Surely the paucity of detail and Dutton’s treatment of the announcement as significant should have been judged against each other,with the conclusion being this was a damp squib,an embarrassing attempt to dress up something trivial. Especially when you consider the fact this announcement had been repeatedly delayed.

Or is this the new standard for political debate in this country?

Arguably the most significant fact about recent weeks is the way that Dutton is lowering the bar for debate,one way at a time. First,with his determined political exploitation of migration. Second,by deploying policies that are not quite policies.

This second element is,importantly,consistent across both migration and nuclear. This is twice in just over a month that Dutton has made large announcements without being able to explain how his approach will achieve what he promises. In each case,senior Coalition frontbenchers have seemed to contradict each other. Significant elements of the “policies” have wobbled in the days that follow. Large questions remain unaddressed.

The largest of those questions leaves a chasm at the heart of Dutton’s twin announcements on targets and nuclear,which became more central as the week went on:what happens to renewables in the next 10 years,especially if investors flee and projects are cancelled? As I wrotelast week,the climate debate is shifting away from moral abstractions and towards practical questions,as coal-fired stations shut.

Part of the reason Dutton’s plan can appear “bold” is in comparison with Labor’s timidity. Labor left an opening and Dutton walked through. But the danger for Dutton is that,with these practical questions looming large,the holes in his announcements become,in voters’ minds,the most notable fact about them,the greatest clue to his likely character as prime minister. At the same time,they could play into Anthony Albanese’s self-presentation as a low-key prime minister working steadily through problems. This is the political flipside to Dutton’s “boldness” gambit.

Before the announcement,Labor had been looking for a way to shift from its mid-term attack on Dutton – that he has no plan – to the position all governments eventually take on their opponents:that they are a risk. It may now have material,but whether it has the political skills to make the case remains unknown. We will get some hints this parliamentary fortnight – though it is worth remembering that John Hewson only had his disastrous birthday cake moment more than a year after his Fightback! policy had first been announced,just 10 days before the election.

The question is often raised:is this country still capable of serious policy debate? There are tests for the major groups involved. If Peter Dutton wants a “mature conversation” about nuclear,as hesaid on Saturday,then he must provide some facts. If Labor wants to shift the debate back towards policy,then it must show persistence in challenging Dutton on those grounds,and avoid fudges of its own,such as carbon capture and storage.

And if the media,so fond of deploring soundbite politics,wants something substantial to cover,then it needs to learn that objectivity does not mean treating soundbites as equivalent to substance just because one side claims that to be the case.

Sean Kelly is a regular columnist and a former adviser to Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.