Anthony Albanese, the current Prime Minister of Australia, rose to leadership with high hopes for transforming the political landscape. Political journalist Katharine Murphy, in her book Lone Wolf: Albanese and the New Politics, painted a portrait of a leader who envisioned a collaborative, idealistic, and progressive “new politics” that would cater to the growing influence of Teal independents while distancing itself from the traditional adversarial politics of the Liberal Party under Peter Dutton. Albanese seemed confident that Labor was not only destined for a period of extended governance but that he could successfully chart a new course for Australian politics.
Murphy’s analysis of Albanese’s vision resonated with many, including the Prime Minister himself, who later appointed her to his communications team. Yet, even at the time of her book’s publication, there were concerns that the promise of a “new politics” would be difficult to achieve. While the rise of the Teals, with their emphasis on climate action and political integrity, suggested a shift away from the entrenched partisan battles of the past, the old politics of division and cultural confrontation—characterized by the Liberal Party’s critique of Labor’s economic and climate policies—remained ever-present. Today, with polls showing Labor and the Liberals neck-and-neck, and key political figures like Gareth Evans and Bill Kelty criticizing the government’s performance, Albanese’s vision of a unified and positive political landscape appears increasingly out of reach.
Albanese’s “new politics” agenda was, in part, a reaction to the previous decade of Australian political life, dominated by the combative and populist leadership of Scott Morrison. The Labor leader presented himself as the antidote, focusing on collaboration and inclusion. His 2022 election campaign centered on bringing Australians together—across political divides, business and labor sectors, Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. The vision was optimistic and grounded in assumed commonalities, emphasizing kindness, compassion, and collective interests over the divisiveness that had previously plagued Australian politics.
Labor’s “small target” approach helped it secure electoral victory by sidestepping Morrison’s divisive “us versus them” rhetoric, but this strategy proved much harder to implement in government. Albanese’s dream of unity was quickly tested by the realities of governing a deeply divided country. Three major initiatives—the government’s attempts to bring together business and labor, the failed Voice referendum, and its handling of polarizing international events—illustrate the struggles Albanese has faced in trying to bridge these divides.
In seeking to channel the legacy of former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, Albanese aimed to recreate a partnership between business and labor. Hawke’s success lay in a compromise where businesses accepted lower wages for workers, balanced by a government-funded “social wage” through benefits and entitlements. Albanese’s government, however, took a different tack: ending the wage stagnation of the Liberal years and boosting pay, particularly for low-paid women workers. By addressing issues inherent in Keating’s neoliberal-influenced enterprise bargaining model, Labor hoped to correct long-standing wage disparities.
But this ambitious agenda drew criticism from key business groups, who opposed the government’s industrial relations reforms. Multi-employer bargaining, increases in the minimum wage, and protections for precarious work were seen as overreach by many in the business community. Unsurprisingly, the Liberals aligned themselves with these critiques, leaving Labor wedged between its own progressive promises and resistance from business interests.
Albanese’s push for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament was perhaps the most ambitious attempt to foster reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The proposal, born out of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, sought to enshrine a voice for Indigenous Australians in the Constitution, allowing them to advise Parliament on policies affecting their communities.
However, the referendum fell victim to a toxic campaign led by Peter Dutton and right-wing populists. Dutton framed the Voice as an elite-driven “Canberra voice” that would give special privileges to Indigenous Australians at the expense of others. This narrative, combined with Dutton’s claim that Labor was preoccupied with “woke” issues while ignoring the cost-of-living crisis, resonated with voters. The Voice proposal was soundly rejected in the October 2023 referendum.
Following the defeat, Albanese retreated further into a “small target” strategy, dropping key commitments like the Makarrata commission for truth-telling and Treaty, and abandoning protections for LGBTQI+ teachers and students in religious schools. These decisions alienated progressive supporters, revealing the limits of the government’s ability to stand firm on contentious issues in a deeply polarized society.
Global developments, particularly in the Middle East, have further complicated Albanese’s attempts to maintain a cohesive national narrative. The Albanese government’s stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict has been heavily criticized from both sides of the political spectrum. Right-wing commentators and the Murdoch press have accused the government of abandoning Israel, while pro-Palestinian groups and the Greens have accused Labor of complicity in what they describe as Israel’s genocidal policies.
The polarized domestic debate on this issue has made it difficult for the government to articulate a balanced position without alienating key voter groups. At a time when international developments are intensifying divisions within Australian society, Albanese’s original story of bringing Australians together has been steadily undermined.
While Albanese envisioned a government of collaboration and shared prosperity, Dutton has consistently exploited the frustrations of Australians facing economic hardship. Inflation, high interest rates, and a housing affordability crisis have all intensified the cost-of-living pressures that many Australians are struggling with.
Dutton’s narrative has been simple and effective: Labor’s preoccupation with progressive causes, such as the Voice and climate change, has distracted it from the real issues facing everyday Australians. He has accused the government of contributing to inflation through excessive spending, and of making the cost-of-living crisis worse by pursuing renewable energy policies that increase energy costs.
While the government has introduced extensive cost-of-living relief—including tax cuts, energy bill relief, wage increases, and reduced childcare costs—these measures have often been outpaced by inflation and rising prices. In addition, Labor’s attempts to address the housing crisis have been stymied by opposition from both the Coalition and the Greens, leaving the government with little room to maneuver.
Albanese’s dilemma is that many of these issues—high inflation, interest rates, and housing shortages—are beyond the government’s immediate control, yet Dutton’s critiques have been electorally damaging. Dutton’s relentless focus on economic issues, paired with his attacks on Labor’s “woke” distractions, has resonated with voters in ways that Albanese’s more complex narrative has struggled to match.
Another area where the Albanese government has made significant progress, but received limited recognition, is gender equality. The government has enacted several reforms to improve the working conditions and pay of women, particularly in sectors like aged care and childcare. However, as noted in a recent book on the Albanese government, reforms that benefit women tend to be undervalued in a male-dominated political culture.
This cultural blind spot is exacerbated by Dutton’s populist rhetoric, which often mobilizes hyper-masculine leadership stereotypes. He depicts Albanese as a weak, emasculated leader who has failed to stand up for ordinary Australians. This framing has been central to Dutton’s narrative of strength versus weakness, and it has proved to be an effective tool in undermining Albanese’s more inclusive vision of leadership.
Albanese’s vision of a “new politics” was ambitious and idealistic, grounded in a belief that Australians could be brought together through collaboration, empathy, and shared goals. Yet, the reality of governing in a deeply divided country has revealed the fragility of this vision. From industrial relations to the Voice referendum and the cost-of-living crisis, Albanese has found himself navigating a political landscape where entrenched divisions and populist rhetoric continue to dominate.
Peter Dutton’s success in capitalizing on these divisions, particularly through his simple, negative messaging, has forced Labor into a defensive posture. As the next election looms, Albanese faces the challenge of reasserting his narrative of hope and unity in the face of a deeply polarizing political environment. Whether he can do so will determine not only his political future but the future of Australian politics as a whole.
