While the media concentrate on the froth and bubble about what Peter Costello said or what Kevin Rudd did, the serious electoral issue remains the economy.

Rudd says he is an economic conservative, but he is yet to reconcile this with his IR policy. If the union bosses are to be restored to their former dominance, how will he stop them from being the albatross they once were?

Are we going back to the days when every few months they are to flex their muscles to bring whole states, or even the nation, to a grinding halt?

Are they to get back their fiefdoms – for example the waterfront, the building and construction industry – where operations were required to be well below a reasonable level of efficiency?

Just as he presents himself as both Catholic and Anglican, Rudd’s claim to economic credentials and his union allegiances seem irreconcilable. Even assuming he is another Sir Joh, a Rudd cabinet would still be top heavy with former union bosses, and he would be no more than first among equals. The shadow cabinet shows every indication of being as complicit or as impotent as most politicians once were in the face of union boss rule.

The other issue which ought to be put before the people, but will only be done superficially, is federalism.

The American Founding Fathers never talked about “cooperative federalism” or “ending the blame game.” Rather they argued that a federation can only function properly if the states have to raise most of their own revenue from their electorates and then justify how they spend them. Rather than proud sovereign states, they have degenerated into beggars dependent on the Commonwealth.

The result has been a nation- wide decline in the quality of the services they deliver. The blame lies with a long succession of judges and politicians who always think they know better than the people. It almost seems as if there are only two strong federalists left among our leaders. Both are sitting- in one case just – on the High Court, Justices Callinan and Kirby.

In the meantime, the “Shreddergate” affair has resurfaced, stronger than ever. This is about the inexplicable decision of the Goss cabinet to destroy crucial documents about child abuse, including aboriginal child abuse, in a state detention centre. (This could have electoral relevance. Although there is no evidence Kevin Rudd was in any way involved in the shredding decision, he was chief of staff and then Cabinet Director General.)

As Piers Akerman writes, a remarkably persistent whistleblower has had a leading silk look long and hard into the case. In the QC’s considered opinion, the facts would justify 67 prima facie criminal charges. A number of eminent lawyers, including former judges, support the call for action.

An inquiry now would be as unwelcome to the Opposition as the AWB was for the federal government. John Howard did the right thing to call that. Will Peter Beattie now do the same – or will someone else?