Teals set to seize balance of power in sink or swim election

Despite the world being driven to the edge of madness by an American president girdled by his convoy of lickspittles, with the economy facing new threats from a tariff war and social cohesion assaulted by opportunistic politicians of the left and right, Australians appear set to hand decisive power to a group of raw (mostly) female MPs.

Not that long ago, if confronted by such a volatile, potentially dangerous environment, voters would have sought refuge with the major parties. Not today.

Illustration by Dionne Gain

After a few months of steady campaigning, during which barrels filled with billions have been rolled out by Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese, interest rates and inflation have dropped and jobs have been created, the dial has barely shifted. Labor might have clawed back some ground, yet successive polls show that faced with a choice between Labor and the Coalition, roughly one-third of voters say neither.

Australians seem unfazed by the prospect of the community independents – known collectively as the teals – holding the balance of power in a hung parliament. Except for that special breed hungering for a Trump Down Under.

Trump already dominates the campaign. He sucks up oxygen. Leaders are forced to respond to whatever daily atrocity spews out of the Oval Office.

The left wants Albanese to shirtfront him. The right pressures Dutton to be even more like him.

That misguided desire, with Dutton’s early, effusive praise of Trump and the appropriation of his rhetoric and initiatives, threatens to wreck the Coalition’s chances of forging a minority government. Liberal campaign workers report that former Liberal voters have expressed reluctance to return to the fold because of the “Trumpification” of the party.

This feedback supports Labor research that people alarmed by Trump are having second thoughts about voting for Dutton. For some, even the Liberals’ campaign slogan – “Let’s Get Australia Back on Track” – sounds too much like Trump’s “Make America Great Again”.

Dutton has tempered his approach up to a point, and Albanese has begun to step back from his strategy of stating Australia’s position without overtly criticising Trump.

The government is now workshopping its response to Trump if or when he imposes tariffs on Australian steel and aluminium. No tariffs, no problem. Big win for Albanese. If tariffs are imposed, any sign of weakness or hesitation from the prime minister in confronting Trump for dudding a constant ally could be fatal.

Labor’s position remains precarious. To quote one seasoned campaigner: “This could be the last majority government we see for some time.”

It is possible the teals’ numbers will expand after the election by winning Bradfield in NSW and Wannon in Victoria. The Liberals’ campaign was launched in Bradfield on Sunday, with former treasurer Josh Frydenberg as the star attraction. They had a good turnout of about 300 (compared to a few dozen in some electorates), but are a long way behind on their fundraising. It is rare to find a Liberal who thinks they can hold Bradfield.

There are also high hopes for teals in Cowper in NSW, and McPherson in Queensland.

Thanks to their shared values and characteristics, the teals have become a unique force in federal politics. While they do not always agree, they do caucus. They share accommodation, they have forged close bonds. They are smart, confident, articulate, occasionally intense, and accomplished. They are committed. Also, very competitive.

If they were to form a party – possible in the much longer term – the contest for leadership would be as tough, though probably not as dirty, as it is in the majors. Even their friends describe them as alpha females. That is true. It is part of their charm. Funny, often with an edge, they love politics and parliament and have a deep appreciation of what they can achieve. If they have the numbers.

The teals are not Greens. Nor are they Labor and nor are they Liberals, except for a couple in an ancestral way.

They are not beholden to billionaires, and it is an insult to their intelligence to suggest they are. Simon Holmes a Court, their fundraiser, is not Clive Palmer. Nor is he Gina Rinehart.

Nor are they beholden to party machines, factions, unions or particular news outlets. They don’t resort to robo-speak because they aren’t following the talking points issued by central command.

They have taken their responsibilities seriously. They are working on policies, and they are consulting widely, including constitutional lawyers, on their obligations in a minority government.

There is unlikely to be a unanimous position on who they will support if neither party wins a majority on election day. Some will go with the party with the most seats, but there is no law which says they must. Others will support the party which best aligns with the ethos of their electorates.

They do not have to “sign a contract” with either side or enter into a de facto marriage. Even if they did and agreed to ensure supply, they cannot be compelled to deliver – except by public opinion.

Their support will likely be won or lost depending on the issue. It will make life interesting for incumbents.

If Albanese is prime minister in a minority, he could be bribed/blackmailed into taking on tax reform. If it’s Dutton, say, and he lost a vote in the lower house on legislation to enable the building of nuclear power plants, would he see it as a blessing (he should) or would he ask the governor-general for an election before the independents could hand the baton to the other side? There is no law that says they can’t switch.

It could all lead to a better government and a better parliament. We hope.

Niki Savva is a regular columnist and author of The Road to Ruin, Plots and Prayers and Bulldozed, the trilogy chronicling nine years of Coalition rule.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.