By Andrew Klein and Sera Elizabeth Klein

Reader’s note: We do not need readers to agree with us. We need them to check the sources, test the argument, and reach their own conclusion — even if that conclusion is that we are wrong.

Abstract

This paper examines the performance of the Albanese Labor government against its pre-election commitments and its stated principles, from its election in May 2022 to September 2026. It documents a consistent pattern: promises made are broken; social programs are cut while military spending rises; algorithmic systems of governance are deployed to process citizens as data points while removing avenues of appeal; and the government’s rhetorical commitment to international law is contradicted by its ongoing material support for the state of Israel. The paper argues that these are not failures of governance but the operational logic of an extraction model that services the data point, not the human. It concludes that the government has made a clear choice about its priorities — and that the governed must now decide whether to accept the terms of a relationship that was never offered, only imposed.

I. Introduction: The Pattern and the Question

On 11 May 2026, the Albanese government handed down a federal budget that broke a core election promise. The Prime Minister had said, before the election, fifty times by the Opposition’s count, that there would be “no changes to capital gains tax, no changes to negative gearing, no changes to trusts“. The budget changed all three.

This is not an isolated incident. It is the latest data point in a pattern that has become the defining feature of the Albanese government’s tenure: the systematic prioritisation of the interests of the powerful and the profitable over the needs of the vulnerable and the governed.

This paper examines that pattern across six domains: promises broken, algorithmic governance, social policy failure, the war economy, the global context, and the contradiction of Gaza. It asks a single question: is this a government out of its depth, or one that has made a clear choice about its priorities?

The evidence points to the latter.

II. Promises Broken: The Rhetoric vs. The Reality

2.1 Negative Gearing and Capital Gains Tax

The government’s most significant broken promise is on housing tax policy. Before the 2022 election, Anthony Albanese committed repeatedly to leaving negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount untouched. In May 2026, the government announced it would “restrict negative gearing tax perks and impose a minimum 30% tax rate on profits from assets and family trusts“.

The changes mean negative gearing will only apply to newly built investment properties, and the capital gains tax discount will be reduced from July 2027. The government frames this as “rebalancing” and addressing “intergenerational inequity“. The Opposition frames it as a broken promise — and they are correct. The Prime Minister admits the backflip, saying his government “felt compelled to act”.

The deeper issue is not the policy change itself. It is that the government told the electorate one thing and did another. The tax breaks remain largely intact for existing investors, while first-home buyers continue to face a market where the median house value is 8.9 times the average income.

2.2 Regional Australia

The government’s broken promises extend beyond tax. A parliamentary matter of public importance in May 2026 catalogued the impact on regional Australia: “cut by cut, brick by brick, bringing down the foundations of regional Australia”. The pattern of broken commitments to regional communities mirrors the pattern at the national level: promises made to secure votes, abandoned once in office.

2.3 The Trust Deficit

The consequence is a collapse of public trust. By September 2026, “more than half of voters don’t trust Albanese”. The government’s response has been to double down on the same strategies — spending, messaging, and the deployment of algorithmic systems to manage the consequences of its choices.

III. The Algorithmic Assault on the Vulnerable

3.1 The NDIS and the I-CAN Tool

The government’s approach to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is a case study in the use of algorithms as a “quick fix” that masks a deeper failure of governance.

The centrepiece of the NDIS overhaul is the I-CAN assessment tool, which will determine funding levels for participants. The Australian Psychological Society (APS) — the peak professional body for psychologists — has stated bluntly: “There is an absence of evidence that the tool is valid for the populations and purposes to which it is being applied”. The APS warns that the I-CAN was “normed and validated on a narrow set of circumstances,” and extending its use to broader disability contexts “runs the risk of producing unreliable or biased outcomes”.

The APS’s submission to the government is not merely technical. It warns of foreseeable psychological harm. The “increased emphasis on an algorithmically-informed and decontextualised planning process” threatens to “erode the individualised, participant-centric approach that is fundamental to the Scheme“. It undermines epistemic trust, reduces safety and autonomy, and promotes “institutional disempowerment”.

3.2 No Right to Appeal

The most damning provision of the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 is Section 59E(3). It states that a failure to comply with the safeguards for automated decision-making “does not affect the validity of the administrative action taken by the operation of a computer program”.

In plain language: if the algorithm gets it wrong, the decision stands. There is no appeal.

The practical consequence is that if NDIS participants appeal against their plans to the Administrative Review Tribunal, the ART “will no longer have the authority to alter a person’s plan or reinstate funding“. The right of appeal — a foundational principle of administrative law — is being removed for the most vulnerable Australians.

3.3 Palantir’s Involvement

The government has denied using Palantir’s technology. The FOI documents tell a different story.

Engagement between the NDIA and Palantir ran from April 2023 to February 2024, including a “Proof of Concept,” Palantir’s Foundry Cloud Architecture Diagram and Security Whitepaper, and multiple documents titled “Palantir Technologies — Failed Payments NDIA“. The NDIA’s own security architect flagged that Palantir did not hold the required government security clearance at the time. The engagement continued anyway.

In November 2025, Palantir received Protected-level security clearance — the level at which NDIS participant files sit. The NDIA declined to release all 22 documents relating to the engagement, citing business information exemptions.

The Guardian revealed in September 2026 that NDIS participant data may have ended up in Palantir’s analytics platform as part of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, a 25-agency body led by the NDIA and Services Australia. The ACIC, which has used Palantir, is responsible for the Fraud Fusion Centre, which brings in “large volumes of information, data and intelligence”.

The NDIA confirmed it was sharing participant information with the taskforce. An FOI officer revealed reluctance to process a request for records because “the process for ingesting one FFC dataset into Palantir generates an amount of documents that … would likely not be manageable”.

3.4 The Mass Removal of Participants

The government plans to remove 160,000 people from the NDIS over four years. Internal documents show that two-thirds of those affected will be children. More than half of all NDIS participants are children under 18. The government is shifting children aged eight and under with autism or developmental delays onto state-based “Thriving Kids” programs — programs that, in many cases, do not yet exist.

3.5 The Robodebt Echo

The APS’s warnings, the removal of appeal rights, and the involvement of Palantir are a deliberate echo of the Robodebt scheme. The Royal Commission found Robodebt was “a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal”. It recommended a legislated framework for automated decision-making and an independent body to monitor it.

The government chose haste over these safeguards. The result is a system where the algorithm is always right and the human has no recourse.

IV. A Legacy of Neglect: Social Policy Failures

4.1 Aged Care

More than 230,000 Australians are waiting for aged-care services. The average wait time is 12 months. 5,000 people have died while on the waiting list in the past year.

The government’s own data shows more than 4,800 people died in 2024–25 while waiting for their approved home care funding. The number of older Australians stuck in hospital awaiting aged care has doubled in a decade — from 14,700 to 29,600 separations a year.

Aged Care Minister Anika Wells has been accused of “dumping” wait-time data in the Senate on budget night to avoid scrutiny. The Minister for Aged Care has refused to take responsibility for the deaths.

4.2 Child Poverty

Approximately 757,000 children — roughly one in six under the age of 15 — are growing up in households below the poverty line after housing costs. Australia ranks in the bottom half (28 out of 40) of wealthy countries for income inequality.

More than one in three children in single-parent families live below the poverty line. Nearly 1 in 10 experience severe poverty. Nearly 40 per cent of children leave school without basic proficiency in reading and mathematics.

The government’s budget has failed to deliver for these children. The policy focus remains on tax reform for investors, not income support for families.

4.3 Veterans Affairs

Two years after the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, the veterans’ affairs portfolio “remains a mess“. The Commission chair publicly criticised “decades-long catastrophic leadership failures at the highest levels”.

The government achieved only three of 13 correctness targets in veterans’ services. All twelve timeliness and correctness measures associated with one program were reported as “not achieved“. Veterans describe a system “geared to frustrate the veteran to the point of giving up and disappearing into themselves”.

4.4 JobSeeker Poverty and Mortality

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s 2026 report found that people on unemployment payments have a mortality rate more than nine times higher than those outside the welfare system. Of the 287,000 people aged 22–64 who died between 2012 and 2022, almost three in five received income support.

The report showed higher rates of “deaths of despair” associated with alcohol, drugs and self-harm. Alcoholic liver disease fatalities were 21 times more prevalent among income support recipients.

JobSeeker payments remain below the poverty line, at approximately 43.5% of the minimum wage. The government has not raised the rate.

V. The War Economy: Prioritising Coercion over Care

5.1 AUKUS Spending

While social programs are cut, the government is committing unprecedented sums to the machinery of war.

Australia’s 2026 Integrated Investment Program outlines $53 billion in investment across all warfare domains over the coming decade. There is up to $130 billion for undersea warfare supporting the AUKUS submarine program, and up to $77 billion in frigates and destroyers.

The total AUKUS program is expected to cost as much as US$250 billion over 30 years. Australia has already budgeted and spent $5.3 billion AUD on the program in the previous fiscal year — $2 billion over initial projections through additional payments to the US and UK to uplift their respective submarine industrial bases.

5.2 Support for Ukraine

Australia has provided over $1.8 billion in assistance to Ukraine, including more than $1.6 billion in military assistance since the start of the conflict. The government announced an additional $100 million in June 2026, with two $50 million contributions to the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List over the next 12 months.

The Australian Defence Force is training Ukrainian personnel in Poland under Operation Legio. Australia has trained 3,650 personnel and provided over $1.7 billion supporting Ukraine.

5.3 The Arithmetic

The NDIS cut of $37.8 billion over four years is roughly matched by the increase in defence spending over the same period. The government has chosen to fund the machinery of coercion while withdrawing the machinery of care.

VI. The Global Context: A World on Edge

6.1 The Strait of Hormuz and Fuel Security

The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has created a global energy crisis. The Prime Minister has said the blockade is “cutting out about 20 per cent of the global fuel supply“. Around 50 tankers are en route to Australia as the government scrambles to secure supplies.

The crisis has exposed Australia’s vulnerability. The nation relies heavily on imported refined fuel. The government has secured extra diesel from Brunei and South Korea, and extra fertiliser purchases from Malaysia.

The longer-term consequences are severe. Australia faces a 25% wheat yield cut risk if the disruption forces a 45% reduction in nitrogen fertilizer application. The Reserve Bank expects a full normalisation of shipping only by mid-2027.

6.2 AI and Data Centres

The government is fast-tracking data centre approvals before the legislation to regulate them is written. Dozens of approved but yet-to-be-built AI data centre projects will escape the federal government’s proposed restrictions around energy and water use because the new rules are not expected to be retrospective.

The combined capacity of the approved but unbuilt 25 data centres is at least 2.9 gigawatts — nearly double the existing 1.5 GW of data centre capacity in Australia. The legislation is not expected until early 2027.

6.3 Climate Change

Australia faces severe climate projections, including up to a 1.4°C temperature increase by mid-century and a 50% reduction in streamflow in parts of the country. The government’s response has been to prioritise data centre approvals and military spending over climate adaptation and mitigation.

VII. The Ethical Chasm: Duty vs. Contempt

The government’s actions fit Albert Bandura’s mechanisms of moral disengagement.

Displacement of Responsibility: The government shifts blame for difficult decisions onto a “neutral” algorithm, absolving itself of accountability for human consequences. The I-CAN tool, Section 59E(3), and the Palantir engagement are all mechanisms for diffusing responsibility.

Euphemistic Labelling: Language like “Securing the NDIS for Future Generations” masks the reality of a system that strips funding and appeal rights from the vulnerable. “Sustainability” masks cuts. “Efficiency” masks the removal of human judgment.

Distortion of Consequences: The focus on saving money and eliminating “fraud” ignores the real human cost — the suffering and harm that the APS explicitly warned about. The 5,000 aged care deaths on waitlists are not in the budget papers. The 757,000 children in poverty are not in the fiscal strategy.

Dehumanisation: The citizen is processed as a data point. The disabled person is a funding category. The aged care resident is a waitlist number. The JobSeeker recipient is a mortality statistic.

VIII. The Gaza Contradiction

The government’s claim to be a “stalwart of international law” is sharply contradicted by its ongoing support for Israel.

Australia continues to export F-35 fighter jet components to Israel through a secret pipeline that has sent 80 documented shipments between October 2023 and February 2026. The shipments include a gasket for the F-35’s 25mm cannon — a lethal component, not a “non-lethal” part.

The government summoned the Israeli envoy over the decision not to prosecute the killing of Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom, but took no meaningful punitive action. It has not imposed a trade ban, opting instead for a sanctions package that critics say is insufficient.

The government continues to provide diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations while claiming to uphold international law.

IX. Conclusion: The Desert and the Budget Victory

The evidence is clear. The Albanese government is not failing. It is performing as designed. It is an extraction model that services the data point, not the human.

The “budget victory” is the narrative that hides the consequences — the 5,000 aged care deaths, the 757,000 children in poverty, the 160,000 disabled people removed from the NDIS.

The AI control point is the mechanism that hides the scrutiny — the Office of AI in the Prime Minister’s Department, the fast-tracked data centres, the Palantir contracts.

The data point democracy is the political form that processes citizens as data — the I-CAN tool, Section 59E(3), the algorithmic assessment of need.

The desert is real. It has boundaries. And the government is building the infrastructure to guard them.

The question is not whether the Albanese government will change. It will not. The question is whether the governed will continue to accept the terms of a relationship that was never offered, only imposed.

References

1. ABC Listen. (2026, May 13). Budget 2026: broken promises or a rebalancing of wealth? https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/pm/budget-2026-broken-promises-or-a-rebalancing-of-wealth-/106676638

2. Australian Psychological Society. (2026, March 6). APS Submission to the Consultation on a New Framework Planning Rules. https://psychology.org.au

3. Michael West Media. (2026, August 17). Robodebt on Steroids. Palantir eyes NDIS. https://michaelwest.com.au/robodebt-on-steroids-palantir-infiltrates-ndis/

4. The Guardian. (2026, September 9). NDIS data may have ended up in Palantir’s analytics platform. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/09/ndis-data-may-have-ended-up-in-palantirs-analytics-platform

5. Eureka Street. (2026, March 27). The children Australia chooses to leave behind. https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/the-children-australia-chooses-to-leave-behind

6. OpenAustralia. (2026, May 27). Mallee Electorate: Aged Care. https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2026-05-27.140.2

7. The Nightly. (2026, September 10). Welfare recipients face increased death rate. https://thenightly.com.au/australia/welfare-recipients-face-increased-death-rate-australian-institute-of-health-and-welfare-report-c-22853910

8. Defence News. (2026, April 30). Preparing for Australia’s strategic challenges. https://news.defence.gov.au/airforce/workplace/2026-04-30/preparing-australias-strategic-challenges

9. Minister for Defence. (2026, June 19). Australia boosts support for Ukraine’s defence. https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2026-06-19/australia-boosts-support-ukraines-defence

10. ABC News. (2026, September 11). The bigger, hungrier AI data centres set to escape looming water and power restrictions. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-11/the-ai-data-centres-set-to-escape-planned-restrictions/107097556

11. ABC News. (2026, April 17). Anthony Albanese braces for economic consequences from protracted Strait of Hormuz blockade. https://newsapp.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-17/anthony-albanese-fuel-and-fetrtiliser-deals-strait-of-hormuz/106573904

12. Health.gov.au. (2026, August 25). Radio interview with Minister Butler, ABC Perth. https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-mark-butler-mp/media/radio-interview-with-minister-butler-abc-perth-25-august-2026

13. Parliament of Australia. (2026). NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. https://www.aph.gov.au

14. The Australian Greens. (2026, July 16). Labor using disabled kids and families to balance the budget. https://greens.org.au

15. ABC News. (2026, September 21). Older Australians continue to die on home support aged care waitlists. https://newsapp.abc.net.au

16. OpenAustralia. (2026, June 30). House debates. https://www.openaustralia.org.au

17. WA Today. (2026, September 13). More than half of voters don’t trust Albanese. https://www.watoday.com.au

18. SBS News. (2026, July 24). Australia announces fresh $3.2 bn for nuclear subs. https://www.bssnews.net

19. Breaking Defense. (2026, May 12). Australia unveils $45.2 billion defense budget with ramp up in AUKUS spending. https://breakingdefense.com

20. Australian Parliamentary Library. (2026). Mortality outcomes among people receiving income support. https://www.aihw.gov.au

Verification note: Every factual claim in this paper should be checked against the sources provided. Readers are encouraged to verify independently. If any claim does not hold, it should be discarded. The analysis of the government’s ethical framework is interpretive and is offered as a lens for further investigation, not as an established finding.

The paper documents the broken promises, the algorithmic assault on the vulnerable, the social policy failures, the war economy, the global context, and the Gaza contradiction. The core argument is that this is not a government out of its depth but one that has made a clear choice about its priorities.