It’s been 20 months since Anthony Albanese took the stage at the Hurlstone Park RSL in Sydney to deliver his election night victory speech.
It was a speech full of ambition — probably more ambition than Labor had shown in the campaign leading up to it — where Albanese again and again emphasised the importance of working together to achieve common goals. With the government set to introduce its changes to the stage three tax cuts to Parliament, and with debate swirling around broken promises, Crikey decided to have a look at how Albanese has fared with his election night commitments.
‘I commit to the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full’
Committing to the full Uluru Statement from the Heart means agreeing to facilitate three things: a Voice to Parliament, a Treaty process, and a truth-telling process. Labor followed through on the first part in October last year, when the Voice referendum was held. But after that, the appetite for a Makaratta Commission — the term used in the Uluru Statement for an agreement-making and truth-telling process — seems to have waned.
When asked in the first parliamentary sitting after the referendum defeat whether he was committed to pursuing Treaty and truth-telling, Albanese avoided answering directly.
When asked since then about his continued support for the Uluru Statement, Albanese has focused on “practical” measures to close the disadvantage gap between Indigenous and other Australians, including in the government’s housing, education and health policies. (Some states had begun their own work towards Indigenous reconciliation, which will continue independently of the referendum result: Victoria’s First Peoples’ Assembly is engaged in Treaty negotiations and the Yoorrook Justice Commission is involved in a truth-telling process; South Australia has passed legislation to establish a state-based Voice to Parliament, while Queensland and NSW have appointed ministers for Treaty).
‘Together we can end the climate wars’
Climate wars is the term sometimes used for the political divisions in Australia around tackling the climate crisis, a conflict damaging enough to hasten the demise of several prime ministers and opposition leaders over the past 15 years. The fight has also contributed to decades of inaction on climate change, but Albanese pledged to put an end to that.
Since then, his government has legislated a target to cut emissions by 43% by 2030. To help achieve that, Labor also reformed the so-called safeguard mechanism, which is intended to force Australia’s biggest carbon-emitting industrial facilities to limit their pollution. Under the new rules, the nation’s 215 biggest polluters will have to reduce emissions intensity by up to 4.9% per year, or buy carbon offsets, which are credits that represent reduced emissions elsewhere.
The scheme has been criticised as ineffective, including in analysis reported by Guardian Australia last October that found several coalmines would be able to increase their emissions without being financially penalised under the scheme.
Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen listed a number of other achievements during a statement in December to the COP28 climate conference, including investing in renewable energy and coming within “striking distance” of being on track to reach the 43% by 2030 emissions reduction target. “This is more progress for Australia in 12 months than in 10 years,” he claimed.
Professor Mark Howden, a vice-chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told the BBC the Labor government’s actions had improved Australia’s international standing on climate. “We’re not laggards anymore, but neither are we leaders,” he said.
‘A renewable energy superpower’
According to the Albanese government, Australia has everything a country needs to become a green “superpower”. A recent “benchmark report” by the Australian Trade and Investment Commission pitches the country to foreign investors like this: “Australia [has] vast solar and wind resources, and an abundance of rare earth and other minerals … that the world needs to transition to net zero”.
We might not be there yet, but according to the World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) “renewable superpower scorecard”, the Albanese government has taken some promising steps forward. Among the actions that earned the government points in the latest scorecard, covering 2022, were the Climate Change Act — which enshrined the 2030 43% emissions reduction target into law — and the launch of a “Powering Australia Plan” to increase the share of renewables in the national electricity market to 82% by 2030. In 2022, the proportion of Australia’s total electricity generation that came from renewable sources was 32%.
But it’s not looking likely Australia will meet the 2030 target. Analysts from renewable energy advisory firms Nexa and Rystad Energy said in August last year Australia would be more likely to hit about 60%, rather than 82%, by the end of this decade.
Grattan Institute energy program director Tony Wood told ABC News the reason was delays in building high-voltage power lines. He said the initiative to build the wires, Rewiring the Nation, was a well-funded and “interesting idea”, but added: “The problem is approvals.”
Treasurer Jim Chalmers admitted in a November 2023 speech the transition wasn’t happening fast enough to meet the goal: “It’s important for me to acknowledge that without more decisive action, across all levels of government, working with investors, industry and communities, the energy transition could fall short of what the country needs … we need to get more projects off the ground, faster.”
“In order to become a global renewable energy superpower, Australia needs to go hard and go early. Globally countries are set to invest over US$1.8 trillion in clean energy,” the WWF’s senior manager for energy transitions, Rob Law, told Crikey. “If Australia is going to have a place in that new economy it needs significantly more investment to grow our capability and capacity. We are calling on the government to commit to at least $10 billion every year for at least the next 10 years to maximise our position in the renewables race.”
‘Drive productivity, lift wages and profits’
Australians are working longer hours than in the past, but it’s not translating into extra economic growth — in other words, productivity hasn’t improved. As of October last year, labour productivity had declined by 6.5% since March 2022. This is how the Productivity Commission put it: “As cost-of-living pressures bite further, workers may respond to this negative real wealth shock by seeking to work more hours to try to maintain a reasonable standard of living over time.”
There was already talk of a productivity problem under the Coalition government, and it’s safe to say Labor hasn’t been able to arrest the decline that was already underway.
The government hasn’t been able to do much to boost profits either, bearing in mind it has relatively few levers to pull there. Corporate profits have gone through some wild fluctuations during Albanese’s time in office, reflecting the spike in energy prices from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and big bank profits from higher interest rates. But the RBA’s onslaught on demand via constant rate rises has helped crimp overall growth to the detriment of company bottom lines.
But Labor has managed to lift wages. In the six quarters since June 2022, the wage price index has increased faster than before, from a rate of 0.7% to 1.3%. On average, the increase has been 0.95% during that time period, compared with 0.58% in the previous six quarters. That’s partly thanks to Labor’s policies, including support for a big rise in the Fair Work Commission’s annual minimum wage case. The rise in wages is also partly due to a tight labour market.
‘Welcoming Fair Work Commission not cutting wages’
This one is a bit hard to parse. Here are the exact words Albanese said: “Together we can as a country say that all of us, if the Fair Work Commission doesn’t cut the wage of minimum aged workers, we can say that we welcome that absolutely.” (In an analysis piece the day after, the AFR called the line “so confusing, tortured and distant it might have been ridiculed at any previous campaign appearance”.)
Let’s assume he meant that the FWC shouldn’t cut the wages of minimum-wage workers. The government made a submission to the FWC’s 2023 wage review to recommend the commission “ensures the real wages of Australia’s low-paid workers do not go backwards”. As mentioned earlier, that has contributed to the wage price index rising during Labor’s time in office.
If, on the other hand, we assume Albanese was talking about aged care workers, there has been some action there as well. A serious pay rise for staff had been one of the recommendations of the aged care royal commission. In February 2023, the FWC ruled that aged care workers should get a 15% pay rise in one go, effective from July that year. That decision came after Albanese’s government made a submission to the commission saying the pay rise should happen in two stages over 18 months, which Aged Care Minister Anika Wells said was necessary because of some “fairly significant fiscal challenges”. That pay rise would have also contributed to the overall increase in the wage price index.
‘Establish a national anti-corruption commission’
While there were a lot of mixed feelings about the final shape of Labor’s “federal ICAC”, this one is a box well and truly ticked. As of the end of January this year, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, established in July last year, had received 2,444 referrals and opened 11 corruption investigations. Four of those probes are being conducted jointly with other law enforcement agencies.
‘Strengthen universal healthcare through Medicare’
Medicare is a timely topic, with the program having turned 40 last week. Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association chief executive Kylie Woolcock said on Thursday the original principles on which Medicare was founded — “equity, efficiency, simplicity and universality” — were being undermined. “It’s unfortunate that we still see our most vulnerable Australians experiencing poorer health outcomes, often as a consequence of not being able to access healthcare services in a timely manner,” she said in a statement.
Also on Thursday, Albanese touted his government’s healthcare reforms: “Since we came to office … we have decreased the price of medicines from January 1 last year. That has benefited Australians to the tune of $250 million.”
He also pointed to his government’s tripling of the bulk billing incentive — a measure that has increased GP bulk billing rates by 2.1%, or 360,000 extra appointments, since it took effect in November, according to ABC News.
‘We can protect universal superannuation’
Labor has several changes to superannuation in the works, despite promising during the election it would leave super alone if elected. In May 2022, Albanese said the government had “no intention of making any super changes”. Since then he has sought to justify the changes by claiming both that the changes aren’t “major”, so they don’t count, and that the word “intention” was key in his original statement. “I said we had no intention,” he said when confronted with the inconsistency in a February 2023 interview with The Sunday Project. “That’s not the objective here. But people are coming forward with ideas. We’re not shutting down debate. It is appropriate there be debate about the policy future across a range of issues.”
So what are the changes to super Labor is proposing? Last year, Chalmers said he wanted to block Australians from withdrawing funds before retiring, and to create a legally binding definition of super to clarify what the money is meant for.
Labor has also proposed a change to tax concessions on super, meaning balances over $3 million would be taxed at a rate of 30%, double the previous rate. Labor has said the change would affect about 80,000 accounts, and rake in $2.3 billion in taxes in its first full year.
Both the tax change and the definition legislation are before Parliament, being looked at by committees.
‘Writing universal childcare into Australia’s proud tradition’
Australia does not have universal access to early childhood education, and getting there will “take time” and a lot of effort from the government, the Productivity Commission said in a recent draft report. The commission was tasked by the treasurer to look into the prospects of being able to offer early childhood education and care services to all Australian children. The draft report, released in November, said “up to 30 hours or three days a week of quality [education and care] should be available to all children aged 0–5 years”.
Achieving that would require “governments to prioritise the workforce challenges facing the sector”, increase pay for staff, and raise the maximum rate of the child care subsidy payment for families on income up to $80,000, the draft said. The final report will be delivered by June 30.
‘Fix the crisis in aged care’
Labor promised to fix the aged care system, and it’s made some progress, although advocates are saying the pace is too slow. “What’s crucial is that we don’t see any further delay in reform to the system … it’s crucial if we’re going to support Australians to age with the dignity we all deserve,” Council of the Aging Australia chief executive Patricia Sparrow said in a recent statement.
The Albanese government has moved several bits of legislation through Parliament, including an act that mandated a registered nurse always be on site at aged care homes, and demanded increased transparency around how money is being used in the sector. Another new act brought in by Labor implemented a new residential funding model, a star ratings system for aged care homes, and a new code of conduct for providers, among other changes.
An aged care taskforce, chaired by the responsible minister Anika Wells, was set to deliver its final report in December. So far the report has not been released, but a communique from the group’s final meeting on December 15 gave a hint as to its contents: “Members noted the proposed recommendations would create an aged care system that is simpler, more flexible and transparent for older people. It would also enable the aged care sector to meet current and future funding challenges and support service quality and innovation.”
The government has also asked stakeholders to voice their opinions about a new aged care act, an exposure draft of which was released in December. The Australian reported last month advocates were concerned the new bill wouldn’t be able to become law in time for the government’s July 1 deadline, and that some stakeholders felt the draft fell short on a number of key matters, such as ensuring residents have the right to receive visitors at all times.
‘Equal opportunity for women’
Labor has committed to make Australia “one of the most gender-equal countries in the world”. It’s put its money where its mouth is to some extent: Women’s Minister Katy Gallagher said last May’s budget was “the most significant single-year investment in women’s equality in at least the last 40 years”. As many feminist activists have pointed out, the budget was a start, but not enough.
Columnist Kristine Ziwica wrote a scorecard for the budget in an article for Crikey: “The single parenting payment has been restored, but only until a child turns 14, not the suggested age of 16, and mutual obligations remain … The childcare activity test stays. It’s a no to superannuation for paid parental leave. Commonwealth rent assistance has been increased by 15%, a figure welfare advocates worry isn’t enough. And aged care workers will get a pay bump but early years educators will have to wait.”
Last year’s edition of the World Economic Forum’s global gender gap report found that Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines had the highest gender parity score in the East Asia and Pacific region, with Australia and New Zealand having improved the most since the year before. Australia advanced 17 notches on the global ranking to claim the 26th place (New Zealand remained at fourth place). Australia’s gender pay gap is 13%, meaning women on average earn $252.30 less than men each week, or $13,119.60 less per year.
Are you satisfied with Labor’s performance since it was elected? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
I am more interested in what Albanese does outside election promises. Like committing Australia to spend half a trillion or more dollars on AUKUS. All the other stuff is noise. Why people harp on about promises when these are short-sighted political slogans is beyond me. Marles is so gung ho as far as Defence goes, I worry about him. He is part of the ALP rightwing, who quite frankly are no better than the Nationals. Bring on Minority Government where stupid promises are chucked in the bin.
Well said!
AUKUS will be more like a trillion dollars and what will we actually get in 20 years time? Right now you can see the evolution of the drones and drone warfare. I would say that in 20 years time AI driven submarine drones will dominate whole areas of ocean in terms of surveillance, sea mining and offence/defence operations. I wonder by the time we get those subs if the things will ever go to sea as why would you risk a manned submarine that can’t go any deeper that 800m falling victim to drone sub lurking at 3000m in depth waiting for targets above. This whole program is like too many eggs in a shipping container if you ask me.
Agree! The age of the capital war ship is well and truly over. In an embarrassing war game for the US navy , a Swedish Gotland sub sank the Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier and promptly retired without being detected. It is the age of drones.
We’ll get 20 years worth of US and UK nuclear waste to deal with. That’s the real reason the Yanks and Poms duped Morrison… and now Albanese and especially Marles.
1) Conventional submarines are obsolete.
2) Drones can’t accomplish everything submarines can, including a deterrent presence.
3) If you think Australia doesn’t need to care about defence in such a volatile international climate, you’re a tad wrong. Especially in the Indian-Pacific.
4) Those who agree with Keating’s assessment are forgetting the one vital point he neglects to mention ie that if we bailed on the US alliance we’d have to spend many multiples of the amount we’re spending on AUKUS. And every single Australian would have their pockets picked to pay for it.
5) I dislike intensely such close ties to the US but I don’t see any realistic alternatives
The alternative is….neutrality.
If Ireland, Switzerland, Mexico, Panama, and Uzbekistan can be neutral why can’t Australia ???
Australia so militarily and strategically irrelevant.
We’re too small to have any real say or impact, not a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and a net importer of weapons, so will always fight other people’s wars, we are exposed to international laws, and we make no money out of war.
Further with virtually no existent money laundering laws or restrictions on foreign buyers, our adversaries can and do just buy up one country. They don’t need to invade us.
Plus who needs foreign adversaries when you’ve got the M press and the Coalition doing more damage to Australia’s internal and external stability?
Finally if China and climate change are really such a threat – why are we exporting coal to China?
Neutrality for us is a complete nonsense. Just ask Norwegians about being unprepared when you have resources other people need and/or want. Their replies would be rather enlightening. Especially since we’re all anticipating disruptions and dislocations due to climate change. Try being realistic. It helps.
And who is planning to invade Norway and steal their resources? Poland? Germany? The UK (more likely), the USA (prime suspect in nearly every dodgy deal world wide).
Read some history. WWII specifically, Tgen you’ll understand my reference.
It’s not up to me , btw, to educate you re what happened to a neutral unprepared country. Do your own research and get back to me.
Oh Catherine, this is the 21st century where global financial systems are used to exploit resources within first world countries and conventional warfare is used by first world countries to take resources in the developing world – convenient vulnerabilities of weak political systems and financial systems. As for those subs, all subs are approaching obsolescences due to huge leaps and bounds in drone technologies, why waste a trillion plus of Australian dollars on junk and an endless supply of radioactive waste from our allies, must have something to do with those global market forces at work – think about it!
Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
You’ve literally learnt nothing from history.
I come from a neutral country….yep it hasn’t been invaded since the Norman invasion of 1169….
I’ll tell you what they do do:
a) offer US companies low corporation tax (and higher income tax) to build a financial connection;
b) allow Americans to think they’re Irish; and
c) allow US planes to refuel.
A bit simpler and less costly than nuclear subs and few thousands dead Aussies don’t you think?
Ask the Norwegians?
Have they been invaded?
Why would anyone need to invade us to get our resources when we will willing selling it to them (or better still allow them to come here to dig it up themselves)?
‘Realistic’?
You think it’s ‘realistic’ that a couple of subs fueled by a form of energy that is banned in this country to protect us from China?
Australia’s view of the world and its place is laughable.
Basically the country has never faced up to the fact that it’s not benefitted from a single war its fought and so sent its people to die for no reason whatsoever.
That’s lot for a country to come to terms with thus the denial and pageantry of ANZAC Day.
The Norwegians are distinctly nervous about their almost 200km of Russian border, as of course are all the Baltic states about their own borders too. And, with very good reason, so is more or less every country with a Russian border except China, which can take care of itself.
Apart from the fact that they actually border Russia and Australia borders nobody…..Norway has had a far less stupid military history.
Australia has followed the US or Britain into every single war – even Vietnam – Vietnam!
But you’ve still not answered the question why anyone would invade if they can just acquire a mine?
Yes. Neutrality sounds nice in theory, but in practice it’s seldom great. Taking the examples given by Maldinis Heir:
In the end, it’s summed up by Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War: “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
That’s the Athenians, a great power at the time, telling the Melians (inhabitants of a small Aegean island) how things stand. The Melians wanted to be neutral in the war between Athens and Sparta. The Athenians told the Melians they can either join the Athenian league or Athens will kill them all. In the end, neutrality either requires great military power or else being so insignificant no other country has any use for you.
We’ll have to walk a weaving diplomatic path if Trump gets in, our own way. But as far as defence goes, we are a minnow on our own.
We might have to update our worldview to the 21st century and focus on self-preservation for once.
We speak English, and only English – the sole reason we cuddle up to other English speaking nations. It would be far more sensible to focus on our neighbours, especially those we trade with. Buying very dodgy American weapons, for example, is money down the drain when they have to be canned because of OH&S, and are only purchased in case we need to use them against our major trading partner. Which is when, if it happens, we will find them out of date, out-numbered, out of fuel, out of spare parts and out-classed.
The US are capable of nuking their own fleet (or, more likely, us) in order to start a war with China before it’s too late for them to win one. Were we China’s buddy that scenario would have less playability, perhaps. So we should have treaties with China across the board, including defence, and buy our arms there. Cheaper, more reliable.
Taiwan’s best defence is their production of chips, the destruction of which would cripple any attacker. I’m aware of no reason why we could not have a similar defence, unless iron ore and lithium already constitute one. (We could call it the dummy’s defence.)
I see my ASIO file bulking up.
I hope you didn’t spill your sherry.
Sorry Catherine, but so much BS here. 1. Within 10 years drone technology will render all subs obsolete. 2. 1000 dollar drones already destroy million dollar tanks in Ukraine, imagine another 10 years of both drone tech and satellite through water radar tech. 3. I don’t have a problem in principle with AUKUS or any alliances we have with other nations as long as they don’t include ridiculous expenditures like subs. 4/5. Who’s seriously suggesting that we relinquish our agreements with the US/Europe/Japan/Pacific Islands or anyone else, the more the merrier and the more safe the world is.
Nuclear submarines are long range attack vessels, totally unsuited for Australian defence purposes.
Never perfect / ideal, but a heck of a lot more than ever happened in th previous 10 years . ..
The only sensible solution here is to roll childcare & kindy into the public school system.
Subsidising commercial operations is just pouring public money into private pockets (which is obviously the real objective, as with most of this sort of policy).
Agree with that.
I’ll add that aged care is a near identical situation, albeit without such an obviously optimal solution.
Aged care is even worse because it’s fundamentally incompatible with a for profit model.
The ‘customers’ and often the ‘bill payers’ in aged care are different to the ‘decision makers’.
The former are the residents often whose wealth is being used to pay for it, and many lack of the ability to make decisions.
The latter are usually the kids.
So all that needs to happen to run a profitable aged care facility is to keep the front of house tidy and cut costs at the back of house, and you’ll likely get away with murder (quite literally).
The idea of childcare being part of the school system has been touted for years. It’s the way they do it in Scandinavia but, no, not us, we do the same as the US and monetise everything so that there is a profit incentive instead of a care and service incentive.
I blame Very Little Johnny Howard, whose policies and ideals are diminished on a daily basis as we see how uber-capitalism leads to entrenched inequality and poverty.
We went the wrong way sometime in the latter years of the 20thC and now the capitalist behemoth is too ponderous to reverse, nor does any government of any stripe seem inclined to even try.
I despair.
“We went the wrong way sometime in the latter years of the 20thC” – I was there and watched it in real time, Howard has a lot to answer for.
The under-funded state-based public school system? Yep, the Feds would love that idea.
The Feds currently kick in ~30b/yr for school funding and ~9b/yr for subsidising childcare. It’s not like they’re not already involved.
After approx 19 months of being elected I’d say that that the government is going ok in what has been done so far. Other than the Voice that was hijacked by dishonesty and politics by the LNP, This article is a bit wishy washy a lot of words that say not much. . And as far as stage three tax cuts l agree with another journalist that said stage three tax cuts are being delivered in full just not in the same way as the LNP set them up. After nearly 10years of LNP governments perhaps this journalist should ask howmany promises did any of the 3 PM’s of the LNP governments kept their promises.
hear hear, chris
Australia has everything it needs to be a renewables powerhouse, or anything else really. We should be up with the big European economies given our resources. But we lack two things. One, we lack honest, uncorrupted, visionary and courageous politicians who will act on behalf of all Australians instead of accepting bribes to cater exclusively to billionaires. Two, we lack a population with enough imagination and critical thinking ability to elect such a politician if they appeared.
Breaks my heart.
Well said Michael. Voters are far too ready to blame politicians for the voter’s own defects. As Michael said [a lack] of imagination and critical thinking ability.
In fact, voters demand that politicians lie to them. The unvarnished truth is punished. The voter turns to the alternative and demands that politician tell the voter what the voter wants to hear. The Murdochs are disastrous, but we are all responsible for the bad advice we seek.
So please write to Mark Dreyfus and get independent MP Monique Ryan’s Clean Up Politics Bill debated in Parliament. It’s not perfect, but it will clean up some of the lobbying that goes on behind doors. And write a submission to the Senate Enquiry into lobbying in Australia, and let people know that we need to clean up the lobbying industry. Submissions close 9/2/24. And write to your local MP. Take your own action instead of whingeing about other voters not doing what you would like.