Are we heading for minority government? We could do a lot worse

To many observers, the Coalition’s 2017 budget looked odd. Banks copped a tax hike. Schools got more cash. Medicare funding was boosted and guaranteed, as was funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Leigh Sales’ first question to then-treasurer Scott Morrison on budget night was indicative of the general reaction: “Could you be the first Liberal treasurer in history to deliver a Labor budget?”

Unsurprisingly, Labor’s then-leader Bill Shorten was having none of this: “Make no mistake, this is not a Labor budget,” he said. He stressed the differences by blocking major parts of it – even when this meant turning his back on what had, until quite recently, been Labor policies.

Anthony Albanese, then Labor’s leader of the house, with then-PM Julia Gillard in 2012.Credit:

And so not long afterwards, when frontbencher Anthony Albanese delivered a speech in Perth, a frisson ran through political circles. Albanese seemed to suggest that Shorten had not got his strategy quite right. He described the budget as an “ideological surrender”, an “overwhelming victory” for Labor. In one night, the Coalition had guaranteed a future for the NDIS, supported needs-based schools funding, and recognised the importance of universal healthcare. Those in the movement “should celebrate our victories”, he said.

Two of these “victories” were the confirmation of policies that began under the Rudd-Gillard governments. And so, given Albanese’s stance then, it’s not surprising that his government has done quite a lot of work to embed those victories. In recent weeks, the government has trumpeted schools funding agreements with Tasmania and Western Australia, based on the Gonski plan developed under the last Labor government. Meanwhile, Albanese has been promoting cuts to NDIS costs that will make sure Labor’s program continues.

Then, last week, the Albanese government introduced a bill seeking to protect Rudd’s NBN from being sold. Another large reform of recent weeks, in aged care, does not directly stem from an earlier policy. But journalist Bernard Keane argues the fundamentals of the policy – more home care, more user-pays, more quality control – were set in 2012 when Julia Gillard implemented the recommendations of a landmark report.

I worked for both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, so you can take all this with a pinch of salt if you like. Still, if you accept the idea that politics at present is remarkably influenced by the previous Labor government, then it points to some interesting contradictions. One is the conflict between an Albanese government still concerned with the policies of that fairly short-lived government, while arguing publicly that only long-term governments can make sure their achievements last.

Now recall that half that government was spent in minority. That points to another contradiction, with greater implications for the next election: between the ongoing relevance of that Labor government’s policies and the focus of our current political leaders on the apparent horrors of minority government.

Peter Dutton frequently warns of the dangers of Labor being forced to work with the Greens and teal candidates. And Albanese last week said to the Labor caucus what he’s said publicly, which is that he isn’t really countenancing minority government. He has said he won’t do deals with the Greens, and that he is “the only political leader of a political party in Australia that’s trying to form majority government”.

Albanese’s insistence that Labor will govern with a majority may yet be right. Despite a long slide in the polls, Labor remains around 50-50 in two-party-preferred terms. Given this – and the uncertainties that accompany our preferential system – the level of media confidence that the election result will be minority government seems surprising. I agree it seems, at present, the most likely outcome. But it’s not very long since Bill Shorten learned just how much a commentariat consensus about election results is worth.

As did Malcolm Turnbull. In 2016, the press gallery verdict was that he would win comfortably. In the end, he won only a very narrow majority. Interestingly, in that election Turnbull made an argument that matches those made by Dutton and Albanese: that only by voting for him could voters get “stability” rather than the chaos of minority government. And yes, he won, but he also lost 14 seats.

Illustration: Joe BenkeCredit:

If the “stability” argument didn’t work so well almost a decade ago, what about now? Last week, this masthead’s Resolve poll found 30 per cent of voters actually wanted a minority government; 36 per cent wanted a clear majority; while everyone else was unsure. At the very least we can see the prospect of minority government isn’t provoking widespread terror. That may be because people recognise, in retrospect, that the last minority government was more effective than it was portrayed at the time. Or it might just be that once people have lived through something it’s harder to scare them.

You can understand Albanese’s desire for a majority government: politicians want to deliver their own agenda, not someone else’s. But this is different from saying that a minority government would be bad, either for the country or for Labor. It’s possible that it would push new ideas closer to the centre of political debate, which this government arguably needs. And it might be that a parliament requiring consensus would better suit Albanese’s style as prime minister, making the advantages of his agreement-seeking, conflict-averse style more obvious.

Or it may lead to a policy program even more scattershot than the one we have now, with the crossbench less collaborative than in 2010-13, which further cements perceptions of Albanese as weak.

Given Albanese has spent a significant part of this term working to complete the agenda of the Rudd-Gillard years, it is interesting to consider that his next term may be spent fulfilling another of those years’ unfinished tasks: proving that minority government can work.

Sean Kelly is author of The Game: A Portrait of Scott Morrison, a regular columnist and a former adviser to Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.