Monday, August 23, 2010

Hung parliament: not so bad?

Random thoughts on the Australian federal election result
"This is clearly the closest election result we've seen in Australian history."

- Antony Green, ABC's election analyst during an interview on Lateline.

I am not entirely disappointed with a hung parliament in Australia after Saturday's election. At the very least, it means that neither side can claim victory. They both lost. There was indeed a swing against the ALP (-5.4%) and towards the Coalition (+1.9%), but elections are not won on swings. And indeed, if they were, then the Greens received a much larger positive swing (+3.7%). One significant factor in this was likely to be disgruntled ALP supporters registering their disapproval of the Rudd/Gillard failure of nerve on climate. It may have also been punishment for Gillard's move to the the right on asylum seekers, but Rudd's popularity started its precipitous decline when he announced the shelving of his carbon trading scheme.

In the Senate, before below the line and postal votes are counted (and below the line postal votes, like mine!), it looks like both major parties faced negative swings (Coalition -1.3%; ALP -4.6%) while the Greens are highly likely to have secured balance of power (+3.9%) and the most Senate seats of a minor party in Australian history. The DLP may have followed Family First's success in 2007 by gaining a Victorian seat with only 2.23% of the primary vote.

Earlier this year in the UK election, when it became clear that the parliament was going to be hung, there was a lot of misinformation peddled by politicians, pundits and certain sections of the media about what it was going to mean. Due to a busy weekend, I haven't been following enough Australian media to know if a similar pattern has been emerging there. So to clarify some issues that were muddied here and may be there, by constitutional convention, Gillard remains caretaker PM until the result becomes clear, the incumbent PM has first right to form a coalition or minority government, and there is no necessity for either side to have a formal coalition to govern. Having more seats (yet not a majority), having more primary votes, having more two party preferred votes: none of these are really relevant in determining who forms government (except insofar as they can be spun to provide some kind of moral weight).

That a hung parliament doesn't necessarily mean instability can be seen from a wide range of nations who regularly manage to get along with one. That they have been rare in the UK and Australia has led to a little hysteria (from what I've seen, not quite as much in Oz as there was here a few months back) about the dangers of no party having a majority. However, it ought to be remembered that neither the ALP nor the Coalition (!) are really a single party (the internal divisions within the ALP are famous, and were on display in paradoxical ways with the recent leadership spill) and so Australia has never really had a majority government. We've pretty much always had to get along with a cobbled together kind of political power, and that's not all bad. Yes, this might be a little more pronounced than usual, but I think that it could turn out to be healthy if it means some negotiations and compromises, with each issue needing to be argued on its merits and weighed against other priorities. That's how the system works. As long as one side can guarantee a majority who will pledge to avoid frivolous votes of no confidence and won't block supply, then a minority government is quite feasible.

To get there, both sides are now wooing the support of the three independents (Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and Bob Katter) who have pledged to work as a bloc. Although they are all former National Party members, it has quickly become obvious that they can not simply be assumed to belong naturally to the Coalition. They have affirmed their desire to (a) stay independent, avoiding a formal coalition and (b) provide enough stability for a full three year term, enabling one or other side to form a minority government with some stability. I found this quote from Oakeshott interesting. Along with a single Greens member, there is likely to be a fourth independent, Andrew Wilke, a former Greens member, who was also a whistle-blowing intelligence analyst under the Howard government.

In addition to these five, it is also important to note (and few media outlets seem to have mentioned it) that the sprawling WA electorate of O'Connor (which covers a greater area that NSW), saw not simply a surprise defeat by the outspoken and controversial Liberal veteran Wilson Tuckey, but a victory by a member of the National Party of WA, who are affiliated with the national National Party, but maintain a distinct party structure from them. In particular, they do not recognise a formal Coalition with the Liberal Party and so just as the Greens member is likely to side with Labor yet not enter a formal coalition, so Tony Crook of O'Connor is likely to side with the Coalition, but not be a formal member for the Coalition. There is no love lost in WA between the Nationals and the Coalition and Crook has indicated he is willing to negotiate with the ALP.

Speaking of the National Party (and for a moment lumping the WA Nationals in with the rest), that they can gain seven seats with 3.87% of the national vote, while the Greens gained just one lower house seat with 11.39% does make one wonder about the relative merits of arguments for proportional representation. Of course, Australia already has PR in the Senate and so the Greens' balance of power there is an indication of their current popularity. Whether it is a short term punishment of the ALP or indicative of longer term trends towards a greater consciousness of ecological issues remains to be seen.

Whatever happens, despite (or perhaps because of) a deeply disappointing and cynical campaign in which both major parties ran very negative campaigns almost entirely devoid of any global or long term vision, Australian politics just got more interesting.

27 comments:

byron smith said...

Here was an interesting interview with all three veteran independents. Katter said a few weird things (Australia should have 60 million people, the country is going to be "taken from us" if we don't grow, ethanol as the way forward, need to remove fishing restrictions), Oakeshott made good sense about improving process and paying attention to expert advice (such as the reports by Garnaut and Henry). Windsor didn't get to say as much as the others, but made good points on water and renewable energy. Windsor and Katter seemed to be against an ETS.

Anthony Douglas said...

Having heard that interview live, I'm inclined to think that the noises the trio have been making about being good pals who'll jump together is a strategy to avoid being pressured individually...but I doubt they get along like a house on fire!

But yes, I think it's a good result too. Quite clearly, if you stand for nothing, you'll be entrusted with nothing. Whether they'll remember it in 3 (?) years time...

I'd be very very surprised if the next election is Gillard v Abbott again. And I'd not be surprised if they're both out by then.

Roger Kidd said...

Great summary here, It seems Australia is quite abuzz and - dare i say it - rather positive about the hung parliament.

Mike W said...

Did you see that Julia Gillard pulled Mark Abib from the ABC'S q@A program?
The best outcome that could possibly come from this result is if the NSW right are put to the sword

byron smith said...

Anthony - I agree. Unless there is a stalemate and we get another election before the end of the year, I doubt that either Gillard or Abbott are going to be long term leaders. Hockey is the obvious frontrunner for the Libs. Any thoughts on a Labor replacement?

Mike - Indeed!

Roger - Thanks. I'm glad that there is a bit of a buzz about it. Here in the UK, the hung parliament was treated by many commentators as a national disaster that needed immediate rectification. The pressure on the parties to reach a compromise in days, if not hours, was immense.

I'm quite happy for them to take their time, not least because it gets people talking about the issues outside of a campaign situation.

byron smith said...

PS Anthony - regarding the "bloc of three", you're also right. About the only thing they clearly agreed upon was that they all hate the National Party (as ex-members).

byron smith said...

Annabel Crabb's piece on The Drum has generated some reasonably intelligent discussion about the hung parliament.

byron smith said...

GetUp has also put together this summary of where the independents stand on issues that matter to both the candidates themselves and to GetUp.

byron smith said...

Speaking of protest votes, I notice that NSW led the country in lodging donkey votes. Does this mean that we're less competent than the average, or that we're more disgruntled with everyone than the average?

byron smith said...

Senate results are fascinating. To elect a Tas senator takes less than 40K votes, whereas a NSW Senate seat requires over 450K votes (this is based on provisional counts that don't yet include either below the line votes or postal votes (or below the line postal votes like mine!)).

In other words if you're Tasmanian, then your Senate vote has ten times the weight of a vote from NSW. I hope our friends from the apply isle think carefully about their Senate responsibilities. Maybe I should move to Tassie...

byron smith said...

Of course, in the NT, it only takes about 25K votes...

And I've just discovered that the DLP may have won its first Senate seat since 1974 (yes, I know they are not the same DLP as existed back then). Does anyone have opinions on the current DLP? And if they do indeed get the seat, they will be like Family First in that their primary vote was only 2.23% (indeed they had a lower primary vote than Family First). If you follow the redistributions, you find that it was preference deals with Building Australia, One Nation, CDP, Family First and (especially) the Coalition that secured the seat, bringing their 55K first preferences up to 371K after redistribution. That's how the system works. If you don't like it, vote below the line.

byron smith said...

Liberal preferences came very, very close to electing Family First in SA (who received only 4% of primary vote). Instead, Fam First prefs gave Libs a 3rd senator ahead of ALP, who had a much higher primary vote.

These are the preference deals you need to be aware of. If you don't like them, vote below the line.

(BTW, I've noticed that The Climate Sceptics gave their preference to One Nation in pretty much every state.)

From the SMH said...

This article might be relevant on the constitutional conventions surrounding hung parliaments.

Martin Kemp said...

1. Is a donkey vote the same as an informal vote? By definition I thought a donkey vote was formal, ie all the numbers are there, they're just in sequential order down the ballot paper.

2. How proportional is the senate in its representation if each state gets x reps no matter what the population? I guess the benefits of having a set number of places in the senate is that the smaller states don't get overshadowed by the bigger states' desires. This I imagine is also the strength of the current system in the lower house. Interests of regional areas have a chance to be brought to the table. If we moved to proportional voting then the cities would have all the say. We would become an 'urban-ocracy'. As we cast votes for others, let's keep the system which helps others in the bush!

Jonathan said...

Since I expect the informal figures don't include mistakes in numbering the 84 boxes yet, I wonder whether the NSW problems are to do with people numbering more than one box above the line, like you can in state elections. If you don't like the deals, you need to vote below the line, but let's push for changes to the rules as well!

Martin's right on the donkey front. The donkey vote is the sort of thing giving the Socialist Equality Party a few more votes in Grayndler, although apparently one person there has actually glued a picture of a donkey to their ballot paper!

byron smith said...

Marty:
1. Both can be called a donkey vote. That is, either numbering down the ballot or submitting an informal vote. I was using it as a synonym for the latter. Sorry for any confusion.

2. And yes, the Senate is proportional per state, but as I noted above, this means that Senate votes in the NT and Tas have far greater weight than those in NSW or Vic. Whether the protection of minor states is as relevant now as it was at federation is another matter. Maybe my own viewpoint merely reflects my origin in a large state, but my impression is that (perhaps apart from WA), the tendency of most political imaginations has been towards greater affinity with the commonwealth over against the state. I agree that an urban-ocracy would be no good, and a quick glance at the electoral map shows that this is indeed a danger of the ALP. The fact that the balance of power is held by three rural independents may bring rural issues to the table in a way they haven't been for a while.

Jonathan: It would be interesting to know what proportion of NSW informals were due to confusion and what proportion were deliberate. It certainly seems to be widely accepted that there is a higher than average level of political disconnection and cynicism in NSW due to the failures of State politics. The informal House of Reps vote was also highest in NSW (and indeed, was higher than the Senate informal vote). Again, this could be partially due to different regulations, since in NSW elections you don't have to number every candidate in the lower house. But I think the fact that it was significantly higher than last time shows a measure of dissatisfaction with all sides. The informal "swing" was highest in the ACT, where national politics is the name of the game.

Ben Hudson said...

Regarding proportional representation and the Nats, we'd have to compare the number of seats they contested with that of the greens before we could make any conclusions about the significance of their overall proportion of primary votes.

byron smith said...

Ben - Yes, that is a good point. The Nats generally only contested seats not held by Libs (with a few exceptions).

Checking here shows 16 Nationals candidates (excluding combined Lib/Nat party in Qld, though apparently including Nationals WA candidates) and 108 for The Greens. So we can't compare directly, you're right. Thanks for reminding me.

byron smith said...

I'm more and more impressed by how sensible Oakeshott seems to be. And I like that he's not afraid to use the word "bicameral".

byron smith said...

Monbiot: This was Australia's second climate change election.

byron smith said...

Ross Gittens: "Sorry but I'm not convinced a hung parliament is a terrible thing. It may end up being a good thing. I see it as the revolt of thinking voters against an election campaign that was aimed almost exclusively at unthinking voters."

byron smith said...

I've just discovered that the Greens MP in the House of Reps is the first time a minor party has gained lower house representation in Australia since 1946. That's quite remarkable.

byron smith said...

And it also looks like we might have first indigenous House of Reps member in Hasluck.

byron smith said...

More evidence for the role of climate change: Malcolm Turnbull scored the highest swing of any Lib-ALP competition (there were higher swings in some seats, but they all involved either independents or Greens).

byron smith said...

Ah, ok, second highest. Still, it was a huge swing in Wentworth in a highly educated and politically aware electorate - about three times the swing that Abbott got in his, and Turnbull's margin was greater than Abbott's.

Would the Coalition have won under Turnbull? Might that have been a more significant leadership change for this election than even the Rudd-Gillard move? Just pondering.

byron smith said...

(Over)fishing for deals: why a hung parliament is like collapsing global fisheries.

Byron Smith said...

SMH: Abbott would have gone back to the polls if the negotiations with the independents had gone in his favour, according to shadow minister Bishop, confirmation that he was not being entirely honest back in 2010 when he pledged to govern for the full term in minority.