Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Strangio, Emeritus Professor of Politics, Monash University

Watching elections over the decades, one thing that has struck me is that results are invariably hyperbolised in the first blush of the people’s verdict. The achievement of the winners is over-egged in the commentary, as is the scale of the calamity suffered by the losers.

That caveat notwithstanding, I think we can credibly say that Saturday’s election result was the most momentous since John Howard’s totemic victory of 2001 — a win that set in train much of what has happened in Australian politics over the course of this century.

As I suggested in my pre-election essay on Anthony Albanese’s prime ministership, the impending victory for Labor would in part be an endorsement, even if grudging, of his leadership of the nation. It would be a reward for the fact that, despite limitations, he had run an industrious, orderly, united and scandal-free government. His was a mature administration that the country had been bereft of for nearly two decades.

But the magnitude of Labor’s triumph on Saturday was undoubtedly most of all a repudiation of Duttonism. It was an emphatic assertion of what Australia is not. Why that makes this election the most significant since 2001 is that Dutton was an ideological heir to Howard — as before him was Tony Abbott, notwithstanding the latter’s idiosyncratic influence by the philosophy of the post-war right-wing Catholic crusader, B.A. Santamaria.

Dutton entered the House of Representatives at the 2001 election, and the early advance of his parliamentary career was nurtured by Howard. As he articulated during this campaign, Dutton regarded Howard as his political touchstone.

Like Abbott’s, Dutton’s leadership of the Liberal Party represented a doubled down version of the conservative populism that Howard so effectively unleashed at the 2001 election.

This was a point that Lech Blaine perceptively recognised in his chilling 2024 Quarterly Essay portrait of Dutton. In common with Abbott, Dutton’s rendition of Howardism was an aggressively crude variant. Moreover, both of these unequal proteges were wanting in their mentor’s masterful political dexterity. Antithetical to the heritage of the Liberal Party, they were also short of interest in, let alone aptitude for, economic policy.

Howard’s conservative populism was directed at cleaving working-class voters off Labor, especially in outer suburban electorates of Australia. For some time, there has been an emerging expectation that Dutton was poised to fruitfully capitalise on an incipient revolt against the Albanese government in outer suburbia. That is, a belief that these seats were susceptible to swallowing whole Dutton’s Frankenstein version of Howardism.

Dutton’s strategy for hunting after votes in the outer suburbs and the commentary that has attended to it did a disservice to those communities. Undoubtedly, their populations, fast growing and undergoing a tsunami of demographic change, are enduring severe economic duress and struggling with over-stretched infrastructure and services.

But there has been too much of a readiness to extrapolate from this that they were ripe for embracing an angry, grievance-fuelled politics, that they were vulnerable to xenophobic dog whistling, that they were, in short, home to an uglier Australia.

The rejection of Duttonism in outer suburbia Australia suggests that, to the contrary, because of their kaleidoscopic diversity of ethnicities and cultures, these communities shrink from a politics of divisiveness and nativism.

In other words, the routing of the Liberals on Saturday ought to be the moment that finally closes the door on the direction that Howard orientated the party at the beginning of this century. It should be his last hurrah.

The dilemma, of course, is that stripped of moderates (the idea of the vaunted “broad church” thriving under Howard was itself greatly exaggerated), there is a serious question of whether the Liberals can reverse their 25-year rightwards pivot.

The new leader could begin the journey back towards the centre by never darkening the doors of Sky News after Dark. A folly of Abbott and Dutton was their tribal attitude to the media. They skewed their communications to reactionary sympathisers who, rather than providing a reality check, encouraged ideological amplification.

Read more:
In its soul-searching, the Coalition should examine its relationship with the media

What of Albanese and his leadership? In my pre-election essay on him, I flagged a concern that victory would feed his self-narrative of always being under-estimated. That it would encourage him to stick fast to his first term modus operandi of cautious, dogged incrementalism at a point when the nation is overdue for a burst of expansive reformism. The scale of Saturday’s win arguably heightens that risk.

Yet we do have to acknowledge that Albanese, fortunate though he has been with the incurably inauthentic Scott Morrison and then Dutton as opponents, has been under-estimated. He has insisted since 2022 that his was a two-term strategy in which the first would be about measured consolidation that would, in turn, open the path to a long-term Labor government whose legacy would be durable change. This result means the prime minister and his team now have the opportunity to achieve that.

Watching the ABC’s election night broadcast, a chief takeaway was the conspicuous camaraderie among senior members of Albanese’s Labor cabinet. Treasurer Jim Chalmer’s sincerely generous words about the prime minister’s leadership exemplified that.

During Labor’s first term, I wondered whether Chalmers, for all his virtues, was actually too much a patient team player and not enough of an agitator within the government. In other words, that he did not sufficiently ginger up Albanese for greater policy adventurism, as Paul Keating did Bob Hawke during the last great era of Labor reformism.

But Saturday night spotlighted a different, but perhaps at least as equally valuable, dynamic at the top of the government. That is genuine respect, even affection, between its key personnel. Keating could never have been as laudable of Hawke as Chalmers was of Albanese as the votes were tallied.

This says much about the character of Chalmers, as it does about other leading cabinet members who have exuded that spirit of camaraderie throughout the life of the government. Most notably, the prime minister’s brains trust: Richard Marles, Penny Wong, Tony Burke, Mark Butler and Katy Gallagher.

But it must also reflect Albanese’s respect for his colleagues. It speaks to his ability to harmoniously manage a team, his gift for generating unity of purpose, and his willingness to afford ministers a self-empowering autonomy in contributing to Labor’s collective enterprise. These are no small things. Respect and decency in a government begins with the prime minister and filters down.

Let us not get misty-eyed. Albanese is vulcanised by a lifetime in politics. He is tough and a ruthless foe. His political blooding was as a left faction functionary in the right-controlled New South Wales Labor Party. Intra-party knife fighting was an essential part of the skill set he developed.

But, consistent with all prime ministers, to understand Albanese’s approach to leadership we need to return to his formative roots. He was fatherless, defined by being the only child of a single mum, disability pensioner. These circumstances, as former journalist Katharine Murphy identified, imbued him with a pronounced streak of self-sufficiency, a “lone wolf” aspect. Yet also discernible is a resulting “feminine” side to his character and his prime-ministerial style.

Albanese readily exhibits empathy and emotion. A familiar sight of him is lips quivering as he struggles to suppress tears. He dares speak of kindness and compassion as positive leadership attributes — in this he evokes former New Zealand prime minister, Jacinda Ardern. And he practices a collaborative, cooperative minded governing operating mode, which are behaviours conventionally associated with women leaders.

Not coincidentally, a striking feature of Albanese’s prime ministership is that the “feminisation” of Labor has proceeded apace. For instance, policies such as the movement towards universal childcare support and government-backed wage increases in the care industries whose workforce is dominated by women employees. The record proportion of women appointed to cabinet. The continuing storming of the ramparts of caucus by women — they now comprise a majority of the party room — reinforced at the federal election most spectacularly in Brisbane, where six additional female Labor candidates prevailed, including Ali France, slayer of Dutton. And the consolidation of the pattern of women voters favouring Labor.

It’s unfashionable these days to quote the post-war lion of the Labor left, Jim Cairns. However, when he retired in 1977, Cairns was asked who he would like to inherit his seat. He replied, “a woman, they feel the value of life”. Perhaps a sentiment by which Albanese abides.

In the past, Paul Strangio received funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. The ‘feminisation’ of Labor is a key reason Australians embraced it – and Anthony Albanese – https://theconversation.com/the-feminisation-of-labor-is-a-key-reason-australians-embraced-it-and-anthony-albanese-255883