The Monday essay: Labor’s fight for progressive reform in the face of Coalition sabotage

Labor must toughen up, embrace its mandate, and govern with the assertiveness that its electoral victory entitles it to.

The Labor government has long expressed a desire to introduce significant reforms, particularly in areas of economic governance, such as restructuring the Reserve Bank of Australia to include a specialist interest rate setting board. Despite the importance and urgency of these reforms, the Liberal–National Coalition has made it clear that they will not participate in negotiations, leaving the Labor government in a bind. While bipartisanship is often seen as a desirable way to pass lasting and broadly accepted reforms, the question arises: why does Labor continue to pursue cooperation with a party that, in opposition, consistently obstructs rather than collaborates?

Since the 2022 federal election – and even before, between 2007–2013 – the Coalition has operated with a strategy of relentless and maniacal opposition. When in government between 2013 and 2022, they pursued their agenda with little concern for reaching agreements that appeal to the Labor Party. Now, in opposition, they have returned to a familiar role of blocking reforms rather than engaging in constructive debate. Their refusal to participate in the Reserve Bank reforms reflects a deeper political reality –bipartisanship has become an empty ideal, at least where the Coalition is concerned.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has made no secret of his reluctance to negotiate with the Australian Greens, a party that, while smaller, has shown a greater willingness to engage with Labor on reformist policies. Yet, despite the Coalition’s entrenched resistance, Chalmers has made it clear that he would still rather avoid dealing with the Greens, if possible. This raises an important question about the current state of Australian politics: why does Labor, a party ostensibly committed to progressive reform, still push for cooperation with a conservative Coalition that seems incapable of offering it?

Part of the answer lies with the political optics that govern economic policy in Australia: by engaging with the Greens, the Labor government risks being seen by certain sectors, particularly in the world of finance and the media, as aligning with “economic extremists”. The Coalition has long played into this narrative, framing the Greens as a radical, unreliable partner on issues such as fiscal policy, resources, climate change, and economic reform. In reality, however, this strategy of demonising the Greens is less about substance and more about maintaining a neoliberal economic orthodoxy that the Coalition clings to, despite its growing irrelevance in a changing world. And if the Greens are considered to be too extreme, then what exactly are the National Party?

Politics is not just about ideology; it is about power. While it is true that Labor’s leadership, including Chalmers, may prefer to avoid dealing with the Greens, the reality is that in the current parliament, they have no other choice. The Coalition’s refusal to engage leaves Labor with few alternatives but to seek alliances with the Greens and like-minded crossbenchers such as David Pocock who hold considerable sway in today’s fractured political landscape. In contrast to the Coalition’s nihilism, these crossbenchers can negotiate and participate in constructive dialogue, even if they don’t always agree with the government.

Peter Dutton’s leadership of the Liberal Party has only exacerbated the Coalition’s drift toward political destruction. Far from being a party of responsible governance, Dutton’s Liberals have become the true anarchists of Australian politics. His approach is one of obstruction and sabotage, not of dialogue or cooperation. Labor may not like dealing with the Australian Greens, but the Greens, for all their differences, are not political wreckers. They may push for policies Labor finds too radical or impractical, but their politics is rooted in a desire for constructive progressive change, unlike the Coalition, whose sole mission in opposition is the undermining of any government agenda.

This destructive tendency in the Liberal Party is not new, but it has been amplified in recent years, whether they are in government or opposition. The nine years of Coalition rule, even under ostensibly a moderate leader such as Malcolm Turnbull, demonstrated the lengths to which the party’s right-wing factions would go to sabotage their own leaders, let alone the opposition. Dutton, as leader, is the pinnacle of this tendency: his leadership style is characterised by a willingness to throw bombs at any reform effort, a refusal to engage in meaningful debate, and a desire to cater to the most reactionary elements of his party’s base.

In this context, it is difficult to understand why Labor continues to hold out hope for bipartisanship with a party that is, in effect, no longer interested in the art of compromise. If Labor is serious about implementing its reform agenda, it needs to recognise that the political landscape has shifted and the Coalition, in its current form, is not a partner for responsible governance. Also, Labor’s continued attempts to negotiate with the Coalition only serve to legitimise their obstructionism. By continually offering the hand of bipartisanship to a party that has made it clear they are not interested, Labor risks wasting valuable political capital.

The need for a progressive coalition amidst Coalition obstruction

No issue is too small for the Coalition to oppose, and their current issue of choice is the process for appointing members to the Reserve Bank Board, where they argue the proposed reforms could lead to “board stacking,” and appointments skewed to favour certain ideological positions or political allies. This argument is disingenuous and lacks credibility when looking at recent political history. The Coalition, when in government, has consistently engaged in the very behaviour they now railing against. From stacking the boards of the Reserve Bank to the Fair Work Commission and various public institutions such as the ABC, Australia Post and the Human Rights Commission, their track record on this issue is undeniable: The Coalition stacks; that’s what they do.

The hypocrisy of the Coalition’s position is clear. Their sudden concern about the integrity of the appointment process is more a tactic of obstruction than a genuine critique. In fact, it is a continuation of their broader strategy to prevent any meaningful reform that does not align with their neoliberal ideology. What Dutton’s Liberal Party truly fears is the possibility of structural changes that reduce their ability to influence key economic institutions in the future.

Also, the Liberal Party has shown time and again that it is more interested in blowing up parliamentary processes than contributing constructively and intent on dismantling any reforms that would modernise Australia’s economic and political structures. Yet, despite the Coalition’s clear lack of good faith, Labor’s hesitation to negotiate with the Australian Greens is puzzling when taking their increasing electoral significance into account.

With around 12 per of the primary vote at the 2022 federal election, the Greens are not an insignificant political force. The Liberal Party, by comparison, receives roughly 24 per cent of the vote. Certainly, while this is almost double the Greens’ support, it’s not a vast difference in relative terms – especially when considering the National Party’s 7 per cent and far-right fringe dweller One Nation’s 5 per cent of the primary vote. These figures show that the Greens are closer to mainstream political support than their far-right counterparts, who receive far more political respect and media attention.

Despite these realities, anti-Green sentiment remains pervasive in the political and media landscapes. The media often perpetuates the narrative that the Greens are “extreme” and “unreasonable”, which serves to marginalise them in political debates. The Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor is a prime example of this bias, where he suggested the Greens are “economic radicals” who want to “take over” the Reserve Bank and the broader banking system, a narrative designed to stoke fear and suspicion. This framing creates the false impression that negotiating with the Greens is inherently dangerous or irresponsible, despite their substantial electoral base and the growing popularity of many of their policies.

This media narrative, in turn, creates a political environment where Labor feels compelled to avoid engaging with the Greens, where such negotiations would be framed as a capitulation to extremism. Yet this framing ignores the reality of the Coalition’s intransigence. Who are the real extremists here? Labor’s preference to negotiate with the Coalition over the Greens may be based on a desire to appear moderate and responsible, but it is increasingly a political liability. The Coalition is not a partner for reform – it is a political force determined to block Labor’s agenda at every turn.

The current situation leaves Labor with two clear options: continue the futile pursuit of bipartisanship with the Coalition, or shift focus to building an alliance with the Greens and other crossbenchers. While the Coalition’s obstructionism is predictable, Labor’s hesitation to embrace the Greens as potential allies risks leaving them with no clear path forward on critical reforms such as those proposed for the Reserve Bank.

The hesitation to deal with the Greens is not just a tactical mistake – it is a failure to recognise the evolving political reality. In a parliament where the crossbench holds significant influence, Labor needs to adapt to the new dynamics of power. This requires abandoning the notion that the Coalition can be a reliable partner in governance and embracing the potential of a progressive coalition that includes the Greens and like-minded independents. The risks of this approach are outweighed by the potential rewards: the ability to pass meaningful reforms, reshape Australian politics, and isolate the Coalition as a party of obstruction and irrelevance.

As it stands, Labor’s unwillingness to engage the Greens is a symptom of a broader political malaise: a lack of boldness and an over-reliance on outdated strategies that no longer serve the party or the country. If Labor wants to be seen as a party of progress and reform, they must be willing to embrace those who share their commitment to change – even if it means dealing with parties and politicians that challenge their comfort zone.

Bipartisanship is dead: Why Labor must embrace its mandate and govern assertively

It’s apparent that Labor government’s pursuit of bipartisanship has increasingly become a liability rather than an asset and the reality is that this effort has consistently yielded few tangible results. The National Anti-Corruption Commission was introduced with an aim of broad bipartisan support, yet the Coalition offered little cooperation, except for changes that it found favourable and allowed them to escape scrutiny for their own corrupt behaviours during their time in office between 2013 and 2022. When it came to the Voice to Parliament referendum, despite Labor’s overtures to the Coalition, it was met with outright hostility and sabotage: the desire for bipartisanship is undermining Labor’s ability to govern effectively. What did these attempts at bipartisanship achieve? Absolutely nothing: the NACC has been a failure and the Voice to Parliament was comprehensively defeated.

Politics is, at its core, about wielding power to implement policy. When a party wins an election, it is given a mandate to pursue its agenda, not to pander to the party that lost. The Labor government seems to have forgotten this fundamental principle: instead of focusing on implementing their policies through effective negotiation with those who are willing to engage constructively (that is, anyone but the Coalition), they are trapped in a futile cycle of seeking approval from a party that has no intention of granting it.

John Howard’s approach to governing is instructive here. As Prime Minister, he was known for his hard-nosed negotiation style, working with minor parties like the Australian Democrats and the independent Brian Harradine to pass key pieces of legislation. Howard understood that you don’t get your agenda handed to you in politics –you have to fight for it, inch by inch, concession by concession. He didn’t bend over backwards to appease the opposition but instead, focused on building alliances where he could, pushing his policies through sheer political will and shrewd negotiation. While this Labor government is diametrically opposite to the Howard government – or, at least, it should be – it could learn from Howard’s tactics and strategies.

Essentially, these Reserve Bank reforms are a minor issue that few people would care about, but the way the government is handling the process reveals a larger problem. Instead of using its electoral mandate to move forward assertively, Labor appears hesitant and unwilling to challenge the Coalition head-on. After spending so long in opposition, Labor seems unsure of how to wield power effectively now that they are in government. This timidity, this refusal to fully embrace their right to govern, is hindering their ability to dismantle the destructive legacies of the previous government.

The NACC, for example, was hailed as a breakthrough in accountability. Yet, the NACC has so far failed in all its major tests of holding the previous Coalition to account. It might currently be investigating six serving and former ministers – unknown at this stage – but it has not yet demonstrated the kind of robust, fearless action needed to hold those truly responsible for past abuses to account. This failure is emblematic of a government that is not fighting hard enough to remove the toxic remnants of the last decade of Coalition rule. From Robodebt to AUKUS, there is a long list of Coalition policies and legacies that Labor should be systematically dismantling – not negotiating around.

The Labor government has a clear example in its own history of what it looks like to fight effectively while in power. Anthony Albanese himself once proudly declared, “I fight Tories. That’s what I do”. Yet, since becoming Prime Minister, we’ve seen little evidence of this fight. Great Labor leaders of the past – Paul Keating, Bob Hawke, Gough Whitlam – never stopped fighting, even when they did succumb to certain neoliberalism ideals of the time. Even Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, who governed in the most fractious of circumstances, kept swinging at the Tories until the very end. Labor has a long tradition of fighting for its policies and vision for the country, yet this current government seems reluctant to fully embrace that role.

This reluctance to fight is not just bad politics: it’s bad policy. Without a willingness to engage in the tough political battles necessary to push through reforms, Labor risks squandering its time in government. There is no room for compromise when the opposition party’s strategy is to obstruct and destroy. Instead of treating the Coalition as potential partners, Labor should recognise them for what they are: political adversaries and nihilists intent on preventing the government from achieving its goals.

The consequences of this hesitancy are already starting to show. Labor’s support in opinion polls is waning, and a minority government after the next election – or worse, a return to power for the Coalition – is becoming a real possibility. While some might dismiss this notion this as alarmism, recent Australian political history is full of surprises. Few thought Tony Abbott would become Prime Minister, until he did become Prime Minister, yet his rise – and the damage his government inflicted on the country – still reverberates almost a decade later. The same mistake cannot be made with Dutton, a leader who, like Abbott, thrives on wrecking and opposition.

Labor must toughen up, embrace its mandate, and govern with the assertiveness that its electoral victory entitles it to. This means no longer kowtowing to the Coalition in a futile attempt at bipartisanship. Instead, it means building coalitions with those who are willing to negotiate in good faith, not the retrograde forces of the Liberal Party under Dutton.

Labor’s responsibility is to fight for its policies, its vision, and its supporters. Only by doing so can they avoid the possibility of a minority government or, worse, the nightmare scenario of a Dutton-led Coalition returning to power. In the end, governing is not about appeasing your opponents – it’s about fighting for what you believe in, even when the path forward is difficult. The Labor government has the tools, the mandate, and the moral authority to implement the changes Australia desperately needs: it just needs the will to fight for them.