At a time of global political upheaval, can Albanese really resist calls to be more ambitious?

The Guardian

a day ago

In his National Press Club address on Tuesday the prime minister laid down an existential challenge to those who cheered the loudest on election night when Peter Dutton and his miserable crew were confined to the dustbin of history.
In making the case that trust in government is underpinned by economic stability and keeping election promises, the PM is saying the quiet bit out loud: his government will push back on calls to 'show more ambition' in the wake of its thumping win.
Setting markers on what he perceives to be the limit to his mandate is, on one level, a legitimate interpretation of the election and a credible template for embedding Labor government for the next decade.
In my post-election column, I argued even this limited mandate is ambitious and wide-ranging: building renewables, new homes and health infrastructure; consolidating the care economy; mediating AI and regulating big tech.
But at a time of rolling and intensifying crises in geopolitics, technology, climate and inequality, is it enough to say this is the limit of the government's work? More profoundly, how can a government determined to occupy the centre ground be shepherded to more ambition?
The new government's approval of the long-term expansion of gas on the North-West Shelf, its neglect of the Uluru statement from the heart and the repercussions of our defence relationship with an unhinged US are causing legitimate angst.
It would be understandable and natural to respond to these positions with anger and dissent but in this new environment the traditional political pressure points are not so readily available.
Those who dreamed of progressive minority government have been sent to the sidelines. The Greens may have a Senate veto power but this will need to be exercised judiciously lest it become a proxy for frustrating the aforementioned mandate.
Add the fact that the Labor left now holds not just the leadership but a majority of cabinet positions, and the institutional mechanisms for prosecuting more progressive policy appear limited.
This operating environment lays down real challenges for progressive groups that normally lead the charge, the not-for-profits, member organisations and unions whose leaders are convening in Old Parliament House this week to survey the political landscape.
Business-as-usual campaigning driven by anger, passion and the demands of funders for quick wins risks marginalising progressives to the fringes of the national debate.
To adapt to these new conditions, progressive groups need to confront the situation as dispassionately as the prime minister.
First, they need tocome to terms with what the election was really about: a vote for stability against the chaos of Dutton, not a contest between visions of radical change but a contrast of tone and approach.
Second, they should look for opportunities to campaign alongside government where there is common ground and common purpose. The rollout of renewable energy in regional Australia is a case in point: that agenda ran the real risk of being sidelined by a lack of community social licence, which was wrongly taken as a given as advocates moved on to the next fight before fully banking the one in from of them.
Third, they need to identify the issues that are beyond the current mandate and build long-term strategies to extend the government's ambitions. To be clear, this does not mean putting the planet, poverty or peace on the backburner. But at the beginning of a cycle where the government has such a strong majority, this ambition needs to be earned not simply demanded.
The final lesson is that the vast majority of voters are motivated by their own material needs, not a broader ideological or moral imperative. Building ambition around this reality is critical in securing common cause.
It is important that the Albanese government learns the right lessons from its victory, starting with recognising that despite the arithmetic thumping, Labor's primary vote was lower than Mark Latham's 2004 disaster.
It is now easy to forget how fraught the situation was before the final run home, when there was still a real chance that the government would make history as the first one-term government in a century.
For too much of its first term it drifted from crisis to crisis, too reactive to the white noise of the Murdoch press and too ready to pick a fight with the Greens as a proof point of its centrist bona fides.
It also left it late to build a coherent story about why it was there and what it was trying to achieve. Apart from defending things like Medicare and opposing things like nuclear power, there is still a confusion about what the government is actually there to do.
Finally, while the government has the power to pass laws and allocate spending, it cannot do everything. Through the first term its tendency to hoard power left it exposed and isolated. Working more collaboratively with civil society through sharing its mission and embracing friction will only make it more resilient.
Ultimately the prime minister is right: his government, like all governments, exists as an expression of the trust of the people. Rewarding that trust by building a shared consensus to tackle our cascading crises is the only credible pathway to securing the lasting change that the moment demands.
Peter Lewis is the executive director of Essential, a progressive strategic communications and research company that undertook research for Labor in the last election and conducts qualitative research for Guardian Australia. He is also the host of Per Capita's Burning Platforms podcast