'People rather than profits': Is this the start of a move away from privatisation?

Its brimming self-confidence defied the economic orthodoxy to redefine what is possible, even crucial, for governments in an electorate cleaved by disappointment and hungry for disruption.

What was this image? A smiling Peter Malinauskas with others in a train carriage brandishing placards proclaiming "Back in Public Hands".

As the South Australian Labor Premier enthused, the state government had taken over Adelaide's privately operated train system as promised. The city's tram network would follow suit.

"Critical public services should be owned by the public operating for the interest of people rather than profits," Malinauskas told media.

Even the state's Liberal opposition has no plans to reverse the move in future.

So what? Well, for roughly four decades, voters have been told by both sides of politics -"lectured" is a better description - that governments have no business owning things and even less running them.

The Hawke-Keating period (1983-1996) is revered by many - particularly journalists - as the great awakening when Labor decided that capital investment held the key to an efficient dynamic economy. Privatisation, financial deregulation, the removal of industry protection and centralised wage fixation. These modernised the economy and dealt Labor into the real game of economic management.

Valuable government assets were sold off, including the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, airports, and many state functions, from water and electricity to prisons. Toll roads blossomed.

Politically, the approach stole ground from the Coalition, contributing to its longest-ever exile on the opposition benches.

Early dividends were considerable. A new narrow government consensus put Australia on a near-unique glide path to 30 years of unbroken growth.

Yet as the years progressed, there was a sense that having made the philosophical conversion, Labor had become trapped in its vortex, transfixed by its new faith in markets and blind to other possibilities.

By definition, asset disposal is a finite process. In any event, it has lost its public allure. Markets have disappointed or failed. Private corporations, originally relied on to bring competitive pricing, have become monopolies themselves or settled into comfortable duopolies.

Customers feel trapped, ignored, alienated. They cannot speak to a real person to complain or query. Accountability is farcical. Reliability - think air travel - is a wistful memory. Fares for cancelled flights, concerts and sporting events are practically unrecoverable.

Meanwhile, essential services have often deteriorated. Public hospitals are overcrowded and underfunded, aged care is understaffed, and early childhood learning is expensive and unavailable in too many areas.

Should we be surprised that faith in governments has followed the same downward trajectory as their willingness to directly service their publics?

Some within Labor, and evidently Malinauskas is one of them, have clocked the mood change and recognise the opportunity it affords for a new-old concept, activist government. The Coalition is also stirring.

Both have concluded that voters are no longer change-averse per se which has probably been the working assumption among party strategists since the 1970s.

Headlines in recent days suggest government as economic participant might be coming back, sometimes directly, other times as an enforcer of baseline services where the profit motive is the problem.

Last week, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced that the Big Four banks had agreed (however reluctantly) to a federal government deal to cease regional branch closures until 2027.

Government browbeating had been used to protect powerless customers in regional economies.

It was also revealed last week that the Regional Express airline, Rex, would be acquired by the federal government if a private buyer cannot be found. It is noteworthy that even in the extremis of COVID, no such lifeline was extended to Virgin, nor was the no-frills Bonza kept operational when it faced collapse only a year ago.

The Rex guarantee would make the Commonwealth an airline owner for the first time since the 1990s, putting the taxpayer on the hook for some $580 million.

A cynic would say this merely reflects Labor's electoral vulnerabilities in the regions. Fair enough, but it is also true that a public sea-change has made the continuance of vital community services facing market failure not just expedient but expected.

READ MORE FROM MARK KENNY

Then there's the mother of all market snubs - Peter Dutton's heroic switch to government-owned and operated nuclear energy in the 2040s. The costings are a matter of wild dispute between Labor's claim of $600 billion-plus and Dutton's $331 billion. Either way, it's a big idea for a big government program from the party of small government.

Can Albanese match it for vision? His government has some hard-won mechanisms in play in the housing space but these work mainly with the property market to incentivise private construction and ownership.

If addressing the structural housing shortage is the heart of the problem, why not build affordable dwellings for rent and do it at scale? Governments used to do this. It worked.

Malinauskas, whose government led the feds on age-related social media bans, is high-profile and popular. He was rated "best foreign politician" in 2024 by The Rest is Politics - Britain's number one-rated political podcast. And he was given nine out of 10 at home by SA's respected political doyen, 7News's Mike Smithson.

Living proof that voters will embrace bold new ideas and even good, old ones.