By Mark Kenny

A version of this article was originally published by The Canberra Times.

If only our body-politic could check itself in to a well-being retreat for a spot of detoxification and mindfulness training.

A cleansing, quieting month or two, free of the cacophonous vanities of fame, the tinny verities of the news cycle and the breezy mendacity of social media.

What insights would emerge and what changes might this introspection give rise to? It seems likely that an honest re-evaluation of longstanding forms and norms would warrant searching and fundamental questions. Not just from governments but voters, too.

What serves and strengthens participation, what no longer does?

This year had been trumpeted as a high-water mark for elections globally, but it comes amid a sharp downturn in democratic integrity, international security and respect for the rules based order.

Major democracies are not just drowning in rancour but are now seen as rank hypocrites for lecturing the global south about multilateral rules and human rights until they are required to sanction a favoured ally or start losing votes domestically. The attacks on the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court by Biden Administration and Britain’s Sunak government give the lie to universally applied laws and standards.

These are the trying circumstances in which Anthony Albanese is attempting to mount a persuasive argument that his government is not only navigating turbulent crosscurrents but is steering HMAS Australia into safe and propitious waters in the decades ahead.

It wasn’t exactly a meditative retreat but I sat down with an uncommonly reflective Prime Minister on Thursday for the Democracy Sausage podcast to discuss his first two years in the job, his vision for Australia’s economy, the performance his own team, the failure of the Voice referendum, and deepening problems in our media and digital discourses.

On the subject of Peter Dutton, Albanese was most formulaic, describing his opponent as defined by a “relentless negativity” and as being “a Tony Abbott tribute band”.

“Peter Dutton … has conceded his priority has been keeping his party room together and that's a party room that has shifted further and further to the right, has become more and more conservative,” he said.

On Dutton’s front bench members, he said “they certainly don't compare with the benefit that I have of an extremely experienced and capable and competent team...”

That, of course, is a matter of perspective. Undoubtedly the government’s pointiest vulnerability with an election due within a year is immigration and the oft-conflated issues of asylum seeker policy, community safety and border protection.

Indeed “excessive” immigration has been blamed for housing unaffordability, soaring rents, traffic jams, GP access, a crime spree and more.

This ‘law and borders’ framing is Dutton’s chosen territory, his happy place politically.

Which is why Labor’s handling of the High Court’s bombshell ruling late last year rendering indefinite administrative detention unlawful, was hardly ideal. Slow, but unsteady, it inevitably prompted talk of a reshuffle.

The main arguments against such an event are that it would be depicted by Dutton’s media barrackers as a win, while also causing resentment in the caucus. Never to be taken lightly.

Given that, I found it interesting that the PM did not comprehensively rule out a reshuffle when asked.

“Well, yeah, at some stage if we are re-elected, or perhaps even before. You make some changes, inevitably that occurs, but I think the stability of the team has been a real strength,” he said.

Relaxing into the more expansive podcast vibe, his most revelatory comments came on the poor quality of political journalism and on the descent into crass incivility on social media.

On the former, he railed at the shallowness of analysis, slammed “clickbait” reporting and called out blatant partisanship.

"There are some journalists who are more stenographers, in particular on the right wing. They are a cheer squad."

Here he is on strong ground. The hyperbolic reporting of his decision to alter the stage 3 tax cuts had focused primarily on the supposed political mistake of breaking a promise. Few reporters seemed to think through what was obvious – that Dutton would inevitably vote for the reconfiguration himself, so politically logical (read popular) was the new formula.

“They're not talking about any of those issues now. I think if you showed it to some of the journalists, they might be embarrassed by some of the commentary that was there.”

Again, such criticisms are not novel but rarely has a sitting prime minister been so frank, given the power of the press to hit back.

Social media is another area where he did not hold fire, lamenting what he called “the level of hatred” it normalises.

"I can't believe that people would face-to-face say that to anybody else. Reprehensible, violent, threatening. It can be quite extraordinary.

"I think the debate about our youngest Australians and access to social media will broaden very quickly into a debate about social media in general, what the impact is, what the impact of the internet is, and to a debate about our society.”

That debate will be as confronting for those given a voice by social media, as are his reflections on journalists. But it must be had.

Julia Gillard famously counselled journalists, “don’t write crap”.

As a society where anyone can be a public contributor, we must find a way of extending that economical advice to ourselves.

If you wouldn’t say it “IRL” (in real life), don’t say it online. And never hide behind anonymity.

As a code of behaviour, this is neither hard nor new. It simply involves being an adult.

Mark Kenny is the Director of the ANU Australian Studies Institute and host of the Democracy Sausage podcast.