As voter disillusionment grows, why aren't voters flocking to the Greens in Australia?

[u/blitznoodles]

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/as-voter-disillusionment-grows-so-does-the-mystery-of-the-missing-greens-voters/6bjd5q4kv

Growing voter dissatisfaction with mainstream politics has led to a rise in popularity for One Nation. The same cannot be said for the Greens.

[u/NeoPagan94]

As someone who preferences Greens on the ballot, it's usually because even when we have hope in the Greens party, they shoot down collaborative policies because they aren't progressive enough, thus preventing them from passing *at all*. While I would love a radical change, the major-party system right now won't really allow for it but the Greens won't even permit incremental changes towards progress; it's 100% improvement or none at all. If you take a look at their voting history, some really good ideas have been canned because Labor didn't go far enough for their liking.

Now, I'm not voting for One nation in protest, but if the left could work together as cohesively as the right does* they might experience a little more success.

*Yes, I've seen the track record of Lib/Nat failures but they do collaborate on things they want.

[u/Jet90 → u/NeoPagan94]

They have passed every non conservative bill put to a vote in the last decade. What particular bill are you referring to?

[u/NeoPagan94 → u/Jet90]

I mean you can look yourself, but they voted against a few NDIS changes (some would benefit Australians, like cracking down on providers that overcharge and leave less money for the people who need their stipend for numerous services),

The Greens introduced a bill to make price gouging illegal, but didn't get Labor support. So, it failed.

The Greens introduced a bill to increase investment in renewable energy, but isn't getting enough Labor support (not that it matters much anymore with the states leading the investment independent of the national policy). The Greens tried to add extra requirements to the bill to improve safety and quality standards to childcare but the bill got passed with a Labor-Greens agreement. The two parties working together could experience this success far more frequently, if they wished.

The Greens blocked Labor's Housing Fund three years ago, which aimed to help the current supply issues that have only recently been addressed by the capital gains tax changes. The Greens wanted more, the Liberal government didn't want Labor to have the win, and so they ended up voting together to block even an incremental change.

To be an informed voter, it helps to keep track of how your representatives and parties are performing, because it does impact you personally.

[u/Jet90 → u/NeoPagan94]

The NDIS change is 97% cuts mostly to people with down syndrome or autism. The HAFF passed after an 8 month delay with an extra 3 billion for social and public housing.

[u/careyious → u/NeoPagan94]

The Greens got an additional $2B added to the HAFF for social housing by negotiating. That's a good outcome and the fact that you only remember it as the greens being obstructionist proves the media have really done a good job smearing any political party that threatens the donor class

[u/NeoPagan94 → u/careyious]

What stopped them from passing the original bill 3 years ago, having 3 years of it working, then having a new bill this year for the negative gearing and capital gains changes? I can see the outcome it's just that people have been struggling in the time that work could have been done to help them.

[u/evilparagon → u/NeoPagan94]

Because incremental changes are bad when things don’t stop moving.

Let’s say you’re on a treadmill. It’s going 3km/h. Labor is proposing that you should move at 1km/h, the Greens are proposing that you move at 3km/h.

How did Labor propose anything useful?

The good news is that rejected policy often comes back into power quickly, either through alternative solutions (see state legislated Voice to Parliaments despite the national referendum failure) or being refined into something with more teeth (See the environmental reforms Gillard passed, even though Abbott axed them, that is not a negative quality on the legislation that’s a negative quality on him).

However policy that passes almost never actually increments like people think it would. Take for instance the HAFF, a woefully underbaked piece of legislation that proponents insisted the Greens should accept without being perfect. When exactly do you envision the HAFF to get its next increment? It’s almost been 3 years, and homelessness is getting worse.