In the last couple of weeks, two very consequential political debates have come down to a single vote. And these two narrow defeats prove that individuals matter, democracy matters, and parliament matters. Nothing is predetermined.
Fri 18 Sep 2026 01.00 AEST
Photo: AAP Image/Lukas Coch
To borrow a concise definition from foreign policy expert Thomas Wright, the Overton window is the idea that there is an “acceptable range of political discourse in a society” at a given time. In democratic systems, leaders and parties tend to stick within these boundaries to remain popular and legitimate.
In the last couple of weeks, two very consequential political debates have come down to a single vote.
In Tasmania, the Liberal Government has refused to introduce a cap on the number of guns a single person can own, out of step with NSW and Western Australia. But the Liberals are in minority in the Tasmanian Parliament, and the Labor Opposition and the Greens support a cap. Six independents would decide the matter. They split, with the member for Bass, George Razay, the deciding vote. Initially undecided, Razay ultimately voted against the cap.
In national politics, a vote on whether to allow a controversial new “carbon offset” method came down to the Greens. According to journalist Jacob Greber, the Greens were split 6–5 on the issue. A single person had the casting vote on whether Australia would pursue a less ambitious climate policy, just as one person settled the direction of Tasmania’s gun laws.
The two defeats are no less bitter because they were close. It’s no secret where I stand on the new carbon method, and I have for many years been concerned about the rising number of firearms in the community.
But these two narrow defeats prove that individuals matter, democracy matters, and parliament matters. Nothing is predetermined.
Have you doubted the value of joining or volunteering for a political party? These past months, eleven Greens parliamentarians would have been thinking very seriously about how their decision on offsets would be received by the volunteers and voting members on whom their political careers depend.
Have you doubted the value of contacting your local member? In Tasmania, an MP seemed genuinely balanced between two outcomes. If you live in his electorate, perhaps your voice could have been part of a chorus that swayed him one way or the other.
These issues have been decided, but parties will have to share power in the Australian Senate and the Tasmanian House of Assembly for the foreseeable future. There will be many more battles, some of them as delicately poised as climate offsets and gun control turned out to be.
Quality research, analysis, explainers and factchecks from experts you can trust.
In Australia, the executive governments of ministers and public servants wield a great deal of power. At times, they act as “elective dictatorships” with little deference for the democratically elected Parliament. They are helped by the strict discipline of the major parties, which rarely openly defy their ministers. But by law and practice, it is Parliament that is supreme. Blood was spilled in the United Kingdom to rein in the power of kings and their ministers. When they have the mettle, our democratically elected representatives can unite to restrain, replace or overrule the government of the day.
The Senate reminded the government of this last week, when it delivered a surprisingly firm rebuke of the latest bid for secrecy. This time, the prime mover was not government ministers but senior public servants. A deputy secretary tried to control how the Department of Defence’s Senate evidence was used. Her efforts were rebuffed but quickly followed by departmental secretaries (heads of departments) “suggesting” that Parliament could outlaw or restrict the sharing of their evidence on social media.
These clips are one way that members of the public engage with government and learn how it works. If they provoke ridicule, perhaps the government is behaving ridiculously. Nor is it junior public servants who are subject to this kind of scrutiny; a deputy secretary is in the elite 0.1% of the public service and much more powerful and well paid than the senators asking the questions.
Unlike the Senate, the House of Representatives is firmly under government control – but even so, a lone actor can prick the conscience. Independent MP Zali Steggall did so this week when she attempted to force debate and a vote on her truth in political advertising bill.
Truth in political advertising laws have operated in South Australia since the 1980s. Polling research finds that they are overwhelmingly popular among Australians. They are the official policy of the Labor Party. There is no conceivable obstacle to their becoming law, except that the Albanese Labor Government does not want them to.
Not that they admit it. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese blamed the Coalition for not supporting truth in political advertising laws, even though Labor had the numbers without them. Efforts like Steggall’s cannot force Labor to vote in accordance with its own policies, but they can expose its refusal to do so.
In a time of democratic backsliding, feelings of frustration and futility are common – especially when a progressive government refuses to implement its own policies. But I am heartened by two recent defeats, because they were close-fought things that could have gone either way. They are proof that our efforts can change the direction of our country. \
Bill Browne is Director of the Democracy & Accountability Program. His diverse areas of interest include the use of opinion polling, forecasting to predict policy outcomes, truth in political advertising reforms, digital technology and the role of the states and the Senate in Australian democracy.
