It is true: a government is only as strong as its opposition

You’ve likely heard the old maxim, or some version of it: “A government is only as strong as its opposition.”

For decades, it rattled around in my mind like loose change – familiar, but never quite spent. Only now has it stepped forward from passing remark to quiet conviction. Here’s what I’ve come to see.

* * * * *

“A government is only as strong as its opposition”: This is a cornerstone of the Westminster parliamentary system, which relies on a robust “government-in-waiting” to hold the executive to account. The idea is that a strong, credible, and effective opposition forces the government to be more diligent, transparent, and policy-focused. Conversely, a weak or dysfunctional opposition allows a government to become complacent, arrogant, or sloppy, as it faces little scrutiny or threat.

Looking at Australian political history over the last 40 years, this saying has proven to be remarkably true, with its validity swinging between the two major parties. Let’s break it down by era.

The Hawke/Keating Era (1983-1996) and a Divided Opposition

Government: The Hawke and Keating Labor governments were dominant, driving significant economic reforms (floating the dollar, deregulating the financial system, lowering tariffs).

Opposition: The Coalition was plagued by leadership instability (John Howard, Andrew Peacock, John Hewson, Alexander Downer) and internal ideological battles. They struggled to present a coherent and credible alternative, most famously with the 1993 “Fightback!” package under John Hewson, which was successfully targeted by the government.

Proof of the Saying: The weak and divided opposition arguably allowed Labor to govern for 13 years. However, it also meant that the government’s agenda faced less rigorous policy scrutiny, with the political contest often being more about personality and scare campaigns.

The Howard Era (1996-2007) and a Struggling Labor Opposition

Government: Howard’s government was politically dominant, implementing major reforms like the GST, gun control, and industrial relations (such as the unpopular and failed WorkChoices).

Opposition: The Labor Party went through a period of significant turmoil, cycling through four leaders in opposition (Kim Beazley twice, Simon Crean, Mark Latham) before finding stability with Kevin Rudd.

Proof of the Saying: For most of this period, a weak and politically outmanoeuvred opposition allowed the Howard government to set the political agenda. However, the saying was proven most powerfully at the end of this era. By 2007, Kevin Rudd had rebuilt Labor into a disciplined, unified, and credible opposition with a clear alternative policy agenda (most notably on Industrial Relations and climate change). This strong opposition directly contributed to the defeat of the Howard government, which had begun to appear out of touch.

The Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Era (2007-2013) and a Relentless Opposition

Government: This Labor government was politically fragile, marked by internal leadership tensions (the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd saga), a hung parliament, and policy controversies (carbon tax, mining tax).

Opposition: Tony Abbott led a fiercely disciplined and effective opposition. He relentlessly held the government to account, famously using the phrase “stop the boats, end the waste, repeal the tax.” The opposition – in tandem with a compliant and ruthless media – successfully framed the government as chaotic and untrustworthy. (See footnote).

Proof of the Saying: This is perhaps the clearest modern example of the saying. The Abbott opposition was arguably too effective at tearing down the government, contributing to a period of policy paralysis and hyper-partisanship. Its strength exposed and amplified the government’s perceived weaknesses, leading directly to its downfall in 2013.

The Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison Era (2013-2022) and a “Small Target” Labor Opposition

Government: The Coalition government was defined by its own internal instability, with three different prime ministers. Policy direction was often inconsistent, and scandals mounted.

Opposition: After the 2013 and 2016 defeats, Labor under Bill Shorten adopted a “small target” strategy, avoiding major controversial policies that could be weaponised by the government. (Until, of course, the franking credits debacle during the 2019 election campaign.) Under Anthony Albanese, this strategy continued into the 2022 election.

Proof of the Saying: The dysfunction within the government became so pronounced that it ultimately overshadowed the opposition. In this case, the government’s own failures were the primary cause of its demise. However, the opposition’s disciplined, small-target strategy was a key factor in its success – it made itself a safe, low-risk alternative without providing the government with a big policy to attack.

The Albanese Government (2022-Present)

Government: A Labor government facing complex economic challenges.

Opposition: The Coalition has been through its own period of reflection and leadership change (Peter Dutton). The effectiveness of this opposition is still being tested. Its strength, or lack thereof, will be a major factor in how the Albanese government performs and whether it secures a third term.

Conclusion

The saying “a government is only as strong as its opposition” holds up very well in the Australian context. Its truth is demonstrated in two main ways:

1. When the Opposition is Strong: A strong opposition (like Abbott’s) can force a government to justify its actions, expose its flaws, and ultimately defeat it. This is the system working as intended.
2. When the Opposition is Weak: A weak opposition (like during much of the Hawke/Keating or Howard years) can allow a government to dominate the political landscape for long periods, sometimes with insufficient scrutiny, leading to potential arrogance and policy missteps.

Ultimately, the saying highlights that the quality of governance in Australia is not just a product of the party in power, but of the health of the entire democratic ecosystem, where scrutiny, competition, and the constant presence of a credible alternative are essential.

* * * * *

Footnote: I use the term “successfully framed the government as chaotic and untrustworthy” with deliberate emphasis on “successfully framed.” Having worked for both the Gillard and Rudd governments, I felt the deep frustration of real achievements going unreported, drowned out by a relentless swirl of Murdoch media and opposition toxicity.