Even for those who aren’t political junkies, it’s been a dramatic couple of weeks in Parliament House.
In a stunning capitulation to the Government, the Greens blinked, after nearly a year-long conflict with Labor over housing. But then, in a move that puzzled many, Labor dumped, or delayed, signature bills.
If Anthony Albanese calls an early election in the new year, this could be the final sitting week of Labor’s first term in government. And the last chance to get things done.
Today, national affairs editor James Massola, on whether the Government’s losses outweigh its wins. And if it could be the first incumbent federal government in 93 years, to serve only one term.
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Salinger Morris. It's Wednesday, November 27th. Even for those who aren't political junkies, it's been a dramatic couple of weeks in Parliament House. In a stunning capitulation to the government, the Greens blinked after nearly a year long conflict with labor over housing. But then, in a move that puzzled many labor dumped or delayed signature bills. And it's crunch time. If Anthony Albanese calls an early election in the new year, this could be the final sitting week of Labor's first term in government and the last chance to get things done today. National affairs editor James Massola on whether the government's losses outweigh its wins, and if it could be the first incumbent federal government in 93 years to serve only one term. So James, it is crunch time for the government. We're halfway through the final sitting week of Parliament for the year, and it's made so many headlines that labor remains stuck on some key bills while it's dropped, some others entirely. So we've seen reports that there are about 70 Unpassed bills. I mean, that sounds like a lot. Is that normal?
Yeah, it's actually it does sound like a lot, but it's actually not unusual for bills to pile up by the end of the year. The Senate can tend to get backed up because there are estimates, hearings, say for example, I think it was three weeks ago, middle of the year and going back to February as well. So you often get this situation where the last week is a bit of a rush. Deals are done quickly. There are threats made about an extra sitting day or an extra sitting week, or we're going to sit on Saturday. Usually that doesn't happen. There's maybe one long overnight sitting and a lot of the sort of key bills that consequential bills, the bills that the government is most focused on, will get rushed through. So in itself, it's not that unusual. No.
Okay, so let's get into some specific bills then, because there's been two really significant retreats by the government. Labour has shelved its misinformation bill and it's delayed its gambling advertising bill. So is this a really bad look?
It's a defeat for the government. There's no question about that. The misinformation bill outside of Labour, I couldn't find a single person who thought it was a good idea. You know, people said there was a raft of problems. Perhaps the primary probably the primary one was who was the arbiter of truth. Now, I think most people would agree that some of the misinformation that we see spread online these days, I mean, it's egregious and it spreads like wildfire. You know, social media companies seem to seem to optimize their algorithms for outrage and controversy and shock and, you know, the truth be damned. But fixing that, which is what this bill was going to try and do, is far more problematic. And the question of who would be the arbiter of truth was, I think, just not answered well by Labour at all. I think where they landed was essentially the social media companies would self-regulate. The greens didn't like that at all. The federal opposition, the coalition they didn't like sort of in general, the idea of a, you know, truth watchdog, if you like. And the crossbench wasn't happy either in terms of gambling advertising, I think that's much more significant. The recommendations to change TV advertising gambling rules are they arose out of a report by a now deceased labor member, Peter Murphy, a very well respected member. You know, probably most people would say would have been a future cabinet minister. She died way too young. It was something that initially labor seemed to take up and say, yes, we're going to adopt this. And then as things progressed, it became more and more apparent that this was going to be really difficult. TV networks, for example, raised concerns about it because of advertising revenue that would be lost at a time when, you know, commercial TV is not having the best sort of moment in terms of growing its advertising anyway, we know that that ad revenue is down. So there was that to consider. And it's sort of been parked in the too hard basket, which is a pity because Dutton, you know, the opposition leader, was willing you know, he's on the record saying they have a proposal to tackle this as well. And, you know, and I think probably most people are a bit fed up with the bombardment we see on TV, you know, during sports in particular of gambling advertising. But yeah, it's been kicked into the long grass and I doubt it'll come back.
And so let's go to winds though, because this was, I think, probably entertaining for people who don't even watch politics so closely, was the really long stalemate between the government and the Greens, with the government trying to get its signature housing election commitments through. After a really long time, the Greens blinked and the party will be voting in both Labor's Help to Buy housing bill and also its build to rent policy. So what prompted what can only be seen as something of a stunning reversal or perhaps capitulation?
Yeah, look, capitulation is the word I would use. The Greens have been pushing back against or holding up the passage of these bills since about November last year. Claire O'Neill, who's now the housing minister, said the Greens had held 10,000 young would be first home buyers to ransom for a year by not passing the Help to Buy scheme.
Now the hypocrisy from the Greens is so outrageous, speaker, that they actually bought a shared equity scheme, a similar policy to the election in 2022. They're actually coming into the Parliament and voting against their own policy, and they're holding to ransom the housing aspiration of 40,000 people who need and deserve the help of government. Now, what that does.
Essentially, is that it sees the government assist young first home buyers or not necessarily young, but first home buyers with a deposit to buy and similarly with build to rent, which is designed to get big investors in to build more units. You know, to essentially build up the rental stock of units. They've held that up too. So the greens, they probably held out for about nine months, ten months. Then they put an offer which was, okay, well, we wanted you to get rid of negative gearing and capital gains tax. We've wanted you to do this and that. We'll throw all that out the window because you're not going to do it. What about funding? 25,000 social and affordable homes. The government didn't blink and said no to that as well. So yeah. Now we've seen the greens say, all right, we'll pass it anyway.
Today the Greens can announce that we'll be waving through Labor's two housing bills after accepting that labor doesn't care enough about renters to do anything meaningful for them.
Their attack on the government is, well, you don't help them out. You know, you don't care about renters. You're not helping them. You're not doing enough. Government's response is, well, you've literally stopped the process of getting cheaper rentals built and getting first home buyers into the market. And at the end of the day, it's a win for labor.
And so what impact overall do you think the Greens might actually have on the government? You know the party's had a big year. It's really emerged as a complete thorn in the side of labor. But I'm wondering how it might go at the next election, in particular as a result of the government's current strategy to, you know, not give in to the Greens demands in order to hope that voters will blame them for blocking the government's agenda. Do you think that'll work?
Yeah. Look, the government's direction is really clear. It is no compromise, no retreat, no surrender to the Greens. And that's very much driven from the very top. Anthony Albanese is famously no fan of that party. And look at this stage, I'd actually say the thinking within the Greens and the approach of the Greens has been that their best election is always the election after a labor government wins, because there will be a cohort of people who think, okay, you know, Albanese or, you know, go back a decade, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd, they were good, but they didn't go far enough on this policy or that policy. So I'm going to send a message, but I'm not going to vote in the coalition conservatives. That's the starting point. And I think that partly explains the blocking of the housing bills, for example. But what we're actually seeing in the resolve poll that we publish, Sam, is that Adam Bandt is now the third least popular politician in the country, after Lidia Thorpe and Pauline Hanson. The Greens vote has gone backwards. Primary vote has gone backwards three percentage points, which is outside the margin of error. It's not huge, but it's significant. And conversely, most Greens policies actually remain pretty popular. So while voters like the offer, they're not. What that says to me is that they don't actually like the way the Greens have approached things. So what does all that mean? I think they're in a bit more of a defensive crouch now. I think that they're going to have to fight harder than perhaps they thought they would have to, to hang on to those three Brisbane seats of Brisbane, Ryan and Griffith. And look, it may be that, you know, net no gains but no losses is actually a good result come the next election.
We'll be right back. Now we've focused mostly on the government. So, James, let's turn to the opposition, see how Peter Dutton's doing, because he's been routinely criticized for announcing policies with barely any details. You know, notably, there was his nuclear energy plan, which contained zero information about costings. He's also opposed caps to foreign students coming into the country. But he has provided no plan himself. And yet he has controlled so much of the public debate. So how is the opposition looking?
I have to say, look, I think they're travelling pretty well, but I think things get harder from here. So nuclear costings, for example, that policy, we have this sketch of the outline of a, you know, of the detail. We don't have a lot of details. We know, you know, proposed locations, how you get state governments on board. I don't know how you get some of the power companies on board that are already building renewables on these sites. I don't know, we are supposed to hear about costings by the end of this year. And I think at that point, once they're out there, I mean, I don't think I know Labour will be pulling them apart and saying this doesn't add up and how do you do that? There'll be independent experts saying similar things. There'll be others supporting it. You know, the rubber hits the road essentially on that. On immigration. That was an odd one. I mean, it was this is the bill that would cap the number of uni students coming from overseas to study here. Dutton actually supports reducing that number of people. In fact, he wants to reduce the number of immigrants to Australia further. But he said the labor bill that sank last week didn't do it in the way that he thought would work. Now, the weird thing about that is what that Bill did was sort of create a framework which, you know, say, for example, Peter Dutton was elected. He could quite easily get in there, change who the bill targets, the numbers that were set in the bill, that sort of stuff like it. It could have been used by a future coalition government. So it was a bit odd. But yeah, now we're left in this position where we know he wants to cut immigration. We don't know how.
I mean, as an observer, it sounds, dare I say, almost Trumpian. You know, the lack of details with the policy about nuclear. That reminds me of Trump saying he had a concept of a plan, I think when it came to health care or something. And then in terms of blocking the cap on foreign students, that also has a Trumpian flavor, doesn't it? In terms of what he did with the immigration bill and the border blocking it so that essentially he could still fight the American government on it? Yeah.
Look, I think that's right. Dutton's interesting. I mean, all of, you know, the coalition and of course, labor as well, they're alive to I guess what I would say Trump symbolizes, which is discontent with the status quo, discontent with incumbent governments, discontent because, you know, things got so much more expensive during the pandemic, and maybe someone's lost their job, or maybe someone's kept their job, but their wages haven't kept pace at all. So everything costs a bit more. So what I think Dutton is trying to do is in a similar way. Tap into the discontent. Trump has tapped into, but not in quite as Trumpy a way. Do you know what I mean? I think the parameters of political debate in Australia, where we have compulsory voting, compel leaders to run to the centre, not to the fringe, where, you know, the so-called base exists. So there's some similarities in terms of opposing and critiquing and a lack of detail. But I think Dutton's aware and cautious of not replicating Trump, because I don't think that, you know, I mean, our polling shows Australians don't like Donald Trump.
And if you had to sum it all up, James, I really want your take on what you think the issues of the next federal election will be. I mean, is it going to be cost of living, energy policy, immigration, or do you actually think it will come down to personalities? You know, Albo versus Dutton.
Labor will want a contest on personalities and it will focus on in the next election. Dutton's personality and his time as health minister and his time as immigration minister and then Home Affairs minister and defence minister. And they'll try and frame him as too extreme. Labour will lean into the kind of likeable, normal guy personality of Anthony Albanese, and they'll hope that contrasting persona helps hang on to enough voters in terms of what the policy contest will be. You're spot on, Sam. It will be cost of living, cost of living, cost of living, and then cost of living. Both sides. I expect to have offerings in terms of climate that are very households focused. In particular, you know, plans to subsidise home batteries and solar or maybe a HECS style scheme to get people to buy them for their homes and pay them off or, you know, at a low rate over a long period of time. Immigration will be important, particularly for Dutton. And what we'll hear is a message over and over about Labor's lost control of the borders. And there are too many people here and we want young Aussies to get into homes. We need to slow down immigration because that's the primary source of the problem. Now, that's not correct. There are multiple reasons why we have a housing shortage, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney. Labor will lean into that with other solutions. They'll talk about help to buy and build to rent. They may expand those schemes. They'll be focused on that as well.
So, James, you've taken us through some of the wins and losses of the government. But I'm just wondering how you think it's looking overall heading into another election, which could be as early as April. Do you think the bad is overtaking the good?
I think we're just about at the point, Sam, in terms of the trend in the resolve polls and in other published polls, where. Well, in some of them, in fact, Peter Dutton does have a small lead already. So we're just at that crossover point, if you like. What labor will hope for over the summer is a quiet summer, you know, no bushfires, no major scandals, things like that, and that we come to the end of January, the PM will do that. Traditional speech, typical speech at the National Press Club. This is our forward agenda and hope that, you know, people having had a break from news and having had a break from politics in particular, would be like, oh yeah, okay. I'm prepared to sort of look again, look afresh at the incumbents at Albo and Co and say, well, you know, have they really helped me this year? There is a lot of chatter in the building this week over the last fortnight, an expectation, a growing expectation that we won't come back to sit next year and that there'll be an early, well, early ish election, say at the end of February or in the middle of March. I don't think that's right. I think that the most likely date is early April. I think in either instance, we won't see a budget handed down. There is one scheduled for March, but that budget we know is going to be in deficit. Labor's handed down two surpluses in a row. Why would they want to go to an election saying where better economic managers. But we just handed down a deficit. They'd want to be going and saying, we've just done two surpluses. So that's my fearless prediction. And as for what happens, I have absolutely no idea. Hung parliament of some description is my tip at the moment really.
And I mean, I guess we'll be really keenly watching this space because your writing has taken me down a rabbit hole. And I think it's been 93 years since the last time an incumbent federal government only served one term. So this, you know, would really break a long streak. Yeah.
James Scullin, labor, 1931. But records are made to be broken. Don't forget that the Aston by election victory for labor was the first time an incumbent government had won a by election, and I think it was 102 years or 101 years. Yeah. I'm not I'm definitely not saying that will definitely happen, but there is a non-zero chance of a Dutton majority government. There is definitely a chance either of them end up in minority. And yeah, of course labor has as the incumbent a decent chance of winning as well.
Well, thank you so much, James, as always, for your time.
Pleasure, Sam. Good to chat.
Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Julia Carcasole, with technical assistance by Debbie Harrington. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills. Our head of audio is Tom McKendrick. The Morning Edition is a production of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy the show and want more of our journalism, subscribe to our newspapers today. It's the best way to support what we do. Search The age or Smh.com.au forward slash. Subscribe and sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a comprehensive summary of the day's most important news, analysis and insights in your inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes. I'm Samantha Selinger. Morris, this is the morning edition. Thanks for listening.