Q&A: Labor's Chris Bowen rules out Greens collaboration despite election uncertainty

Date: July 5, 2016

(29)
Comments 155

Georgina Mitchell

Reporter

View more articles from Georgina Mitchell

Follow Georgina on Twitter Email Georgina

Replay Video Icon

Player help icon

Return to video

Video settings

Please Log in to update your video settings

Video will begin in 5 seconds.

Video settings

Please Log in to update your video settings

Q&A;: Bowen adamantly rejects Greens alliance

Chris Bowen rejects the idea of a Greens coalition in no uncertain terms on Monday night's Q&A.

PT2M2S 620 349

Labor has again ruled out collaborating with the Greens, despite a cliffhanger election result which leaves both major parties with the possibility of forming minority government.

Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen rubbished any possible collaboration on the ABC's Q&A on Monday night, in a terse exchange with Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young.

Sarah Hanson-Young examinesChris Bowen amid a terse exchange. Photo: ABC

In response to a questioner who asked if Labor should "stop being so bloody-minded" and "join hands" with the Greens, with whom they share ideological similarities, Bowen said he did not agree.

"We said before the election, it was a firm commitment, no deals, concessions, agreements with any minor party. Greens, Xenophon, anybody else," Bowen said, as Sarah Hanson-Young laughed incredulously.

"That was our position before the election, it's our position right now. People questioned it and said 'surely if it's a hung parliament you'll try to get office'. That's our position.

Josh Frydenberg named several Independents the Coalition would be willing to work with. Photo: ABC

"What happens next is firstly a matter for Malcolm Turnbull. He's the incumbent Prime Minister, he gets the first opportunity to form a government in consultation with the crossbench.

"Labor governs alone or not at all. It's a principle that John Curtin outlined, it's a principle that I believe in, and it's a principle that I think is important for who we stand for, who we are."

He said Julia Gillard's co-operation with the Greens in the past was "in hindsight, an error".

Chris Bowen ruled out any collaborations with the Greens, in a move criticised as "arrogant". Photo: ABC

"It's not a criticism I made at the time. I look back and say we didn't need to do that, and we shouldn't do it again."

Ms Hanson-Young called for unity, saying the Australian public had voted for "a variety of different voices" so those voices had to work together.

"Our job now, as parliamentarians, whatever colour we wear, is to roll up our sleeves and work out how we can actually work together," she said. "The winner-takes-all attitude is what has been shunned by the Australian people. They've had enough of it."

Bowen responded that was "not going to happen" and denied his attitude of refusing to negotiate was "arrogant".

"You can put your case, but it takes two to tango, we're not on the dance floor," Bowen said.

"It's not arrogant, it's a statement of fact. We went to the election with policies, if we form a government, we want to implement those policies. Not Greens policies."

Hanson-Young responded: "But you haven't won Chris. You haven't been able to do that."

Bowen's steadfast views contrasted with earlier comments from Liberal MP Josh Frydenberg, who said the Coalition was willing operate as a minority government by partnering with independents from conservative backgrounds such as Nick Xenophon, Cathy McGowan or Bob Katter.

"A government that wins the confidence on the floor of the house is the government of the day," Frydenberg said.

"I think we all have an interest – Chris and myself, as representatives of the two major parties – to make the government work, because that's what the Australian people want from an election."

155 comments

Bowen is right. The Greens are a party of protest. Under the Gillard government there was too much compromise from Labor. The failed attempt at bring in an ETS is an example of this. If the Greens knew how to compromise it could be a different story.

Commenter

Ross

Location

Drummoyne

Date and time

July 05, 2016, 8:12AM
- Climate change is a critical problem facing Australia and the world. It is not going to be alleviated by petty name calling. Both the major parties are beholden to the coal mining industry and to a limited extent I can appreciate the need for export dollars and trade but its future is limited.
  The ALP will not move on coal and renewable energy because of the CFMEU and donations from the mining corporations. The LNP will not move on coal because of the mining corporations and the BCA. The NP in fact supports CSG over its constituency because without corporate funding it would be dead in the water.
  Action on climate change is desired by a majority of Australian voters on both sides of politics as surveys have shown time and time again. This is part of the disconnect by moderate and centrist voters. Stop the garbage and deliver!
  
  Commenter
  
  Voyage au bout de la nuit
  
  Date and time
  
  July 05, 2016, 8:46AM
- 1) The Greens, from their own history of over 30 years of active election participations, must have realised that the total vote for them is never going to be much more than 12% which would never give them 1 to 3 seats in the lower house. For the senate, only small states such as Tasmania, could they get significant support which is not repeated in other states.
  2) That is, the Greens understand that they would NEVER become a major political party and hence have any proper say in any government short of HUNG parliament. So the Greens must be aiming to STEAL POWER by stealth entering into agreement with ALP in a hung parliament.
  3) The Greens need to ask themselves one simple glaring question why they could not have more than 12% votes after decades of trying and why hardly any time they could not even exert much influence in the senate.
  4) Simply, the Greens' polices are NOT what the MAINSTREAM community accept. This is democracy and the majority rules and not the other way round.
  5) Lastly, if the LGBT issues are resolved in their favour which is likely sooner or later, would the Greens have other than the Climate issues to draw sustainable supports? Perhaps not much once some Climate polices and measures are ok with the general public.
  
  Commenter
  
  JJ
  
  Location
  
  Hornsby
  
  Date and time
  
  July 05, 2016, 8:59AM
- Labor do not want this opportunity to govern so refusing a Greens deal makes sense. The LNP have created this political and economic disaster we are confronted with so it seems only fair that they form a temporary government, fail miserably with a recession being the outcome and then we can have a decade of Labor reforms to move forward again.
  
  Commenter
  
  seen it coming
  
  Location
  
  safely out of debt
  
  Date and time
  
  July 05, 2016, 9:10AM
- You're right, Ross. I am still furious at the Greens refusal to support an ETS in 2009, because it wasn't enough. It wouldn't have been an issue for Turnbull, with majority support for the proposal, in both houses, from Labor and the Greens and Turnbull could have sat back. That pig headedness lead to the rise of Tony Abbott and the country has been going backward ever since. Think about it, we could have had an ETS for nearly 7 years by now, working toward making Australia a low carbon economy, but it's not, all because of the Greens!
  
  Commenter
  
  Shorty
  
  Location
  
  The Basin
  
  Date and time
  
  July 05, 2016, 9:10AM
- Voyage au bout de la nuit
  "Action on climate change is desired by a majority of Australian voters....". I would suggest that climate change does not occupy very much of the majority of Australian voters thinking time at all. It was hardly even a front and centare issue at this issue at all, especially compared to the previous two elections.
  
  Commenter
  
  Paul E
  
  Date and time
  
  July 05, 2016, 9:15AM
- @Ross | Drummoyne, who writes: "The failed attempt at bring in an ETS is an example of this. If the Greens knew how to compromise it could be a different story."
  KRudd's ETS was so hopelessly compromised, handed so much over in arbitrary giveaways, with potential for so much corruption and market distortion and manipulation, the Greens were spot-on to reject it.
  It's worth remembering that KRudd's ETS was designed to dovetail with that other dog's breakfast of a failure, the EU's ETS.
  The package we got in the end, Gillard's Clean Energy Futures, still suffers the basic flaw of being based on derivative trading, demanding that the economy be bent and twisted to exactly fit some pre-ordained "emissions cap", but it was better thought-through than KRudd's ETS.
  One day in the distant future, we'll look back and tell each other that we should have gone for a revenue-neutral Consumption Tax on Fossil Carbon all along. For a short explanation of why this is so, look for Oxford Energy Policy Professor Dieter Helm's "Forget Kyoto: Putting a Tax on Carbon Consumption". It's a short article, posted online, that only takes a few paragraphs to explain why "cap-and-trade" is the lousiest scheme you could have for emissions reduction ... unless you are a derivative trader looking to make your fortune?
  
  Commenter
  
  David Arthur
  
  Location
  
  Queensland
  
  Date and time
  
  July 05, 2016, 9:17AM
- Ross
  Have a look and see how many seats Labor won with The Greens preferences.
  Without The Greens preferences Wyatt Roy in Longman would still be there.
  And that goes right across the board.
  I guess its OK for Labor to accept preferences and give nothing in return.
  
  Commenter
  
  A Green
  
  Location
  
  Australia
  
  Date and time
  
  July 05, 2016, 9:29AM
- And this also shows that if any party is arrogant or bloody minded, it is the Greens. They are uncompromising and have a dictatorial attitude in demonstrating too often, our way or the highway. They have shown as stated in this comment that they do not understand that politics is of compromise. I agree with many of their positions in many areas, but the methods and way of implementing those positions are political poison which will fail without broad support from the public, which they do not have. The carbon pricing on coal is the prime example of a failed policy because it was forced upon the public by the Greens after Labor said it would not be, but did so to secure a minority government. Labor bared the full political cost when Abbott and the LNP took the obvious opportunistic, populist, political stance of opposing it. Whats to stop the Greens trying to do this again?
  And finally, why would Labor want to team up with the Greens, who are at every opportunity trying to lever seats away from the Labor party and not contest LNP seats as vigorously or with as much determination? The greens are as much a political rival to labor as are the LNP and not an ally. If the Greens want to form a "Coalition" or a working relationship with Labor, they must first stop being such hard political adversaries and form that bond of co-operation. But, unfortunately, they don't seem to know how to do that either, or what that word means in a political sense, and thus Labor have every right to reject them.
  
  Commenter
  
  Rover the dog
  
  Date and time
  
  July 05, 2016, 9:36AM
- Irony is it was the Liberals inability to compromise that got them in this mess.
  
  Commenter
  
  Justin
  
  Date and time
  
  July 05, 2016, 9:37AM