2025-02-22 06:02:58
2025-02-22 06:02:57
2025-02-22 05:45:24
1360467
![Droppie [infosec] 🐨♀:archlinux: :kde: :firefox_nightly: :thunderbird:🦘:vegan:](photo/contact/80/e06dbe5c262a45b39cab308158b6dd0a09ff2a52?ts=1733720940)
Inhaltswarnung: Jack Waterford | Whether Labor or Liberals, independents must put boot on neck of next govt
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8898435/teals-and-independents-would-hold-the-power-in-a-hung-parliament
QUOTE BEGINS
Any teal or independent standing for the House of Representatives at the election would be well advised to keep schtum about their cards in the upcoming poker game.
All will depend on the numbers and negotiations with the major parties and each other following the election. Indeed, any one of them who cannot resist the temptation "to come clean with the electorate" on their intentions may be dealing themselves out of any bargaining process.
The most recent polls confirm that the most likely result will be a hung Parliament, with the independents determining which party will sit on the Treasury benches. The Coalition could win more seats than Labor, or than Labor combined with the Greens. But the crossbenches could well contain up to 16 or more teals and independents, suggesting that the Coalition will fall short of the numbers to govern in its own right. It needs to be so close to that number (effectively 76) that the Coalition can lure independents not aligned with the teal agenda.
The allegiance of the Greens (however many there are) to Labor, can be taken for granted. Labor figures that it is because they have nowhere else to go, and thus that it can abuse Greens without limit. I often wonder whether that is wise policy.
The Coalition would expect the support of Bob Katter. They could get up to four more, unless there is a grand reconciliation with the teals. I doubt that this will happen, but I also doubt that the Teals will ever give anything more than passive support to Labor. Perhaps they will guarantee supply. But also insist they are not pre-committed to a legislative program beyond an item-by-item basis. And even then, only after some Labor support on its own agenda.
None of the other independents should be taken for granted. Nor should it be assumed that the teal independents will vote as a bloc, though it would be to their negotiating advantage if they had a core of common views or demands.
Coalition supporters will say to returning teal members, and Zali Steggall and Helen Haines, that they sit in seats that have been traditionally on the Coalition side. It is almost impossible to imagine that Labor could win any of them. Coalition supporters would probably point to 2010, when Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott - both former Nationals from traditional National seats - decided to support Julia Gillard rather than Tony Abbott, as evidence that voters wreak vengeance about showing up in the enemy's ranks.
The teals might admit that Labor has done the teals no favours during the last term of government.
Anthony Albanese and Katy Gallagher were foolish to cut the staffing entitlements of teals at the beginning of the term. It seemed a deliberate insult, and, in retrospect, caused much more offence than the government needed. Albanese's sense of tactics or strategy (which included his extraordinary strategy of "preserving the two-party system" also saw the teals virtually excluded from National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill negotiations, in the process deliberately breaking Labor's own promises, and ignoring teal commitments. The gratuitous discourtesies will, I expect, be one day returned with interest, and just when Labor needs their support.
Albanese also disappointed teals over carbon targets, and, towards the end of the term over national environmental protections. He also disappointed most of the independents over his campaigning regarding the Voice to Parliament referendum, but, just as seriously, over his prolonged sulk after its defeat. That has seen Indigenous policy at a standstill - perhaps going backwards during his term.
Broken promises on gambling - effectively the surrender, again, of protection of the weak against those who ruthlessly exploit them, have undermined Labor's moral authority to govern. That's a matter which no doubt enrages anew Andrew Wilkie in particular, because he was betrayed, more than a decade ago, by Julia Gillard on the same issue.
Casual abandonment of promises and principle, and Labor's return to a culture of open and partisan rorting over electoral funding, has frustrated any casual bond with the teals, even though Labor is not in any competition for teal seats.
Perhaps the strongest single campaigning point for the Teals and sympathetic independents would stress the advantage to the public of a group with real balance of power and ideas for exercising it. A hung Parliament is not an impotent parliament but one that can be creative and progressive in ways that a clear outcome can prevent. Labor and the Coalition have become so corrupted and complacent from bare majority government that they ignore the experience and the wisdom of those who are revolting against the tyranny of the two-party state. It can be pitched differently to different classes and age groups of voters, each time appealing to a restorative idea. The primary agenda in question is the reform of governance, and the restoration of convention and process.
The Morrison era saw a serious erosion in the calibre of government. Corruption became more evident. Financial management controls, whether by ministers or public servants, seemed to become voluntary. Money was pushed into the private sector without proper process, tenders or value-for-money controls. In significant respects it might be said that Donald Trump is following a path of governing by whim set by Morrison.
As robodebt illustrated, governments imposed cruel and unconscionable rules that were in breach of the law. Members of the public became uneasy about blatant illegalities and defiance of due process. The unease increased with evidence of government indifference to exposure, and reports from the Auditor-General. The contempt for audit reports from the prime minister, and senior ministers including Dutton, was matched by the contempt still in evidence from many in the public service.
In opposition, Labor and other groups including the teals were shocked by the misbehaviour and promised better. Governance did not get reformed because Labor's zeal for returning the system to regularity wilted as soon as it got power. There have been no systemic changes to the public service.
The Public Service Commission is openly campaigning against FOI, notionally the policy of the government. It has failed to follow a recommendation by the robodebt commission about issuing instructions trying to restore the proper documentation of government decisions. There's no virtue in that if senior public servants produce documents that could be accessible to FOI, it says. Inside government FOI and open government have no champion.
A focus on the unfinished agenda has another commonsense point. Wanting a higher quality of accountability and honesty in government is hardly radical. It is conservative: seeking a restoration of standards, openness and probity that had, in theory always existed. It is a supreme irony that modern conservatives have broken and disrespected once universal rules, and destroyed many of the institutions of civil society. Successive inquiries have exposed the dishonesty of senior bankers. Others the fundamentally venal morality of the consulting industry and major retailers. There has been a marked deterioration of ethical standards in institutions of government, of private institutions, and among civil institutions, including charities, religious bodies and some of the institutions of the law. The collapse of ethical standards and of public expectations of good citizenship has eroded trust. Undoing this is a major task, essential for a better society. It is not beyond the wit of good men and women to change. It is a noble task to which independents could recommit themselves.
Judging by these standards many might think that the teals (and hapless voters) owe the Labor government nothing. It is from Labor and the Liberals that we deserve apologies. Albanese has not delivered better government. He has broken significant promises. Independents have the capacity, if they control the balance of power, to insist on improved performance as a condition of their support.
Of course, they could also force the alternative parties of government to change their attitude, their approach, and their spirit of cooperation. They could make it from either party a condition of political support. Most teals come broadly from Liberal Party philosophical ideas, particularly about free enterprise, even if, traditionally, they have been more liberal and moderate than the increasingly conservative Dutton party. Increasingly, however, they can argue themselves to be more virtuous than either Labor or the Liberals.
That the teals come from a philosophical stream different from Labor might seem to account for Albanese's strong antipathy to them. Curiously, however, Albanese repeatedly shows that he sees his main enemy as the Greens. A man who once said his mission was to defeat Tories devotes far more time to attacking the Greens, the party most philosophically close to Labor. It's the party whose preferences he needs to get re-elected. Fifty per cent of Labor's old following now votes Green. Labor has lost most of that through pragmatism-swallowing principles. Green preferences may generally go to Labor, a reason many Labor supporters point to as a reason not to be too concerned. But by no means does a smaller Greens turnout cause an increase in the combined share of the vote. Albanese's war against both the Greens and the teals creates the risk of getting squeezed between them.
Teals might well think they are more comfortable with a Labor regime, at least until the goals of a reform agenda are achieved. The Coalition is, if anything, more flatly opposed to action on climate change or environmental change than it was in Morrison's time. There are no obvious grounds for expecting better governance behaviour from Peter Dutton and his team. Dutton was himself one who, as a minister, had a very expansive view of his right to control public expenditure in his portfolio, even when it was being spent in a consciously partisan way. He has never apologised or committed himself to a higher standard than shown by Scott Morrison. If he becomes prime minister, he will most probably resume an autocratic and authoritarian style of governance. With an added aversion to anything that can be labelled "woke". And assisted by mostly the same senior public servants as Morrison used to have. None seem to have much examined their management philosophies or working contempt for those on welfare. All of the improprieties and poor public service leadership issues could be repeated tomorrow.
A change for the better depends on an independent boot placed on the neck of the next party in power.
#AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights ...1/2
QUOTE BEGINS
Any teal or independent standing for the House of Representatives at the election would be well advised to keep schtum about their cards in the upcoming poker game.
All will depend on the numbers and negotiations with the major parties and each other following the election. Indeed, any one of them who cannot resist the temptation "to come clean with the electorate" on their intentions may be dealing themselves out of any bargaining process.
The most recent polls confirm that the most likely result will be a hung Parliament, with the independents determining which party will sit on the Treasury benches. The Coalition could win more seats than Labor, or than Labor combined with the Greens. But the crossbenches could well contain up to 16 or more teals and independents, suggesting that the Coalition will fall short of the numbers to govern in its own right. It needs to be so close to that number (effectively 76) that the Coalition can lure independents not aligned with the teal agenda.
The allegiance of the Greens (however many there are) to Labor, can be taken for granted. Labor figures that it is because they have nowhere else to go, and thus that it can abuse Greens without limit. I often wonder whether that is wise policy.
The Coalition would expect the support of Bob Katter. They could get up to four more, unless there is a grand reconciliation with the teals. I doubt that this will happen, but I also doubt that the Teals will ever give anything more than passive support to Labor. Perhaps they will guarantee supply. But also insist they are not pre-committed to a legislative program beyond an item-by-item basis. And even then, only after some Labor support on its own agenda.
None of the other independents should be taken for granted. Nor should it be assumed that the teal independents will vote as a bloc, though it would be to their negotiating advantage if they had a core of common views or demands.
Coalition supporters will say to returning teal members, and Zali Steggall and Helen Haines, that they sit in seats that have been traditionally on the Coalition side. It is almost impossible to imagine that Labor could win any of them. Coalition supporters would probably point to 2010, when Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott - both former Nationals from traditional National seats - decided to support Julia Gillard rather than Tony Abbott, as evidence that voters wreak vengeance about showing up in the enemy's ranks.
The teals might admit that Labor has done the teals no favours during the last term of government.
Anthony Albanese and Katy Gallagher were foolish to cut the staffing entitlements of teals at the beginning of the term. It seemed a deliberate insult, and, in retrospect, caused much more offence than the government needed. Albanese's sense of tactics or strategy (which included his extraordinary strategy of "preserving the two-party system" also saw the teals virtually excluded from National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill negotiations, in the process deliberately breaking Labor's own promises, and ignoring teal commitments. The gratuitous discourtesies will, I expect, be one day returned with interest, and just when Labor needs their support.
Albanese also disappointed teals over carbon targets, and, towards the end of the term over national environmental protections. He also disappointed most of the independents over his campaigning regarding the Voice to Parliament referendum, but, just as seriously, over his prolonged sulk after its defeat. That has seen Indigenous policy at a standstill - perhaps going backwards during his term.
Broken promises on gambling - effectively the surrender, again, of protection of the weak against those who ruthlessly exploit them, have undermined Labor's moral authority to govern. That's a matter which no doubt enrages anew Andrew Wilkie in particular, because he was betrayed, more than a decade ago, by Julia Gillard on the same issue.
Casual abandonment of promises and principle, and Labor's return to a culture of open and partisan rorting over electoral funding, has frustrated any casual bond with the teals, even though Labor is not in any competition for teal seats.
Perhaps the strongest single campaigning point for the Teals and sympathetic independents would stress the advantage to the public of a group with real balance of power and ideas for exercising it. A hung Parliament is not an impotent parliament but one that can be creative and progressive in ways that a clear outcome can prevent. Labor and the Coalition have become so corrupted and complacent from bare majority government that they ignore the experience and the wisdom of those who are revolting against the tyranny of the two-party state. It can be pitched differently to different classes and age groups of voters, each time appealing to a restorative idea. The primary agenda in question is the reform of governance, and the restoration of convention and process.
The Morrison era saw a serious erosion in the calibre of government. Corruption became more evident. Financial management controls, whether by ministers or public servants, seemed to become voluntary. Money was pushed into the private sector without proper process, tenders or value-for-money controls. In significant respects it might be said that Donald Trump is following a path of governing by whim set by Morrison.
As robodebt illustrated, governments imposed cruel and unconscionable rules that were in breach of the law. Members of the public became uneasy about blatant illegalities and defiance of due process. The unease increased with evidence of government indifference to exposure, and reports from the Auditor-General. The contempt for audit reports from the prime minister, and senior ministers including Dutton, was matched by the contempt still in evidence from many in the public service.
In opposition, Labor and other groups including the teals were shocked by the misbehaviour and promised better. Governance did not get reformed because Labor's zeal for returning the system to regularity wilted as soon as it got power. There have been no systemic changes to the public service.
The Public Service Commission is openly campaigning against FOI, notionally the policy of the government. It has failed to follow a recommendation by the robodebt commission about issuing instructions trying to restore the proper documentation of government decisions. There's no virtue in that if senior public servants produce documents that could be accessible to FOI, it says. Inside government FOI and open government have no champion.
A focus on the unfinished agenda has another commonsense point. Wanting a higher quality of accountability and honesty in government is hardly radical. It is conservative: seeking a restoration of standards, openness and probity that had, in theory always existed. It is a supreme irony that modern conservatives have broken and disrespected once universal rules, and destroyed many of the institutions of civil society. Successive inquiries have exposed the dishonesty of senior bankers. Others the fundamentally venal morality of the consulting industry and major retailers. There has been a marked deterioration of ethical standards in institutions of government, of private institutions, and among civil institutions, including charities, religious bodies and some of the institutions of the law. The collapse of ethical standards and of public expectations of good citizenship has eroded trust. Undoing this is a major task, essential for a better society. It is not beyond the wit of good men and women to change. It is a noble task to which independents could recommit themselves.
Judging by these standards many might think that the teals (and hapless voters) owe the Labor government nothing. It is from Labor and the Liberals that we deserve apologies. Albanese has not delivered better government. He has broken significant promises. Independents have the capacity, if they control the balance of power, to insist on improved performance as a condition of their support.
Of course, they could also force the alternative parties of government to change their attitude, their approach, and their spirit of cooperation. They could make it from either party a condition of political support. Most teals come broadly from Liberal Party philosophical ideas, particularly about free enterprise, even if, traditionally, they have been more liberal and moderate than the increasingly conservative Dutton party. Increasingly, however, they can argue themselves to be more virtuous than either Labor or the Liberals.
That the teals come from a philosophical stream different from Labor might seem to account for Albanese's strong antipathy to them. Curiously, however, Albanese repeatedly shows that he sees his main enemy as the Greens. A man who once said his mission was to defeat Tories devotes far more time to attacking the Greens, the party most philosophically close to Labor. It's the party whose preferences he needs to get re-elected. Fifty per cent of Labor's old following now votes Green. Labor has lost most of that through pragmatism-swallowing principles. Green preferences may generally go to Labor, a reason many Labor supporters point to as a reason not to be too concerned. But by no means does a smaller Greens turnout cause an increase in the combined share of the vote. Albanese's war against both the Greens and the teals creates the risk of getting squeezed between them.
Teals might well think they are more comfortable with a Labor regime, at least until the goals of a reform agenda are achieved. The Coalition is, if anything, more flatly opposed to action on climate change or environmental change than it was in Morrison's time. There are no obvious grounds for expecting better governance behaviour from Peter Dutton and his team. Dutton was himself one who, as a minister, had a very expansive view of his right to control public expenditure in his portfolio, even when it was being spent in a consciously partisan way. He has never apologised or committed himself to a higher standard than shown by Scott Morrison. If he becomes prime minister, he will most probably resume an autocratic and authoritarian style of governance. With an added aversion to anything that can be labelled "woke". And assisted by mostly the same senior public servants as Morrison used to have. None seem to have much examined their management philosophies or working contempt for those on welfare. All of the improprieties and poor public service leadership issues could be repeated tomorrow.
A change for the better depends on an independent boot placed on the neck of the next party in power.
- Jack Waterford is a former editor of The Canberra Times.
#AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights ...1/2
Teals and independents would hold the power in a hung Parliament
Discover how independents could shape Australia's government with a hung parliament on the horizon ahead of the federal election.Jack Waterford (The Canberra Times)