It didn't start that way. Last weekend I suggested that the early blows had been landed by Opposition Leader Bill Shorten.

Since then, Mr Shorten seems determined to undo that.

He has spent the week painting himself as an average politician rather than a potentially great leader. As such, Mr Morrison wins more by default.

There was the "there will be no extra taxes on superannuation" gaffe where Mr Shorten indicated that he would not be raising taxes on superannuation, even though his policy clearly states that he will be. Mr Shorten came out later and confessed that he made a mistake in responding as he did.

I actually admire that. I don't like political speak - the normal political response would be to deny it, to say you've been taken out of context, or to repeat the same (irrelevant) answer over and over until people simply stop asking.

We are all imperfect and we all make mistakes. As an isolated incident, I'm therefore prepared to take Mr Shorten at face value and celebrate the fact that he is human like the rest of us and prepared to let us see that side of him.

That's a trait of a leader I admire, and who may be worthy of voting for.

But it comes in a week where Mr Shorten has been refusing to provide details of key policies, insisting some policies come at no cost despite considerable evidence to the contrary, understating the cost of other policies, and actively avoiding answering questions from the press.

We deserve better than this from our leaders.

This is true at any time, but even more so when we are trying to determine who is most worthy of our vote and who is best placed to lead our nation for the next three years.

It's hard to trust someone who isn't being open and forthright with information. It's hard to have confidence in them and their ability to lead us and our country.

By contrast, how much easier is it to trust leaders who are real, genuine and authentic; those who own their mistakes and don't pretend to be perfect?

Sadly in our political environment, these traits are often the cause for attack by (presumably insecure) opponents out to score cheap points.

When politicians undermine our confidence in them, it makes us question them. How well have their policies been thought through? How sensible are those policies? To what extent do they serve us?

A great example is Mr Shorten's policy to remove negative gearing on property. It isn't one of the most important issues we need to consider at this election, but it's hard to see that this particular policy has been well thought through.

The Reserve Bank of Australia is becoming increasingly concerned about falling house prices around the country (more so on the mainland than in Tasmania at this point in time), and just this week advised that we will soon hit the stage where a lot of people owe more on their homes than the home is actually worth.

In the worst-case scenario, affected people may be forced to sell their homes by banks seeking to protect their own equity.

This will be further compounded by the fact that this situation impacts most on those who have smaller income and asset levels - typically low to middle-income earners.

Economists advise that removing the negative gearing provisions on property will further reduce the value of houses (investors will put their funds elsewhere).

As such, Mr Shorten's policy has the potential to create severe financial hardship for some of those he purports to represent - the low to middle-income earners who are buying their own home or wishing to rent.

Those on higher incomes will generally not suffer from this change in policy - they will simply invest elsewhere or charge higher rents to offset the removed tax concession. So this will further impact on low to middle-income earners.

If we trusted a particular political leader, we would be more comfortable in assuming that they are aware of these emerging issues and complicating factors, and have taken them into account.

But from a politician who has spent the week demonstrating a lack of understanding of key economic issues and inter-relationships, it becomes very easy to believe that Mr Shorten hasn't considered this impact.

For a politician trying to get elected, it's comparatively easy to sell a policy that on the surface seems to target the wealthy and support those he endlessly purports to champion.

But we don't need leaders who take the easy path - the one that supposedly delivers votes. We want leaders we trust to lead, develop policy and make decisions in the interests of the greater good.

It will be interesting to see how week three unfolds.