When voters are asked which major party they trust most on key issues, the common answer is "don't know". This election looks like a contest between two unloved and little respected leaders. May the less worse win, writes Mike Steketee.

Australians have some things to be thankful for. We are not so disillusioned and angry that we are prepared to elect a demagogue to lead one of our major parties, as in the US.

It seems unlikely that politicians of the far right - ones who make Tony Abbott look like a bleeding heart leftie - will come to power any time soon in Australia, unlike, say, in Hungary, where the prime minister champions "illiberal democracy" or recently in Austria, where a candidate for president representing a party with roots in the Nazis came within a whisker of winning.

The strong support for Britain to leave the European Union in next week's referendum and rising radical right sentiment in France and Germany reflects a similar revolt against the political status quo. Australian politics looks benign by comparison, with a centre right leader running against a centre left leader for election on July 2.

But some of the same seeds of disaffection have sprouted here, too. Election analysts calculate that Pauline Hanson, who, since her few years of fame in the 1990s became a caricature of the unsuccessful political candidate, may have the last laugh by winning a Senate seat in Queensland. She is tapping into the Donald Trump's tell-it-as-it-is politics, offering obvious, simple solutions that will make complex problems worse, such as banning all Muslim immigration.

Even before Malcolm Turnbull officially announced the election, he tried to define the terms on which it would be fought. It was "all about" trust, he told parliament on April 19:

Who do you trust to ensure Australia continues successfully to transition from an economy fired up by a mining-construction boom to one that is more diverse, more innovative, more productive, more open to the world, to an economy that will drive jobs and growth to ensure that our children and grandchildren have the great jobs they deserve? Australians know that they can trust the coalition because we have a track record to prove it.

On the day of the election announcement, way back on May 8, Bill Shorten had his own version of the trust mantra:

Trust Labor to deliver better jobs and reasonable conditions. Trust Labor to stand up for schools, TAFE, child care, universities. Trust Labor to protect Medicare and bulk billing. Trust Labor to take real action on climate change, focusing on renewable energy. Trust Labor to ensure that Australian women get a fair go. Trust Labor to make sure that multinationals pay their fair share. Trust Labor to conduct Budget repair that is fair.

The response of voters to all this has been, in so many words, "they have a hide". Who do you trust? Neither, is their answer and the campaign so far has done nothing to change their minds.

An Essential poll last week asked which of the major parties voters would trust more to handle a range of issues. The Liberals are well ahead of Labor on national security ("security and the war on terrorism"), managing the economy, controlling interest rates, political leadership and managing population growth and narrowly ahead on the treatment of asylum seekers. Labor leads on everything else, including education, health, the environment, protecting Australian jobs, a fair industrial relations system, climate change and housing affordability. It also has made up some ground on what arguably are two of the most important issues - national security and economic management.

None of this comes as a surprise to the Government or Opposition. It confirms their own polling and explains the issues on which Turnbull and Shorten focus when delivering their trust mantras.

What is less predictable is that the first choice in most areas is "don't know". That is, more people say they don't know whom to trust than those who pick either of the major parties.

So, while 34 per cent of voters favour the Liberals on political leadership, compared to 26 per cent who prefer Labor, 40 per cent say they don't know. And while the Liberals have a lead of 39 per cent to 21 per cent on national security, another 40 per cent don't know.

The Liberals do manage to beat the "don't knows" on management of the economy by 39 per cent to 34 per cent, with Labor bringing up the rear on 27 per cent. Labor outpolls the "don't knows", as well as the Liberals, on health, education, protecting jobs and a fair industrial relations system, but the "don't knows" are still a third of the vote or more. And on housing affordability and climate change. Labor has been able to convince enough people to put them ahead of the Liberals but not the "don't knows".

One explanation for these results is apathy - always a powerful force in politics. Despite the fact we are in the middle of an election campaign, the Essential poll shows results very similar to those in March.

But there also is something else at work. When the Greens were included in the same list of issues in February last year, the "don't knows" dropped significantly, often below 30 per cent. In other words, "don't know" in many cases in the recent surveys was a surrogate for "neither of the above".

This is reinforced by this week's Essential poll, which shows 23 per cent of the vote going to independents and smaller parties. This is up from 21 per cent at the last election, when an unpopular Tony Abbott won government against a close-to-unelectable Labor Party.

Turnbull riding to the rescue on his white charger last September was supposed to change all this, to make the Liberals and politics generally look more attractive. Instead 63 per cent of people now feel that the Liberal Party is "out of touch with ordinary people" - a rise from 58 per cent in March. Labor fares better, with 46 per cent regarding it as out of touch, a fall of seven percentage points since March. But increasingly this election looks like a contest between two unloved and, more importantly, little respected leaders. May the less worse win.

Running a standard election campaign is not working for the major parties. Most voters no longer believe promises will be delivered and they have good reason for doing so. When they are offered another barrel of pork, whether for a local road or a tax cut, many see it as governments spending money they don't have.

As more and more voters cast around for alternatives, the Liberal and Labor parties have come up with a cunning plan. They are exchanging preferences between themselves rather than doing deals with the Greens or other smaller parties and independents. This may work in the short term to stop the Greens and Nick Xenophon's Team from winning some lower house seats. But it has a downside.

It looks like the major parties ganging up not only against smaller groups but against voters. Xenophon's description of it as a cartel may well resonate. Voters have the choice of not following the parties' how-to-vote cards and there are increasing signs that they are doing so.

As for the Senate, another cunning plan - Turnbull's decisions to call a double dissolution election so that he can use a joint sitting of both houses to pass blocked legislation - risks backfiring. The Senate may well return as many or more candidates who are not from the major parties, meaning that, unless Turnbull comes back with a healthy majority in the House of Representatives, he will not have the numbers to prevail at a joint sitting.

Mike Steketee is a freelance journalist. He was formerly a columnist and national affairs editor for The Australian.