How unfortunate that Peter Malinauskas says he is not interested in running for federal politics. This week once again showed the South Australian premier’s class on the policy front when, after a fact-finding visit to the United States, he announced a state royal commission into Artificial Intelligence. The federal government recently released a (broad) AI policy. But a detailed inquiry into this revolutionary technology, about to change all our lives, will provide an extra degree of community inclusion.It will give the public insights from experts and stakeholders into the opportunities and risks of AI. That will make it easier not only to put in more guardrails but to later judge how effectively they are working. Some people will be alarmed by what comes out; others will be reassured. It will bring greater transparency to the technology’s rollout, providing an important reality check.It’s just a pity this is not a national inquiry.Malinauskas, it will be remembered, was a prime early driver of the world-leading under-16s social media ban, which was then picked up and owned by the prime minister. Malinauskas has his own local problems and critics, but the state economy is doing well, and he plays his politics adroitly. The one thing the several frontbenchers who aspire to follow Anthony Albanese – Jim Chalmers, Tony Burke, Mark Butler, Richard Marles – hope is that Malinauskas does not change his mind about a federal tilt.Albanese must envy Malinauskas’ easy political style, clarity of communication and ability to (mostly) avoid own goals. Notably, Malinauskas would not have been lured into a trashy conversation during a low-rent podcast. The prime minister had some successes this week, laying the groundwork in talks with the opposition for parliament to next week pass the government’s long-awaited legislation on gambling, and the bill paving the way to curb the growth in cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. But this was overshadowed by podcast reflux – allegations that in his July exchange with comedian Nikki Osborne, Albanese made lewd gestures when talking about a gift of crown melons from Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi.At one level, the affair is absurd. At another, it is revealing because it shows a prime minister prioritising pride over pragmatism. Let’s assume his gestures were innocent and he intended no double entendre. So, given the leader of an important ally was involved, and the controversy was also causing Takaichi embarrassment, why did he not immediately say this and apologise for any inadvertent offence? Trouble is, Albanese doesn’t do admissions of mistakes (real or perceived) or apologies. Instead, he waffled when pressed in parliament, and had to be rescued by New South Wales Premier Chris Minns when the matter was raised at their Thursday joint news conference announcing a bailout for the Tomago aluminium smelter. Meanwhile, the government apparently leaked a cable from the Japanese on the matter to back its point that everything was hunky-dory with them. Predictably, that gave further life to the story. Then there was the uncomfortable performance of the senior Labor women – including Tanya Plibersek, Katy Gallagher and Clare O'Neil – all having to defend the prime minister. The conservative media in particular were quick to make the point: what if this had been Scott Morrison? Midweek the Japanese took the broom to Albanese’s mess, with a statement from the ambassador: “We are aware of the reporting in the media. We have been informed by the Australian side that Prime Minister Albanese did not make the comments in the way that has been reported.” Early in his prime ministerial term, Albanese’s approach to most things – from keeping his word to avoiding policy that would alarm the public – was cautious. But he did do a lot of tasteless FM radio and some appearances with influencers, on the premise that in a fragmented media environment you must chase your audiences, even if you find yourself in some smelly drains. Latterly, Albanese has adopted more of the “whatever it takes” approach preached and practised by the late Labor man Graham Richardson. Most significantly, he no longer seems to feel the old compunction about breaking his word. The budget’s trashing of election promises has been debated endlessly. But then there was his decision not to attend the recent Garma Festival, despite saying at Garma in 2025:I commit here that every single year that I have the great honour to be Australia’s Prime Minister, I will be here.Instead, he started a week’s holiday, saying he hadn’t had a day off all year. It was surprising, to say the least, that he didn’t make a small adjustment to his leave. With his word less to be trusted than it once was, people may become disinclined to believe whatever he says. While this has been a publicly painful week for Albanese, the opposition (predictably) afforded some respite for the government, with confusing comments on immigration. Housing spokesman Andrew Bragg, always a loose cannon, gave a major speech at the National Press Club that ranged widely over policy, some not yet settled. His comments on migration included saying the Coalition’s Net Overseas Migration (NOM) level would be under 180,000, despite Opposition Leader Angus Taylor having not yet put a number on it. Taylor stumbled awkwardly through questioning on Thursday; he also rebuked Bragg, telling reporters “I’ve made clear to him that his job is to articulate the views of the Coalition team”. This highlighted, once again, that the opposition does not yet have its act together on its still-unfinished immigration blueprint. As it tries to finalise its policy, under the soon-to-depart spokesman Jonno Duniam, internal stakeholders complicate the task. For example, Nationals leader Matt Canavan on Thursday criticised the idea of cutting backpacker numbers. On the other side, the government is struggling with overhauling its migration regime. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke had to abort a proposed announcement last week; ministers waited for Albanese’s return from holidays. When the announcement comes, it will trigger another public battle for the prime minister. But with its own policy a series of question marks, the opposition is in no position to effectively criticise the government on the issue, let alone take on One Nation.Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.