Over the past decade, we’ve watched the Liberals steadily reshape Australian politics towards the right; with privatized services, corporate tax cuts, and scaled-back public programs. Labor’s only response, however, seems to be “Liberal-lite,” offering adjustments rather than alternatives. Can we finally acknowledge what’s happening to our party system? Let this be clear: This isn’t about partisan finger-pointing or yearning for some idealized past. It’s about recognising how our political choices have narrowed — where what were once fierce policy debates have become mere bureaucratic tweaks.
I’m tired of commentators insisting we’re witnessing some great battle of ideas, while both parties, in practice, read from increasingly similar scripts. The Liberals charge ahead with their agenda, while Labor follows cautiously behind. We’ve reached a point where election campaigns feel less like choices between different futures, and more like choosing between different management styles for the same vision.
The Liberal Legacy
The Coalition’s defining success isn’t found in their nine-year tenure from Abbott to Morrison (2013-2022) – it’s in how thoroughly they’ve rewritten the rules of what’s politically palatable in Australia. What started as a controversial policy shift under the Coalition has become remarkably mainstream – evidenced by Labor’s stark transformation from Anthony Albanese’s vocal opposition to the tax cuts in 2019 to his government’s decision to keep the 25% rate for businesses turning over up to $50 million when taking power in 2022. This reversal, from condemning the cuts in opposition to preserving them in government, perfectly illustrates how thoroughly the Liberals have redefined Australia’s economic playbook.
The Liberals’ real masterclass in political transformation goes beyond tax policy. Consider how they’ve methodically reimagined public services. The NDIS, originally conceived as a comprehensive public program, now operates through a web of private providers. Aged care has been quietly transformed into a market-driven system. Even Centrelink services are increasingly delivered through private contractors. Each change was presented as a simple efficiency measure, making opposition seem unreasonable or outdated.
Perhaps most remarkably, they’ve succeeded in shifting the burden of proof. It’s now Labor that must constantly justify why any service should remain fully public, rather than the Liberals needing to justify privatization. When Labor does push back, they’re immediately branded as stuck in the past, fighting yesterday’s battles. The result? Even when Labor wins government, they find themselves operating within parameters set by their opponents.
This influence extends into areas where Labor traditionally held the high ground. Take climate policy: the Liberals’ genius wasn’t in winning the argument outright, but in reframing it entirely. They’ve managed to shift the debate from “how do we address climate change?” to “how do we balance climate action with economic interests?” or even “does climate change exist at all?” Labor now finds itself trapped in this framework, trying to thread an increasingly narrow needle between environmental action and economic orthodoxy.
Security and Climate: The Narrowing Gap
The convergence between our major parties becomes startlingly clear in national security and climate policy. The 2015 metadata retention laws—which required telcos and ISPs to store Australians’ metadata (such as call logs, location data, and email headers) for two years—ignited fierce debate. Civil liberties groups condemned it as mass surveillance, while industry raised concerns about implementation costs, estimated by the government at $188.8 million but feared to be much higher. Law enforcement argued it was crucial for fighting serious crime and terrorism, with most agencies able to access the data without a warrant, except for journalist metadata, which required additional oversight. Despite vocal opposition from the Greens and digital rights advocates, both major parties ultimately backed the legislation, with Labor supporting it after negotiating limited safeguards, including protections for journalists. When the Coalition pushed through expanded ASIO powers in 2023, Labor’s criticism focused on implementation details rather than underlying principles. The pattern repeats: the Liberals propose expansive security measures, Labor initially objects, then ultimately accepts them with minor amendments.
Climate policy tells a similarly frustrating story. Both parties champion net-zero emissions targets while carefully avoiding any meaningful disruption to Australia’s resource industry. The Carmichael coal mine saga perfectly illustrates this dance.Labor loudly opposed it in opposition, then quietly accepted its inevitability in government. Even when the parties appear to disagree, they often end up at surprisingly similar policy positions.
This narrowing gap isn’t necessarily about either party betraying their principles. Rather, it reflects a broader shift in Australian politics where the space for genuine policy alternatives has gradually shrunk. The Liberals set the direction on national security, and Labor, whether from conviction or pragmatism, follows.
The New Political Reality
The COVID-19 protests revealed something fascinating about Australia’s changing political landscape. Traditional political divisions began to blur in unexpected ways, as groups from vastly different backgrounds found themselves sharing similar concerns about institutional authority and government overreach. This realignment continues to surface in surprising places. Media distrust manifests differently across the political spectrum – right-wing critics decry perceived bias while progressives worry about ownership concentration, yet both camps share a growing skepticism of mainstream news sources. Even debates about tech regulation reveal unlikely alliances, with privacy advocates from the left finding common cause with traditional conservatives worried about Big Tech overreach.
This shifting political landscape is already reshaping Australia’s electoral dynamics. The Greens’ growing support base – particularly among young, educated voters disillusioned with the major parties – signals more than just environmental concerns. It reflects a broader appetite for political alternatives, with voters increasingly willing to direct their preferences away from the traditional Labor-Liberal duopoly. The upcoming federal election could see this trend accelerate, with preference flows potentially deciding key contests. Minor parties and independents are capitalizing on this momentum, positioning themselves as authentic voices for local communities and specific issues rather than broad ideological camps. What’s emerging isn’t just protest voting – it’s a sophisticated use of our preferential system to demand more nuanced policy responses. Voters seem less concerned with historical party loyalties and more focused on specific issues that affect their communities, suggesting Australia’s political future may be more fluid and issue-driven than ever before.
A Choice of Degrees
What we’re witnessing isn’t just political convergence – it’s a fundamental narrowing of Australia’s political imagination. When Labor and Liberal debate policy now, they’re usually arguing about degrees rather than fundamental directions. Should corporate tax cuts be this big or that big? Should private sector involvement in public services be extensive or moderate?
The result is a political system where major parties differ more in style than substance. This doesn’t mean they’re identical. It does, however, suggest that our traditional understanding of left-right politics may need updating. The real question isn’t whether Labor has compromised too much or the Liberals have won too completely. It’s whether our current political framework can still deliver the robust debate and genuine choices that democracy requires.
