Progressive or what?

Max Thomas | April 6, 2026

I have never belonged to a political party, nor do I subscribe exclusively to a particular ideology. I find the idea that all wisdom resides with a single entity to be absurd. Progressivism is gaining popularity, especially with younger people who are increasingly dissatisfied with established party politics. Progressivism grew out of the Enlightenment, embracing empirical knowledge and democratic principles, equality and cultural development. I have no quarrel with that.

The Oxford Dictionary defines the term Progressive as someone or something in favour of new ideas, modern methods, and [gradual] change. But Progressivism has been adopted by disparate individuals and groups with very different views on the same topics, rendering it somewhat ambiguous.

Given the fluid history of the Progressive Movement, one way to identify the genuine Progressives among politicians would be to ask them and their opponents what is meant by that term. It would not be surprising to discover a lack of consensus in their replies. Against this background, to what extent are Progressive ideas being translated into beneficial and lasting social, economic, cultural and environmental outcomes?

The Australian Greens are seen as a Progressive political force. They ostensibly believe that “Australia deserves a democratic head of state that reflects our values and independence”. Fortunately, the Founders of our nation made sure that an Australian Republic could be established only after a majority of people in a majority of States are persuaded to approve the necessary constitutional changes; a formidable task indeed. Either the Greens’ policy is naïve and unrealistic, or it is merely a populist manoeuvre.

The Constitutional Monarchy has evolved from absolute rule to a ceremonial institution that transcends both the state and the individual who happens to be the Monarch currently. But, at the same time, the Monarch is meant to personify our values and aspirations as a people; a notional superior entity, above politics.

By acknowledging our imperfection and corruptibility we place ultimate power, at least in theory, beyond the grasp of would-be autocrats and tyrants.

If Australia decides to become a republic and we dispose of the Monarch, important questions would remain about what form the Republic of Australia would take. It’s a fairly safe bet that most voters would probably favour direct election of the head of state and not appointment by the Parliament.

Candidates for a popularly elected President of an Australian Republic would be supported by powerful media or multi-national corporate interests. Campaigns for President would soon resemble those in the USA where commercial interests are paramount and the elected parliament would soon find itself in conflict with a popularly elected President. Many Australians know little about the Constitution and would be likely to reject the reforms needed to create a workable system.

The Governor General represents the Monarch but, in practice, the democratically elected government appoints the Governor General. The Whitlam government created the “Queen of Australia” in the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973, without a referendum.

Similar legislation could be passed to change the Governor General’s title to “President”. In this scenario, the elected parliament could appoint the President at a joint sitting every 6 six years, in line with Senate elections.

The conflict between Israel and its neighbours exemplifies what can occur when issues involving complex and overlapping elements cannot be reconciled and the adversaries resort to violence. Self-proclaimed Progressive onlookers on all sides of the conflict are sharply divided, and they risk compromising the values they claim to uphold.

The Australian Greens’ Charter lists ecological sustainability, social justice, grassroots democracy, peace and non-violence as core values. The means by which these Progressive objectives are to be achieved is largely by way of government intervention and public expenditure. But there is abundant evidence of incompetence and waste associated with government programs.

Of greater concern is the apparent belief that humans can be perfected by regulation i.e., if everyone was more Progressive the world would be the better for it.  It takes little imagination and knowledge of history to see where that can lead.

It was Progressive thought which led to alcohol prohibition in the USA. The legacy of the well-intended temperance movement is endemic and enduring organised crime brought about by the trade in illicit alcohol.

Progressives often advocate for various policies based on ideology rather than evidence. Technological Optimism is a term for ideology opposed to Thomas Malthus’ theory that because the growth of food production is arithmetic and population growth is exponential; depletion of resources will eventually cause the human population to crash. The ‘Technological Optimists’ believe that economic and environmental problems will be solved by means of technology. In this view, science becomes more akin to ‘magic’ than systematic study and experimentation to test theories and gather evidence.

Fish farming, lithium batteries and wind farms are examples of where assumed long-term beneficial environmental outcomes are not supported by rigorous life-cycle analysis. Regulatory incompetence and greenwashing are likely to generate a legacy of pollution and intractable waste.

In Australia, a recent example of Progressive social engineering gone wrong is attempting to control smoking by increasing tax on cigarettes beyond the point of diminishing returns and producing a wave of related crime. Other examples include failure to adequately enforce prescribed child and aged care standards.

The development of the Progressive NDIS organisation is plagued by systemic failures, financial mismanagement as well as access and equity issues caused by poor oversight. The household roof insulation fiasco remains a tragic reminder of the unintended consequences that can arise from good intentions, regardless of their political origins.

Numerous other failed Progressive programs, introduced by both Liberal and Labor governments, and intended to improve the lives of Indigenous people have also failed to deliver. Poor administrative supervision and incompetent financial management by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people have led to substantial opportunity costs, corruption, injury and even death.

The Yarra Council is advocating for Progressive action to restore Melbourne’s Yarra River for swimming by 2050. Of course, we should work towards improving water quality in our waterways, but to promote this idea is to encourage dangerous activity.

Bear in mind that one scoop of dog poop is enough to raise the E. coli count in an Olympic pool from zero to above the safe limit for swimming.

The presence of E. coli bacteria in the water does indicate recent faecal pollution but not necessarily the presence of more persistent disease risks. Basing decisions about swimming on occasional water samples is like deciding to cross a street blindfolded because there was no traffic in a photo taken somewhere else at another time.

The Lower Yarra is estuarine with a salt ‘wedge’ extending upstream to Dights Falls. Obtaining representative water samples is problematic to the extent that authorities could not confidently declare the river safe for swimming.

Progressives advocate using ‘traditional land management’ methods to address environmental degradation. Deforestation, mining, dry land salinity, soil erosion, sodicity, acidification, nutrient decline and resulting eutrophication have occurred or become worse since colonisation. Traditional land management must be taken into account, but it cannot be expected to rectify problems beyond the experience of the traditional owners.

“Cultural burning” is advocated by Green Progressives who say it reduces the incidence and severity of bushfires. Advocates for cultural burning do not usually discuss the impact of the Last Glacial Period on the Australian landscape, between 25,000 and 16,000 years ago, long after Indigenous people first arrived. It is not known how Indigenous Australians may have employed fire during that time when conditions were much colder and drier than today.

While research supports the benefits to soils, plants, wildlife and ecological values more generally, the health impacts of low temperature combustion in the context of post-colonial settlement are largely ignored. Bushfires, especially ‘cool’ burns are known to release respirable particles (PM2.5) and toxic substances, including TCDD (Dioxin).

The chemistry and other characteristics of airborne particles can be expected to differ and change depending on their origin and the prevailing atmospheric conditions, but the health effects are not well understood. Therefore, the impact of low temperature combustion products on the health of indigenous people prior to colonisation is also unknown.

The Green Progressive movement tends to ignore the classic economic problem of how to satisfy unlimited wants with finite resources. Their plan is to meet ever-growing demand for government services by “making billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share of tax”.

The Australian Taxation Office estimates that unpaid tax amounts to about $16 billion annually. Roughly the same amount could be raised by a tax on LNG exports which The Greens are demanding. At the same time, The Greens want to phase out fossil fuel exports. The cost of The Australian Greens’ Progressive policies on housing, health, education, energy and environment vastly exceeds the amount of unpaid tax, even if could be collected at no cost.

According to the 2025 Parliamentary Budget Office Report, The Greens’ pre-election commitments would result in a government debt increase, relative to the pre-election outlook, reaching $2.2 trillion (46.9% of GDP) by 2035/36. Public debt interest payments would rise by around $136.4 billion over the same period.

The Greens did not publish a consolidated list of the financial implications of their platform prior to the 2025 election. To misquote Kipling: [seeking] power without responsibility is the prerogative of the [cynic] throughout the ages.

I have given examples of Progressive ideas that have produced or are likely to produce negative outcomes. Externalities such as an increased burden of respiratory disease, crime, burgeoning debt cannot not be characterised as Progressive.

Australians are notoriously suspicious of government and it is hard to imagine The Greens obtaining a mandate from the people to expand bureaucratic control over their lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren.

Perhaps The Greens should consider adding ‘Intergenerational Justice and Equity’ to their own charter before “recognising and assisting other Progressive social movements”.