Our hung Parliament broke the traditional stranglehold on power.
AS THE political equivalent of a child star, Sarah Hanson-Young has in a few short years captured a national audience as an outspoken and passionate champion of refugees. Pity then, come next election, there is a good chance the spirited Green from South Australia, the youngest ever elected to the Senate, will no longer sit in Parliament.
Hanson-Young must scratch out enough votes against popular independent Nick Xenophon and hope any protest against Labor goes her way, not to the Coalition.
She is hardly alone in a fight for political survival. Scan the Labor backbench and any number of faces are unlikely to appear in the Class of 2013 photo and perhaps quite a few frontbenchers too, Queenslanders Craig Emerson and Wayne Swan chief at threat of losing their seats. Independent Rob Oakeshott looks set for a holiday, Tony Windsor looks a better chance to hang on. Whatever happens, Craig Thomson is surely history.
These are some of the influential characters who have played a role in the drama of minority government, purveyors of influence variously loved or loathed, but nonetheless now household names. Andrew Wilkie and Peter Slipper also deserve special mention - each winning a profile far greater than would have ordinarily been expected - because in a hung Parliament, every vote counts.
After the next election, all this will change. The power of individual MPs is likely to be diminished in a return to the predictable tedium - some say "stability" - of two-party politics. Decisions by Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott always matter most, but with one side of politics likely to prevail handsomely, the input of other actors into policy could be remembered fondly.
This is not to praise the scandals or the acute displays of personal animosity witnessed in the past couple of years, although they often make for entertaining media stories. But for all the whingeing about the low standard of contemporary politics, the people's vote in 2010 produced a Parliament that broke the traditional stranglehold on power - a change that may be missed when it has gone.
Take last week, for example, and the way Gillard was outmanoeuvred on the vote to accord Palestinians a greater voice in the United Nations. This was a landmark moment in the Labor Party, with sections of the New South Wales Right shifting away from steadfast support of Israel.
Gillard wanted Australia to oppose a Palestinian "state" winning a seat, even if just as a non-member observer in the UN. Despite initially staring down her cabinet colleagues, Gillard had to abandon her stance or face a humiliating defeat in the caucus.
Labor heavies helped orchestrate the revolt, no doubt, but the opportunity was all the more potent because the government cannot afford to lose a single MP in Parliament. Windsor, Oakeshott, Wilkie and the Greens Adam Bandt might have delivered Gillard the Prime Minister's job, but she has also had to watch that none of her Labor colleagues desert.
Backbenchers are often a tremulous lot, loathe to cross the party machines that can determine their fate. But the present dynamic in Parliament has led to some outspoken moments that are good for democracy.
The Labor caucus demanded action last year over footage showing the cruel slaughter of Australian cattle in Indonesia and later protested a super-trawler raiding Australian fish stocks. That the executive botched the responses, moving to ban cattle exports without warning Jakarta and breaking faith with the trawler company, was not the fault of the backbench. Indeed, MPs have the responsibility to speak up.
Some Coalition MPs have also felt empowered. West Australian Tony Crook sat as a crossbencher, claiming the freedom from party strictures better allowed him to represent his constituency. It certainly won him a lot of personal attention from the leadership and he has since agreed to rejoin the joint party room.
Two Liberals, Russell Broadbent and Judi Moylan, have also made their voice heard on the floor of the house, crossing the floor last week to oppose Labor and the Coalition teaming up to make the Australian mainland disappear from the migration zone.
Broadbent delivered an impassioned speech:
"I stand tonight in a place of discomfort and controversy in a debate that is complicated, divisive and polarising. In this moment I could choose to be at peace with my party . . . or at peace with my heart for this nation. I choose my heart."
The pair's opposition was ultimately futile and the legislation carried. But the dissent illustrated the community's struggle to reconcile human compassion and the desire for border control - representative democracy, in other words.
The next Parliament will generate its own power dynamic, new characters competing with the old. But before the election, the backbench should reflect on what all romantics remember: you never know what you have until you lose it.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What did the article say a hung parliament achieved for Australian politics?
The article says the 2010 hung parliament broke the traditional stranglehold on power, giving individual MPs, independents and minor parties real influence over decisions. That dynamic produced outspoken backbench moments and policy interventions that might be missed if politics returns to predictable two‑party dominance.
Which independents and minor party figures gained prominence during the hung parliament?
The article names several high‑profile figures who gained influence during the hung parliament era, including Sarah Hanson‑Young (Greens), Nick Xenophon, Andrew Wilkie, Peter Slipper, Adam Bandt (Greens), Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott, Tony Crook, and others such as Russell Broadbent and Judi Moylan.
How did the hung parliament affect key policy decisions, according to the article?
Because every vote counted, backbenchers and crossbenchers could alter government positions. Examples in the article include Julia Gillard being outmaneuvered on a vote to give Palestinians a greater voice at the United Nations, the push for action after footage showed cruel slaughter of Australian cattle in Indonesia, and protests over a super‑trawler affecting fisheries policy.
What does the article say about the possible return to two‑party politics and policy stability?
The article suggests that if the next election returns a clear two‑party result, the power of individual MPs would be diminished, producing a more predictable — some call it 'stable' — dynamic where decisions by party leaders, like Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott, matter most and the crossbench’s influence shrinks.
Which MPs did the article suggest were at risk of losing their seats at the next election?
The piece mentions several MPs who looked vulnerable ahead of the next election: Sarah Hanson‑Young faced a tough fight against popular independent Nick Xenophon; Queensland Labor figures Craig Emerson and Wayne Swan were cited as at risk; Rob Oakeshott was described as likely to step aside and Craig Thomson was described as 'surely history.' The article frames these as prospects rather than certainties.
How did some backbenchers demonstrate independence on hot‑button issues?
Backbenchers used their influence in several ways: they demanded government action over the Indonesian cattle slaughter footage, protested the super‑trawler, sat as crossbenchers to claim freedom from party strictures (Tony Crook), and in some cases crossed the floor — for example Russell Broadbent and Judi Moylan opposed a migration zone change despite party positions.
What notable parliamentary debate highlighted the tension between compassion and border control?
The article highlights the migration zone debate in which Russell Broadbent and Judi Moylan crossed the floor. Broadbent delivered an impassioned speech about choosing his 'heart' over party line, illustrating the community’s struggle to reconcile human compassion with the desire for border control.
Why might everyday investors care about the political dynamics described in the article?
The article emphasises that the hung parliament produced less predictable policy outcomes because individual MPs held sway. Everyday investors following public policy, regulation or government decision‑making may want to watch changes in parliamentary dynamics — such as whether the crossbench retains influence or a return to two‑party control occurs — because those shifts can affect how and how quickly policy is made.