Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, his partner Jodie Haydon and his son Nathan Albanese celebrate victory during the Labor Party election night event at Canterbury-Hurlstone Park RSL Club in Sydney, Australia, on May 21, 2022. James D. Morgan/Getty Images
Labor supporters are in a frisson of excitement because they hold all of the mainland states along with the Commonwealth. They think that will make it easier for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. History suggests otherwise.
If politics were a team sport, then that would be like one sporting club winning almost all the premiership trophies at all levels.
Except politics isn’t a team sport, even though it is “played” in teams. There is no reason for all the teams to be cooperating.
There have only been two times in Australia’s history when the party in federal government has had state governments all of the same political colour. Once for Labor between 2007 and 2008 and once for the Liberals between 1969 and 1970.
So there are not a lot of historical precedents to go on for this particular situation, but there is a lot of history of how states behave when their side is in power federally.
Generally, it is not much different from how they behave when the other side is in power federally.
State governments have the same broad aims as a federal government—to get re-elected—but that doesn’t mean they share the same objectives at a policy level.
Take COVID. Scott Morrison appeared to be against severe lockdowns and opposed vaccine mandates. Yet the states went their ways, sometimes vying with each other for the toughest policies.
Both Labor and Liberal states would blame the Commonwealth government for policy failures if it helped them to avoid blame.
So when the Ruby Princess docked, and passengers disembarked at the pandemic’s beginning, leading to community infection, the New South Wales (NSW) Liberal government had no problem blaming the federal government, and vice-versa.
The States’ ATM
States can also run policy programs that diverge from or actively thwart federal government programs.
The Commonwealth funds a lot of programs over which they have little control. For example, the Commonwealth Health Department doesn’t employ any doctors, and the Commonwealth Education Department doesn’t employ any teachers.
School children at The Domain in Sydney, Australia, on April 2, 2014. AAP Image/Daniel Munoz
They both dole out money to the states and territories that are in charge of delivering the services.
Australia’s educational standards have been dropping for over 50 years, with no federal government able to halt the decline.
Hospital services are also in perpetual crisis, but all the feds can do is pony up the running costs with little say over how they are spent.
The federal treasurer lists getting inflation and cost of living under control (including housing costs), yet state government policies are responsible for a substantial part of these problems.
The major eastern seaboard states have vastly expanded their borrowings and have massive capital expenditure programs at a time of material supply and labour restrictions. And they show no signs of slowing down. This exacerbates inflationary pressures.
They are also responsible for most of the housing crisis with restrictive land use policies and convoluted approvals processes leading to undersupply.
Local purchasing policies, which hobble efficient suppliers who produce in another state or country, also force up prices, as do policies that pay off public servants and favoured unions, like the CFMEU, through sweetheart wage deals.
Albanese might not like the fact that in Queensland, a carpenter on a high-rise building can earn up to twice as much as a school principal, but preferring construction over education is baked into how that state behaves.
A carpenter is seen working on a house renovation in Brisbane, Australia, June 4, 2020. AAP Image/Dan Peled
Energy costs are another priority for the federal government.
Good luck containing those when the states of Victoria and NSW either ban or heavily restrict new gas fields. Or when the states force the closure of coal-fired power stations ahead of the federal plans.
So the performance of the federal government is tied to the performance of the states in a lot of fields, yet the feds have no control.
Could they exert control? They could try, but history suggests it can be electorally difficult.
Blame Game
“Blame shifting” is the term that is given to the arguments where the states blame the feds and the feds blame the states.
When Albanese won the last election, he claimed that the blame game would be over.
This assumes that it is caused by an uncooperative federal government rather than the dynamics of political justification.
The federal government would never be able to give enough money to the states to stop the blame game.
Voters are never satisfied with services, and rather than tell the voters the truth that resources are limited, it is easier to blame the Commonwealth for not making money available.
And if the federal government gets serious and uses some constitutional power to override the states, then the arguments can get really strong, even between parties of the same persuasion. This happened between both Tasmania and Queensland against the Fraser government in the 80s over environmental issues.
Or, further back in time, the explosive example of NSW Labor Premier Jack Lang at loggerheads with the federal Labor Prime Minister James Scullin.
The states most likely to give Albanese trouble are Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia.
Premier Daniel Andrews of Victoria speaks to the media during an announcement at PowerPlus Energy in Melbourne, Australia, on Oct. 21, 2022. AAP Image/Diego Fedele
Victoria has Australia’s longest-serving premier and tends to go its own way.
Western Australia tends to be self-contained, separated from the rest of the continent, and with a fight over GST revenues on the horizon.
The South Australian premier is from the right of Labor. While only recently elected, he has shown he is prepared to criticise other levels of government if he feels it warranted.
With an election in 18 months, Queensland may also be fractious as its government manoeuvres to gain a fourth term, although none of its politicians are particularly forceful.
Recent Tasmanian premiers have tended to be softly spoken, and this one appears no different, and the NSW government has only just come into power.
The other factor that might come into play is over-confidence. Labor is developing a strong narrative that unless the Liberals become like them, they will never win an election again.
This is the reverse of what the Liberals should be doing, but inasmuch as the Labor advice is genuine, it reflects a belief that the world has changed and Labor has a unique understanding of these changes.
When that happens, governments often go into over-reach, just as John Howard did with Work Choices when he controlled both houses of parliament—also a very rare event in Australia.
Yes, the mainland might be painted red at the moment, but it might just be on the cusp of turning as events move against incumbent governments everywhere.
It will certainly make meetings of the national cabinet more like a family gathering, but we know how those can end up.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Graham Young
Author
Graham Young is the executive director of the Australian Institute for Progress. He is the editor and founder of OnlineOpinion.com.au and has conducted qualitative polling on Australian politics since 2001. Mr. Young has contributed to The Australian newspaper, The Australian Financial Review, and is a regular on ABC Radio Brisbane.
