The common view from politicians and so-called experts is that minority government is dreadful. I don’t agree. Nor, it seems, does former Rudd and Gillard ministerial advisor Sean Kelly. In an article in today’s Age newspaper, Kelly says:
“… 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.”
Kelly is fairly half-hearted in his views about minority government. But my own view is that it is potentially actually better than majority government, although certainly neither major party would agree. Take the Rudd and Gillard government of which Kelly was a senior adviser. For much of its duration (from 2010 to 2013) it governed in minority, relying on various cross-benchers to get legislation through. And yet despite that (or possibly because of it) it managed to get various major reforms through the Parliament. For example, the NDIS, the Gonski education reforms, the Murray-Darling scheme and numerous other reforms. To get these laws through Parliament, the Labor government was forced to compromise. In my view it is that necessity for compromise which makes minority government a good thing.
Ideally, there would be an amendment to the Constitution. In theory, that is quite possible. See section 24. It would be possible to amend the provisions relating to the House Of Representatives so that it had make up similar to that of the Senate i.e. multi-member electorates. In the Senate that has meant that the government of the day seldom has a majority and has no choice but to do deals with the Opposition or cross-benchers. However, in reality that just isn’t going to happen. Neither Labor nor the Liberal Party is likely voluntarily to vote for constitutional amendments which would mean that almost certainly it would be forced to compromise with other parties or Independents.
With minority government there are more minds on the job, so to speak, and the result more often than not is better legislation. There is a significant possibility that the Albanese government will find itself in a similar position after the next Federal election, which will most likely take place in May next year. Certainly, opinion polls point to that is a real possibility if not a probability. That may not happen if there are one or two interest rate reductions between now and the election, which most economists think will be the case. Nevertheless, there is undeniably a real possibility of minority government. As I argue above, I think that would be a good thing. What do you think?
I agree with you for largely the reasons you give. Still, it’s always difficult to know. Minority government played to Julia’s great strengths. It’s sad that this government has been so timid. I’m generally pretty tolerant of caution and the woods are full of people calling for bold action in their own favoured direction. But I think if a Government wants to prosper it needs to spend political capital and bear some pain so that it has something to show the electorate when it comes time for judgement. This is roughly Tim Walz’s stated position. It’s also Joe Biden, who’s done extremely well — in every regard but the one measured by opinion polls :(
The other thing to note is how inured MPs get to toeing the party line. They spend so much time reflexively defending whatever happens to be indefensible in their party’s position that day that they become very bad critics of their own side. That’s why the Randos in the Senate were such a breath of fresh air — they helped with the process of listening to arguments and deciding which ones held up to scrutiny.
I think I’ve come around to the conclusion that minority government is… mostly bad. And I think it’s bad even in the senate. Especially in Australia where it’s state-based boondoggles as a way of life.
The compromises that are made… I’m not sure they’re making the bills any better.
Instead of a government thinking about the “best possible” legislation, they think about what will pass the lower house or senate. Even before legislation is proposed, it’s compromised by the inevitable compromises.
The three big bits of legislation that you cite as examples of having passed during minority lower-house government… aren’t they all considered failures?
NDIS has been a terrible money pit; the Gonski reforms ineffectual or counterproductive and the Murray-Darling reforms an outright failure?
When I think of the time Australia was governed best, it’s during Hawke’s leadership. The Hawke Labor government always had a comfortable majority in the lower house and only the pretty reasonable Democrats (and Liberals for that matter) to deal with in the senate.
My opinion is coloured by the fact that these days, a minority in the senate means having to deal with the increasingly bolshie Greens. Basically, any situation that means the Greens are the furthest possible from affecting policy is a tick in my book. But that’s my personal bias showing…
As Antonius implies, minority government works better or worse depending on the cross-bench. If the balance is another party – like the Greens, then there is no reason a compromise will emerge. Independents like Jacki Lambie types are not the most rational. Andrew Wilkie types would be easier to deal with. I don’t think there is really a correct answer to which is better.
Thanks, Chris. I agree with you. We’re after an ‘in principle’ answer, but the answer is ‘it depends’.
On the other hand, I think it’s quaint that Antonios thinks that governments would ask themselves what the “best possible” legislation would be without other parliamentarians to please.
The crossbench got the NACC, now better known as the through. And it was the major parties, “the parties of government”, that made sure it would be a SNACC.
Exhibit A for the affirmative