Minorities will be held to account

Nicholson major

IT is by no means clear that Australia can form stable and effective government in the hung parliament.

The independents are required to take action anathema to their entire existence: install Labor or Coalition, Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott, in power. They have to make a political decision in favour of one party or another. They cannot run, hide or dissemble with meaningless chatter about fresh opportunities unique to mankind. They must decide for Labor or Coalition. They must defend this decision before the national media, offer a coherent explanation to the Australian people and, above all, justify their decision to their electorates. Yes, that's how you get stability.

None of this will be easy as demonstrated by the confused ramblings of Rob Oakeshott during the past 24 hours. Oakeshott, one of the three re-elected independents, seems to want Gillard or Abbott to solve his problem. No such luck. He ruminates about a new consensus model of politics, warns that creating a 76-strong numerical deal won't suffice and dreams about Malcolm Turnbull serving in a Gillard government or Kevin Rudd serving in an Abbott government and, to finish such fantasy, declares that political parties "don't have a place" in a pure parliamentary model.

None of this helps Australia's dilemma. Oakeshott seems in denial of the decision and responsibility he faces. Hopefully, Bob Katter and Tony Windsor are tougher and more realistic.

This decision is all about political parties and which party the independents will tip into office. Oakeshott has got a problem: his policy learnings are towards Labor but his seat is conservative. Each of the three, notably Windsor and Katter, is entrenched in his seat. Yet the debate is devoid of electoral reality: do the voters who put Katter, Windsor and Oakeshott into parliament want Labor or Coalition in office? To what extent will they retaliate if betrayed? This is the crunch point.

Another question is: can these three actually operate and endure as a group for a three-year term as assumed? It is by no means apparent. There is only one path to stability: a written agreement that, at minimum, guarantees supply and confidence to the minority PM.

Any agreement must be fully transparent and made public. Evidence down the track that the winning PM had cut a hidden deal would discredit both sides and require a further election. Specific agreement on programs needs to be costed so the public knows the price for alleged stability.

The decision the independents face challenges their political culture: they will be held responsible for installing in office Gillard or Abbott and, if such a government goes bad, they will be accountable. This reverses their previous situation when, because of numbers, their actions had no national significance. The events of 1941 when two independents, Arthur Coles and Alexander Wilson, crossed the floor on the declared issue of "stability of government" (in Coles' words) to install John Curtin in office remind that any such understanding survives only on the government's performance.

Forget the nonsense that party politics has taken a blow or is in retreat. Gillard and Abbott are waging a pragmatic and relentless campaign in the cause of party. Indeed, Gillard's campaign exploiting her incumbency may prove effective as she propagates the notion that Labor is the superior party to manage power sharing.

But Gillard needs to be careful: any minority Labor government will be dependent to an extent on the Greens with their new single House of Representatives MP and nine senators holding the balance of power. Does Gillard want to cultivate the idea of a de facto Labor-Green alliance? She gives this impression by including the claim that Labor is best able to get legislation through the parliament, explicitly through the Senate. That is, Senate numbers count in determining who should be PM. Gillard will regret this statement. It is noteworthy that Oakeshott agreed and Windsor disagreed.

Because this contest is about lower house seats, Gillard or Abbott will gain the decisive break by winning more seats than their opponent. But a 73-73 Labor-Coalition split which means 74 seats for the Labor-Green team may be seen as the tipping point. Again, this would constitute a difficulty for Labor with Gillard being seen to win, for the first time in our history, on an alliance with the Greens in the parliament.

This election should become a threshold event in our politics: with the Greens now having 10 representatives in the national parliament, it is time for the Australian media to scrutinise them as a political party in their own right. This applies, above all, to the ABC.

There are two parties that in 2009 sank Rudd's carbon pricing scheme, Abbott's Coalition and the Greens. Abbott is rightly called to account; the Greens enjoy some strange media immunity. They played hard, cynical politics, as tough as Abbott or Rudd. They sank the carbon price, attacked Labor as climate change phonies, attacked Abbott as a denier and were rewarded with an increased vote. Brilliant realpolitik.

The carbon price would be law today if the Greens had backed the Rudd-Wong scheme. If the scheme had passed, Rudd would still be prime minister and the Green vote would be below that recorded last weekend. For how long will Green MPs who appear on programs such as ABC1's Q&A talk endlessly about climate change and not be asked the obvious questions expected from a professional media?

Given the ferocity of attacks on Rudd, Gillard and Abbott over climate change, given the Greens are winning seats from Labor in the lower house, given they won 11 per cent of the primary vote and control the Senate's balance of power, at what point does the Australian media decide it has an obligation based on integrity and professionalism to apply even-handed scrutiny to the Greens?

The point applies not just to their climate change stance but their social, economic and foreign policy agenda, which is conspicuous for extreme positions.

In politics, power and responsibility march hand in hand. This is the key to grasping the meaning of election 2010. The Greens and the independents have much more power and will be judged by how they manage this responsibility.

So will Gillard and Abbott. Alert to the new mood, Gillard presents herself post-election as responsive to improving the political process while Abbott unconvincingly talks of a "kinder, gentler politics". Yet when The Australian interviewed Gillard just before the election she dismissed without discussion proposals for a debates commission and a parliamentary budget office.

Both ideas should be on the table along with an independent Speaker, sweeping campaign funding reform and time limits at question time. As a package such reforms are concessions the main parties would not otherwise make.

Whoever forms a government will learn that a hung parliament cannot deny Australia the reforms and policy progress it needs. Rudd failed because he was timid, not brave. The next PM needs to call an election once minority government starts to threaten their agenda or cripple their authority.