In the end, it was a predictable defeat for the government. Scott Morrison’s third attempt at introducing a religious discrimination bill was effectively blown up by five Liberal MPs crossing the floor on Wednesday night (this hasn’t happened to a Liberal government in 40 years). For a government seeking re-election, it’s yet another parliamentary loss, another show of disunity, another week of clinging on between damaging leaks and embarrassing headlines.
For Labor, it’s something of a victory, or at least some vindication of the opposition’s “small target” strategy. Labor knows it has trouble with the devoutly religious, and is sometimes paralysed by caution over potential wedges. Morrison has spent weeks dogwhistling to culturally diverse religious voters in the Sydney suburbs.
The opposition approach during this entire debate was essentially to bat time. For months, they kept their position tightly under wraps until the very final text was delivered. Essentially, Labor tried to walk a tightrope between affirming, in principle, its support for protecting against religious discrimination, while demanding more protection for the LGBTQIA+ community.
It’s entirely in keeping with the party’s cautious approach to opposition, focusing on the Morrison government’s inevitable failures while avoiding anything too contentious that could be used against them. Nothing says contentious like religious discrimination.
Labor’s decision to support the bill in the lower house even if its amendments failed, and push the fight to the Senate drew division within caucus, and outrage from many progressives, who saw the party as selling out queer kids in an act of attempted political 5D chess.
Somehow, it all kind of worked for Labor. It stays standing on the tightrope while the government looks bruised. The bill is dead, and Labor avoids The Wedge. Albanese can now go to an election promising a goldilocks religious discrimination model, which protects both the faithful, and queer students.
But the party also had an element of luck on its side here. The “having it both ways” strategy was always risky. For example, it’s still unclear whether the five Liberal moderates who supported an amendment from Centre Alliance’s Rebekha Sharkie to protect LGBTQIA+ students would’ve backed Labor’s identical amendment. Without Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg promising to keep that amendment in the Senate, against the wishes of his own party, the government may never have dropped the bill.
The small target strategy notches up another win for Labor, thanks in no small part to the government’s incompetence. And with the polling, the momentum, and the leaks all going against a tired, divided government, it still looks to be working.
With estimates next week likely to bring another series of embarrassing revelations, the government’s real hope at a reset lies next month — during Budget Week, and more crucially, out on the campaign trail. The 2021 Budget was probably the government’s last “good” week. And even if normie voters don’t actually pay it much attention, it will finally give them some narrative control.
Beyond that, it’s the campaign trail that keeps both sides up at night. The final days of the 45th Parliament were a hot mess. The government lost votes, looked divided, exhausted, and incompetent. But the Morrison who emerged out of that mess and onto the campaign trail, energised and full of winning confidence, was helped back to The Lodge by a botched, hubristic Labor campaign.
No matter how many parliamentary wins Labor scores, that’s the Morrison they still fear. It’s why nobody trusts the good polls and the bad vibes emanating from the government. It’s why Albanese has been so cautious as opposition leader — 2019 Morrison knew how to take the kernels of a scare campaign and make it stick.
And it’s why there’s a sense of weary resignation around Canberra as we slouch toward an election. It’s a sense that policy achievements (of which the Morrison government has very few) and parliamentary business matter rather little. Winning in May is all that counts. And in 2019, Morrison proved that can be done on little more than vibes and character attacks. Labor sometimes seems determined to prove it from opposition.
Just like the religious discrimination debate, it might just work out for them. But then what?
I sense that while some people are passionate about this, most voters don’t see it as a first order issue. Let’s put the boot on the other foot for a moment and imagine what might have happened if Labor had opted for furious opposition:
Instead of which, Labor have managed a reverse wedge while keeping their noses reasonably clean. Honestly, how many people are going to vote for the coalition because Labour was prepared to support the amended legislation in the lower house?
Labor are not the alternative I want, but they are the alternative I’ve got.
Labor have managed a “reverse wedge”. You ALP brokens are beyond parody.
What room do you think they’ve left themselves to do anything in power when they’ve sold off every principle they ever held and ruled everything off the table?
On your green ballot you can put the Labor or the Coalition candidate last, or second last. One or the other will still form the next government. Sure, it’s a crap choice, but it’s the choice you’ve got. Which do you recommend?
I happen to believe Labor in government will be more susceptible to pressure for positive change, especially if they must form a minority government with the Greens and/or Independents, than the current purulent parcel of parasitical pusillanimous poltroons.
i don’t agree with you GL. Labor knows damn well where the votes are and the more people vote for alternative parties or causes the more the have to take notice. The only way to loosen the hold corporate donors have on Labor is to just not vote for them (or libs of course).
Which is why I said second last on the green ballot
Refusing to vote is a vote for the status quo.
That is often cited by the hard right, intent on ending STV/PR & obligatory voting as proof of the superiority (seriously!) of FPtP.
Just ensure that your PRIMARY vote is given to the Greens, in any Reps. electorate AND the Senate for the simple reason of AEC funding.
A total over 5% (of formal ballots in that electorate) garners $2.82@ – even for losers which is how Poorlean has funded her sumptuous lifestyle these two decades or more.
So, even in hopelessly ‘safe’ (wotta misnomer!) electorates you can poke whomsoever you wish in the eye and show where your beliefs lay then settle for the evil of two lessers.
Also, just to remind those who are unsure – the Line on the Senate ballot (may PJK rot in hell) no longer condemns one to filling out the entire beach towel ballot of yore.
ONLY a minimum of TWELVE boxes need be checked to be valid vote – if you cannot find more than 12 worthy of consideration then our democracy is defunct.
Interested to know why you don’t want Labor…do you think they won’t do a vastly better job?
In what marginals would they have conceded votes? That’s just pure scare mongering tactics. If that’s the way Labor wants to win votes in some seats, they will lose them in others. They have concerns about the Greens in the inner city seats. That’s exactly where they would lose the votes. Although they probably already have. I won’t vote Greens, but I’m not incredibly happy about voting Labor in the forthcoming election due to this sort of carry on.
The “Independents” are the wets of the real Liberal Party before it got turned into a parody of the Conservatives.
So can you tell us what sort of ‘alternative government’ you would like?? Now, how likely given the power of the Murdoch/NINE media and conservative institutions is it a realistic proposition?????
To quote a stanza from the late great Aus. poet John Thomson (father of Jack) in his “Letter to a Friend”;
…..
“Dullness and Hatred ,
meeting no resistance,
Lose themselves
in emptiness and distance.”
I think the fate of the Bill shows Albo is on the right track in dealing with this dull and hateful mob.
Thanks for a new experience, I was not familiar with that.
While many have remarked on Morrison being reactive to events, he is nothing if not proactive when it comes to messaging, announcements and setting the narrative.
While it has suited Labor also to be reactive to events (burned by the energetically proactive policy-setting of the Shorten campaign), it cannot afford to remain so during the campaign. Albanese is going to need to get out in front of Morrison with the news cycle. Reagan’s advisers implemented the “politics of motion”, in other words never standing still long enough for the other side to draw a bead on you.
Albanese’s challenge will be continuing to wrong foot Morrison with short, crisp, tidy soundbites on the rorts and failings, as well as the policies on wage rises, job security, child care and anti-corruption/integrity..
Management of the Covid19 farce, rising death rates, today 51…….
Nothing done to prepare for the next variant out of India with our borders wide open.
There will always be a “next variant” if big pharma has its way.
It won’t look like a win to the 80% of the electorate who saw no need for the Bill at all and opposed it. All they saw was the Bill passed the Lower house because Labor allowed it to do so. As far as the electorate are concerned, in the end, Labor voted with the Coalition, yet again. The amendments are lost in translation- disappeared along with the Bill when Morrison threw it in the long grass behind the bike sheds.
I hope a relative handful of votes was worth pissing off the majority of the electorate, Labor. Most of them don’t understand The Wedge, but they do understand principles- and you don’t seem to have any.
“Aye, there’s the rub!” of your final sentence.
Peeps is dumb.
Don’t fret about it Kathy, Murdoch has assured us all this morning that Christians across Australia are furious at the outcome… (I guess that depends on which franchise you patronise).
You have to accept that in politics leading with your chin is rarely the best way to win the fight…
The bomb has been defused, now it’s just a piece of junk.
I doubt the average person has a clue about exactly how it all transpired.
Maybe stop being so patronising and snobby. We are the ‘average person’.
Were that so, a considerable portion would need to be more average than the others.
Don’t you mean less ?
‘Snowball’ & ‘Napoleon’.
Perhaps you could point that observation in Kathy’s direction ?
And let’s not forget the help for Morrison from the “Brown Green” hubristic campaign convoy – those images from trying to rub miner’s noses in their own employment mortality.
Albanese? You can’t be a small target and stand for anything – unless you’re Tom Thumb.