Key crossbenchers easy marks for ‘Machiavellian government’

The crossbenchers behind the overreaching pandemic powers deal are merely political donkeys led by a government which doesn’t bother with democracy.

Crossbencher Andy Meddick cares about animals. Most voters do. But Meddick doesn’t care about voters.

Why would he? The Animal Justice Party MP won just 2.7% of the vote in his electorate in 2018.

They, like the few who endorsed Meddick with a first preference vote, may be surprised by his use of unexpected political leverage in recent months.

Meddick secretly sat down with the Andrews Government to negotiate new overreaching pandemic powers at a time when Melburnians were shrunken, huddled and unwell because of overreaching pandemic powers.

Also in secret meetings was another political newbie, Samantha Ratnam, of the Greens, and the Reason Party’s Fiona Patten, who has been in politics for some time and ought to have known better.

Fiona Patten, Samantha Ratnam and Andy Meddick during the marathon debate. Picture: David Crosling

Meddick has had wins since being elected, including “companion animals” being family members under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008.

Ratnam’s successes include wombats being classified as a protected species.

Such niche agendas appeal to some voters. Yet they are sideshows to the bigger question of freedom and governance.

In negotiating pandemic laws, the three Upper House crossbenchers presented themselves as wombats in the headlights.

Samantha Ratnam, Fiona Pattern and Andy Meddick were easy marks for a Machiavellian government. Picture: Andrew Henshaw

They were easy marks for a Machiavellian government intent on gaming the political system to push through changes without transparency or debate.

They were used. They endorsed proposals that inspired 20,000 people to protest down Flinders St last Saturday.

They should not be menaced or threatened. But criticism for their lack of insight and political wisdom zings from lofty places.

The legal profession and civil liberties groups have decried the proposed laws, last minute amendments or not.

Who have these crossbenchers served? Was it arrogance or naïvete? Did they just feel special and forget to represent the Victorians they represent?

Judgements ought to be unkind. For they have served as political donkeys, targets strapped to their flanks, to be led by a government which doesn’t bother with the messy business that is democracy.