Correction: a previous version of this article included the implication that Dr Monique Ryan had not expressed a substantive position on the legislation by the time of publication when she had in fact indicated that she would support the bill.
Shock! Horror! Labor appears to be in cahoots with… organised labour!
Such is the galling tone of criticism coming from the teal independents regarding the Albanese government’s industrial relations bill before Parliament, which represents the first modest step towards increasing Australian workers’ bargaining power in a decade. The teals, along with established crossbenchers such as Jacqui Lambie and Rebekha Sharkie, are clutching their pearls about the bill’s more pro-union elements and complaining of insufficient time for scrutiny.
Warringah MP Zali Steggall accused the government of an “unionising agenda”, as if this were controversial and not the Labor Party’s original purpose. Wentworth MP Allegra Spender criticised the bill as unsuited to the economic times, then voted with the opposition and fellow lower house teals, including Sophie Scamps, Kate Chaney and Monique Ryan, to establish a parliamentary committee, which would delay the legislation.
Their objections matter little given the government’s lower house majority. But in the Senate, independent David Pocock’s equivocation could see the bill delayed or watered down. He says he’s in favour of raising wages, but his previous criticism of the government’s construction industry reforms suggests he’s exceedingly cautious on IR changes.
These tepid soft-liberals are either mistakenly elevating procedural cleanliness over substantive reform, or are, as Bernard Keane wrote, “worrying that employers might get their shoes scuffed a little in removing them [from workers’ throats]”.
But it’s no wonder industrial relations split the teals, with some parroting business lobby talking points, while the more progressive Pocock exalts performative scrupulousness in lieu of a substantive position. This issue electrifies a key tension among the teals’ voting base — between young workers and old money.
Trendy hipsters v Liberal emigres
Broadly speaking, there were two kinds of teal voters in May. The media focused on the wealthier, embittered former Liberal voters, whose economic interests lay with the conservative establishment but whose social values differed from Morrison’s ailing rump on climate change and integrity.
But as I wrote in Crikey in the election’s aftermath, many teals also relied on demographic shifts towards younger renters in their electorates, spurred by an apartment construction boom in inner-urban suburbs. These voters were often students or young professionals, and were likely to favour Labor or the Greens, but many backed their local teal candidate given their climate credentials and electoral viability.
As with all electoral coalitions, different social groups that came together on shared priorities can hamstring politicians once the political agenda shifts to issues on which they diverge. IR is the teals’ first such test. Their younger voters often rent in trendier suburbs precisely because of the proximity to work, and because they can’t afford to buy a house. After years of wage stagnation, they need the pay rises Labor’s industrial relations bill promises.
Conversely, small “L” liberals who own properties and businesses are more likely to view wages as a cost than an income stream. Their progressivism is likely to wane when it hits their cheque books.
Don’t sell out young workers
From their protestations about Labor’s industrial relations bill, it seems some teals have cast their dies with the wealthier cohort, intent to keep them from decamping back to the Liberals in 2025. Or perhaps their discomfort stems from their own class backgrounds — young renters might have voted for them, but teal MPs themselves are all reasonably well-heeled.
But there are reasons for some teals to make more of an effort to keep their younger supporters onside. There are only more apartment blocks being built, and the old-money establishment isn’t getting any younger. Their electorates vary, but in some seats like Kooyong, it appears the younger faction played at least as large a role in flipping the seat as Liberal emigres, if not more.
And some teals cannot rely on the youth having nowhere else to go. Labor won many of their areas in the 2018 Victorian election — indeed, Ryan’s conviction she could unseat Josh Frydenberg probably came from Labor’s unlikely victory in the overlapping state seat of Hawthorn. The Greens are also very competitive in Melbourne’s inner south, and demonstrated their prowess in winning seats with similar demographics in Brisbane.
Whether the Dan-slide, the Greens-land sweep or the teal wave is the enduring success story of our changing inner suburbs is a legacy for the taking. If they keep stumping for the Business Council while real wages decline, it’s one the teals deserve to lose.
Update: On Thursday, November 10, Labor’s industrial relations bill was voted on in the House of Representatives. Melbourne-based teal MPs Zoe Daniel and Monique Ryan voted in favour of the bill, while Kate Chaney, Allegra Spender, Kylea Tink and Sophie Scamps voted against it. See the full list of MPs votes here.
Do you think the teals are leaving their most ardent supporters behind? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
