Labor and the Greens aren't strangers to conflict. But in this week's housing stand-off, something snapped
Labor and the Greens aren't strangers to conflict. But in this week's housing stand-off, something snapped
The delicate relationship between Labor and the Greens often swings from confrontation to cooperation. But this week, during the stand-off over the government's housing bill, something snapped, writes David Speers.
I make no secret of the fact that generally speaking, I'm a Greens supporter.
But I think they've misstepped here. I'll admit I haven't followed this issue very closely, and I've not heard the Greens tell their side of the story, so maybe they can change my mind. But assuming this article is accurate, I think they've misstepped.
To be clear, I agree with them that Labor's current policy isn't good enough. But it's the kind of "not good enough" that's still at least worth doing. Labor's original policy in this area was not "at least worth doing", but Labor has compromised and agreed to spend a minimum of $500 million per year on housing. At that point, I think even though it would be better to get even more, it's still good enough that blocking it is the wrong move.
I think I might write to my local MP, a Greens member, expressing this...
500 million a year is a joke. that’s, what, going to build like 1000-2000 houses a year.
we are bringing in over a thousand migrants A DAY.
we’re in a crisis, and labor needs to stop getting away with passing pissweak policy.
Yeah I've been a Greens supporter for yonks but I'm tired of the "make it perfect or no deal" approach they've had on some issues/bills over the years. They're always technically right but compromise is part of the process and letting that stifle momentum in the right direction has happened so much it shits me.
the “make it perfect or no deal” approach they’ve had on some issues/bills over the years
I know they've got a reputation for often doing that, but it's really not deserved. Take Kevin Rudd's climate policy, for example. Treasury modelling suggested it would have no meaningful impact until well into the 2030s. It wasn't a case of "not good enough, but better than doing nothing" like this seems to be. It was actually a case of "this is bad policy and we shouldn't pass it". Rudd was utterly unwilling to compromise, and ultimately that's what cost him the Labor leadership.
When Gillard came to the premiership, she was a far more effective leader. She worked with the cross-bench to get an exceptionally good policy passed. A policy that was world-leading and had a real measurable impact on our carbon emissions. A police that was reached because of compromise with the Greens.
Adam Bandt seems to be enjoying playing "wedge" politics right now. It's worked for him in the past, but I agree, this is not one of those times.
But assuming this article is accurate, I think they've misstepped.
Personally I wouldn't rely on opinion pieces from David Speers to tell an accurate story of something involving The Greens. He is quite obviously not their biggest fan. The housing spokesperson for The Greens has done interviews with both Speers and Sarah Ferguson within the last couple of weeks that I recommended people check out. Both journalists tried very hard to push the "Greens don't compromise" narrative but this criticism was countered very clearly and precisely.