With this much power, Albanese can think big. But here's why he won't

Sydney Morning Herald

23-05-2025

The central reality of Australian politics for the new term of parliament is the dominance of the Albanese government. It has swung its electoral sword so broadly that it has decapitated the Liberals and Greens and panicked the Coalition's scattered survivors into utter disarray. Labor so commands the centre that it has forced its rivals to the peripheries of the parliament.
So, as the prime minister returns from his audience with the Pope to offer help to the people suffering the biblical-scale floods destroying rural and regional NSW, the Coalition is lost in self-destructive recriminations.
Albanese, a man who has been underrated his whole life and was all but written off last year, can be forgiven a moment to relish his victory: 'It's the first time ever that a government seeking re-election has increased its primary vote, increased its two-party vote and increased the number of seats that it holds in the House of Representatives. Whether it be Hawke in '84, Whitlam in '74, Fraser in '77, Howard in '98, Gillard in 2010 or Turnbull in 2016, they all went backwards.'
The scale of Labor's victory surprised even itself. It exceeded even its 'most optimistic expectations', as Jim Chalmers has said. A House majority is 76 seats. Labor was expecting, even in its fondest fantasies, no more than 80. It has won 94 seats.
And the future? 'My objective over the next few years is not to just occupy the space,' says Albanese, 'but to change things for the people who voted Labor in this election, and for the people who didn't as well.'
The big question, once the government has recovered from its shock, is what Albanese will do with the political capital Australia has just given him. His immediate priority is delivering on his promises. But he now has the luxury of being able to think big.
Before the election, a chorus of experts demanded that a new government use a new term to launch major reform programs to re-energise the economy, galvanise investment and boost living standards. The constant refrain was to insist on a reincarnation of 'Hawke-Keating era' reforms.
That is, they're asking for wrenching, difficult, politically risky change that sets the country up for long-term prosperity. No doubt Chalmers would love to have licence to design bold and ambitious reforms as his hero Keating did.