As much as we can know anything these days, we can probably say the next election is going to be very close.
But what about the Greens, often called the third party of Australian politics? How are they faring with the Australian public? Have they successfully rebranded from being the party of the environment to being a broader based movement?
National Affairs Editor James Massola and Federal Political Correspondent Paul Sakkal joins Jacqueline Maley for Inside Politics.
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. This is inside politics. I'm Jacqueline Maley, it's Friday, November 15th. The latest Resolve Political Monitor poll, published in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age this week shows labor and the coalition are neck and neck in the two party preferred stakes. As much as we can know anything these days, we can probably say that the next election is going to be very close. But what of the Greens often called the third party of Australian politics? How are they faring with the Australian public? How well do voters know Greens leader Adam Bandt and have the Greens successfully rebranded from being the party of the environment to being a broader based movement, and are they unified as a team? Plus, later we will discuss the fate of Labor's misinformation bill, which is already hitting turbulence with the crossbench. Our chief political correspondent, David Crowe, has departed for Peru following the prime Minister to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting there this week. So in his place we have the two amigos. National affairs editor James Massola and federal political correspondent Paul Chuckle. Welcome, gentlemen.
All right, Jacqui, good to be with you. Hello, both.
James, I want to start with you because you've reported a lot on the greens in recent times. First of all, can you tell us what did the latest Resolve Political Monitor polling show about how well the Greens are faring with voters? Yeah.
Look, there are a couple of takeaways for me, Jacqui, from the resolve poll. I think it sort of showed two slightly contradictory things. First of all, it showed that the Greens have taken a small dip in terms of their share of the primary vote. What was more significant for me was the standing of the party's leader, Adam Bandt. Now, Adam Bandt is never going to be the most popular political leader in the country because he leads a smaller party. You know, you wouldn't expect a massive amount of support for him. But, you know, certainly positive territory is possible. We've seen that in the past. What this poll showed, though, he had a net likability rating of -50 or -15 percentage points, and that made him the equal third least liked politician in Australia. So you had Lydia Thorpe, the former Greens senator, way up on top of the dubiously on top of the list. And then you had Pauline Hanson coming in second, and then Bandt was equal with Bob Katter. So not a great result. The other thing I thought that was really interesting, Jacqui, was we also asked a series of detailed questions about Greens policies. Now there was a real disconnect here. For example, the policy on putting dental care into Medicare and putting psychological care into Medicare that was extremely popular. Many of their other policies, student debt relief, things like that were popular as well. But that obviously isn't boosting the Greens support, nor is it boosting Adam Bandt. It also showed that the party's position on the war in Palestine didn't have the level of support you might have thought that they would have, given that it's an issue that the Greens have spoken and focused on so much this year. In some ways, you know, I think they probably thought there'd be some kind of political dividend from that, but there certainly has not been. Yeah.
Okay. That's interesting. And on that point, Paul, in recent years, the Greens have really broadened their scope. Once upon a time, they were just pretty much the party of the environment, maybe the party of climate change, but they've become a much broader based movement. So what other issues have become key for the Greens? James just mentioned Palestine.
Yeah. You often hear this critique from labor people. Now that the party is not the party of Bob Brown anymore. I think it's a it's simplistic and there's truth to it, but there's also some, some a misleading element to it. I spoke to Bob Brown and Christine Milne, who was his successor as Greens leader a few weeks ago, about this question. If you look at the 70s and 80s, when the Greens were formed. Peace and non-violence. And being anti-war has always been a really core tenet of the Greens party. Environmentalism has obviously been the fundamental part of it, and the environment was its probably its biggest issue until some time in the last decade. And Christine Milne and Bob Brown both talk about the fact that the inequality crisis that's really came to to life post-gfc around the GFC and subsequently, which is kind of, in their view, tearing apart Western society, hollowing out the middle class, has exacerbated the housing crisis, has created social and both inequality and unrest that has come to the forefront of Greens political manoeuvring. Adam Bandt, in his first years in Parliament around 2010, talked about how the Greens are not just the environmental party, but are the party of kind of radical economic policy. He sees economics and and economic justice as just as important. A part of Greens political philosophy and Greens grains political tradition as the environment. And I think as those issues have risen in salience and climate change has potentially dropped in salience slightly because there is greater consensus on the left with labor coming on board on climate change that has risen in terms of importance within the Greens party as a as a point of differentiation.
Yeah.
So we I mean, we have the social issues like Palestine and, you know, LGBTQ+ kind of issues. I think on the one hand. But then we have, as you say, the economic issues. So that's like tax reform, negative gearing reform, CGT reform and housing affordability. So housing affordability, you know, the the Greens housing affordability spokesperson Max Chandler-mather has almost become I would call him like a breakout star from the Greens in recent years. The PM seems to personally dislike Max Chandler-mather to quite an intense degree, it seems. I mean, what does that tell you? How big of a threat is that issue of housing affordability and the salience of that, particularly for younger Australians to the Labour voting bloc or the Labour younger voter cohort. James.
Look, I think it's hugely significant if you're under 35 or 40. I think increasingly you're thinking, how the heck am I ever going to buy a house? Like, you know, absent the bank of mum and dad, which is more and more of a factor of getting younger Australians onto that rung. You know, the first rung on the ladder, um, housing is absolutely central to the Greens approach to winning more support, winning more seats at the next election. I think you're right that Max Chandler-mather has been a breakout star this year for the Greens. I think you're right that the PM doesn't like him. That's extremely clear in Question Time.
He really doesn't. He really doesn't hide his antipathy at all.
No I know. And look, I actually think there's a lot of a young of the young Anthony Albanese in Chandler May that they're both firebrands. They're both, you know, no compromise, hard left sort of warriors for their for their causes. And obviously the PM is a bit older than Max. And, you know, over time your views moderate and you sort of do things differently. But I actually think there's some kind of thread there that sort of binds them together. To bring this discussion back to the poll that we ran earlier this week, two of the key policies the Greens are pushing freezing and capping rent increases, phasing out negative gearing and capital gains tax. So the rent caps and freezes hugely popular with voters phasing out negative gearing and capital gains. Not quite as popular but still majority support. So the Greens are kind of on a winner there where I think they're losing a bit of paint, is they've blocked the Labour policies of its, uh, bill to rent and help to buy to to housing schemes. I think people are disappointed in them doing that much in the same way that there was anger at the Greens in 2009 when they blocked Kevin Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It's that they're in that kind of dangerous position where it's possible to argue that they're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, or they're not allowing anything to happen because they want the utopian kind of ideal to be reached, which is their housing schemes. But, um, that notwithstanding, housing has been a key issue. And Chandler-mather, I think, has done really well.
And Paul, which voter, cohort or cohorts does the Greens hope to steal from labor in particular with the housing affordability issue making it so front and centre?
Well, it's those who are under rental stress and people who have potentially just broken into the housing market as well, who are under big mortgage stress. Um, but to, um, just to the point of the kinds of voters who the Greens want off labor at the last election as well. And this goes to James Point. James point to, um, I spoke to a labor person who was from Queensland who studied the last election results where the Greens won three seats in that city, which is two more than they hold across the rest of the country. And the key group that they peeled off labor last time was a group of voters who were mostly younger but also in their 30s and 40s. So yeah, on the younger side, but not necessarily people in their 20s who are radicals, but people largely who wanted to vote against Scott Morrison because they were very dissatisfied with that government looked to Labor and Albanese and saw a small target opposition without a kind of hugely ambitious plan to address social and economic inequality. So they looked to the Greens at the last election because they were looking for a new home. They were looking for some ambition on housing, on climate. And these are people who wanted to see a more constructive approach from the Greens in this term of government, a more outcomes based Greens party, which was seeking wins and seeking to get runs on the board rather than seeking to have kind of hyperbolic, supercharged fights at every point. And Labor's hope is that these people who have looked at the grains in this term of government had a close look, have found them to be radical on the Palestinian issue. But in up to the CFMEU and labor hopes some of those people might come back. And in Brisbane in particular, where some of those seats were former Liberal seats, the liberals hoped that some of those, you know, highly educated, higher income Greens voters, which is a significant chunk of the Greens base. The Greens base is not all 21 year old university radicals come back to the Liberal Party.
Yeah. And you've seen, you know, Labor and Albanese very much paint the Greens that way or tried to paint the greens that way in this um, in this government as radical, unable to compromise and essentially just kind of not serious players in sort of the policy space. The Greens have had a lot of bad publicity this year. There was Max Chandler-mather was criticised for appearing at the CFMEU rally a few months ago. They've been condemned for not condemning pro-Palestinian activism that's turned violent. James, you've reported on issues with recently with Greens Senator Dorinda Cox and her staff turnover. Tell us about how bad the brand damage has been with those kinds of issues. And, you know, that's not even mentioning Lidia Thorpe, former Greens senator.
Yeah. Look, indeed, I think the Max Chandler-mather issue, you know, appearing at the CFMEU rally to go to Paul's point, it does hurt the Greens to at least some extent because it's that it throws up that question in the mind of, you know, the non 21 year old university radical who votes for the Greens. Hang on, what do these guys stand for. And similarly with the Palestinian the strong Palestinian support I think it just plants seeds of doubt or asks. It prompts people to ask questions about who are these guys that you know, I voted for in 2022 and on the Dorinda Cox stuff? Look, I think that's been pretty damaging for the Greens and in particular for Adam Bandt, the party leader, in terms of how they've handled it. What we've seen over the last month and a half or so, the series of stories that I've been writing about this is essentially that Senator Cox has lost at least 20 staff over a period of three years. Now, a normal, you know, Backbencher's office has about five staff in it, so that's four times a full complement of staff who've left in that time and why these staff are leaving. Many of them, not all of them. 15 I've spoken to say it is for these reasons. They allege bullying. They allege it's sort of a difficult work environment. Unreasonable demands. Some of them made complaints to the leader's office and they say they haven't been addressed. Some of them have made complaints as well to the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, which was set up after the Jenkins review, to deal with these sorts of issues. Because political offices are high pressure environments, and these staffers, some of whom are on the record, some of whom, you know, preferred to remain anonymous. They say the U.S. has done a terrible job at handling these complaints, these issues, and all the way through. You know, Adam Bandt, when I've asked him at press conferences, when others have asked him at press conferences, has said, oh, no, look, it's a matter for poofs when I've said, you know what? But what about your office? What did it do particularly? What did it do before the poofs was even set up? Because these complaints go back to late 2021 and he just won't answer the question. So what it's resulted in is some really bad blood within the Greens, you know, between sort of rank and file supporters, particularly in the WA branch where Senator Cox is from, and the national office, which is saying, look, there's nothing to see here. And WA wanted to censure her. The national office intervened to stop that happening. And the issue, you know, it's still on foot, Jacqui but it's it's been tough for them.
Yeah. And and as you say, Adam Bandt has sort of batted the issue at least publicly. I want to ask you about his leadership just to finish up this topic. Is he the best person to keep leading the Greens? Is he does he have a unified team behind him? Does he have the support of his party room.
At this stage? He does. Adam Bandt does have the support of his party room. Jacqui. But if the Greens go backwards, maybe even if they only hold their ground at the next election, I would not be surprised to see him step back though. Certainly there'll be people in the party room asking questions, because the strong view in the Greens has been for a long, long time that their best selection is always the election after a labor government gets in. Because you get a cohort of labor people who think, oh, you know, Kevin Rudd didn't go far enough or Julia Gillard didn't do enough, or elbows let me down or whoever it might be, and that's the opportunity for them to harvest votes. That's this election coming up. That's 2025. So if they don't go forward, there'll be problems.
So it's a big test. Yeah.
Jack, I just wanted to make the point on how rare it is for reporters to get really good access on what goes on in the grains and to kind of delve into the fissures inside the party. So James has done an exceptional job in in doing that. And I think it's highlighted something that we're kind of aware of but haven't really been able to see reported, which is a party culture that's at a real inflection point. And I think on the trans issue, the Palestinian issue on the CFMEU, you saw this as well. It's a a secretive party that doesn't have an ability to do the kind of top down leadership that the coalition and Labor are able to do, where discipline is able to be instilled across a party, machines, that you can reach a kind of reasonable outcome on an issue that's pragmatic and and satisfies a kind of, uh, a voter who doesn't have the most radical view on an issue. I think Adam Bandt is struggling on a bunch of different topics to resist going down the path of the loudest voices in his party, which means that their public positions often express the most radical position because they are the they are the group with the most energy inside the party. And because the party is so secretive and hostile to outside voices and outside scrutiny, it means that you get these kind of warped positions that become party policy, which creates the impression of a party that's too far to the left.
Yeah.
It's fascinating. Just on the on the issue of leadership, who might take over from Adam Bandt when and if he stands aside.
For me, the two standout candidates would be Larissa Waters or Sarah Hanson-Young. And I think Mehreen Faruqi, the current deputy, would also have a very good show.
Paul, just quickly on that.
Well, I think the answer to that lies in how the party deals with this kind of crisis point. It's reached crisis is maybe too strong a term, but they're definitely at a point where for for the first time in a really long time, there's media and public scrutiny on the party and their and their direction and their style and their approach. If the party wants to go down the same approach, the same path that's been on, and if they determine that the kind of last few months of criticism has just been a blip. But this approach will work long term. Then they might opt for a marine Farooqi or a David Shoebridge or a max Chandler-mather. If the party determines that they need a kind of reconnect with that older, more informed, more highly educated Greens voter than they might up for a Barbara Pocock or a Sarah Hanson-Young. A kind of more traditional green.
There could.
Be blood on the floor after the next election.
Max. I think Max Chandler-mather will definitely lead the party one day, and it was an oversight on my part to not mention David Shoebridge. I think he'd be in the mix as well.
There we go. So many fireworks ahead, we hope. Very quickly, let's go to the fate of Labor's misinformation bill, which probably a lot of listeners won't even really be across or won't even really know much about, because I don't think it's been particularly well communicated by the government. Um, Paul, just quickly, what is that bill supposed to do?
It's quite complex, but at its core, it gives ACMA, the communications regulator, the power to kind of set industry standards across social media companies, so x Instagram, TikTok to ensure that they have processes in place to deal with either mis or disinformation. So either intentional, widespread misinformation that causes harm or things that are demonstrably false. The flaw in this bill, according to many experts, is that one, it's unclear who which agency or fact checker or bureaucrat determines what is the truth of an issue. There's also conjecture about whether the truth or whether the bill might encompass opinion or invective, or whether it's actually just limited to things like, um, kind of claims about election processes that are obviously false. And then there's also concern about what the minister's power is to direct ACMA to look into. So the government is keen to impress upon people that this bill does not give the regulator the power to take down individual pieces of content which would clearly trigger free speech concerns, but rather it forces social media companies to create holistic approaches to dealing with mis and disinformation at the threat of punishment and fines if they do not do so. But particularly with the kind of what we see in the US with the increasing influence of Elon Musk, uh, much really widespread concern on the on the conservative side of politics about censorship and free speech. Um, it's quite an inopportune time for Labour to be pursuing quite a radical policy of this sort. And as you say, I think they've done quite a poor job in convincing both the kind of public policy establishment as well as the political establishment and just the general public about the need for this bill and how it would not impinge on free speech.
Yeah. And as you know, various constitutional experts have pointed out, if you're going to have a definition of misinformation, then you need to have someone who's the arbiter of the truth. And I don't think anyone wants a ministry of truth set up or anything. No one put their hand.
Up for that job, are they, Jackie? No. Do you want to do it? No.
Thanks very much, fellas. That was very interesting. We're going to keep an eye on that legislation, because it does look like it's going to be in trouble of passing the House and the Senate. So thanks very much. We'll see you very soon.
Great to chat guys. Thank you. Thanks, guys.
Today's episode of Inside Politics was produced by Julia Carr Katzel, with technical assistance by Dave McMillan and Debbie Harrington. Our head of audio is Tom McKendrick. Inside politics is a production of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy the show and want more of our journalism, subscribe to our newspapers today. It's the best way to support what we do. Search the age or Smh.com.au forward slash. Subscribe. I'm Jacqueline Maley, this is Inside politics. Thank you for listening.