As the next federal election looms, the Albanese Government is preparing to campaign under a new slogan: “Building Australia’s Future”. _

_

It continues a trend of future-focused messaging, following 2022’s “A Better Future”. Yet, for all its forward-looking optimism, what’s conspicuously absent from both major parties is a meaningful conversation about who benefits from that growth – and who is being left behind.

The current government is keen to highlight its economic credentials. Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Employment Minister Murray Watt have recently spoken at length about record workforce participation, a historically low unemployment rate, and more than 1.1 million jobs created since Labor took office. According to The New Daily, the average unemployment rate under Albanese has been 3.8% – the lowest for any Australian Government since Gough Whitlam.

But beneath these headline figures lies a complex and troubling reality. The oft-cited unemployment rate is a poor proxy for economic inclusion. It only counts those actively seeking work and available to start, omitting large groups of people – underemployed workers, those in insecure jobs, carers, the long-term discouraged, and many in regional or structurally disadvantaged areas. Framing low unemployment as evidence of success ignores the fundamental question: what kind of employment, and for whom?

This question is especially critical in an economy increasingly characterised by structural unemployment. Unlike frictional unemployment, which reflects short-term transitions between jobs, structural unemployment is entrenched. It stems from systemic mismatches between people’s skills, education, or location and the jobs available – driven by automation, offshoring, and the transformation or collapse of entire industries. It cannot be addressed by job search programs or training courses alone.

Yet both sides of politics continue to treat all unemployment as if it were frictional. Labor’s Working Future white paper gestures at inclusion but remains tethered to outdated economic frameworks, particularly the NAIRU—Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment. This deeply flawed concept suggests there is a level of unemployment below which inflation becomes unsustainable. But it is not observable, has proven unstable, and assumes a labour market dominated by frictional unemployment.

The reality is that the policy levers required to address structural unemployment — such as regional investment, retraining programs, and long-term industry transformation — often take years to show results. They are crucial, but slow-moving. Worse, they can distort short-term labour market signals used by monetary policy, such as participation rates or average earnings. Interest rate decisions, driven by concerns about frictional inflationary pressures, can inadvertently punish parts of the economy where structural reforms are just beginning to take hold.

This mismatch of policy levers — trying to fix structural problems with frictional tools — produces confused and ineffective outcomes. It helps explain why Australia has consistently under-invested in active labour market policies, such as co-ordinated job matching, transitional income support, and re-skilling linked to real demand. According to the OECD’s Employment Outlook, Australia lags behind peer nations on ALMP spending, favouring individualised compliance (like mutual obligations) over systemic support.

Meanwhile, the Coalition offers no meaningful counterpoint – just rhetorical complaints about “reckless spending” and a promise to return to “back-to-basics economics". Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor has blamed Labor for labour shortages, alleging an artificial tightening of the labour market through growth in non-market sectors like health and education. But this critique ignores the fact that these sectors reflect real and growing community needs, especially as Australia’s population ages.

Both parties avoid the real conversation: how to deliver equitable, inclusive, and secure work in a structurally transformed economy. That would mean addressing under-employment, regional economic disparity, skill mismatches, and long-term unemployment with the seriousness they demand. It would involve investment in community-led economic development, co-ordinated education and employment pipelines, and ongoing industry transition planning – not just infrastructure announcements or training subsidies.

This failure of imagination is not benign. It leaves a growing number of Australians stranded, while political leaders congratulate themselves on misleading statistics. Until policymakers engage honestly with the distinction between frictional and structural unemployment — and recognise the limits of the metrics and models they cling to — no serious progress can be made.

In this election cycle, voters would do well to interrogate the promises of “growth”. Growth for whom? Growth of what? Without a new approach to how we define, measure, and address unemployment, we can expect more of the same: under-investment, neglect, and a labour market that continues to exclude those most in need of support.