Government for the Common Good is serving us well. May it continue to do so.

The relationship between politics and the common good remains a central and contested issue within Australian politics. This essay argues that, in contemporary Australia, partisan interests and the pursuit of political power largely overshadow efforts to promote the public welfare. By critically examining recent political events, leadership strategies, and voter behaviour, this essay demonstrates that, despite frequent appeals to the common good, political decision-making in Australia is predominantly shaped by party self-interest rather than by a principled dedication to advancing collective welfare. Consequently, the common good is routinely subordinated to partisan goals, undermining genuine progress toward public benefit.

If there had been a genuine desire for a cross-party approach to the most recent Budget, the Leader of the Opposition would have accepted the Prime Minister’s invitation for discussion on long-term reforms. By refusing to participate, the Opposition missed an opportunity to contribute to policy development and broaden its appeal among voters. This decision shows how 6partisan priorities can override the common good in Australian politics.

Australian politics often prioritises immediate partisan interests over the common good or longer-term policy outcomes. Recent policy debates illustrate a clear division: the Labor Party generally advocates policies to mitigate social inequality and support those facing economic disadvantage, as seen in its promotion of higher welfare payments and tax cuts targeted at lower-income earners. In contrast, the Coalition typically pursues initiatives that align with the interests of more affluent constituents, such as supporting negative gearing in property investment and retaining franking credits for shareholders. This trend is evident in ongoing debates over taxation, welfare, and healthcare reform, where each party’s positions consistently reflect the priorities of their core electoral bases rather than a collective commitment to the wider public interest.

At the core of Australian politics is the pursuit and maintenance of power, which often supersedes other concerns for both major parties. The prevailing logic is that the foremost objective is to secure power, then keep it. Parties are often willing to set aside their basic philosophies if it serves their deliberate interests. This prioritisation of power over principle reinforces the argument that the common good is frequently subordinated to partisan ambition.

In the past, the Liberal Party has at times departed from its traditional ideological commitments, as seen in its support for initiatives such as National Health, education reforms, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), and Home Care. These policy decisions show the Liberals endorsing measures typically associated with more progressive or social democratic platforms, suggesting a willingness to compromise party ideals for broader political or social objectives.

With the arrival of Tony Abbott, a new formula for opposition emerged. “Oppositions oppose,” he said. That’s why it’s called opposition. And it worked, to the point where commentators praised him as the best opposition leader we had ever had. He opposed everything, which made him great. “Oppositions oppose” captures a fundamental maxim of Westminster-style parliamentary systems: the formal role of the political party out of power is to aggressively scrutinise, contest, and object to the governing party’s agenda. No matter what.

As for voters, public opinion is often gauged through polling, yet its accuracy remains uncertain. Generally, citizens view the ongoing political discourse with scepticism, questioning why politicians receive substantial remuneration despite accomplishing relatively little.

But the great majority come together every three years to vote unthinkingly for the party their folks voted for, or the one their favourite newspaper recommends. Of course, a fair portion wouldn’t even know who is standing in their electorate, and will probably make a decision based on the scantest information.

In the middle is a cohort of thinkers who commonly switch sides depending on which way the wind is blowing or how their pockets are lined. Then there is an ever-increasing list of people who don’t give a rat’s arse, saying a pox on both your houses. This group has probably risen from 10% to 20%. In the past 20 years.

The voters of today have been victims of a period of the worst Coalition governance in Australia’s history, and people like me wonder why it is that so many, after being subjected to it, would still vote for the same party. I have no understanding of this.

At the outset of writing this essay, I did not set a specific predetermined focus; rather, I intended to allow the writing process to guide the development of coherent arguments. Upon reflection, the purpose of this piece is to critically examine what I perceive as the ongoing decline of democratic standards in Australia. This work is situated within a broader tradition of critical inquiry, and readers may reasonably infer that my assessment is shaped by a sceptical perspective toward the average voter. By clarifying this structure and purpose, I aim to provide a cohesive framework for the analysis that follows.

But having said that, don’t they generally get it right? The polls would seem to indicate it so. But the talk is that someone else will replace Angus Taylor because he is making no headway in the polls.

“Oh my god,” I’m think out loud. That’s going from bad to worse. There isn’t anyone left. They are better off sticking with what they have and adopting more of Labor’s policies. Any move to replace Taylor would spell the end of the Coalition. Does that sound biased? Of course not, I tell myself; it’s a fact.

As I write, I read that a senior federal Liberal frontbencher, Melissa McIntosh, publicly called for the Australian Liberal Party to consider changing its name and, more broadly, its public image. She is right, of course, but the suggestion is immediately howled down by male leaders of a party traditionally full of the male species.

For me, it was inevitable that there would come a day when people would decide they couldn’t continue with the same image. Without a strong public branding, you have no hope of selling anything.

Then I turn my attention to Labor and consider its prospects at the next election, which is still two years away. Given the size of its current majority, it is reasonable to conclude that its chances are excellent. In my view, Albanese is governing well under highly challenging circumstances, and he must continue to govern for the common good. The common good refers to the shared conditions, facilities, and systems that benefit all or most members of a community, emphasising collective well-being over individual or private interests.

The common good refers to the shared conditions, facilities, and systems that benefit all or most members of a community. Instead of focusing on individual or private interests, it emphasises collective well-being, active citizenship, and social responsibility to ensure every person can thrive. This sentence was composed by AI.

Although the LNP has been laughable in articulating what it stands for, so too have the National Party and One Nation, the most popular party, according to current polls, though I note they have begun to move back to Labor.

It’s here that I realise that subconsciously, it’s Labor and Anthony Albanese that I want to write about. I also know that what I write is sure to cop a lot of flak from those who want to continue with the same old feeding of the rich and gifted And it’s also fair to say that it’s been a long time since the party has attempted a major economic policy change. One that has “long term” written all over it. And doing so when there is international flux and domestic instability is creditable.

Since being elected as leader, he has quietly gone about restoring some of Labor’s traditional ideology with a more modern touch. Far less importance is placed on Unions, for a concentration on fairness and traditional left values, such as inequality, has been restored.

There is no doubt that Albanese and Chalmers are policy wankers who have vastly improved their media presence. Now, having been in office for four years, they face a liberal Party that finds itself with nowhere to go but further to the right. A National Party that is even further to the right; One Nation that is close to dropping off the edge. A Green Party further to the left of Labor and a few hangers-on like the independents who represent a variety of different thoughts. And I haven’t forgotten Clive.

All these shonky parties are devoid of any semblance of leadership, with no one in sight with the qualities of any of the opposition parties.

My thought for the Day

In the recipe of good leadership there are many ingredients. Respect is but one. It however ranks far below getting things done for the common good. That is the measure that matters most.