If there’s one thing that’s clear from the events of recent days, it is that a minority government led by Julia Gillard could not represent business as usual for the Labor party.
So what should a Gillard minority government look like?
Policy making would have to proceed in a very different fashion – and here both the Prime Minister’s negotiating skills and stated desire to reach out for consensus might be key enablers of a successful approach to governance in a new political landscape. With the executive losing control of both houses of parliament, a more deliberative process to policy formulation would be both necessary and desirable; and it’s here that I find Rob Oakeshott’s suggestions most interesting. There would perforce be more involvement by backbenchers, Ministers would need to be more open and transparent about policy aims, and it may be necessary to loosen Cabinet solidarity.
If we were to have a governance and parliamentary process something like this, it would come as a mighty shock both to our accustomed modes of doing politics as usual, and also media management. The media are most happy reporting on partisan conflict, and treating any suggestion that policy might be debated as an opportunity to go hunting for the “disunity” narrative. A minority government would need to be much more relaxed about being off message, much more comfortable leading public opinion through debate and exposition, and would have to eschew both the policy by focus group approach and the soundbite style of political communication.
It may also be that a minority government would need to be bolder in grappling with the big issues. It’s right to point out that a large reason why nothing positive has happened on climate change has been the related phenomena of its use as a partisan weapon by the Rudd government, the restriction of the policy process to a narrow range of interests – and the failure to persuade citizens of why an ETS was worth doing, and how it would operate.
A more inclusive process could work, if the policy goals were clearly articulated, and well communicated.
None of this is remotely consistent with the dominant Sussex Street style of doing politics, and the temptation to set things up for another election in short order would be deeply counter-productive. As would the temptation to try to control and orchestrate everything.
But the faux-populist/micro-messaging/electoralist style of campaigning – and of governing – met its Waterloo on Saturday.
We do have something of an opportunity here to forge a much more responsive style of governing. But we shouldn’t underestimate the forces arraigned against it, and the force of sheer inertia in how things are customarily done. But it might be Julia Gillard’s singular contribution to Australian politics to lead us to such a place.
” What should a Labor minority government be like”.
probably like Anna Bligh and the QLD government, judging by the ABC report on her arrogant resumption of privatisation despite yet another rebuff, this time involving the savage blow back from the fed election, mere days after this result ( why after, btw).
Will we also see historical revisionism of the sort promote by Bligh, who had the gall to say she’d been mandated for the privatisation; a lie that would have embarrassed even the inventor of the”big”lie, Herman Goering?
I’d love to see the government spend a few weeks thrashing out their approach and then a few months seeing how they go with a more open model. There will be a period of confusion as MPs get used to the new way of doing things and various members of the bought media die of shock, but with a little willpower it could be done. Can you imagine question time if polite disagreement became the new modus operandi?
What I’d likew to see is a public discussion involving all the minor parties except the Liberals where the media got to watch both the inter-party and intra-party debates, but the leaders just said to the media “this is what democracy looks like” when harassed about people not toeing the party line.
Nicely put Mark, I’m coming ’round to the idea that we just had the best election result possible RIP-BAU
It will I expect be a surprise to the cynics that the Parliament may prove to be very workable. I note that cynics, such as Peter Costello, are suggesting an early election is likely.
The aspect of the Independents I notice is how well they connect with their electorates, and it occurs to me that the urban/rural divide is not as deep as generally supposed.I am very pleased if people in rural Australia get access to a decent internet connection and the benefits to them that follow.
Secondly, looked at in terms of relative political power between the institutional players,including the media,the lack of an overall majority by either or the major players, gives the electorate more power ever before, which I expect they will be quite taken with. I suggest that new forms and styles of media program, such as Q & A (that I can watch on my computer), come into play here.
Part of this new method of governance, if it is to arise is to bypass the established media if, as I suspect they cannot overcome their addiction to conflict, trivia and hyperbole.
There are ways to do this, but they require courage and an ability to see beyond the symbiotic relationship between the media and pollies that has hitherto existed.
@1 – Paul, the question is not what “would” a Labor minority government look like, but what “should” it look like?
I very much doubt Julia Gillard is looking to Anna Bligh for any lessons on governing (except perhaps negative ones).
6# Mark, I’ve put part of Gillard’s aenemic performance down to inexperience- a hard job to have learn on the run.
I’m also expressing deep pessimism as to the good faith of labor, specifically on what I’ve seen the last six months and the the last months in particular.
The local media reports a state labor horror budget down in Adelaide, once again kept quiet prior to the election.
Would you not call Anna Bligh’s proposition that she has a mandate for privatisation, a bald face lie?
What of the rebuttals for the stated rationale of the QLD government’s persistance, from Quiggin, et al?
I really want to be positive but I fear its a case of having just too many leopards. Do we really expect the majors to undo the way they operate and completely re work their systems of management, as well as ‘democratising’ the functions of parliament and their interactions with the media and the public?
Im not sure all those spots could possibly change, together, for the better.
I fear inaction and debate leading to inertia that carries on until another election, when both majors will pray for a majority on either side that will some version of ‘normality’ to return.
I dont think we will return to business as usual, but I fear the majors may actively squander this time in order to preserve their power.
@7 – Paul, I’ve written extensively on Anna Bligh and privatisation – http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/04/11/explaining-blighs-privatisation-push-search-foundation-forum/
If I were to start talking about what I think of the Queensland state government on this thread, then we’d quickly be off topic.
What I’m trying to do is to keep these threads focused. There’s been a tendency to make a comment on the latest post, whether or not it addresses the issues specifically canvassed. We have a number of threads for that sort of thing. What I’m interested in teasing out on this thread is what a federal Labor minority government should do, and what impediments exist to doing that. I think the starting point is discussion of what it should do.
Just a moderation note.
Marvellous article that, Mark.
Expresses my concerns so much better than I can.
God help you if you consequently feel as depressed about it as I do, btw.
Well, I won’t answer that, because then we’d be talking about Bligh, Paul!
I think the ALP should reassess their attitude to the left, and engage in a proper, forceful leading of the industrial left out of the environmental wilderness, just as they did for feminism in the 70s and indigenous issues in the 90s. Oakeshott and Windsor seem to have done this for their electorates.
For the ALP this could involve finally recognising that the Greens aren’t going away and their electoral chances are diminishing with that swing to the Greens. Short of electoral reform to shore up minority ALP govts forever, they need to start engaging with the large portion of their electorate they are currently neglecting.
From Mark’s post
“But the faux-populist/micro-messaging/electoralist style of campaigning – and of governing – met its Waterloo on Saturday”
I’m not so sure I would agree with that.
In fact I think a strong case could be made that the style of governance and campaigning, particularly if we look at campaigning as the political process that occurs all the time not just for a few brief weeks every 3 years, was highly successful and efficient.
It depends on whose POV you take, Wellington’s or Napoleon’s.
On Saturday the COALition, Abbott, the mass media and the power groups behind them had a major victory.
Thier style of governance and campaigning resulted in them getting a result far more to their liking than would have resulted had a different approach been used.
And the power groups, media in particular, set the agenda, they imposed the style, not only for issues but for the process of governance and campaigning [looked at the as the presentation of political issues and principles at all times not just once every 3 years] and are well satisfied.
I cannot see that changing without a fundamental change in the political structure within Australia.
Until, to simplify that fundamental loci of power as being visibly represented by the mass media, then all who participate in the parliamentary will be subject to playing by their rules of the game.
So I see no real reason why focus groups, opinion polls, sound bites, backroom deals, focusing on personality traits of a few individuals and even their hair colour and so on will become redundant much as we, the public, may wish for such.
What a minority Labor government SHOULD do is move surely to properly communicate its own values and just as importantly, truly listen to and understand and take on board the values of “Regional Australia”. I take this to include Queensland, Northwern Territory, and Western Australia, and yes, for me that INCLUDES Brisbane and Perth. Note that this part of the world took the baseball bat to Labor. Note also that the rest, broadly South East, all returned surely and comfortably more Labor seats than Coaltion. If Labor (or Coalition) continues to war S_E vs Regional N-W they will win battles every now and again but will not be genuinely embraced by the nation.
What are the impediments? Only themselves if they choose so.
Yes, if we are already under fascism, these sorts of conversations become academic?
I know Gillard showing guts is the last hope, but the good faith issue I raise is relevant; things have worsened I dont see that the minority goverment mode wont be white anted by state politicians and those in fed politicians in the pay of big business lobbies the same as previous modes.
Windsor and his crew strike me as being “dry” so I cant see much likelihood of us avoiding a dirty fed budget later as well, just to “keep in step” with ideology driven public service econo-rats.
Good one Mark. I think that the climate action story encapsulates many of the problems with the old approach. There was a very early focus on a particular solution with all the homework being done on this particular solution. So when ETS ran into a political road block the government simply hadn’t done the homework to allow it to switch to an alternative.
In addition, ETS was used as a political cannon to highlight divisions on the coalition and this increased the difficulty of switching to the logical way to keep progressing towards the 2020 target because the logical the logical thing to do while making up minds was more direct action – an unacceptable idea because it was “owned” by the opposition.
There were problems too about the way the issue was lumped together as one package instead of being separated into issues such as targets, short term action, longer term action, big projects, involving the populous etc.
If it weren’t for the political game it would have been much smarter to have started by discussing the options, then doing the homework on options that did have some parliamentary support from both sides followed by periodic reviews that included the possibility of changes in direction. For something as important as climate change it would have been desirable to have involved the parliament, not just some small in group and the bureaucracy.
We may have actually been further down the track by now if we had had a minority government. There would have been more pressure to consult. The independents may have put pressure on the government to consider what the opposition was saying instead of playing games.
Interesting times with the potential to give us better outcomes.
They should argue the case for policies that might be unpopular. Howard did.
They should never reverse policy when the polls turn against them, or crumble in the face of a fear campaign.
They should implement 95% of the recommendations in reports they commission instead of 5% (Garnaut, Henry…)
Above all they should tell the electorate what the ALP stands for, because today they stand for little more than getting elected.
Depends – Would Bitar be allowed to turn up for work without a note from his Mum?
The most impressive thing about the trio of deciders (and possibly a quartet if Wilkie gets up) is a fairly consistent insistence on integrity and transparency of process. I agree with Brian’s posts that Gillard is the most likely to meet those requirements.
She will have to adapt her position to more immediate action on carbon pricing. Her problems with this have been more from the political hurdles:everybody’s talking about it but who’s prepared to pay for it? Her summit idea can probably be put down to that. She could amend that to parliamentary committees working through the Garnaut recommendations, even to the point of timetables for implementation.
Her education, health, water and NBN policies fit very well with regional Australia priorities. Her biggest difficulties may be convincing her own powerbrokers and careerists that the rules have changed. However, the benefits of being in government, even a minority diminished government, still far outweigh those of being in opposition especially if the price of being in opposition is to reward Howard’s heirs.
Modern pragmatic Labor till now has been part of the problem. But the largest part has been the micro management of Howard, an electioneer who has managed to play the marginal electorates (and associated media games)to exhaustion. We simply can’t run a country that way.
The body politic has been seriously wounded and needs healing. Like others, I believe Gillard still has to prove she can rise to the occasion, but this does represent the opportunity for renewal.
I hope she’s listened to Steve Bracks.
I liked this post, but like Hannah I wondered about your comment:
“But the faux-populist/micro-messaging/electoralist style of campaigning – and of governing – met its Waterloo on Saturday.”
The mere fact that the TPP was close to 50-50, does not mean that the electorate has sent a message that they are fed up with party politics. I one of the contenders had taken a risk they may have generated some excitement and support, or they may have found themselves in the media headlights and crashed and burned.
I guess that the Greens doing well could be used as evidence for your Waterloo hypothesis, but surely this is more easily explained by the ALP’s back down on the ETS. Does anyone think that closer elections and hung parliaments are here to stay, or that campaigning is about to become less micro-managed?
The main message I would take from the election campaign is that (A) you should not back down on your central core promises and (B) crossing big business (i.e. the miners) can cost you several percentage points.
Paul, the question is not what “would” a Labor minority government look like, but what “should” it look like
Actually, the question is what ought it look like.
Mark I like your post very much, but, truly, pigs will fly before the major parties change their modus operandi with any sincerity. Already Abbott has ruled out Oakeshott’s idealistic ideal of a unity government, and I suspect Labor won’t be far behind. My feeling is both major parties will consider the H of R result but a blip in the political landscape. Whichever party the Independents choose to go with, that pary will buckle down and try and survive the next 3 years then it will be back to business as normal. This trennial both parties will be in permanent election mode.
What happened to Parliamentary reform under the Independents in NSW is instructive. It lasted so long as the Independents there had the BOP, then, once there was a majority government, it was back to business as usual.
Maube its because I come from NSW. We’ve seen this sort of thing before. The only long term reform we got out of the Independents was a go at tackling corruptiuon and a clean up of the local cops – sort of.
Wish I could share your idealism and positive thinking about our political process.
Both major parties will know that the next election’s timing is largely out of their hands, but is likely to be sooner rather than later. Consequently we can look forward to permanent campaign/point-scoring mode indefinitely. It’s highly unlikely whoever’s in government will be worrying too much about developing new approaches to governing.
Judging by the current trends in the undecided seats polls, the more relevant question might be what will a Labor opposition look like.
Some priorities:
1. Quickly bed down the NBN roll out
2. Move quickly to put an interim price on CO2 emissions, perhaps along the lines I’ve suggested already — pro-rata tax deductibility only for energy that is clean relative to anthracite coal plants (stationary) (i.e. about 1t of CO2 per mWh) and relative to CO2 per BTU in petrodiesel (transport). Abolish diesel fuel rebate. Refund clawback to those on or below AWFTE in cash or kind.
3. Conscience vote on gay marriage provision
4. Asylum seekers: Abandon idea of off-shore processing. Ensure on-shore processing is no longer than absolutely necessary to ensure security, epidemiology, identity checks etc. Centres to be in major cities and language and skills training to be made available along with suitable health and counselling. After processing, arrivals to be released into suitable community with case manager oversight, with access to further training programs, work readiness etc as needed. Given suitable work visas.
Separately, government to attempt creation of an international humanitarian resettlement program, with suitable funds to ensure that those needing humanitarian resettlement have somewhere suitable to go. This could be coordinated with programs in develioping countries to build their infrastructure under MDG.
5. Get out of Afghanistan. Just pack it in and leave. It’s enough already.
6. Set up a suitable qualified commission on clean energy options, which could examine all the engineering, economic, and other questions going to the feasibility of industrial scale near-zero energy production in stationary and transport. Nothing left out of consideration. This commission should look early at the viability of CC&S and the path to retirement of existing coal facilities, especially lignite-based operations. Committee to accept submissions and publish reports quarterly. Major report in 18 months.
7. A similar commission could examine the potential models for sustainable cities, focusing on how to roll out low cost high quality public housing close to the city centres and to make effective use of mass transport.
8. Abolition of negative gearing. Change in the treatment of housing loans, escalating equity requirements month-on- month to ensure that by 2026 one would need at least 20% equity to borrow for residential property or for renovation. Redraw facilities would have to respect the prevailing limit, and only so much equity as was held above this limit could be used as collateral. No loan that imposed a requirement to service at greater than 30% of household income would be allowed.
9. Introduction of before and after school care for high school students, starting with schools that qualify under PSFP.
10. Follow-up to Health & Hospital Report with action on preventive health intervention, on mental health and dental care provision to people in the bottom three deciles on income.
11. Structured programs to reacquire not merely water rights but coherent parcels of marginal farming land with a view to returning it to something like the original ecology.
12. Revisit of the relevance of the states as jurisdictions in the 21st Century with a view to a referendum in 2013 on addition of the authority held by the states into S51 by 2016 and an associated redesign of the senate to reflect a PR-based regional governance model.
That should keep them busy.
Following earlier post @ #14, the NW vs SE divide HAS to be addressed by Labor whether from government or oppostion.
Latest counting from AEC website:
Seats won, QLD/NT/WA
Labor 12 = 27%
Coalition 33 = 73%
Seats won, NSW/ACT/VIC/SA
Labor 59 = 60%
Coalition 39 = 40%
This is fundamental, never mind the nuances of political tactics.
Good point adamite!
I think we are getting ahead of ourselves by talking of a labor minority government at this stage.
The reality check is that on the basis of the current state of counting the three “in doubt” seats listed by Anthony Green are likely to go : 1 independent + 2 Coalition.
This would Labor at 72 and the Coalition at 73 + 4 independents and 1 Greens
This assumes that all the seats currently given away to Labor stay that way; Declaration votes, particularly Postal votes have favoured the Coalition in the past. I am particularly concerned about Corangamite where Labor’s lead has shrunken to below 1,000 and there are still 13,000 votes to count ! If Corangamite was to go the other way that would give us LNP 74 Labor 71. Definitely out of reach for Labor. It is a “worst case” scenario, but unfortunately a very possible scenario…
Wilkie back in front in Denison. I truly hope he gets up, if only to rub Howard’s nose in the dirt along with the other grubs who tried to make out he was either mentally unstable or a traitor or both.
@28
Wilkie is probably a good guy to have in parliament, but his election puts Labor’s number 1 down, which means the Coalition has more members. They will use this as a justification to their claim to form government!
Adding another dimension to that of Reinu above I suggest the ALP needs to look to its performance in rural seats and, by extrapolation, to those seats that straddle the urban/rural divide, many of which are the marginals that shaped this result mainly in the eastern states.
I looked at 5 of the safest COALition seats in the country [Mallee, Murray, Bradfield, Moncrieff, Barker] and compared the results for the ALP and the Greens this time around with 2007 [note: the maths is a bit shonky].
The ALP primary went from a low 27% in ’07 down to an even lower 23% this time.
Nationally it was 44% in ’07 and around 38% this time.
Dismal in both elections, worse in this one.
Contrary to expectations the Greens did relatively better in both elections in those rural seats.
Over the 5 seats in ’07 they scored 6% which is closer to their national average of 7.78% than the ALP was to their average.
This election, in those 5 seats, they improved by 4% up to 10% which is even closer to their national average of 11.4% currently in the HoR.
So the ALP could, if it looked at what is succeeding for the Greens, improve their performance in rural seats and marginals that comprise urban and rural regions.
How it would be like? Well my advice to that question is that Julia should stay as clear of the NSW right as much as possible and take advice from Steve Bracks and her old boss John Brumby on how to operate a minority government.
Is he now (Wilkie), Ken L?
Wasn’t there a bit of a problem in the preselection down there; they lost out by trying toparachute someone in the locals didnt want?
I’l wager Fran Barlow’s list of suggestions are what Mark is looking for, but note FB said nothing on abandonment of privatisation and more open government, altho I accept that it is likely that she would have regarded these things as self evident and not worth further explication.
The 14 highest informal counts in the country were in and around outer Sydney.
Reflection on this ought to change a should to a would.
Having a quick glance at your article and the comments it would seem that everyone believes in some strange confused anarchical dictatorship.
Our Parliamentary system has evolved over centuries. There are conventions and mechanisms, as well as checks and balances, in place to handle this situation. It is not an issue, it has happened before and will happen again.
Think back 10 or so years in Queensland, hung parliament, it worked out, a few months back in Britain – same.
Oh and loosening cabinet solidarity completley defeats the purpose of executive government and responsible government – it’s the principle of collective responsibility, central to effective democratic governance.
Sigh ….
I’m not sure Gillard can survive, with the party as volatile as it is now. Maybe we’ll see a Combet government, leading the party back to it’s democratic socialist/social democrat roots.
You’d be right Paul. I also might have mentioned that I regard a standing Parliamentary Budget Office — one that could cost policy proposals in something like real time as an entirely worthwhile idea.
Rann has been the most innovative with minority government bringing both independents and the nationals into his cabinet as well as having an independent speaker. More importantly he has retained the cabinet presence after he got a majority in his own right – helps build up good will fro the next time there is a hung parliament.
Having independents, greens and possibly the WA National in cabinet or the ministry might actually help the government stay focused on good government as distinct from spending to much time on political smart arsery.
Listening to what the independents were saying, better more civilized process, some form of national broadband, climate action and more focus on regional concerns will probably feature.
Interestingly from here. Whilst richmond NSW went back a little but stayed firmly labor, the most rural labor (marginal) seat in NSW of page gained 2.2% 2PP for labor (& 4% primary), when the whole state went -6.7%. Which was also my only prediciton before voting. Some perspective on a particularly well known and very active local member helped with that. Already been a story in the local media about her regular ‘catch-up chats’ with Oakeshot since becoming an MP in 07. Tony Windsor is just up the hill as well.
Both got in on the back of significant greens preferences, more so in richmond than page.
My take from a few chats with people and the local paper is that locals are watching the country independent thing with great interest, but it seems most would prefer Gillard back in or at least not TA. Like everywhere regional or rural, health, education and NBN/phones etc are big issues. Delivery is more important than talk or party politics for many I think. Oakeshot and Windsor would be pretty well regarded by many around here currently for what they’ve said so far I’d say. I think the relatively low green vote in their electorates reflects a pretty general view that they are actually more real about dealing with greens and local environmental issues than anyone from the majors.
It needs to be quite different from the current form of government where crappy policies pop up from who knows where via the Labor party machine.
I would divert $20b from the NBN to clean energy and public transport – including very fast trains connecting Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra, Wagga, Sydney and Brisbane.
The first priority for the NBN should be rural Australian where they have very substandard IP network access.
I agree that implementing the majority of recommendations for Garnaut, Henry etc should happen.
There also needs to better engagement with the Australian people. Our current form of democracy and government is a thin veneer and a self-serving power game.
Is there any reason why the Abbott thread asks what an Abbott government would be like, while here we’re asked what a Gillard one would be like?
The semantics are doing my head in.
I answered that in the other post, FDB!