Waking amid half-empty bottles, dried sick and dead roaches (figuratively and literally), and despite all efforts to remain jaded and louche, your correspondent regrets to report feelings of excitement, hope and possibilities.
Labor victory — rah! More Greens — rah! But it’s the vast crossbench that really makes this special. Not because of its specific politics, much of which is too, well, tealy for me, but because of the structural transformation of politics it has created.
You’d have to say that the term “crossbench” doesn’t really describe the new arrangements. “Crossbench” is obviously, literally, a purely spatial one. Bob Katter is of the right, no matter what noises he makes about economic nationalism; the Greens obviously to the left. But there’s always been some sort of notion of the small groups and individuals there, moving between the major parties on either side.
How well does that describe what this election has given us? Not at all, I would have said, and the Westminster system idea of a crossbench obscures what has occurred, and exactly what has happened. We may have a 16-member crossbench. Exclude Katter and that gives you one left party (the Greens), one left-Green independent (Andrew Wilkie), a Labor-stronghold (!) independent (Dai Le), the teals as a social-liberal grouping, and two members from mildly centre-right electorates (Helen Haines and Rebekha Sharkie).
The difficulty with the concept of crossbench comes with imagining any possibility that any of these people would want to cooperate with the Coalition on any proposed legislation it could possibly come up with. There may well be — eventually — policies that could issue from the Coalition on economic matters that some teals might support, either personally or out of electorate demand.
But can anyone imagine that happening now, or in the next year? With the memory of Scott Morrison still fresh, and Peter Dutton not yet completing this marvellous makeover we’re being told about, the Coalition is toxic sludge. The vote for teals was clear: it was a vote for progressive candidates not as economically left as the Greens, but whose policies were all turned away from the Liberal Party.
In other words, the teals are not a successor to the Liberal Movement or the earlier Australian Democrats, groups explicitly positioning themselves in a dialogue with both parties, and as a sort of “loyal opposition” to the Liberal Party, which those earlier groups saw as having become a tad reactionary when it was far more to the left than it is now. The teals represent a new relationship between economic class, social class and political representation in Australia. (For a look at the early process of this forming, see my report on Kooyong Climate Action from 2019, which marks, so far as I can tell from a bit of searching, the first published use of the term “teal” for the light-blue that non-Green climate candidates were choosing. Happy to be corrected.)
What has happened cannot be accommodated on a single left-right spectrum. And it is quite extraordinary. The House of Representatives has become a multipolar house of assembly, without requiring the arrangement that usually makes that possible — multi-member proportional voting electorates. The Greens, teals, Wilkie and centre-independents now form a (loyal) progressive opposition, whose polar force begins to approach that of the Coalition opposition.
Don’t believe me? Take a look at the numbers. The Coalition opposition, if it holds together, will number about 52-54. Minus the Nats, the Liberal Party caucus room (including LNP Liberals) will number about 40-42 in the new Parliament. Forty out of 151! But wait, it gets better! If you strip out the Liberal-caucusing LNP seats, and regard it as a separate party — one which only lost a single seat, 23 down to 22 — then the Liberal Party of Australia has 26 seats in the new Parliament. Twenty-six seats, from five states and two territories, for the party that once ran the joint for decades on end.
Looking at it that way, the crossbenchers, minus poor old lonely Bobby K, can be seen as a third force, with sufficient shared ground on many of the most pressing issues of the day to have a political identity. Indeed, you could see it as having left (Green), centre (teal, Wilkie) and right (Haines, Sharkie) factions. That conception of them should not only come from outside; it should also come from within. Doubtless it already has, and the non-Green new members involved are working out ways in which to communicate and coordinate without becoming a party, or looking like one, which would become poisonous. Presumably, or hopefully, there will then be some form of process by which the teals communicate, coordinate and also differ with the Greens.
That is not going to be easy. Once the triumph and the cheering has died away, reality asserts itself. Parties work not merely as organisational frames but because they rein in individualism, not simply by application of the rules but by mythic and ritual practice — signing up, swearing in, colours, the social round, history, sacred ancestors and the like. Party discipline doesn’t need to be applied because it becomes, to some degree, internalised. Partydom can tame anarchy in the head before it becomes action.
The independents, even as some sort of network, don’t have that. They will have newer versions of that — greater social intelligence, dialogue, a degree of self-awareness arising from a largely female professional grouping — but independence is independence. Parliament is a theatre of emotion as much as reason. Labor may well make its clear majority, but it will be razor-thin if so — and in the case of some members, one jumbo bucket of hot chips away from a post-mortem byelection. You can bet it will be playing divide-and-rule — softer, subtler, but present nevertheless — from day one.
All the more reason then for this third force to find a way early on, to symbolically present itself as such without getting tagged as a party or a caucus, and without surrendering the notion of independence. That may not be easy either but expanding this transformation, in state elections and byelections to come, would seem to demand making clear in the public eye that this is not simply a provisional development in the two/three/four party business-as-usual idea of politics. It has arisen because, in a post-industrial, post-traditional society the relationship between social class, self, voice and knowledge has changed dramatically. In Westminster systems, Australia has, through sheer force of contradictions, innovated once again. (New Zealand? Doesn’t count. It shifted to multi-member proportional.)
In that respect this third force should, from the jump, be willing to push hard on the notion that it deserves to be treated as a more or less equal presence to the Liberal and National opposition, and not as an atomised crossbench of parties. That means thinking big about the possibilities. For all a candidate’s bravado on the stump, there’s nothing like the overwhelming architecture of the seat of government and its hallowed rituals to make even the most ornery type suddenly pliable.
Once again, I think the new members’ professional history will give them a head start — if you’ve had to deal with the managements of hospitals and academia, the old bullshit will be instantly recognisable in a new setting — but set against that is the knowledge-class tendency to want to see things as “beyond politics” and, through that, impose a disenfranchising technocratic political order.
If the teals get drawn into that, they will quickly come to grief.
Finally, of course, this unity won’t last forever. The tasks that are before the 90 or so MPs from the progressive side of politics are first those of policies responding to world crises, and then restoring the most basic practices of liberal democracy. But Labor went to the people having renounced tax increases, decrying a trillion-dollar deficit, and promising an era of “better lives” — and there’s going to be some tough decisions necessary soon. The possible imminent global recession, off the back of quantitative tightening, may bring things to a crisis for a party with a majority of two. When that occurs, many teals’ voters will be reminding them pretty quickly about who they represent and what, and unity — both intra-independent and with the Greens — may not be possible. But if so, some conception of an overarching unity would serve to make the divisions orderly ones.
Goddammit, something actually happened! Goddammit, there’s work to be done! And I was counting on a couple more days lying here among the empties.
I shouldn’t apologise in advance but I will. Sorry Guy in having to parse your analysis but there is so much in there that demands attention.
“The vote for teals was clear: it was a vote for progressive candidates not as economically left as the Greens, but whose policies were all turned away from the Liberal Party.”
no kidding. The “teals” are mainly Liberals who differ in 2 ways. They are at least honest and idealistic. They want to see honesty in politics and government. They support a Federal ICAC. Secondly they want to see action on climate change. For the reasons I have suggested to protect their interests, their investments and their lives. They are merely the typical “Captain Sensibles” of Australian politics. The Liberals are out and out self destructive, corrupt, rent seeking fascists. Apart from integrity in politics and government and action on climate change, they are every bit as Liberal as was the disgruntled, racist Pauline Hanson before she left them. Like Pauline, they are just disgruntled Liberals in the same way that the Greens are disgruntled Labor voters with a few ex-coms and no aircraft noise people thrown in. The only difference is that the Liberals are too far to the Right, too far in nod to the fossil fuel industry, too close to the Nationals who want more coal mines and to chop down trees and shoot animals (The Nats Motto: “If it moves, shoot it. If it stands still, chop it down”), too much involved and enmeshed with pork-barrelling of marginal electorates and basically anti-women, anti-gay and anti-trans and corrupt and always engaging in improper conduct like was alleged against Porter and Tudge. I doubt if the “teals” are concerned with the plight of those who have been the victim of Robodebt. That is cool. It is a good start and integrity is very important in public life and personal life. Let’s be under no illusion as to the nature of the “teals”.
If it’s under foot, dig it up.
“the teals as a social-liberal grouping, and two members from mildly centre-right electorates (Helen Haines and Rebekha Sharkie).”
Oh dear. I don’t know what to make of that and slightly disagree. The teals as a social liberal grouping? What does that mean? Socially liberal, economically conservative, free market? These electorates have been the harbingers of fascism in days gone by and they still are to some extent. They are home to tax avoiders and property investors. There are more 4WDs in Killara than there are in Gunnedah. I’ve never seen as many 1 ton rodeos as I have on the Northern Beaches. Utes aplenty. All around the $60,000-100,000 mark. You might be right about the centre right electorates of Mayo and Indi. They are rural but more provincial. I don’t like regional. That can mean anything. I prefer the European description when being specifically analytical about politics. Wangaratta and the Adelaide Hills with its centres of Hahndorf, Victor Harbor and Mt Barker are provincial with a rural and small business base and periphery. Representative of old Europe. Conservative yes and probably centrist more than centre right even in the old days. But the “teal” electorates in Sydney are old school Conservative – beachside or harbourside. It is beyond belief that someone other than Liberal won them. This is seismic. They care about the things which the conservatives and the corrupt pork-barrelling Nats don’t – integrity in politics and government. They care about action on climate change – Australia wide and world wide – even if it largely out of self interest or self preservation which the lumpen or the plebs in the suburbs or regions broadly speaking don’t. They certainly don’t care about integrity otherwise there would be hardly any Nats or liberals there. They are just jealous of the pork on offer and want as much of it for themselves. Not so the good burghers of the beachside and harbourside suburbs of Sydney or the respectable inner eastern suburbs, urban centres of Melbourne. They are OK thank you. “I’m alright Jack. What do we want skate parks here for?. It only disrupts me when I’m listening to Mahler.” These good people and I mean that in all honesty, should replicate that at State level so they don’t care more damned high rise home units shoved down their throats. I’ll come back to more of this analysis later.
Sorry. Auto spell/grammar check I think. That last should be” ..so they don’t get any more damned high rise home units…” You can guess the rest.
‘Social Liberal’ is a common term for non free-market liberals. More than a century old
look, if it were only the rich shifting to teal, then they would have got 6%. These divisions have prosperous middle upper middle class people owning a good house, and good super etc. But they’re not Toorak decamillionaires
Plus they’ve filled with apartments over the last 20 years – young professional people in good jobs, by no means wealthy, who find the Greens a bit inner city a bit left economically.
Yr class analysis is a bit creaking and ancient
No it isn’t. It is your analysis that is more than little shall we say – vague. I have never heard of the term ‘Social Liberal’. I do not believe I am ignorant. I have an undergraduate degree in Arts and a postgraduate degree in Letters. I have studied Australian history extensively and if it can be demonstrated that it is a term used widely I apologise. I have never heard of it. When the facts change I change my mind. I don’t care about egg on my face or bruised ego. It is al part of learning. I think of it as a contradiction. How can someone be Liberal and be social at the same time? What are they? Liberals who hook up after a game of tennis and go to the Yacht Club? Are they a prejorative term for the Young Liberals. I never heard of them in any relative context here or overseas. I have heard of small ‘l’ Liberals and I think it is they who you are referring to. Otherwise you are making stuff up. And guess what? That’s OK too.
A non-free market Liberal doesn’t exist. They can’t by definition, practice and history. A Social Liberal here is a Liberal who resides in the Country, supports the Country Party but through ignorance or whatever votes Liberal. A non free market liberal, with a small l, is a what? A Labor person who can’t or won’t join the Labor Party for fear of having his small liberal views outed. If you mean small l liberals just say it. Herbert Spencer or John Stuart Mill as distinct from say Edmund Burke and Samuel Johnson, the so-called inspirations to modern day and past Conservatives and Liberals like Winston Churchill and John Howard. A non-free market Liberal with a Capital does not exist. A non-free market liberal, small l liberal can and does. They are armchair socialists or Labor voters or Greens who support a Bill of Rights. There aren’t many of them.
It is basically the rich shifting “teal”. There is nothing wrong with that either. I jut hate Liberals. That is all you need to understand about me.
The Greens will always be on the nose for people with half a brain I am afraid. Their policies and pronouncements are a bit “eeeew”. Obsession with hating Israel. Obsession with closing Sydney Airport and now they want to do the same to Brisbane. A bit left economically yes. For the aspiring class in conservative electorate. Free dental care. As long as these knowledge, professional workers or small business people don’t mind paying for their own teeth yes. Its probably that the Greens, especially in NSW, have emerged from the former communist parties. My class analysis is not ancient. It is as much to do with aspiration and disposition as any material considerations. Th greens are not aspirational and are nor pre-disposed to seeking wealth or material gain. They want to look after themselves sure. And at the expense of others definitely. But they will not go out and wilfully stab people in the back at work or work harder or work overtime or invest obsessively or seek promotion. No enterprise or thrift for them. They either have all that or don’t care as it will come their way via marriage or inheritance. The care about the same thing the “teals” do but the “teals” are more materialistic, more conservative politically, more right wing economically, more aspiring, more enterprising as true Liberals of old, even if they say they are not – they are. They are the Captain Sensibles of Australian politics modern day. They are a rare breed. Wealthy or aspiring to be wealthy and they have a conscience, are idealistic about integrity in government and realist about the challenges facing the world.
“ Th greens are not aspirational and are nor pre-disposed to seeking wealth or material gain. They want to look after themselves sure. And at the expense of others definitely. But they will not go out and wilfully stab people in the back at work or work harder or work overtime or invest obsessively or seek promotion. No enterprise or thrift for them.”
Thanks for the laugh, MG. I’ll share it with another late middle aged female colleague stuck on the same 56 hours a fortnight contract as me after we’ve just manually lifted someone who weighs just as much we do plus some to clean them after they’ve been faeces incontinent.
Sweet to think there are still people in the world who think material success is a simple question of hard work and overtime. Quaint.
https://youtu.be/2YymGJKhGgY
That’s me. Quaint. But am I wrong?
Yes, MG, you are wrong. Didn’t the 56 hour contract give you a clue?
Here’s another. My son just finished his honours at uni. He got a medal for academic excellence for his BSc, so he scored a partial scholarship for his honours. Good thing, that, because he was still stuck working part time casual. He was working two jobs at one stage, but it was too much, what with study and having two kids under three and his wife working full time to pay the bills. He’s still working casual part time. An hour each way travel. He’s started his PhD. Another scholarship, or he wouldn’t have been able to continue his studies. And before you ask, he’s a chemist- one of those STEM subjects we all hear so much about.
My son works every paid hour he can get his hands on. When he’s not at uni or work, he’s home studying and raising his children. You could say he never stops working. But it doesn’t show in his pay packet.
Forgot to add he got First Class Honours with HDs throughout- hence the PhD scholarship.
Then you are proving your and my point. Your son works hard. So does mine. What are you saying? That he is struggling? I am not unsympathetic, but we all struggle when we are working, bringing up children and provide housing whether rental or mortgaged. There is nothing wrong with hard work, overtime or achievement. I have never gone for a promotion in my life having acquired the small climbs I have, but I don’t resent those that do. There are people who are far more ambitious than me but I don’t resent them. I do worry about them occasionally and regard some with suspicion but I don’t think it is fair as you suggest that people shouldn’t work hard or do overtime. To get ahead one often does not have a choice. It is not fair to regard people as bad if they want to improve themselves. What would you have us do? I have never been bitter at other people’s success if they have exceeded mine. I can succeed to and at my own pace in my own way. I help my children where I can but this forum shouldn’t be a contest as to who has it tougher.
No. I’m saying hard work does not necessarily equal material success- not anymore. You seem to think it still does. Your entire spray of the Greens seems to be based on that assumption.
And NOWHERE am I suggesting that people shouldn’t work hard or do overtime or calling people who do so “bad”- that’s nonsense- I’m trying to tell you that for increasing numbers of Australians, it doesn’t matter how hard they work or want to work, they’re stuck on limited hours. Part time jobs, casual jobs, where overtime isn’t an option- it simply isn’t available. And it’s happening to people with university degrees, too. It’s even happening to academics! Academia is one of the most casualised, contracted employment sectors in the country- many articles have been written about it in recent years.
People are getting stuck through no fault of their own, MG. They’re doing all the right things. They’re working as hard as they are able. They study. They apply themselves. But they’re still stuck in part time jobs.
All the Greens are trying to do is unstick them a little. Institute the social wage we were all promised way back in the 80s but never got. If voting for that makes me “half brain dead”, I’m happy to be an imbecile.
Agree Kathy,
Long gone are the days when people like me who slaved away with nothing for years to get a PhD ever got recognition for it in career or monetary reward. In my case I had to battle it out on the comerical front (almost hiding my Uni quals) to work up to senior mgmt. Thank goodness I retired 12 years ago . .. Able young people have a tough time these days in the currect LNP inspired environment.
It’s a crazy state of affairs, Drandy. He’s already got his name on a couple of patents, but he’s stuck working part time!
The uni employ him when and as the funding allows – he’s working on Asparagopsis taxiformis, finding antiviral and antibacterial properties as well as its commercial uses in methane emissions reduction in ruminants.
Things are so different for his generation. So much worse. When I left school in year 10 in the early 80s, I could leave one full time permanent job in the morning and have my pick of a couple of others in the afternoon. White collar jobs. What the hell happened? (Rhetorical question)
I hate so say it Kathy but the Greens don’t give a damn about working people. They say they do but everything they say and do is the opposite. Have you not been reading my many comments in Crikey? Do you not understand I know them and have documents to prove they don’t understand how hard people do it. What is it about the Greens that you like? Dental care? Convinced by Adam Bandt’s assertion that taxing Clive Palmer will fix your teeth? I have documents as I said about the Greens plans for jobs in western Sydney and they don’t even define western Sydney properly. They call for tram lines from Central to Strathfield – way to go. Parallel with the western rail line. Tram line from Parramatta east to Olympic Park. They are all for light rail and against heavy rail. They told me at a western Sydney conference in Parramatta and I was there and a prominent Greens MP I cannot name told me that Parramatta and west of Sydney don’t need a transport plan and it should only extend to Parramatta. I know I only have my unsupported testimony in saying this but I wouldn’t say it if it weren’t true. Some of the Greens policies I support absolutely but wage rises and rail transport are not ones. They are nice if you can be bothered.
The “social wage” is a con. Let me alert you on that. It is a con. You have a wage or you don’t. I am aware that people get stuck through no fault of their own but what would you have us do? You seem so angry. That’s pointless in a political forum. People have options. Governments should help people find their way and support them as they go through life. The Greens voter base is in privileged areas. They want to close Sydney Airport at a cost of 27,000 jobs directly and indirectly. People need jobs and they need a pay rise. I don’t need or want to bore you with the troubles an travails of my life but ultimately it is your own. No one else can live it. The Government should help. I just don’t see the Greens doing this to people that need it most. Glad they knocked off Liberals but have a look at the cost of housing in their strong electorates. I used to be one of them and I can tell you that at some of their meetings and working groups for an outfit that prides itself on its anti-racist stance and obsesses about cultural an ethnic diversity, there is more cultural and linguistic diversity in the KKK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism#:~:text=In%20the%20late%2019th%20century,is%20now%20called%20social%20liberalism.
Thanks for that and I enjoyed the read but it is peripheral in the Australian context. How long have we got?
BYW Guy stated Social Liberals. Capital L. I said they don’t exist. Not the philosophical liberals in your context and in your link but Liberals as in Australian Liberal Party politicians, members, voters. I said they don’t exist in the Australian context and I mean it. A Social liberal is a historical movement, ideal and person of another time and another place.
An old trot, a deranged maoist and an undead stalinist go into a bar – no punchline but which are you, Tinman?
Talk about a pair of dinosaurs mired in a swamp, you & grundle should get a room.
Social liberalism – Wikipedia
Interesting. It looks like I fit the bill for a social liberal, but one who cannot in good conscience vote Liberal in this country (unless I was in Matt Kean’s electorate). That being said, the analysis by Marc Bolan’s love child is not without merit. The Green’s seem to be a mix of green capitalists, old communists, and earth mothers (of diverse genders) and this creates tensions between the pragmatists and idealogues in the party. Still, I am glad that they now have more seats in the House.
Oh, and it’s Mixed Member Proportional representation in NZ, not multi member.
Wentworth and Warringah are the two top ranked electorates by average net wealth per capita while Higgins (Toorak) is 8th (Roy Morgan)
Just a small technicality – Killara is in Bradfield, retained by the Liberals.
I know but a decent “teal” may take it. I doubt it but you get the drift. The Northern Beaches, which has a high tradie base I confess, the North Shore and the Northern Suburbs have extremely high numbers of 4WDs. Vehicles ostensibly for “the man on the land” or the recreational class. What do the people of Killara need 4WDs for?
Something happened!? Not quite. If labor gets a majority, I don’t think, outside the implementation of the Uluru Statement, much of substance will happen. There’ll be a lot of noise about all the edge tinkering ‘achievements’, but nah. Even on social housing, as much as Albo makes about the fact his single mum brought him up in a council house, Labor’s promise of building an extra 4000 is virtually the same as doing nothing at all. We need 50,000 right now let alone in 4 years time…
Except that if they continue to snub the Greens in the Reps, they’re going to struggle in the Senate.
Zoe Daniel, one of the new teal Independents, failed to mention public housing anywhere in her policy platform. When asked by The Age (May16 ‘22) if she would support more federal funding for public housing, her response was ‘where does the money come from…it would have to be offset by saving somewhere else’.
The Age also noted that education ‘has not been a high priority for real candidates like Daniel. She has a daughter and a son, both at private high school in Brighton.’ She does not support cuts to private school funding saying, I represent the people of Goldstein after all – there’s lot of private schools there.’
Same old, same old, just a new colour…
Yes. It’s a not a surprise though. To the best of my knowledge, the Teals have been very upfront about what they stand for economically: mostly small government; lower taxes for companies and individuals; no changes to negative gearing or capital gains tax concessions; no changes to superannuation tax; no changes to public subsidy of private schools etc, etc. For any I’ve left out, just look at the economic talking points of any Liberal MP, really.
It couldn’t be otherwise, considering the Teals represent the wealthiest electorates in Australia. They’d be lynched if they started advocating for wealth redistribution or even affordable housing.
Haines has the legislation for an Integrity Commission ready to go. Seems like a good approach to getting one established before Christmas would be to adopt that Bill.
No, the 31 Judges support the ALP ready to go ICAC! the Indi is only an in house Inquiry No teeth, No investigative powers, No Criminal referral powers,and NO retropective powers.More paricularly NOT INDEPENDENT!
something political very obviously happened. a parliament which has never had a cross bench of more than 5, now has one close to the size of the National Party. a group of independents who werent a party, nevertheless got elected as some sort of unity. Focused on policy, yr missing the politics
The two major parties have run the argument that allowing anyone else in risks damaging the ‘stability’ in government that we ‘enjoy’. It’s possibly the greatest load of rubbish that the two parties agree on. The parties are riven internally by factional disputes, the parties ditch leaders with monotonous regularity and that’s ‘stability’. Those leaders are elected internally to the parties calling into question the repeated references to ‘elected prime ministers’, references that ignore ‘elected opposition leaders’.
All in all the more that the electorate chooses alternatives and shakes up the major parties the better off we probably are, not that the National Party is major in anything other than a proven ability to demonstrate absolute incompetence and self interest. Oops that’s probably more than just the National Party.
I think that criss-cross bench will cohere around a few issues for a while: climate, women, integrity, perhaps the Uluru statement. But before entropy sets in I wish they’d adopt one other cause: abolish the suit. If I have to watch Albo adjust his frigging buttons one more time – standing up, sitting down, turning sideways – I’ll do something terrible, like turn off the TV for three years (yet again).
Congratulations on the nomenclature GR (teal, rust – stick with it). Just to give you something to ditch in favour of something better: the kitchen benches (where it all happens, front bench plus cross bench) as opposed to the park benches (aka back benches)?
Kudos for the new terms, kitchen bench & park bench.
Perfect!