Victorian Labor's tough-on-crime turn could mark the beginning of the end for Jacinta Allan
It was meant to be the week Jacinta Allan took a firm stance on the 'crime crisis', but it could instead mark the beginning of the end for her government.
It began on Monday with the Victorian premier announcing a new police taskforce, Operation Hawk, which appeared, on the surface, a decisive move to combat corruption on government construction sites.
Within hours, it was revealed that the taskforce had already been operating for nine months.
On Tuesday, Allan refused to say whether she had misled the public or was misled by Victoria police, instead stating she had been relying on the information provided to her by the new police commissioner.
The pressure only intensified on Wednesday, when Allan was forced to fend off accusations of corruption and misconduct made by a former senior police officer.
Then, on Thursday, came the release of the latest crime statistics data, showing a 13.2% increase in the state's crime rate – the highest since 2016. Offences committed by children aged between 10 and 17 rose to their highest levels since electronic records began in 1993.
The Coalition was quick to seize on the data, with opposition leader, Brad Battin, accusing the government of failing to keep Victorians safe.
'The numbers don't lie – Labor has lost control of law and order and Victorians are paying the price,' he said.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
On this front, at least, the government appeared prepared. Earlier in the week, it had introduced changes to the Bail Act to parliament, claiming they would help reduce offending (though they have been widely criticised by legal, human rights and First Nations groups – and even privately by some within Labor's ranks).
The premier and her several of her MPs took to social media to promote the so-called 'Tough Bail Bill', mirroring the media release announcing the bill, which used the word 'tough' or 'toughest' 33 times.
Kos Samaras, a former Labor strategist and RedBridge director, has criticised the party's 'newfound love for being tough on crime', comparing it to a 'long political suicide note'.
He says this isn't the first time the Victorian Labor party has found itself facing a 'crime crisis' – in 2016, when crime rates were similarly high and concern over the Apex gang hit overdrive, the opposition ramped up its attacks on law and order.
In the lead-up to the 2018 election, Liberal MPs pushed a narrative centred on 'African gangs', including Peter Dutton's now-infamous comments about Melburnians being afraid to go out for dinner.
The then premier, Daniel Andrews, didn't take the bait, and it proved to be a winning move for Labor.
Crime, defence, and immigration are traditional strengths for the Coalition, and Samaras says Labor should remember that: 'Once you move onto your opponents' turf, you're going to lose'.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
Instead, Labor's success in 2018 came from a focus on its core issues of education, health, jobs and public transport. Federal Labor has emulated this, as it focuses on Medicare in the lead up to the May election.
Perhaps the path forward for Victorian Labor can be found in data that went largely overlooked on Thursday: the huge increase in theft of groceries, clothing and alcohol linked to adult offenders, often in their 30s, facing cost of living pressures.
The issue is the primary concern of voters, who have been crying out for bold ideas to ease the pressure. All Allan has offered them is $400 vouchers for school children and daily reporting on fuel prices.
Instead, she's become known for backflips – from bail and raising the age of criminal responsibility, to ignoring recommendations for a second injecting room and a ban on duck hunting. The one issue on which the premier has has expressed a bold, progressive vision on is housing. In October, she vowed to make Victoria the 'townhouse capital' of Australia as part of a bid to help millennials own homes. It will take years, though, before any results are seen.
A Labor insider said tackling cost of living would also work to reduce crime.
'Young people don't just commit crimes - it's a result of systemic, class-based disadvantage which cannot be ignored,' they said.
'It's very sad to see a supposedly centre left government focus on imprisonment and not the social and economic determinants of youth crime.'
There's a lesson in this week for the Liberals too. While Battin, a former police officer, is comfortable talking tough on crime, after the 2018 loss, an internal review was scathing of the party's law and order strategy.
According to the review, it was seen as a political tactic rather than a genuine plan to improve public safety – and only influenced 6% of voters and not necessarily in the Coalition's favour.
The opposition needs more than just a focus on crime to win government and it needs unity, which already began to fray as it was revealed on Tuesday Battin went on a four-day cruise last week as debate over crime reached fever pitch.
In the early hours of Friday morning, Labor's bail bill passed parliament. But the word 'tough' was missing from its title, after the opposition moved an amendment to scrap it, arguing it wasn't tough enough.
While seemingly petty, the move underscores the reality for Allan: no matter what Labor does on law and order, the opposition is always prepared to go further.
It's a political battle Labor simply can't win.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
PETER VAN ONSELEN: All of the hints Zoe Daniel could have escaped a humiliating loss to Tim Wilson were in her five minute concession video
Former teal independent MP Zoe Daniel has finally conceded defeat. After celebrating her 'victory' on the night of the election - including with ecstatic dancing - before demanding a recount despite the win falling outside the margin that requires one, Daniel has eventually acknowledged that she lost. The Liberal win in the electorate of Goldstein was the only seat anywhere in the country picked up by either of the Coalition parties. The Nationals didn't win a single seat off Labor or regional independents. Beyond defeating Daniel in Goldstein the Liberals didn't defeat a single sitting Labor, Green or teal MP. No other teals lost their seats. On any estimate, Daniel's failure was an isolated incident. It speaks to both the failure of the one term MP and the success of the campaign returning MP Tim Wilson ran against her. Far from being a blueprint for success, Daniel's loss was a sure sign that something wasn't right about her foray into parliamentary politics. Not that you'd know it if all you heard about the Goldstein showdown was Daniel's five minute concession video posted to social media. So far as ungracious defeats go, it was right up there. Perhaps not analogous with Donald Trump's reaction to losing the 2020 US Presidential election - but not as far off as you might have expected given the scathing commentary Daniel delivered Trump's way soon afterwards, accusing him of struggling to accept the reality of his loss. It took an unnecessary recount demanded by Daniel and weeks of denial to pass before the loser eventually reversed her election night victory dance and called Wilson to concede. The concession video including everything from claims about supporting lower taxes (Daniel voted for cancelling the legislated stage three tax cuts and once argued for a higher GST) to complaints about dirty tricks on the campaign trail. Daniel even delivered a statement directly to Vida Goldstein whom the seat is named after ('Vida, it's a mission') despite the pioneering feminist and suffragette passing away 76 years ago. There were hints in the concession speech that Daniel might run again, but no guarantees. If she does do so, she'll need to adopt a more conciliatory style to make a better fist of it. Despite Daniel's strong advocacy for the Palestinian cause, her concession video also included claims that she worked hard for both Jewish and pro-Palestinian constituents. During the course of the campaign, however, Jewish advocacy groups were critical of the stance Daniel took. It is highly likely that the Jewish vote in Goldstein was of itself enough to flip the seat given the seat has one of the highest Jewish populations of any electorate. While Daniel can be proud of winning the seat in 2022, there is little doubt that her ungracious failure to admit defeat before this weekend is a blight on her time in office. Whether it also turns out to be a nail in the coffin of any future ambition to return to parliament remains to be seen.
Daily Mail
7 hours ago
- Daily Mail
What other things Jim Chalmers could tax as Aussies face big slugs - on top of booze, tobacco, property... (the list goes on!): PETER VAN ONSELEN
Labor is back in power for at least another three years - given the size of its thumping election victory it's more staying there for another six years at a minimum. And with that certainty comes instant talk of new taxes, despite election commitments to the contrary. Labor's climate and energy spokesman, Chris Bowen, has said that he's open to a carbon tariff on certain products to help Australia meet its 2030 emissions targets. Labor backbencher and medical doctor Mike Freelander wants a sugar tax to help tackle obesity and diabetes. Then there is the super tax set to be legislated when parliament returns at the end of July. This new tax was at least part of Labor's election manifesto, even if it was hardly a central issue during the campaign. And there is speculation that negative gearing concessions and perhaps even the capital gains tax (CGT) break too are up for discussion. The problem with all of the above isn't that changes to the tax and spend system should be off limits. It's not even that most of the options being looked at weren't flagged at the election, or that a number of them were specifically ruled out. The real issue is that what is being looked at is piecemeal and not part of a proper tax reform package that balances tax increases with tax cuts, thereby improving the efficiency of the system at the same time as ensuring that government taxes and spending don't just keep increasing. The pre-election budget already highlighted that the tax-to-GDP ratio is at near record levels, with spending as a percentage of GDP even higher. The government uses the latter to justify more taxes, rather than as a reason to stop the record spending because it's unsustainable. I have no problem in principle with sin taxes such as on sugary products. They mirror other sin taxes on tobacco, alcohol or on industry designed to push down emissons. There is a logic to such a shake-up, as long as cutting other taxes forms part of the discussion. But Australia has shied away from wholesale tax reform ever since Kevin Rudd ignored many of Ken Henry's recommendations in his 2009 tax reform paper, and when Malcolm Turnbull junked the tax and federation white papers Tony Abbott commissioned before losing the prime ministership in a coup. Boomers with more than $3million in super are set to be slugged if the government can get its proposal past the Senate at the end of July Instead these taxes are embraced not as part of a wider review to improve efficiencies and better target who and what to tax, but as a simple revenue grab to keep chasing growing spending which needs to be reined in. The design of the superannuation tax will, in decades to come, turn it into a virtual inheritance tax, given that it's not indexed and will over time engulf many more Australians ' super savings than it will at the point of implementation. The flagging of other taxes to be debated and likely introduced in coming budgets is a sign that Labor is confident in its victory. The size of its victory will neuter the Coalition for years to come. But that confidence should extend to emulating the reforming credentials of the Hawke and Howard administrations. Reforming the GST is another area of tax that needs to be looked at, again with tax cuts in other areas (such as on income taxes for example) as part of the discussion. Let's hope that the growing calls within Labor for higher taxes isn't just as a case of Labor's back - and so are the taxes.
The Guardian
13 hours ago
- The Guardian
What went wrong for the Greens in the Australian election?
The Greens lost three seats at the 2025 election, including Melbourne, the electorate of their former leader Adam Bandt. Their national Senate primary vote was down by almost one percentage point compared with 2022, though they have maintained the same number of Senate seats. Their national lower house vote was steady, with 12.22% of the primary vote in 2025 compared with 12.25% in 2022. This means the Greens are ranked third-highest among the parties, behind only Labor and the Liberals. So what went wrong for the Greens? And how can a party that has such a high share of the national vote have so few seats? To show why the Greens' seat share is so low relative to their national vote, it's worth comparing them with the other large party that isn't the Liberals or Labor – the Nationals. In Queensland and the Northern Territory, the Nationals and Liberals have merged into a single party. However, MPs can choose to identify with one party or the other federally by choosing to sit with either the Liberal or National party room. For the following figures we have separated out Nationals politicians and votes on this basis. The Greens have a much higher vote share nationally, but end up with many fewer seats: The reason for this becomes clear when the votes for each party are mapped. This explains the disparity between their national vote and the number of lower house seats – but to explain why the Greens lost three seats compared with the last election, we need to zoom in. Going into the 2025 election, Adam Bandt was disadvantaged by a change in electorate boundaries, but this isn't the only issue he faced. Again, this is much clearer with a map. In addition to the redistribution, Bandt faced at least some voters switching from the Greens to Labor, which Bandt acknowledged after conceding: 'In Melbourne, the boundaries changed and made the seat much more marginal, and I feel that a number of people shifted their votes to Labor to keep [Peter] Dutton out,' he said. The situation in Queensland is a bit different, and to explain the loss of two of the Brisbane seats, we need to get into some maths. Yes, that's right – maths, not maps. This is how the Greens lost Griffith in 2025 – the swing to Labor made it a contest between Labor and the Greens, and Labor won on Liberal preferences. In the seat of Brisbane, the Greens didn't make the final two and Labor won with Greens voter preferences. These seats are called three-cornered contests, and it can be hard to wrap your head around how small changes in the primary vote can result in big changes to the two-party-preferred outcome. Here you can play around with the primary vote and see how things change in our hypothetical electorate: We're using the following preference assumptions in our calculator and charts for hypothetical voting scenarios, loosely based on actual preference data from 2022: 80% of Labor voters preference the Greens before Liberals 80% of Greens voters preference Labor before Liberals 70% of Liberal voters preference Labor before Greens Thanks to Jill Sheppard at ANU for providing feedback on a draft of this feature. Any errors remain the fault of the authors.
