The prevailing mood in business and right-wing media circles is that Saturday's election was a disaster which will make Australia ungovernable for the next three years – and that's even if the Coalition secures minority government. This is because Malcolm Turnbull will be forced to deal with a narcissistic Senate crossbench whose impulses are base, selfish and opportunistic – as opposed to bargaining with major party senators whose inclinations are uniformly noble and altruistic.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The double-dissolution election Mr Turnbull called in May to rid the Senate of if its vexatious minor party MPs failed dismally, and the Coalition's ability to govern over the next three years will been greatly complicated as a result. It may not even have the numbers to reinstate the Australian Building and Construction Commission in a joint house sitting – the reason the double dissolution election was called in the first place. To suggest, however, that Australia faces parliamentary mayhem and prolonged policy paralysis is nonsense.
The Gillard Labor government of 2010-13 proved that a minority administration could be as adept and effective at passing legislation and implementing policy as any majority government. Indeed, the 44th Parliament was more productive in crucial respects than its successor, when Tony Abbott and later, Mr Turnbull, were unable to shepherd key pieces of legislation through the Senate. Provided he is capable of negotiating with the Senate crossbench in good faith, and is willing to compromise, Mr Turnbull could prove the naysayers wrong. He starts from a seriously weakened position of authority, however.
In his speech to the Liberal Party faithful on Saturday evening, Mr Turnbull attributed the Coalition's poor showing to Labor's Medicare scare campaign – a classic instance of blame deflection. Labor certainly picked up votes by sowing doubt in the electorate's mind about the Coalition's commitment to a publicly administered Medicare. But this was just one of a number of disparate factors that influenced voting across the country.
In calling an election campaign lasting eight long weeks, in failing to enunciate a distinct and compelling narrative as to how his government would distinguish itself from its predecessor, and in running a low-energy campaign, Mr Turnbull gave voters an opportunity to find him wanting. And Bill Shorten underlined those negatives with a surprisingly competent campaign of his own in which renewed health and education spending figured prominently.
How Mr Turnbull expected independent senators would be swept away in a double dissolution election (when the quota for election falls from 14.29 per cent to 7.69 per cent) is a mystery. Another puzzling aspect of Mr Turnbull's leadership is his reluctance to exert his own personality and style on proceedings. In not wanting to displease the Liberals' more conservative wing, however, Mr Turnbull has wound up pleasing no one.
There is a way out of this self-inflicted mess. Mr Turnbull must reach a modus vivendi with the crossbench, regardless of the risks to his leadership. Continuing on in an Abbott-lite vein will doom his prime ministership, sooner rather than later.
