If the argument is that “the LNP haven’t revised their policies since the election,” that’s a different claim from saying they don’t have policies at all.
There’s a difference between not revising policies yet and not having policies.
Opposition parties don’t automatically publish a brand-new policy platform the day after an election loss. They usually go through internal reviews, leadership changes, and strategic recalibration before releasing updated positions. That process can take time. And it goes without saying that the LNP have taken far too long and been too distracted by internal bickering than getting the job done. That doesn’t mean they won’t.
However, the LNP still has:
- A published election platform
- Previously costed commitments
- A shadow ministry with portfolio-based policy positions
- Parliamentary voting records that reflect policy stances
You can argue those policies need updating, that’s fair. You can argue they weren’t good enough to win, that’s also fair.
What you can’t reasonably argue is that they don’t exist.
One Nation, by contrast, often operates on high-level commitments without detailed fiscal modelling, legislative pathways, or administrative frameworks. That’s the core distinction.
“Needs revision” is not the same thing as “doesn’t have any.”
If someone wants to debate the quality of LNP policy, that’s a substantive conversation. But equating structured, costed platforms with broad headline pledges just blurs an important difference in how parties prepare for government.
Politics cannot run on vibes, slogans, or outrage. It runs on detail. It runs on legislation. It runs on numbers that add up and proposals that can survive scrutiny.
You don’t have to like the LNP. You don’t have to agree with their direction. You can argue their policies need revision, renewal, or even replacement. That’s a legitimate democratic debate.
But pretending there’s no difference between a structured, costed platform and a list of headline intentions does a disservice to voters. “We will” is not a policy. It’s a starting point.
If we want better government, we have to demand more than sentiment and symbolism. We have to insist on substance.
Because in the end, intent tells you what sounds good. Policy tells you what’s actually possible.
