After Labor's storming May 3 election victory, winning 94 seats in the House of Representatives, the 48th Parliament finally resumes on Tuesday.
That's exactly 80 days post-election. Nobody could accuse Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of rushing back to work. So, what can we expect?
First, discipline.
Albanese enters this term with a mandate larger than any Labor government before him. Parties on both of Labor's ideological flanks underperformed: the Coalition is in disarray after Peter Dutton lost the election and his seat, and the Greens lost their leader Adam Bandt as well.
That gives Labor room to press ahead with its agenda - but it will have to deal with a Greens balance of power in the Senate. Team Albo will want his MPs to stay disciplined and the PM should have the authority needed to maintain it.
Second, there will be a legislative blitz.
The first sitting block will see a host of bills put up to lock in Labor's election commitments: lifting the HECS repayment threshold, slashing student debt by 20 per cent, and enacting the new super levy on balances over $3million. With Labor holding both a commanding lower house majority and only needing the Greens in the Senate to pass laws, these reforms look set to happen.
Third, there will be a political game of optics.
Expect Albanese to frame this opening session around unity, opportunity and productivity, looking to capitalise on the election theme that Australians chose unity over division. He'll present a refreshed ministry - already announced and sworn in, of course - and give the Coalition pause for thought, especially as Sussan Ley looks to find her feet as the new opposition leader.
Lastly, tough questions on cost-of-living will dominate parliamentary debates this week. Average Aussies are still feeling the squeeze post‑election: on mortgages, rents and food costs. Expect lots of rhetoric about the need to help address the challenges, but whether parliament will move beyond superficial fixes to tackle the real reforms needed for economic growth remains to be seen.
By the end of the first sitting week, we'll get a much clearer picture of how disunited the opposition really is, as well as how willing the Albanese government is to use its massive majority to really make a difference.
Coming soon: a decade of decline
By any measure, the era of easy money and fiscal complacency should be over.
Yet Australia's federal government appears addicted to spending, and it's neither targeted nor sustainable. The money going out the door is a sign of a bloated government: directionless and increasingly detached from economic reality.
The problem isn't just the size of the budget deficits being forecast; it is the unwillingness to rein it in. Talk that fiscal belt-tightening might be on the way is rife, but I'll believe it when I see it - especially in the costly areas of social spending Labor defines itself by.
Economic output per person - what economists might call per capita GDP - has gone backwards over the past two years. That means the average Australian is producing less, earning less and, in many cases, living less comfortably than they were before.
We're in a productivity recession, even if headline growth figures mask it. And in the face of all that, what has been the government's response? Spend more.
Spending jumped nearly 10 per cent last financial year, at a time when inflation was being reined in and productivity was stagnant.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers knows the fiscal position is untenable without either deep spending cuts or new taxes. He doesn't want to hear that
Worse yet, it's not a one-off sugar hit. Government expenditure is forecast to rise another six per cent this financial year, and anyone who pays attention to the pattern of budget blowouts knows that forecasts usually underestimate spending to come.
The Treasury has already briefed Jim Chalmers that the fiscal position is untenable without either deep spending cuts or new taxes. Chalmers doesn't want to hear that, but the message is clear: Canberra can't keep pretending we can have it all.
Every dollar borrowed today is a dollar taxed tomorrow. Every program extended without reform is a burden passed to the next generation. Yet Labor likes to think of itself as the party that looks out for younger Australians.
Even the employment figures, often brandished by the government as a sign of strong economic management, tell a more worrying story upon closer inspection.
Much of the recent job creation hasn't come from business innovation or private sector growth - it's come from the public sector.
In other words, taxpayers are paying more people to work for taxpayers. It's a closed loop that does little to build real economic dynamism.
And then there's the sleight of hand: off-budget spending. An additional $100billion in liabilities quietly tacked on to the national credit card but kept away from the headline debt figures so as not to scare the horses.
It's financial trickery, plain and simple - and it only works until the public starts asking questions.
The official debt numbers look bad enough as they are. Add in the off-book obligations and it becomes clear we are borrowing like a government that believes interest rates will never rise and productivity will magically rebound.
Older generations leaving huge debt burdens to those who will take over is simply appalling.
Meanwhile, people's living standards are declining right now anyway. That's the human cost of this economic mismanagement: families are cutting back, renters are falling behind, mortgages are stretched and small businesses are going to the wall.
Yet the government seems more interested in announcing new programs than evaluating old ones. That was certainly the case before the last election.
There is a reckoning coming. Either the government finds the courage to trim spending, tackle structural deficits and stop pretending we can endlessly grow the state without growing the economy, or it risks presiding over a decade of decline.
Responsible governance is about making responsible choices. Right now, this government is choosing to kick the can down the road. That must change urgently.
Latham's a grub - but he's entitled to his day in court
And finally, what a week it's been for Mark Latham.
The Labor-leader-turned-One-Nation-agitator has once again found himself at the centre of a political storm, this time over serious allegations made by his ex-partner of two years, former OnlyFans star Nathalie Matthews.
In documents filed to court, Matthews accuses Latham of emotional, physical and sexual abuse during their relationship, including claims of coercive control, non-consensual sex and manipulation through threats and surveillance. Latham denies all of it, describing the accusations as 'comically false and ridiculous'.
Ms Matthews' allegations are serious - but they are untested and no criminal charges have been laid. Latham's would-be assassins in parliament would be wise to remember this
While 'comical' isn't the word I'd use to describe the allegations, the fact remains they are currently untested and no criminal charges have been laid.
But that hasn't stopped the pile-on. Labor MPs have been quick to call for Latham’s resignation from parliament—an understandable political reflex perhaps, but one that walks dangerously close to pre-emptive punishment without due process.
This is where the reaction gets troubling.
However grubby the allegations may be—and they are as grubby as they come—Latham hasn’t been found guilty by a jury, let alone sentenced to jail or been bankrupted.
Under federal rules, that’s the threshold for disqualification from parliamentary office—yet state parliaments now reflexively call for resignations at the first sign of controversy.
None of this excuses the conduct—if proven—but the point I’m trying to make is that nothing has been proven. Parliament shouldn’t be in the business of short-circuiting the courts.
The premier and other MPs may find Latham repugnant—many of us do—but until the justice system has had its say, he is entitled to his seat—as frustrating as that may be to many.
I say all of this as someone who Mark Latham has publicly attacked many times before, so I’m certainly no Latham apologist.
If the allegations hold, there will be consequences. But until then, the law, not political outrage, is what matters.