The Monday essay: Labor’s legislative inertia could cost it at the next election

The government risks becoming irrelevant in a political landscape that increasingly values collaboration, adaptability, and innovation: new politics, rather than old politics.

The final week of Parliament for the year unfolded in a way that was both disappointing and symbolic of a government struggling to balance ambition with delivery. One absence from the legislative slate in this final week was the withdrawal of the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill. Initially heralded as a critical step in curbing the spread of harmful falsehoods online, its withdrawal reflects deeper issues with the Labor government’s legislative strategy, priorities, and political will.

The Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, had spoken emphatically about the bill’s necessity just a few weeks before, citing strong public support for action against misinformation. According to the Australian Media Literacy Alliance, 80 per cent of Australians want this issue addressed, yet despite such a compelling public mandate and the declared urgency of the problem, the government was unable to gather enough support from either the opposition or the crossbench. The decision to pull the legislation highlights a pattern: promises and proposals without the necessary follow-through to ensure they become law.

This specific event encapsulates a broader problem within the Albanese government. Faced with resistance, they appear willing to let significant reforms falter rather than fight for their passage. The withdrawal of the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill mirrors the stalled progress on truth-in-political-advertising legislation, another high-profile promise seemingly relegated to the “too hard” basket. In both cases, the government has opted to blame external factors – whether it be the opposition, crossbenchers, or minor parties – rather than taking responsibility for crafting and advocating for stronger, more viable proposals.

Such moves may point to a deliberate tactic: introducing bills designed to fail as a way of signaling intent without risking political capital. When the legislation inevitably falls short, the government can claim to have tried its best while conveniently shifting blame. But this approach undermines the public’s trust in their commitment to meaningful reform and suggests a government more interested in managing appearances than in delivering substantive outcomes for the electorate.

The government’s approach to closing out the year seems particularly perplexing given the proximity of a federal election within the next six months. Conventional wisdom would suggest using the final legislative sitting of the year to demonstrate boldness and resolve, passing laws that resonate with the public and reinforce the government’s agenda. Instead, the withdrawal of key legislation has sent a muddled message about Labor’s priorities and political competence. Certainly, key housing legislation was passed in this final week – after long, protracted and hostile negotiations with the Australian Greens – but the smaller number of these decisive legislative victories makes it harder to set a compelling narrative for re-election, leaving the government vulnerable to critiques that it is more invested in political games than in addressing critical issues.

While Labor can point to a record of achievement in its first term, with successes in economic management and managing inflation, incremental reforms, and improved employment figures – and perhaps these are the main issues that really matter to the electorate – these gains are overshadowed by continuing challenges such as the cost-of-living crisis. Inflation, while trending downward, has not translated into perceptible relief for struggling households. The Reserve Bank’s interest rate policies may bear much of the blame, but the public inevitably vents their frustration at the government, further complicating its task of promoting the obvious achievements it has made.

Labor’s reluctance to tackle the tough issues

The government’s approach to governing in these final stages of the parliamentary term also reflects a calculated effort to avoid controversy and minimise political risk. While this is understandable, governance is not just about surviving the electoral cycle; it is about making decisions that serve the public interest, even when those decisions are difficult. The choices that the government has made in recent weeks highlight a troubling dynamic: an administration that seems more intent on sidestepping contentious issues than on addressing the systemic problems it was elected to resolve.