What comes after the polls on March 25th?

Part One: Assessing the parties

On the 25th of March, New South Wales will head to the polls once again. A Coalition loss is on the cards, potentially ending twelve years of uninterrupted rule. In its place will be a Labor government, either in majority ruling alone, or in a minority government, relying on the support of minor parties and independents to get bills through. What can workers expect from whatever government forms? What hope, if any, can people on the left place on the Greens, the biggest left-wing force on the scene?

The last term in review

The last three years have been tumultuous to an unprecedented degree. In 2019-20, NSW experienced its worst bushfires on record, wiping out 2448 homes and burning 5.5 million hectares of land. Reports released after the event demonstrated that the cuts implemented by the Coalition government made the crisis more severe: fire warnings were not heeded, contingency plans were not implemented and the fire service itself buckled under budgetary constraints and a lack of experienced staff.

The floods that took place at the end of February 2022 were severe to a similar degree. The Wilsons River near Lismore measured 14.4 metres deep at its peak – 2 whole metres higher than the previous record set in 1974. Again, the familiar pattern of a delayed and under-resourced emergency response marred the flood recovery effort, with residents of flood affected areas still in limbo without adequate access to housing and income support to this day.

This election is taking place after a period of increased industrial struggle… The industrial actions by nurses in public health, and by teachers at both private and public schools, reveal the willingness of the country’s most feminised workforces to take action.

The Coalition government faced an unprecedented challenge with the emergence of COVID-19. Residents were kept inside as governments, both state and federal, sought to determine how best to manage the economy. Mismanagement of the pandemic resulted in many lives lost – the most prominent example being the Ruby Princess cruise liner debacle, where hundreds of COVID-positive passengers were permitted to disembark during a period of minimal local transmission.

The difficulties of isolation were exacerbated by the carceral, racist approaches to COVID management that were deployed periodically. This was most obvious in Sydney’s West, where cops targeted mostly migrant, working-class areas, pinging tens of thousands of people with now-invalidated fines. Crackdowns on protests were part of this authoritarian management of COVID: everyone from striking swimming instructors to refugee activists were targeted.

The Coalition was not only incompetent when it faced the challenges of disease and ecological disaster, but corrupt too. Gladys Berejiklian stepped down, after a revelation at ICAC that she breached public trust by having a personal relationship with disgraced former Liberal MP Daryl McGuire. John Barilaro resigned too, after facing public scrutiny for his pork-barreling of bushfire funds.

The biting cost-of-living crisis did not let up under the Coalition government. Thousands of public sector workers had their wages cut, with yearly pay increases capped well below inflation at 3%.

The government’s response to public dissent has been to use unprecedented force. This was not just the case with COVID-related disaffection. In April 2022, anti-protest legislation passed which increased the maximum penalty for protesting on public roads, rail lines, tunnels, bridges and industrial estates to a $22,000 fine and/or 2-years jail-time. This was a direct response to the ongoing climate struggle and disruptive protest actions by groups like Blockade and Fireproof Australia.

Labor, waiting in the wings

Set to assume power upon a Coalition loss is the Labor Party. The state strategy has been similar to the one that worked on a federal level last year: don’t rock the boat with any major policy announcements and hope the Coalition digs their own grave. It’s unclear whether this will work on the state level: it’s unlikely that there will be a “Teal-wave” on a similar scale, and disaffection with the Coalition is generally less widespread.

Related to the cost-of-living crisis, the ALP has committed to abolishing the public sector wage cap, but has not given any actual indication that they will give pay rises substantially beyond it. They have acceded to some of the demands of the nurses, committing to implementing defined ratios in a handful of key departments. Minns remains an opponent of industrial actions and protests, and if workers don’t continue to push with industrial actions anyway, they will end up at the mercy of Minns and his treasurer Daniel Mookhey.

Both Minns and Mookhey have been clear that they will not be acting in workers’ interests, but in accordance with “strict economic principles”, in the words of the shadow Treasurer. As can be seen in Victoria, a Labor government is no guarantee of higher public sector wages, as Dan Andrews’ government chose to reduce the Victorian wage cap to just 1.5% in 2022.

In order to secure wage increases and better conditions… we need to focus on fighting the government through industrial action. We can’t place our trust in Labor to carry out the things that we need to win ourselves.

On housing, Labor has established itself as a party of business and bureaucracy. Its housing policy is based around a $30 million “build-to-rent” scheme that will fund the state developer Landcom to build new properties on public land. Only 30% of these will be earmarked for low-to-middle income citizens, and of that 30%, the majority will probably end up being managed by non-profit and for-profit providers.

In terms of climate, Labor offers little: the main policy is a $1bn, state-owned investment company for renewable energy assets. It would not fund new public-sector projects – instead, it would solicit and provide investment for private-sector projects. This means companies like AGL and Santos will have public funds channelled to them in a slow transition to renewables, while workers receive no guarantees of retraining or new jobs. This is a move intended to provide ‘certainty’ to the business sector, not to enable a just transition to renewable energy. 

In education, Labor has promised it will invest in building public preschools, provide casual teachers with permanent positions, and establish new TAFE centres, balancing funding across the public and private education sectors. The party does not however, have any plans to meaningfully tackle issues that have been raised by the Teachers’ Federation and Big Steps – the early childhood education arm of the United Workers Union. By their own admission, Labor NSW acknowledges teachers are working 150% of their contracted working hours (60+ hours a week), yet the ALP has only proposed an audit promising to deliver a meagre 5 hour reduction – hardly something for educators to take solace in. 

On the Greens

The Greens offer the most substantive program ahead of the election, with commitments on climate action, renters’ rights, cost-of-living, abolishing the anti-protest laws, meeting the demands of the public sector unions, and initiating a state-level process of Treaty-making with First Nations communities. They have even made these conditions of cooperation with Labor in a minority government scenario. These are policies that have emerged as a result of protest, through consistent pressure from social movements and unions – accordingly, the Greens’ commitment to these policies can only be relied upon if this pressure is sustained. 

The Greens don’t “represent” these social movements in parliament; instead, their success has largely come from Labor retreating from the political left. Any swing towards the Greens can be seen as a barometer of popular support for progressive reform, a signal which gives some indication of the successes of our efforts on the streets in the past few years.

Of course, enacting any of these policies will depend entirely on the balance of power in a minority government. The Greens could use their influence to block harmful legislation and provide a platform for the socialist left, but cannot be relied upon to do this. The Federal Greens’ capitulation to Labor’s mediocre 43% emissions reduction target shows that they are extremely vulnerable to conservatising electoral pressure.

The Greens themselves are split ideologically. A number of Greens candidates, like Lynda-June Coe and Jim Casey, have emerged as a result of their activity in the Indigenous justice and climate movements and they still generally retain strong ties to these movements, which partially guide their political decisions. On the other hand, there are candidates like Cate Faehrmann – the lead Senate candidate. She is the opposite of a socialist activist and has in the past called for the expulsion of far-left Greens. 

Right-wing candidates like Faehrmann are proof that the effectiveness of the Greens as a left platform will depend entirely on who gets the parliamentary seats, and to what extent Greens members and social movements can push the party to the left. While Black Flag Sydney members will be voting below-the-line for left Greens and other progressives, like Socialist Alliance, we see voting as the least important part of a bigger process of fighting for the victory of the working-class and its social movements.

Part Two: The Working Class Fightback

This election is taking place after a period of increased industrial struggle. For the first time in years, the media panicked over the disruption caused by the unions, and momentarily, the general public was reminded of the organised strength of the working class. Train stations were empty, kids didn’t go to school, and hospitals were operating at a greatly diminished capacity.

The industrial actions by nurses in public health, and by teachers at both private and public schools, reveal the willingness of the country’s most feminised workforces to take action. It’s worth noting here too that this wave of strikes has arisen primarily from workers in what might be called “reproductive industries”. These are industries that are not involved in the direct production of commodities – things to be bought and sold – but which are concerned with the reproduction of the social classes, ensuring health, education, care and so on.

The enhanced significance of these sectors in the class struggle is linked to the shifts in terrain that have occurred in Australia since the 1970s. In the late 60s and early 70s, the “vanguard” section of the working class was likely to be found among builders’ labourers and production line workers in manufacturing, with strikes, sabotage and other forms of militant action being common. 

The economic crises of the period were used as a blunt hammer to restructure the system. Unions were incorporated into the system of governance to a greater degree than ever before via the Accords, and those unwilling to play along were smashed. The manufacturing sector declined drastically. The only sector that has properly and consistently grown since is the one that is now the centre of industrial struggle – the service sector, which grew at roughly the same rate as other sectors like manufacturing declined.

Linked in with this shift are the broader social movements that kicked into gear in the 60s and 70s. The fairly advanced political consciousness of women workers manifested itself in struggles for reproductive rights, early childhood education and other demands, as well in workplace struggles where women and feminised workers generally were at the centre. An example is the 1986 Victorian strike of nurses and midwives, which was one of the most militant battles in the past thirty years. Analogous to the struggle against the oppression of women is the movement against racism, the success of which has resulted in the composition of a working-class that is more diverse than ever before. This process is still ongoing, as new sectors of the class move forward: it’s only recently that the efforts of queer workers have begun to translate into distinctive action, like the demand for annual transition leave during the ongoing University of Sydney fight.

The outsized role of public sector workers in the present disputes is obvious, but these struggles have the potential to spread into the rest of the class proper. In the UK, which is in the midst of a similar economic crisis, there have been a number of disputes in the private sector, some of them with an unprecedented level of militancy. The wildcat strike of Amazon distribution centre workers last year is an example.

The increasing “marketisation” of public services is relevant here too. Things that were once coordinated nearly entirely by government departments, like social care, education and utilities, are now delivered by providers competing with each other in a regulated market. The privatisation of these sectors has resulted in the privatisation of this workforce, and even when privatisation has been resisted or has been put off for other reasons, the government bureaucracy is more conscious than ever of enforcing KPIs and tight budgets. This brings the situation of these workers closer in line with the situation of workers employed in the private sector generally, raising an opportunity for deeper links to be built across sectoral boundaries.

Where we’re heading

These interesting attributes of the present industrial disputes – the role of women, the central position of these industries in society, the character of reproductive labour, its potential to generalise into something bigger – could be jumping-off points for new kinds of political action. These fights could be linked into broader feminist social struggles, the fight to organise the private sector care workforce, and so on. A concerted effort could be made to reach out to other workers, not just “the general public”, in order to develop bonds of solidarity, to overcome sectoral isolation, and to help try and use the disputes as a spark for action in other industries. 

Instead, the desire for change on the industrial level has been redirected by union leaderships into electoral campaigns for Labor. Strikes are being put off while union leaders tell their members to try and change the government, not to fight it. 

While we’d be as glad as anyone to see the back of the Liberal-National minority government, we believe that dissolving industrial struggle into electioneering is a recipe for total disaster, even if Labor wins. Minns has only agreed to a small number of demands from the unions, and even then, he may still backflip, as electioneering and the realities of governing take precedence over whatever backroom deals he has negotiated with the unions. 

Dissolving industrial struggle into electioneering is a recipe for total disaster, even if Labor wins… The character of the elections is changing the strategy of the unions for the worse.

There are many, many reasons why working-class people should not, and largely already do not, trust Labor. One major example occurred last year, when the Industrial Relations Commission threatened to deregister the Western Australian nurses’ union, the ANF. The McGowan government maintained an official stance of neutrality until the Commission got the nurses to keel over. If a confident Labor government with a supermajority like McGowan’s refuses to back a solid union, then how can we expect Minn’s nervous, possibly minority government, to behave?

The character of the elections is changing the strategy of the unions for the worse. The popular understanding of the cost-of-living crisis as a situation where things simply cost too much is misleading. It’s far more of a case of wages being too low for workers to afford the things they need, to pay their bills, debts, to save and do all the other things we need to live. A consistent industrial campaign for higher wages that draws in larger numbers of workers would push back against the standard crisis framing, and instead put the focus back where it belongs – onto our awful wages.

Instead, the unions have themselves adapted to struggle under Minns. An example could be the leadership of the NSWNMA de-emphasising pay claims during the strikes last year in favour of a focus on staff-to-patient ratios, knowing that they’re more likely to secure improved ratios under Labor than a really decent, above inflation pay rise. The result is that industrial actions with the potential to spread are instead kept on a leash.

Campaigning for Labor, campaigning for a loss

On the face of it, the “elect Labor” strategy has some sense to it. The salaries and conditions of public sector workers are set by the government. Since Labor makes promises that are better than the Coalition’s, why wouldn’t you campaign for their victory? After all, the ALP is built on the power of the unions, so surely the unions would have a better time under their government. To us, this viewpoint obscures the facts of the situation. When people talk about government-owned industries, it’s usually in polite metaphors: “in public hands”, “nationalised” and so on. The implication is that instead of being owned by a greedy businessman these industries are owned by the “people”, administered by a government bureaucracy accountable to the democratic process.

This is misleading. Though government-owned enterprises are generally better for workers than private ones, they are not removed from the pressures of the capitalist economy. Government-owned industries are still substantially driven by the need to make and save money, both directly and indirectly. The train strikes are a good example. Despite having no direct competitor, the NSW Transport administrators still have a need to make their employees work longer and harder for less. In the words of Rudolf Rocker, “the machine, because of the way it is built, can work only in a given direction, no matter who pulls its levers”.

State governments are not there to protect the working class, but to enforce the status quo. This is why the Labor government again offers only rather minor changes to industrial relations law, and it’s hard to overstate exactly how odious these laws are. The enforcers of these laws – the Fair Work Commission and Industrial Relations Commission – stop strikes without notice, strikes without authorisation, solidarity strikes, strikes for “political” demands, industrial action in conjunction with other unions, hard pickets and virtually every other kind of industrial action. The net result is that every legal industrial dispute in this country begins with the workforce fighting with at least one arm tied behind its back.

It’s not Labor that is going to abolish these laws, only a militant working class can. In order to secure wage increases and better conditions, and to strengthen our class organisations moving forward, we need to focus on fighting the government through industrial action. We can’t place our trust in Labor to carry out the things that we need to win ourselves. We have to develop the skills, structure and solidarity to attack these laws and render them null and void.

Part of this task means directly challenging the political stranglehold the Labor Party has over unions in this country. This already happens to some degree: it was rank-and-file militant nurses who forced their leadership to reject the government pay rise offer of 3% and raise the union’s pay claim from 4.75% to 7%, through mass assemblies. For us, we would rather focus our energies on winning strikes and developing this kind of rank-and-file movement, than we would the election of the Labor Party.