The biggest gift to Shorten’s legacy is one Labor doesn’t have on its side

How times change.

During Bill Shorten’s tenure leading the Labor Party, a short clip gained traction on social media. Shorten declared, “I believe”. Then the words “checks notes” appeared on-screen, as Shorten looked down at his notes. The gif became snide shorthand for those who didn’t think Shorten stood for much.

Illustration: Joe Benke.Credit:

But late last week, as the internet filled with tributes to Shorten, who had just announced his impending retirement from politics, such carping faded into history. It was now Shorten’s achievements which, quite rightly, took pride of place. He had led much of the fight against robo-debt. He was the father of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. And he had led Labor – yes, to defeat, but with one of the most detailed policy platforms an opposition had presented.

Having worked for Julia Gillard, I am perhaps particularly attuned to the bitter ironies of reputational shift: the way past critics morph smoothly into applauding fans, dismayed at the way a politician was martyred while forgetting their own role in the martyring.

Shorten would be well within his rights to be frustrated, especially with sections of the media. The discussion of his policies was horribly distorted; meanwhile, his opponent, Scott Morrison, was lauded for his performative substitution of policy with personality.

Such shifts in perspective are, in part, a result of circumstances changing over time. Gillard has benefited from social movements since she left, which have brought increased awareness of the injustice women face. It is not that we know any new facts about Gillard’s own time: it is that the changes since allow a clearer view (for men, especially) of the environment in which she was operating.

Similarly, the current government’s seeming timidity is part of what makes Shorten look, in retrospect, so brave. There is some historical perversity in this, given it was Shorten’s 2019 election loss that led, in part, to Labor’s 2022 small-target strategy, which seems to have continued into government. Still, as with Gillard, it is the experience of the years following that has allowed us to see Shorten in a different light.

And there is another reason. As that gif suggests, for quite a while voters weren’t sure who Shorten was. By now, the answer has been provided, in the way it usually is for politicians: not via rhetoric or promises, but by actual achievements. His robo-debt campaign was crystallised both by the admission it was unlawful and the later royal commission. His work on the NDIS was capped by his recent efforts to make sure the scheme doesn’t die.

Shifting political contexts do not always take years, and are not only a matter for history: far more rapid shifts can bite sitting politicians. Recent days have seen suggestions of a war between the Reserve Bank of Australia and the government after Treasurer Jim Chalmers said interest rates were “smashing” the economy. Chalmers’ statement was both true and obvious. He had also said similar things before. But that was largely before RBA Governor Michele Bullock had appeared to blame governments for inflation (she later changed her position). It was perhaps not fair, but it was also not entirely unpredictable, that the treasurer’s recent comments would be viewed within this altered environment. The “war” was vastly exaggerated. But Chalmers either understood, or should have – or perhaps did, and decided not to worry - that the political context had changed.

But this is a one-week story about politics, not substance. And here we come back to the observation that, given sufficient time, politicians are ultimately judged on their record. Because meanwhile, a far more important piece of context has changed. Last week’s national accounts presented a worrying picture of a faltering economy. The only reason it grew at all was a combination of government spending and migration.

And so on this front, at least, Chalmers has not had to wait so long as Shorten for his vindication. And again, it is not because circumstances have changed but because we can now see the past more clearly.

At the time the budget was handed down, Chalmers was attacked by some for spending too freely. Last week’s figures suggest he was justified both in talking about the tricky balance between inflation and growth, and in his spending – spending which (as Chalmers argues) has been essential in keeping the country out of recession.

This is not only more important than the war of economic words – it may end up more politically important.

One of the questions that has emerged over this term of government is: who is Anthony Albanese? In the first year, the answer was clear, reassuring if not exciting: a prime minister who believed in processes, competent government, and change achieved gradually. More recently, that has not seemed enough: the sense of a timid and defensive government, unwilling to define itself by contest, has seemed to take its place.

The recent debacle around the census seemed further confirmation of this. Interestingly, though, the government finally, yesterday, seemed to arrive at a reasonable answer, with questions on both sexuality and gender to be included.

What the government can’t know is how much current voter frustration is simply a product of temporary circumstance: the natural wish for something to shift after two years in which inflation has overshadowed all else. But if the government keeps on reaching the right answers – albeit by overly tortuous paths – then it remains possible that the original self-definition that Albanese offered comes into favour again, with Chalmers’ staid economic management a key aspect. That this government, viewed from the very end of its first term, looks different from the way it does while we are still living through the events of that term.

A final note on context. Shorten, in 2019, didn’t persuade voters that his changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax were needed. But it would be a mistake for this government to assume this means they can never be persuaded: since then, the context has changed. And the politician that finally makes those changes will be remembered for them. The question of what they believe simply won’t arise.

Sean Kelly is a regular columnist and a former adviser to Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.

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