Immigration nicely illustrates the problem. Since its election to office in 2007, the Labor government has gone from a policy of high population growth and relaxed border protection under former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to a policy of low immigration  and tight border protection under Rudd’s replacement, Julia Gillard. Opposition parties on the right and the left have attacked both policy designs. And, only last week, the minority Gillard government introduced legislation responding to a recent High Court of Australia ruling invalidating the government’s so-called ‘regional solution’ of sending asylum seekers to Malaysia in return for a much larger number of Malaysia’s already-processed refugees. The Opposition generally supports the government’s search for off-shore processing. But politics being politics, the Opposition is now taking (or seeking to take) the moral high ground and attacking the government’s mean-spirited response to the High Court, a response that is much to the surprise of the human rights-friendly Greens who hold the balance of power in Parliament’s upper house. The Gillard government even faces mounting internal opposition from its left faction, who contend that the amending legislation is in breach of human rights provisions in the party platform.

But just what is so wrong with current Australian politics? The Parliament in Canberra seems to have abandoned the art of compromise, with leading politicians preferring partisan disagreement over policy deliberation. Australian political commentators have rarely been so puzzled about the entrenched spirit of antagonism that has seized national politics.

The story begins with the 2010 election, when the serving Gillard Labor government was returned, but only just. For the first time since the 1940s, Canberra had a minority government relying on the voting support in the lower house of a small number of independents and one Greens member. But the Labor-inclined independents each have pet policies they want implemented, and a number have now begun to publicly remind the government that their support is conditional on delivery of government action for their chosen causes. The coalition of Liberal and National parties looked to Opposition leader Tony Abbott to chip away at the independents’ support for the Gillard government. And Abbott firmly believes that his team could be back in government well before the next election due in two years time. In fact, the official Opposition is energised less about public policy than about regaining government.

This taut relationship between a minority government and an ambitious Opposition has set the stage for the current acrimony. The risks of hamstrung government are rising, and the effects of policy instability are already becoming evident. One leading factor in the pessimists’ view of the current situation is the lingering debate over Kevin Rudd’s spectacular ascendency to the top job and then his dramatic fall when, in mid-2010, Rudd was replaced by his deputy, Gillard. The uncertainty over this affair remains unresolved, which reflects the feckless confidence not only of Labor decision-makers but also of ordinary voters. The descent into minority government under Gillard also contributes to this outlook. To the Prime Minister’s credit, Gillard saved office from the wreck of the 2010 election, winning the support of a loose and unpredictable coalition of conservative independents and progressive Greens. But the Greens have the numbers in the upper house to pass or block initiatives from either government or Opposition. And what once appeared to be a natural coalition of progressive politics between Labor and the Greens is turning out to be a fractious relationship between a narrowly pragmatic government and a moralistic minority party with little time for compromise. Other factors are also important, such as the role of the media in picking away at the seams of uncertainty within Labor.

But there is some ground for optimism. A range of deeper institutional factors provide stability to public decision-making. For starters, the minority government arose from the ashes of the 2010 election with a series of written formal agreements crafted by Gillard and her supporters. These provide Gillard with promises of support for her annual budgets and also support in the face of Opposition no-confidence motions. The Parliament will almost certainly go its full term, given these foundational agreements. Further, these legislative lifelines are with Gillard personally, not with Labor generally, helping secure Gillard against the sort of instability that robbed Rudd of his hold on the party leadership — although the Greens have begun to move away from their earlier acceptance of this interpretation, reflecting their deep disappointment over Gillard’s approach to border protection.

Government finances are sound. The public service is highly professional. The system of federal power-sharing with the states is stable, despite the election of non-Labor governments in three of the six states in the time that Labor has been in power in Canberra. The next election is still two years away. The long-delayed carbon tax legislation is finally under parliamentary consideration and likely to pass. Indeed, the minority government is yet to lose a vote on a major bill and that might indicate that, regardless of the probable loss on the current migration amendments, the Gillard team is capable of difficult political management. Whether it is capable of difficult policy management generates much less agreement.

Professor John Uhr is Director of the Centre for the Study of Australian Politics, School of Politics and International Relations, The Australian National University.