Under Richard Di Natale, Greens have an opportunity to work with the Coalition
|
Version 0 of 1. A new leader for the Greens means new opportunities for policy development and political strategy. With 10 votes in the Senate, the Greens can ensure the passage of any piece of government legislation they support. However, their strategy of voting against almost all Abbott government policy, even policies they support, has meant that few journalists (and even fewer voters) realise they currently share the balance of power in the Senate. Related: Christine Milne: her journey from Tasmanian 'farm girl' to Greens leader Victorian senator Richard Di Natale, a former GP, inherits a strong primary vote and a voting bloc in the Senate at a time when the electorate, and the Senate, are both in a state of flux. Since John Howard lost office, no prime minister has yet served a full term in office. Tony Abbott may, but he has already been challenged by his backbench. The public’s frustration with the major parties is reflected in the largest number of minor party and independent senators in modern Australian history. So what can the Greens do differently? The most obvious policy shift that needs to happen is the decision to oppose Joe Hockey’s attempt to reintroduce the indexation of fuel excise. Peter Costello’s reckless and populist decision to abolish fuel excise indexation in 2001 cost the budget around $42bn. The Greens have been demanding its reintroduction from the moment it was scrapped – their recent opposition to Hockey makes no policy or political sense. While the Greens have long advocated the need to collect additional tax revenue the political environment for such calls has never been more fertile. Virtually every economist in the country agrees that carbon taxes make sense, that tax concessions on superannuation need fundamental reform and that we need to reform the taxation of investment properties. Never before has there been such an opportunity for the Greens, or any political party for that matter, to propose a broad suite of equitable and efficient tax reforms to fund services Australian voters need. A new leader creates a big opportunity for a new narrative. A significant challenge for the Greens is to find a new way into the debate about climate change. While the issue should be their biggest political opportunity, nine years after Kevin Rudd first committed to an emissions trading scheme it has become a quagmire of policy detail and political compromise for the Greens. The incredible success of the divestment movement, and campaigns against coal seam gas and new coal mines, show just how effective a new political strategy to tackle climate change might be. Like the ALP, the Greens’ determination to stick with the need for carbon pricing is admirable, given the political climate created by Tony Abbott. But voters, and the planet’s atmosphere, need far more than another long conversation about the minutiae of emissions trading schemes that always work better in theory than in practice. Unfortunately the terms “carbon price” and “direct action” have taken on talismanic symbolic power in Australian politics. In reality, the Greens were once big fans of “direct action” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Contracts for Closure scheme they negotiated with the ALP was intended to spend billions of dollars paying polluting coal fired power stations to shut down. Arena and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation were also “direct actions” designed to augment the operation of the carbon price. In the lead-up to the 2016 election the new leader of the Greens should be able to shift both Greens policy, and the public debate, away from a phoney choice between a carbon tax and direct action and into a nuanced conversation about the need for both. Indeed, who better than a medical doctor such as Di Natale to draw an analogy between our multi-pronged war on tobacco consumption and the need for a multi-pronged policy war on greenhouse gas emissions. One of the biggest problems for the Greens has always been the perception that they are a single issue party, in an electorate that cares most about the provision of health, education, and economic management. As with climate policy, Di Natale has an intellectual and political edge in any effort to broaden the appeal of the party he now leads. His decision to deliberately link clean air and water, public education and affordable housing with good health is a smart start. Unfortunately for Milne, Tony Abbott came to office determined to “never do a deal with a minor party”. But after the bloody nose the Senate gave him over last year’s budget the mood, and the strategy, of the Coalition has shifted significantly. Just this week Scott Morrison was working hard to sound both sanguine and reasonable about the Senate, an attitude which might give a new Greens leader new opportunities to work with the government on areas of common interest. Related: Commission of Audit: political theatre trumps budget facts | Richard Di Natale While talk of an early election has been doing the rounds in Canberra, the most likely election date is more than 12 months away. Milne has given her party room, and their new leader, time to adjust to her parting. They will be able to reposition themselves and their platform before the next election. While long-run forecasts are a fool’s game in modern Australian politics, it is inevitable that a new leader of the Greens will mean some significant changes in both policy and approach. Given the state of flux in the parliament and the electorate, if Di Natale makes the right calls, his party may emerge from the next election in an even stronger position. Of course it will be the voters, not the commentariat, who will ultimately judge Di Natale’s new prescription for the country. |