The election of a record number of Greens MPs to the NSW parliament last week has been met with elation from the party, bizarre attacks from sections of the Labor party and perhaps most unsurprisingly, criticism from the editorial pages of The Australian.
By retaining the seat of Balmain, first won by the Greens in the 2011 state election, winning the new seat of Newtown, defeating the National party in Ballina and (at the time of writing) picking up two seats in the upper house, the Greens party has taken its total number of seats in NSW to eight and firmly established itself as a progressive force in politics. However, the re-election of a Coalition government with a comfortable right-wing majority in the upper house poses questions for progressive forces in NSW, including the Greens, as to how to most effectively resist a conservative agenda of privatisation and attacks on the environment.
The record result for the Greens this election is the dividend of more than 30 years of sustained campaigning across NSW. In 1995 the Greens elected their first state MP, Ian Cohen, from the north coast, to the upper house. Greens MP Lee Rhiannon introduced a bill to protect farming land from mining in 2007. Considering that history it is perhaps not surprising to see the party break through in regional NSW.
While there are always many factors at play that help determine election outcomes, including the selection of strong candidates and energised, well-resourced volunteer networks, it seems clear the Greens’ strong opposition to the WestConnex and alternate vision for expanding public transport; and opposition to coal-seam gas mining, along with a realistic plan to shift to a renewable energy powered economy, was rewarded by voters in Sydney and in the regions.
The Labor party, which has long considered the inner-city its home turf, has embroiled itself in a very public round of soul searching after recording their second-worst result since the Great Depression. Perplexing analyses such as from the Labor strategist who argued Greens voters “are more worried about how the chicken was treated than whether the waiter is earning the minimum wage” expose Labor’s disorientation in response to the challenge on their left flank. Party research conducted by the Greens, as well as analysis of the preference flows of Greens voters, consistently shows the vast majority of Greens voters are disaffected Labor voters. Yet the Labor party’s response is to insult these voters as “Liberals in disguise” who don’t care about issues of economic justice. In fact, Greens voters opposed the harsh budget measures introduced by the Abbott government in 2014 by a bigger margin than Labor voters and actually support increasing the minimum wage.
Penny Sharpe, Labor’s candidate for Newtown, articulated a common argument used by some Labor figures to justify their vehement attitude towards the Greens when she stated,
There is an issue around the Greens wanting to contest against progressive Labor candidates and that’s what they choose to do.
In the three seats won in the lower house by the Greens this election, not one targeted the removal of a “progressive Labor” member. Balmain was held by the Greens, Newtown was a new seat that was nominally held by the Greens according to ABC electoral analyst Antony Green, and Ballina targeted a conservative National party member. And even if Labor had sitting members in those seats, an argument that the Greens should never contest them because they are “progressive” seems to me fundamentally anti-democratic. I ran as a Greens candidate in an inner-city seat against an incumbent Labor MP from the right-faction and campaigned on a progressive platform of LGBTIQ rights and the decriminalisation of abortion – opposed by the sitting Labor MP. Yet there was never a suggestion from left-wing sections of Labor that my opponent was unfairly targeting a progressive Greens candidate, even though the divide on key progressive policy issues was clear.
This idea that the Greens are simply posers who have undeservedly manoeuvred their way into politics is strongly held by the News Limited papers. Nearly every day last week the Daily Telegraph ran articles accusing Greens voters of simultaneously being self-interested millionaires and drug-addicted welfare recipients. If anyone is more confused about the Greens than the Labor party, it’s pretty clearly News Limited. An editorial in The Australian called the Greens a “hypocritical fringe party” because their voters apparently send their kids to private schools but support increased funding for public schools. Even if proposition is correct it’s unclear why The Australian believes highlighting the lack of self-interest in Greens voters is a bad thing for the party.
If the biggest external threat to the Greens is confused analysis from sections of the Labor party and Australian press, then the party should be feeling upbeat. The test in the lead-up to the next federal election is how the Greens use their new presence to impact politics. With a Coalition majority in the lower house and a right-wing majority in the upper house in NSW, the party is unlikely to have a huge legislative impact. Rather than considering that as a negative, it presents numerous exciting alternatives for how to do politics in NSW.
The Greens have an opportunity to build on the alliances forged during the election campaign and use their new strength to support the growing community campaigns against coal mining and privatisation, and for serious action on climate change and increased funding for our vital public services.
