We have not heard the Prime Minister complain of late about the "No-alition."
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A quick check of official transcripts and Hansard shows Anthony Albanese last taunted the opposition on February 28 about pretty much always saying "no" and dealing itself out of putting its imprint on what passed through Parliament House.
The next day was a leap day. And a leap was taken.
Twenty-two months into the Albanese government, Labor has noticeably shifted from stitching progressive deals with the Greens and the crossbench to needing the opposition to get lasting reform.
A year ago, the opposition was the "observers of Australian politics rather than the participants," according to the Prime Minister. Now he is trying to have "hope that they're constructive."
It is hard stuff being dealt with about a year out from the next election - electoral reform, religious discrimination, gas exploration, gambling reform, environmental laws, and anything to do with migration reform - and Mr Albanese states he is seeking to "land reform that stays, not reform that comes and then goes with changes of government."
With all the usual show and bluster, the major parties aren't getting on, but they are getting on with business. And let's remember that Labor's industrial relations reforms were never going to get opposition backing and the Prime Minister is not a fan of deals with the "Greens political party".
The drawn out dance over the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund Labor election promise, which dipped into double dissolution election threat territory, was beyond testing for all sides.
The unfinished business from the previous parliament of religious discrimination appears to be a fight Labor does not want to have - and who would after the failed Voice to Parliament campaign? - but it is back on the agenda regardless as we are talking about an Albanese election promise. And can he really afford another broken election promise?
Who has seen the legislation that would give greater protections for staff and students at religious schools? Not many, but those that do include members of the Coalition who are loving that stakeholders and journalists are trying to find out more from them.
It is bipartisan or nothing for the Prime Minister.
The question becomes whether major party confluence is needed. On the numbers with a coming half Senate election at the next poll, the Coalition, if it was elected to form government, would not get an upper house majority and would have to deal with the crossbench. It is one of the few certainties this far out from the next election.
That and there will be a lot more retirements flagged over the next year adding to Monday's Rowan Ramsey and Mark Coulton.
So, the members of the progressive crossbench are saying deal with them now and stop any prospect of a culture war over religion. Greens leader Adam Bandt is urging Labor to "choose its dancing partner" and stating it was a "fork-in-the-road moment" with the government giving every indication of working with "Peter Dutton and the climate deniers".
The government wants to get a few deals done or seriously sorted ahead of a six-week parliamentary break.
In an environment where major parties remain on the nose, even the latest Newspoll pointing to minority government for the ALP if an election was held this week, can Labor afford to look too cosy with the Coalition?