A Question of Belief

Quarterly Essay, the Australian journal about politics and culture, has just hit a major milestone with the publication of QE100 - its 100th issue. Each issue features a single essay (about 20,000-25,000 words in length) written by some of Australia's leading thinkers and writers including David Marr, Don Watson, Laura Tingle, Margaret Simons, George Megalogenis and many more. 

I have been a subscriber for over a decade and, while some topics at first glance seem uninteresting I have always learned something. While I don't always blog about them, some essays have lingered long in my mind and among my favourites are:

• QE51 The Prince (2013) by David Marr
• QE52 Found in Translation (2013) by Linda Jaivin
• QE57 Dear Life (2015) by Karen Hitchcock
• QE83 Top Blokes: The Larrikin Myth, Class and Power (2021) by Lech Blaine
• QE92 The Great Divide (2023) by Alan Kohler

I was excited when I heard Sean Kelly was going to be writing QE100 as his book The Game: A Portrait of Scott Morrison (2021), one of the best political books I have read and I enjoy his articles in The Age/SMH. Plus, the subject of QE100 is The Good Fight: What Does Labor Stand For? - a topic worth exploring. 

One would expect the Labor party - that established Medicare and the NDIS - would be working hard on social equity. A huge part of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese narrative is growing up in council housing, having been raised by a single mother on a disability pension. Throughout his 30 years in Parliament he has always championed the working class. Albo's 'father figure' was Tom Uren, who served in the Whitlam and Hawke governments, and was a champion for social justice, civil rights, indigenous land rights and protection of the environment.

Kelly is clearly disappointed in the federal Labor party. They appear to be well positioned for success - a competent team in a majority government, without a viable opposition, and their party is in power in most states - but for whatever reason they seem tentative in their approach to governing. This should be a period for nation-building reform, so what is going on?

Rather than declaring a definitive stance of what it means to be Labor, the party have spent a long time defining themselves as what they are not.  They have positioned themselves in opposition to the Liberal/National Coalition. But the Coalition has lurched further to the right, and as the past few elections have shown, the Coalition appears to no longer have a defining ideology. How does Labor position themselves against something so ill-defined? 

Kelly points to the consensus making that has been a hallmark of Albanese's leadership. While it may seem like unity is a good way to govern, it can result in bad policy - aiming for safe rather than brave. Kelly writes (p17):

'how hard it can be to spot the distinction between cooperation and submission; between solidarity and insipid obedience. One might easily become the other, unnoticed until it is too late; one might even be both at once.' 

Albanese has had moments of political bravery. His efforts to establish a Voice to Parliament for our First Nations people was courageous, but ultimately unwise as there was not bipartisan support. He also backtracked on the Coalition's 'stage three tax cuts' which would have done little to help those struggling most with cost of living. But more often than not, Labor does not pursue policies that you would expect of them - on climate change, LGBTQIA+ discrimination, tax reform - preferring the 'path of least resistance' (p 33). Given Albanese's long-held desire for high speed rail, I figured that would be one of his nation-building projects but it is not on the agenda. It seems that Kelly reckons Jim Chalmers (like Paul Keating before him) may be the braver person on the front bench.

Kelly writes (p36)

'If you want the very best outcome - not simply the one which you can convince most people to support - then conflict is inevitable. You may not win, but that is not the same thing as deciding not to fight.'

I had expected Kelly to dig more into the behind-the-scenes of the modern Labor Party, especially given his past experience working in the Rudd/Gillard office. For example, the weird factions at play in the party room that led to the dumping of competent ministers (like Mark Dreyfus, Ed Husic) and of not making the most of talents like Tanya Plibersek.  

Ultimately, the picture painted of Albanese is one of beige blandness, playing it safe to stay in government as long as possible. You need an effective opposition to have a good government, and as the Coalition cannot decide on where they stand either, that currently seems a low prospect. I like Albo. He is a good bloke and means well. Here's hoping he reads QE100 and gives some thought to articulating a clear direction for our country, one beyond electoral cycles. Now's the chance to do something that makes a positive impact for generations to come.