Latest news with #Albanese-Bandt
News.com.au
02-05-2025
- Politics
- News.com.au
How likely, and scary, is the prospect of a minority government after the election?
ANALYSIS Spend a week on the road with any politician and certain phrases, through sheer, merciless repetition, will bore their way inside your skull, to be embedded there permanently. You find yourself mentally completing the candidate's sentences. You hear a question, during a press conference or an interview, and know exactly how the candidate will answer it before they open their mouth. This is an inevitable part of the political process. The boffins who run election campaigns know that to reach as many voters as possible, their candidate's lines must be repeated again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Which is annoying, when you're absorbing every word spoken, but also illuminating. You pick up on patterns. Granted, they're usually pretty obvious. We could talk about a dozen of these key, incessant phrases from the last week of Peter Dutton's campaign, but for the purposes of this article we'll choose one: 'a Labor-Greens government', or if you prefer, its close variant 'an Albanese-Bandt government'. Mr Dutton has constantly, constantly sought to raise the spectre of a minority Labor government beholden to the Greens. The idea is to convince Australians that voting for, say, Labor's Rebecca White in the Tasmanian seat of Lyons is almost tantamount to supporting Greens leader Adam Bandt. 'If the Prime Minister is re-elected, it is only with the Greens in cahoots,' the Opposition Leader told ABC Radio on Friday. At other points in the campaign, Mr Dutton has expressed worry about Australia ending up with a 'European-style' composition of MPs in parliament, with small factions like the Greens or Teals able to hold legislation hostage. How probable is a minority government? According to the polls, both public and private, Anthony Albanese may well retain his majority after the election, which would stave off the minority government bogeyman for another term and render the rest of this article moot. This would be in line with most of Australian history. Before 2010, we had gone about seven decades without any minority government holding power. But Mr Albanese could also slip under the 76 seats required for a majority in the House (75 would be enough if he could convince a crossbencher to become speaker). On the other side, a Coalition majority government was only a quite faint possibility even when Mr Dutton led in the polls, because the Liberals and Nationals are coming off such a low combined base. He would need to flip more than 20 seats. A more readily achievable objective, for Mr Dutton, is to pull roughly even with Labor on seats and then convince some crossbenchers, probably a combination of the Teals, to vote with him on confidence and supply. Put aside both majority government scenarios. What happens, after Saturday night, if neither side has won outright? Say Labor has 74 seats and the Coalition has 72. The specific numbers don't matter so much as the fact that they're in the same ballpark, and are under the threshold for a majority. Both sides would then go to the crossbench seeking enough votes, in the House, to guarantee confidence and supply. That means, if a no confidence motion occurs, at least 76 MPs must be committed to oppose it. And the same number must be willing to vote for appropriation bills, which enable the government to spend money. Whichever major party can add enough support to reach 76 will form a minority government. It's important to recognise what that would not guarantee. The crossbenchers would essentially be agreeing not to bring down the government, and little more. They would not be agreeing to support all government legislation. And they would be free, during the post-election negotiations, to demand concessions from both Mr Albanese and Mr Dutton in exchange for their support. That is what happened back in 2010, when Julia Gillard offered up things the Greens and country independents wanted, and convinced them to support her over Tony Abbott. How scary is the minority government scenario? When Australia has a majority government, almost all negotiation happens either within the governing party or in the Senate. All that usually matters in the House is whether everyone in the biggest party – Labor, for these past three years – votes the same way. The Senate is more diverse; it is incredibly rare for any party to hold a majority in that chamber. So that is where policy debates erupt most fiercely, and where deals are made, and concessions offered, to get things passed. Running a minority government would require Mr Albanese or Mr Dutton, whichever of them were prime minister, to conduct similar negotiations in the House as well. So a Prime Minister Dutton, for example, could not implement his proposed cut to the fuel excise without convincing enough crossbenchers in both the Senate and the House to support it. What I'm dancing around here is the logjam argument – the idea that a minority government would be hamstrung and unable to get anything substantive done. It's a fairly weak one. Yes, there would be another annoying step to overcome every time the government wanted to pass legislation; the crossbenchers in the House could not simply be ignored. That might lead to more horsetrading. You can mount a credible argument that it would slow things down. But it would not require a fundamental rearrangement of how the Australian parliament functions. These same negotiations already happen in the Senate. They're routine. And of course the minor parties would argue that giving them more influence over legislation, and more leverage at the negotiating table, would enable them to better represent the interests of their electorates. They'd frame it as a good thing. The other argument against minority government, and the one Mr Dutton has favoured in these closing days of the campaign, is that it could have a radicalising effect on whichever major party is in charge. If Mr Albanese's survival as a second-term prime minister hinges on the goodwill of the Greens, he will make concessions to them, implementing policies outside the mainstream. That is the theory of the case being offered by Mr Dutton. Hence all the talk about a 'Labor-Greens' or 'Albanese-Bandt' government. The hypothetical inverse, here, would be a Dutton government propped up by One Nation. Or to adopt the parlance, a 'Dutton-Hanson government'. For what it's worth, which is for you to judge, minority governments are not all that rare when you look around the world. Many countries in Europe, and indeed our neighbour New Zealand, use a version of proportional representation, which makes it extremely difficult for any one party to reach a majority. Those nations still function. They still get stuff done. But the concerns about minority government are rooted in reality, and worth thinking about before you cast your ballot today.
Sky News AU
02-05-2025
- Business
- Sky News AU
‘You will get Voice, Treaty, Truth': Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash issues warning about dire risk of hung parliament
Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash has issued a warning to voters about the danger of a hung parliament, claiming Australians will be in for a 'rude shock' if the election results in an Albanese-Bandt government. The shadow attorney general spoke to Sky News Australia on the eve of election day, telling host Danica de Giorgio that the feedback she was hearing from voters was 'very positive'. 'The mood on the ground is more 2019 than 2022,' the WA senator said. 'I see what the polls are saying, the published polls, but when I'm out on the ground - and certainly this is the feedback from colleagues - is that people are actually saying they need to get Australia back on track". Senator Cash said voters simply needed to ask themselves if they were 'better off today than you were three years ago when Mr Albanese was first elected?' 'The overwhelming answer… is, we cannot afford another three years of Labor,' she said. 'I mean, almost three years ago to the day, Mr Albanese stood up and said to the Australian people, life will be cheaper under me. 'Three years later… I would say to the Australian people, have a look at the ticket, the price that you're paying at the checkout. But not only that, have a look at your energy bill, because that doesn't lie. 'Life is harder under Mr Albanese.' Senator Cash said voters were responding well to the Coalition's plan to 'get Australia back on track'. 'Cost of living relief that Australians so desperately need flowing from almost immediately under a Dutton government, every leader 25 cents cheaper; that is a message that resonates here in Western Australia, because we drive such large distances,' she said. 'But also for over 10 million Australians, that cost of living relief of up to $1,200 when you put in your next tax return, 25-26. People get that message.' Senator Cash urged voters to remember the history of Labor and Coalition governments, before warning that a hung parliament could lead to the worst possible result - a Labor-Greens government. 'When Labor runs out of money, they come after yours. That happens to be a fact,' she said. 'The history of coalition governments is we get elected and we have to clean up Labor's mess. 'But God help Australia if they wake up on Sunday and Adam Bandt is running this country with Mr Albanese, because let's have a look at the rude shock that awaits Australians: You will get voice treaty truth.' The spectre of the Voice to Parliament was revived this week when Labor's Penny Wong indicated its creation was inevitable. Senator Cash seized on the comments to make her final pitch to voters. 'My final reminder to the Australian people is this, you voted overwhelmingly No to Mr Albanese's plan to divide this country on the basis of race. Peter Dutton stood up for you, he stood with you,' she said. 'Mr Albanese has confirmed his senior ministers have confirmed: Voice, treaty, truth, despite Australians voting no, you will get that under a re-elected Albanese government. 'You must vote no to Mr Albanese. The only person who will not divide this country on the basis of race is Peter Dutton. So vote for your local liberal candidate.'
West Australian
02-05-2025
- Business
- West Australian
Federal election 2025: Liberal hopes could rest on One Nation preference in WA as voters abandon major parties
Preferences could decide a swag of key election battles in WA, with a new opinion poll revealing Pauline Hanson's One Nation could be the big winner as voters abandon both major parties. Labor's primary vote has slipped 2.8 per cent and the Liberal vote is down 3.8 per cent, according to the Demos AU poll that detected a 7.1 per cent surge to give One Nation 11 per cent of first preferences. That could help the Liberal party in key seats including Curtin, after a nationwide preference swap Labor has seized on. 'Peter Dutton has sold out principles for political gain,' WA Minister Madeleine King said. 'It's up to him to explain his actions to the Australian people. He has let himself and the Liberal party down.' Teal MP Kate Chaney has accused the Liberals of 'trickery' over a nationwide preference swap in 139 seats including Curtin, Brand and Fremantle. But the Liberal party has preferenced the Australian Christians second in other key WA seats, including Tangney and Pearce. One Nation WA Leader Rod Caddies, who will take up one of two Legislative Council seats won by the party at the recent State election, said the party has its sights set on the Senate and handing the Prime Ministership to Mr Dutton would be a welcome bonus. 'I guess it's a win for Australia if you're a conservative,' he said. 'I definitely think we're a good chance for a Senate seat. One Nation hasn't been present in WA, strong enough, over the last four years to realistically feel we can win the lower house seats. 'It's never impossible, however, you've got to be realistic. If we can increase our vote majorly, that's a step in the right direction.' One Nation's lead Senate candidate in WA is millionaire civil construction businessmen Tyron Whitten who, if successful, could ruin the Liberal party's chances of a third WA Senate seat. When asked if that was a sacrifice he was willing to make to win Curtin, Mr Dutton ignored the question. Mr Caddies listed income splitting for tax purposes and reducing alcohol excise as the party's policy priorities. 'We don't want to see people just drinking more, but we want to see them socialising more,' he said. 'We need to help the restaurants and bars and get people back out.' Mr Dutton avoided any mention of One Nation or Pauline Hanson when pressed on the preference swap in Myaree on Friday, instead turning the focus on Labor deals. 'It's about outcomes at the election,' he said. 'The outcome of the election that would be the worst for WA would be an Albanese-Bandt government, because it would mean Nature Positive which the Prime Minister won't look West Australians in the eye and tell them what it means. 'And don't forget that the teal Kate Chaney is working in lockstep with the Labor party. The Labor party is running soft in Curtin to support somebody that they know is a fellow traveller. Kate Chaney would support a Labor-Greens government and that would be bad for WA.' The Greens vote increased 2.5 per cent to 15 per cent, according to the Demos AU poll. The Liberal party is targeting Curtin, Bullwinkel, Tangney and Pearce in it's bid to claw back ground in WA after being turfed out by voters in five seats in 2022. The Demos AU poll of 4,100 voters released on Friday made for grim reading in Liberal HQ, with both major parties suffering a slump in support but Labor retain a nationwide edge, 52 to 48 per cent, when preferences were counted. Labor was even further ahead, 56 to 44 per cent two-party preferred, in WA. Anthony Albanese was ahead of Mr Dutton in the preferred PM stakes, 46 per cent to 34 per cent. But Mr Dutton received 43 per cent support from One Nation voters.
The Guardian
22-04-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Australians could be waiting more than 70 years for affordable housing if prices follow path pushed by major parties
Australians would have to wait 70 years for affordable housing if property values follow the 'sustainable growth' path advocated by the two major parties. Labor and the Coalition this week launched signature policies to tackle the worsening housing affordability crisis, but both sides of politics said they did not welcome the idea of falling house prices. 'Our plan is to get our country back on track to help young Australians realise the dream of home ownership again,' Peter Dutton said in his opening remarks in Wednesday night's second leaders' debate. 'I want to see them (home prices) steadily increase. I don't want to see a situation where Labor crashes the economy and somebody who's paid $750,000 for a house today is worth $600,000 in 18 months' time under an Albanese-Bandt government – that would be a disaster,' the opposition leader said. Anthony Albanese in a radio interview dodged the question of whether he wanted home prices to drop. 'Look, historically in Australia … prices tend to rise. What we want to do is to make sure that people have accessibility for home ownership,' the prime minister said. Leery of advocating for falling house prices, politicians have instead backed the concept of 'sustainable' price growth – where affordability is eventually restored by incomes growing faster than property values. But according to independent economist Saul Eslake: 'This might sound nice, but it's actually a con.' A simple analysis shows why. Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter At the end of last year, the median price for a house in a capital city at $933,000 was 12.8 times the average adult Australian's annual income of about $73,000. In comparison, at the turn of the century, the median house price of $178,000 was 6.5 times the average income of $27,600. While not a perfect measure of affordability, this doubling in the house price-to-income ratio shows how property has become far less affordable over time. Assuming home values from here climb in line with the Reserve Bank's inflation rate target of 2.5%, and wages grow by 3.5% a year, it will take 70 years for this 'sustainable growth' path to push the house price-to-income ratio back down to 6.5. In other words, the bipartisan approach to solving unaffordable housing is: waiting until the end of this century to return affordability to where it was at the close of the last. Even then, factoring in house price growth of 2.5% a year is a heroic assumption. Over the two decades to 2024, the price of the median capital city house has almost doubled to $933,000, according to CoreLogic. That's equivalent to annual average house price growth of more than 9%. The Greens leader, Adam Bandt, also has a version of the sustainable growth solution to housing affordability, even as he touts more ambitious policy measures than the major parties. 'We think having house prices stay the same for a while to give wages a chance to catch up is a reasonable compromise that will give first home buyers and renters some hope,' Bandt said. But even in this more hopeful scenario – where house prices stagnate and wages grow by 3.5% – it would take 20 years to return the affordability measure to where it was at the start of 2000. Similarly, it would take 11 years if home values dropped by 2.5% a year. And it would still take 8 years if prices dropped by an extraordinary 5% annually. Eslake said rapid house price falls in the order of 20% would be disruptive, have wider economic consequences, and probably be triggered by a rapid rise in unemployment. Witness the experience such as Spain, Ireland and the US in the wake of the global financial crisis. 'But what would be wrong with a 5-10% fall in house prices over a three-year period? That would do more to boost affordability than anything any government has done in the past 60 years,' Eslake said. Such a result was difficult to engineer via government policy, but Eslake said governments should at least not actively work to stem falling prices, as they have repeatedly done in the past. Ironically, this has been done via first homeowner grants – the same type of measures the two major parties are offering now as a cure for high prices. Cameron Kusher, an independent property expert, said the question of whether house prices should fall was a fraught one. 'We have created this housing system where most of our wealth is held in residential property, especially when you exclude super,' Kusher said. 'We've become accustomed to the idea that the way you get wealthy in Australia is you buy and hold property, and get wealthier over time. 'It will take a big shift in mindset to change that.' Kusher said the most likely answer was to create more homes at lower price points, most obviously via a big lift in the number of apartments. This is something Auckland achieved via a massive rezoning of land that led to lower prices and rents than in the rest of the country. This, however, would demand another major shift in mindset: letting go of the dream of a standalone house.
