The Australian Greens achieved unprecedented success at the last federal election, gaining their highest ever number of parliamentary seats after putting forward a left-wing platform calling for including dental and mental health in Medicare, the wiping of student debt, 1 million affordable homes, free child care and income-support increases.
Party leader Adam Bandt described the result as “a massive mandate for action on climate and inequality”. The final Senate results confirmed as much: the Albanese Labor government needs the Greens’ votes to pass any legislation opposed by the Liberal-National Coalition.
Nine months on from the election, what has come of the Greens’ electoral success? How have they used their mandate to bring about changes that their voters want?
From the beginning, the party was clear that, like the rest of the left, it wanted to get rid of Scott Morrison’s Liberal government. Its orientation was to win as many seats as possible and then bring progressive pressure to bear on a new Labor government. The argument boiled down to: if the Greens hold the balance of power, good things will happen. It was up to the ALP to choose, in Bandt’s words, a path of either “confrontation or cooperation”.
The problem is that Labor is hostile to a program of left-wing reforms. After all, this is the party that has for decades overseen sweeping attacks on workers and the privatisation of public assets. It even went to the federal election promising to maintain the Liberal Party’s tax cuts for the rich.
Nothing was more emblematic of Labor’s hostility to “cooperation” with the Greens than the very first piece of legislation moved in the new parliament: the climate bill. It not only set an inadequate emissions reduction target of just 43 percent by 2030 but did not provide any enforcement mechanisms or concrete plans to achieve the goal. The target didn’t even account for Australia’s coal and gas exports, which keep climbing. The entire point of the bill, as Jerome Small explained last year in Red Flag, was to “keep stacking up the cash while the planet burns”.
Labor threw down the gauntlet. It was well aware that the best way to wrong-foot the Greens was to dare them to “make the perfect the enemy of the good”, as the asinine phrase goes. A deluge of finger-wagging, tut-tutting opinion writers and talking heads reiterated the view that, finally, we might see “an end to the climate wars” if only the Greens would sign off on Labor’s bill.
The Greens capitulated. Despite their own criticisms of the bill (that it was the equivalent of “bringing a bucket of water to a house fire”), Greens MPs voted for it with only minor amendments. The legislation has acted as a soporific to the climate movement—precisely what the ALP wants while it is in government.
Faced with an unpopular opposition led by Peter Dutton, Labor has thus far gotten pretty much everything it wanted through the parliament. The Greens, meanwhile, with their “cooperative” parliamentary approach, have extracted precious little in return.
Indeed, under the ALP, with the mild-mannered Greens by their side, the fossil fuel industry is booming, real wages have dropped precipitously, and the housing crisis has become much worse. The Greens can’t be blamed for all this, of course. But the question has to be asked: how is their strategy going?
Far from seizing the opportunity to work with the Greens, Labor’s approach to the climate bill set the terrain for subsequent clashes. Take the housing bill currently before the parliament. Parliamentary Library research, seen by Guardian journalist Paul Karp last year, estimates that there is a shortfall of more than 500,000 public housing dwellings and that this is going to rise to almost 700,000 within ten years. Yet the bill will add just 20,000 social housing units. Labor’s “plan” is for more people sleeping in tents and homeless encampments in Australia’s major cities.
The Greens have rightly argued for a minimum spend of $5 billion a year on public housing. Labor has responded by castigating the Greens for “voting with Peter Dutton” and again accusing them of “making the perfect the enemy of the good”.
The same accusation is being levelled in regard to Labor’s proposed “safeguard mechanism”, legislation that, while purporting to make concrete steps to reduce emissions, gives big business easy loopholes to escape any actual reduction by purchasing “carbon credits”.
The past year has shown that Labor isn’t interested in cooperating to make its legislative agenda more favourable to working-class people. This creates a dilemma for the Greens. Their strategy of cooperation has failed. Is there a plan B?
Their trump card is the ability to block bad legislation. But to do this, they would have to be prepared to weather a storm of indignation from the Labor Party and its backers in the press. They would have to become a genuine opposition.
If they continue down the path of capitulating when push comes to shove, many of their supporters may well ask: what is the point of the Greens?
“You’re just a performing fucking monkey”. A racist barb, and one of many pointed moments in Jacky, a Melbourne Theatre Company production currently playing at the Arts Centre. Jacky is about the politics of performing monkeys. It is about racism and exploitation, hypocrisy and resistance.
Academic workers at Rutgers University in New Jersey have achieved a stunning victory with a serious campaign of industrial action, centred on an open-ended strike. Their approach is a model for unionists in Australia.
The South Australian government has followed New South Wales and Victoria to undermine democratic rights. A bi-partisan bill has been rushed through parliament’s lower house, which proposes fines up to $50,000 or three months in jail if protesters “intentionally or recklessly obstruct the public place”.
NTEU Fightback, a rank-and-file union group of the National Tertiary Education Union at the University of Sydney, is calling on staff to vote No in the upcoming ballot on the proposed enterprise agreement. The campaign was launched at a forum on 25 May, attended by over 50 people. A members’ meeting on 13 June will consider the agreement. This week will probably be the first time that members are provided with a full list of proposed changes to our working conditions.
A recent NBC News poll found that 70 percent of US voters don’t want Joe Biden to recontest the presidency next year. Sixty percent feel likewise about Donald Trump. Yet the two men are currently odds-on to face each other in a 2024 re-run of the 2020 presidential election.
Allyship presents itself as a way that people can show support for the rights of an oppressed group that they themselves are not a part of without “taking the space” of those who are oppressed. Marxists, conversely, argue that solidarity is the key way we can win reforms for, and ultimately liberate, the oppressed. Allyship and solidarity might sound like much the same thing, but there are important differences in these strategies for social change.