What do the Greens (WA) stand for and where do they come from? What is the framework for what they do and the decisions that they make? Dhanu River from the office of Senator Dee Margetts looks at their origins and expresses some of his thoughts on the Greens.

The greens (WA) was formed from the felt need for a political alternative. The ALP had gone New Right and there seemed little chance of reforming it. The Democrats existed, but did not seem more than reformist. The Nuclear Disarmament Party (NDP) had come and gone with what was seen as a 'take-over attempt' by the Socialist Workers Party. People committed to the environment, social justice, peace, and philosophies of widespread social change started to feel the only way to be represented politically was to set up new parties.

The Greens (WA) was formed through amalgamation of four political parties. The oldest was the Jo Valentine Peace Group, formed around the core of the support for the old NDP and the Senator originally elected as an NDP candidate. Then there was the Alternative Coalition (AC), running mainly in Perth with a strong social justice, human rights-Aboriginal rights platform coupled with concern for the environment. There was the Green Party, based in North Fremantle and associated with the national network of political Green Parties, and the Green Development Party, a network of green people, alternative types, farmers, woodworkers and others in south west WA. Green Development brought an awareness of rural issues, an emphasis on regionalism, and inputs from radical eco-philosophies.

After fighting one election separately, the four groups amalgamated. It was a somewhat stressful process bringing some very divergent positions together, with the Jo Valentine Peace Group, Alternative Coalition and Green Develoment agreeing to come together first as the Green Earth Alliance. This became the Greens (WA) when the Green Party joined, allowing the use of the registered name 'Greens'.

While the point should not be overdrawn, it can be said that the nature of the Greens (WA) was formed in the amalgamation process. Green parties everywhere generally give credence to the 'four pillars' of Green ethics; ecology, social justice, peace, and participatory democracy. In the Greens (WA) these all took on certain strengths and meanings. The input from Jo and her group and the many people who worked with People for Nuclear Disarmament (PND) and its precursors were strong elements in the Greens (WA) and a lot of Jo's emphasis on peace issues continued when she became a Senator from the Greens. Dee Margetts, as a former representative of PND and long-time peace campaigner continues that emphasis.

As an amalgamation of at least two 'Green' parties, and a party that identifies itself primarily as Green, there has always been a predominant focus on environment issues. The AC, as a party mainly involved in social justice brought in many activists for whom social issues are their major focus. While each group may have had a predominant 'flavour' and brought skills in specific areas, all recognized the validity of all the issues, and their interlocking nature.

One of the things that most distinguishes the Greens (WA) is the emphasis on participatory democracy, although this has also led to many of the more intense discussions and was one of the main points of dissension in the amalgamation of the Green Party and the Green Earth Alliance. It continues to be a point of ongoing discussion with the national Greens. The ultimate structure of the political party 'Greens (WA)' is the result of finding ways to bring four very diverse groups, and many interested newcomers together in a way that they all felt they had clear input and a measure of control, and yet could form a functional organisation.

Participatory democracy

Basically, our view is that participatory democracy means that people have power over the decisions made concerning them. This is not the same as representative democracy, where people have some choice over who will make-decisions in their name. Three issues and principles arise out of this. The first is the commitment to small scale. The more people that are involved, the harder it is to be heard, the harder it is for the group to understand and accommodate real and specific problems that arise. A first principle is to keep groups small and push for self-sufficiency as much as piissible, since thhis gives the griup the greatest autonomy and control, as well as enabling greater diversity.

The second issue is that of information. It is not possible for people to contribute intelligently or meaningfully to decision -making without adequate information. Conventional politics says: let the experts decide for you. Green politics says: information must be passed around, not just be 'made available' but communicated. In practice this is difficult. How much information do we need and can use, and how much time and energy does this all take? Again, the Green alternative is to reduce demand, to move away from the situation where global decisions which will affect the framework of human society and activity are made constantly in our name in a jargon- laden techno-speak that may take years to unravel. Instead we would see regional control and self-sufficiency with technical processes being closed loops, not based on unseen despoilation and exports of wastes to other communities or global commons.

A third issue is time. It is not possible for everyone to be involved effectively if there are hundreds of major decisions being made each week in different aspects of our lives before we even hear about them. Participation in decision-making works intrinsically against rush, although if there is genuine urgency people are capable of mobilising an immense energy quickly.

The Greens (WA) is a confederation of Local Groups which function as the primary decision making bodies. It tries to embody participatory principles in its structure. Each group sends a representative to a Reps Council. The representatives cannot make decisions, they are there solely to represent the views of their group, stating any formal position and trying to fill in the gaps about where the thinking of the group is at. They also are there to listen and back any issue needing decision. Obviously this takes time and commitment and an issue for decision can go back and forth between local groups and the Reps Council several times. Greens policy is formulated in policy working groups (open to anyone), and then must go through a process of gaining the approval of the membership through publication and discussion in local groups. Local groups through Reps Council can approve 'interim policy' with a less involved process.

Real-life politics

So much for the ideal. Unfortunately, federal political process is representative not participatory, deals with huge issues, Senators deal with hundreds of bills each session, with possibly hundreds of amendments each of which can change the meaning of the bil1. Bills come onto the floor, and maym be gone in twenty minutes. Even huge and contentious issues like Mabo or Industrial Relations only get debated in Senate for a week or less. Communication is very poor with the media doing most no reporting of issues, although they will give blow-by-blow descriptions of the presumed emotional states of politicians during crucial moments or particularly abusive harangues.

The Greens (WA) are fortunate to have two Senators in parliament. Given the numbers, and a system of mindless voting along party lines, this means that when the Government and Opposition agree, the Democrats and the Greens have the choice of passing what is before it at the end of the legislative process, or killing it. In between, they may try and push for amendments.

The Green Senators are committed to holding their position responsibly, voting on every bill, knowing what every is about, trying to make it better if it not very good. It is frustrating, because it is reactive. There is no real power to set the agenda. Very often, bills or amendments from the Greens or Democrats get voted down by the two big parties. Environmentally damaging bills get through when the two big parties vote together. It is incredibly frustrating to see such unanimity in parties normally at each other's throat. The only thing the Senators can do is ask who wins, who loses, what it means, and whether the result on balance will be better or worse. There is no time to go through the processes we wish, nor is policy always clear on an issue.

Lots of people have asked whether politics doesn't eventually corrupt. The response I give is that one can choose to be principled, or to play the game. Once you play the game, you may as well go all the way, but it is far easier to be principled than to try and play the game a little. In that regard, one thing the Greens decided, is that they would not make cross-issue deals. We will not trade support for wholesale sales tax for intervention into Creery wetlands for example. We address sales tax directly and the responsibility of the Commonwealth for internationally significant wetlands directly.

A lot of people have criticised the Greens for this failure to 'make deals'. But means become the ends, and backroom deals ultimately destroy inner integrity and democratic form. The principle we've followed has led to far more fundamental changes in process. John Dawkins, in the meeting when the budget talks 'collapsed' said that 'one thing you can claim as a major achievement is that the budget process from now on will be a negotiated one'. When a party makes deals there is no need to negotiate. The Government just says, 'What do you want in return for passing our bills?', and the horse-trading commences. When no 'deals' are struck, each bill becomes an issue. Unless it is prepared to negotiate on the Senate floor, the government must negotiate beforehand. It is dragged into more participatory processes, at least needing to recognise the democratic framework of the constitution, and opening decision-making to far wider participation and input.

This gives us new options to introduce issues and further change process. While the Greens have no illusions they can set the agenda of government, being in on budget formation does mean we can be much more affirmative in putting up ideas and directions for change. We will also be able to bring up environmental issues in an effective way.

The Greens and issues

One of the least fortunate aspects of the Greens in Senate is the appalling reporting of issues in the media. The budget process really set the tone. The Greens' position was fairly clear from the very beginning. The sales tax was unfair, the tax cuts benefited mainly the rich. The Greens put out several press releases and statements explaining that the tax cuts would see half the population get nothing and most of the benefit falling to the top 20 per cent while the cuts were to be paid for by sales tax hikes. We opposed the changes on basic equity grounds and managed finally to get compensatory measures for the less wealthy half of Australians.

The petrol tax, while supportable on environmental grounds, was simply going into general revenue. No effort was to be made to reduce car use or provide alternatives to cars, to reduce the lead in petrol, to promote efficiency, urban restructuring, public transport or any of the other things that would allow reduction of car use as a benefit. We wanted to see the regressive taxes countered so the poor were not paying for benefits to the rich, and wanted to see something real done about transport. We wanted to see some commitment to getting industry to change, and not just making often unavoidable car use more expensive. We tried to get some attention focused on energy and transport, and proposed major amendments most of which were voted down by the two big parties against the Greens and Democrats. The media ignored this issue, and focused on wine.

Even though a lot of attention was given to the 'wine issue', almost no attention was given to the issue itself; whether wine should be taxed the same as beer simply because it 'has alcohol'. The Greens position was that they should not be, because the employment profile, profit levels, ownership pattern and regional implications were entirely different. The wine industry is rurally based, owner-produced, has low levels of profit and high levels of employment, sees most of the money circulated in the region, and works synergistically with other industries- hospitality, tourism, artisan craftwork, and so on - which form the major alternatives to extractive industries like logging and, in the WA south-west, mineral sands mining. Beer production is a large, industrial, highly mechanised and centralised industry owned mainly by transnationals, with low and declining workforces and large profits that are mostly expatriated. They are not the same industries and so should not be taxed the same. As far as I know, no media report looked at these issues, in spite of Greens' press releases and statements.

And then there was GATT. Senator Margetts brought up the issue whenever she could - fairly often - but it was not an issue on which there was to be a vote. Almost the only media mention was in a two and a half broadsheet page tirade against the Greens by Laura Tingle of the Australian. Tingle was abusing the Greens over the budget without managing to mention substantive issues and in the process mentioned the Greens' opposition to GATT to show what 'real fruitloops' they were. It was good because we got a letter printed as 'right of reply' and put our position on GATT before the public.

A one-issue party?

Some criticism was levelled at the Greens for being concerned with the Budget and Mabo, 'and not with the environment'. The first sitting we hit in the balance of power was the Budget sitting in which Dawkins unveiled his four year 'master-plan'. This meant that most of the bills we had to deal with were Budget and economic bills.

In spite of the activity on the budget, the Green Senators did get involved in a lot of environment issues. Aside from GATT, the Senators spent time with the activists in south west and south east forests, are actively fighting to stop the despoilation of Creery wetlands and Ningaloo reef, fighting the iron ore transport through Esperence, working with communities of Jarrahdale and Serpentine trying to stop mineral sands miners who have pegged their towns, fighting the CALM amendment bill that gives the WA Conservation and Land Management department the right to sell exclusive right to 'flora' and includes a directive to the Director to 'promote and encourage the use' of flora, mainly in biotechnology terms. The Senators also actively fought to reduce the woodchip licenses, put up an urgency motion on clearing of old-growth forests, and had some success improving the bill to levy ships to cover the cost of oil spillage. They have also put up the 'toxic chemicals - right to know' bill to make industry responsible for informing communities of the nature and risks of chemicals it is using.

There is a limit to what can be expected of people in parliament given the realities of politics. That doesn't mean nothing can be done. Much more can be done now than before the 'balance of power' situation, when Christobel or Jo were simply ignored, where their vote didn't matter, but generally the Greens (or the Democrats) cannot put up a bill that has a chance of passage. The Greens may be higher profile than before, so there may be more chance of getting public attention for issues, but the media still only reports what they consider newsworthy, and will only report it their way.

The Greens (WA) as a party supports the Senators strongly. In WA, members of the Greens are generally activists who are involved in politics as 'one more way to promote change'. They are heavily involved in the Conservation Council, WA Forest Alliance, Landcare groups, Community Aid Abroad, and a whole range of groups. It needs to be remembered that grassroots means people being active, and it is popular activism which will create. the pressure for change.

1994 - the year ahead

The Employment and Regional Development task forces will probably provide most of the foundation for budget decisions. They also present a real opportunity to look at fundamental issues in Australian society. How is work arranged, how are profits distributed? Do we want to work less so that everyone can work? What is real regional development, the development of regional self sufficiency, a regional culture that exists in harmony with its environment, or the development of roads and extractive industry so that people can ship in transnational products? What is a sustainable society? Do we need to produce more or learn to consume less without consigning 15-20 per cent of the population to the scrap-heap? With proposals for new rounds of fuel taxes to pay for jobs, and proposals to dramatically increase road building, there is an opportunity to challenge many of the principles of transport, production, energy efficiency, and urban design. With the intensification of biodiversity issues, there is the need and opportunity to develop real challenges to genetic engineering and the patenting and designing of life. There is also the opportunity to shift the focus from 'use of biological resources' back to conservation of diverse ecosystems and ecosystems in all their diversity. It should be an interesting year, and hopefully the environment movement will become more broadly active. Public activism is needed keep the environment on the agenda.

Back...