MARK RILEY: Why Albanese gagged his own Government on Budget

Of all the political tactics employed in the Federal Parliament, the gag motion is probably the most widely loathed.

Governments use it to stop their opponents from speaking on pieces of legislation.

Purists see it as egregiously undemocratic.

One of the Parliament’s principal responsibilities is to ensure bills are comprehensively scrutinised before they become law.

Abruptly shutting down debates and forcing precipitous votes is regarded as a jack-booted way of kicking scrutiny to the kerb.

The Albanese Government isn’t nearly as bad as some of its predecessors, although it is still known to slap on a gag now and again.

Which brings us to a fascinating moment in the House of Representatives this week, when the Coalition attempted to turn the gag tactic on its head.

It happened shortly after Anthony Albanese spoke on his Government’s one big tax Bill, sounding the bell for the first round of active combat over the contentious changes to negative gearing, capital gains tax and family trust arrangements.

The leader of Opposition business, Dan Tehan, leapt to his feet to put what can only be described as an exotic procedural motion.

It wasn’t a gag motion, but the opposite.

It was a gasbag motion.

Tehan attempted to force all 93 members on the Government benches to speak on the tax legislation before it was voted upon.

The Government giggled nervously and then mustered its overwhelming numbers to squash Tehan’s tactic.

But in doing so, the Albanese Government achieved something few, if any, governments have managed since federation.

The Government gagged itself.

Why? The Government will say it was to protect against an effective filibuster that would unnecessarily delay the Bill’s assured passage through the house.

But there was a greater strategic intention to the Opposition’s uncustomary parliamentary ploy that Tehan revealed in a brief contribution to his doomed motion.

“If it’s good enough for the Prime Minister to speak on his Budget of broken promises, it’s good enough for every single member here to do the same!” he yelled, waving a finger at the Government’s back benches.

“Because we want you all on the record on this Budget of broken promises!”

Why? So Coalition operatives could collate evidence of every Labor MP speaking in support of the tax changes and distribute it among voters in their home electorates.

The motion was never going to succeed. But a larger point was made.

Three weeks after the Budget was handed down, Government MPs seem to be doing everything they can to avoid talking about it and the Opposition is busting a boiler in an effort to ensure they have to.

The Coalition is trying to seize this moment to work itself back into the political game with a fight on its preferred ground — the economy.

The polls tell us that the Government is beginning to lose some skin on this. But the Coalition parties aren’t benefiting. One Nation is.

A word of caution, though. The current deluge of polling is broadly indicative of voter sentiment at present, but not empirical evidence of how Australians will vote at the next election — still two years away.

Don’t get me wrong. The results are disastrous for the Coalition and enormously troubling for Labor. There is a big drift away from the major parties. But not all of that will stick.

I can remember when Mark Latham in 2004 became the most popular opposition leader in polling history. Within months he suffered the worst election defeat Labor had ever experienced at a Federal level.

It’s even easier to recall the polls in late 2024 that told us Peter Dutton was an unbackable shoo-in as the next prime minister. Within months he led the Coalition to its worst-ever defeat.

The point is, as Don Ameche noted in the film of the same name, things change. And they will before the next election. How much they change will be significantly determined by this Budget debate.

That is how important this moment is for the Coalition, in particular.

And it’s why Angus Taylor and his colleagues are so intent to ensure the Budget debate is characterised by gasbagging and not gagging.