The ugly federal election secret nobody is talking about

Analysis: This will probably be Australia's first $1 billion electionhese campaigns are not just staggeringly expensive but they are pretty much a waste of time

Analysis: This will probably be Australia's first $1 billion election, and here's the ugly secret behind it: these campaigns are not just staggeringly expensive but they are pretty much a waste of time

Let's be realistic. It's a fortune spent on a process which will decide who runs the country but tell voters very little about what that will mean to their lives.

First, the cost, and remember this is in a country where the leaders both champion the need to reduce public spending at the same time they are throwing money around to buy votes.

Put the pork barrelling to one side. That's for another day.

Instead consider this: the Australian Electoral Commission reports that the 2022 election cost the public $522,390,716 ( possibly inflated a little by the pandemic).

That includes a total of $75.8 million direct funding to the parties. Labor got $27.1 million, the Liberals $26.55 million right down to Jacqui Lambie who got $160,000, all assessed as part of the public cost of running the election.

But like the steak knives, there is more and it is all about winning your ears, hearts and minds.

'It would not be so bad if the election campaign actually led to sensible debate, worthwhile information, a genuine contest of ideas rather than a wrestle for popularity'

In the year leading to the election the parties spent $418 million doing their job, which includes thrusting printed pamphlets at bleary commuters on railway stations to glitzy advertising on TV that at times will try to convince you they have found the answer to curing cancer, world peace and perpetual motion, all in thirty seconds.

READ MORE: What you can expect in next week's federal budget

But don't look for accuracy in these advertising tsunamis. Through a ridiculous loophole, the politicians are not required to provide any truth in advertising until the campaign starts. For all but the last few weeks it is legal to lie. 

Regardless, the coalition last election spent $132 million, Clive Palmer $123 million  and Labor $116 million.

At a conservative estimate we are throwing $900 million at democracy, more than half of it public money.

How many hospitals could be built, how much military hardware could be bought and how many pensioners would be given a bonus if that money was used differently?

It would not be so bad if the election campaign actually led to sensible debate, worthwhile information, a genuine contest of ideas rather than a wrestle for popularity, and a chance that the whole process meant the voter was buying anything other than a pig in a poke.

Within two  weeks I have now spoken at length to both the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Opposition leader Peter Dutton as a pre-election strategy for my podcast, Neil Mitchell Asks Why?

If you doubt my argument listen to the two interviews, linked above. Both were privately relaxed and publicly wary. Both are decent people, but they are locked into the theatre of bluster, point scoring, and minimal risk.

Take the nuclear debate. A decision on nuclear power could define the direction of Australia for the rest of the century.

We need sensible disagreement and rock solid facts rather than spin and rhetoric.

Dutton this week did go into some detail on my podcast. He admitted the benefits of any move to nuclear would not be felt until the 2040s or 50s, when we could expect a 44 per cent drop in electricity prices.

There's more than a touch of pie in the sky about that. It is not exactly a flying pig and may happen, but how many other factors could pop up to affect the prices in the next 25 to 30 years and how do households pay their bills in the meantime?

He also suggested he could use the lure of modular nuclear reactors being US made, as part of the trade war dealings with Donald Trump. God only knows where that could land. Dutton has offered to meet the PM anywhere anytime to debate but we  know how that would go.

Albanese would accuse Dutton of creating two headed kittens with nuclear waste, Dutton would accuse the PM of turning out the lights mid winter and none of us would be any the wiser on how to sensibly resolve the country's power crisis. 

The heat of an election campaign is no time to hope for sensible discussion. 

On other issues, the Opposition Leader this week gave broad brush policies, and suggests he can't give detail until he wins government and sees "the state of the books"

Albanese, meanwhile, is so careful not to say anything in case he says something that we can look at his record and not much else.

So what will happen during the campaign?

They will be asked about the price of milk, bread and petrol as supposed proof they understand the cost of living crisis. It proves nothing. They are rehearsing that already.

They will both spell out their vision which is motherhood stuff, both versions entirely sensible and if either could deliver it well worthwhile.

Albanese wants a fair go for all and "nobody left behind", same as last time.

Dutton wants a competitive and thriving country under one flag where it is again fashionable to be proud of your country.

As the campaign builds here will be televised debates which will be more about appearance than substance – believe me I have been on several panels for these debates over the years.

The ground rules are negotiated at such length and in such detail similar dedication to international affairs could bring world peace.

There will be dedicated gaffe chasers through the media and gaffes will come and go with little effect on the outcome.

Boomers will lament their loss of power as a political force and younger generations will wonder why any of these people is worth their vote.

And at the end of the $1 billion process we still will not have specific ideas on reducing cost of living, patching up the country's  defence, fixing the housing crisis or managing immigration properly.

Then, probably sometime in May, we will wake up with a new or returned government, congratulate ourselves on avoiding change by revolution, and get back to the footy or paying the bills.

It's an imperfect process and to improve it everybody needs to grow up, ban the spin, trust the people, and begin trying to convince rather than con.

That won't happen and to varying degrees never has. Here's proof from two fellows from history who knew a bit about words, argument and politics:

Sir Winston Churchill, twice British Prime Minister and 62 years a member of parliament: "Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried."

And Plato, the Greek philosopher who died in 348 BC, which was before television was  invented: "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something."

Good luck working out which is which.

Neil Mitchell hosts the podcast "Neil Mitchell Asks Why?" He posts interviews each Tuesday and his personal news analysis each Thursday.