For most Australian politicians, boasting in front of a packed gathering of voters that your government is billions of dollars in debt would be politically suicidal. In Marrickville it wins you a thumping round of applause.
Your name doesn’t have to begin with Antony and end with Green to work out that Marrickville is the most left-wing seat in NSW, the electorate where economic rationalism comes to die.
Liberal candidate Rosana Tyler certainly knows it. She declined an invitation to speak at last night’s meet-the-candidates forum at Marrickville Town Hall — a wise move, if not a particularly brave one.
The Liberal landslide set to sweep through NSW on March 26 won’t cause a tremor in this ethnically-diverse inner-west enclave, home to the highest proportion of students and atheists in the state. Marrickville, like nearby Balmain, is an arm wrestle between Labor and the Greens.
And like in Balmain, where education minister Verity Firth is expected to lose her seat, Labor is bracing for the loss of one of its most talented and scandal-free members: Health Minister Carmel Tebbutt (aka Mrs Anthony Albanese). She currently holds the seat with a margin of 7.5%.
Tebbutt’s opponent is the Greens’ Fiona Byrne, a local lord mayor, who shot to national prominence recently by successfully spearheading a push to make Marrickville the first council in Australia to boycott Israeli companies and institutions.
During two and a half hours of questioning last night, not a single person asked about the economy. Nor about law and order — unless you count one woman’s query as to why the NSW incarceration rate is four times Victoria’s. More surprisingly, public transport wasn’t raised; neither, until one question at the end of the night, was health.
Rather, education, which has been all but ignored so far in the wider campaign, dominated the event. Both candidates said they were appalled NSW private schools are allowed to expel children for being gay. But Byrne went further than Tebbutt on this point, arguing all exemptions to the Discrimination Act should be removed from state law.
Both also said they were big supporters of TAFE and public school education. Said Tebbutt: “Our public education system is unrecognisable from what we inherited in 1995.” She’s particularly proud her government has reduced class sizes to an average 20 for kindergarten children, 22 for Year 1 and 24 for Year 2.
Byrne said class sizes in later years could be reduced by eliminating funding to wealthy private schools: “We actually have, I think, $65 million going to the top 70 elite private schools every year and that’s just state funding. And I despair when I hear stories of public schools saying they are not providing soap in the toilets for students because they can’t afford it.”
The politically-savvy audience came armed with tough questions for both candidates. When asked whether she would be willing to cross the floor to oppose the privatisation of state assets, Tebbutt responded that she had argued against the sale of NSW’s electricity assets in caucus — yet she would sooner quit the Labor Party than break with cabinet solidarity by crossing the floor.
As for Byrne, she refused to be drawn on whether she would pursue the boycott against Israel in state parliament. And when asked how the Greens would pay for expensive policies such as a four-day working week and a shift to renewable energy, she said there was nothing wrong with borrowing money.
Tebbutt interjected. “I have to knock this idea on the head that we don’t borrow money in NSW,” she fired back. “Total state debt for the current financial year is $36 billion dollars and it’s due to rise to $55 billion over the forward estimates period. So we borrow and we borrow substantially.” Cue applause from the crowd.
For most of the night, the candidates were in furious agreement: both oppose privatisation, want urgent action on climate change and support public education. Their plea for votes differed not so much on what they believe in but how they would go about achieving it from opposition.
Tebbutt said the only way to avoid a conservative government in NSW was to vote Labor: “A vote for a Green in Marrickville will help deliver a Coalition government. I can remember what the last coalition government did to NSW and I can tell you Fiona, it did punish NSW. And it particularly punished the poor, the marginalised and the vulnerable.
“The reason I am in the Labor party and not another party is because I believe that if you want to effect change you have to be in a party that can do that.”
Byrne replied: “I think it’s interesting to say that as a progressive voice you can argue in the caucus against things like privatisation. But those things have still happened. So how is that effective; how has that delivered? When you put a Greens voice in parliament you will actually hear that voice. After 16 years the Labor government has had enough time to figure out how to get things done.”
So what will it be? Pragmatism or purity? Working within the Machine, or railing against it? Labor or Greens? We’ll know the answer on March 26.
It’s the increasing preponderance of articles like this that makes me more and more likely NOT to renew my subcription.
How can this masturbatory twaddle be relevant to real people – event Pravda would not have published it in the 1970’s.
I suppose I will revert to being a squatter – but hey, “each according to his abilities, and each according to his needs”
I found this an interesting report of a debate within a certain type of electorate: gentrified inner urban of a big city. There are similar electorates in BrisVenice, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide and presumably Perth, altho I don’t know that so well.
The debate is important cos it affects the future of Labor and how it responds to the Greens’ challenge on its left. It is similar to the debate that the Coalition had about how to respond to One Nation’s challenge on its right, and it may be similar to the Liberals’ positioning in comparison with the DLP, but I’m not old enough to have a direct memory of that.
A few contradictions here:
“The politically-savvy audience came armed with tough questions” yet according to this, most of the issues that affect people in Marrickville weren’t on the agenda – just schools.
I’m guessing that most of this particular audience were school teachers from local state schools – Marrickville and Balmain are the heartland of the very aggresive Inner City Teachers grouping of the NSW Teachers Federation. The meeting was mentioned in the local newspaper but hardly heavily promoted to the electorate as a whole.
As someone who lives in Marrickville I’d say the electorate specific issues are: aircraft noise, heavy through traffic (when is the freight airport going to be moved away from the inner city?), and the current government’s bad habit of by-passing local government planning restrictions and getting too pally with big developers planning high rise apartments and mega shopping centres.
Hi @Joanna, great to hear your thoughts on the important local issues to you.
Not sure about the contradiction though: surely mobilising a large group of people to come with prepared questions is pretty politically savvy?
I was surprised by the lack of planning/development questions (only one at the end from a councillor). The town hall was pretty much full and everyone who wanted to ask a question did so.
Cheers.
Matthew, I wasn’t listing the issues that especially concern me with this election (totally incompetent moribund government would head that list), just the issues that have for a long time been the specific concerns of this particular electorate.
Marrickville is where the No Aircraft Noise Party was born with standing room only in the Town Hall at their launch meeting, and that issue has never gone away. The problem with developers has dominated local news media (and street signs near Marrickville Metro) for some time now. Traffic congestion and failed planning is a statewide issue, but now that the politicians are talking about another tunnel it is coming into focus because any future tunnel will run directly across the electorate .
The Teachers Federation campaign against non-state schools is not exactly a pressing local concern for the majority of people living here (in any case this is really an issue for a Federal election, not a state one) but they are better placed to mobilise their numbers.
You wrote: “surely mobilising a large group of people to come with prepared questions is pretty politically savvy?”
Well I suppose it depends on how you feel about stacked meetings. I tend to think they’re a waste of time for everyone concerned.