Two different tactics from Scott Morrison, Anthony Albanese - but each has the same goal

Less often mentioned is the deluge of scandal. It felt, at times, as though the government was racing through a list, determined not to repeat itself. Helicopter fiasco - tick. Sugar baby revelations - tick. Using taxpayer-funded flights to hunt for Gold Coast real estate, inappropriate behaviour in a Hong Kong bar, collect the set!

And that's just the resignations. Barnababy, the Great Barrier Reef, and after all this time I'm still not sure whether anyone figured out the go with the au pairs.

At the election none of this mattered. You can put that down to several things. One was the strange sense that this middle-aged government felt like it was just starting out. The departure of old hands helped, but mostly this was a tribute to the force of Scott Morrison's personality.

A notable thing about the current contest in federal politics is that it is between two leaders, Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese, who, on the face of it, bear similarities. Two Sydneysiders, avowed rugby league men, white, robust, similar age, with the belief - possibly well-founded - that they have a pretty good bead on the way Australians see things.

It's perhaps not surprising, then, that both are right now focused on how to mark out their differences. It's a two-for-one deal. Define your opponent, define yourself.

For the Prime Minister, this has lately consisted of using question time to stress policy contrasts. Given the lack of actual policies, the government has resorted to an absurdly simplistic rhetorical device: "Can the minister explain how the government is on the side of Australians ...?"

The genesis of this tedium lies in the first paragraph of the first press conference Morrison gave after becoming Liberal leader. Pointing straight at the camera, Uncle-Sam-style, the prime-minister-designate told us: "As the new generation of Liberal leadership... we're on your side."

Fair enough. But a couple of weeks ago this began to morph, via a press conference, a speech, Twitter, and then the Parliament, into a more hostile formulation. The government was on the side of Australians. The Labor Party, it was made clear, was not.

Other elements were added. Would the Attorney-General, for instance, explain how the government was on the side of Australians "who quietly chose policies that strengthen our national security essential to our safety"?

I'm not wild about the accusation that a major party is not on the side of Australians - "enemy of the people", anyone? - or with the coercive suggestion that the government is on the side of Australians who act in particular ways and who vote Liberal and do it quietly.

I'm especially not wild about such sentiments being shared by the Attorney-General, who is supposed to be focused on upholding laws that treat all of us equally.

But what really strikes me is the Prime Minister's hypocrisy. Morrison is fond of saying he wants to bring Australians together. Instead, he sounds like he's following advice once given to Richard Nixon: split the country in two, then pick up the biggest half. Or, in Katharine Murphy's more local idiom, "we have entered the prime ministership of 'Go Sharks'".

Morrison has a talent for glib phrasing, and I suspect that it's this rather than any very sinister intent that lies beneath his rhetoric. It's this talent that Albanese's own question time strategy plays on. Labor has begun to ask short, sharp questions aimed at eliciting facts or acknowledgments of facts. Morrison will continue to slide effortlessly away - but if the questions are good enough then the habit will be noticed.

Remember: define your opponent, define yourself. Labor's tactics have the potential, over time, to set up an important contrast. Albanese is a politician, and can dodge questions with the best (or worst) of them. But unlike Morrison, his instinct is to meet things head on, answering each objection. This can work against him - as with his recent confusing answers on tax cuts - but over time it has the potential to establish him as someone willing to engage honestly.

The other benefit of forensic questioning is its effectiveness in prosecuting scandals - which may in turn help Labor in suggesting this government is not as fresh as it seems. Two ministers who have previously resigned are already back in cabinet.

If the first two terms are a fair indication of the character or competence of the current team, then Albanese won't have long to wait.

Of course, that particular advantage depends on there being a clear contrast. Certainly there have been far, far fewer Labor resignations.

But the explosive allegations around Crown Resorts this week remind us that senior MPs from both sides have lobbied for people they shouldn't have. Both sides have taken money they shouldn't have. And MPs from both sides have gone on to work for gambling interests.

It's that kind of behaviour that leaves most voters thinking that whatever side politicians might claim to be on, it's definitely not theirs.