Size of Labor victory frees up backbenchers to speak out

On election eve, then-Liberal frontbencher Jane Hume was asked whether Angus Taylor was a future leader. In response, she delivered a political phrase for the ages: “You do not read the entrails until you have gutted the chicken.” Remarkably, seconds later, she came close to outdoing herself: “Democracy sausages are my favourite meal. If I was on death row and they asked me what my last meal would be? A sausage in bread with onion and tomato sauce.”

Which was not, as it turned out, an entirely inaccurate metaphor for a Liberal frontbencher to use on May 3.

Illustration: Joe BenkeCredit:

Especially not Hume, who as of last week is no longer a frontbencher. Naturally, she responded to this news with a series of quotable quotes: “As my very wise mother would say, ‘Stop your nonsense, chin up, chest out, straighten your tiara and let’s get on with the job’.” One way she will do that is, apparently, by saying what she wants – which is “certainly going to make for much more interesting Sunrise interviews.”

An interesting feature of Labor’s stunningly strong election result is how much freedom backbenchers on both sides now have – should they choose to use it. In the last parliament, Labor’s slim majority – as well as its anxiousness not to repeat the chaos of the Rudd-Gillard years – imposed discipline. A similar thing happened in the Coalition, from the opposite direction: returning to government felt so close and nobody wanted to be the one to wreck things. Now, for opposite reasons, backbenchers on both sides can speak their mind: Labor MPs because their side is so unlikely to lose in 2028, and Coalition MPs because theirs is so unlikely to win.

Which leads to a minor paradox: at a time when Labor’s leadership is stronger than ever, it may face a cacophony of voices louder than in its first term. This will require adjustment from Labor’s cabinet. But it will require adjustment from the rest of us too. The past fortnight gave some sense of just how hard such an adjustment will be.

Backbencher Jane Hume can now speak her mind, which is “going to make for much more interesting Sunrise interviews.”Credit: James Brickwood

Most of the political class spent the weeks immediately following the election loudly pointing out that, as it turned out, “unity” was not always that useful, and in fact could be hugely counterproductive. And yet suddenly, faced with a split between the Nationals and the Liberals, most of the talk was of the importance of restoring unity ASAP. Conventional wisdom dies hard.

Time will deliver its verdict on whether immediately reuniting those two parties was the smart move. Meanwhile, the rest of us – media and voters – should consider how we will treat all the newly raised voices in this term of parliament. As disastrous signs of instability or as interesting contributions to necessary debate?

Over on the Labor side, the controversy around the government’s increased taxation on superannuation earnings of the rich has given us some clues as to how it is adjusting to its new position of strength.

Much of the opposition to the changes has been insanely melodramatic. But what was just as interesting to watch is the way that, not long after the recent outcry, debate began shifting back in the other direction – via a series of comments and columns by experts, journalists and those with relevant experience.

Meanwhile, the government did something equally surprising, which is that, publicly, it did not get too involved.

You can view all this as a positive sign for the government’s ability to pursue reforms: a tolerance for debate accompanied (eventually) by a surprisingly mature discussion in the public sphere. That said, this leads to the inevitable question: what does the government do next? Since its early days, it flagged difficult discussions with the public around the budget and tax. Finally, we actually seem to be having one of those discussions. Moreover, it seems to be going the government’s way. So what does Labor do with it – pocket the immediate victory and move on or try to keep that discussion going?

Last term, inflation pushed aside many discussions, not just on tax. The election over, there is a sense of growing impatience in some quarters at the relative silence on some topics.

Last weekend, another ex-frontbencher, Labor’s Ed Husic, wrote in The Guardian about Gaza. Calling for Australia to do more, Husic described “critics, or those lacking courage in the face of this humanitarian catastrophe” applying “great energy to talk us all out of speaking up”. In the same fortnight, two major Australian writers accepting major prizes addressed the topic. Michelle de Kretser spoke of “scholars, creatives and journalists silenced” while “institutions and our media betray the principles they’re supposed to uphold”. Nam Le asked what use harmony was “if it only and always exists on terms dictated by power?”

It’s a question that has resonance, too, in the aftermath of the Indigenous Voice to parliament referendum loss. Last week, a young Indigenous man died. After being restrained by police in a supermarket, he stopped breathing. As his grandfather pointed out, this happened on the five-year anniversary of George Floyd’s death at the hands of US police officers. That horrific incident partly sparked the global Black Lives
Matter movement. We should be asking ourselves why there is not – among non-Indigenous
people - comparable outrage here. Those who defeated the Voice celebrated the rejection of what they argued was a “divisive” proposal. But national unity has not, so far, done Indigenous people any good at all.

Together, these topics should remind us that it is not only politicians who start national conversations. And they should also remind us that despite the impression sometimes given by much of the political class, tax and productivity are not the sum of who we are as a nation, and nor are they the only challenges we face these next three years.

With a newly dominant government, there will be lots of demand for contributions from others. As backbenchers begin to test their voices, and the rest of us decide how seriously to take them, they should think carefully about what topics deserve their attention and ours.

Sean Kelly is an author and a regular columnist. He’s a former adviser to Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.