Time for the major parties to acknowledge their significant others

Claims of Independent's Day have been made before (including after the 2007 and 2010 Federal Elections). These resulted in (what at the time seemed) a complex shared balance of power in the Senate and a hung parliament in the House respectively. Both were deemed aberrations, but history seems to suggest that it might be time for the majors to acknowledge their significant 'others'.

The presence of 'independents' and 'other's in Australian politics is not a new phenomenon; it has occurred in various forms since Federation. There have been eleven 'independent' members in the House since 1949.

Rodrigues and Brenton (2010) provide a detailed historical analysis of 'independents' in Australian parliaments, to find that in recent years, the overall level of support for 'independents' has plateaued, but the numbers of 'independents' continues to grow. They argue that the greater number of 'independents' now being elected to parliament is due to more experience (or advice) in where, when and how to be elected.

With this recent growth in 'independent' members, Australia continues to be home to more non-major party members that any other comparable western country. What is also unique to Australia is the potential influence of a handful of these 'independent' members on the outcomes of the Australian Federal Parliament. This influence is due to two historical characteristics of Australian politics.

First, the two party system in Australia has amongst the strictest voting disciplines internationally. This sees members who are not bound by a party platform in a position to make a deciding vote when neither major party has a majority. There is some disingenuity in major party warnings about the unrepresentative influence of minority MPs, when it is their blind adherence to major party disciple that gives them this power.

The second characteristic is shared by many other western nations, namely a steady increase in non-major party support. This Election the informal vote was up, but so was the other than majors vote. The combined vote for the major parties was just over 79%. This was down from 81% (in 2010), 85.5% (in 2007) and 84% (in 2004).

Clearly, the Australian people do not accept the major party premise that minors equal mayhem.

Instead, they opted for minority as a safeguard in the Senate. There it looks likely that Australia will have the most complex (even eclectic) Senate composition since proportional representation was introduced in 1948. Potentially, ten Greens and eight 'other' Senators will hold a shared balance of power after the Senate changes in July 2014.

In South Australia, the Xenophon Group won an unprecedented 25% of the vote, outpolling the ALP. This exceeded Xenophon's previous record in the state Legislative Council (where he won 20% of the vote and nearly outpolled the Liberals in his own right).

Senator Xenophon provides a pertinent illustration of what might be in store for the next 3 years. With the Greens likely to show their hand by voting in the House, he may well become the 'Elder Statesman' of the shared balance of power in the Senate.

In 2007, the incoming Rudd Government ignored key Senators of all persuasions, such was its hubris and lack of understanding of the unique powers of the Australian Senate. In 2008, it stood back and waited for the minors to fall in the face of the looming Global Financial Crisis. It took Senator Xenophon voting down an Economic Stimulus Package proposal to reset the modus operandi in the Senate.

Senator Xenophon will have lost none of his resolve over the last three years as a self-described 'feather duster', and his electoral success will only embolden him further. Neither will he have lost his capacity to bring together coalitions of 'others' from different political persuasions.