Australia this month marks an important centenary: on April 29, 1910, Andrew Fisher was sworn in as Prime Minister, after his Labor Party had won a parliamentary majority in elections held two weeks earlier. It was Fisher’s second turn as PM, but his first with a majority, and on most accounts the first majority Labor national government in the world.
This week, the Greens are celebrating their own milestone, with two Greens yesterday sworn into office as members of a predominantly Labor cabinet in Tasmania. Although Greens have participated in coalition governments elsewhere in the world, this is the first time they have held ministerial office in Australia.
Some have suggested that in agreeing to take office, the Greens have failed to learn the lesson of the early ALP, which, in a three-party system, offered only qualified support for one of the other parties. It aimed to clearly distinguish itself from its rivals and held out for — and eventually achieved — government in its own right.
But this is not the whole picture. It’s true that federal Labour never joined a coalition government, but the main reason is that right from the start its vote was high enough to make governing on its own a realistic ambition. Labor won 18.7% of the vote at the first federal election, in 1901, rising to 31.0% in 1903 and 36.6% in 1906.
The Greens have had impressive growth, but nothing like this: in Tasmania it’s taken them nine elections to reach 21.6%.
The ALP, however, came to the federal parliament with prior experience in the colonies (as they then were) during the 1890s. In 1899 Labor had even formed government, albeit for only a week, in Queensland; Fisher was one of its ministers. The different Labor groups were struggling to find their feet in a system where working-class political participation was very much a novelty, and co-operation with the middle class parties was always one option.
In Victoria, for example, Labor leader William Trenwith and one colleague took office in a Liberal government in 1900, just before federation. In Queensland, the combination of parties that had defeated the Labor government soon fell out among themselves, and in 1903 Labor ministers joined a coalition government. In South Australia it was the other way around, with Liberal members serving as junior partners in a coalition with Labor from 1905 to 1909.
While office always required compromise, and some coalition arrangements ended badly, they did give Labor valuable experience and credibility. The choice between co-operation and “going it alone” was a pragmatic one, dictated by the circumstances at the time, rather than something that had to be decided on principle once and for all.
Lacking the organised class basis that Labor had, the Greens have had a much slower road to the top. Most probably they will always remain a minor party, although that will to some extent depend on what happens to their opponents. They should treat the temptations of office with a healthy scepticism, but there’s no reason to avoid it altogether.
Agreed.
However, they are now well on the way towards having their leader and his bed-partner aligned with the ALP and the remainder of their parliamentary party estranged. Not a good base on which to build, I would have thought.
Why, exactly, did she gain a seat at the Cabinet table? Anyone? I have no idea, except for the sexual alliance with her party leader.
Strange folk, those Taswegians.
John: I cant see the remainder of the Greens Parliamentary party in Tassie estranged by this deal. They would all be behind it. Hopefully they will all be very careful what they do and don’t do in this coalition arrangement. They must keep their own identity, as they attempt to influence some decisions in the years ahead.
@john bennetts – “their leader and his bed-partner…….”? How grotty is this? Just because they’re in a relationship doesn’t warrant your grotty sexist presumptions? They’re probably ‘partners’ in many aspects of their lives; political views for a start, that’s bleeding obvious? For you to focus on the sexual relationship in such a condescending manner says more about you than them or The Greens in general!
What a sexist sleaze you are!
Liz45,
There is no publicly available evidence that the lady concerned has been accepted into the Tassie Cabinet in any other role than that which I mentioned. I am not happy or pleased to bring this to your notice, but it is, at this stage, an inescapable conclusion.
You, as a very public sexist and male hater, would be able to understand why I seek another reason for her elevation. Gender is not an ideal basis for appointment, no matter how much you rely on your own gender in your frequent submission s to this site. I truly would like to hear that the parliamentary secretary has been selected on bases which do not include gender or sexual relationship, but this is all that has been put forward as justifications for her elevation.
No other reason has been offered. Perhaps you have a current copy of an irresistible CV.
Come on… list her non-bedroom talents.
I expect this liaison to bring extreme stresses to the Greens in Tas and nationally. Greater than Gareth Gareth and Cheryl Cheryl. No harm was done there, was there?
Objective criteria for appointment are welcome. There have been none, so the process is publicly seen to be very much crippled.
@John Bennetts – The amazing thing about misogynists like you, is that your own bigotry and bias are so entrenched, you can’t even tell when you’re being revolting! I’m not a male hater, I just hate patronising, paternalistic and grotty excuses for humans like you! I’ve just been in the company of several males who I class as decent men, whose company and ideas I enjoy! None would even think of speaking like you! They have more respect!
You’re so damned clever! Name all the male members of Cabinet and why they deserve their portfolios – history, experience, expertise etc? Then do the same with the Opposition!