Introduction

Australia’s political landscape is at a crossroads as the federal election looms in 2025. The Australian Labor Party (ALP), currently in government under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, has long positioned itself as the champion of social justice and equality, rooted in its historical ties to the labor movement and its promises of a fairer society. In contrast, a Peter Dutton-led Liberal National Party (LNP) government is often framed as a step backward – prioritising security and economic conservatism over progressive reform. While the ALP may indeed offer a preferable alternative to the LNP’s agenda, its current tenure raises significant questions about its commitment to its foundational principles. This paper argues that a minority Labor government, supported by genuine independents, could be the optimal outcome for advancing social justice and equality in Australia. However, it also critiques Labor’s failure to address critical issues: its refusal to raise unemployment benefits, its watered-down National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), and its reluctance to pursue a total overhaul of the tax system. These shortcomings undermine Labor’s credibility and highlight the need for a more ambitious, independent-influenced approach to governance.

Social Justice and Equality: Labor’s Historical Promise

The ALP’s identity is steeped in a legacy of advocating for the working class, marginalised communities, and equitable distribution of resources. From the post-war Keynesian era of full employment to landmark reforms like Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), Labor has historically sought to balance economic growth with social equity. Wayne Swan, former Treasurer and ALP National President, articulated this ethos in his 2019 speech, emphasising that “economic equality is vital if these other worthy goals are to have real meaning.” This vision – termed “Australian Laborism” – rejects trickle-down economics in favor of a dynamic public sector that prioritises jobs, wages, and fairness.

Today, social justice and equality remain pressing concerns. Australia faces rising inequality, with the top 10% of earners now making 2.3 times more than the bottom 10%, a gap that has widened since the neoliberal reforms of the 1980s. Housing affordability has plummeted, with homeownership rates declining since the 1960s, and rental stress is acute; Anglicare’s 2024 Snapshot found just three out of 45,000 rentals affordable for JobSeeker recipients. Indigenous disadvantage persists, exacerbated by Labor’s post-Voice referendum inaction, and real wages have fallen 4.8% since 2019. Against this backdrop, Labor’s 2022 election promises – cost-of-living relief, a strong social safety net, and integrity in governance – offered hope. Yet, two years into its term, the party’s record is mixed, revealing a disconnect between rhetoric and action.

Critique 1: Failure to Raise Unemployment Benefits

One of Labor’s most glaring failures is its refusal to meaningfully increase unemployment benefits, particularly the JobSeeker payment, which remains below the poverty line. At $789.90 per fortnight (as of April 2025), JobSeeker is insufficient to cover basic living costs, especially amidst high inflation and soaring rents. The Henderson Poverty Line, a widely accepted benchmark, sits at approximately $636 per week for a single person – JobSeeker falls well short. This stagnation is not new; the payment has not seen a real increase since 1994, a policy inertia Labor has inherited but failed to rectify.

Labor’s justification – voiced by Treasurer Jim Chalmers – is fiscal restraint, arguing that broad welfare increases are unaffordable given budget pressures. Instead, the government points to its two consecutive surpluses (2022-23 and 2023-24) and targeted measures like tax cuts and energy bill relief as evidence of economic responsibility. Yet, this approach betrays Labor’s social justice roots. The IMF has shown that equitable growth – where benefits are shared broadly – drives stronger economies, while concentrated wealth weakens overall prosperity. By prioritising surpluses over lifting the unemployed out of poverty, Labor perpetuates a cycle of economic insecurity that disproportionately harms vulnerable groups: youth, single parents, and Indigenous Australians, who face unemployment rates double the national average.

Contrast this with international peers. New Zealand’s Labour government under Jacinda Ardern proposed an unemployment insurance scheme in 2022, to bolster its welfare state, although the concept failed to progress. In Europe, social democratic parties have invested heavily in safety nets to counter radical-right welfare chauvinism. Labor’s “modest” welfare agenda, as noted by The Conversation in 2022, lacks electoral or moral ambition. Critics argue this timidity stems from the 2019 election loss, where bold policies were blamed for defeat. Yet, public sentiment favors social spending – Red Flag’s Ben Hillier notes strong support for services even if it means higher taxes. Labor’s refusal to act risks alienating its base and ceding ground to the Greens and independents, who advocate for a $650 weekly JobSeeker rate. A minority government reliant on these voices could force Labor to honour its equality pledge.

Critique 2: A Weakened Integrity Commission

Integrity in governance is a cornerstone of social justice, ensuring public resources serve the common good rather than vested interests. Labor’s 2022 pledge to establish a National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) “with teeth” was a flagship promise, contrasting with the LNP’s toothless Commonwealth Integrity Commission proposal. The NACC, legislated in 2023, can investigate politicians and public servants, hold public hearings, and initiate its own probes – on paper, a win for transparency. However, its implementation reveals compromise over conviction.

To secure Coalition support, Labor diluted key features. Public hearings are restricted to “exceptional circumstances,” a vague threshold that limits scrutiny. Retrospective investigations, initially promised to cover 15 years of alleged misconduct, were curtailed, shielding past governments from accountability. The appointment process has also drawn criticism – Shadow Attorney-General Michaelia Cash highlighted opacity around potential appointees like Justice Stephen Rothman, raising doubts about independence. Federal Court Justice Natalie Charlesworth’s 2023 rebuke of the Environmental Defenders Office for manipulating evidence underscores the need for robust oversight, yet the NACC’s constrained powers limit its reach.

This half-measure undermines public trust, a critical issue when 2024 polls show mass hostility to the political establishment. The Gillard minority government (2010-2013) demonstrated that independents like Andrew Wilkie could push for stronger integrity mechanisms – his advocacy led to gambling reforms. Today’s “teal” independents, elected on anti-corruption platforms, echo this demand. Labor’s failure to deliver a truly independent NACC suggests a reluctance to challenge entrenched power, a far cry from its 1965 Vietnam War stance, when principle trumped popularity. A minority government, beholden to independents, could compel Labor to strengthen the NACC, aligning governance with social justice ideals.

Critique 3: The Urgent Need for Tax System Overhaul

Australia’s tax system is a relic of neoliberalism, riddled with inequities that entrench wealth disparities. The Stage Three tax cuts, inherited from the LNP and revised before implementation by Labor in 2024, exemplify this: high-income earners (above $180,000) receive $4,529 annually, while those below $30,000 get $354. Negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts fuel a housing crisis, benefiting the top 9% who own investment properties while pricing out first-time buyers. Corporate tax avoidance – Labor’s promised crackdown on multinationals has yielded just $2 billion over four years – further skews the system toward the wealthy.

Labor’s tweaks – revising Stage Three to benefit middle earners – fall short of the “total overhaul” Australia needs. The OECD’s 15% global minimum tax, which Labor supports, is a start, but domestic reform lags. Progressive tax systems in Scandinavia fund robust welfare states, reducing inequality; Australia’s reliance on regressive GST and flat income tax brackets does the opposite. The Grattan Institute notes the Coalition out fundraises Labor ($125 million vs. $84 million in 2022-23), hinting at corporate influence that a bolder tax policy could counter. Yet, Labor shies away, fearing electoral backlash.

Independents and the Greens propose radical alternatives: taxing billionaires, scrapping fossil fuel subsidies, and raising corporate rates. A minority Labor government, reliant on their support, could pivot toward a fairer system – higher wealth taxes, a reformed progressive scale, and closing property loopholes. This would fund unemployment increases and integrity measures, aligning with Labor’s equality ethos while addressing structural injustice.

The Case for a Minority Labor Government with Independents

A Dutton-led LNP government offers little for social justice. Its focus on nuclear power, defense, and cutting public service jobs signals a retreat from equity-driven policy. Dutton’s rejection of climate action and gender equality, as Albanese noted in 2025, leaves a void that Labor, even imperfectly, seeks to fill. However, Labor’s current majority has bred complacency – surpluses over welfare, compromise over conviction. A minority government, supported by independents, could break this inertia.

The Gillard era proved minority governance can work. With independents like Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor, Labor passed carbon pricing and the NDIS – reforms that endured. Today’s crossbench, bolstered by teals and community candidates like Kate Dezarnaulds in Gilmore, prioritises climate, integrity, and fairness. Their influence could push Labor to raise JobSeeker, strengthen the NACC, and rethink tax policy. While negotiation risks gridlock, the 2010-2013 term showed pragmatic independents can deliver results. Labor’s urban base, drifting left (38% of under-40s voted Labor in 2022, vs. 25% Greens), demands bolder action; independents could bridge this gap.

Counterarguments and Rebuttals

Defenders of Labor argue fiscal discipline is necessary post-COVID, with debt stabilised $200 billion below LNP projections. Raising JobSeeker or overhauling tax could spike inflation, already easing from 7.8% in 2022 to 3.5% in 2025. The NACC, they say, balances transparency with practicality – public hearings for all cases could bog it down. Yet, these excuses ring hollow. Inflation fears ignore the IMF’s equity-growth link; targeted welfare hikes could stimulate demand without overheating. The NACC’s limits protect elites, not efficiency – retrospective probes are essential for trust. Labor’s caution reflects electoral timidity, not principle, ceding moral ground to independents.

Conclusion

The ALP remains a better vehicle for social justice and equality than a Dutton-led LNP, but its current trajectory falls short of its promise. Failing to raise unemployment benefits entrenches poverty, undermining economic equality. A weakened NACC betrays the integrity Labor championed, while an unreformed tax system perpetuates wealth gaps. A minority Labor government, supported by genuine independents, offers the best path forward – combining Labor’s infrastructure with the crossbench’s boldness. As Australia approaches 2025, voters must demand more than incrementalism. Labor must rediscover its Laborism, or risk being outflanked by those who do.