Will the next federal election, due by May next year, result in a hung parliament? Everyone seems to think so. The opinion poll ingredients — low major-party primary support; two-party-preferred estimates favouring the Coalition around 51–49 — lend themselves to such expectations. And most people reckon it’ll probably be the Coalition that forms government.
An assumed component is the continued presence of a very large crossbench, mostly representing electorates that return Coalition two-party-preferred majorities. (That’s according to the vote recounts the Australian Electoral Commission does for academic purposes.)
But the crossbench could dramatically grow in 2025, or it could shrink or remain about the same. The only certain survivors (assuming they contest) are Andrew Wilkie in Clark (Tasmania), Bob Katter in Kennedy (Queensland) and Adam Bandt in Melbourne. Rebekha Sharkie in Mayo (South Australia) is an almost certainty.
The fates of all the others are to varying degrees unknowable. The unpredictability is exacerbated not just by the absence of Scott Morrison as prime minister but also by the lack of a Coalition government per se. Instead it’s a Labor one, not widely loved, attempting re-election — something we haven’t had since 2013, in an older, gentler time. We’re in new terrain.
If current polls are replicated at the ballot box next year, the primary-vote swings to the Coalition and against Labor would likely see the Coalition regain territory from the crossbench.
An extremely rosy outcome for the Liberals and Nationals would see them taking back the six teal seats and Warringah and Indi, which would take them to sixty-six seats. Throw in Ryan (Queensland) from the Greens and you have sixty-seven. Then, according to the pendulum, the 3 per cent two-party-preferred national swing (from the Coalition’s 47.9 in 2022) would yield seven more. Not quite a majority, but pendulums aren’t perfect predictors. Of the remaining crossbenchers, Katter and Sharkie would be solid backers of the Coalition.
Another reason for the opposition to be cheerful: today’s pollsters’ two-party-preferred estimates use 2022 flows from minor parties and independents, which were surprisingly high. If they instead slotted in 2019 flows, our poll aggregate would be closer to 52–48 (in the Coalition’s favour). And last but certainly not least, most of the final 2022 campaign polls overestimated Labor support by around two points. Are they still doing that?
As I said, that’s the glass-very-full Coalition scenario. It’s also possible that more, not fewer, teals will emerge from election 2025.
What Labor has going for it is that this isn’t election eve and it’s not even the campaign. We are months away. To say they have time to make up ground would imply that future poll movements in their direction would come from conscious efforts on the government’s part, but sometimes polls just move back to the devil-you-know incumbent as election day approaches. And today’s poll numbers don’t really represent what would have happened “if an election had been held last weekend” because if there had been an election then, events leading up to it would have been very different and voters’ minds would have been more focused on who they wish to govern over the next three years.
Two years ago, when this Labor government was riding high, I thought they would probably be re-elected. Not because of the polls, but because first-term federal governments usually are. And I believed it would likely be with a majority of seats. Had their 2022 polling been in the doldrums that would still have been my expectation. Those early polls mean zilch. Who can forget Kevin08–09? Over in the Mother Country, new prime minister Sir Keir Starmer is having a very hard time of it. Never mind, Labour will probably be re-elected in 2029.
But now we’re getting close to the election, the surveys can’t be totally dismissed. Still, nor are they in any way predictions.
Back in 2022, I thought the main threat to the government’s re-election was an international recession. That didn’t transpire, but the cost of living crisis could be called the next best thing.
Anthony Albanese’s early months as prime minister were slow and steady, without the Morrison gimmicks. He avoided being captured by the news cycle — unlike most obviously (again) Kevin Rudd. But like Rudd, Albanese seemed to overestimate the importance of keeping faith with voters over election promises. And there was a Kevinesque reluctance to rock those high poll ratings (which in the end disappeared anyway).
I’m a believer in new governments doing unpopular stuff on the economic front and blaming it on their predecessors — a new PM making voters eat their greens, taking a hit to their personal ratings but emerging (as long as the changes are bedded down by the next election) as a “strong” leader prepared to do what’s right for the country. Perhaps, yes, even “a conviction politician!”
Still, it has to be acknowledged, not just regarding Albanese but all his predecessors this side of John Howard, that the gnashing of teeth about recent reform-shy governments ignores the composition of the Senate. With no one-stop “centrist” shop (the Democrats) on offer, governments now need to cobble majorities together with parties on the far left or far right.
In today’s parliament, when the Coalition opposes, Labor needs the Greens plus a couple of others. The Greens have their own political agenda — to maximise their support — which largely consists of being seen to drag Labor towards their policies. Albanese obviously tries, consciously and understandably, to avoid that. If a government has a vaguely contentious policy it would like to put in place but knows the legislation wouldn’t survive the Senate, it’s best not to even try.
In commentatorland the vibe is that Albanese is a ditherer and Dutton a wily operator. That view contains some truth but is mostly perceived through the prism of the opinion polls. Expectations of a change of government were boosted by Donald Trump’s victory in America, and we’ve since heard a lot since about swings against incumbents across the democratic world in 2024. The cost of living crisis is a big driver, but the other shoe, in the United States and much of Europe, of uncontrolled immigration, doesn’t drop here. Controlled immigration is an issue, and feeds into cost of living and housing in particular, but it lacks the potency.
Dutton has had an easy media run as opposition leader outside the ABC, which he rarely engages with. That might change during the campaign; recall the pressure Albanese suddenly found himself under in March–May 2022, when missteps were no longer ignored.
Anthony Albanese became Labor leader not through public demand but because, after decades in factional politics, it was his turn. He was lucky to miss out in 2013 and reach the peak six years later with a winnable election in sight. Most of the media criticism of him as prime minister (outside News Corp’s weekly beatups) goes to political agility rather than substance. On policy, many a mainstream economist chastises his government for fiscal laxness contributing to inflation (and hence higher interest rates than there would otherwise be) and generally bemoans the absence of “reform.” Oh for the days of… [you can fill in the rest].
What kind of a politician is he? He’s no great public orator, nor a details man. The 2019–22 “small target” strategy was politically sound, if smaller than necessary. The purchase of the multimillion-dollar coastal home this year was a jaw-dropping misjudgement. An election promise on superannuation broken early last year, but with the proviso that it wouldn’t come into operation until the next term — a strategic shocker praised to the heavens by the press gallery — seems to have come to nothing. It remains to be seen if the government takes it to the election.
And how is the prime minister seen in the softly committed or swingable segments of voterland? As a nice guy but not decisive or strong. A manager not a doer and powerless in the face of rising prices and high interest rates. Any dramatic attempt to alter that perception in the next few months would be too obvious and make things worse.
The tried and tested re-election strategy of a scare campaign against the opposition beckons. There’s quite a bit to play with there: nuclear policy; questions about where it will cut spending to get down inflation; the risk of suffering tariffs from other countries due to the lack of climate change action; abortion (done softly softly); being in the pocket of the mining industry; the leader’s addiction to racially-tinged politics. Whatever Trump is up to at that time might also present opportunities.
Dutton’s conscious political brand is the conviction politician, which can be a dangerous thing in an opposition leader. His refusal to admit error, ever, might prove his Achilles heel. Given the prime minister’s presentational limitations, much of the work will fall on others, particularly treasurer Jim Chalmers.
Albanese’s apparent obsession with retaining Labor’s four newly won West Australian electorates, which will look increasingly weird to the 90 per cent of voters who don’t live in that state, needs to be reined in. Across in Queensland, the demise of a rickety old state Labor government should open up federal opportunities. With a current Labor count of just five out of thirty in that state, the only way there is up.
Still, slicing the country into bits and pieces and trying to appeal to this or that demographic is a mug’s game. Political parties do best when setting their sights on that larger constituency called Australians. •
