There’s a lot of talk about hung parliaments, but they’re not all the same. A potential hung parliament in New South Wales will play out quite differently depending on the relative balance of the major parties and who sits on that crossbench.
In this post I’m going to consider a number of different scenarios based on particular outcomes in clusters of seats, and how that might affect who is in a position to have power.
I am working on a few assumptions here. Firstly, there will be some sort of arrangement where there is a majority supporting a government in some way. Even if we were to have no agreement and a government simply was to continue thanks to the toleration of crossbenchers, those still count as a majority not supporting the removal of a government.
Secondly, I think it’s worth thinking about which crossbenchers might be necessary, and which crossbenchers might be sufficient in the balance of power. If there is no way to construct a majority without yourself and others who you work closely with, that gives you power. On the other hand, you may have the numbers to bring a major party up to a majority, but not have that much power if they have alternative ways to reach that number.
I previously outlining the ‘starting point’ for the election. For the purposes of this article I’m treating Kiama as a Liberal seat. So that’s 46 Coalition, 38 Labor, 3 Greens and six independents.
By my reckoning there are a number of axes on which seats could change hands, and the different scenarios outlined in this post involve different movement on these axes:
- Labor vs Coalition – the classic race. It seems unlikely the Coalition will pick up seats. The number of seats Labor picks up will be a major element in determining the shape of a hung parliament.
- Liberal vs independent in the cities – there are numerous seats in Sydney, mostly in the northern suburbs along with Wollondilly and Vaucluse, where there are credible challenges to the Liberal Party. None of these independents are incumbents. I am sceptical about most of them but I could see some sneaking through.
- Coalition vs independent in western NSW – I’m primarily thinking of the three ex-Shooters seats, but also Joe McGirr in Wagga Wagga. All seats held by the Coalition as recently as 2015 and now held by independents. If some of these members lost their seats it could significantly boost the Coalition but also limit options for Labor in a hung parliament.
- Greens vs major parties – A lot of the focus is on the Greens-held seat of Balmain, but Ballina is also relatively marginal, and the Greens have also had some focus on Lismore and South Coast.
Here are the seven scenarios I’ve chosen:
To be clear: these are not predictions about what might happen, and this is not an exhaustive list of possibilities. It's simply a thought experiment about how different outcomes might affect the power balance during negotiations.
Let's run through them one by one.
1. Labor gains four seats, no change to the crossbench
The major parties are tied at 42 seats apiece, with five out of nine crossbenchers needed for a majority. Whoever governs will need a diverse range of supporters. Labor could theoretically work without the Greens but it would be very tough.
More likely Labor would rely on the Greens and then seek out two more votes for an agreement to support a government, but would remain open to working with the more conservative crossbenchers when they disagree with the Greens.
Alex Greenwich and Greg Piper would be the key swing votes in this scenario. While they are quite progressive, they have also developed a good relationship with the Coalition. They have also indicated that in addition to policy concerns, they would consider the relative strength of the major parties in terms of seats or "the popular vote". Labor has used this to argue that their position would be strengthened in such a scenario by winning Balmain, but I'm not sure this situation would change much if it was 43 Labor and 2 Greens.
2. Labor gains seven seats, no change to the crossbench
Labor is now within striking distance of a majority. Perhaps the majority remains an option on election night and the hung parliament only becomes clear with late counting.
No single group on the crossbench is now necessary for Labor, and there is no feasible path to government for the Coalition.
The Greens won't have much of a leg to stand on in terms of negotiating with the government. For other crossbenchers they will have the option to just sit in opposition but more likely some of them would do minimal deals with the government. But Labor will have the upper hand in these situations - I can't see Labor moving on issues like cashless gaming in such a situation.
Having said that, this is still a hung parliament. When the crossbench works with the Coalition they will be able to defeat legislation and embarrass the government. Labor will want to maintain good relationships with a range of crossbenchers so they have options from day to day. Sometimes they'll seek the Greens support, other times the more conservative rural independents, with the urban independents sitting in between.
3. Labor gains seven, independents lose three seats to the Coalition
In this scenario I'm assuming the three ex-Shooters all lose their seats to the Nationals.
While Labor still has a strong hand, the Coalition is now closer to a majority and Labor has fewer choices about who it works with.
No single crossbench bloc has the sole balance of power, but if the Greens and the urban independents work together they can provide a majority to either major party - something that wasn't true in scenario 2.
4. Labor gains four seats, independents lose three seats to the Coalition
This is a much better situation for the Coalition. While they have lost seats to Labor, they have offset most of their losses.
Labor would now need five out of six crossbenchers to side with them to form government. This is theoretically possible, as I'm sure they could work with Greenwich and Piper, but it would be difficult. If Labor did form government they would be in a much weaker position, with either the Greens or the urban independents capable of depriving Labor of a majority.
This is the kind of scenario where it seems more likely the urban independents would side with the Coalition to continue in government.
If Labor was to form government they would probably need to move on some key issues like cashless gaming where they don't see eye to eye with the crossbench.
5. Labor gains five seats, Greens gain one seat, independents lose three seats to the Coalition
This is the best scenario for the Greens. Perhaps they've gained South Coast, or they've gained Lismore and Labor has offset that with a sixth gain somewhere else.
The major parties are tied at 43 seats apiece. While there are seven crossbenchers, we don't have any of the flexibility in the previous scenarios. Only the Greens hold the balance of power.
The Greens would be able to drive a hard bargain here. The strongest counterpoint Labor would hold would be to walk away from negotiations and allow the Coalition to continue in office, as they did in 1996 in Tasmania. This would likely damage the Greens but there would be a counterargument against Labor - there was a clear progressive majority and they allowed a Coalition government to continue in office.
6. Labor gains four seats, Liberals lose three seats to independents
In this scenario I'm assuming those Liberal losses are to urban independents like Michael Regan or some of the teals.
While Labor requires five votes to reach a majority, that comes from a much larger crossbench of twelve.
In this situation I think the Greens position actually helps Labor. They can lock in 45 votes with the Greens and then go seeking out just two more from the remaining nine crossbenchers. I can't see Greenwich and Piper going with the Coalition in this scenario.
While Labor may want to move some way in this scenario, they have quite a lot of flexibility.
7. Labor gains seven seats, Liberals lose three seats to independents
This is the weakest scenario for the Coalition, who would now be eleven seats away from a majority. Labor and Greens between them have a majority. This doesn't mean Labor would necessarily deal with the Greens, but it takes the Coalition option off the table, and gives Labor lots of different options to deal with. They could find the two votes they need from the Greens, the ex-Shooters, the sitting urban independents or new teal independents.
Broad trends across the scenarios
There are some broad trends you can see between these seven scenarios.
The outcome of the hung parliament depends on the relative strength of the two major parties. If there is no feasible alternative government, that gives a lot more power to the major party in a position to form government.
There has been some scaremongering from Labor that they may miss out on government if they need to rely on Greens members and it scares off some of the independents, but that only applies in scenarios where they only gain a handful of seats while the Coalition does better. It's a bit hard to see that happening, but it is possible to imagine such a situation in scenario 1.
It could theoretically be possible in scenario 6 but probably the smaller Coalition presence will mean independents would choose Labor in that scenario. The Coalition would likely form government in scenario 4, but that wouldn't change if Labor instead won Balmain.
For the Greens, the amount of power they get in a hung parliament varies a great deal depending on the circumstances. While they have said their support of Labor is conditional on certain policy agreements, it's not really viable for them to support the Coalition, which gives them less room to move than most of the other crossbenchers. For them to exercise influence they ideally want to be both necessary and sufficient for a Labor-led majority. Labor would ideally like them to be sufficient but not necessary, or ideally neither. The danger zone (where Labor might have trouble winning over both Greens and other crossbenchers) is if the Greens are necessary, but not sufficient.
The scenarios break down into these categories as follows:
- Greens necessary and sufficient for Labor to govern - scenario 5. Maximum influence for the Greens.
- Greens sufficient but not necessary for Labor to govern - scenarios 2, 3 and 7. Best position for Labor. Greens block Coalition path to power but maintain flexibility for a Labor government.
- Greens necessary but not sufficient for Labor to govern - arguably scenarios 1, 4 and to a lesser extent 6. In all three scenarios there is a theoretical possibility that Labor could stitch together a majority without the Greens but it would be quite hard. In these scenarios Labor needs both the Greens and some other independents.
It's in the interests of Labor's campaign in Balmain to play up the possibility that Labor being reliant on Greens might scare away other independents in a scenario where Labor requires both. But there are also plenty of scenarios where this could happen and Labor would still govern (Piper and Greenwich seem to get along well with the Greens) or where they wouldn't have pulled together the numbers to form government even if Balmain were to go to Labor.
And of course it's entirely possible that a potential deal between Labor and independents would come unstuck not because of the independents and Greens not getting along but because Labor is unwilling to move on a key issue like cashless gaming, where Labor stands out in opposition while the Greens are mostly in agreement with the likely key swing votes on the crossbench like Greenwich, Piper, Dalton, McGirr and the teal independents.
I also wanted to touch on something else that has come up in the context of how crossbenchers could make their decision. A recent piece in the Herald suggested that, in deicding who to support in a hung parliament, Piper and Greenwich would consider "which party has won more seats, which has won the popular vote" and other things.
It is fair enough to consider who has more seats in the context of determining which government would be more stable and capable of governing, although I don't think you can use that as a measure of how popular that party is. We know that the single-member electorate system does a poor job of measuring support.
I also think they should be careful when it comes to measuring the "popular vote". Primary vote figures will also be misleading. It may make sense to use the two-party-preferred vote, but it's worth bearing in mind that neither side will likely win a majority after exhausted votes are factored in. I have also pointed out a number of measurements specific to their electorates that could be useful in understanding which way their voters may wish them to jump.
If there is no majority for Labor or the Coalition, things should be interesting, but they are unlikely to be chaotic. The exact shape of that hung parliament will dictate the options on the table and it is entirely possible we will know who is in a position to govern, even before they work out how exactly they will do that.
“Greens necessary and sufficient for Labor to govern – scenario 3. Maximum influence for the Greens”: I think you mean Scenario 5 rather than Scenario 3?
In the case where the Greens are sufficient but not necessary for Labor to govern, Labor may negotiate with rural independents before negotiating with the Greens because it wants to curb the Greens’ influence and that rural independents seem to be easier to negotiate than the Greens.
Two ex-SFF independents who are likely to be re-elected, Roy Butler and Phillip Donato, are opposed to cashless gaming cards, which means if Labor wins 45 or 46 seats, it will probably negotiate with them first before the Greens to form a minority government because they seem like the easiest to negotiate.
Independent candidate for Wollondilly, Judith Hannan, has not campaigned on pokies reform and has not identified the rollout of cashless gaming cards as a priority for her policy platforms. This does not necessarily mean she is opposed to cashless gaming cards. It’s just not her priority. If elected, she may well support Labor even if Labor refuses to support the full rollout of cashless gaming cards. Another independent who will be on Labor’s priority negotiation list.
I will start by saying I don’t live in NSW and don’t follow NSW politics, but I will make a few observations.
All governments have a limited lifespan and 12 years is at the fag end of a government’s life. My sense from afar is that this matter is not playing out too strongly. But with all the scandals that I have casually read, you would like to think that a bit of “Its Time” would be playing on people’s minds. Yet the Labor leader does not appear to be having that cut through at the moment.
Like the last Federal election, this may be a good one to loose. Whoever “wins” will be facing a LOT of significant issues with no clear solution that is within their control or budget.
I will be interested to see how the “disaster” seats (i.e. flood and bushfire) play out. I think there is enough room for independents to sneak in in these seats if the people are unsatisfied with what has happen / proposed by the majors.
I heard on the ABC Election coverage last night this is the first time that Millennials are in the majority. Given all the things stacked against them – I wouldn’t be surprised if they give both major parties the finger.
Interesting one to watch.
Pretty sure most people who live in Wollondilly wouldn’t consider it part of “the city”.
Wollondilly is on the edge of Sydney. It’s generally considered part of greater Sydney, but I’ve primarily grouped Hannan with those other seats because she’s endorsed by Climate 200. She has more common with them than the western NSW MPs.
greens ahve lready played their hand saying no to any partnership with the coalition. rural independats would be ma d tos ide with labor as that didnt turn out well for oakshott and windsor. the other 2 are pretty reasonable from what i can tell but they have shown interest in coalition pokey policy. barown and murray are inplay but i cant see them winning in orange not without a preference deal with shooters whihc isnt happening. their hostility to the coalition and friendliness with labor could be their undoing if they side with labor Joe McGrirr seems pretty reasonable but he d be mad to side against the will of his electorate. and dont forget we have a wild card in gareth ward. who neither side pretends to want to deal with but what if its deadlocked at 46-46 they will sell their own mother in that case
my personal opinion is 4-5 seats lost. the governement isnt hated universally a few places are slowy turning red but i dont think theyll get enough maybe 6 max in my opinion and thtas gross they still have to concede no seats
@Neil Flanagan, the “millennial majority” that demographic commentators keep referring to has emerged because this cohort is becoming increasingly composed of working-age, recently arrived migrants that have not yet become citizens and are ineligible to vote.
The age composition of enrolled voters looks different. Hence I think it’s a misleading notion that election commentators keep pointing to as a factor in play at the election.
It is true that the top end of the population pyramid is dying in abundance right now, but the recent “millennial majority” has emerged primarily as a result of migration factors, not boomers dying or zoomers turning 18.
Further to my point, there is still a lot more enrolled boomers than enrolled millennials. This is not even factoring in the difference in turnout between the different cohorts of voters.
@seq as people get older and have to pay higher bills they realize their idealistic view of reality where they voted for popular socialist ideologies policies and ideas fades and they realize it’s time to change. A common euphamisism is if your under 30 and vote conservative you got not heart if your over 30 and vote labor you got no brain
“A common euphamisism is if your under 30 and vote conservative you got not heart if your over 30 and vote labor you got no brain”
***
Otherwise known as, “if you can’t beat them, join them.”
Increasingly though we are seeing the progressive left – which in Australia is the Greens and certainly not Labor – making real inroads against the conservative two party establishment. See the recent ACT, Vic, QLD, and Federal Elections for examples. The left is on the rise as more and more people see that the only real obstacle to a fairer and more equal society are Labor and the Coalition.
Those who stay true to their progressive values are the ones driving the change we are seeing, while the others are only maintaining the status quo by giving their vote to one of the two establishment parties.
i think the greens did so well because as the natural switch between voting agsint hte ruling party they didnt want liberal but didnt want labor either.
Piper and Greenwich would almost certainly lose in 2027 if they supported the coalition in a hypothetical hung parliament.
Voters won’t be forgive in these labor leaning seats. Just like they conservatives wouldn’t have forgiven Oakeshott or Windsor (that’s why they retired because they were faking almost certain defeat)
Unless Piper and Greenwich are intending to retire at the next election.
I know people will like to mention people like Geoff Brock and Liz Cunningham, however on Cunninghams part, she came close to defeat a couple of times during the Beattie years when she should have been safe. And QLD had OPV.
If the teals back Labor, they can also expect defeat, it’s time for MPS to pay attention to democracy and respect the traditional political leaning of their seats, the coalition should have formed government in 2010, because notionally the coalition were on 76 and Labor 74 without the crossbench in TPP terms.
Can’t see why South Coast is being singled-out as strong for the Greens. Their vote share there has been flat at roughly 13% for three elections and Labor won the overlapping federal seat, with the Greens on 10%.
Because the Greens candidate is the local directly elected mayor.
My current prediction:
ALP gain Parramatta, Kiama, Heathcote
GRN gain South Coast
LNP gain Drummoyne, Barwon, Murray, Leppington (very close)
LNP 47
ALP 39
GRN 4
Ind 4
Result: LNP majority government with in principle support from McGirr and Donato secured while close contests are resolved. Minns concedes allowing Greenwich and Piper to keep quiet.
John, explanation as to why the LNP will win despite all that has happened?
Why would the coalition hold Penrith and Winston Hills and East Hills?
Coalition is not getting a 4th term. I’d bet anyone.
Daniel, I can see both East Hills and Winston Hills being retained because they have strong incumbents. Also, these areas are now trending more to the conservative side so Labor needs a strong lead to be considered favourites (currently polls show a tight contest, so these seats are more like toss-up/line ball contests). But I wouldn’t be surprised if Labor do end up winning one or both on election night.
Penrith is a different matter and I see it being lost with Ayres an underdog to win re-election.
I think traditionally ALP “outer suburb” type seats will swing right in general. That’s why I give the Libs Leppington despite reports that Labor are campaigning better. Minns and Prue Car protect their seats but Lib incumbents also protect theirs. Ayres would potentially be an exception, but I’m predicting LNP retain Penrith more due to political shifts in the area as seen at federal elections.
On the flip side, Ryde and Drummoyne will swing to Labor, but not by enough. Teals struggle with OPV but it cuts with ways with the Ward mess giving Labor Kiama. I think Labor and Greens are close enough in South Coast for Findley to pick up enough preferences despite OPV, but I’ll admit a bit of wishful thinking on my part. Also worried about poor GRN to ALP flows in Tweed, and I don’t think it’s a particularly bad time to be a Nat.
What’s left of the Shooters clearly want Dalton gone and Butler will struggle too. Donato seems far enough ahead to hang on and both Libs and Nats running in Wagga will see McGirr home easily. Not seeing Goulburn moving, and Monaro is a mix of outer suburbs and the country that would have flipped at the byelection if it was ever going to flip. Same with upper Hunter – Labor had all kinds of reasons they were never going to win the byelection and they’re even more true now.
Anyway that’s how I see things going. All I am sure of is at least some of what I wrote will be wrong.
“Can’t see why South Coast is being singled-out as strong for the Greens. Their vote share there has been flat at roughly 13% for three elections and Labor won the overlapping federal seat, with the Greens on 10%.”
***
That broader NSW South Coast region (the geographic area rather than the electorate) is actually pretty good for the Greens in places. Remember the first federal lower house seat that the Greens ever won was actually Cunningham, not Melbourne as is a common misconception. Michael Organ won Cunningham for the Greens at a by-election in 2002. At the 2022 fed, the Greens received 21.65% in Cunningham, but more impressive was the massive swing to them of +6.56%. It’s not exactly the same area as the South Coast electorate, which is a little further south, but it does show that that there is strong support for the Greens parts of that NSW South Coast region.
I wonder if the Greens are shooting themselves in the foot with the ‘we won’t support the coalition line’?
Look at it this way – if there is a hung Parliament, the Greens negotiations with Labor will go like this. Greens: ‘Here are our list of demands’. Labor: ‘You aren’t going to back the Libs, so why would we concede anything to you?’ Greens: ‘Waaaaaaaaah’
Yes it may play out like that, but you can see how much Labor is hammering the Greens for risking a Coalition government despite them clearly ruling out that option. I don’t think they can realistically claim a Coalition government is an option without severely damaging their primary vote.
As an ALP member who despises the Greens, especially Bandt – if he ever had to face what Ceausescu did after the Revolution, he’d be p/sssing himself and crying whilst robotically babbling “people should be able to smoke a joint, smoke a joint, smoke a joint…” – I’d rather Labor has the wiggle room on policies and laws that dependence on the Greens would deprive us of. Also, the Greens openly support the Palestinian Arab Muslim t/errorist groups and the LTTE (even though the LTTE are a bunch of fas/cists who invented modern suicide bombing).
Greens won’t support a Liberal government but they may for example pass no confidence motions mid term without a deal. For example Labor could find itself facing the polls immediately after a very unpopular policy decision.
A first term deal will likely be something minor like 4 years confidence and supply in return for some procedural agreements and a list of agreed policy priorities. Holding Labor to their own ideals is a pretty good return for a progressive party.
My follow up question for Paul – flexibility to do what exactly?The way to make Greens irrelevant is to give them little to campaign on.
That’s the way I see it. If Labor refuses to make any concessions then the Greens don’t have to ‘choose’ either party. They can tell the majors to sort it out with the governor, on the understanding that whichever party wrestles control has no guarantees whatsoever when it comes to legislative support, including votes of no confidence.
What will happen if One Nation gains balance of power in the upper house
Labot should form a Labor-only government and dare the Greens to vote yus out. FED 2013 and TAS 2014 show toxic the Greens make a Labor government to most voters. “Why isn’t it a yes?” from trans activists a few days ago shows that the hard left still doesn’t understand that there are no votes to throw away and the average voter, particularly (cis) women have no time for being told their concerns are “bigotry”. Most cis women see a penis as a potential weapon and thus trans women who retain one as possibly dangerous. It doesn’t matter what trans activists say, what matters is how trans people are defined by others. I work in radio and i regularly field questions from disgruntled older listeners about advertisers ignoring them. Advertisers have done research on actual behaviour (not what is said) and they get more financil return from aiming at younger listeners.
I think all talk of “hung parliaments” are overused significantly, lost count of elections where people predicted a “hung parliament” and it didn’t happen.
You have to understand hung parliaments are rare for a reason. The crossbench is often too small for it to happen and both majors have to both get a certain number of seats (in the case low 40’s) because there are so many key contests everywhere it wouldn’t take much difference between a Labor or Coalition majority thus those 2 outcomes are more likely in my opinion than a hung parliament.
People predicted the Victorian and Federal elections to be Labor minority’s (thus hung parliament) but both got majorities. There was also allot of talk in South Australia last year of a hung parliament. And some chatter back in 2020 here in QLD of one. Both never happened.
The crossbench did poor in Victoria in 2022 so I see signs it could repeat in NSW, I’m going to make a very bold and brave prediction. There will be a majority government, but it won’t be called on election night (just like the federal election) majority will take days to call.
The independent’s will probably lead on election night like in Victoria but will trail on late counting and some may prematurely claim victory such as Mornington 2022.
Hung parliaments are common in Canada although the term is never used and traditionally the “largest party” forms to government per tradition so they use “minority” although in the territory of Yukon they did call that a hung parliament, as both major parties tied in seats. But that place is extremely low populated. Less than 50k people I believe.
There will be no hung parliament, sorry crossbencher’s and their supporters. But in the upper house? Absolutely like it always is.
Look at how Greens leaders and ordinary parliamentarians claim to the media that progressives only engage in “peaceful” protest but Greens politicians consistently speak up to back small far left groups who do things like scream into megaphones at full volume, bang on the walls of the room and otherwise conduct actions of menacing intimidation – and intimidation is a form of violence – intimidation that is underlined with the threat of overt physical violence if the target won’t submit and flee.
Daniel, I don’t remember there being too many people who predicted a hung parliament in Victoria 2022. I’m sure there were some claims (probably from hopeful Liberals), but most people expected a reasonably comfortable Labor win.
There were predictions of Independents and Greens winning more seats, but some of these were in Liberal seats so wouldn’t make a hung parliament any more likely given Labor’s starting position.
Have a terrible feeling this election may turn out to be like UK 1992, bookies/polls predicting Labor to be the largest party or a small majority, only to end up losing to a conservative incumbent government majority. I hope I’m wrong, However the amount of dirty tricks by the conservatives I believe may cause voters to still not trust Labor, (same with 1992 UK and this was the 4th straight election for the government) like this could be in NSW.
Shy-Tory factor is possible, especially after that Neo-Nazi dress scandal, people might be afraid to tell the truth to the pollsters on who they really might be voting for. This could very well be a repeat of UK 1992 and Australia 2019.
Coalition will likely get destroyed in 2027 like the Tories did in 1997, and like how the coalition did nationally last year.
As many have pointed out, this election should have been a walkover for Labor, the fact that it isn’t makes me believe it will be a repeat of the said elections.
Comments are closed.