Malcolm Turnbull has little experience as prime minister of dealing with the Senate. His relations with the upper house were reasonable as Minister for Communications but his portfolio was not the focus of attention. When he became prime minister last September he made a promising start to introducing a new culture into government relations with the Senate cross-bench but within weeks he signalled his intention to reform the Senate voting system. That immediately ruined relations and after that the government made no real effort to pass contentious legislation, including the double dissolution trigger bills, through the Senate.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Turnbull hoped to bring about a new Senate with most of the so-called troublemakers gone and a small, manageable cross-bench. However, the new cross-bench seems certain to be not just larger, in fact a record size, but even more diverse. There will be two teams, Xenophon and Hanson, not just Palmer United, to deal with, one of which should be more centrist, but the other more unpredictably extreme. Some of the old cross-bench, as well as Nick Xenophon and Jacqui Lambie, seem likely to be returned and there will also be the outspoken Derryn Hinch from Victoria.
Commentary since the election has concentrated on these unintended consequences of Turnbull's Senate voting reforms and speculated how difficult this new Senate is likely be for the government. Tony Abbott's comment about what he called the "feral" Senate lingers on and inevitably colours public perceptions.
A better focus would be to look back at Senate-government interaction over the past two years in order to glean some lessons about what actually happened.
The Abbott government caused many of its own problems with the Senate. Prime among them were the broken promises and incoherent explanations contained in the ill-fated 2014 Budget. It wasn't just the new Senate cross-benchers who objected to that Budget. So did just about everyone else, including State Premiers and public opinion. Yet the cross-benchers were in the line of fire.
However, while Abbott himself was an inflexible negotiator, many of his weaknesses he shared with other recent prime ministers, Labor and Liberal.
One common error made by governments formed in the House of Representatives is to believe the mantra that they won the election and the winner takes all. Treasurer Scott Morrison is already repeating this mantra in answer to questions about dealing with the new Senate.
A second is to believe its own publicity in regards to having a mandate for its policies based on election victory. That might work in the House of Representatives but it carries no weight with the Senate.
A third is to accept the principle that because the two houses of parliament are quite separate the Senate should be left to its own devices. The government leaders in the Senate often think they know best as far as negotiations in the upper house are concerned. That proved not to be the case in the last Parliament when the Abbott government was weighed down by its Senate leaders, who were poor negotiators.
Some ministers and their staff were much better than others in dealing with the Senate cross-bench. Among Senate-based ministers, Matthias Cormann was widely recognised as among the best in building relationships. Turnbull would be wise to take his advice on how to do it better this time.
Signs of arrogance and over-confidence in his Senate dealings will get him nowhere, just as they brought the Abbott government undone. He would be wise to eat some humble pie. Luckily for him one of the benefits of his near-death experience at the last election is that he may now be in the right frame to work with the Senate in a spirit of compromise.
The first thing the government should take time to decide is just who the key figures in this new Senate will be. The obvious place to start will be Nick Xenophon and Pauline Hanson as leaders of their teams. One of the things that Abbott can't be blamed for was the quirky nature of the Palmer United Party. Not only was its leader outside the Senate but within nine months it had virtually disintegrated. That made negotiation much more difficult.
Turnbull must hope these two micro-parties hold together. If the virtually unknown individuals who will come into the Senate on the coat-tails of Hanson and Xenophon turn out to be independent spirits who need to be personally courted then passing disputed legislation will become much more difficult.
Like last time, the dynamics of this Senate cross-bench will constantly change. Reputations will rise and fall. The lesson of the last Senate was that some cross-benchers grew into the role as they became more experienced and well-known.
Pay close attention to the cross-bench staff who will do much of the day-to-day listening and information-gathering for their senators. The first months of the previous Senate brought quite a bit of staff turnover as inexperienced Senators settled in and found their voice. This Senate will have less time between declaration of the polls and first sitting than the previous cross-bench did.
The tenor of media coverage of the Senate will be crucial. In the previous parliament the government lost the Senate media wars. This cross-bench will contain some formidable media operators – Xenophon, Lambie, Hanson and Hinch – with much higher exposure in the media than just about any of the government senators.
Furthermore, they have earned their stripes with the general public, which will expect the Turnbull government to treat the Senate cross-bench with respect and consistency while expecting the same in return.
John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University.
