Comment
  1. Home
  2. Comment
  3. Editorial

Federal election 2016: No one won a mandate but unity could come

Whoever finally manages to form a government cannot credibly claim a mandate for an entire suite of policies.

Coalition leader Malcolm Turnbull's assertion he will win a slim majority and that, anyway, he is best placed to deliver stability is dubious. Indeed, such is the instability produced by the ballot that the nation could well have to go through another federal election in coming months. It is also eminently plausible a minority government, supported by the majority of the crossbench members of the lower house, will emerge.

Up Next

Replay

Replay Video Icon
Player help icon

More News Videos

More videos

Election 2016: Turnbull should quit: Shorten

The Opposition leader says Malcolm Turnbull is not up to the job of being PM. Courtesy ABC News 24.

The policy uncertainty is heightened by the likelihood the Senate will be even more diversely composed than before. It is desirable for a government to not control both houses; a robust upper house is a crucial check and balance in our democracy.

Even should the Coalition achieve an unlikely majority, it will be so slim as to not translate into a legitimate mandate. To be sure, the office of prime minister brings with it authority, but there is a difference between that and having popular support for a legislative agenda. The citizenry has refused to endorse any of the policy platforms on offer. This, we hope, primarily reflects collective dissatisfaction with the proposed ideas, rather than being driven by the angry rejection of the political establishment being seen across the world.

Illustration: Jim Pavlidis
Illustration: Jim Pavlidis 

Changed circumstances compel wise leaders to change policies. Given Australia's jarring electoral situation, a decent and strong Australian leader should hear the message of the people. A decent and strong leader would revisit their own policies and would understand that some of those on offer from opposing forces were widely attractive. A decent and strong leader would apply the notion that the things that unite us easily trump our differences, and that this is a time to generate an eclectic melange of the various policies as a way to foster national unity.

What might such an agenda comprise? It would include moving the budget back towards balance by adjusting spending and taxing, rather than, as the Coalition maintains, by focusing almost entirely on cutting spending. It would include an emphasis on health, education and infrastructure investment, as well as marginally lower corporate taxes, as fundamental to our ability to grow the economy and provide equality of opportunity necessary for individuals and communities to prosper.

It would include an augmented effort to mitigate human-induced climate change – which requires a market-based price on carbon emissions. There is a widespread desire for a faster shift to alternative energy, and for treating people seeking asylum in a far more humane way, which can be done without causing a resurgence in people smuggling.

Another message that might be seen to have been buttressed by this election is that people are weary of tribal, bare-knuckled battles, particularly when the reality is that our economy, polity and culture are envied the world over. The underlying truth, sometimes overshadowed by the heat of the political battle, is that Australia is a prosperous, stable democracy, where the weight is in the moderate centre, not at the ideological fringes.

Leveraging that fundamental strength by seeking to lead on a national unity platform could produce a fine, stable outcome – and is far, far superior to succumbing to the sort of populist paroxysm that in recent days has left millions of Britons racked with regret and angst for voting to quit the European Union, and that might yet see the US elect as president someone as evidently unfit for the role as Donald Trump.

0 comments