The Party Animal and the Prime Minister – Why Anthony Albanese’s Leadership is Failing Australia
Dedicated to my wife, my confidante – who taught me to see the person behind the mask, and to trust what I see.
I. Introduction: The Mask and the Man
What they see is a Prime Minister. What I see is a party animal – trapped in a role he was never prepared to play. He knows how to win power. He doesn’t know how to wield it. And when he fails, he blames everyone but himself.
Anthony Albanese leads with the support of the Right, but his closest advisers – Penny Wong, Mark Butler and Katy Gallagher – and most loyal lieutenants – Tim Ayres, Pat Conroy and Andrew Giles – are all from the Left. He has spent his life mastering the factional machinery of the Labor Party. He was a left factional enforcer for decades, a man who subjected his MPs to military-style discipline and whose caucus is renowned for its iron discipline.
But mastering a party is not the same as leading a nation. And the difference is becoming catastrophically clear.
II. The Party Animal: Factional Mastery, National Failure
Albanese’s leadership has become defined by risk aversion, excessive message control and political caution. Unity and discipline are the watchwords of his government, their importance reinforced in periodic lectures from the leader. Caucus members are afraid to rock the boat by public disagreement.
He has neutered the caucus left, and left them mute and subservient. Doug Cameron, the former left firebrand, has observed bitterly that “a left leader has neutered the caucus left” – a leader from the left has done what right-wing leaders never could: silenced the progressive voice of his own party.
The result is a government that has approved gas projects, rejected advice to substantially increase JobSeeker payments, proposed cuts to the NDIS, sought consensus – rather than contest – with corporate Australia, and struck a highly secretive deal to resettle criminal non-citizens on Nauru, all without a public backlash from the Left.
This is not leadership. This is management. Management of a party that has forgotten why it exists.
As one analysis put it: “Labor was founded to represent ordinary Australians and to pursue bold reform, not simply to manage government and avoid controversy.” Many long-time Labor members and supporters are leaving because they no longer recognise the party they joined.
III. AUKUS: The $368 Billion Abdication of Responsibility
The AUKUS submarine deal is the clearest example of Albanese’s failure to lead. Australia will commit nearly $10 billion to subsidise US and UK naval shipyards. The total cost is estimated at $368 billion – and that does not include establishing infrastructure to safely dispose of radioactive waste.
Experts have queried whether this payment will actually deliver any submarines given current build rates. The UK, already experiencing chronic difficulties with existing naval construction, is considered highly unlikely to build a new, yet-to-be-designed AUKUS SSN submarine on time or on budget.
This is not defence policy. This is submission. Submission to the United States, dressed up as strategy.
Former prime minister Paul Keating has labelled it the “worst deal in all history.” Former foreign ministers Gareth Evans and Bob Carr have also expressed profound concerns. Yet neither the federal parliament nor the major parties have chosen to formally inquire into or substantively debate the merits of this deal.
Labor would be forfeiting the opportunity to reclaim public trust at a time when support for the two major parties is fragile.
IV. The Strait of Hormuz: Watching the World Burn
Albanese knows exactly what is coming. But instead of preparing for the shock, he is trying to save himself.
When Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz – a choke point through which approximately 20% of global oil passes – Albanese’s response was to “continue to monitor” the situation. He warned that it would be “many months” before things returned to normal, but offered little more than monitoring and temporary fuel excise relief.
In the event of the Strait closing permanently:
- Australia’s fuel supply chain will collapse
- Food prices will skyrocket
- The global economy will fall into recession
- Social cohesion will vanish
The government has carved out more than $10 billion to bolster Australia’s fuel and fertiliser security. But stockpiling fuel is a palliative, not a cure. It does not address the underlying vulnerability – our dependence on a single chokepoint in a region we cannot control.
Albanese’s response has been reactive, not proactive. He is not preparing Australia for the storm. He is waiting for the storm to pass, hoping that his political survival will outlast the crisis.
V. The Royal Commission: A Political Calculation
The Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion was announced after the Bondi Beach terror attack in which 15 people were killed. But it was a decision forced on Albanese, not one he embraced.
Ten days before announcing it, he fiercely argued against it. Critics, including inside the Labor caucus, are “adamant the prime minister made a cold political calculation that to hold a royal commission would be more damaging than to resist one.”
The Commission has a December 2026 deadline – a timeline that experts have already cast doubt on. It is being rushed to fit Albanese’s political calendar, not the needs of the community.
He will use the Commission, then he will dump on the Jewish community. He knows exactly what is coming. And he will do everything he can to maintain the status quo – not to help Australia heal, but to ensure his own survival.
VI. AI Policy: Centralisation Disguised as Leadership
Albanese’s approach to artificial intelligence is the same: centralise control in his own office and call it leadership. He has established an Office of AI within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet – a single point of control for policymaking.
Critics have already dismissed it. Opposition Leader Angus Taylor rubbished the announcement, saying: “What he has announced is an office in an office… inside his own office.”
This is not about harnessing AI for Australia’s benefit. It is about controlling the narrative. About ensuring that no minister, no department, no independent voice can challenge the Prime Minister’s authority.
Albanese is not leading on AI. He is clutching.
VII. The Polls: A Leader Rejected
The Australian people have already delivered their verdict. Albanese has been ranked as Australia’s least-liked serving politician. Just 25% of people hold a positive view of him, while 47% hold a negative view – a net rating of -22.
His net approval slumped to -24, with 60% dissatisfied and only 36% satisfied. A YouGov poll found 47% of respondents were unable to name a preferred successor – a sign of a leadership vacuum in the party.
He is not inspiring people. He is not building a movement. He is simply occupying the office until the inevitable collapse.
VIII. Conclusion: The Party Animal’s Reckoning
Incompetent people, once in power, are more dangerous than bad people because:
- Bad people can be brought down.
- An incompetent person will remain there, constantly causing destruction, yet appearing “unblamed” after each failure.
Albanese is not evil. He is incompetent. He knows how to win power. He doesn’t know how to wield it. And when he fails, he blames everyone but himself.
- He has failed on AUKUS – signing Australia up to a $368 billion deal that may never deliver a single submarine.
- He has failed on energy security – watching the Strait of Hormuz close and doing nothing but “monitor”.
- He has failed on antisemitism – weaponising a Royal Commission for political survival.
- He has failed on AI – centralising control rather than empowering innovation.
- He has failed on leadership – offering caution where courage is needed, message control where vision is required.
The world is changing. The crises are mounting. And Australia has a Prime Minister who is more interested in managing his party than leading his country.
The party animal has had his day. Now Australia needs a leader.
References
- Will the evolution of Labor’s left from firebrands to centrists define Albanese’s leadership?. The Guardian, 4 May 2026.
- Albanese celebrates his caucus unity but it comes at a cost. ABC News, 27 February 2026.
- Purpose is the soul of power. Pearls and Irritations, 22 July 2026.
- Labor has a proud history of debate. So why won’t it interrogate the $368bn Aukus pact?. The Guardian, 23 July 2026.
- PM to make fuel excise call early next week… ABC News, 15 June 2026.
- Firebombed synagogue community to address royal commission. ABC News, 21 July 2026.
- Anthony Albanese maps out AI future with new national framework. ABC News, 14 July 2026.
- View from The Hill: Albanese takes oversight of government’s response to AI under his own wing. The Conversation, 14 July 2026.
- Poll reveals Labor’s leadership vacuum amid Budget backlash (paywalled), The West Australian, 1 July 2026.
- Albanese’s handling of the Bondi attack exposed his weaknesses…. The Guardian, 9 January 2026.
- Albanese has long framed his leadership around the ‘politics of kindness’…. The Guardian, 28 January 2026.
- Australian PM Anthony Albanese ranked as least-liked federal politician in new poll, Australia Life, 13 July, 2026.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless independent voice – holding power to account and delivering journalism that matters.
Running this site isn’t cheap. Rising costs mean we need your support now more than ever. Every donation, big or small, keeps our servers running, our writers working, and our stories free for everyone.
Donate here:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund for hosting and future improvements.
Thank you for standing with us. We couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude,
The AIMN Team
V. The Royal Commission: A Political Calculation
‘Can’t agree with you there.
The New South Wales (NSW) Minns Government originally announced its own state-based Royal Commission following the December 2025 terrorist attack at Bondi Beach. Albanese resisted calls for a separate federal RC as it made no sense running duplicate inquiries. Subsequently NSW agreed to cancel their RC once the Federal Government stepped in.
My goodness Dr Klein, I wonder at time how well you could perform in what is arguably the most difficult job in Australia.
The issue I see with politics generally, the role is one where you will never please everyone, and to sit on the sidelines and be totally critical lines you up with the Pauline Hansons of the world.
How would you have succeeded where the current PM, or in perhaps the others on the sidelines criticising have done better?
Criticising is the easiest part of politics Dr Klein.
Offering solutions, now that is the hard part, engaging in constructive discussion, debate… how good would that be?
Terry Mills,
I disagree with what you’ve said.
What Anthony Albanese was saying when he was resisting having a Royal Commission was that he had to prioritize the national interest, and that a review of national security was crucial. He called on Denis Richardson to conduct the review of the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), and the collaborative efforts between federal and state jurisdictions.
He contended that while royal commissions can be effective in establishing facts, they often fall short when it comes to addressing disagreements or varying perspectives….‘You will have the NSW royal commission, you will have the Burgess review, you will have court cases against the perpetrator of this atrocity, who survived, all running at once. And at the same time, you will have legislation proposed before the parliament,’ he said.
‘[If we had a royal commission], the full sweep of issues that have been asked to be examined would delay, by a number of years, any outcome.’
(internewscast.com)
He quite rightly recognized the priority was the national security review and that a properly convened royal commission would have to wait until after the court case, would not handle differing perspectives well, and would add years to reaching an outcome.
He wasn’t arguing a royal commission was a good idea and NSW having one was a duplication; he argued the inappropriateness of a royal commission.
Something changed his mind.
None of the rationale for rejecting a royal commission changed.
I’m with Andrew Klein, I think its obvious he caved in to being booed at a funeral, the hero-worship being showered on Minns and the relentless attacks of the Murdoch press. That, I believe is supported by the following collaboration with Jillian Segal and the pro-Israel lobby in the terms of reference and letters patent of the royal commission that followed.
Bert Hetebry,
Pauline Hanson is a firm backer of AUKUS, and of Australia participating in Trump’s illegal war against Iran, which has resulted in the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and of the Royal Commission into anti-semitism and social cohesion, whereas Andrew Klein is clearly critical of Labor undertaking these.
How do you draw an association between Andrew Klein and Pauline Hanson? other than he was criticising Anthony Albanese.
100% agree, and have felt the same way for 4 years.Albanese is a manager, not a leader.
Thommo
Let me help you here.
Dennis Richardson was initially handpicked by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to lead a swift, standalone independent review into whether intelligence agencies (ASIO and the AFP) could have prevented the December 2025 Bondi Beach massacre.
Richardson then quit as the federal RC was set to replace the NSW RC and his own enquiry and he considered that he was “surplus to requirements” and was being “grossly overpaid”. The federal government with Minns’ agreement shifted course and established a broader Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion led by former High Court judge Virginia Bell. Richardson’s independent probe was folded into this larger commission, stripping him of his standalone authority and making him a “special adviser” rather than a commissioner.
The fact remains that Albanese was opposed to two Royal Commissions.
Scummo’s USUKA sub debacle remains unworkable as both US and UK sub hull production falls way behind the propaganda displays. The betting is that the USUKA subs will never be delivered, or not until the passing of my great grand kids, sometime after 2100 AD.
https://johnmenadue.com/post/2026/09/ssn-aukus-assurances-from-the-smoking-ruins-of-the-uks-submarine-program/
Thommo, you miss my point.
bothe our friend Dr Klein and Ms Hanson complain much but offer few solutions.
Klein’s articles are sound. Very surprised at some of the hostility toward the writer.
I understand the idea that Labor has been coerced and compromised. But just today they appointed another Murdoch lackey to a plum position overseas. I think they are a puppet government so there is little they can do themselves.
But criticism of apparent un-labor spinelessness will keep turning up with every faux “decision” they choose to make in response to coercian.
Terry Mills,
spare us the condescending “Let me help you” shit.
It is noted that you steadfastly ignored Albanese’s own rationale at the time, that royal commissions don’t deal with differing perspectives well, and that a royal commission would delay the outcome for perhaps years, and that there was a court case pending that would curtail the scope of any commission. It also ignores that Albanese went to lengths to stress that the national security review was a priority – something at odds with slipping it into a royal commission that was set up to primarily address anti-semitism.
You say: “The fact remains that Albanese was opposed to two Royal Commissions.”
Let me get this straight. Your argument is that he decided to have an RC because he didn’t want there to be two RC’s.
That forms a non-sensical argument; it puts the cart before the horse.
Two RC’s can only occur as a consequence of Albanese having decided to have an RC. That argument puts the consequence before the decision and tries to claim it as a rationale for the decision – its putting the cart before the horse.
The decision he faced was either to have a federal RC or not.
If he decided not to, his favoured stand at the time, then there is only the NSW RC (not two), there is no duplication.
Is your argument really that Albanese thought having an RC was a bad idea, but NSW was going to have an RC anyway, so it might as well be my bad idea?
Albanese decided to ignore the national priority, ignore his own contention that RC’s don’t handle differing perspectives well, ignore that the court case would curtail the scope of a royal commission, ignore that a properly convened RC would delay the outcome of the review for years – things that he categorically espoused ruled out an RC – and decided to have a federal RC. How is that not a political calculation?
Not to mention the overwhelming pressure by a lobby group that may not be mentioned.As an example, have a look at the state of our”great friend”, currently being dismantled by a criminally insane arsehole with the worlds worst combover…complete with nappies.
Bert,
what would you offer as a solution, to the US citizens, to the machinations of Donald Trump, given that the Republican party isn’t going to oppose virtually any of his whims and dictates?
I agree with most of your points. But I think the motivation for the caution is to not give the LNP opposition or One Nation fuel for criticism.
Much needed tax reform in capital gains and negative gearing Albanese gets smeared as being a liar. Sure he probably should have made that an election position. However, look what happened to Shorten with someone as weak as Morrison able to win on the back of an anti-Labor scare campaign.
Then there was the Voice referendum. His only conviction was at his victory speech. It is not a good idea to promise such big things in a victory speech. When he said it, I thought it was going to be trouble. It was. The Voice was hounded down by scare mongering and absolute lies. This caused much damage to not only First Nations people, but the country as a whole.
But the yes campaign was weak (like the anti-Brexit people). Linda Burney is a lovely person, but did not have the force or articulateness needed to counter the scurrilous no campaign.
It is clear, particularly from Hanson (and Trump) that these right-wing nutters can get away with spreading their spewed-up bile, and people lap it up since it reinforces their prejudices.
So this is the background to Albanese’s seeming caution and not taking strong leadership positions.
An interesting question Thommo, and as is quite usual for me, I have no answer except to ask those people to think about politics, and in that I do think critical thinking. The other is to ask people to actually engage in politics, and by that I mean think through the issues and policies being presented, engage with their politicians and actually turn out to vote. In the US, voting participation is rarely above 60% of eleigable voters.
Politics is a tough game, and the divisiveness of politics is destructive, it undermines faith in the system leading us to the potential of an autocratic style of government such as that which Trump is demonstrating. He gets away with it because the system has essentially broken, broken because the party system has become ineffectual, pandering to vested interests of the big money donors.
I guess the issue that I see is that it is way too easy to be at the sidelines throwing complaints at the people elected to do a job, essentially undermining their ability to do that job, that is helped along by a media which has lost objectivity to a large extent, and a populace which chooses to remain uninformed.
Critics are fine, so long as they engage in the debate instead of undermine through a whinging sort of commentary. I certainly would not cherish the role of a politician, knowing that no matter how hard one works it will not be good enough.
Bert,
thanks for that explanation.
Back to the question: wouldn’t I be offering a solution to US citizens if I said ‘vote against/out as many Republican nominees as possible in the midterms, and if by some devious means Trump manages to get himself on the ballet for the next Presidential election, well, you need a new leader, vote him out’?
Bert,
like it or not,”Now Australia needs a leader” was offering a solution, since the case was made that Albanese is not capable of leading, it is equivalent to saying that Australia needs a new PM.
It isn’t necessary to spell out that it entails voting him, or Labor, out of office – that goes without saying imo.
John Menadue’s recent articles are not that dissimilar to Andrew’s in that they are critical of Labor and offer one line solutions, if at all. Yet, had you said ‘..lines up with the John Menadues of this world’ would have had significantly different connotations to using Pauline Hanson.
What you said, I believe, smeared Andrew by false association – it was unnecessary, unkind and inaccurate.
Yet, had you said “..lines up with the John Menadues of this world” would have had significantly different connotations to using Pauline Hanson.
Thommo has developed an impressive essential skill — the ability to cut through irrelevancies and distractions, to get to the heart of issues.
We all think about topics, we are often motivated to respond by emotion, but the key to effective communication is to make sure that emotion is the backbone, the co-driver, not the controller.
The great speeches from history were driven by passion — a yearning for justice, calls to right wrongs, calls for action, for solidarity, for the cultivation of the higher instincts of humanity — but that greatness came from a delivery that was considered and careful, and developed a theme.
Just one thing. The Royal Commission is nothing more than a taxpayer funded wailing wall to placate the never satisfied Zionist lobby. And why else did Albappeasey hand-pick a notorious Zionist lobby apparatchik as his “special envoy”?
Too cautious? Sure.
Sellout on AUKUS? Definitely.
A failure? Nah. Albo and the ALP haven’t done as much as we would like, but it’s still daylight between them and the LNP and, as little as we like it, the way our system works means one or the other will form the government until/unless another party (Greens? OneNeuron?) builds enough support to do so. More independents and more minor parties to – as Don Chipp out it – keep the bastards honest will improve the situation but, revolutions aside, changes to systems are slow so we have to make the best of what we have and keep pushing to make the necessary improvements.
Why does all the criticism of Albo and the ALP remind me of the white-anting that went on when Bill Shorten was trying to win an election?
@ Max Grosse: Agreed. Then there was the multi-million ”contribution” to the ZION@ZIS to provide on-going funding ….. was that a response to previous ”political donations”??
@ leefe: Your ”white anting” is the only strategy that the COALition understands; anything else is too complex.
Sadly, when you ”own” the MSM the continual ”drip drip” of whingeing and complaints among the endless ”bad news” has an unfortunate impact on the thinking of nearly everybody.
Steve,
“the ability to cut through irrelevancies and distractions, to get to the heart of issues” well, maybe not. Perhaps arguing Terry and Bert’s statements was the distraction, and I, the patsy, the stooge taking up the argument.
This article, together with Andrew’s last, are perhaps the most important articles to have appeared on this website.
I grew up watching news of other countries turning into dictatorships and thinking ‘how the hell did the people let that happen?’
The duopoly have been steadily taking us down that path for 30 years, but under Albanese’s Labor it has gone ballistic.
After 9/11, Australia, under the Coalition, brought in more intrusive surveillance laws than just about, if not, any other country on Earth. Labor has added to, or made even more intrusive the same laws.
Labor has been developing secret police units to deal with demonstrations.
Howard’s coalition brought in extraordinary powers of secret interrogation for ASIO, Labor only added a sunset clause at the time. Now, Labor has made the laws even more draconian and made them permanent. The ASIO amendment act gives ASIO and the Attorney General the power to ‘disappear’ Australians off the streets.
The Coalition brought in terrorist laws that strip citizens of their judicial rights. Cop a butcher’s at how those kind of laws have been used in the UK under Starmer’s Labour.
Labor has maintained overseas detention centres, that would be ideal for gulags to keep political prisoners.
Labor has rigged our Federal elections in their and, at the time, the Coalition’s favour by altering the electoral funding rules for parties and Independents, making it almost impossible for small parties and Independents to win a seat in either house.
There has been a constant peddling of the propaganda that there are no alternatives to Labor and the Coalition.
Labor’s actions on Gaza and the USA, and the Coalition’s words have amounted to an erosion of respect for International laws and justice systems, and the treaties that Australia is a signatory to; turning respect for law into a matter of convenience.
Labor has exhibited sychophancy to a rogue state that has become dictatorial.
Labor is enmeshing Australia’s defence with the military of a country committing genocide and another utterly complicit in genocide at an exponential rate; ASIO, it would seem, is increasingly incorporating intelligence from an apartheid state.
Labor brought in new hate laws that were obviously designed to suppress dissent, and could be easily manipulated for malicious effect.
Labor has shown a willingness to use state violence against dissenters.
Under both the Coalition and Labor power is being progressively shifted into the hands of government ministers.
Non-duopoly MPs are being blocked from oversight committees in defence in particular.
Labor attempted to cloak all government activity entirely from public view, but were thwarted by failing to get support from even the Coalition.
Labor wants to bring in laws that would give a minister the power to secretly censure the internet.
Labor has robotized assessments of people’s needs, welfare, aged-care and the NDIS, despite agencies at the coalface saying it was failing people.
Labor is incorporating Palantir into Australia’s data management despite other countries jettisoning Palantir because of the risks.
And now, the centralization of all that data in the hands of the PM via AI; what could possibly go wrong?
Secret policing and surveillance, side-stepping of the judiciary, opaque governance, state violence and lawfare used against dissenters, control of the populace through control of their data, control of the media, rigged elections, diminishment of political opposition, power centralized in a single figure, corruption, propaganda – if it walks like a prospective dictatorship, and if it quacks like a prospective dictatorship, ….
What are the threats to our children and grandchildren’s futures? Would you not agree that they are: climate change; AI development; being dragged into a nuclear war; and a shift to authoritarianism? If you don’t agree on the shift to authoritarianism, how is Labor doing on the other three? opening up new gas and coal fields like there is no tomorrow; virtually just given AI open slather for a year; can’t get US nuclear-armed subs and more US bases here fast enough.
“…well, maybe not.”
Thommo, when we keep emotions under control, “the ability to cut through irrelevancies and distractions, to get to the heart of issues” comes naturally.
It develops with practice.
That’s noticeable in your work.
Precise article Dr. Klein, keep them coming!
IMHO Albo is as dangerous as Trump; Trump is a loudmouth and Albo is silent and deadly.
Other voices of concern that the Alb-Appeasie LABOR government is failing to enact reforms to build a better future for all Australian voters, not just foreign owned multinational corporations seeking corporate charity from the government to upgrade their production capacity WITHOUT GIVING THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT and hence Australian voters any share of the consequent profits.
https://johnmenadue.com/post/2026/10/labors-left-has-won-the-party-so-what-happened-to-the-left/