[Theme music starts]

RUBY:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ruby Jones. This is 7am.

Anthony Albanese’s government faces significant challenges – looming climate disaster, a widening wealth gap, and international security concerns. But a year after the election, it is hard to judge just how it will respond to these circumstances. Albanese promises a bold reformist agenda, but the government often appears cautious and slow in its delivery. Anthony Albanese himself comes from the left of the party, but opponents like the Greens have called his government ‘centre-right’.

Today, contributor to The Monthly Sean Kelly, on trying to pin down the real intentions of the Albanese government.

It’s Thursday, June 1.

[Theme music ends]

Archival Tape – Anthony Albanese:

“I want to bring Australians together. I want to seek our common purpose and promote unity and optimism - not fear and division. We can answer it patiently, a gracious call for a Voice, enshrined in our constitution. A positive, clear plan for a better future for our country… and I have shared the two principles that will drive a government…”

RUBY:

Sean, Anthony Albanese himself has said that he thinks the first year in office is an opportunity to demonstrate the character of a government… so if we are to take him at that - how would you assess the character of this government so far?

SEAN:

Well, look in some ways this is the entire question of the pace. You know, what questions is it possible to properly ask after just one year in government? And kind of where I got to where this is why I'm not sure we can give the government a pass mark or a fail mark. So I kind of ask this question, what is its secret centre? And what I'm trying to get at there is what characterises this government. What is it trying to do? How are we thinking about that question? And the answer varies from person to person. But in terms of that tone, I think this government would like to be seen as measured. You know, it certainly pushes back against any suggestion that it is going slowly or gradually. It likes to think that it has done quite a lot of things quite quickly, but it will also say that it has taken them in a measured fashion with good processes, with consultation, with no surprises. A real ‘steady as she goes’ sense.

RUBY:

Hmm. Well, one way to try and answer the question of who this government is, is by comparing it to its predecessors. I thought first we could talk about the governments that Albanese says that he wants to emulate. So the long term governments of the past, the Hawke government, the Howard government. So how does this first year under Albanese compare to their initial months in power?

SEAN:

Look, it's fascinating looking back at the first years of the Howard and Hawke governments. John Howard's first year was chock a block. Telstra's privatisation was enabled. There were incentives for private health insurance. Work for the dole was tabled, gun laws were passed. Of course, industrial relations reforms that would go on to become very significant later in that first term with the huge waterfront battles and the Hawke government, I mean, you had the Sex Discrimination Act, the reintroduction of Medicare, the accord between businesses and trade unions. The Franklin River was saved. The point is not just those were big things at the time. The point is that those are big things now ,we look back and we think they lasted. And so looking at the first year of the Albanese government, I think most people would struggle to put together a list quite as comprehensive as that. Now, the Albanese government does say that's unfair. You know, the Prime Minister in particular points to the climate change achievements, both the increased target in emissions reduction and the safeguards mechanism to enable that emissions reduction.

Archival Tape – Chris Bowen:

“We send the message across the world - to our friends and allies - that we are partners in tackling the climate emergency. We send the message to Australians that we seek to end the climate wars, as the Prime Minister said…”

SEAN:

They'll also point to the childcare changes, especially in conjunction with paid parental leave.

Archival Tape – Anthony Albanese:

“We will expand the paid parental leave to 26 weeks - a full six months”

SEAN:

You know, the Prime Minister certainly sees that as a massive change and perhaps it is. One of the great difficulties in trying to assess a government after the first year is not just that not a lot of time has elapsed, but that your perspective shifts with time. In ten years it might be the case that some things the Albanese Government did in its first year end up looking much bigger, perhaps because they end up sparking fights. For example, the industrial relations law changes that we've seen don't seem that large, but if a battle ensues at some point in the next couple of years, then they'll suddenly look like this massive, massive thing on the political landscape. Or sometimes things can look bigger later on because over time their importance mounts. So the Sex Discrimination Act at the time, I think, you know, was significant in a symbolic sense. Its practical changes in a way became more obvious with time. You know, you've had a quiet, steady, competent government. I think right now that seems really impressive and really massive because of the… particularly the Morrison era that preceded it. But I think the government would say that tone is important in a political sense. It's important in terms of establishing a bond of trust with voters. That tone is a product of approaching things steadily, of strong cabinet processes, of a consultative government consultative with third parties outside the government, but also consultative with MPs, with ministers, that that tone is actually a product of the style that will allow them to get things done over time. Yeah, a year in that is more a claim, it's more a theory than a fact. Will only know over the years.

RUBY:

And in terms of what the government is actually getting done, I mean, you mentioned some of the things that Anthony Albanese would point to as achievements in this first year or climate in particular, emissions targets and and the safeguard mechanism as a way of getting there. But there's also a lot of criticism of the safeguard mechanism, its reliance on carbon credits. And critics often point to it as a way in which the government is being too timid and is failing to do enough on climate. Similar accusations are put about the timidity of the government when talking about tax reform, for example. So what's your analysis of those criticisms and the way that Albanese and his ministers have responded when you've spoken to them about this?

SEAN:

I think this does come back to the question of tone and this is one thing you do hear from inside Labour, that one of the most important elements of the tone that voters are picking up is the fact that fights are not there, that the temperature of politics has come down, that there's not as much yelling as it used to be. But there is an argument that the reason there is less yelling is because the government is not doing things that are as big and brave as they sometimes like to think they are. That the reason that people are not getting upset is because the government is actually being incredibly cautious in the things that they choose to do. That's the substance of the criticism around the climate changes, around changes in a whole whole bunch of areas. Tax, As you said very recently though, the tax on petroleum resources sale through the industry didn't oppose it. And I think that was taken by most people, quite rightly, as a sign that the government had not gone as hard as they should have. Now the government sees these things as achievements in some ways. Sometimes in private conversations you'll hear the phrase, you know, we got that done without frightening the horses. Whether that's a good thing, I think is very much in the eye of the beholder. Obviously, the government is trying to rack up a lot of changes along the way. It thinks some of these changes are bigger than other people think they are, that they have done this through skilful political management. Maybe, or maybe the changes haven't been everything they cracked up to be.

RUBY:

We’ll be back in a moment.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

RUBY:

Sean, one thing the Albanese government could do that would be seen as a way out of perceived timidity would be to get rid of the stage three tax cuts. They do seem at their core to go against the kind of vision that Albanese publicly talks about for his government, and it would be a bold political move to axe them, wouldn't it?

SEAN:

Oh look, it would absolutely be a bold political move and I think this is one of those examples where you can speculate about something beforehand and it can seem like everybody's on board and then as soon as you announce it, the reaction can be a little bit different. I think you saw this with the Jobseeker increase, for example. Before the Jobseeker increase, it seemed like everybody on the media was on board. And then as soon as was announced on budget night, half of the media went the other direction. I went, Hey, hang on a second. Why are dole bludgers getting money at the expense of middle Australia? You had that real tabloid backlash. And the Government, I think, is quite aware that reactions can shift and I think they see that danger with the stage three tax cuts. That beforehand you have the people complaining about them and whether the people most interested in them and afterwards everybody will pay attention and suddenly all that anybody will hear about are broken promises. And now the government might be right. But I think you do come back to this issue of how do you define the character of a government? How do you decide what the character of a government is? And I think we often get our answer from what fights a government is willing to pick, because that tells you what things they're really willing to stand for, what they're they're willing to die in a ditch for. And we haven't seen one of those fights yet. Arguably the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Uh, you know, I think that is a bold move that the government is not always given credit for. And this discussion about whether they're incremental or large scale. But outside of that, yeah, I don't think we've seen any of those fights yet.

RUBY:

And this idea of the political fight - I mean there is also a danger of sidestepping that - of not actually picking a fight? What problems does that pose for the government - and what problems does it pose for Anthony Albanese personally, as someone who does have this background - this reputation - of really going in hard, standing his ground, of being a fighter?

SEAN:

Well, I think, you know, this comes back to an old piece of political wisdom and you get authority by using it. If you are in a position of power, that power will go if you don't use it. Now, this has been expressed in different ways. John Howard talked about, you know, you have a certain amount of political capital. It will go one way or another. It will either seep away slowly over time through not being used, or you can burn it up yourself. So you might as well do something. And if you do that, there's a chance of replenishing your political capital. People will see you acting boldly and believe that you are somebody who is capable of acting boldly. And I think if the government is seen as very cautious over a long period of time, then it will be very easy for its opponents, for opponents of particular reforms to knock them down. Now, Albanese breaks a lot of political laws. You know, he won the last election against a lot of people's expectations. Perhaps we are seeing a new model of government. Perhaps you get authority by using it won't turn out to be true for him, but it certainly has been true in the past.

RUBY:

And one thing that struck me reading your piece was that in some ways, it's quite difficult to speculate on what a first year of government is like after one year. You need a whole lot longer than 12 months to be able to really assess what's happened in that time.

SEAN:

Look, you absolutely do. I think we will have a better sense in the second half of this year, partly because, as I say, the voice referendum will be behind us, partly because Jim Chalmers was quite explicit at the start of this term that the second half of 2023 was when the serious conversations with voters would really kick into gear and those serious conversations about tax and spending and what needed to happen next. So I think we will be in some position later this year to judge just how serious the government has been about those plans it has vaguely suggested. But look, this government is determined not to be a one term government, not even to be a two term government. They are absolutely thinking in terms of three terms. And if they are clear in their planning for that, then yeah, it will be some time before we have a really strong sense of how to judge this government.

RUBY:

Sean, thank you so much for your time.

SEAN:

Thank you very much.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

[Theme music starts]

RUBY:

Also in the news today…

The Reserve Bank’s governor Philip Lowe has admitted the bank has underpaid some of it’s staff. Lowe revealed the underpayment at a senate estimates hearing, saying the RBA had contracted PwC to perform an audit – the contract was awarded prior to public revelations about the firm’s breach of confidentiality. Just last week, it was reported that during a closed-door meeting with Labor MPs, Lowe warned them against supporting generous wage rises.

And…

The Federal government will not rule out referring former coalition cabinet minister Stuart Robert to the new anti-corruption commission when it starts operating within months. Special Minister of State Don Farrell said he was ‘deeply concerned’ over reports about Robert’s relationship with Synergy 360 at a senate estimates hearing yesterday. Robert denies any wrongdoing, and says he only gave advice to the firm, that he would give to any other constituent.

I’m Ruby Jones, this is 7am - see you tomorrow.

[Theme music ends]