By Mick Le Moignan
Regular readers (if there are any) may remember that I am deeply sceptical of political parties, especially where Jersey is concerned. My advice to anyone hoping to stand as a candidate in next year’s election is to refuse all party invitations, however beguiling.
In my view, the Island made a disastrous mistake when it abandoned the honorary system, which had served it well for centuries. Instead, it chose to try to lure a better class of representative into the political arena by offering handsome salaries and other perquisites for public service. How well has that worked out?
The error would be greatly compounded if elected representatives chose to gang up with each other and form alliances. This would limit their choices and dictate the way they vote. All political parties restrict their members’ freedom in this way to consolidate their electoral support.
But why? Politicians are paid handsomely out of the public purse, to represent the interests and concerns of the people who voted for them – and importantly, those who didn’t. Why should they have a higher loyalty to selected colleagues than to their constituents? Whose interests would such an arrangement serve?
These reflections are prompted by the way the political party system has played out in Australia over the past six months or so. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) government of Anthony Albanese was returned with a record majority at the May election – 94 seats out of 150.
An innocent bystander might have expected the ALP to use this majority to push through important social reforms. Australia has always prided itself on being the land of “the fair go”, but now there is rampant inequality. Many are either too old or too rich to work – or both. The tax system favours their (our) slothful behaviour. Many workers under the age of 40 cannot raise a deposit to purchase property – unless they are lucky enough to be supported by wealthy parents.
Previous Labor governments led by Whitlam, Hawke and Keating (and, to a lesser extent, Rudd and Gillard) carried out bold reforms which rebalanced the economy and helped the ambitious and aspirational to counter the advantages of “old money”.
In power, Albanese has become Labor’s John Howard, conservative to a fault, fearful to offend and mainly concerned to make sure his party wins the next election – and the next…
Meanwhile, the battered opposition is behaving like Monty Python’s maimed knight, determined to fight on regardless of the amputation of its arms and legs.
Until recently, there was unanimous, cross-party support for the national goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Scott Morrison’s government made the commitment when it signed the Paris Accord and Labor continued the policy when it was first elected in 2022.
However, earlier this month, the junior Coalition partner, the mainly rural National Party, decided to withdraw its support for net zero. This choice threw the remaining Liberal Party MPs into complete disarray.
Many who lost their seats at the May election were from the moderate wing of the party. They represented city electorates, where most voters understand the science, are deeply concerned about climate change and strongly support limiting emissions.
The departure of these moderates changed the complexion of the party. The mainly right-wing, anti-immigrant, Trump admirers who held their seats decided to flex their muscles. In a party room vote, they conjured a majority to join the National Party in opposing net zero.
No matter that it was their own initiative, when in government, they went on to decide, against all the evidence, that renewable power was too expensive and would lead to unacceptable increases in electricity bills. The fossil fuel lobby must have been delighted. Australia’s Liberal Party is now distinctly illiberal.
They know they can never return to government without winning back the city electorates – but they have chosen to tie their tattered flag to the mast of opposing net zero, rather than dissolve their coalition with the National Party. It would be almost noble, if it were not so absurd.
Labor is little better in this regard. Instead of using their huge majority to push through necessary reforms, they try to entrench their power by causing as little offence as possible. Their proposed Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act is fundamentally unfit for purpose.
A former Premier of Western Australia, Carmen Lawrence, wrote “with a heavy heart” in The Sydney Morning Herald last week, to accuse the government of “a failure of the duty of care owed to every Australian, to the places and species we love, and to our children’s futures”.
She pointed out that “the Albanese government has been approving fossil fuel projects at almost the same pace and zeal as its federal coalition predecessors… Meanwhile, climate disasters are tearing through the environment.”
Lawrence condemned the proposed Act as totally inadequate, “a smoke alarm with no batteries – installed when the house is already ablaze”.
Many members of Albanese’s government agree with her – but they are bound by party loyalty to vote for weak laws that will only fan the flames.
Opposition members are more interested in point-scoring and fighting “culture wars” than assessing any proposed legislation and voting on its merits or lack of them.
The independent politicians in Australia’s various parliaments have outstanding records of community service. They win voters’ trust on their own terms, instead of slavishly following a party line. They listen to their electors and decide which way to vote in accordance with their own conscience and on purely rational grounds, rather than being pushed around by party whips.
Independents and Greens currently hold the balance of power in the Senate. The wisest voice is often that of David Pocock, a recent Wallabies captain, now a Senator for the Australian Capital Territory.
Political parties tie themselves in knots. They are cumbersome, slow to adapt and frequently contradictory. Look at the current fiasco in Britain.
One of the great strengths of Jersey’s politicians is their independence. Long may they retain it.
