Political myths are flourishing in the hothouse of Australia’s federal election campaign. Perhaps the most pervasive is that coalition, alliance governments, or ‘hung’ parliaments are to be avoided, because they are unstable and even unnatural.
This is the view strongly promoted by the Liberal Party. Even the ALP has recently ruled out reaching an agreement to share power or govern with the help of democratically elected representatives from the Greens.
But it is a strange proposition to put before the electorate. It suggests that either the two big parties are extraordinarily ignorant of Australian political history, or they assume that Australian voters are.
The federal Liberal Party is already in a coalition with the National Party. They have been for the last 90 years. Both parties have their own independent administrations, membership lists, distinctive traditions, and strongly defend their independence. They have their own party rooms where policy is formulated before being taken to joint party meetings. On numerous occasions, candidates from the two parties have fought each other in fierce electoral contests.
The first conservative coalition was formed in 1923. 54 years of conservative rule – from 1923-29, 1934-41, 1949-72, 1976-83 and 1996-2007 – have resulted from the capable management of parliamentary coalitions. The successful conservative leaders in national politics accepted the need for coalition government and have been adept at managing the problems thrown up by it. On the other hand, until 2010, the Labor Party governed alone since it first came to power in 1910.
It is hard then to see then how the Liberals can take an in-principle objection to coalition governments without repudiating the long history of their own federal party. However, it is not coalitions in general that incite their hostility, but the possibility of working with the Greens in government in particular. The Liberals in Tasmania turned their back on the opportunity to govern in 2010 by refusing to work with the Greens, and are now shrill in their rejection of the arrangement that Labor and the Greens reached for the current Tasmanian parliament.
Tasmania has a three party system arising from the inherent electoral strength of the Greens combined with the Hare-Clark system, which is far friendlier to smaller parties than any other voting system based on single member electorates. And while the present coalition is unique in Australia, it replicates a pattern of politics found in many other parts of the world where there are Green Parties and a favourable electoral system. This is particularly the case in Europe. During the last 20 years Greens have participated in government in 17 countries, holding the balance of power in Belgium, Ireland, Latvia, the Czech Republic and Germany.
The Tasmanian experience with the Labor-Green coalition, therefore, is far from unique. It brings Tasmanian politics closer to international experience than the nature of politics found in other parts of Australia. In many other countries, voters have the choice between numerous parties and governments are formed as a result of carefully constructed coalitions. This is far from the Australian experience where since 1910 two party blocs – Labor and conservative coalitions – have serially shared power and formed governments. This pattern of politics is so familiar that we have long taken it for granted.
But the faults of this duopoly – like Woolworths and Coles, says the Melbourne MP Adam Bandt – have become increasingly apparent and help explain the current widely recognized malaise of national politics. The two major party blocs drown out minority opinion and dominate the media. They have powerful, sophisticated in-house publicity teams which often mean that only two views are in contention. And they are often presented in the form of well-rehearsed slogans rather than serious debate.
The greatest problem arises from the stifling role of party discipline which has always been unusually strong in Australia and greatly enhanced in recent years. Debate takes place inside the party rooms and never reaches the public except in the form of occasional leaks to the media. So the most important political discussions take place behind closed doors helping to impoverish public discourse.
In chorus, the major parties and the media insist that debate is division, and division is death. This conviction has done more to prevent serious public debate than any other feature of Australian public life. And party discipline not only inhibits the free expression of ideas, it prevents politicians from standing on matters of principle. Unlike their counterparts in Britain and the United States, they never cross the floor and breach party discipline. While this may suit the party managers and the parliamentary whips, it diminishes us all. The high concentration of the Australian media leads to a further impoverishment of our political life and a narrowing of debate and discussion.
It is not surprising then that many people despair about the state of national politics and the stunted public discourse. Our salvation lies in establishing more parties rather than allowing the major parties to treat the minor parties with disdain. Far from being an aberration, coalition governments represent the hope that we may eventually develop in Australia a political culture that is more open and diverse.
*Anna Reynolds is the Greens Candidate for Denison. Prior to joining the Greens Anna worked for over a decade as a climate change expert in Australia and internationally.
