A minority Labor Government is widely seen as a likely outcome in the forthcoming election.

However, the merits of this outcome depend upon the policy agenda that can be negotiated with the Greens and/or the Teals. Here, the focus is on those policy areas where it should be possible to agree on improved policies.

According to Jack Waterford, in his latest weekly column: “Now that the danger of a Dutton Government has receded, a good many left-of-centre people would rather that Labor had less than an outright victory.”

He then goes on to say, “Minority puts Labor under real pressure to be more radical, more focused on lasting outcomes, and with more respect for traditional Labor values.”

Waterford may well be right, but the Teals all represent conservative electorates, and many of the Teals have a conservate economic agenda, while, on the other hand, the Greens are too extreme for many voters.

Before concluding that a minority Labor Government will deliver better policy outcomes, we should consider in more detail the “more radical” policies that a minority Labor Government will be able to negotiate and their likely outcomes.

To that end a number of important policy areas are briefly discussed, including:

• Integrity and good governance procedures;
• The environment and climate change;
• Foreign policy and defence policy;
• Improving productivity and thus raising living standards; and
• The provision of government services and taxation.

The broad conclusion is that getting agreement on the reform agenda for the first three policy areas will be easier than for the remaining issues of lifting productivity, and the provision of government services and paying for them. [For that reason, the first three areas of policy are discussed in Part 1 today, and the remaining more difficult areas will be discussed in Part 2 tomorrow].

Finally, before proceeding further to the actual policy discussion, it should be remembered that it is unlikely that members of the crossbench will join a Labor Government and become members of cabinet. In addition, the independents cannot be relied upon to vote as a block.

This means that while sufficient numbers of Greens and independents would need to agree to support the minority Labor Government on supply, in return for which these members would only be able to negotiate general undertakings by Labor to advance an agreed policy agenda. The details would have to be settled later, in the lead-up to legislation or regulations being introduced, and that could lead to further difficulties in future.

Integrity and good governance procedures

This is an area where Labor’s performance has generally been disappointing. Labor went to the last election promising a strong anti-corruption commission, but the legislation was watered down.

Similarly, the legislation to reduce the influence of big money on elections is seen as preserving the funding advantages of the two major parties, rather than improving accountability and honesty.

The provision of information which should be in the public domain is still not working properly and Labor has not acted to protect whistleblowers; rather it is determined to find and punish them.

All these policy issues should be readily reformed. Many Labor supporters would agree with the crossbench.

The environment and climate change

An obvious failing of the Albanese Labor Government is that it has failed to establish a robust and independent Environment Protection Authority as promised at the last election. The perception is that too often Albanese is too inclined to give in to business interests, such as salmon farmers in Tasmania, and mining interests in WA.

Again, many Labor supporters would agree with the Greens and Teal independents on their proposals for reform to protect the environment.

In the case of climate change, however, agreement may be more difficult.

Australia’s 2024 emissions estimates showed these policies put the country on track to reach a reduction of 42.7% below 2005 levels by 2030. That would represent a major improvement compared to the likely outcomes under the previous Morrison Government.

Much will depend, however, upon the next target for 2035, to be announced after the election. In principle, the government and the crossbench should be able to agree on an ambitious target for emissions reduction. In fact, the principal limitation may be the speed with which the new infrastructure required to transmit and store renewable energy can be installed.

But perhaps the biggest difficulty in reaching an agreement on reduction of carbon emissions is Labor’s allowing coal and gas mining to continue. Australia will continue for some time to need some gas to firm its electricity supply when the wind doesn’t blow, and the sun doesn’t shine.

But the Greens and the Teals want fossil fuel exports to stop. But fossil fuels only create emissions when burned, not when they are dug up. Consequently, exports of fossil fuels do not count and are irrelevant to meeting Australia’s target for carbon reduction. Further, if Australia did not export its fossil fuels, the importing countries would no doubt buy them elsewhere, and very possibly those other countries’ fuels would be more polluting.

Foreign policy and defence policy

As Albanese has frequently said “these are very uncertain times”. Australia has become more dependent on the US for its security since it signed the AUKUS deal. But with the advent of Trump, and his treatment of Ukraine, his contempt for his European allies, and his trade war, there are questions as to how far we can trust America.

The way forward will involve Australia engaging with its neighbours in ASEAN, Japan, South Korea, China and India to forge a better rules-based trading system for our region, without America. The Labor Government and the independents should be able to agree on this strategy, and also on an increase in foreign aid directed to the island nations in the South Pacific.

Reaching agreement on a future defence strategy may, however, present greater problems. Many think a more independent defence strategy, that relies less on America, will require Australia to spend substantially more on defence, but whether the Greens will accept that additional spending is not clear.

In addition, there are numerous former politicians and senior military and other officials, including me, who think that AUKUS risks too great a loss of sovereignty and the promised nuclear submarines are unlikely to ever be delivered. Instead, there is a need for a Plan B, based on buying the existing French nuclear submarine, which is actually better suited to our needs. But agreeing on this changed strategy would be difficult.

Conclusion

The above assessment suggests that while negotiations will be difficult, it should be possible for a minority Labor Government to reach agreement on improved policies affecting government integrity and procedures, the environment and climate change, and foreign and defence policy.

However, policies required to improve productivity and pay for adequate government services present more difficult challenges. These difficulties exist because there is no agreement on a clear way forward between, and even within, the different political groupings.

So this will be the subject of a further discussion in Part 2 of this article tomorrow.