividing, directly challenges Dutton’s political instincts, which rely heavily on energising a hard-right base rather than appealing to a broader, more inclusive electorate.

Dutton’s campaign, at this early stage, appears to be an exercise in recycling tired conservative talking points: meanwhile, Albanese and his ministers have not only called out the emptiness of these talking points but have also drawn attention to the risks they pose to essential public services and social safety nets. This clear differentiation between the parties – one focused on division and disinformation, the other on unity and pragmatism – will likely become a defining theme as the election approaches.

The Albanese–Dutton contest between unity and division

While it’s clear that the next election campaign has essentially already begun, it’s also clear that it will be defined by personal attacks, manipulative narratives, hollow slogans, and relentless mudslinging, and these conditions are ripe for what promises to be one of the most bitterly fought and dirtiest federal election campaigns in Australia’s history,

Dutton, lacking substantive policies or ideas, is likely to drag the discourse down to his level, resulting in a campaign mired in obfuscation, sludge, and grinding negativity. This strategy will create a fog of dirt and confusion, where he will be hoping to emerge from this chaos with some kind of victory and, no doubt, he will be supported by the mainstream media. It is a disappointing inevitability, but perhaps the greatest tragedy is that it didn’t have to be this way.

Albanese entered office with a clear mandate to lead, bolstered by a public eager for stability and progress after nearly a decade of stagnation under successive Coalition governments. In many ways, his government has been competent and steady, yet Albanese’s determination to seek bipartisanship – particularly from a Liberal Party led by Dutton – has diluted his authority and squandered political capital that could have been used to push through transformative policies.

The Voice to Parliament referendum is probably the most obvious example, where Albanese’s insistence on securing bipartisan support for what should have been a nation-defining moment of reconciliation and progress allowed Dutton to derail the process, exploiting the opportunity to stoke fear and division. By courting a leader who thrives on wrecking rather than building, Albanese not only weakened his government’s position but also deepened the national divide. The referendum’s failure is a wound that will linger for some time to come, and it also serves as a cautionary tale of the perils of accommodating an opposition that has no interest in genuine collaboration.

On other fronts, Albanese has similarly undermined his potential for bold leadership. His government’s adherence to the unpopular Stage 3 tax cuts for so long – a relic of a bygone era of Coalition economic policy – baffled both critics and supporters, and when the federal government finally came around to amending this legislation, they received no political benefit.

Why, after nine years in opposition, would a government finally in power sacrifice so much fiscal capacity to uphold a policy that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy and undermines its broader social agenda? Again, the answer lies in a misguided attempt to avoid alienating right-wing interests and the Coalition, even as Dutton has offered nothing in return but contempt and obstruction.

Meanwhile, Dutton has capitalised on every misstep and every opportunity given to him, not with vision or policy but with relentless negativity. Like Tony Abbott before him, Dutton is a politician who thrives in opposition, a master of saying “no” but bereft of ideas for governing. His reliance on firebrand rhetoric about “woke” culture, baseless claims about the government’s role in societal ills, and constant appeals to conservative fears highlight his lack of intellectual depth and policy substance. If Abbott’s tenure as Prime Minister demonstrated the perils of electing a leader driven by destruction rather than creation, Dutton’s would likely prove even worse. His ambition is not to build a better Australia but to seize power for its own sake.

For Albanese, the upcoming campaign will be a critical test. His government has much to campaign on – stability and policy achievements – but these successes are overshadowed by a perception that he has failed to rise to the moment. The spectre of bold, transformative leadership has given way to slow-moving incrementalism that frustrates progressives and emboldens conservatives. Albanese’s inability to effectively counter these corrosive tactics from Dutton, and his reluctance to use the crossbench to bypass the Coalition on most occasions, has created a contest far closer than it needed to be.

Unless something dramatic happens over the next few months, the electorate will be left with a dilemma: choosing a government that has been competent but timid, or an opposition that is reckless and vacuous. The facile “Let’s get Australia back on track” and “Building Australia’s future” will dominate the campaign trail, but neither slogan captures the disillusionment many Australians feel. In truth, the campaign could be summed up with a sentiment both sobering and aspirational: Surely Australia Deserves Better.

A better political discourse. A better class of leadership. A better vision for the future. This is what the nation should demand from its leaders, yet the unfolding reality suggests it is unlikely to be delivered. Instead, Australians will have to put up with a campaign that is likely to be characterised by personal attacks, empty promises, and a sense of frustration with a political system that fails to rise up to the challenges of the modern era. Australia does deserve better, but only if is it prepared to not only ask for it, but to demand it – and it’s up to us, as a community to make these demands.

Political leadership is not just about winning power; it is about using that power to make a difference and so far, that hasn’t been the case. Certainly, political leadership is difficult and the political rewards are rarely presented easily on a platter – but Albanese was provided with an opportunity to wield power effectively and decided to prioritise bipartisanship with an opposition committed to division, and now risks squandering not only his legacy but also the trust and hope of the Australian people.

For Dutton, the path is simpler but far darker – a campaign of negativity and fear designed to secure power without purpose, much like Tony Abbott’s approach in 2013. Ultimately, Australia deserves better than either of these strategies. However, if the early weeks of 2025 are any indication, it seems unlikely that anything will change.