Correction: a previous version of this article included the implication that Dr Monique Ryan had not expressed a substantive position on the legislation by the time of publication when she had in fact indicated that she would support the bill.
Shock! Horror! Labor appears to be in cahoots with… organised labour!
Such is the galling tone of criticism coming from the teal independents regarding the Albanese government’s industrial relations bill before Parliament, which represents the first modest step towards increasing Australian workers’ bargaining power in a decade. The teals, along with established crossbenchers such as Jacqui Lambie and Rebekha Sharkie, are clutching their pearls about the bill’s more pro-union elements and complaining of insufficient time for scrutiny.
Warringah MP Zali Steggall accused the government of an “unionising agenda”, as if this were controversial and not the Labor Party’s original purpose. Wentworth MP Allegra Spender criticised the bill as unsuited to the economic times, then voted with the opposition and fellow lower house teals, including Sophie Scamps, Kate Chaney and Monique Ryan, to establish a parliamentary committee, which would delay the legislation.
Their objections matter little given the government’s lower house majority. But in the Senate, independent David Pocock’s equivocation could see the bill delayed or watered down. He says he’s in favour of raising wages, but his previous criticism of the government’s construction industry reforms suggests he’s exceedingly cautious on IR changes.
These tepid soft-liberals are either mistakenly elevating procedural cleanliness over substantive reform, or are, as Bernard Keane wrote, “worrying that employers might get their shoes scuffed a little in removing them [from workers’ throats]”.
But it’s no wonder industrial relations split the teals, with some parroting business lobby talking points, while the more progressive Pocock exalts performative scrupulousness in lieu of a substantive position. This issue electrifies a key tension among the teals’ voting base — between young workers and old money.
Trendy hipsters v Liberal emigres
Broadly speaking, there were two kinds of teal voters in May. The media focused on the wealthier, embittered former Liberal voters, whose economic interests lay with the conservative establishment but whose social values differed from Morrison’s ailing rump on climate change and integrity.
But as I wrote in Crikey in the election’s aftermath, many teals also relied on demographic shifts towards younger renters in their electorates, spurred by an apartment construction boom in inner-urban suburbs. These voters were often students or young professionals, and were likely to favour Labor or the Greens, but many backed their local teal candidate given their climate credentials and electoral viability.
As with all electoral coalitions, different social groups that came together on shared priorities can hamstring politicians once the political agenda shifts to issues on which they diverge. IR is the teals’ first such test. Their younger voters often rent in trendier suburbs precisely because of the proximity to work, and because they can’t afford to buy a house. After years of wage stagnation, they need the pay rises Labor’s industrial relations bill promises.
Conversely, small “L” liberals who own properties and businesses are more likely to view wages as a cost than an income stream. Their progressivism is likely to wane when it hits their cheque books.
Don’t sell out young workers
From their protestations about Labor’s industrial relations bill, it seems some teals have cast their dies with the wealthier cohort, intent to keep them from decamping back to the Liberals in 2025. Or perhaps their discomfort stems from their own class backgrounds — young renters might have voted for them, but teal MPs themselves are all reasonably well-heeled.
But there are reasons for some teals to make more of an effort to keep their younger supporters onside. There are only more apartment blocks being built, and the old-money establishment isn’t getting any younger. Their electorates vary, but in some seats like Kooyong, it appears the younger faction played at least as large a role in flipping the seat as Liberal emigres, if not more.
And some teals cannot rely on the youth having nowhere else to go. Labor won many of their areas in the 2018 Victorian election — indeed, Ryan’s conviction she could unseat Josh Frydenberg probably came from Labor’s unlikely victory in the overlapping state seat of Hawthorn. The Greens are also very competitive in Melbourne’s inner south, and demonstrated their prowess in winning seats with similar demographics in Brisbane.
Whether the Dan-slide, the Greens-land sweep or the teal wave is the enduring success story of our changing inner suburbs is a legacy for the taking. If they keep stumping for the Business Council while real wages decline, it’s one the teals deserve to lose.
Update: On Thursday, November 10, Labor’s industrial relations bill was voted on in the House of Representatives. Melbourne-based teal MPs Zoe Daniel and Monique Ryan voted in favour of the bill, while Kate Chaney, Allegra Spender, Kylea Tink and Sophie Scamps voted against it. See the full list of MPs votes here.
Do you think the teals are leaving their most ardent supporters behind? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
And there are also older labor/greens voters in safe Liberal seats who voted for Teals this time.
If they block IR reform we’ll go back to labor/greens.
Crikey is too quick to group teals together. They are independents with a few shared goals, not a party.
Kate Cheney from WA has said “The multi-employer bargaining for the supported stream is a good thing, those low-paid industries, and that may well get wages moving… in childcare, aged care, largely feminised industries,” she told the ABC’s Insiders.” Kate is concerned about introducing this to the whole economy, and she has a point.
Labor wants a revolution but can’t let the perfect be the enemy if the good. Let’s start with the most powerless first, care workers and cleaners and hospitality, where fragmented industries means enterprise bargaining just doesn’t work.
Only 14% of the Australian workforce is unionised. I’d say that makes 86% of us fragmented and powerless, economy wide.
I agree. It’s disappointing that journalists are still running “they’re a defacto party” line. They’re not.
I disagree. Why should the weakest, most feminised industries and occupations get a wage rise only? How about the rest of us who have been suffering real wage cuts for the last 8 or so years? Multi-employer bargaining is the way to go but many will still be left out in the cold. I can see what this would bring to the much maligned security sector. Many dodgy private security companies who sub-contract out their work. I can imagine the howls and screams from them. It’s a case of what is good for one employee is good for all. We have waited too long.
I note Monique Ryan stated in parliament yesterday that she would support the legislation.
Ryan is far and away the best of the Teal batch from my observations.
She did vote for it as did MPs Zoe Daniel, Bob Katter and Andrew Wilkie joining Labor and the Greens in favour.
I think this article misses something important. Community independents are, if they successful, constantly engaging with people in their electorates. I have listened to Cathy Mc Gowan talk about how she worked through the weekend penalty rates issue in Indi when it was “divided” by the issue.
It would be great to read about the nuanced reality (eek – not a great phrase) that community independents have to deal with. Though interesting (and thank-you for writing it), this article feels like it comes from an old school party way of thinking.
“this article feels like it comes from an old school party way of thinking.”
Likewise, the Teals reaction to the proposed IR reforms feels like it’s coming from an old-school party way of thinking.
From what I’ve seen, they are making a number of contributions and they are not uniform. They didn’t all vote the same way.
I agree. I think the teal are rubbish and the only good thing about them was the demolition job they did on the Liberals. Other than that they are just faux trendy small l liberals with environmental credentials worried about the damage that climate change is doing to their real estate portfolio and their investments such as they are. If it weren’t for the conservative troglodyte position on man-made GHG emissions and consequent climate change, they would still be Turnbullesque, Hewsonesque died in the wool, small l Liberals. They are united by their hatred of unions and working people and would be quite happy to see them starve or at best receive an even less share of GDP.
Surely Cathy was more on the lack of services to her area and Sophie was basically an evil person, the ‘teals’ won because voting for Joshy, Zimmerman et al was the same as voting for Barnaby, was an easy switch. They’ll probably win again but can see Labor and the Greens changing their campaigning in those seats
It’s worth listening to Cathy McGowan talk about what happened with the weekend leave loading. It shows just how hairy things can get for independents and how they need to genuinely communicate when they make a decision that some constituents really dislike. There’s no suck it up kids as we get from a party. It takes real work to say, On balance I’ve decided decided to go with X rather than y because …
Oops, weekend penalty rates.
Could not find anything with a quick google, do you have a link ?
Sure Sophie was evil person but it is wrong to take hard earned penalty rates away from someone working really unsociable hours. This is also a thin edge of the wedge. Imagine if you did that to emergency service workers. Cut their weekend penalty rates. Railway and other public transport worker employees. Airport staff including their government workers there. You would have staff shortages but because it is hospitality, and the workers are just kid….well….
I think it is disgraceful and it shows that skewed priorities of some people who think it is OK for our youth to receive less for working unsociable hours but won’t say a word about or do a thing about the poorly performing bureaucrats who oversaw the administration of Robodebt. Or CEOs who occupy their jobs after such poor performance – OPTUS and Medibank Private. Hypocrites.
wholly agree with ElCee (that rhymes!)
The Teals Party does not exist & it does a disservice to all elected independent MP’s when they are observed as a collective, however convenient it may be
The Teals are the sort of fiscal centre-right / social progressives you find in the Baltic countries and across northern Europe.
Their call for cooperation between management and workers references what is seen across a lot of the EU – sadly we ape the UK and USA (at least in aspiration)
The pitched industrial battles seen across the anglosphere are just the same old same old bollocks that should have been stamped out in the 1980s (except the anglosphere got Reagan / Thatcher as role models).
It is certainly true that it will be very difficult for Labor to achieve any sort of lasting change until the old “get the bosses” and “get the workers” types are mouldering underground. And hey – even then it may never happen. We could simply float down to a third world standard of living to match our third world economy…
Yes, and very interesting to hear about the Danish experience of multi-employer bargaining and, although we’re not entirely comparable, they are not obsessed with adversarial thinking as we are.
I support the multi-employer bargaining but I don’t like omnibus bills. I can’t help but wonder what would be happening if the government was handling things differently. We desperately need the government to lead a change in IR culture, and this bill was a great opportunity to start that.
Splitting the bill to allow the lower paid workers to pass and giving more time for the multi-employer bargaining to be considered at electorate level sounds very reasonable to me.
Also, the situation the government got itself into agreeing with Andrew Wilkie’s amendment but voting against it was ridiculous. I think The Greens and Zali Steggall shared similar concerns to Wilkie. Better consultation with the crossbench would have avoided that.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/themoney/the-very-expensive-us-mid-term-elections/14099506
https://theconversation.com/employers-say-labors-new-industrial-relations-bill-threatens-the-economy-denmark-tells-a-different-story-193311
I would agree except that it is rarely the “bosses” that are got, no matter how poorly they perform. They always seem to walk away with so much money in unearned loot, even if they fail. They never lose. The former CEO of Woollies who left with $1.5 million after 18 months in the job and cocked it up. A former CEO of BHP who left after a few years with several million. Yet a worker can be put on an annualised contract like our teachers and nurses for doing what is really the most important work. And have this arrangement perpetuated.