Two years on, the PM has gotten real in this interview

A cleansing, quieting month or two, free of the cacophonous vanities of fame and power, 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 have been exposed as rank hypocrites, lecturing the global south about multilateral rules governing international relations, trade and human rights until it involves sanctioning a favoured ally or 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 can not only manage these turbulent crosscurrents but steer 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 formula for Australia's economy, the performance his own team, the failure of the Voice referendum, and the deeper problems in our media dimensions.

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 tried to be a leader who himself 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, 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 and border protection.

Indeed "excessive" immigration has been blamed for soaring rents, traffic jams, and more.

This 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. Inevitably it 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.

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 quality of political journalism and on the descent into crass incivility on social media.

On the former, he slammed what he called the tendencies of "clickbait" reporting.

"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 broken promise. Few reporters seemed to think through what was obvious - that Dutton would inevitably vote for it himself, so politically logical (read popular) was the change.

"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 just find it extraordinary. 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 we must find a way of extending that economical advice to ourselves. If you wouldn't say it face-to-face, don't say it online. It's not that hard. It's called civility.