What does Australia’s interest in independents mean for politics?

At the beginning of the final week of the federal election campaign, a pub on the Australian National University (ANU) campus was buzzing. It wasn’t for a rowdy pub crawl, but instead to enjoy a live recording of the popular ANU podcast Democracy Sausage. 

Many voters are turning away from the major parties, and some have become increasingly embittered and disengaged. But what does this mean? 

Host of the podcast and Director of the Australian Studies Institute, Professor Mark Kenny, invited the panel of ANU experts to debate this emerging political trend. 

“I think the advent of crossbench MPs is the system correcting itself and I don’t have a particular problem with it,” Kenny said. 

“But let’s ponder this issue for a moment, because some people have been predicting that the crossbench will dramatically expand after this election.” 

If these predictions are correct, should we be concerned or delighted at the prospect of new voices and perspectives entering parliament? 

Co-host and senior lecturer at the ANU School of Politics and International Relations, Dr Marija Taflaga, said the trend away from the major parties was “democracy in action” and welcomed more negotiation and debate.  

“I love legislatures, anything that brings the supremacy of the legislature back, I’m okay with that,” she said.  

Dr Jill Sheppard, senior lecturer in the ANU School of Politics and International Relations, however, was more cynical about the “mismatch between the intent of your vote and the outcome of your vote”.  

“I don’t know if the crossbench increases, but I think the independent vote absolutely increases – and by independent I include Greens and One Nation as a sort of fudge,” she predicted.  

“It is still a two-party system. And the reason for that is we have single member districts, and whenever you only elect one member per district, the rational thing to do over time is to convert into two parties.  

“Voters don’t like that, at the moment, and they’re trying to respond to that in a system that isn’t designed to allow a pressure valve.” 

A recent example of a larger, more complex crossbench – which may be repeated if the trend away from the two-party system continues – is the 2010 hung parliament that occurred when Julia Gillard was prime minister. 

ANU historian Frank Bongiorno pointed out that Anthony Albanese was manager of government business in that period and, in case of a minority Labor government, would have experience negotiating with a complex crossbench.  

“All that Albanese would have to do after an election, then, is go off to the Governor-General and persuade the Governor-General that I have confidence, I can secure supply,” Bongiorno said.  

“He was a leading figure during those years. He will have taken various lessons out of that.” 

But, as Kenny warned, the complexity of deal-making in that context is not always understood. During the Gillard years, opposition parties and hostile media were able to paint a picture of chaos.  

“The narrative at the time was that [parliament] was gridlocked. And the gridlock just didn’t exist,” Kenny said.  

Taflaga added that the learning was to not allow every suspension of standing order – a change to the way parliament runs meetings – to be passed on principle and instead be more selective. 

Still, even with voters seemingly intending to vote independent, their desired outcome still relies on a number of political machinations, which are still at this time unclear.  

And there is vested interest in a two-party political system continuing to exist in Australia. 

“Think of your average powerful lobby group, let’s say minerals or whatever,” Bongiorno said. “I’ll tell you what, life’s a hell of a lot easier if all you have to do is to lobby a majority Labor or a majority Coalition government, as distinct from having to deal with the house crossbench in a significant way.”