Editorial: Novel experience

OPINION: When Australian voters spoke on August 21 it was to say, as did British voters earlier this year, "a plague on both your houses".

As a result neither the Liberal-National Coalition nor Labor can command a majority in the House of Representatives, each forced to negotiate with three country independent MPs. A fourth independent, from the Greens, has stated his clear preference to work with Labor. New Zealanders, well used to the deal-making needed to produce coalitions or support pacts, will look across the Tasman with wry amusement at the political impasse.

For Australians, however, this is a largely novel experience.

The political futures of both Labor's Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott hinge on being able to command a majority in the lower House. Gillard, as the incumbent prime minister, ran a particularly poor campaign compared with Abbott who, surprisingly, managed to avoid the gaffes and errors many had predicted. Gillard was not helped by the unpopularity of Labor administrations in Queensland, where the ousting of her predecessor as prime minister, Kevin Rudd, would also have been a factor, and New South Wales.

Although the same Labor hierarchy which shafted Rudd earlier this year now blames the election result on leaks from his camp, the fact remains that Gillard failed to articulate clearly what she stood for. If she does not retain the prime ministership there could be calls from Labor supporters to end the pervasive backroom factionalism within the party which led to Rudd's demise.

The Green Party will take the most satisfaction from the result last Saturday. Other parties, such as the Democrats, have attempted to establish themselves as a real third force in Australian politics, but they have enjoyed only partial influence.

This election the Greens did emerge as that key player. They are likely to have won a Senate seat in each state, will hold the balance of power in that House, in itself bad news for the Coalition on issues such as climate change, and for the first time they also won a Lower House seat.

From a New Zealand perspective it might be thought that the election outcome will spur calls for political reform in Australia. The Greens, for example, won around one million votes nationwide, but just the single Lower House seat. It was this sort of disproportionality that was one of the drivers of MMP in New Zealand.

Many Australians would also not be happy that their next government will be determined by three independent power brokers whose influence is out of all proportion to their support. But electoral reform in Australia is unlikely in the short term. The Senate is already elected under the Single Transferable Vote system, which is why the Greens will probably have nine seats there.

Another driver of electoral reform in New Zealand was the wish to have a check on the Cabinet. In Australia, however, this is provided by the Senate and the existence of state governments, which tend to become led by the party that is in opposition at a federal level as voters seek a political balance.

Yet if the stalemate after this election cannot be broken, or if a government is formed but cannot last three years, a groundswell for electoral reform may finally develop.

- © Fairfax NZ News

Newest First

Oldest First