Will Anti-Lockdown Sentiment Became a New Australian Political Force?

One of the prominent aspects of Australia’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been the use of strict lockdowns by the country’s state governments. Operating on a strategy of elimination, these governments have closed offices, shops, and schools, restricted movement outside the home only to essential trips like groceries and health care, and even implemented nighttime curfews.

Most Australians understand that both state and federal governments are measuring their response to the pandemic by limiting deaths. People may not like these restrictions, and may find them incredibly difficult personally and financially, but they understand the wider importance of saving lives.

However, a small percentage of the public refused to align themselves to this strategy. Often mired in a cocktail of conspiracy theories, these groups have frequently taken to the streets to voice their objections to these measures. Protests often led to violent clashes with police.

While these protests are adding another layer of complexity to the country’s pandemic response, there is also the prospect of this sentiment becoming an influential political force. The next federal election needs to be held before May 2022. Despite a significant increase in the rates of vaccination this August – and a government commitment to maintain these rates – it is highly likely that some aspects of Australia’s restrictions will remain in place before the election is held. This will make opposition to these restrictions a political opportunity.

In terms of who forms government, this is unlikely to be influential. Australia’s House of Representative offers some oxygen to political actors outside of the Labor Party and the parties of the conservative coalition, but the voting system heavily favors these two blocs. It is much easier to be elected as a strong independent candidate focused on specific local issues than it is to be from a minor party with a broader political platform.

However, in the Senate the terrain is far more favorable to smaller parties. While the ballot for seats in the House may only contain five or six candidates for each seat, the Senate ballot is usually the size of a tablecloth, filled with a number of niche and single-issue parties hoping to find a way into the chamber. In 2019, a total of 35 parties contested the Senate election in New South Wales.

Given the unique proportional preferential voting system in the Senate, the chamber has a habit of throwing up surprise victories. Larger parties attempting to direct their preference away from rivals can produce unexpected consequences. Famously, in 2013 the Motoring Enthusiast Party was able to win one of Victoria’s Senate seats from just 0.51 percent of first preferences. The tactic of “preference harvesting” – a way for smaller parties to collude with one another in the hope that one of them may be in a better position as the preferences of larger parties are distributed – has now become a feature of the system.

This will make the Senate a key target for any political movements looking to take advantage of “anti-lockdown” sentiment. Already some of the more established smaller parties are positioning themselves in this direction. The liberatarian Liberal Democrats have managed to recruit former Queensland Premier Campbell Newman to run for the Senate. Newman has stated that the Coalition’s endorsement of pandemic restrictions is the reason why he quit Queensland’s Liberal National Party.

Alongside this, opportunist billionaire Clive Palmer, who plasters Australian cities with billboards of himself with two thumbs up over the barely-concealed Trump rip-off slogan “Make Australia Great,” is also positioning himself – and his United Australia Party – as a vehicle for anti-lockdown and anti-vaccination sentiment. His latest attempt to win political influence involves recruiting Craig Kelly, a member of Parliament expelled from the Liberal Party for his conspiracy-laden anti-vaccination rhetoric.

The Liberal Party’s decision to expel Kelly is a sign that it has decided to not follow the Republican Party in the United States into a form of paranoid and agitated politics. The party understands that it simply could never win elections in Australia with a similar style of politics given that Australia’s compulsory voting means major parties have to appeal to the kitchen table concerns of the broader public, not the political ideals of the loudest and most active voters.

However, this will open up opportunities to exploit fringe sentiment for some political gain. The Liberal Democrats and the United Australia Party are unlikely to be the only parties that will run on an anti-lockdown platform at the forthcoming election. This may lead to an array of parties eating into each other’s support, or it could mean that the quirks of the Senate voting system is able to amplify their objectives. The safety and stability that Australia has tried to protect during the pandemic may lead to a small, but influential, counterforce of volatility.