That work began clearing the site of the Djab Wurrung sacred trees near Ararat on September 11, is presumably a coincidence. That it occurred two days after a large protest in Melbourne over the matter presumably isn’t.
The work is confined to branch- and ground-clearing at the moment, but it’s a clear example of throat-clearing: this operation is intended to go ahead, come what may. It’s an indication of where the Andrews government is coming from, and the contradictory and foreshadowing politics of this progressive “socialist Left” government.
That contradiction is something your correspondent has noted before: the Andrews government uses social progressivism — often marginal and symbolic — in order to cover a neoliberal agenda involving privatisation, anti-heritage moves, and a bias towards roads and cars. The Andrews government move is now a classic one-two: ban “gay conversion” therapy, for example, before announcing an increase in size and urban destruction of the North East Link.
The Djab Wurrung issue shows up the contradiction in all its true colours. Having announced with much fanfare that it had started a treaty process with multiple Aboriginal nations and groups in Victoria (and basked in the glory), the government’s flat announcement that the Western Highway duplication would go ahead as planned raises questions about how seriously the treaty process was intended.
The process’ fractured nature — group-by-group arrangements — simply embeds the government’s capacity to divide and rule. Now Victorian First Peoples have voted with their feet on that, by ignoring a questionable agreement made with the Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation. The very fact that Victorian Aboriginal groups from all over have rejected the deal suggests they should reject separate treaties too — or any treaty with a state government, given that the latter has no constitutional capacity to transfer sovereignty.
But that’s just a particular example of the Andrews government’s strategy. The general process it applies is to make different progressive groups into political clients, and to use the fragmentation of progressivism, via identity politics, for political ends.
Thus, recent changes to the Victorian birth certificate laws — allowing for transgender people to change the sex on their birth certificate without undergoing surgery — was implemented at the behest of LGBTIQ groups. At least one womens’ group objected to the effects this would have on the autonomy of women’s spaces and services. The disregard of much of what some feminists fought for over decades was for one principal purpose: to outflank the Greens on LGBTIQ politics, where they have a strong base, and to keep sweet the born-again nanny-statist Fiona Patten.
Meanwhile across town, or across the corridor, vast sums are being poured into specific programs on violence against women (VAW) — most emphasising male behavioural change and long-term cultural re-engineering. To preserve the budget surplus, this money has to come from somewhere, and one source has been public and social housing funding, which is the lowest per capita of any state.
What is one of the root causes of sustained domestic violence? Feminised poverty and the absence of public housing, making it impossible for low-income women to leave violent men. But protest against this is fractured. Jess Hill’s recent book See What You Made Me Do explores the role of housing shortage in VAW, but then concludes of the Andrews government: “at last an Australian government is doing something about violence against women”. You almost have to admire this bait-and-switch.
It occurs with public transport too. This is shockingly under-served in Labor safe seats, such as those in Melbourne’s north; these places need double tracking, more trains, five-minute buses and relatively low-cost tram extensions. Instead the city gets Skyrail, which is oriented to car drivers, but is then celebrated as getting serious about public transport!
This dark genius is also present in heritage matters, where Boroondara council is penalised by Planning Minister Richard Wynne for being serious about protection of its Victorian and Edwardian neighbourhoods. Recently a bespoke amendment (C299) was imposed which allows 120-, 130-, 150-year-old houses to be demolished with a privately-issued demolition permit — a concrete-box apartment developers’ charter.
Meanwhile, as progressivism displaces leftism, and fragmentation of identity politics replaces solidarity, capital remains monolithic. Thus Victorian ALP state secretary Sam Rae is leaving the party to go to PWC. Who assessed Transurban’s bid for the West Gate Tunnel Project, for the Victorian governmentt? PWC. Who does Transurban’s independent audit? PWC!
Nothing illegal, nothing corrupt. Just the steady fusion of state and capital, with progressivism — and the once “left” wing of the party — providing coverage for the operation.
Interestingly, this division strategy is starting to have its own consequences –witness Sissy Austin’s piece in The Guardian, in which the potential destruction of the Djab Wurrung trees is framed as “emotional abuse”, in the language the government has prioritised regarding violence against women. Now it is being played back, legitimately, against them. Hopefully, activist groups have started to get wise to what this government really is: a bulldozer painted like a rainbow.
This is pretty poor analysis to be honest.
– The Greens and Fiona both oppose the ALP’s demolition of the trees. For some reason Guy brings in trans rights as if this was a bargaining chip to get Green and Patten support to demolish the trees. The government doesn’t need to pass a bill to knock down the trees, they are largely irrelevant to what the government does here. He then adds to this random attack on trans groups by calling Fiona Patten a ‘nanny statist’ probably in reference to the calls for new vilification powers that would bring Victoria in line with most states…
I am not sure how you get a weekly column with vague and misinformed analysis on Crikey, but I’m sure there are plenty who would like to apply.
Yve entirely misunderstood what I’m saying, which is to give examples of a pattern of political conduct. That is:
– boldly announce yr going ahead with treaties even if the evil Coalition govt won’t, and then, when you want to build a road, say that first peoples values are to be completely disregarded, that the land is of unitary (IE settler) occupation
– use socio-cultural issues of no great financial cost as a cover for neoliberal economic policies, such as the building of a freeway instead of public transport
– drain the basic social provision that Labor should be doing, to keep a surplus and follow modish policies that satisfy political pressure
And BTW if Fiona Patten is elected as a libertarian under the Sex Party banner, and reinvents herself for re-election as someone wanting the state to extend its powers to ban speech, then I think nanny-stater is the exact description
—
The Andrews Government is appealing to two bases: the urban identity-politics loving middle-class liberal Greens on one side and the suburban aspirational working-class on the other. By and large, the politics of neither of these broad groups clash, hence Labor have cottoned-on to the idea that it can do token things such as birth certificates to win back (and even in some instances divide) the former group without pissing off the latter group – because it is also doing roads and transport in the suburbs. Ideology, collectivism and class-politics drives neither of these two groups, but rather individualism and self-interest, hence they’re willing to look the other way so long as they are getting what they’re after.
When (or rather, if) the Victorian Socialists start getting a large chunk of the vote across the state, to the point of threatening Labor’s hold on traditionally safe seats as the Greens have done (hence Labor’s appeal to this demographic), and winning seats: then we’ll see Labor actually do things of actual substance.
It is a shame the left, as a whole, is so weak. We don’t even have the brand anymore. For a bunch of people what Grundle describes is ‘the left’.
I guess it’s little wonder that Andrews and Morrison are getting along so well.
Another anti-ALP whinge from pro-Greens Rundle. Read it and ask yourselves:
“Given the state of the nation and the world, are these criticisms important – or just plain trivial?”
Yes because everyone who rightly criticises the ALP from the Left are “pro-Greens”… It’s almost as intellectually lazy as accusing anyone who criticises the ALP from the left as being Liberal supporters.
Sorry – no. Guy has a history.
Wake me up when somebody can demonstrate that the Andrews government has really stuffed up.
Myki S…I agree with your comments. And its not only Rundle who has a history of attacking Labor state governments/oppositions. Bernard is in love with Gladys B, who can do no wrong…and the Labor opposition in NSW NEVER does anything right.
And so it goes on…and on…and………get it right, the Greens are wonderful, according to Rundle!!
How is bulldozing those culturally important trees not stuffing up?
How is failing to provide public housing not stuffing up?
How is having no gambling policy not stuffing up?
How is building new billion dollar roads in 2019 not stuffing up?
Comments like this illustrate why the Labor party can’t retain support on the left, pure contempt. Bet you didn’t even read the article.
I read it carefully, every positive move by the Andrews is somehow negated by a perceived negative. All the negatives are based on greens-based, idealistic, unrealistic positions:
ban on gay conversion therapy vs “urban destruction in the north-east” ???
Destruction – really? Why would they do that?
treaty process with Aboriginal nations and groups vs “progress on a duplication based on supposedly bad faith consultations”
Yep – they really didn’t try to do the right thing – did they?
change of sex on birth certificates vs Victorian Women’s Guild concerns.
Scandalous!
“vast sums are being poured into specific programs on violence against women”.
Yep, stop the program and spend it all on public housing. Genius idea!
The government deficient on public transport!!!
Could have fooled me.
Planning minister wants to demolish heritage houses !!
I am sure he wants to drive the bull dozer himself.
Sam Rae gets a job at PWC !
What! Take it off him. Put him in jail!
This is exactly why ALP members hold the greens in such low regard. Look at their track record with ALP governments at the federal level and tell me they aren’t stupid and ultimately destructive themselves.
Thank you for assuming I vote Green, you partisan hack.
Your response to each point shows you skimmed, but you are still just assuming the rest. Who said defund violence against women programs to pay for public housing? Did you just imagine it? Can you imagine a party worth supporting next?
Hey dum-dum, what does this imply:
“….vast sums are being poured into specific programs on violence against women (VAW) — most emphasising male behavioural change and long-term cultural re-engineering. To preserve the budget surplus, this money has to come from somewhere, and one source has been public and social housing funding…”
??
It explicitly says the Victorian Labor party made that choice, implying they should have either found the money elsewhere or gasp, gone into deficit to fund it. Nowhere does anyone suggest the defunding of those programs.
Having read the link to reporting on VWG objecting to the birth certificate changes, I would hope it isn’t as simple as a manly bloke emerges from the courthouse and bellows ‘Awwwright I’m a girl now, time to go to a women’s shelter for legal rape!’.
For starters, I am pretty sure all sorts of abuse isn’t legal for women on women in any circumstance. Or are dudes going to do the paperwork to stand menacingly around or in a women’s shelter?
I can’t help but think they’re trying to imply transwomen have a get out of feminized abuse free card in their pants.
Look up autogynephilia. Read a bit about how trauma manifests in sexual assault victims.
It actually is pretty close to that simple if you read the requirements.