Playing bluff is an exciting game.
It’s about brinksmanship and psychologically outmanoeuvring the opponent. It gets the adrenalin running and lots of fun can be had by the participants.
When it’s just cards, it is harmless good fun. However, it gets a bit more serious when the nation is involved, with the threat of an early election and consideration of a $10 billion (US$6.67 billion) housing fund.
Bluff is the game currently being played out between the federal Labor government in Australia and its defacto partners on which it relies so heavily in the upper house, the Senate—namely the left-wing Australian Greens.
In this game, the Greens is virtue signalling its concern for the housing shortage faced by the Australian people, which in turn has a substantial impact on the rental market, housing affordability, and cost of living.
Rather than reduce red tape to allow for more land release and change planning laws to enable quicker and cheaper home building, Labor has placed a massive $10 billion future housing fund on the table which the Opposition, for a variety of reasons, has opposed.
The view of the Opposition, while interesting and providing an insight as to how a future Liberal government might govern, is at this time not relevant as the protagonist in the Senate is now the Greens.
The Greens’ opposition to the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) is that it is not big enough to deal with the needs of the current housing shortage. In support of their claims for greater funding the Greens point to a model which they believe would be more sustainable.
Rather than freeing up the market and providing individual home ownership—allowing Australians to be owners with a real interest in their own personal investment—we have two parties scrapping over how big the social housing budget should be.
Prime Minister Throws Down the Gauntlet
Until recently, the debate, while wilful and acrimonious between the two protagonists, was at the principle and practical level until Prime Minister Anthony Albanese lobbed in the double dissolution threat—and has since tried to play down.A government, after certain constitutional requirements have been met, can dissolve both Houses of Parliament if a piece of legislation has been rejected by the upper house (the Senate) on two or more occasions.
Usually, only half the Senate faces the people at a federal election. In a double dissolution, the whole Senate faces the people.
Governments of all persuasions believe having a double dissolution trigger is a vital weapon in its armoury for the purposes of negotiations, or in a bid to increase its representation in the Senate should the electoral mood (via polling) suggest such an outcome.
And this is where the game of bluff is played.
Greens in Precarious Situation
Mr. Albanese’s threat of a double dissolution was wheeled out with a focus on newly elected Green MPs in Parliament, especially in the lower house, who won seats during the election last year over issues such as aircraft noise.Facing an early election without a record of achievement places certain MPs in a very real state of vulnerability. Even more concerning for the party would be Green senators who lose.
The thinking is that the Greens would suffer the most electoral carnage, and when confronted with this prospect the Greens might moderate their demands around the HAFF to a more palatable compromise.
However, if no compromise can be reached, then Mr. Albanese will need to follow through with the nuclear option, which could also weaken his party.
While the Greens on the weekend appeared to be doubling down launching a doorknocking blitz in electorates with higher densities of rental living.
The politics of bluff continues.
