LATIKA M BOURKE: Anthony Albanese sees landslide election win as permission to remain mediocre

It was obvious in Rome that Anthony Albanese was taking the worst possible lesson from his landslide victory just a fortnight prior.

As he strutted down an Italian street to the waiting cameras, he donned a pair of sunglasses and could hardly contain his swagger.

For the man who professes to three faiths, the Labor party, South Sydney Rabbitohs and the Catholic Church, taking his mother’s rosary beads to be blessed by the Pope, so soon after making history in Australian politics, must have been quite the moment.

But while the Roman trip was personally meaningful, it is difficult to calculate how attending the Papal inauguration served Australia’s national interests given his later decision to turn down his invitation to NATO where more than 30 world leaders, including US President Donald Trump, gathered for dinner and drinks in The Hague ahead of the hard work of agreeing to new defence spending targets of 3.5 per cent of GDP.

In Rome, Mr Albanese met Ukraine’s President Volodomyr Zelensky but concealed from the travelling media until a week after returning home that he had spoken with Israel’s President about the ongoing war and humanitarian catastrophe taking place in Gaza.

He appeared clueless about a massive security and joint-defence industrial deal the European Union was offering. Just days prior, he had cancelled a call with the EU Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, to deal with the factional knifing of deposed cabinet minister Ed Husic.

It may have flirted with indulgence, but Mr Albanese’s Vatican stopover was made possible by the political jetstream of goodwill and authority that comes with a commanding electoral mandate—and the early hope that he might govern as boldly as Labor supporters hoped.

But it is now clear that the prime minister sees no need for improvement and thinks his win was a gold star for the consistently mediocre performance he spooned up during his first term, bar the last six months when he ran an uncharacteristically disciplined campaign.

He is wrong.

He won a landslide because Peter Dutton was a dud of a political leader and because Donald Trump is liked only above Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin, and the ousted opposition leader spent a bit too much time leaning into MAGAism.

Instead of vowing to do better with his reprieve, which, six or seven months ago, was no guarantee, the Prime Minister seems intent on reverting to type, especially when it comes to making key decisions on national security.

This might have been tolerated in ordinary times, such as when former US President Joe Biden was in the White House, but with the world order being junked and re-ordered by our security ally, a no longer benign but radical United States — and our economic partner — authoritarian China, Mr Albanese’s stubborn complacency is becoming dangerous.

This week Canada was forced to bend and revoke a planned tax on US tech companies in order to salvage trade talks with Mr Trump.

The US President is threatening trade-based punishments for Spain which is refusing to sign up to NATO defence targets (seemingly forgetting that the US negotiates trade with the EU as a bloc and not individual member states).

Nevertheless, there is a remarkable consistency to the coercive way Mr Trump operates. One of the few to earn some sort of escape from these methods has been UK Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer who has gone out of his way to establish a personal connection with the US President.

But instead of bravely staring history in the face and grasping the risks and opportunities like Mr Starmer has done, Mr Albanese’s response is to recoil and retreat to obstinacy and self-indulgence.

Australia cannot afford a return of the old Albo — you know the one — the guy who gets tetchy when put under any pressure, loves being a political socialite but has zero interest in grasping the big strategic choices in front of him and the country.

This was demonstrated when he took a day to work out his position on the US striking Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

But the most glaring and critical example is his handling of the US relationship, which now appears on the verge of spiralling out of his control.

During the campaign, Mr Albanese was happy to propel Mr Trump to the forefront of the political debate to trash the US President’s unorthodox techniques and hang them around Peter Dutton’s political neck.

It worked, Australians don’t very much like the current US President or his MAGA movement.

But then what?

Mr Albanese decided to play it cool and wait for a G7 meeting for his first face-to-face with Mr Trump, who promptly stood him up.

He is now set on making the same mistake again, holding out for summit season later in the year for his first in-person presidential opportunity, while admitting to Sunrise on Tuesday: “We’re available for a meeting.”

“Summit season is always at the end of the year.

“We have the G20, we have APEC, we have a range of meetings where the US President would be expected to attend, as well as leaders in the region, as well as of course the Quad meeting that will take place this year in India.”

Asked if he was waiting for the Quad to provide the forum, rather than seeking a visit to the Oval Office, Mr Albanese said: “I think where the meeting takes place is less important than what comes out of the meeting, frankly.”

“What I’m concerned about is supporting Australia’s national interests, whether that be here domestically or internationally.

“Domestically, my focus is what’s happening [on] the 1st of July. We have an increase in Paid Parental Leave.”

Is he serious?

The US is reviewing AUKUS, wants to stage more military bases on Australian soil, and demand that taxpayers foot a higher defence bill in the event of a conflict between the US and China that would surely plunge our economy into a deep depression, at the same time as imposing unfair tariffs on our goods and steel but Mr Albanese thinks he can play a wait-and-see game while he blitzes morning television to spruik his expanding welfare state while our defences go underfunded?

This is urgent. But at every turn, Mr Albanese has either the wrong answers or bad ones.

On trade, he insists he will tell Mr Trump that we have a free trade agreement. This is about as effective as telling MAGA to convene a kumbaya session at the UN.

Asked repeatedly whether the government has engaged Elbridge Colby, the AUKUS-sceptic overseeing the review, Mr Albanese would only say over and over: “We engage with everyone in the United States.”

Even Mr Albanese’s famed networking skills can’t possibly extend to engaging the some 340 million people who make up the US population.

It was a churlish and insulting attempt to hide what is painfully clear: Labor is having a difficult time accessing the White House.

Last week, Defence Minister Richard Marles was at the NATO summit and in the same secure zone at the World Forum as Mr Trump, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It was the first time they were in the same place since the AUKUS review was announced. But did Mr Marles score a meeting with Mr Hegseth to raise Australia’s case? No.

Perhaps if the Prime Minister bothered to show up at NATO, instead of skipping it for a second time, he might have played Australia into relevance.

On defence spending, the Prime Minister has backed himself into a corner, daring the US President to hold Australia’s trade, security, or both to ransom in order for the Prime Minister to fund his defences to the level that the Australian authors of the Defence Strategic Review say is required – around 3 per cent of GDP, up from 2 per cent now.

When China’s Ambassador made his outrageous intervention calling on the Australian cabinet to do nothing on raising our defence spending to adequate levels, Mr Albanese had only this to say when asked about the military threat China poses.

“The Chinese Ambassador speaks for China. My job is to speak for Australia.”

Incredulously, we have a government that is more willing to politicise and demonise the United States than China.

But perhaps his most troubling answer came when the ABC’s Patricia Karvelas asked him about his position on further US military bases on Australian soil.

This is a serious debate that needs to be had. What are the expectations and rules around how an increased US force posture in Australia would operate, given the real prospect of conflict in the Indo-Pacific and how that would inevitably draw Australia into any war?

It is comforting that security hawks, former Home Affairs boss Mike Pezzullo and former SAS captain and opposition frontbencher Andrew Hastie, are the responsible ones calling for this debate, even though it should be the prime minister of the day leading the national conversation.

But when asked for his position or thinking on the subject, Mr Albanese had only this to say.

“I’m not sure what he means by that,” he said.

Happily, Karvelas had little trouble understanding the issues at stake and persisted, asking about the transparency surrounding any US bases and the consequences of it.

“Well, I have no idea what that, well, I don’t know what that means,” he said.

“I’ll allow Mr Hastie to speak for himself.

“And I’ll speak for myself, which is that Australia has an interest in having our alliance with the United States.”

Mr Albanese is running out of time to make a choice about how he responds to shifting global order.

But in the meantime he is reminding everyone that Average Albo is back.