‘Not the right time’? Why Albanese’s safety first is no longer enough

In 2014, Noel Pearson delivered an eulogy for Gough Whitlam. Professor Tom Clark wrote about it for The Conversation and said “Pearson came to praise Caesar on Wednesday, certainly not to bury him” as he listed the achievements of one of Australia’s greatest reformers.

Pearson said he was speaking to “this old man’s legacy with no partisan brief” but named the Racial Discrimination Act as one of the most important acts of Whitlam’s prime ministership, saying “without this old man the land and human rights of our people would never have seen the light of day”.

“Only those who have known discrimination truly know its evil,” Pearson said on that day.

He later described the Whitlam government as the “textbook case of reform trumping management”.

“Apart from Medibank and the Trade Practices Act, cutting tariff protections and no-fault divorce in the Family Law Act, the Australia Council, the Federal Court, the Order of Australia, federal legal aid, the Racial Discrimination Act, needs-based schools funding, the recognition of China, the abolition of conscription, the law reform commission, student financial assistance, the Heritage Commission, non-discriminatory immigration rules, community health clinics, Aboriginal land rights, paid maternity leave for public servants, lowering the minimum voting age to 18 years and fair electoral boundaries and Senate representation for the territories. Apart from all of this, what did this Roman ever do for us?”

And then the kicker:

“There is no need to regret three years was too short. Was any more time needed? The breadth and depth of the reforms secured in that short and tumultuous period were unprecedented, and will likely never again be repeated,” Pearson told the memorial.

“The devil-may-care attitude to management, as opposed to reform, is unlikely to be seen again by governments whose priorities are to retain power rather than reform.”

Pearson was more right then some would like to admit. When it comes to priorities, maintaining power is prefaced over reform, even if that reform is what is best, or even necessary for the nation.

Anthony Albanese ruling out a tax on gas companies, with a narrative adopted by the incurious that it is “not the right time” because of the “global sensitivities” is not good policy or even a smart one. It is, however, what he considers to be a safe one, helped along by a media narrative that presents keeping the status quo as the “sensible” choice, even in the face of mounting evidence from figures such as former treasury secretary Ken Henry (not exactly noted for being a “leftie”) and as some of the biggest cuts to an Australian social program are announced it, because we “can’t afford it”.

As Troy Bramston outlined in the definitive biography of Whitlam, Whitlam came to power with reform top of mind.

Albanese has not come to government with reform as a guiding priority. His government treats reform (outside of industrial relations) as a nice-to-do rather than an imperative. There are those who would say this is because he is attempting to starve off media criticism or campaigns. But at this point in his leadership, you again have to ask for what reason?

Labor would need to lose close to 30 seats to lose government. In Australia’s political landscape, that seems very unlikely. Even with One Nation and the re-ordering of the right, the next election result seems pretty set.

The biggest tension within the government comes from Albanese, who is at the end of his career and, having reached its pinnacle, does not have to think too far ahead in the future, and Jim Chalmers, who, mid-career and ambitious, is thinking of events in 10 years time and how events now will play into that. Chalmers is more willing to signal publicly, and to colleagues, that he is interested in reform – which in most cases ends with Albanese very quickly locking that door.

But the events set in motion by the United States and Israel no longer allow politicians the luxury of pretending that reform is a nice-to-have. It’s happening whether they like it or not.

While linking fuel security to gas contracts may work for short-term domestic politics (despite a gas export tax being paid by gas companies, and not their customers), as we have previously discussed, the world is re-ordering itself. Economics has forced what morals and international law failed to do, and draw lines in the sand.

While defence and security boffins may point to the world not having another America to turn to, the global south would point out it has never really been able to turn to America. And Australia, like Europe, like Britain, like Canada, is having to look further afield as a matter of necessity. Stronger diplomatic ties are being forged elsewhere.

Australia can’t ignore that – as Penny Wong pointed out in a radio interview last week, “80 per cent of the oil that comes to our region goes through the Strait [of Hormuz]. Now what that means is that we, and the countries of our region, are disproportionately affected, which is why we have been engaging so closely with Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei and other countries in the region”.

All of this global uncertainty is hitting at a time when people were already feeling the pinch of generational unfairness. As economist John Quiggin pointed out last week, the oldest gen Xers are turning 62 and getting closer to retirement age.

The country is changing, and those changing with it are paying close attention to what the government is doing. That may not matter at the next election (at least on the numbers) but it will matter in terms of how much faith people hold in their democracy to respond to their concerns.

You don’t need to have the reformist mind and political bravery of Whitlam to address that. But you probably do need to borrow a little.

Amy Remeikis is a contributing editor for The New Daily and chief political analyst for The Australia Institute

This article was first published on The New Daily.