The major parties are doing their utmost to demonise and sully the prospect of a hung parliament.
Why? It’s a case of (sooky) self-interest.
Both major parties would like to govern in their own right without any opposition, pesky independents or small parties to negotiate with to ensure passage of government bills through the lower house.
They’d prefer a rubber stamp with a majority of their own MPs blindly voting in favour of bills, to avoid amendments or serious scrutiny. I say blindly because when governments win majorities, dissent within the party is frowned upon. These MPs are often labelled troublemakers, renegades or rebels and discarded to the backbenches.
Loading…
A hung parliament sends a message
In democracies we’re supposed to revere free speech and freedom of expression. Discussion and debate are a form of ‘pressure testing’ to ensure the final product is structurally sound.
What the major parties are saying about hung parliaments, subliminally, is this: ‘voters, you’re wrong if you vote for anyone but us’.
The (old) school says: whatever the public votes for, they get right. We are a representative democracy, with preferential voting that has so far stood our democracy in good stead.
If there is a hung parliament after the coming election it’s a message being sent to the major parties. Voters are saying ‘you’re wrong for us’.
Let me spell it out in case party apparatchiks still don’t get it: if there is a hung parliament, neither major party has convinced voters they have their interests at heart or are listening and governing with policies that are relevant to their communities’ concerns or their own lives.
As my colleague Jake Evans has noted, the last hung federal parliament (or minority parliament) in 2010 passed more than 560 bills. More than the preceding Rudd government and Howard government of 2005-2007 — when the Liberal party had a majority in both houses of parliament. Whether those bills were good or not, depends on your politics. But it means the government has to persuade crossbenchers to pass those bills.
If independents and minor parties were a nuisance, voters would not return them to parliament.
Loading…
Voters turn to independents and small parties
Lower house MPs Helen Haines, Andrew Wilkie, Rebekkah Sharkie, Bob Katter, Adam Bandt and Zali Steggall have been voted in, and returned after a term on the green benches. Some of them many times (a big HT to Katter.)
Their electorates appear to value these MPs for doing what they say and saying what they do as they repeatedly return them to parliament.
And voters are endorsing that by returning them to parliament while well aware these MPs and senators are not part of a major party, and aware they may not influence government decisions. But they can influence parliamentary decisions and debates that ensure the executive (the cabinet) must listen to their views, and if they want bills passed in a hung parliament, they must convince them to vote ‘aye’.
If major party MPs are threatened by that, maybe they should take a leaf from the independents’ playbook. Ditch the mindless political messaging when you’re talking with voters and they might reward that, by voting for you.
We are living in the age of disruption. The ground is changing quickly in so many ways — geo-politically, technically and digitally.
Domestic politics is not immune to these changes and the traditional parties shouldn’t assume in times of uncertainty voters will turn to them for comfort, and regard them as political teddy bears.
Voters are fed up with the hyper-partisan style of modern politics, criticism for a front-page story or TV grab. They want common sense, straight talking about the issues we’re confronting now, but also a bit of vision, for example, policies that look over the horizon to ensure a sustainable, safe and solid economic future for their kids and grandkids.
Voters have demonstrated they’re not afraid of creating a bit of political disruption to the major parties and if the traditional MPs fail to respond to that message, the ramifications may well be existential ones for the MPs and their parties.
