The federal election has a date.
On May 3, Australians will cast their vote to decide who will be Australian prime minister for the next three years.
The contest will be decided on the key battlegrounds of economic management, energy, immigration and cost of living.
So where does each party stand?
Whilst one party has confessed its plans, the other has been a little less forthcoming; perhaps hoping for a Steven Bradbury type victory - you know, the one where you wait until the timing is just right and then when the competition falls over, you sweep to victory?
Though neither leader would win a school popularity contest for most inspiring, in the transparency stakes, the incumbent Labor government has perhaps been a bit more willing to let the Australian public look under the hood.
Its recent “nothing exciting to see here” budget serves as a blueprint for their campaign promises.
Key commitments include tax relief, energy bill relief and cheaper medicines, a $33 billion investment in housing to address affordability concerns, and strengthening Medicare with increased bulk billing.
Labor has positioned itself as the party of responsible economic management too, touting improvements to the budget bottom line and a faster-than-expected return of inflation to the RBA's target band.
After delivering two consecutive surpluses, the first in nearly two decades, it has been very difficult for the Coalition to prosecute the old “we’re better economic managers” line.
In a political landscape somewhat bereft of inspiration, it's unsurprising that the opposition Liberal-National Coalition has promised well, you guessed it, kind of the same policies.
Dutton's recent budget reply speech outlined the Coalition's vision, but analysts have noted striking similarities with existing Labor policies.
For instance, the Coalition's pledge to invest in health bears a striking resemblance to Labor's existing commitments, as well as their promise to lower the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payment.
One area where the Coalition has staked out a clear difference is immigration.
Dutton has promised to cut the permanent migration program by 25%, from 185,000 to 140,000, for the first two years if elected.
Though this seemed at odds with shadow treasurer Angus Taylor when he appeared to walk back the party's migration policy, only for Dutton to reaffirm the commitment in his budget reply speech days later.
It's clearly an area the opposition wants to leverage, capitalising on growing voter unrest that ostensibly connects higher migration levels to housing unaffordability.
Energy policy is another area the Coalition is hoping to score a few voter points.
Though despite early success tapping into the NIMBY (not in my backyard) anti-renewable zeitgeist, the opposition might find its nuclear plans are equally unpalatable.
The Smart Energy Council estimates that building seven nuclear reactors could cost up to $600 billion, potentially twice as much as initial projections due to Australia's lack of nuclear infrastructure and expertise.
This stands in stark contrast to the estimated $121 billion required for a renewable grid by 2050.
The high costs, combined with potential delays and budget overruns, raise serious questions about the economic viability of nuclear power in Australia.
While Dutton claims the plan will lower energy bills, experts question its feasibility and long-term sustainability.
As the campaign unfolds, the contrast (or similarity) between Labor's policies and the Coalition's is becoming a key talking point.
Political commentators suggest a lack of political vision could influence voter perceptions, particularly among undecided voters looking for clear policy directions.
Each parties’ ability to articulate a clear alternative vision for Australia's future may well determine their electoral fortunes.
With several weeks of campaigning ahead, both major parties will need to continue to refine their messages and policies to win over a public who is coming to terms with a new global reality.
May the fourth (ahem, May the 3rd) be with you.