The delicate relationship between Labor and the Greens often swings from confrontation to cooperation. But this week, during the stand-off over the government's housing bill, something snapped, writes David Speers.
I make no secret of the fact that generally speaking, I’m a Greens supporter.
But I think they’ve misstepped here. I’ll admit I haven’t followed this issue very closely, and I’ve not heard the Greens tell their side of the story, so maybe they can change my mind. But assuming this article is accurate, I think they’ve misstepped.
To be clear, I agree with them that Labor’s current policy isn’t good enough. But it’s the kind of “not good enough” that’s still at least worth doing. Labor’s original policy in this area was not “at least worth doing”, but Labor has compromised and agreed to spend a minimum of $500 million per year on housing. At that point, I think even though it would be better to get even more, it’s still good enough that blocking it is the wrong move.
I think I might write to my local MP, a Greens member, expressing this…
Yeah I’ve been a Greens supporter for yonks but I’m tired of the “make it perfect or no deal” approach they’ve had on some issues/bills over the years. They’re always technically right but compromise is part of the process and letting that stifle momentum in the right direction has happened so much it shits me.
the “make it perfect or no deal” approach they’ve had on some issues/bills over the years
I know they’ve got a reputation for often doing that, but it’s really not deserved. Take Kevin Rudd’s climate policy, for example. Treasury modelling suggested it would have no meaningful impact until well into the 2030s. It wasn’t a case of “not good enough, but better than doing nothing” like this seems to be. It was actually a case of “this is bad policy and we shouldn’t pass it”. Rudd was utterly unwilling to compromise, and ultimately that’s what cost him the Labor leadership.
When Gillard came to the premiership, she was a far more effective leader. She worked with the cross-bench to get an exceptionally good policy passed. A policy that was world-leading and had a real measurable impact on our carbon emissions. A police that was reached because of compromise with the Greens.
My argument would be that it was a better policy than any before and the Greens assisting the Libs’ effort to turn it into a political football inadvertently led to most of what followed. Specifically a leadership spill and a better policy that was doomed to be revoked by the free election win handed to the mad monk by the leadership instability within the ALP.
But it wasn’t meaningfully better. That’s the problem. If you’re proposing a change that’ll have such a small impact that you might as well not do anything, then it is worth blocking that in favour of pushing for actually meaningful policy.
Remember, we’re talking about policy that even Labor’s own modelling claimed would not start benefiting us for 25 years. Labor could have helped themselves and the rest of the country by being willing to compromise. Unfortunately, their leader was a well-known egomaniac. It was his decision to stubbornly stick with the ineffectual policy rather than try and reach a deal. Or, of course, we could put the blame on the people who actually directly caused the later working policy to be undone: the LNP and the Murdoch press.
I think the policy needed to appear to be a lame duck or it just wouldn’t have passed in the political climate at that time, the backlash from the fossil fuel groups would have been biblical compared to just extreme. What was important was it was an emissions trading scheme - the pricing could be adjusted after becoming law in step with the increasing public appetite to address climate change. The billions of dollars worth of free emissions credits given to coal power plants and heavy polluters would have been fuel for future political fires lit right under their arses. I know it’s sneaky but so are the fossil fuel groups, you have to bring something to a knife fight. The scheme could have made significant progress by now but instead we lost yet another decade.
I suppose the policy’s flexibility could have been abused by any future government too, so yeah that’s a problem. It’s possible the policy could have been making good money for the government by then so it would have been more politically/fiscally costly to reduce the price on emissions.
What was important was it was an emissions trading scheme
Sure, but so was the Clean Energy Act 2011. The policy Gillard passed after negotiations with the Greens was a fixed-price period leading in to a cap and trade emissions trading scheme—the very same model being taught even in high school economics classes of the time.
the pricing could be adjusted after becoming law in step with the increasing public appetite to address climate change
The thing is, as Adam Bandt said in this 2020 interview, ratcheting up the price at a later date would have put the Government on the hook for compensating polluters, as a feature written into the Bill itself.
Plus, who’s to say that the LNP and the Murdoch press wouldn’t have campaigned just as hard against the CPRS as the CEA?
good conversation, thanks 🙂 ❤️
Indeed, it’s one of the things I’m really loving about this site so far. There’s so much more room for nuance and genuine discussion.
You’ve changed my mind! Great interview, I wasn’t aware of their being a requirement to reimburse polluters on changes to the carbon price/cap. I should have done more homework. Rudd should have negotiated with the Greens and made better policy, he sabotaged himself.
But assuming this article is accurate, I think they’ve misstepped.
Personally I wouldn’t rely on opinion pieces from David Speers to tell an accurate story of something involving The Greens. He is quite obviously not their biggest fan. The housing spokesperson for The Greens has done interviews with both Speers and Sarah Ferguson within the last couple of weeks that I recommended people check out. Both journalists tried very hard to push the “Greens don’t compromise” narrative but this criticism was countered very clearly and precisely.
Thanks. Those interviews were really frustrating to watch with how hostile (or even, as the YouTube comments said on the second one, “patronising”) the interviewers were.
That’s definitely solidified my opinion that ultimately the Greens’ ideal position on this issue is the best one, but it hasn’t swayed me (one way or the other) with regards to the question of whether the Greens should compromise further and pass the policy as Labor is currently presenting it. Hard for the videos to be persuasive on that issue when the Member for Griffith kept getting interrupted…
I think both journalists underestimated Chandler-Mather going into those interviews. He may be young and a new member of Parliament, but he is clearly an excellent debater and has a very sharp mind. He was able to directly counter pretty much every single claim or attempted argument they made without dodging questions or bogging the interviews down with politician non-answers.
I make no secret of the fact that generally speaking, I’m a Greens supporter.
But I think they’ve misstepped here. I’ll admit I haven’t followed this issue very closely, and I’ve not heard the Greens tell their side of the story, so maybe they can change my mind. But assuming this article is accurate, I think they’ve misstepped.
To be clear, I agree with them that Labor’s current policy isn’t good enough. But it’s the kind of “not good enough” that’s still at least worth doing. Labor’s original policy in this area was not “at least worth doing”, but Labor has compromised and agreed to spend a minimum of $500 million per year on housing. At that point, I think even though it would be better to get even more, it’s still good enough that blocking it is the wrong move.
I think I might write to my local MP, a Greens member, expressing this…
Yeah I’ve been a Greens supporter for yonks but I’m tired of the “make it perfect or no deal” approach they’ve had on some issues/bills over the years. They’re always technically right but compromise is part of the process and letting that stifle momentum in the right direction has happened so much it shits me.
I know they’ve got a reputation for often doing that, but it’s really not deserved. Take Kevin Rudd’s climate policy, for example. Treasury modelling suggested it would have no meaningful impact until well into the 2030s. It wasn’t a case of “not good enough, but better than doing nothing” like this seems to be. It was actually a case of “this is bad policy and we shouldn’t pass it”. Rudd was utterly unwilling to compromise, and ultimately that’s what cost him the Labor leadership.
When Gillard came to the premiership, she was a far more effective leader. She worked with the cross-bench to get an exceptionally good policy passed. A policy that was world-leading and had a real measurable impact on our carbon emissions. A police that was reached because of compromise with the Greens.
My argument would be that it was a better policy than any before and the Greens assisting the Libs’ effort to turn it into a political football inadvertently led to most of what followed. Specifically a leadership spill and a better policy that was doomed to be revoked by the free election win handed to the mad monk by the leadership instability within the ALP.
But it wasn’t meaningfully better. That’s the problem. If you’re proposing a change that’ll have such a small impact that you might as well not do anything, then it is worth blocking that in favour of pushing for actually meaningful policy.
Remember, we’re talking about policy that even Labor’s own modelling claimed would not start benefiting us for 25 years. Labor could have helped themselves and the rest of the country by being willing to compromise. Unfortunately, their leader was a well-known egomaniac. It was his decision to stubbornly stick with the ineffectual policy rather than try and reach a deal. Or, of course, we could put the blame on the people who actually directly caused the later working policy to be undone: the LNP and the Murdoch press.
Good points, and good conversation, thanks 🙂 ❤️
I think the policy needed to appear to be a lame duck or it just wouldn’t have passed in the political climate at that time, the backlash from the fossil fuel groups would have been biblical compared to just extreme. What was important was it was an emissions trading scheme - the pricing could be adjusted after becoming law in step with the increasing public appetite to address climate change. The billions of dollars worth of free emissions credits given to coal power plants and heavy polluters would have been fuel for future political fires lit right under their arses. I know it’s sneaky but so are the fossil fuel groups, you have to bring something to a knife fight. The scheme could have made significant progress by now but instead we lost yet another decade.
I suppose the policy’s flexibility could have been abused by any future government too, so yeah that’s a problem. It’s possible the policy could have been making good money for the government by then so it would have been more politically/fiscally costly to reduce the price on emissions.
Sure, but so was the Clean Energy Act 2011. The policy Gillard passed after negotiations with the Greens was a fixed-price period leading in to a cap and trade emissions trading scheme—the very same model being taught even in high school economics classes of the time.
It really cannot be emphasised highly enough, too, that this is policy that had actually been proven to work. The period where the CEA was in effect is the only sustained period of reduction in carbon emissions in our history.
The thing is, as Adam Bandt said in this 2020 interview, ratcheting up the price at a later date would have put the Government on the hook for compensating polluters, as a feature written into the Bill itself.
Plus, who’s to say that the LNP and the Murdoch press wouldn’t have campaigned just as hard against the CPRS as the CEA?
Indeed, it’s one of the things I’m really loving about this site so far. There’s so much more room for nuance and genuine discussion.
You’ve changed my mind! Great interview, I wasn’t aware of their being a requirement to reimburse polluters on changes to the carbon price/cap. I should have done more homework. Rudd should have negotiated with the Greens and made better policy, he sabotaged himself.
500 million a year is a joke. that’s, what, going to build like 1000-2000 houses a year.
we are bringing in over a thousand migrants A DAY.
we’re in a crisis, and labor needs to stop getting away with passing pissweak policy.
Adam Bandt seems to be enjoying playing “wedge” politics right now. It’s worked for him in the past, but I agree, this is not one of those times.
Personally I wouldn’t rely on opinion pieces from David Speers to tell an accurate story of something involving The Greens. He is quite obviously not their biggest fan. The housing spokesperson for The Greens has done interviews with both Speers and Sarah Ferguson within the last couple of weeks that I recommended people check out. Both journalists tried very hard to push the “Greens don’t compromise” narrative but this criticism was countered very clearly and precisely.
Interesting. Have you got links to those interviews?
Insiders interview.
7:30 Report interview.
Thanks. Those interviews were really frustrating to watch with how hostile (or even, as the YouTube comments said on the second one, “patronising”) the interviewers were.
That’s definitely solidified my opinion that ultimately the Greens’ ideal position on this issue is the best one, but it hasn’t swayed me (one way or the other) with regards to the question of whether the Greens should compromise further and pass the policy as Labor is currently presenting it. Hard for the videos to be persuasive on that issue when the Member for Griffith kept getting interrupted…
I think both journalists underestimated Chandler-Mather going into those interviews. He may be young and a new member of Parliament, but he is clearly an excellent debater and has a very sharp mind. He was able to directly counter pretty much every single claim or attempted argument they made without dodging questions or bogging the interviews down with politician non-answers.