The power of the mandate

Anthony Albanese has the chance to enter the pantheon of great Labor leaders – not just as the leader who achieved a massive election victory, but the one who made that victory matter.

The Labor government emerged from the 2025 federal election with an overwhelming level of political capital – perhaps more than any progressive government in the post-war period. For the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, this was not just a personal triumph but a vindication of the cautious and steady first-term strategy that built credibility, trust, and stability within a volatile political environment. While much had been made of his declining personal approval in the 18 months leading up to the election, the election result suggested that electoral success does not necessarily depend on personal popularity – the opinion polls, as they so often do, proved to be a blunt and unreliable instrument. Albanese might not inspire the admiration that was once reserved for leaders such as Bob Hawke or Kevin Rudd, but he has secured something far more important: a strong and workable majority built on respect, steadiness, and competence.

In hindsight, his measured approach to governing with a slim three-seat majority during the first term seems not only reasonable but strategically sound. Labor’s first-term caution was less about timidity and more about establishing the groundwork for long-term reform – reassuring a skeptical electorate that it could trust a federal Labor government again after a decade of Coalition incompetence and Labor’s own brand of political mayhem that preceded that. But now, with that trust banked and a commanding mandate in hand, there’s no purpose in preserving political capital just for its own sake. Power, once it’s given by the electorate, needs be exercised with purpose. Otherwise, what’s the point of having it?

This moment presents both an opportunity and a risk. Albanese’s leadership style – deliberate, consultative and unflashy – won’t deliver sky-high approval ratings, but it might prove to more durable in the long run. Unlike Rudd, whose approval ratings hit stratospheric heights before collapsing under the weight of internal ambition and instability, Albanese is unlikely to inspire a cult of personality, nor does he appear to seek one. He understands the structural safeguards that were put in place after having being a front seat witness during the Rudd–Gillard–Rudd era – the so-called “Rudd rules” that require two-thirds of Caucus support to dislodge a sitting Prime Minister – that make leadership spills difficult and politically costly. In such a context, the allure of charismatic popularity is not only unnecessary, it might end up being totally counterproductive.

Given the size of this election result, Labor Party strategists might already be contemplating the 2028 election. However, some of that planning may have been put on hold when factional machinations played out in a very public and brutal way, where Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles used his undeserved influence to force Attorney–General Mark Dreyfus and Minister for Industry and Science Ed Husic out of the Cabinet. While Dreyfus may have been considering retirement after 18 years in politics, Husic had proven to be a competent minister and had built a strong link between the government and Islamic communities in Western Sydney – a relationship that has been damaged by the government’s one-sided support of Israel’s actions in Palestine. It was an unnecessary and public act, coming just days after an election victory that generated significant electoral goodwill, but clearly not much factional goodwill for these two Cabinet members.

History suggests that governments typically perform best at their first outing and start to accumulate problems at their second. This factional mismanagement will be forgotten about soon enough but the challenge now is for the government to plan not just for consolidation but for strategic building: to expect attrition in some marginal seats while identifying new opportunities to compensate for inevitable losses that are likely to happen at the next election. A large mandate and a one-sided electoral victory can invite complacency – but it can also enable boldness, reform, and renewal.

The politics of opportunity and risk

The Labor government now finds itself in a historically favourable political position – arguably the strongest position the federal Labor Party has ever had. With a commanding lower house seat tally estimated to be 94 – well above the 76-seat threshold required to govern – and a fractured, demoralised opposition in disarray, the scale of Labor’s authority can’t be overstated. Not only is the Coalition facing a devastating loss of influence and parliamentary talent, but the additional buffer created by the crossbench – albeit somewhat weakened following losses by community independents and the Australian Greens – has left the Albanese government with an extraordinary advantage. The gap between Labor and the Coalition now sits at nearly 50 seats, a wide electoral gap that gives the government immense freedom to legislate and govern with confidence.

The Senate is also more manageable than in recent terms: although Labor does not have outright control of the upper house, it only requires the support of the Australian Greens to pass legislation – while the relationship with the Greens is often strained and tenuous, this is far more preferable than having to negotiate with a rag-tag of unaligned and unpredictable Senators from other parties. Relatively speaking, this is a dream scenario for a Labor government, and one that opens the door to meaningful reform. Yet within this abundance lies danger: political capital, like any other form of capital, is only valuable when used wisely. The temptation to play it safe, to coast on the momentum of victory, should be set aside: caution and consolidation have already served their purpose; that’s what got Albanese to this point in his political career. For this next parliamentary term, a boldness of clarity, discipline and strategic intelligence, should define the actions of the government.

While Labor faces an opportunity to reshape Australia in its own image, the spectre of overreach looms. The example of John Howard after his 2004 landslide hovers over this parliament like Banquo’s ghost: a thumping majority, control of the Senate, and a government emboldened to push WorkChoices and a raft of neoliberal policies that ultimately alienated voters and led to a crushing defeat in 2007. That was a textbook example of how not to use political capital. But the reforms Labor is likely to pursue – targeted taxation reform, changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax, revitalising public housing, increasing mining royalties, and boosting higher education, are not ideological overreaches: they are rooted in long-standing Labor values and will have broad public support if framed effectively and supported with a coherent political narrative.

For sure, these measures did not feature in the 2025 campaign – but neither was WorkChoices in 2004. The difference is intent and transparency. If Labor moves with clarity, delicate political positioning, and public explanation, these policies can build long-term support and deliver tangible results. The electorate, more than ever, wants government to act in the national interest, not just to maintain a façade of fiscal caution or political indifference. The task is not to shock the electorate, but to prepare them for how Labor’s values and programs can translate into outcomes that improve lives.

Beyond domestic policy, foreign affairs remain a mixed bag. Australia’s relationships with Indonesia and the South Pacific are strong; relations with China have been stabilised. But the AUKUS pact negotiated by Scott Morrison is still a multi-billion-dollar question – widely criticised for its outrageous cost and lack of clear strategic goals, its cancellation or overhaul might be controversial but ultimately defensible, particularly if those funds were redirected into public health or education. Likewise, the Labor government needs to confront the deep inconsistency in its Middle East policy. Vague equivocations over Israel–Palestine risk undermining the values Labor claims to uphold, particularly when Israel’s human rights violations and war crimes become impossible to ignore. At the very least, the government must develop a consistent and ethical approach to international diplomacy, one that is not shaped solely by strategic alliances or domestic political caution.

Ultimately, what Labor needs most is coherence: a policy vision grounded in equity and fairness – traditional Labor values – that can be applied across housing, taxation, foreign affairs, climate, and social services. There is no serious threat from the opposition for the foreseeable future, and no need to govern in fear of political retribution from either the Coalition or a feckless mainstream media. But this situation won’t last forever. The time is very favourable to use political capital for structural reform – not reckless adventurism, but principled ambition.

Housing stands out as the single most transformative issue that could become a great legacy for this Labor government. It can begin reversing decades of neglect by investing directly in public housing – not as a market supplement, but as a fundamental solution to widespread inequality. Public housing works: study after study shows it alleviates homelessness, reduces pressure on the rental market, and restores dignity to those priced out of the private market. If Labor wants to be remembered as more than a cautious keeper of the political centre, it has to be willing to offend some of the vested interests in real estate, construction industries and finance. Votes might be lost in parts of the upper middle class in future elections, but the reward – material, political, and moral – would far outweigh the cost.

There are no excuses left. With a decisive mandate, a demoralised and disorganised opposition, and a Parliament overwhelmingly favourable to progressive reform, the Labor government has reached political heights rarely seen in Australian political history. This is not the time to govern timidly or limit ambition to a narrow list of pre-election commitments. Australia can’t wait. Circumstances will shift. The economy, society, and global order will all evolve – often in unpredictable ways – and the Albanese government must be ready to respond not just with managerial competence, but with a compelling reform agenda that shapes the future. Albanese has the chance to enter the pantheon of great Labor leaders – not just as the leader who achieved a massive election victory, but the one who made that victory matter.