On election night, I predicted that the relationship between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens would be the central axis of discourse in the post-Morrison Australia. Both parties had a great night, Labor cementing Albo as the 31st prime-minister of Australia, and the so-called “greenslide” that occurred in Queensland. Strait into the fray, Albo has been zipping across the globe, doing important work to repair the damage done under Scott Morrison to our global standing, alongside his left and right hands, Senator Penny Wong and Deputy PM Ritchie Marles. But it has been a rather brief honeymoon, with an embarrassing backdown on suspending COVID payments after being reminded who is the boss really is by the premiers.
Parliament sits in a few weeks, and whilst the new ministry
has been hard at work taking the reins, other members of parliament have been preparing
for what looks to be an exiting new age of parliament, hopefully without the
gagging conduct of Peter Dutton and Christian Porter. Leader of the House, Tony
Burke has promised a more consultative parliament. This is not just a response
to the denigration of parliament by the former lot, but a response to the “teal
wave” that rippled across the nation in traditional liberal party seats. There
is now a record crossbench in the house of 16, as well as a senate crossbench of
18.
But all of Burke’s nice talk, it seems like Labor is doing a
“Take it or leave it” approach to its climate legislation. They have postured
themselves as winning a mandate for their 43% reduction policy and are demanding
that the Greens fall behind their policy without major amendment or risk no legislated
target at all. Instead, Labor will pursue its policy via the power of the
executive. What I find most amazing is that Labor “stans” on twitter, as well
as members of the media have portrayed this situation as the Greens refusing to
negotiate and being “counter-productive”. Apparently, the word is that when a
party wins a majority in the House of Representatives, all other parliamentarians
must abandon their platforms and fall behind the Government.
I’m sure it’s a nice daydream for a new government to have,
but it is a fundamentally unconstitutional perspective, that attempts to
sideline the senate. Labor must remember that whilst it may claim a “mandate”
in the lower house, the senate is another story. Labor has been historically
hostile to the senate, with Keating famously asserting that it is “unrepresentative
swill”. I think that on this point of view, Keating, and his acolytes are wrong.
Whilst state-based assemblies such as the US Senate can be horrifyingly
undemocratic, literally and figuratively, this issue isn’t really a problem in Australia,
due to the proportional representation system, and the relatively unpolarised
states. (Yes Queensland exists, but so does Victoria).
Labor did not win a majority in the senate as unless I’ve
miscalculated 26 is not more than half of 76. In fact its only 1 more than a
third. In fact, if considered a single party, the coalition is the biggest
party in the Australian senate. But if that’s so how did Labor secure 50%+2 in
the lower house and thus the treasury benches? To put it simply, Greens preferences.
So in a way, Labor should be grateful of the greens existence.
 |
| Composition of the Senate |
But the Greens have become so successful that they are now
starting to win seats; seats Labor sees as rightfully theirs In the senate, the
Greens (and to an extent the Democrats before them) have been biting at Labor’s
heels for a while. Labor has accepted they have lost the third “progressive
seat” in the senate in all states to the green. We know this, because of what
happened to Kristina Keneally. (Story for another day)
Most shocking for Labor,
was the fall of Griffith, the old seat of Kevin Rudd, and of shadow-minister of
Terri Butler, someone that Labor people have told me is a future leader of some
sort. I didn’t see it, and the voter of Grifith clearly didn’t either. In
addition, Stephen Bates won Brisbane, which Labor had behind the scenes banked
as a victory for their candidate Madonna Jarrett. We saw a similar thing happen
to the liberals but on a much grander scale with the teals. On election night, Liberal
apparatchik Peta Credlin kept repeating “these aren’t the seats that make-or-break
government” as if to reassure herself that the landscape hadn’t just collapsed
beneath the LNP. Truth is, these inner-city seats have been used by the major
parties to incubate their leadership class as they have been seen as so incredibly
safe. Unfortunately, their concerns have been ignored, with parties framing themselves
in relation to the suburban and regional voters. In this election we saw these
seats rise up and scream to the major parties that their support is not to be
taken for granted. Time will tell whether those screams will be heard.
So how is Labor dealing with the success of the Greens. To
put it bluntly not well. They have been harsh in the media, denying any plans
to negotiate. Accusations fling about the Greens not voting for Kevin Rudd’s
CPRS. Most bizzarely, Labor people have “accused” the Greens of “bleeding votes
away to the left”. Yes. That’s what is obviously is happening. So what is the
problem? I think there are many reasons. Labor sees itself as the left party.
The presence of a notionally “lefter” party threatens this sense of identity. More
importantly it frustrates the traditional process of Labor taking a ”left-wing”
position, and negotiating it down to win the centre vote. Now that it has to
compete on its left front, as an institution Labor doesn’t know how how to bridge
both battles. To defend its left flank, it doesn’t have much else than “remember
the CPRS” and the media narrative of the “loony greens”. This is not an
effective strategy, as it has no material or even a real cultural connection to
the voters. Reports have claimed that Josh Burns, mp for Macnamara, was furious
that the party had no “Greens Strategy”. If 2,500 votes went the other way,
Burns and Justine Elliot of Richmond would have lost their seats to the greens,
depriving Labor of their majority. Well, if this is the Greens strategy, Burns
should be angry.
Maybe the cold hard truth is that there is no effective
Greens strategy other than appealing to the issues that have driven voters to
them, such as housing, climate and lgbt+ rights. But then they might loose
votes to the coalition in the so-called “seats that make-or-break government”.
I guess that’s the dilemma Labor faces itself with. I suspect this might be the
last majority government for a long time.
Comments
Post a Comment