Anxiety over minority government is misplaced

The Albanese government is still more than a year out from serving its full first term, yet already a consensus seems to be gathering, across the media, pollsters and the community more broadly, that the best outcome Labor can hope for at the next election is a minority government. Moreover, there is mounting disquiet that such an outcome, or a hung parliament, would be disastrous for stable and resilient leadership.

Concern at the prospect of a minority government is misplaced. For many, the first example that springs to mind is the Gillard government following the 2010 election, when six crossbench members of parliament held the balance of power, and the prime minister was able to develop a workable structure with the Greens and three independents. While it can’t be disputed this was an unstable time in Australian politics, it is fair to say most of that instability arose from the opposition under Tony Abbott and the leadership tensions within the Labor government, rather than from the structure and operation of the minority agreement.

So long as the structure is founded, as it was in this instance, on a commitment to confidence and to the maintenance of supply, the framework offers a real opportunity for constructive government in terms of policy development and implementation. Indeed, one measure of the success of the minority government formed by Julia Gillard was its legislative agenda, with record numbers of bills passed during her term. Gillard was able to work the numbers to provide effective government and, based on the track record of the teal and other independents in both houses so far, it is reasonable to expect even better government would be possible if Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can secure their constructive cooperation.

It should be noted, however, if the Albanese government were to win a second term with a stronger majority, they would be breaking with the history of governments in the post-World War II period. As Jason Koutsoukis pointed out in this paper last week, all of the seven governments that have sought a second term since 1945 went backwards.

That said, Albanese’s capacity to win against the odds should not be underestimated, as the Aston byelection demonstrated. That swing of 6.4 per cent to Labor marked the first time in 103 years a government won a seat from the opposition in a byelection. Aston, located in the affluent eastern suburbs of Melbourne, is the sort of seat Dutton would need to secure in order to win government.

The Melbourne seat of Dunkley, which the Liberal Party failed to take from Labor in a March byelection, was another Dutton needed to win to build electoral credibility. That performance suggests the opposition can’t win enough seats to take government, especially when they face the realistic prospect of losing two or three more seats to teal independents, and while the existing independents seem to have generally consolidated their positions.

A popular benchmark to gauge the standing of previous governments is the number of Newspolls lost in succession – both Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull were ousted as leaders after losing more than 30 in a row. Albanese has lost none, which is surprising given all the anger over the cost of living, and especially after 12 interest rate increases during his incumbency. The government is struggling to retain its two-party-preferred lead, which stood at 51-49 in the latest Newspoll. The most recent Resolve poll had the parties equal at 50-50. While the two-party-preferred measure is seen as the most reliable poll predictor, the primary vote can be a key determinant in an election. The Albanese government has also struggled to improve on this front – indeed, a recent Resolve poll suggested the government’s primary vote had slipped to 30 per cent, even less than the poor 32.6 per cent achieved at the last election. It’s clear there will be pressure on the government to improve its poll standing over the next 12 months.

While the battlelines of the campaign are still being defined, it is far too early to jump to conclusions about how many seats will be won or lost by Labor.

There seems to be universal agreement that the determining issue in the next election will be the frustration of voters over the cost of living. Albanese will need to market hard the benefits of his government’s various forms of assistance, especially the fairness of the amendments to the stage three tax cuts. This won’t be easy with the media tending to downplay, if not ignore or misrepresent, his efforts in terms of tax relief and other initiatives. More assistance is likely to be offered in the May 14 budget, which may be the last before the election.

This budget should put real pressure on Peter Dutton to spell out, in his budget reply, his vision for the country as well as his specific cost-of-living assistance proposals. So far, he has been able to get away with pure criticism that offers no detail on an alternative. This budget contest will be a difficult one for Dutton, as it is likely to become clear he and his economic team are just not up to the policy challenge. Despite the repeated promises amid their criticisms of Labor’s measures, they simply haven’t done the necessary work on their own initiatives.

Dutton is already facing tensions within the Coalition over his ill-considered rush to promote nuclear power. The internal divisions are intensifying specifically over which National Party seats are likely to become sites for nuclear reactors.

The official strategy is yet to launch, but Dutton’s policy on nuclear power, at least where it currently stands, seems undeliverable within the time frames necessary to either significantly reduce power prices – which simply can’t happen, given nuclear is one of the most expensive technologies – or meet the decarbonisation requirements of Australia’s climate targets.

I seriously doubt voters in the next election will be prepared to give Dutton the benefit of the doubt based solely on his criticisms, without any further substance to his policies.

A major complicating factor for the government in the lead-up to the election will be the path of interest rates. The stronger-than-expected inflation numbers for the March quarter – which have moved market expectations away from predictions of interest rate cuts by year end and even raised the possibility of further rate increases – could be a game changer. To avoid the blame falling on the government, voters would have to accept the significance of the Reserve Bank’s independence, which is likely to be hard for many to do as they struggle to meet increased mortgage repayments. Obviously, there is an important challenge here for the government to educate the public about the realities of the economic situation and challenges.

Indeed, if Labor is to have any realistic chance of a second term, it will need to open up on many policy fronts, seeking to take voters into its confidence and explain the challenges in detail, including a frank discussion of the policy alternatives and their potential benefits and consequences. After all, democracy demands such information is available for voters to make an informed choice, and such willingness on the part of the government would quickly expose the superficiality of Dutton and his negativity, thereby also minimising the impact of fear campaigns.

As things stand, while the likely outcome of the next election is still difficult to predict, what should be clear is Australia has nothing to fear from a more engaged political debate, nor should voters be overly pessimistic about the prospects of a minority government.