The worst PM in 20 years
Australia has endured a remarkable series of economic shocks since 2000: the tech wreck, 9/11, the Global Financial Crisis, the end of the mining investment boom, the Black Summer bushfires, COVID-19, global supply-chain disruption, war-driven energy shocks and the sharpest interest-rate tightening cycle in a generation. Against that history, the economic performance of Anthony Albanese’s government deserves close scrutiny because its period in office has coincided with slowing growth, persistent inflation, high interest rates, higher taxes, higher energy costs, poor energy security, less government transparency and a growing reliance on government-funded employment. Everything the Albotross said would not happen under his watch, some call the Albotrosses promises a lie. Regardless of how they are framed “his” government’s decisions have made everyday Australian’s life worse not better.
The point is not that every economic problem began in May 2022. Inflation was already rising globally before the Albanese government took office, and the Russia–Ukraine war added genuine pressure to energy and food prices. But good economic management is tested by what a government does when pressure arrives. On that test, the Albanese government has relied too heavily on public spending, regulation and government-directed activity, while the private economy has carried the cost through higher taxes, higher compliance burdens and weaker productivity.
A weaker growth story than the headline suggests
The comparison of this prime minister with others shows that earlier governments often faced more acute global shocks yet still delivered stronger or more resilient economic outcomes. John Howard’s government navigated the early-2000s tech downturn, 9/11 and subsequent middle east wars and global security shocks while maintaining solid growth. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard faced the Global Financial Crisis and its aftermath, yet Australia avoided the deep recession experienced by many comparable economies. Scott Morrison’s government faced the most severe peacetime disruption in modern economic history with COVID-19, and while that period involved extraordinary fiscal intervention, the economy rebounded strongly after the initial contraction.
By contrast, the Albanese government inherited a reopening economy and then presided over a sharp slowdown. The harsh reality of real GDP growth under the Albotross: 4.25% in 2022, 3.58% in 2023, 1.37% in 2024 and an estimated 1.4% in 2025. More recent public data shows the economy grew by 2.5% through the year to March 2026, but quarterly growth was only 0.3%, with subdued household and government consumption. The Reserve Bank’s snapshot also shows inflation at 4.2%, unemployment at 4.5% and the cash rate at 4.35% in mid-2026. In plain terms, Australians are living with higher prices, expensive debt and weak per-person economic momentum.
The jobs market is being propped up by government-funded growth
One of the harshest realities of the Albotross government, is that employment growth under Albanese has been concentrated in public-sector and government-funded sectors. Around 69% of new jobs from early 2023 to late 2025 were in non-market sectors such as health, social assistance, education and public administration, with only about 31% in the private market sector. The Albotross has also been unable to rain in the obscene excess and rapid growth in the NDIA and the broader NDIS-funded workforce.
Private-sector growth is what ultimately funds public-sector growth. Government can create positions, fund programs and expand agencies, but it cannot permanently escape the arithmetic of taxation. If the productive, market-facing economy is not growing strongly enough, the government must either borrow more, cut spending or raise more revenue. The Albotross government’s instinct has been to expand the role of government rather than unleash the private sector. That makes higher taxes not an accident, but the predictable consequence of its economic model.
Higher taxes are the symptom of poor economic management
A government that genuinely backs enterprise, investment and productivity does not need to keep searching for new ways to tax Australians. Revenue grows naturally when businesses invest, workers become more productive, wages rise in real terms and profits are earned through genuine private-sector expansion. But when growth slows, productivity weakens and spending commitments continue to rise, the pressure shifts to the tax system.
This is the central criticism of the Albanese government’s economic performance. Its answer to weak growth is not to reduce the burden on productive Australians, but to look for more revenue. The current debate about new or higher taxes, including proposals affecting trusts and other structures, should be viewed in that context. These measures are not signs of confidence. They are signs that the government needs more money because its spending ambitions are outrunning the productive capacity of the economy. This has been particularly evident in the aggressive nature of the Australian Taxation Office under the Albotross government, less transparency, more public complaints, rouge ATO staff.
Compared with earlier prime ministers
The comparison with previous prime ministers is revealing. Howard’s era was marked by confidence in enterprise, relatively strong growth and a belief that Australians would build prosperity if government kept the settings broadly right. Rudd and Gillard faced the GFC and made controversial choices, but the crisis was real and immediate. Abbott and Turnbull governed through a more subdued but still challenging transition after the mining boom. Morrison faced bushfires and COVID-19, a once-in-a-century shock that disrupted every major economy.
Albanese has faced challenges, but not a crisis on the same scale as the GFC or COVID-19. Yet Australians are now being asked to accept higher taxes, higher prices, weaker household purchasing power and a larger government footprint as if there is no alternative. There is an alternative: disciplined spending, stronger incentives for private investment, lower regulatory drag, genuine productivity reform and a tax system that rewards rather than punishes effort and risk-taking.
The conclusion
The Albanese government’s economic record is not simply a story of external shocks. It is a story of choices. It has chosen a larger public sector, more government-directed activity and a heavier reliance on tax revenue instead of placing greater trust in Australian businesses, workers and families to drive growth. Previous prime ministers faced major global crises and still backed the productive economy to carry Australia forward. The Albanese government appears to believe the economy can be managed from Canberra.
That is why the push for higher taxes should be seen for what it is: not evidence of fairness or reform, but evidence that the government’s economic management is failing to generate enough private-sector strength to fund its ambitions. Australians do not need more government taking a larger share of what they earn. They need a government that trusts them to build, invest, employ, innovate and grow.
The Albotross and the Charmer are acting like a pair of Uni students, full of ideas, driven by ideology rather than real world knowledge. Their approach feels more like student politics rather than national leadership: ambitious ideas, favours for allies and little or no understanding of the real world consequences for households and businesses. The Albotross’s long background in union and party politics explains why his government appears more comfortable expanding government, rewarding union influence and increasing regulation than backing private enterprise.
The way the Albotross talks to Australia lacks the seriousness and respect of a nation’s leader, he treats his words like slogans and social media marketing campaigns, as if they have no real meaning. If he meant what he said, and really stood behind his word, he would have called an election or waited for the next election. Before making the changes to Negative Gearing and Capital Gain Tax, he would have given Australian’s a choice. But like a little schoolboy who just wants to get what he wants, he says one thing and does another. Whether you voted for John Howard or not, you have to respect him. When it came to the introduction of the GST he let the people decide if he had the mandate to introduce it or not, he let Australia vote on it. But not the Albotross, he says never ever ever, and less than 12 months after being elected goes right ahead and does what he said he wouldn’t do. That’s what we get for electing a little schoolboy to lead our nation.