Nearly one term in, just what is the point of the Albanese government?

For several years half a lifetime ago, I was involved in designing questions and writing up the results of opinion polling for this masthead. Most of the questions were the usual “who would you vote for?” political stuff, with an off-piste social one like “what foods do you dislike most?” thrown in. I’ve long regretted never suggesting that we ask respondents about the political system itself. What was it for? Does it have the capacity to solve problems and improve the lives of citizens?

These questions are even more relevant now. A terrifying thought is that what’s happening in our politics is the best this country can do. Increasingly, there is a savagely contested political environment involving politicians, staffers, a handful of grasping lobbyists and what’s left of a watchful media, then there is the rest of Australia that variously ignores it or is bewildered by it a lot of the time.

Credit: Illustration: Simon Letch

This week, a supposedly solemn attempt to get a cross-party expression of sorrow marking the first anniversary of the Hamas attack on Israel became a tit-for-tat, with competing Labor and Coalition parliamentary motions. And Anthony Albanese disgraced himself by throwing an offensive, schoolyard-level slur at an opposition frontbencher. It was apparently Peter Dutton’s idea to propose a joint motion, although the gusto with which he attacked Albanese after they failed to agree on its wording suggested he was chiefly looking for an opportunity to monster Albanese yet again.

Meanwhile, Albanese dealt himself a serious blow with his momentary lack of self-control, because the floor of the House is pretty much the last place where he regularly looks commanding. He delivers speeches awfully and mangles what he says in just about every interview but after 28 years as an MP, and with the standing orders favouring him as they do all prime ministers, he can be effective in the parliament. Now, even that’s in danger.

What that carry-on means to the great mass of Australians is anybody’s guess. More than likely they’ll be wondering when their parliamentary representatives will ditch the wrangling and abuse and get on with their most important responsibility, which is to fix the way the country operates.

Naturally, the government will say it’s doing that and will roll out its list of mid-level achievements as proof. What will be missing is the argument that underpins all those measures – the outlining of the society it all goes to create. Australian politics hinges on economic wellbeing. Surely the government’s biggest problem and the simplest explanation for its fall from favour is that not enough Australians understand what it is there for. All that cost-of-living pain – is there any point to it? Is the difficulty worth putting up with on the way to something better?

Albanese has never persuasively explained what his government is working to achieve and how that will improve Australians’ lives over the longer term. His assumption at the beginning of his time as PM – that most voters merely wanted him to imitate the general manager of a small to medium business, working away in his office each day on the sales figures and presenting them when necessary – turned out to be a horrible misjudgment. People need to see some fire and brimstone, but on the economic message, not on other issues.

This central fact presents a challenge for Dutton ahead of next year’s election just as much as it does Albanese. What we’ve got is a small-target government that was previously a small-target opposition. And despite all of Dutton’s histrionics and permanent residence in a state of high dudgeon, we have another small-target opposition itching to take over.

Nothing Dutton or shadow treasurer Angus Taylor have done or said suggest they have any great aspirations for economic reform. Their goals at this point appear to be to cut Labor’s spending on “boondoggles” such as the Future Made in Australia program, the reconstruction fund and university research. The government’s workplace changes on bargaining and wages would go. On housing, raiding super balances to boost mortgage deposits plus easier bank lending approvals appear to be in prospect. Immigration would be cut.

What’s striking about today’s politics is the limited ambitions of recent new governments. In Bob Hawke’s first term he introduced Medicare and financial reforms including the float of the dollar. John Howard deregulated workplace laws, proposed a GST as part of a wider set of tax reforms and turbocharged private school education. Kevin Rudd created the NBN and passed the Fair Work Act. After that, new governments went small bore. Tony Abbott’s main achievement was to repeal the carbon and mining taxes. As for the current government, a big legacy achievement doesn’t exactly jump out at this stage.

Is it understandable that today’s leaders steer clear of going large policy-wise? At one level it is, because for the most part many of today’s voters won’t appreciate it; they’re suspicious of anything to do with politics. But voters also know that things aren’t working the way they should, and to dodge the tough things leaves the country with a mounting list of problems. The longer those problems like tax and housing are left to fester, the more complicated they become. The more the inequities are baked in within our society, and the more difficult they are to fix. All thanks to our incredible shrinking politics.

Shaun Carney is a regular columnist.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.