Is the Labor backbench starting to feel the heat over the 2026 budget? If it is, you’d hardly know it.
There’s no doubt that the budget has not landed as well as Labor had hoped. Senior members of the government, such as Treasurer Jim Chalmers, have repeatedly made the point that they expected to lose a bit of skin for making major changes to the tax system. Pushback was expected. Factored in. The price you pay when you undertake big reforms. But they would say that, wouldn’t they?
Day after day in question time, the opposition hammers the prime minister over two things: the broken promises and the details of the tax changes, while Labor backbenchers shift uncomfortably in their seats.
Suddenly, a raft of first-term MPs have been confronted by their own political mortality for the first time. For them, the prospect of being “oncers” is now real. Pauline Hanson has her eye on a swag of marginal seats, particularly in her home state of Queensland. On current polling, One Nation has a decent chance of winning some of those seats.
As one experienced Labor MP, who asked not to be named, explains it: “Caucus is now split into three groups. The true believers who support the [tax] changes, the people taking the ‘short-term pain, long-term gain’ view, and the people in aspirational, marginal seats that swing between Labor and Liberal each election.”
It is this third group that should concern the prime minister.
With 94 seats in the lower house, Labor can afford a large swing against it at the next election and still retain the minimum 76 seats required for a majority. But between now and the next election, some of those backbenchers will need to find their voices.
At the same time as Labor’s feeling the political heat over its budget, two other things are happening, both consequential. First, One Nation’s support continues to surge. The party is taking votes from both the Coalition and Labor, as the most recent Resolve Political Monitor makes clear.
Second, former cabinet minister and now backbencher Ed Husic decided to speak out this week and question the AUKUS pact, just days after former Rudd-Gillard Labor minister Peter Garrett launched a crowd-funded inquiry into the deal.
Husic’s views mirror those of many Labor Party grassroots members. For them, and much of the union movement, the nuclear submarine deal is deeply unpopular. His decision to speak out has been interpreted by some as the first sign of caucus disunity.
As a second Labor MP, who also asked not to be named, says, “this is the biggest fight we have been in for a while”. But they played down the idea that Husic was the tip of the iceberg. “Ed has a recent history of speaking out and being a contrarian on issues so his contribution [questioning the AUKUS deal] was seen in that context. But if other people in the caucus start to speak out, then Albo will have problems.
“I think most people think these are necessary reforms, that we got into politics do big things and change the system, and that’s what we are doing. But clearly we need to tweak things [the tax changes] a bit.”
For the first year of the Albanese government’s second term, the 124-member caucus has been silent and compliant, like a flock of sheep. Managing the backbench to guard against disunity has become a point of pride for the prime minister, who remembers the regular outbreaks of dissent in the Hawke-Keating and Rudd-Gillard governments and carefully guards against them.
As that first MP puts it, “Albo is the best manager of caucus I have ever seen. He actually takes the time to talk to backbenchers and listen to them”.
While MPs say there are appropriate channels behind the scenes to ventilate concerns, it’s hard not to wonder what is the point of a party room that doesn’t debate policy. Albanese’s iron grip on caucus may do Labor no favours in the longer term.
No-one in Labor wants to return to the disunity of the Rudd-Gillard years, when the details of every caucus meeting was leaked in real time and division was the dominant feature of the government.
But for the long-term health of the government, Albanese does need a few more MPs – aside from Husic and fellow Sydney MP Mike Freelander – who are prepared to speak up and question policy decisions.
Disunity does not always mean death in politics. It can also be a pressure release valve and a means by which the prime minister and senior ministers are kept abreast of the concerns voters are raising with backbench MPs.
Trusting MPs with the details of policies before they are announced means there is a greater chance that unintended consequences are caught and dealt with.
More importantly, the occasional outbreak of disunity demonstrates authenticity, which brings us back to Pauline Hanson and the growing support for One Nation. Hanson is surging in the polls because she is seen to be authentic. Whatever you think of her position on issues such as immigration, she has held basically the same view for 30 years. When she speaks, she does not sound like she is reading the talking points distributed by party headquarters (even if she is).
Neither Labor nor the Coalition has yet adjusted to the “new” player on the field who, in a matter of months, has gone from leader of a fringe political movement to being discussed as a possible prime minister.
Enforcing strict discipline and sticking to the party line, no matter what, is the opposite of authenticity, and voters know it. In part, it’s why both major parties are being marked down so heavily by voters.
In two years’ time, when the next election is held, it’s unlikely the 2026 budget will be the only topic at the heart of political debate. But both oppositions, One Nation and the Coalition, will still be hammering Albanese for his broken promises not to touch negative gearing and capital gains tax.
Trust and authenticity will be front and centre. Between now and 2028, the Labor caucus needs to find its voice and speak up. Or those 124 sheep may risk becoming lambs to the slaughter.
James Massola is chief political commentator.
Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.
James Massola is chief political commentator. He was previously national affairs editor and South-East Asia correspondent. He has won Quill and Kennedy awards and been a Walkley finalist. Connect securely on Signal @jamesmassola.01Connect via X or email.