There are reshuffles and there are reshuffles.
The first kind of ministerial redesign occurs after an election. In that situation, the frontbench lineup that goes into the election campaign is often not the lineup that comes out, whether through the decisions of voters or the leader.
The second is the kind of reshuffle that happens mid-term. That is quite a different exercise.
After an election, a prime minister starts with a blank page and the authority of having won an election. That’s the time for maximum creativity in who gets put where, for rewards and occasional retribution, if they’re into that, and for signposting what your government cares most and least about through how portfolios are crafted. Win again and it’s that and more.
A reshuffle between elections is a whole other thing. Mid-term reshuffles are driven either by retirements or political necessity. Sometimes, as in the current case, it’s both.
Many factors influencing the shape of a reshuffle are constant whether it comes after or before an election – factional and geographical representation in the ministry, seniority, gender, praetorian calculations about political allies and possible threats and, of course, merit. The priority order of these can change according to timing and circumstance.
Ministerial retirements make a frontbench redesign unavoidable. Retirements aren’t always at the time of a prime minister’s choosing. They also aren’t always voluntary. The voluntary ones are mostly foreshadowed privately and can be negotiated to fit a timetable that has a political upside.
Sometimes would-be retirees might need a sweetener to wait a bit longer. In extreme cases, more stick than carrot may be involved but the carrot is usually more effective.
Retirements can also be suggested, requested or at least encouraged, to create the opportunity for a reshuffle needed for other reasons. Sweeteners can really help here, diplomatic or other posts in particular.
If there aren’t any retirements pending when change is required, things can get ugly and people may have to be demoted or even sacked. Prime ministers don’t like doing that unless absolutely necessary because it causes unrest among those whose votes keep them in the leadership. If a minister has failed egregiously though, they’ll likely cop it, whether there’s the figleaf of others’ retirements to justify a reshuffle or not.
The most brutal reshuffles are the ones driven by the need to reverse political fortunes when a government is in, or heading for, serious trouble. They’re the ones most likely to involve sackings and demotions, when a prime minister cannot avoid acknowledging clearly and openly that things have gone wrong and must be fixed.
Despite some of his critics believing it should be, the one Anthony Albanese will announce on Sunday isn’t one of those. He doesn’t appear minded to declare anything’s gone wrong.
Officially, it’s driven by a pair of retirements. Albanese also needs to freshen things up and address some political problems and one in particular, in the immigration portfolio.
The key to understanding why it probably won’t be a bloodbath lies in what Albanese has said and done, this week and historically. It’s in the narrative he’s woven around the retirements and in his views on continuity and loyalty.
At a news conference to honour the two stepping down from the ministry before retiring from politics at the next election, Indigenous affairs minister Linda Burney and skills and training minister Brendan O’Connor, Albanese carefully framed his coming reshuffle around stability. He separated the resignations from the reshuffle deliberately, so he could explain the latter in the way he wants.
“No government in living memory has had the same cabinet and ministerial positions for its first two years in office,” Albanese declared. “…At the next election, I will be seeking to be the first prime minister since John Howard in 2004 to serve out a term and to be re-elected as prime minister.”
That’s the public context for what he’s about to do. It’s the first part of what all prime ministers want from a reshuffle and what Malcolm Turnbull clumsily called “continuity and change” – a line that was unfortunately straight out of US TV comedy Veep.
Albanese’s is not a message of ‘I admit we messed up and I’m changing things’. It’s being badged as the natural order of things, what governments always do to freshen up. Just business as usual. Nothing to see here. He is also a person who served six years in a single portfolio – infrastructure and transport. He’s not into change for the sake of it.
Albanese doesn’t want this reshuffle to look defensive and demoting people effectively does that. Immigration minister Andrew Giles, his close factional ally, is expected to be moved sideways but not down.
Moving Giles acknowledges that his handling of aspects of the portfolio has created political problems for the government. Not sacking or demoting him is in line with Albanese’s belief that political problems like these are not a good enough reason to sack someone. His benchmark for that is higher, at corruption and the like.
Given he needs to do this as a circuit-breaker, Albanese might have hoped he’d have a few more retirement-driven vacancies to give him room to recast the frontbench in a way that hides its defensive dimensions.
When he let it be known a couple of months back that anyone thinking about retiring should alert him by the time the winter parliamentary break began in July, he may have thought some others could be encouraged to think about it. Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, 67, and NDIS minister Bill Shorten, 57, are two whose names have come up in dispatches.
But not even the possibility of an ambassadorial post in Paris persuaded Shorten to jump and Dreyfus is equally uninterested in leaving the arena. So the prime minister was left with only the two spots. That calls for some lateral thinking.
Maybe he’ll defy the strictures of these circumstances and be a bit adventurous. Just spitballing here, but maybe he might abolish the job of assistant minister for indigenous affairs now held by Northern Territory senator Malarndirri McCarthy who will replace Linda Burney in the main portfolio. That would leave room for some other moves.
In a key interview after announcing her ministerial resignation and pending retirement from politics, Burney seemed to be sending a message.
“I’m really proud of the fact that my Cabinet colleagues are all coming to understand in a very real way that it’s not just my job to do Aboriginal affairs, it’s everyone’s job,” she said on ABC TV’s 7.30 program on Thursday.
It’s not a point she’s made as emphatically before. It sounded like something you might say to explain a coming decision that some could find disappointing.
If Albanese combined a couple of portfolios, or parts thereof, he could make space for something new. Maybe immigration is elevated to cabinet and added to an existing minister’s remit. Maybe there’s even a new outer-ministry portfolio. Something like a social inclusion portfolio could be a good fit for Andrew Giles, possibly even within the prime minister’s own department. It’s certainly an issue on which he is extremely focused.
Then there’s that soon-to-be-vacant diplomatic job in Paris. Someone may still be willing to say ‘oui, merci’ to that. Incidentally, the high commissioner’s job in Ottawa is going soon, too. It’s a Five-Eyes country, so that might be dangled. A couple of other potentially attractive posts are also upcoming.
This is the kind of thinking that goes into a mid-term reshuffle. The detail is just conjecture – the parlour-game guesses of those who watch politics. Of course it’s only the prime minister who really knows. And he ain’t saying til Sunday.