Speculation grows over prospects of a minority government

The possibility of minority government should be viewed not as a disruption but an opportunity for a more effective approach to governance.

There is mounting speculation that the next federal election, scheduled for May 2025, could result in a minority government, and this speculation has gained some traction from statements put out by former independent member for New England, Tony Windsor, who suggested it’s a strong possibility because of the prominence of good quality independent members of parliament, and a belief that the major political parties are being bogged down in “incremental fear”.

Windsor’s assertion is based on the trend over recent elections, where a growing number of independent candidates have been making inroads, securing the favour of voters who are disillusioned with the major parties’ polarisation and constant politicking – this shift in voter sentiment suggests that a minority government is not only plausible but increasingly likely.

In examining the political landscape, it is crucial to consider the historical context: Australian political history reveals that first-time governments often encounter electoral difficulties during their first term, a pattern seen in the experiences of the Whitlam, Hawke, Howard, and the Rudd/Gillard and Abbott/Turnbull administrations.

One key factor contributing to the prospect of a minority government is the presence of a diverse crossbench in the federal Parliament – currently, there are 17 members on the crossbench, representing a variety of independent and minor parties. These crossbenchers – if they can eventually hold the balance of power after the next election – can wield high influence and play crucial roles in determining the direction of government policy, and it is also their presence that puts the Liberal–National Coalition at a significant disadvantage in securing a majority at the next election.

It is improbable for the Coalition to make major gains in the coming election. Certain seats, once considered strongholds for the party, such as Wentworth, Kooyong, and North Sydney, have seen a significant erosion of support, with independent candidates finding success in these areas, effectively reducing the prospects for the Coalition to reclaim these seats. This changing political landscape underscores the need for the major parties – Labor, Liberal and National – to adapt to the changing and evolving preferences of voters.

The emergence of strong, community-focused independent candidates and potential shifts in voter sentiment could also pose challenges for the Labor Party as well. While safe Labor seats have traditionally been secure, the pressure to better represent constituents is mounting, and the prospect of a ‘teal’ movement away from the Labor Party is not outside the realm of possibility, although it is a factor that has so far affected the Liberal Party.

Ultimately, the growing discourse around the likelihood of a minority government in Australia raises questions about the future of the nation’s political landscape. The prospect of a minority government should be seen as an opportunity for the major parties to reflect on their policies and priorities, rather than a cause for concern. The last period of minority government between 2010–13 saw positive outcomes as far as legislative output was concerned, albeit with self-inflicted divisions within the Labor government and an opportunist Liberal Party that sought to create as much conflict as possible. However, the lessons learned from that experience could be crucial in shaping the nation’s political trajectory in the coming years.

In the wake of these speculations, the Australian political arena is poised for a period of significant transformation. Whether these predictions of permanent minority governments materialise remains uncertain – remembering that the first decade of federal politics was dominated by the “three elevens”, where political allegiances changed frequently, before navigating towards the current two-party process – but they offer a glimpse into the evolving dynamics of Australian democracy as the country approaches the next federal election.

Demographic shifts and the challenge for traditional parties

The growing prospect of a minority government in Australia is underpinned by a complex web of factors, one of the most significant being demographic changes within the electorate, and this evolving landscape, particularly the emergence of younger voters who display distinct voting patterns, is reshaping the country’s political dynamics.

It is evident that younger voters, as a cohort, are less inclined to stick to traditional party loyalties and area showing a preference for parties and candidates that align with their progressive values, in areas such as climate change, environmental protection, housing affordability and, more recently, international issues such as the war in Gaza.

As these voters find themselves dissatisfied with the performance of established parties, they are starting to explore other options on the central-left spectrum – they might not be inherently more politically sophisticated or radical than their older counterparts, they are increasingly motivated by specific policy areas that resonate with their priorities, and are not wedded to a specific party.

This shift has significant implications for both major and minor parties. The Labor government, if it’s perceived as not doing enough on these issues that matter to these voters or if they are perceived as being too cautious, may risk losing their support to other progressive alternatives, such as the Australian Greens or independent candidates who do offer different approaches to key challenges.

On the other hand, the Liberal Party, already grappling with the challenge of winning 18 additional seats to secure the next election, faces an even more formidable task given the ideological distance between itself and these progressive voters and gaining this amount of seats appears to be an exceedingly steep hill to climb.

Another issue for consideration is that first-term independent members usually benefit from the phenomenon of the “sophomore effect”, where these members – or any new member of parliament – spend their initial term consolidating their seats and often increase their vote in the subsequent election, due to more recognition within the community and the benefit of incumbency. The early performance of first-term independent members indicates that there may be no compelling reasons to vote them out at this stage, reinforcing their electoral strength.

In contrast to traditional party dynamics, many of these independent members appear focused on representing their electorates and addressing the concerns of their constituents rather than pursuing ministerial positions or further political ambitions. This dedication to their electorates and the absence of careerist ambitions presents a unique challenge for the major parties, which have historically relied on a different approach to politics.

The loss of seats such as Wentworth, Kooyong, North Sydney, Mackellar, Goldstein, Curtin and Warringah in recent elections, coupled with the rise of these independent members, signals a major shift in the political landscape. It is increasingly plausible that these seats may remain out of reach for the Liberal Party for an extended period, potentially redefining both the party’s future and the shape of the Australian political spectrum.

While electoral outcomes are always uncertain and can be influenced by a range of factors, it is clear that the growing presence and popularity of independent members, as well as the changing preferences of younger voters, are reshaping the Australian political arena.

Challenges and strategies for the Labor government

The federal Labor government is not oblivious to the multifaceted challenges it faces, particularly the issues related to the crossbench, the decline in support for major parties, and the historical trend of first-term governments losing votes and seats at their second election. As history demonstrates, first-time governments have seen electoral setbacks in 1974, 1984, 1998, 2010, and 2016. However, the key distinguishing factor for the current Albanese government is the absence of a substantial electoral buffer to absorb these potential losses – those governments that suffered swings against them and a loss of seats all arrived into office through landslide victories and could withstand these setbacks. Although there is a large buffer between Labor and the Liberal–National Coalition – caused by the existence of a large crossbench – the Albanese government has a 78–73 margin in the lower house, meaning that a loss of three seats at the next election will result in a minority government.

During the final full year before the next election – 2024 – the Labor government is undoubtedly aware of the need to address these challenges proactively. To maintain its electoral position, the government will need to identify compelling issues to focus on. In 1997, the first-term Howard government was meandering, heading towards defeat at the subsequent election, before Prime Minister John Howard decided to campaign on the Goods and Services Tax, even though he specifically ruled out such a tax prior to the 1996 federal election. This campaign gave the Coalition a focal points, and they went on to narrowly win the 1998 election. Will the Labor government also be seeking a major issue to focus their attention on?

One issue that may take centre stage in their campaign is the Stage 3 tax cuts, even though they have already been legislated. The government’s political strategy may involve full implementation of the Stage 3 tax cuts, despite their reservations – it may seem counterintuitive, given that there are many centre-left economists who oppose the Stage 3 tax cuts, as well as many on the Labor side of politics, but the political reality is that very few in the electorate decide to vote against tax cuts when it comes to the privacy of the ballot box.

If the Labor government is facing political difficulties in the early part of the 2024, could they switch to vaudeville and create a massive campaign based on the Stage 3 tax cuts, even though they were fiercely opposed to them when they were first proposed by the Coalition in 2018? Stranger things have happened in politics in the past – for example, Prime Minister Paul Keating winning the 1993 election on the back of an anti-GST campaign, even though he proposed his own version of a GST in 1985 – so it’s a prospect that shouldn’t be dismissed so easily.

On other matters, the government’s cautious approach, while possibly informed by a desire for stability, raises questions about its capacity for bold, audacious leadership. History has shown that leaders who were audacious and unafraid of confronting challenges, like Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke, have achieved significant success. Conversely, leaders who were more cautious, such as Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard, often found themselves outmanoeuvred by their own party.

In this context, and while it might be too late for this current parliamentary term, it is worth reflecting on the idea that governments should treat their first term as an opportunity to accomplish as much as possible. The prevailing sentiment is that governments should not squander their time fumbling around, hoping for re-election, but rather focus on proactive and meaningful policy changes that align with their ideals, even if full implementation is not always possible. This perspective highlights the importance of taking a principled stance and delivering on promises, not only to secure re-election but also to make meaningful progress in addressing the issues that matter to the Australian people.

The benefits and potential of minority governments

The prospect of a minority government after the next federal election has sparked a wider conversation about the merits of such a process of governance. While the effectiveness of minority governments largely depends on the composition of the crossbench and who actually holds the balance of power, it can bring about more robust decision-making and ultimately yield better legislation, policies, and outcomes.

Minority governments can serve as a check on major parties, forcing them to make necessary but often unpopular decisions and this dynamic can be seen as a safeguard against complacency or the pursuit of purely partisan agendas. While this could lead to political gridlock, it can also compel parties to engage in more meaningful negotiations and compromises: that’s what the essence of democracy is.

History offers many examples of minority governments in Australia that have achieved notable successes – the period between 1991–95 in New South Wales, marked by a minority government, witnessed significant and much-needed reforms. Similarly, the Gillard government between 2010 and 2013, during its time as a minority government, was characterised by a high level of productivity and legislative output.

Prime Minister Gillard, as the leader of a minority government, demonstrated her skills as a negotiator, successfully navigating the complex landscape of crossbench politics. These eras show the potential for minority governments to operate effectively and enact substantial policy changes, even when faced with challenging circumstances.

Australia has had only two minority governments in the past 82 years – during 1940–43 and 2010–13 – but the current political climate, as well the existence of a large crossbench ensuring a greater mathematical probably, suggests that minority governments might become a more regular feature in federal politics. The ultimate impact of such a shift will depend on the composition of the crossbench and its ability to hold major parties accountable and drive positive policy outcomes.

In a political landscape often marked by partisan divides and inertia, the emergence of minority governments can offer an avenue for fresh perspectives, effective negotiation, and meaningful policy reform. The experiences of countries like Italy, which have seen numerous changes in government – 69 different governments since 1945 – but have continued to function and thrive, demonstrate that embracing a dynamic political landscape, even if it means occasional shifts in the status quo, can be a path to progress and improved governance.

As Australia approaches the next federal election, the possibility of a minority government should be viewed not as a disruption but as an opportunity to foster a more collaborative and effective approach to governance, one that prioritises the needs and aspirations of the Australian people. This can only be a positive outcome for the country.