THE GREENS ARE now a permanent feature of Tasmanian politics, and major party leaders David Bartlett and Will Hodgman should recognise that fact.
For David Bartlett, in particular, this is an opportunity for him to test his views about renewing Tasmania.
An agreement between the Greens and Labor is not only essential, but would represent a change in the way politics is conducted in Tasmania.
However, both Hodgman and Bartlett are not entirely masters of their own destinies.
Behind them are back-room boys and girls who either despise the Greens or will take the opportunity to double-cross them when the time is right.
There are also some advisers who are looking in the rear view mirror. “Every coalition with the Greens, informal or otherwise, has ended in tears and recriminations,” they say.
In Labor’s ranks there is always talk about the Field government’s split with the Greens in the 1989-92 Green-Labor Accord period. In Labor mythology, the Greens were to blame for that split and therefore cannot be trusted.
Actually, most objective observers apportion equal blame for the failure of that Green-Labor Accord.
Some conclude that it was Labor that deliberately caused the split over forestry because it was too influenced by powerful forestry interests, or it had no taste for the Accord-type arrangements.
All of this history is being replayed this week as Labor Leader Bartlett talks about listening to the Tasmanian people and Liberal Leader Will Hodgman claims his right to govern on the basis that the Liberals received a higher primary vote than Labor.
The Tasmanian voters did indeed speak with a strong voice. Despite the well-publicised warnings of four former premiers LibLab Gang of Four Dinosaurs roar at Greensabout the dangers of a Greens-dominated hung Parliament, the voters promptly voted in at least four, and possibly as many as six, Greens.
If the major parties are still listening, the voters’ message may also be saying “Work together, learn to negotiate, the Greens are here to stay”.
For Labor, it is critical to sign a written agreement with the Greens along similar lines to that which operates quite successfully in the ACT between Labor and the Greens.
After all, nearly 60 per cent of the Tasmanian voters chose Green and Labor, and in most elections around Australia Green preferences usually come back to Labor and vice-versa.
The biggest danger for Labor at this moment is that back-room dealers in the party believe that the best strategy is to let the Liberals take government with the active or passive support of the Greens.
Such a parliamentary arrangement, they say, will lead to instability, brawls and eventually a major split. Labor would then win the next election in a landslide as voters sought a recipe for stable government.
This is a grand theory being proposed by vested interests, nervous Nellies and those who don’t understand that the first responsibility of a political party is to win and hold government.
As a former politician I have deliberately stayed silent about party matters in Tasmania for more than 15 years, but now is the time for all politicians in Tasmania to step back from the brink and ask some tough and honest questions about Tasmania’s future.
What if Will Hodgman gradually got on top of his own Right wing and learned to deal with the Greens? What if the Greens Leader Nick McKim showed that he is the real strategist that I think he is? What if they made an agreement work?
All of these are possible. McKim is smart and media-savvy, and Hodgman may be a chip off the old block, capable of appealing to supporters outside the traditional Liberal fold.
Where would that leave Labor? Out in the wilderness, preparing endlessly for government. Then the inevitable result would not be instability in the Parliament but a Labor Party turning on itself out of sheer frustration.
So, Premier Bartlett, seize the day, the Greens don’t smell, and they do have a lot to contribute. Nearly 25 per cent of the electorate believe so, and many of them are Labor-inclined voters.
Terry Aulich is a former Labor minister in the Lowe and Holgate governments, a former senator for Tasmania and Labor Party state secretary. His novel, The River’s End, covered the Franklin River dispute in the early 1980s, a dispute that brought down the Labor government of the day. His polling company has worked for major corporations, newspapers and community groups.
First published in Mercury, HERE
Meanwhile Lindsay Tanner in the SMH:
The Greens – ignore at one’s peril
March 25, 2010 – 6:11AM
Remember the republicans who campaigned for a ‘No’ vote in the 1999 Republic referendum? They wanted a directly elected president and they promised a vigorous campaign for a “real republic” after the referendum was defeated. Did we ever hear anything further from them? Of course not. They were full of hot air.
I’m in politics to achieve outcomes. In the real world that means accepting a few painful realities. Achieving progressive change can be very hard. Sometimes you have to settle for partial improvements, or wait for more opportune times. I’m a direct electionist, but I supported a ‘Yes’ vote in 1999.
Last weekend the Greens won 21% of the vote in the Tasmanian State election. They will now exercise a critical influence in shaping the new government.
This is a portent that Labor ignores at its peril. Because we are the Greens’ real target, not the conservatives.
My seat of Melbourne has been vulnerable to the Greens since 2001. I now hold it by only 4.7%. Anthony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek are only slightly more secure in Grayndler and Sydney. There are three Labor seats in my area at risk of falling to the Greens in the forthcoming Victorian State election.
Why is this happening?
The Greens are harvesting growing support from a particular demographic that first emerged as a key part of Labor’s support base in the late 1960s. The quirks of our electoral system make them a genuine threat once they get around a quarter of the vote, because they then get ahead of the Liberals, and benefit from Liberal preferences.
Essentially the rising Green vote is a product of increasing tertiary education. Green voters are typically either tertiary educated or undergoing tertiary education. Their support is heavily concentrated amongst tertiary disciplines that are focused on much more than just making money.
Unlike most Australians, these voters tend to be secure and comfortable enough to be able to put aside immediate self-interest when assessing their political options.
Unfortunately for Labor, their viewpoint is increasingly at odds with the perspective of Labor voters who aren’t tertiary educated. On issues like asylum seekers, gay marriage, forests and civil liberties, such differences can often be stark. It’s these differences that the Greens seek to exploit.
To win government and implement reform, Labor has to do a lot more than appeal to its most progressive supporters. Retaining the implicit support of a majority of the Australian people requires compromises that tend to upset Labor’s natural supporters. Without any responsibility for stitching together a governing coalition or actually implementing any change, the Greens are able to ruthlessly exploit the opportunities created by such disappointments.
Whatever Labor does, it’s never quite good enough for the Greens. Even when we’re withdrawing troops from Iraq, repealing Workchoices, apologising to indigenous Australians, or legislating to tackle climate change, they still attack Labor for their own cynical political purposes. If the Greens had voted with Labor, the Senate would have passed the Government’s climate change legislation, because two Liberals crossed the floor to vote with us. We’re now left with no legislation at all. The Greens’ political posturing took precedence over the need for action on climate change. The Greens’ policy would have absolutely no chance of getting through the Senate, even if Labor supported it.
The real impact of the Greens is exposed by the fact that the Liberals direct their preferences to them. In my area, they routinely get almost 80% of Liberal preferences. This split in the progressive vote is a godsend to the conservatives, as it draws resources away from the main national contest. It isn’t Liberal seats that are threatened by the Greens. Just like the progressive ‘No’ campaigners in 1999, they end up in de facto alliance with arch-conservatives like Tony Abbott.
A secret Greens report on the campaign in my electorate in the 2004 election made it very clear what their agenda is. It stated: “Since we had to rely on the expected high flow of Liberal preferences to win, our broad goal was to attack the ALP vote and allow the Liberal vote to be preserved.” It also admitted that the Greens Victorian campaign committee had directed that “getting rid of the Howard Government was not explicitly part of the campaign strategy.”
The Greens are not some kind of benign ginger group loosely allied with Labor. They’re not a middle ground party keeping both major parties honest, like the Democrats. And they’re not a group of idealistic activists changing the world.
They’re just another political party. And they’re no less cynical or manipulative than any of the others. They relentlessly feed off Labor’s need to make compromises in order to marry progressive reform with majority government. All their energies are directed to attacking the Labor Party, not the conservatives. It might seem like a good idea to support those who yell the loudest in favour of progressive causes, but it’s unlikely to produce good outcomes. For all our flaws, Labor remains the only worthwhile option for achieving progressive change through parliamentary politics. It might sometimes be a bit piecemeal and gradual, but it beats the hell out of doing nothing.
