AMID the usual petty distractions that dominated headlines during week one of the election campaign, a serious issue finally emerged that exposes a clear fault line between the Coalition and Labor.
Labor leader Anthony Albanese has pledged to deliver a national anti-corruption watchdog within the first year of his term should his party win the May 21 poll.
After a stuttering start to the campaign when he was unable to answer questions about the cash and unemployment rates, Mr Albanese has seized upon the Morrison government's reluctance to make good on its own promise.
Advertisement
"Mr Morrison has delayed and obfuscated for over three years - and then this week it became clear he has absolutely no intention of honouring his promise to deliver a National Anti-Corruption Commission at all," he said.
"Why do you fear an anti-corruption commission? What is it you're afraid they will find?"
Nothing Mr Morrison has done in this space over the last three years provides any reason for optimism that the Coalition is serious about opening the federal government up to increased scrutiny.
The Coalition put forward a model for an anti-corruption commission during this term, but it was criticised by both political rivals and many policy experts as soft and secretive.
At the first sign of resistance - mainly in the form of an alternative model offered up by Indi independent Helen Haines featuring powers similar to those held by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption - Mr Morrison retreated, thrilled to have an excuse for not proceeding with something his heart clearly was not in.
Mr Morrison has been outright scathing of the NSW ICAC, despite it having a proven - albeit not entirely unblemished - track record of uncovering corruption in local and state government.
"I'm not going to introduce a Kangaroo Court," he said this week. "I'm not going to introduce a policy that I don't think is in the nation's best interests."
Will Labor's gambit to attack the Coalition on this issue resonate with voters? Quite possibly it will.
Voters are more sensitive and sceptical than ever about how their tax dollars are spent, thanks in no small part to rising cost of living pressures.
Whereas once spending big in marginal or electorally important seats was seen as part and parcel of the political process, the public is less forgiving of blatant pork barreling these days.
Could the threat of scrutiny from a federal anti-corruption body have prevented the "sports rorts" and "car park rorts" scandals?
Could increased scrutiny result in a fairer distribution of taxpayers' money based on genuine need and not political expediency?
Or is Mr Morrison right in not wanting to model a federal anti-corruption commission on a state body so powerful that one NSW premier resigned for failing to declare a bottle of plonk and another resigned after simply being called to give evidence?
If you feel strongly one way or the other, drop us a line at letters@dailyadvertiser.com.au.
All the best for the week ahead,
Ross Tyson, editor
