The Sydney Morning Herald
By Terry Flew, Professor of digital communication and culture October 3, 2025 — 5.00am
Prime Minster Anthony Albanese’s recent speech to the UK Labour Party Conference in Liverpool put trust front and centre. He argued that centre-left governments build lasting social change by delivering on their commitments and staying in office long enough to do so. “Delivering change is more difficult than demanding it,” he said. “Working within the system is tougher than railing against it.”
The message was well received by his UK Labour allies, which won a bigger majority than Albanese’s ALP, but are now losing ground to Nigel Farage’s Reform Party. It is believed that if a UK election was held today, Reform would be well-placed to win it. Reform has tapped into frustration over stagnant real wages, declining public services and migration. In response to complex policy questions, Reform offers a simple solution: control the borders first, fix the rest later.
Policy delivery is the key to rebuilding trust. Populism thrives when elected governments are perceived to be unable to solve complex problems. Albanese’s point is that trust isn’t just a virtue. It is a political strategy. It is built on delivery, not slogans. “Our work is measured in deeds,” he said. “And it depends on delivery. On change our citizens can see.”
That’s easier said than done. A major problem that governments face in addressing complex policy issues is that the perceived costs of reform are often concentrated, while the benefits are more diffuse and take time. Importantly, many of the costs are not simply economic. They are often tied to perceived impacts on culture, identity, amenity and social status.
Take affordable housing. In Australian cities, it is notoriously difficult to negotiate planning rules for medium-density housing in well-established inner-urban areas. As a result, much new housing development has been on “greenfield sites” a long distance from city centres, far from jobs, social services and community amenities. Young people in particular, want to live closer in, nearer to cultural events and nightlife, and in proximity to higher education campuses and good public transport.
The NIMBY/YIMBY divide is real. State governments and inner-city councils are dealing with the schism between those opposed to the densification of inner-city areas and those who see their viability as requiring significant population growth. Each side accuses the other of selfishness, but this is not simply about money or lifestyle.
Critics of developments argue that inner-city communities have evolved distinct cultural ecosystems that are threatened by out-of-scale developments. In Sydney, advocates of change point out that young people are being driven out of places like Glebe, Balmain, Newtown, Darlinghurst and Bondi, and that these areas will wither and die, and lose their cultural attributes, if people from all social backgrounds do not have the opportunity to move in.
Melbourne is seeing similar tensions in suburbs like Brunswick, Northcote and Fitzroy, where heritage overlays and community resistance have slowed down medium-density development. The result is a patchwork of policy and a growing divide between those who want to protect the past and those who wish to build for the future.
Energy is another flashpoint. Australia appears to have – belatedly – reached a broad consensus about the need to shift from fossil fuels to renewables. But not everyone wants wind turbines or transmission lines in their backyard. Rural communities worry about the impact on farming. Surfers object to offshore turbines. These concerns aren’t trivial. They reflect a desire for self-determination and a connection to place.
In Victoria, carbon farming projects have sparked controversy in dry regions where farmers question whether the land can support permanent forest regeneration. Some see these schemes as symbolic of a system that rewards city-based companies while leaving rural communities to carry the burden of climate policy. The politics of energy transition are playing out not just in parliament, but in paddocks and local government planning panels.
Ironically, some of the strongest voices for localism have come from environmentalists. That puts green groups in a bind. How do they reconcile the push for renewables with the defence of “post-materialist” lifestyles? It’s a hard balance. The urgency of climate action demands infrastructure. But the politics of place demand sensitivity.
Albanese says measures to rebuild trust in government are not only good public policy, but are also good politics. So, how is he doing? To generate trust, there are three principles that his government needs to adopt.
Start with transparency about decisions. Be clear about what’s being proposed, why it matters and what happens if it’s delayed. That includes speaking up for those who don’t have a voice in the debate. Governments need to make space for renters, young people, migrants and others.
Second, make equity a priority. One irony of the debates about inner-city housing is that the areas in question consistently vote for left or centre-left political parties, yet the suburbs themselves are becoming enclaves of accumulated wealth and privilege. Ensuring that these areas are socially diverse by enabling affordable housing to be developed would be an important way to address the class divides bedded into the urban geographies of our cities.
Finally, speak plainly. One weakness of the established political parties compared to the populists is that the latter are seen as more willing to “say it like it is”, in contrast to the jargon, cliché and evasiveness often associated with professional politicians. Populists win by sounding real.
In an age where everything from Taylor Swift songs to the Ryder Cup golf tournament can appear politicised, there is understandable frustration with the manipulation of facts and the circulation of falsehoods. But empathetic engagement with the community is central to trustworthy communication. It may also work politically.
Trust isn’t built on sentiment. It’s built on decisions – and the courage to stand by them. That means taking risks, explaining trade-offs and showing results. It means admitting when things go wrong and fixing them. It means treating people like adults.
Albanese’s speech was a reminder that politics is about more than winning elections. It’s about governing well. That takes time, patience and a willingness to confront hard truths. It means building coalitions, not just collecting votes. It means listening, not just talking.
In the end, trust is earned. Not through slogans or spin, but through action. Through policies that work, decisions that make sense and leaders who tell the truth.
