Have the Greens already peaked?
The Australian Greens are betting their future on a high-risk switch to hard-left opportunistic populism. It could backfire.
Populist politics, once the curse of other less fortunate
countries, has now consumed two of Australia’s three main parties: the
Liberal-National coalition under Peter Dutton, and the Greens under Adam Bandt.
The approaching election raises a question on which the
future of Australian politics and government is likely to depend: whether to
reward or reject the politics of division and reckless opportunism.
The success or failure of the Greens depends on a highly
educated, prosperous and rational inner-city cohort, for whom the move from
progressive idealism centred around the environment to bomb-throwing is likely
to be disconcerting. The party’s simplistic stance on the complexities of
Middle-East politics, its parliamentary alliances with the conservatives to
defeat progressive government legislation, and its strident support of a notorious
thuggish and criminal-infested trade union, are all emblematic of this
transformation.
The change has become increasingly evident since the success
of Greens candidates in three Brisbane seats at the 2022 election. The push is
now on to break the mould and become a major player. But why? The previous
method had served them well.
So far this century, their primary vote has almost tripled,
while the major parties contemplate long-term decline.
Despite one hiccup – the party was punished at the 2013
election for its support of the troubled Gillard Labor government – the
trajectory was clear.
Throughout much of the democratic world, traditional major parties are in
decline, societies are fractured and populism is ascendant. In the United
States, Germany, France and elsewhere the far right are making gains that, only
a couple of decades ago, would have seemed fanciful. There’s a lot of attention
on that, but the other side of the coin – the rise of hard-left populism – is
resurgent too.
Both are dangerous for the same reasons: their simple,
plausible recipes for Utopia are devoid of the nuance and capacity for
tolerance without which modern societies, economies and government cannot
function. HL Mencken, no fan of democracy, famously said: “For every complex
problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” He might also
have said that spurious simplicity tends to destroy democracy and much else.
In Australia, the slow fracturing of traditional politics
has its upside: the emergence of rational independents capable of matching
their idealism with complex reality. Among those we can number the teals, a
number of progressive independents like Andrew Wilkie, David Pocock and – until
recently – the Greens.
The Greens have benefited mightily from the electorate’s
disenchantment with politics-as-usual. The Redbridge polling consultancy
explained how the trend was unfolding in Australia.
“The ‘Double Haters’, a phenomenon first coined in the
United States to describe those voters that don’t support either major party or
candidate, now make up nearly one third of the electorate in Australia and is
consistent with the record non-major party vote at the 2022 federal election of
31.7%,” said Redbridge’s Kos Samaras.
It makes the Greens’ radical change of posture still more
surprising.
Taking
sides: Jews or Muslims?
There are a few basic principles without which liberal
democracy cannot exist. One of those is the necessity to tolerate difference,
to understand that humanity is infinitely complex. Government based on these
principles must therefore embrace nuance. It must accept that a diverse society
cannot function if its politics are driven by simplistic, opportunistic
policies.
Populism and liberal democracy do not fit well together.
This is why the opportunistic populism of the Coalition and, now, of the
Greens, is so dangerous.
The stance of each party on the infinitely complex racial
and religious politics of the Middle East is a clear and worrying example. The
Coalition and the Greens have unambiguously taken sides, one backing the
Israeli government and the other backing Palestine.
In Gaza, the Israeli Defence Force has been responsible for
at least 40,000 civilian deaths, almost half of whom were children. There have
been consistent attempts to starve the people of Gaza, the bombing of
hospitals, the attacks on international aid convoys and the murder of
journalists.
Both Israel and Hamas have been declared to be
terrorist organisations by the United Nations secretary-general, Antonio
Guterres, for violations of the rights of children. Also on the list are Russia,
the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Myanmar, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.
The war crimes committed by Hamas and other Iran-backed
militias long predate the attack on Israeli civilians on 7 October last year.
The prosecutor also applied for arrest warrants for the
Israeli rime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Defence Minister, Yoav
Galant, also citing war crimes and crimes against humanity. These charges
include starvation, wilful killing, intentionally directing attacks on civilian
populations, extermination, murder, and persecution.
On the basis of arithmetic, Israel has killed many more
people (40,000-plus) since 7 October than Hamas (1,400+). But in situations
like this, bland arithmetic is not useful. There have been appalling acts on
both sides, and in the middle are the civilian populations of Israel and
Palestine who mostly just want to be left in peace.
In this situation, it is not helpful for Australian
politicians to take sides. It is also not helpful to fail to recognise that a
unilateral recognition by Australia of Palestine as a state, in the absence of
an international initiative, will be somewhere between symbolic and futile. It
will not save a single life.
Australia’s Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, and the Labor
government, are caught in the middle of two opposing populist parties, neither
of which is likely to have the responsibility of actually running Australia’s
policy. The government’s strategy, along with most western nations, is for
recognition to come as part of a two-state solution.
“Recognising a Palestinian state – one that can only exist
side by side with a secure Israel – doesn’t just offer the Palestinian people
an opportunity to realise their aspirations,” she said in a major
speech.
“It also strengthens the forces for peace and undermines
extremism. It undermines Hamas, Iran and Iran’s other destructive proxies in
the region. A two-state solution is the only hope of breaking the endless cycle
of violence.”
Wong, too, recognises the dangers to Australia’s
multicultural society of allowing the hatreds of the Middle East to fester
here.
“But I have heard language demonstrating that people are
losing respect for each other’s humanity – blatant antisemitism and
Islamophobia. I’ve heard people who claim to represent one perspective,
diminishing the legitimacy of the other, seeking to intimidate and blame.
“It’s not okay to blame anyone in Australia for the actions
of Hamas. It’s not okay to blame anyone in Australia for the actions of the
Netanyahu Government. And it’s not okay to excuse egregious acts, just because
they’re done by people whose views you share.”
The situation was not created by the Coalition and the
Greens but both, rather than urging calm and decency, have supercharged the
domestic conflict. The damage to the Greens’ brand came from the party’s close
collaboration with the pro-Palestinian protesters, so it had to wear a de facto
association with the most reckless elements of that movement.
The slogan has also been prominent among pro-Palestinian
protesters in Australia and was draped across the front of Parliament House in
Canberra.
Victoria Police said
in June that since 7 October 2023 there had been 197 incidents in that
state alone motivated by the conflict in Gaza. Religious affiliations and
political beliefs were the cause, and police said that of the reported
incidents linked to religious affiliation, 88 related to antisemitic attacks
and 16 involved Islamophobia.
“The problem for the Greens is that some of their members
are actively supporting protests that get out of control,” wrote David
Crowe, chief political correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and The
Age.
“One former Greens candidate, Campbell Gome, addressed a
protest that disrupted a forum [assistant health minister Ged] Kearney held on
April 30. Kearney said staff members were shoved and injured …
“Bandt, however, is hitting the accelerator in a race to
inflame. He called a press conference in Parliament House on Thursday morning
at which he said Labor had backed the invasion of Gaza, supported genocide and
only wanted a temporary ceasefire so it could be followed by more bombs being
dropped on Palestinians. He said the government supported slaughter …
“The Greens are playing with red paint. If they are not
careful, it will stain their hands for good.”
Taking
sides: thugs and criminals
When Max Chandler-Mather, the Greens member for Griffith,
spoke passionately in support of the corrupt and criminal-ridden construction
union, he was not freelancing. He was fully consistent with his party’s policy.
“You’ll see it in the media tonight. You’ll be dismissed as
radicals, you’ll be defamed, your character will be attacked ….
“It is not radical to believe that union workers should have
the democratic right to determine the destiny of your own union. And it is not
radical to believe that construction workers should have the right to strike to
protect your rights, your wages and your conditions.
“The real radicals are the Labor and Liberal politicians who
have, on the basis of untested allegations, set a precedent where politicians
can act as the judge, jury and executioner, making a mockery of natural justice
and the rule of law.”
Adam Bandt sprang to Chandler-Mather’s defence.
“What does this mean for the future? If it's this
organisation now, will there be another organisation next?” he
said.
But those “untested allegations” are being tested in the
courts after all. In November, the High Court will hear
a case on whether the government’s actions are legal and constitutional.
Police are pursuing criminal cases against individuals.
The Greens’ position means that no action can be taken on
any matter of corruption or thuggery by a public organisation, no matter how
serious or well-documented, unless a court rules on it first. On that basis, a
whole system of regulation and oversight across the entire range of national
life, would become untenable. The financial regulators could not make a
direction to a bank or a finance company. Consumer protection authorities could
not enforce a statutory guarantee without a court order. Health authorities
could not take action against a doctor for malpractice. Only the courts could
do any of that.
Legal recourse is available to almost any action taken by a
government authority. But administrative law allows action to be taken first.
The prospect of court oversight is an immense constraint on governments,
bureaucrats and regulators. But it doesn’t prevent them from stepping in to
prevent imminent and serious harm to the public and to the economy.
 |
| Comanchero enforcer Norm Meyer |
The union donated to the ACT Greens before the last
election. Now, money from hard-left unions is flowing to the Greens, with the
Electrical Trades Union the first to announce it was redirecting
at least some of its funding to them and away from Labor.
At his recent National Press Club address Adam Bandt, the
Greens leader, outlined his party’s electoral ambitions.
“There are at least five new seats across the country, where
we believe we are in with a strong chance,” he said. “In one of them, if only
300 people change their vote, the Greens could win the seat,” he claimed.
“Among voters under the age of 34 years old,
The Greens are neck and neck with the Liberals and Labor.”
He named four of those five target seats: Wills and Macnamara
in Melbourne, Sturt in Adelaide, and Perth. Another four are reported to have
been previously in contention: Cooper in Melbourne, Richmond in northern New
South Wales, Moreton in Brisbane and Higgins (now abolished) in Melbourne.
Over the past three elections, the Greens vote in the three
seats newly won in 2022 – Griffith, Ryan and Brisbane – benefited from the
precipitate decline in the Liberal-National vote. This allowed the Greens, who
benefit from Labor preferences, to win the seats. The Greens got 82% of Labor
preferences in Griffith, 84% in Ryan and 86% in Brisbane. Even a relatively
small decrease in the preference flow from Labor would have produced a quite
different result. The LNP would have retained Ryan and Brisbane, and either of
the major parties could have prevailed in Griffith.
In May the Redbridge polling company used multilevel
regression statistical techniques to predict seat-by-seat outcomes. Overall,
they found most likely result would be that the Greens would retain Griffith
and Ryan, perhaps with lower margins, but would be lucky to hold on in
Brisbane.
“The Greens’ surge in 2022 in the inner city appears to have
stalled,” said Redbridge’s Kos Samaras, “largely due to older Millennials
shifting to Labor, offsetting Labor’s losses among younger voters in inner
Melbourne and Brisbane. This Labor versus Green dynamic could ultimately
threaten the Greens in Brisbane.”
The outlook for the Greens’ ambitions to expand its
parliamentary representation look grim, even without the risky new populist
strategy. The Redbridge predictions indicate that the Greens have little chance of
picking up any of these four target seats.
In all four, the Labor and Coalition primary vote shares
remain much as they were in 2022, and there is no sign of a surge in Greens
support that would put them within striking distance of victory. If Redbridge
is right, the Greens primary vote will fall by 6% in Macnamara, by 3% in Sturt
and by 2% in Perth. The only predicted increase is 1% in Wills.
The electoral redistribution has now transferred some
Labor-voting areas from Wills into other electorates and replaced them
with Greens-voting areas. According to Antony Green, the ABC’s elections
analyst, the just-released final boundaries have reduced Labor’s theoretical
margin against the Greens from 8.6% to 5.2%.
The Greens are hoping Muslim voters in this electorate will
respond to the party’s strident position on Palestine and help propel them to
victory. But only 10.3% of the people in Wills, according to the 2021 census,
adhere to Islam. Almost four times as many have no religious affiliation. It
would be more accurate to call this an atheists seat rather than a Muslim seat.
But the Labor Party and its member for Wills, Peter Khalil,
have been working that diverse electorate for decade. Even if a significant
proportion of Muslim voters switched from Labor to the Greens, it would be
unlikely to change the eventual outcome.
Support for the Greens is concentrated in the inner cities,
and particularly among people under 35 who rent their homes. Support is also
stronger among people with higher educational qualifications.
In Wills, the proportion of people with university
qualifications is no higher than the national average but there are a lot more
young people, renters and people who speak a language other than English at
home.
On paper, this looks like a seat the Greens could win. But
the demographics haven’t changed, so why should they succeed now when they
haven’t in the past?
The Greens have characterised themselves as the renter’s
defenders but rent increases have moderated and there’s a danger this image is
now overshadowed by its new stance on the Middle East and the CFMEU. Labor is
intent on holding onto this seat, and will run a well-resourced and determined
campaign.
Macnamara, like Wills, is often thought to be
dominated by a strong religious grouping. There is a strong and visible Jewish
community but again, as in Wills, actual numbers are fairly low. Only about 10%
of people living in Macnamara adhere to Judaism and it, even more than Wills,
is better described as an atheist electorate.
But to the extent that the Jewish vote affects the outcome,
it is likely to strongly favour Labor over the Greens.
The demographics in this electorate give relatively little
comfort to the Greens. There are fewer younger voters and renters than in the
country as a whole. The higher-than-average level of education may also no
longer favour the Greens as it once did: better-educated people may be more
likely to scrutinise policy and to react against the opportunistic populism of
both the hard-left and the hard-right.
Sturt is a relatively affluent suburb to the
immediate east of the Adelaide CBD. Its university-educated population is much
higher than the nation but the number of renters and younger voters is about
the same. There’s little about the demographics of Sturt to identify it as a
strong prospect for the Greens.
Sturt is a traditional Liberal stronghold, won by the
Liberals at all but two elections since its establishment in 1949. But the
margin over Labor has been narrowing and in 2022 the Liberal candidate held on
with a majority of only 1,016 votes after preferences. The Greens won only
16.4% of primary votes, compared with 43.1% for the Liberals and 30.6% for
Labor.
This seat is a very long shot for the Greens.
Perth is Labor heartland, with only four conservative
members since 1901. As in many inner-city electorates, there is a
higher-than-average proportion of university graduates. But there are fewer
younger voters and renters.
The Greens won only 22% of the primary vote at the last
election against 39% for Labor. To win this seat, the Greens would not only
have to massively improve their primary vote but would also need a substantial
proportion of Liberal preferences. Neither of those outcomes is remotely
likely.
Rhinestone
politics
Elections are often decided not by the minority of voters
who pay close attention to policies and politics but by those who don’t tune in
until the last moment. Governments are made and unmade largely by the fleeting
impressions picked up by distracted voters. That’s why politicians shout so
much, and it’s why opportunistic populism, and its hollow but shiny remedies
for the nation’s ills, so often works.
The pursuit of political bling led Peter Dutton to scream
about nuclear power stations and terrorists from Gaza It’s how Donald Trump
became president of the United States and Boris Johnson became prime minister
of Britain.
Usually, this kind of look-at-me populism comes from the
playbook of the hard right. The Australian Greens, though, have shown the hard
left can follow a very similar script of its own. Whether it is rewarded or
rejected by the electorate will have profound consequences for the future of
political life in this country.
Anthony Albanese does not do glitz. That, timidity and a
propensity for self-inflicted wounding, put him and the government at a major
disadvantage. Always in electoral matters, outcomes depend on the relative
quality and attractiveness of the participants: shonks are enabled by
inadequate opponents. If Labor had a more inspiring leader and a more inspiring
program, this might not be happening. They have not had a leader who could
arouse the nation since Paul Keating.
But minor parties in Australia have had a limited life
expectancy. The Democratic Labor Party, formed after the 1955 ALP split, lasted
in parliament for 19 years before being wiped out in the 1974
double-dissolution election. The Australian Democrats did better, lasting 27
years from 1977 and being finally wiped out in 2004. Both were restricted to
the Senate.
Bob Brown was elected to the Senate in 1996 as the first
Australian Greens member in Canberra. A high point came with the 2010 election,
which left them with nine senators and one member of the House of
Representatives, Adam Bandt. The Greens, holding the balance of power, kept the
minority Labor government of Julia Gillard in power for three years. The 2022
election left them with 13 senators and four members in the lower house.
If there’s a danger point for the survival of minor parties,
the Greens – despite their current success – could be approaching theirs. There
was no obvious need for them to switch their tactics so drastically. Now,
having made that enormous bet, they and the electorate will find whether the
party can maintain its previous trajectory of growth or, like its predecessors,
fade away.