Albanese’s Labor legacy is secured. But he should run again

The reason for the Liberal drubbing at Saturday’s election is clear: Peter Dutton and the Liberals blew it. It is that simple. Anthony Albanese did not repeat his fumbles of the last campaign. He was disciplined, determined, oozed optimism and looked prime ministerial. The effectiveness of his positive campaigning was reflected in the ALP’s vote in cities across the country and particularly in Queensland, where Dutton lost his seat.

Albanese (right) was disciplined and determined, while Dutton struggled to rise above being the opposition leader.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen, James Brickwood

Albanese has now cemented himself in The Lodge and ended the leadership instability of the Rudd and Gillard years. Having been consistently underestimated, he has grown in the job and proven he is a leader of substance. His winning the election has dramatically enhanced his authority in the government. He now has the opportunity to reshape Australia’s future.

He has established himself as a Labor hero but is not yet in the Hawke/Keating class. He now has the opportunity to build a legacy that will enhance Australia’s future in an increasingly unstable world. Jim Chalmers is talented, impressive and has proven himself to be a safe pair of hands in Treasury, and like Albanese, he has matured into his responsibilities. He undoubtedly has the ability to be a future leader, but not just yet. Albanese should think of a transition to Chalmers in the years ahead, but well after the next election. There is too much work to be done, and the focus should be on redefining Australia’s place in the world, not on a struggle over the leadership. That was Labor’s past, not its future.

In contrast, Dutton struggled to rise above being opposition leader. His message was negative, inconsistent, misdirected and confused. He failed to grab the imagination of the electorate – particularly younger voters and women – and tried to sell something that was unsellable: nuclear power. Dutton’s energy policy was marketed as a “zero-emissions nuclear” strategy supposedly leading to cheaper power. To attract voters concerned about climate change, the package was unsuccessfully pitched as a balanced policy that included renewables, more gas, household batteries and solar panels.

The policy was contaminated by its nuclear component and was never going to win over voters under 40. Dutton was always going to lose the argument when his credibility was pitched against the CSIRO. He had no credible allies and questionable costings.

This election should have been all about the cost of living. Dutton’s promises to reduce the fuel excise by 25¢ a litre and banning foreign investors from buying existing homes had appeal, but he lost his way backflipping on reducing the number of public servants and forcing government employees back to the office. This not only cost him women’s votes but raised the serious question of how much critical policy work had been done by the Liberal shadow cabinet before the election. Policies that can’t even survive an election campaign sent the clear message that the Coalition was lazy and not ready to return to government. More importantly, the policy backflips in the middle of the campaign took the oxygen out of Dutton’s campaign, gave the ALP a free kick and took pressure off the government’s record. Albanese could not believe his luck.

Dutton was an effective opposition leader. He rebuilt and united the Liberal Party after the Morrison loss, and worked effectively with the National Party to take the fight up to the government. He unsuccessfully targeted outer suburban seats to try and offset the loss of the teal seats.

Going into the election campaign, the polls gave him a real chance of defeating the government after only one term. He was on the way to make history but lost the campaign through poor planning, a lack of visionary policy and misunderstanding the Australian people.

After their devastating loss, the Liberals should now understand that Australians are not impressed by right-wing populism. The poor showing of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party and Clive Palmer’s latest political intervention confirms that. In the US, Donald Trump was re-elected president by energising his base. Politicians can do that in the US because of lower voter turnout. In Australia, compulsory voting means that in order to form a majority government the governing party needs not just its base to win but also a sizable percentage of middle Australia. That is what Dutton failed to understand.

Trump had an impact on the Australian election. His decisions on tariffs rattled friend and foe alike. Dutton was seen by some as a Trump-like figure who was going to shake up Australian politics for the better. Reducing the public service and forcing public servants back to the office were seen as Trump-style policies by Dutton designed to catch the Trump momentum.

As Trump’s political standing and credibility vaporised, the comparison with Dutton soured his perception in Australia. Suddenly, Australia’s close ally was burning years of friendship and defence co-operation. Australians didn’t like it, and any association with Trump became a liability. In addition, Dutton was let down by a Liberal Party organisation that in NSW couldn’t even nominate candidates for the last local government elections, and on a daily basis did not match Labor’s campaign pictures on the evening news.

That attention to detail was missing. The result was Albanese out-campaigning Dutton. If the Liberal Party is to win a future election, it has to reform its organisation, improve its campaigning skills and do the hard policy work necessary to prove it has the vision to govern the country.

It is probable that the Liberals will have at least two terms in opposition to work on it. Australia’s policy challenges are immense in an unstable world where China is exerting its global influence, Russia is aggressively pursuing its self-interest, the Middle East is in turmoil, AI is reshaping the workforce, and the American president could best be described as unreliably erratic.

The policy opportunities for the Liberals are therefore almost limitless. The divisions in the Liberal Party will no doubt emerge over the next few weeks, with some arguing that the party should move further to the right. They are wrong. No party can win without middle Australia. An increasing number of voters are disillusioned with the major political parties because of the policies of the right and the left. The low primary vote of the major parties and votes for the teals and independents confirm that. Younger women voters, in particular, are not on the far right.

Putting women in winnable seats is crucial to the Liberal Party’s electoral appeal. Liberal candidates such as former member Dr Katie Allen, who ran in the Victorian seat of Chisholm, highlight that the party has talented women. But it needs more of them in winnable seats.

The appeal of the teal candidates is not just the important policies they stand for, such as combating climate change, but that they are very talented women who have lifted the calibre of the parliament as a whole.

Sussan Ley and Angus Taylor are potential replacements for Peter Dutton.Credit: Marija Ercegovac

Dutton’s loss of his seat throws the Liberal leadership wide open. Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor looks like a future leader but is yet to prove he has the policy depth, diligence and determination needed to be prime minister. His conservative politics were rejected by the Australian people at the election, and he must share some of the blame for the Liberal loss. Labor would not be concerned if he becomes Liberal leader.

Other possible contenders include Dan Tehan, Sussan Ley and Andrew Hastie. Tehan is smart, but his television interviewing style is not up to the standard necessary to lead. Sussan Ley is very talented, and along with Andrew Hastie she could form a leadership team that could reshape the Liberal Party. Having a female leader is what the Liberals need now to win younger voters and women.

The challenges facing the new government in this term are substantial. The immediate hurdle is to deal with the state of the nation’s finances. The obvious choice is ugly; either to curb government expenditure or increase taxes. There is another choice, though, and that is to improve productivity and grow the economy to underpin the nation’s finances.

China is now investing billions of dollars in innovation development and rivalling the US. Australia is at the crossroads; we must become obsessed with developing and commercialising innovation or be left behind. It has to be a whole-of-government commitment. Innovation needs to be the driver of our economic future. It should involve forging a new partnership with our key research universities, research institutes, superannuation funds and industry leaders to enable Australia to become a world leader in commercialising innovation in many fields, from mining services, critical minerals, IT and agriculture to medical science to grow the economy and create the jobs of tomorrow. We have the brains, but we lack the bipartisanship, co-ordination and strategic investment necessary to make it happen to reach our full potential. That must change.

Industry and Science Minister Ed Husic is one of the smartest ministers in Albanese’s cabinet. He understands the innovation and research challenges facing Australia and has embarked on a number of initiatives. One of them is the strategic examination of Australia’s research and development system by an independent panel chaired by Robyn Denholm to determine how best to grow Australia’s core science and innovation capability. Its recommendations will be critical to planning Australia’s economic future. Albanese should put the panel’s report front and centre of his government’s second term. Implementing the panel’s report has the potential to be nation-building. Now that would be a real legacy.

Peter Beattie was premier of Queensland from 1998 to 2007.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.