Do Australians really want reform? It’s a reasonable question to ask as the Albanese government weathers trenchant attacks on its recent federal budget.
From the front pages to Facebook, in parliament and in the opinion polls, the mood seems so sour that Australia’s far right demagogue, Pauline Hanson, is being canvassed by some as a possible prime minister in 2028.
After a much quieter first term – during which he was consistently criticised for not being bold enough on policy reform – Prime Minister Anthony Albanese may be wondering whether the bigger moves of Labor’s second term are worth it.
For a range of reasons, the answer is yes.
Governments learn by doing
All new governments learn by doing. They have to match ambition with capacity and capability, or things can go horribly awry.
If the first term works well enough, more political capital is earned at the second election. That capital can then be spent on a more ambitious agenda by ministers who are now experienced and better at their jobs.
The budget’s tax reform package’s timing was therefore probably right.
Labor won a second election and built up a big buffer of seats in its landslide win. The government could lose a lot of them and still win the 2028 election. It has two years to get the electorate to digest the idea of the budget’s tax changes and move on.
The noise is often not the whole story
It can be hard to get a realistic picture of how big reform moves are really being received by voters, especially when vested interests are challenged.
The loudest noise in the budget attack is coming from mainstream commercial media outlets, shaped by the plutocratic interests of their owners, and fuelled by rage-farming techniques designed to boost audience share.
Asymmetries in the reporting are striking.
The Australian Financial Review’s page 1 lead on May 27, for example, was “Rethink tax moves, tech chiefs urge”. It was one of four stories in that edition critical of the budget.
The same day it reported JWS Research’s post-budget analysis, which showed all the government’s key budget measures had net positive support from those surveyed. This was true, by the narrowest possible margin (+0.5 percent), even of the capital gains tax (CGT) change. The story was buried on page 4 with a mealy-mouthed headline, “Tax changes struggle to win support from voters”.
Another example is the Sydney Morning Herald story on May 28, “Nine in 10 under 30 to be better off due to tax changes: Treasury” – a big story given the budget controversy. Was it on page 1? No, it was on page 11.
A righteous streak in the budget commentary focuses on the alleged “broken promises” and “untrustworthiness” of Albanese given his changed stance over the CGT and negative gearing.
Experienced hands would be hard-pressed to name a prime minister who hasn’t at some point changed stance on something in a similar way, often going on to further election wins.
Even if these commentators disagree with the changed policy positions, healthy, democratic debate would at least canvas how the changes might be in the national interest rather than rushing to condemnation.
The polling should, but doesn’t always, help
Reputable opinion polls can and should be one source for guidance at times of high political noise.
However, there are memorable cases of them being wrong, notably when Liberal Scott Morrison won the 2019 election against opinion polls pointing to an almost certain Labor win.
Polls can also themselves become the story, as is the case in 2026 with the apparent rise of One Nation at the expense of the Coalition parties. This can be a problem given the herd behaviour noted by astrophysicist and former ANU vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt, in relation to polling at the 2019 election. In his view, because of confirmation bias,
[…] the polls have been manipulated, probably unintentionally, to give the same answers as each other […] I say unintentionally because humans are biased towards liking to get the same answer as everyone else.
Some pollsters, notably Redbridge Group, are getting enormous coverage in relation to the “rise of One Nation” narrative. Others such as Essential Poll, taking the longer view that voters choosing One Nation now would be less likely to do so at an election in two years time, when their vote really counts, get less attention.
Essential’s post-budget survey found two-thirds of voters supported government action to rebalance tax rates on wages and salary earnings versus “money earned on investments and assets like property and shares”. Essential executive director Peter Lewis says:
Told well it has the potential to connect with those moving to the political fringes because they don’t believe the system works for them anymore.
But if there ends up being herd behaviour by pollsters overall because of the enormous attention Redbridge’s One Nation narrative is attracting, the opinion polls could end up affecting politics rather than just reflecting it.
Governments have been here before and survived
If you want to make significant reforms, there’s going to be a reaction.
Whitlam government health minister Bill Hayden received death threats when fighting to establish Medicare’s predecessor, Medibank. There were public demonstrations against Hawke government minister for the status of women, Susan Ryan, when she was getting the Sex Discrimination Act through parliament.
That’s politics.
Is the Albanese government doing enough? Is it doing too much?
The rapturous applause Treasurer Jim Chalmers received from caucus after delivering the 2026 budget showed his fellow MPs were thrilled the government is finally doing bigger things.
Many voters are likely quietly relieved too. They elected Labor to do Labor things, and will take it out on the government through the ballot box if it doesn’t.
Like Hayden and Ryan, and like Bob Hawke and Paul Keating too, Albanese and Chalmers just have to keep fighting their policy corner and prevail.
Chris Wallace, Professor, School of Politics Economics & Society, Faculty of Business Government & Law, University of Canberra
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
