Routinely in politics, there is a double standard for outrage. The same people who regarded Jacinda Ardern as a jackbooted tyrant seem to be quite unruffled by National riding roughshod over both local democracy (e.g. Chris Bishop’s “If you don’t [amalgamate], we’ll do it for you” message to councils) and also over the public’s ability to sue corporates for compensation over climate change pollution.

Basically, National is promoting an amendment bill that will retrospectively exempt firms from being taken to court for the environmental harms they are causing. Brazenly, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has claimed that a compliance mechanism already exists within the emissions trading scheme and therefore, having the parallel ability to pursue civil damages would only create business “uncertainty.” Diddums. Yet as RNZ’s Ingrid Hipkiss sharply retorted to Goldsmith, the ETS offers a compliance regime, not a compensation regime. Clearly the government is not giving certainty to corporate polluters; it is granting them immunity, and making taxpayers and ratepayers pick up the tab.

Along the way, the government is stopping our highest court from doing its job. The Supreme Court – which knows full well about the ETS legal mechanisms – unanimously agreed in 2024 that a case being brought by iwi leader Mike Smith had some merit and should proceed to trial. The case was due to be heard in April 2027. To help out the six corporates (including Fonterra) involved, the coalition government is aiming to halt that exercise in democracy in its tracks, while also ruling out any similar actions in future. The silence of the centre-right in the face of as Big Brother using the powers of the state to insulate Big Business from liability for its actions has been deafening.

As yet, Attorney-General Chris Bishop has not reported back to Parliament on whether this proposed bill will violate the provisions contained within the Bill of Rights. Even if the bill does violate those rights, Bishop will be ignored – just as Chris Finlayson was ignored when (as Attorney General) he told Parliament in detail about all the various ways that denying prisoners the right to vote would violate the protections enshrined in our Bill of Rights.

Given this track record, the government’s hypocrisy over climate change compensation is hardly surprising. The National Party’s zeal for law and order always tends to stop at the boardroom door.

One Nation, rising

Pauline Hanson is one of the few politicians able to make Winston Peters look like a team player. Hanson’s “my way or the highway” dominance of her party is, of course, one of the things that her followers love about her. Yet it has also made for a lonely 30 year political odyssey. The people hailing last week’s One Nation by-election victory as a sea change in Australian electoral politics are being over-excited. Hanson’s intransigence has always been an inbuilt restraint.

Hanson recent surge has been the direct by-product of two things: the unpopularity of the Albanese Labor government, and the recent leadership carnage within both arms (Liberals and Nationals alike) of the conservative coalition that comprises the federal opposition. Hanson and One Nation have been the lucky default option for disenchanted conservative voters left with no place else to go.

Yes, Hanson may also be pulling a few votes from the socially conservative wing of Labor. Yet at the moment, the Labor Party remains the main beneficiary of the swing towards Hanson. Look no further than the recent election result in South Australia, where One Nation surged amid the Liberal/NP infighting – and delivered a thumpingly great majority to the incumbent Labor administration in Adelaide. By soaking up all the oxygen in the centre-right tent, Hanson is proving to be Labor’s new best friend.

Have we reached Peak Pauline yet? Almost. The sorry fate of Peter Dutton in last year’s federal election should warn everyone about the vast difference between (a) a protest vote against an unpopular incumbent and (b) a vote for an alternative government. Our own Labour Party is about to discover that difference when it finally emerges from its self -imposed hibernation and starts to promote itself as an alternative government.

Our own teal movement

In Australia, the other big winners from the Hanson surge have been the so-called teal independents. As the Liberal -NP coalition devours itself and moves further to the right in an attempt to outdo One Nation, a larger and larger space opens up for the modern “blue green” editions of what the mainstream conservative parties used to look like before they swallowed the neo-liberal, anti-immigrant Kool Aid.

In New Zealand, the teal equivalent is the rebranded Opportunities Party. TOP is openly touting its “blue green” credentials, under new leader Qiulae Wong a former KPMG consultant with a work history in promoting sustainable business practices. In interviews, Wong has been promising TOP will be promoting policies of “pragmatic environmentalism” which some voters might regard as a warning sign. (On green issues, business likes greenies who are” pragmatic” about the needs of business. Business first, environment second is the usual result, when push comes to shove.

Wong is also continuing to promote TOP’s reform/replacement of the welfare system via a weekly Universal Basic Income (set at $370, the level of the Jobseeker payment) a land tax, and a compulsory Kiwisaver scheme pitchged at a level that ultimately, will allow for future pensioners to be means tested for National Super entitlements. At which point, National Super as we now know it, would no longer exist. Older women, already at a savings disadvantage under the current scheme risk being made worse off.

No doubt, a UBI offers some social advantages. Its relative simplicity of design and administration – via the IRD – would enable more beneficiaries to receive their proper entitlement. One risk with a simplified UBI support scheme – if it fully replaces the current range of welfare supports - is that any austerity-minded future government could find it that much easier to freeze or reduce the level of the UBI, in order to balance the books. Putting all (or most) of the welfare eggs in the UBI basket carries risks.

TOP has a rare chance of getting into Parliament this year because of National’s evident willingness to be captured by its junior partners. Under Christopher Luxon’s pliable leadership, National has happily allowed itself to be dragged off to the extreme right by ACT on one wing, and by New Zealand First on the other. On everything from socio-economic policy to Treaty issues to workplace relations to immigration, New Zealand has been moved sharply to the right, without there being any democratic mandate for these abrupt shifts.

National’s abject surrender has been mirrored by Labour’s equally abject refusal to do the job of being an opposition that proposes policy alternatives. In this void, Pauline Hanson’s local counterpart – New Zealand First – has thrived, largely by default. TOP could also thrive, among the traditional National/soft Labour voters who find Peters and Shane Jones to be abhorrent.

So far, the Greens (the red/green option) are not getting much traction beyond their traditional base. The Opportunities Party – which combines economic conservatism with a layer of environmentalism presents an option with less historical baggage, cats excepted.

Before people do turn to TOP however, it would be advisable for liberal voters to do due diligence on the role that a self-described “blue green” party of environmental “pragmatists” might play in green-washing a National-led government.

Footnote One: Has Australia really reached Peak Pauline? That depend on whether the Liberal/NP coalition can get its act together. Among the Liberals, Peter Dutton’s replacement Susan Ley got knifed by Angus Taylor, and the Liberals have been having buyers regret ever since, as Taylor lurches further rightwards to counter Hanson. Meanwhile, the Nationals have been carrying out their own series oif self- destructive coups.

Ironically, the Liberals have a viable option in their ranks that they seem implacably imposed to taking: an ex-military officer called Andrew Hastie. Yet as columnist Bernard Keane has pointed out on the Crikey website, Hastie is hated by the extreme right and by the Murdoch press for his decision to testify against the alleged war criminal Ben Roberts-Smith, in a landmark libel trial.

As Keane added, the Liberals could have celebrated Hastie’s testimony as a rare example of someone putting principle before politics. This example of moral courage could have attracted voters from across the political spectrum. Instead, the tribal hostility of the right wing/ media/corporate Establishment in Australia will make these kingmakers stick with Taylor until self-interest finally dawns, and they swallow hard and get in behind Hastie as their only good option. If they do so before the next election, Hanson’s balloon will deflate. Labor will be crossing its fingers and hoping that sense will not prevail.

Footnote Two: Could One Nation ever enter into a three way coalition with the Liberals and the Nationals? Probably not. Hanson has a track record of falling out with former colleagues within her own party, let alone with the potential allies on the right that she regularly demonises. Moreover, it is hard to imagine many of Australia’s urban voters ever ticking the box on any arrangement in which Pauline Hanson is calling the shots. And if Hanson isn’t calling the shots, she’ll pack up and go home.

Voices we know

I first heard this recent collaboration between Rob Burger and Sam Beam (aka Iron and Wine) on the soundtrack off the excellent TV series DTF St Louis, where its calming, melancholy mood felt right in place.

Another memorable Sam Beam collaboration has now cropped up on the new Iron and Wimne album. It enlisted the great Fiona Apple on a track about how relationships that survive, evolve:

© Scoop Media