Do you think that Pauline Hanson could be Prime Minister?
I was asked this question by someone who chooses to remain nameless, probably because they treasure both their anonymity and sanity. From a legal standpoint, the question of whether or not Pauline Hanson could be Prime Minister is objectively "yes". From that same legal standpoint, I could also legally be Prime Minister; as could Vladmir Putin, Jacinda Ardern, the late Patrick Stewart, Donald Duck... The reason for this is that the legal conditions which define who can be appointed as a minister of the Crown, are spelled out in Section 64 of the Constitution. A minister of the Crown is appointed at the pleasure of the Governor-General and provided that they get a seat within three months, they can remain.
Even the question of whether or not someone can be Prime Minister from the Senate, is covered by the same provisions and while this has happened in Australia exactly once, convention reared its sleepy head and John Gorton who had been a Senator contested Harold Holt's vacated seat and took up that seat in the House of Representatives.
Convention here while not a legal problem, does point to at least the first mechanical problem that Pauline Hanson would face if she actually wanted to be Prime Minister. Pauline Hanson occupies a seat in the Senate as a Senator for Queensland. The reason why practically all Prime Ministers have come from the House of Representatives is that Government is formed on the floor of the House and not the Senate. The reason for this is that the thing which actually determines who forms the Government, is who can command the most number of members on the floor of the House of Representatives, to be able to pass a budget bill.
This is in fact the biggest problem which a potential One Nation Government would face. This problem is even more multi-faceted than meets the eye.
Issue 1 - Finding the Members
There are 151 Members on the floor of the House of Representatives. Government is formed on the floor by the majority of members who will agree to pass a budget bill. 151/2 equals 75.5, so you actually need 76 Members to form government and in practical terms you realistically want 77 so that one Member can serve as Speaker of the House.
One Nation in its entire history, has only sent 51 people to seats, across all parliaments in Australia at both Federal and State level. Asking it to be able to find 77 Members in just the Federal Parliament at once, is a very tall order.
Okay, since Government is formed on the floor by the majority of members who will agree to pass a budget bill, then you actually only need to find 77 Members who will agree to form Government with you. Again we find a problem. While it is true that the Liberal/Country Liberal/National/LNP have been quite successful in forming governments in coalition, asking all of them to form a coalition government with One Nation and appointing Pauline Hanson as the Head of Government ahead of their own leaders, is not impossible but hideously unrealistic. I just don't see any circumstances where that is likely to happen at all.
Issue 2 - Keeping the Members
If we ignore the wildly improbable issue above and assume in our scenario that somehow One Nation did manage to find 77 Members to agree with it, their own history is such that they are unlikely to keep and retain those members.
In the almost thirty years that One Nation has been a political party, it has sent 51 people to seats, across all parliaments in Australia at both Federal and State level. of those 51 people, 28 have quit the party while in office and did not serve the rest of their terms as One Nation Members.
Already this poses a problem. Assuming that One Nation did manage to find 77 Members to agree with it, their track record suggests that 42 of them would quit the party before the end of the term of the Parliament.
If we ignore just the mechanics a party system for a bit and assume 42 would quit; leaving behind a rump of 35 Members, would they be able to command enough of a presence to be able to pass a budget bill? Exactly how would you get 42 people to agree to keep a One Nation government in charge if they'd quit?
One Nation economically sits to the right of the Liberal and National parties. One Nation in principle wants even smaller government and for the government to control even less aspects of the economy. While the Liberal and National party might have factions which agree with this, when it actually comes to the decisions of what needs to be cut from the budget to achieve this, the waters become very murky very quickly.
The Liberal Party is itself an internal coalition of factionalised interest, ranging from tear down the word neoliberal laissez-faire types, to minimalist libertarians, to conservative statists, to cultural conservatives who still want control of the cultural aspects of the economy while at the same not wanting government to control the mechanics.
The National Party is a copy of the Liberal Party but with a second and arguably more confusing level of complexity because they also include the interests of farmers, and mining companies who are at odds against each other while being in the same party.
One Nation is a populist aggregation of both Liberal Party and the National Party voters, with a few people (though statistically not many) of Labor Party voters; then sprinkled with some nativism, actual racism, as well as cosplay conservatism and cosplay religiosity which bears no real relation to the actual religious teaching that it purports to be.
What One Nation actually is, is a cult of personality in the same way that Nigel Farage's Reform Party is. In fact, Pauline Hanson and Nigel Farage follow pretty well much the same political trajectory; with Pauline also having been a member of a major tory party, and also having to phoenix the political party.
This second issue brings the third in sharp focus very quickly.
Issue 3 - Actually Passing the Budget
In effect the only duty of a Government in a calendar year is to pass the budget bill. In the history of the Australian Federal Parliament, this has never actually technically happened though there are two very major caveats here.
In 1940, the Fadden Government was brought down when 4 Independent Members crossed the floor to pass a £1 variation budget; which installed John Curtin's Labor Government. In 1975, the Liberal/National Coalition refused to pass the Whitlam Government's budget in the Senate, and following a series of machinations, the budget was passed on 11th November and Malcom Fraser's Coalition Government was installed instead.
A potential One Nation Government would need to find the numbers on the floor of the House of Representatives to be able to pass the budget there, and then get the Senate to agree to it; which the Senate is not obliged to do so by law. This is where the political problem that One Nation faces is really put on display.
Firstly, how One Nation would actually find the numbers on the floor of the House to be able to pass a budget (much less any other piece of legislation is beyond me).
Secondly, getting the Senate to agree to the budget, when not even Labor or the Coalition can currently find the numbers in the Senate to pass legislation unilaterally, is an even bigger ask.
Thirdly, which is probably the most important of all, One Nation's own internal structure on the floors of parliaments would need to hold together long enough to be able to pass any legislation and I am not sure that they are capable of that.
Fourthly, given that One Nation is already an internal set of contradictions, I have no idea how they'd even compile a budget without every single nutbox, cussjack, and wingnut actively trying to dismantle the process. I do not know if it is meaningful to throw a spanner in the works, when the entire works is built entirely of spanners.
At least when Peter Dutton was Potato-In-Chief of the Liberal Party, he was semi-competent and could muster the necessary staff and cabinet to have attempted to write a budget had a Dutton Coalition even been elected.
In Summary:
If we find ourselves in May 2028 facing an election with the budget just having been passed then:
1 - I don't know how One Nation finds the Members to form Government.
2 - I don't know how One Nation holds itself together to keep the Members to retain Government.
3 - I don't know how One Nation holds itself together long enough to be able to write a budget which is necessary to operate Government.
Moreover, what I think is happening is that given that it is 2026 and whatever One Nation does, truly doesn't matter and will not matter for eighteen months, trashmedia outlets like News 24, NineEntCo and SevenWest media, are perfectly happen for Pauline Hanson to play the role of Crown Princess of Lols. There will likely be a very hard pivot in March of 2028 in the run-up to the budget and whomever emerges as the anointed one from the Liberal Party, will then be given a media makeover as the saviour of the nation.
In essence what we have going on now, looks like the period of politics from 1993-1996; where John Howard was rehabilitated from person non-gratis to saviour-of-the-nation in-waiting.
But to cycle back to the original question posed:
Do you think that Pauline Hanson could be Prime Minister?
Could? Legally, yes.
Could? Actually, no.
No comments:
Post a Comment