PAUL MURRAY: Anthony Albanese and Federal Government’s luck could run out at election with snub of the Greens

The temperature of the water around those Greens MPs who float in the Canberra swamp is rising quickly.

But it isn’t due to global warming.

The heat is coming from its former political soulmates who have become increasingly concerned about the erosion of votes from Labor’s pink flank by the increasingly redder watermelons on whom the party depends to form government.

Labor’s fury at the Greens erupted on Tuesday in the House of Representatives when Anthony Albanese — who proclaims a history of “fighting Tories” — unleashed on the minor party’s housing spokesman, Queenslander Max Chandler-Mather, during Question Time.

For those unsure about what constitutes a Tory, they were members of a political grouping that emerged in the United Kingdom in the 1600s to defend the interests of “the landed gentry”.

Which is what Chandler-Mather accused Albanese of being.

“Over the next decade, property investors like the Prime Minister will benefit from $176 billion in tax handouts in the form of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount,” the upstart began.

“Published polling shows a large majority of the country support the Greens push to scrap negative gearing. Will Labor scrap these grossly unfair tax handouts to property investors that turbocharge house prices and hurt millions of ordinary people?”

The question brought an immediate rebuke from Speaker Milton Dick, who said a reference to “someone’s personal circumstances” was “inappropriate”. Everyone knew it was about Albanese’s string of investment properties amassed during a 28-year political career.

Albanese is no orator and often struggles to answer questions cogently, but this was manna from heaven for a punch-drunk Sydney streetfighter.

“I bet he doesn’t mention it in their party room,” Albanese answered, alluding to the number of Greens MPs with property portfolios. “I bet he doesn’t do that!

“I bet, also, he doesn’t talk about the housing problem when he’s addressing a rally in Brisbane to defend corrupt conduct in the CFMEU. I bet he doesn’t do that.”

That gentle touch-up was too much for Greens leader Adam Bandt: “On a point of order, if the first part of the member’s question was ruled inappropriate, then surely that comment ought to be ruled inappropriate.”

Which drew Labor’s bovver boy, Tony Burke, into the fight: “If he’s willing to stand up and make those sorts of statements and then wants to throw motives around here — you can’t play with a glass jaw! If you throw that around, it comes back at you.”

Albanese then laid out his full complaint: “It is a fact the member for Griffith attended a rally in which they were — if you want to talk about offence — referring to members of this Parliament as nazis.

“And the member for Griffith stood in front of those signs. There is precedent for that sort of thing, and the member for Warringah was rightly condemned then, at the time, for standing outside this chamber, inside, with those sorts of signs and that sort of behaviour. And you are rightly condemned, too.”

That convoluted mangling of words must have confused clueless Warringah MP Zali Steggall, a Labor-supporting Teal.

But Albanese was actually referring to her predecessor, former Liberal leader Tony Abbott, who addressed a rally outside Parliament House in 2011 at which there were placards abusing the prime minister, Julia Gillard.

What Albanese omitted was that the CFMEU banners behind the hyphenated MP didn’t broadly accuse “members of this Parliament” of being nazis. The placard in question was a cartoon depiction of “Albanazi”. Very directly personal.

So who’s really got the glass jaw?

More importantly, the exchange was another example of the worsening relationship between Labor and the Greens on whom the ALP depends to win enough seats through their preferences to form a government.

In the 2022 election, Labor finished second to the Liberals on primary votes in seven seats but then had “come from behind” wins through Greens preferences. Without those seven seats, Albanese would not be Prime Minister.

The Greens had instructed their supporters on the party’s website to vote tactically to put Labor in power: “Vote 1 Greens to kick the Liberals out and put the Greens in the balance of power. If you follow the Greens’ how-to-vote card by voting Greens 1, and then putting Labor above the Liberals, your preferences can go to Labor.”

But Greens preferences are unlikely to be enough for Labor this time. Labor is expected to fall into a minority government dependent on Greens MPs’ votes in the House of Representatives to keep it afloat.

That becomes pay-day for the Greens for all those preferences. The tail gets to wag the dog.

On current figures, the only thing likely to save Labor from that fate is if the Teals reproduce their 2022 result — won in blue-ribbon Liberal seats — and decide to prop up a Labor Government from the crossbenches.

With the pro-Labor voting patterns of the current Teals, most who previously professed to be disaffected Liberals, that’s not out of the question.

And on that basis, voters in the wealthy Perth seat of Curtin who want a Labor Government returned should vote for Kate Chaney. That’s a de facto Labor vote.

Just how principled is Albanese’s Labor going to be about its reliance on the Greens?

Unless the Coalition’s primary vote improves markedly over the next few months, some form of Labor minority government seems certain.

When that last happened, under Julia Gillard, relations with the Greens were more civil. At that time, Labor didn’t regularly point out their opposition to Greens policies — like a carbon tax, for example — on principle.

Or did she? So just how principled is Albanese’s Labor going to be about its reliance on the Greens?

There was a time when the preference lepers of Australian politics were One Nation.

Much was made in the media about the Liberal Party “accepting” One Nation preferences, not that there is anything parties can do once a voter has marked the ballot paper.

However, on several occasions, the Liberals were forced to put One Nation last on their how-to-vote cards to try to lessen the guilt-by-association factor attached to its supposedly obnoxious policies.

It broke out most recently before the 2017 State election in WA when Labor started agitating about Colin Barnett’s Liberals doing a preference deal with One Nation. At that time Pauline Hanson’s party was rated at a significant 13 per cent, higher than the Greens today.

“A Liberal source said the party had learnt a lesson from the 2001 election, when then Liberal leader Richard Court’s administration put One Nation last on its ballot papers,” Joe Spagnolo reported in The Sunday Times. “Pauline Hanson retaliated in that election by preferencing against Liberal incumbents — a move which cost the Liberals government.”

WA Today quoted a Murdoch University academic opining the Liberals jumping into bed with One Nation could backfire.

“The Liberals risk losing supporters who think that One Nation is divisive and extremist, and One Nation risks being seen to support a Barnett government,” politics lecturer Ian Cook said.

And the report quoted then Opposition leader Mark McGowan “categorically” saying Labor would not do a preference deal with One Nation. McGowan accused Premier Barnett of “trying to sneak back into power on the back of One Nation preferences”.

So will Labor now be so principled about doing a similar deal with the Greens?

In an op-ed in The West Australian on Wednesday, Albanese’s personal assistant minister, Perth MP and former ALP State secretary Patrick Gorman — no stranger to cutting preference deals with the Greens, accused the minor party of “eroding democracy”.

That sounds like the American Democrats hyperventilating about Donald Trump. Must be bad.

Gorman also attacked the Greens for wanting to tear up WA’s GST deal and “excusing years of corruption, criminality, bullying, misogyny and thuggery” in the CFMEU.

That last bit was pretty gormless considering that, until July, the union was WA Labor’s longstanding biggest donor, when its rogue character was hardly a secret.

Labor has recently, more reluctantly, been forced to delineate itself from the Greens over the toxic Palestine debate.

For months, Labor MPs, including the Prime Minister, endured their electorate offices being under siege from pro-Palestinians mobs, urged on by Greens MPs, but didn’t make a whimper of public protest.

That was until the mob’s anti-Israel slurs morphed into outright anti-semitism that provoked questioning of Labor’s clouded position on the consequent harassment of Australia’s Jewish community.

Labor was eventually forced to draw a line in the sand, on principle.

The party is now pointing to a plethora of important political positions the Greens want to prosecute electorally which are unacceptable to them.

The question is just how far Labor’s rediscovered principles will extend. With an election just months away, it is likely that the strategists in both parties have begun discussions about preference swaps.

In McGowan’s terms, will Labor try to “sneak back into power” through tainted Greens preferences?

Or, now recognising their pernicious nature, will it put the Greens last — on principle?