(Image: Mitchell Squire/Private Media)

The biggest contrast between the Albanese government and the Morrison government is that the former believes in active governing and using power to effect change, while the latter believed only in the performance of government and using power to stifle change.

But so far Labor has proved adept at the performance as well.

For Morrison, true to his marketing roots, government was only ever about the next media release, the next announcement, the next press conference. Press gallery journalists marvelled at what a great campaigner he was, seemingly unaware that not merely was he a very limited campaigner — relying on culture war bullshit and demonising his opponents’ policies — but that that was all he was. The campaign, the performance, the media conference was government for Morrison.

For Labor, so far, the performance is in the service of governing. Its summit that starts tomorrow is an elaborate performance, a two-day piece of theatre designed to convey the message of a different style of governing — more consultative, less divisive. It will also furnish political cover for policy decisions that entail some political risk — a significant increase in immigration, a return to industry bargaining, a loosening of the better off overall test requirements.

Both the government and the union movement have understood this and used the summit to heavily push their agenda. Within business groups, however, there appears to be less comprehension. The Business Council — after a decade of wholly tone-deaf and ineffectual attempts to influence policy in Canberra — has figured it out. Its language and willingness to engage even on once-forbidden issues like industry bargaining have been in marked contrast to other employer groups. Small business lobby COSBOA has also seized on it to lift its profile and made a real splash with its agreement with the ACTU to consider industry bargaining.

At the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, however, it’s more business as usual. The contrast has prompted The Australian Financial Review — where the only reform agenda considered worth pursuing is punishing workers, slashing government spending and cutting company tax and regulation — to lament that business is divided and being outplayed.

More likely, business has grown used to inactive government, one focused on achieving and changing nothing except delivering for its key donors.

Under the Coalition, and particularly in the Morrison years, business lobby groups struggled to make an impact. They would make submissions to inquiries, issue reports, comment on topical matters and call for reforms, but the real game of influencing policy was for individual businesses via political donations, access to ministers and engaging the political strategists of the Coalition as lobbyists. That was the way policy outcomes were secured, not by Canberra-based peak groups convincing politicians of the merits of policy, but by corporations buying them.

Now the game has changed, and not merely because there’s a Labor government and the people buying access and policy are now the heads of major unions. The Morrison model of governing — keep the status quo, suppress wages, dispense favours for mates — was fit only for the pre-pandemic world. Not merely has the pandemic changed expectations about the responsibilities of government, it coincided with the emergence of major policy challenges: the unsustainable inadequacy of Australia’s climate and energy policies, the start of a growing shortage of skilled workers globally, which will likely be a problem for the rest of the century, Russia, China and a much riskier global environment, major pressures in key health and caring industries, growing populism driven by disaffection toward government.

In most of these issues, business is just as much under the hammer as workers and households, giving a greater opportunity for collaboration and consultation. For example, the resolutely anti-worker and anti-union Australian Industry Group has been significantly more “progressive” on climate issues in recent years than climate denialist unions such as the AWU or the mining division of the CFMMEU. Those stuck viewing public policy through the prism of business versus workers — which sums up the perspective of the Fin, for example — are missing the broader policy picture.

Despite all those changes, the fundamentals of politics don’t change. Expect Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers to milk the performative aspects of Thursday and Friday as much as possible, regardless of what policy outcomes emerge from the talks.

Do you have more faith in the jobs and skills summit than Keane? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.