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.

Aside from the withdrawal of the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, other legislative developments provide examples of this trend. The withdrawal of proposals such as the superannuation tax concession reform is emblematic of a government reluctant to challenge powerful vested interests, even when the proposed changes would have minimal impact on the broader electorate. Taxing superannuation balances over $3 million was a modest measure, targeting only the wealthiest 1 per cent of Australians who often use these accounts as tax shelters. Yet Labor abandoned this policy, citing fears of a backlash reminiscent of the ill-fated franking credits reform in 2019. In doing so, they not only ceded the moral high ground but also signaled that their commitment to equity and fiscal responsibility is negotiable when electoral consequences loom, real or imagined.

This pattern of capitulation extends beyond tax policy. Recent legislation that could have meaningfully reformed political donations – a key driver of public cynicism about politics – was designed in a way that secures bipartisan support by entrenching advantages for the major parties. The haste with which the opposition endorsed these changes highlights how the reforms protect entrenched political power rather than addressing the systemic imbalances that erode public trust.

Similarly, the passage of draconian immigration and asylum seeker policies caters to the xenophobic undercurrents in Australian politics, a tactic long employed by both major parties to placate reactionary segments of the electorate. These policies – which ultimately benefit the major parties politically – fail to reflect the compassion and fairness that voters might reasonably expect from a Labor government; instead, show a fear of changing the status quo and pander to the racist elements in the community.

What emerges is a disheartening portrait of a government preoccupied with neutralising risks rather than embracing the challenges of leadership. Instead of advancing bold reforms that address inequality, climate change, or democratic integrity, Labor appears to be prioritising short-term political calculations over long-term progress. Certainly, this is in the shadows of an upcoming federal election campaign where caution is to be expected but governments do have three years to prepare and implement their agenda, and most of this could have been addressed much earlier in this parliamentary term.

It’s also a strategy rooted in the belief that being “better than the opposition” will be enough, an assumption that severely underestimates the electorate’s demand for substantive change, as was discovered in the recent US election, which saw the return of Donald Trump to the presidency.

Simply suggesting that a government will be better than its opponents, or that Peter Dutton and the Liberal Party are terrible and woeful, isn’t good enough in contemporary politics: Australians deserve better than a government that governs through omission or promotes itself as the least-worst option. While it is true that no government can please everyone, effective leadership means delivering policies that, even if contentious, are implemented competently and with a clear sense of purpose. The superannuation reform, for example, could have been a defining moment for Labor – a demonstration of their commitment to fairness and fiscal discipline. Instead, its abandonment has left voters questioning whether Labor can be trusted to uphold even the mildest of progressive principles.

Governance requires more than just avoiding missteps; it demands the courage to stand for something, even at the risk of alienating a segment of the electorate. The current approach not only erodes trust but also creates fertile ground for opposition narratives that paint Labor as indecisive or beholden to elite interests. Worse, it deepens public disillusionment with politics as a whole, reinforcing the view that governments, regardless of their promises, ultimately prioritise their own survival over the public good.

Will Albanese regret the hostility towards the Greens and independents?

The marginalisation of independents and the antagonistic approach towards both the Greens and the teal independents highlights a misstep in the Albanese government’s strategy: a failure to recognise or accept the shifting dynamics of Australian politics. This oversight not only jeopardises the immediate legislative effectiveness of the government but also risks eroding its long-term viability in an era where minority governments and coalition-building are likely to become the norm.

The hostility shown toward the crossbench, particularly the teal independents, has been evident since the early days of the Albanese administration. The decision in 2022 to reduce their staffing and resources sent a clear message: independents, no matter their mandate or the scale of public support behind them, would not be afforded the tools to effectively engage with the legislative process. For a Prime Minister who campaigned on promises of transparency, collaboration, and a new approach to politics, this move felt not only contradictory but also petty.

Similarly, Albanese’s long-standing antagonism toward the Greens – which seems to be that of a belligerent old man – has shaped the government’s approach to key legislation. While some tension between Labor and the Greens is to be expected – particularly given the Greens’ tendency to push for policies that Labor may see as electorally risky – the outright rejection of the demands from the Greens reflects a failure to adapt to the political realities of a more pluralistic parliament. On issues like housing, climate policy, and social equity, collaboration with the Greens could have bolstered the government’s reform agenda and delivered stronger outcomes for the public: that’s the nature of smart politics. Instead, Labor has often opted for a more combative stance, alienating a critical partner in the process.

This is shortsighted, especially given the likelihood of a minority government after the next election. Labor’s narrow victory in 2022 was hardly a resounding endorsement of the party’s agenda – also, the first election victory for a new government is usually its high-water mark – and it’s unlikely to retain its majority in a political environment increasingly characterised by dissatisfaction with the major parties. The rise of the independents and the Greens reflects a broader shift in the electorate – one that demands more nuanced and contemporary responses to the challenges of the 21st century.

At the heart of this shift is the growing irrelevance of the traditional two-party system. Both Labor and the Liberal–National coalition remain mired in ideological battles and economic frameworks that no longer resonate with a public grappling with issues like climate change, housing affordability, and economic inequality. Labor’s internal factionalism and its inability to move beyond the Hawke–Keating economic model further highlight this disconnect. While different figures such as Kevin Rudd, Wayne Swan, and Jim Chalmers have attempted to modernise the party’s economic approach, their efforts have been stymied by resistance from an entrenched old guard. The Liberal Party, meanwhile, remains wedded to a Thatcherite worldview that has little relevance in today’s economic landscape.

The failure of both major parties to evolve has created fertile ground for independents who are unburdened by the ideological baggage of the past and better positioned to address contemporary concerns. These independents, representing constituencies that demand action on issues like climate change, political transparency, and gender equity, have already begun reshaping the political landscape.

The government’s refusal to meaningfully engage with the crossbench not only alienates potential allies but also undermines its own ability to govern effectively. The stalled gambling advertising legislation, for example, shows how the interests of powerful donors and lobbyists can take precedence over the public good. This kind of inaction, driven by fear of backlash or loss of financial support, reinforces the perception that Labor – and the entire two-party system – is more interested in self-preservation than in delivering real change.

If Labor continues to overlook the independents and alienate potential partners like the Australian Greens, it risks more than just losing the next election. It risks becoming irrelevant in a political landscape that increasingly values collaboration, adaptability, and innovation: new politics, rather than old politics. By refusing to embrace the changing nature of Australian politics, the government is not only neglecting the public interest but also jeopardising its own survival in a system that is evolving far beyond the confines of the past.