One week into the new parliament, members have been sworn in, the maiden speeches are rolling out, and the government is well and truly down to business.
Much has been said about how different this parliament looks, right down to the seating chart. The media grappled with the size of Labor’s thumping victory way back on election night, but it’s quite staggering to digest the fact that Labor now boasts 123 members.
It also poses a stark question for our newsroom about how to cover this makeup of this government.
Cast your mind back to Labor’s first term, encompassing a swing from an initial palpable sense of optimism and ambition that very quickly slammed into reality: a comprehensive no to the Voice referendum set against the alarming cost of living crisis, the horror of October 7 and all that came after it. Couple that with a formidable opposition leader with a sense of vindication in Peter Dutton, a man who, although devoid of policies until the very end, succeeded in dominating the news agenda.
The size of the crossbench, the seeming possibility of a hung parliament (and the major parties’ efforts to stymie that), and an energised Greens determined to go hard on issues like housing presented significant challenges for a government that at many times seemed to have lost its way. Throw the November election of Donald Trump in there as a bookend, and you’d be forgiven for suffering whiplash.
Now, in the wake of a not-even-close-to-being-hung parliament, a significantly diminished opposition consumed with infighting, and a Greens party still licking its wounds, we’re left with a government visibly puffed up with a sense of mandate. So how do we as a news outlet continue to assess and challenge this government, in a way that informs but still challenges our readers? And what do our readers expect of us given the election result?
As our longstanding political editor, Bernard Keane cops both accolades and insults on a daily basis when it comes to his coverage. Some readers occasionally threaten to unsubscribe over his take on things (not many follow through). So what’s Keane’s philosophy on how to cover the government of the day without alienating your readership? It starts with calling out the wins:
“The government has managed the economy well. It has overseen a big fall in inflation while keeping unemployment very low by historical standards. And it has produced two budget surpluses for the first time since the Howard years, and it looks like 2024-25 will come in with a modest deficit. It has reformed competition laws, even if insufficiently. The government has taken a mature and sensible approach to relations with China, the country that has been crucial to our prosperity for nearly a generation. At the same time, it has stepped up in the Pacific to thwart Chinese attempts to extend its influence … It has rebalanced the industrial relations playing field in favour of workers a little, and funded significant and welcome increases in the remuneration of key workers in our care economy.”
And the weaknesses?
“AUKUS and the relentless integration of Australia into the US military machine with little or no accountability have left Australia badly exposed and with its security at risk. The government’s silence on Israel’s atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank is shameful. It has been dictated to on gambling by a vile lobby of big sports and gaming giants (there’s still no sign of movement on the Peta Murphy recommendations). Its failure to impose more rigour on infrastructure investment is costing taxpayers billions. Its continued support for fossil fuel exports has maintained Australia’s appalling record as one of the world’s worst carbon dealers.”
Add to that the fact we’ve gone backwards on transparency (poor political donation laws, a nobbled anti-corruption body and a hostility to freedom of information processes), and that in the wake of the defeat of the Voice to Parliament referendum, any progress on policy design and implemention in partnership with Indigenous communities has, at best, stalled significantly, or is not on the agenda at all.
In short, like any government, Labor’s record has been mixed, but given it has swept back into power with an overwhelming majority, how do we fairly puncture triumphalism while also encouraging the government to capitalise on the opportunity to be ambitious?
As always, our institutional view at Crikey is not merely that we are not here to cheerlead, but that everyone who wields power should be treated with scepticism. People in positions of power — no matter whether they are on your preferred political team, or you think they’re nice people, or their opponents are appalling — always need to be subjected to scrutiny. People in power are not our friends, and should never be given the benefit of the doubt.
They make important and sometimes life-or-death decisions using our money. In the same way that the real test of your support for freedom of speech is when someone is arguing something you strongly disagree with, the real test of your support for accountability is when it is your side being held accountable, and your side being embarrassed by transparency and scrutiny.
No matter how much it may rankle some readers, we’re not pulling any punches. Our job is to hold the powerful to account, not play favourites. It’s not an understatement to say the world has changed significantly in the past three years. There’s an opportunity here too — devoid of the white noise of Dutton, we’re keen to see what Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s “year of delivery” entails, as this government takes on the significant and urgent challenges this country faces.
To that end, today our politics reporter Anton Nilsson is introducing On Notice: a new snapshot of the week ahead in Canberra and beyond to give readers a heads up on some of the stories our newsroom will be focusing on and why, and to give readers the opportunity to weigh in on what you want covered.
Get involved. Tell us what you want more of, where you think we’ve been unfair, and what you want to see more of.