Quite a few bloggers, and others, have commented on the fact that neither the Iraq war, nor the Free Trade Agreement with the US, both hot topics in the leadup to the election, have played a big role in the campaign. The obvious explanation is that both sides have vulnerabilities that prevent them from raising the issue.
On Iraq, Latham had the best of the argument when it came up during the debate, but defence policy is never likely to be a winner for Labor. The obvious failure of the war, and the lies that led up to it, have given Howard obvious reasons to keep quiet on the specific issues and hope that a more general appeal not to change horses in midstream will produce the right outcome. Similarly, Labor hopes that the ‘doctor’s wives’, Liberal voters who opposed the war, won’t need any reminders to change their vote.
As regards the FTA, Labor could have had a winner by fighting the agreement from the start. Once this chance was missed, Latham was exceptionally lucky to score a points victory against the government over the PBS amendments. Still, there was no point in Labor pushing this further.
The really interesting thing about the FTA is that a crucial element of the process is incomplete. Neither government has certified that the legislation passed in the other country actually implements the agreement, and the US side has floated the possibility of rejection. My guess is that, if the government gets back in, the Americans will demand an exchange of letters, designed to nullify the PBS amendments. On the other hand, if Latham gets up, I wouldn’t be surprised (or unhappy) to see the Americans pull the plug altogehter.
There was some talk about the possibility of an “October surprise”, with the American side springing a rejection just before polling today, but it’s too late for this now, I think.
John Quiggin 
I dont know why Labor didnt challenge Howard harder on foreign and defence policy. Given that terrorism for Australia is a foreign policy issue, with Indonesia taking the punches for us, the Labor doctrine of “Asian Engagement” is far superior IMO to Liberal foreign policy.
As Tony mentioned in another thread Howard’s procurement for the ADF will set up structural inequities that could persist for forty years or more. Worse they dont address Australia’s vulnerabilities. This should have been challenged as well.
I think the FTA has always been a strange beast. It became evident early this year that lots of people hadn’t even been aware of it, let alone what it meant. Then it became obvious that it was actually a mighty complicated arrangement. In terms of the election campaign, Labor discussion now would expose the party to accusations of being anti-business. And we can’t have that, no sir.
Further to Cameron’s point, I think there is clearly a serious issue in air force planning, at least. Cheap air forces are useless because they get shot down. As an election issue, I suppose Labor would be vulnerable in that the air force has endorsed the plan, and the JSF delivers industry participation to Australia. For Beazley to question this, he would have to question the chief of the air force and take projects away from Australian industry. I think he has mentioned the F-111 situation though.
The FTA agreement is odd, there seems to be a popular perception that it was a pay-off for Iraq, and our uncritical support of the US. But Chile and Singapore got a bilateral FTA without having to go to such lengths. IIRC Costa Rica got beat up for ones news cycle by the Administration, but Congress was more interested in trade than scoring the Administration political points and signed off on the Costa Rican one.
I was waiting for the solgan “Don’t mention the War!” to come out.
It still seems odd to me that the Coalition would not use the war and the FTA to beat Labor over the head with in an election campaign if the Coalition thought that these were genuinely good policies. And just as odd that Labor would not attack these policies if Labor thought them vulnerable. Unemployment – a pet issue for Prof. Quiggin – must be in the same category, as it’s a Coalition weak spot (if Prof. Quiggin is right) that Labor has run dead on.
If in fact these polices are vulnerable to attack (which I think they are), then the Coalition “keep quiet” attitude is understandable and Labor is the dog that didn’t bark (it whined a little, but could have make a lot more noise). I doubt if this could be because Labor is too dumb to notice the vulnerability. It is possible that Labor feared collateral damage through polarization of the electorate and less visibility for other (health, tax, education) policies, but this would imply that Labor really doesn’t see the war or the FTA as very important. So how can the war, the FTA and unemployment be ranked by Labor as being unimportant in an election? Only, it seems to me, if Labor and Coalition policies on these issues are indistinguishable. Labor doesn’t want them to have a high profile because it has no alternatives to offer.
Predictable Instapundit
I didn’t do much for my reputation (never a great one) as an election tipster with my assessment of the Australian election. I thought Labor had a good chance (a week or so before the election, I thought a very…