View From Canberra: In a Green future | ADM Jul 2010

With an election looming yet again, it’s perhaps time to review the state of the organisation that sees itself as the third force of national politics, the Greens.

A Special Correspondent | Canberra

Much has changed since the 2007 election and that has given the Greens great optimism that this will be the one to deliver them power to shape the course of the nation through holding the balance of power in the Senate.

At the 2007 poll, the Greens nationally attracted just over nine per cent of the vote, with a high of 21 per cent in the ACT and a low of 6.5 per cent in South Australia.

That elected them three senators, newcomers Scott Ludlam (WA) and Sarah Hanson-Young (SA) and re-elected Bob Brown who all joined Christine Milne (Tas) and Rachel Siewert (WA).

Milne and Siewert were both elected in 2004 and are up for election again this time.

Alas for the Greens, five spots has not been enough to grant them the power to require Labor to come grovelling in order to get its legislation passed.

That’s because there are 76 Senators - 32 Labor, 37 coalition, five Greens plus two independents, Steve Fielding and Nick Xenophon.

The Constitution says a tied vote (38-38) is defeated.

The coalition can do that with the support of just one independent.

But for the government to pass any contested measures, it needs 39 votes - all its own plus the five Greens plus the two independents.

So it’s a wonder the country got governed at all, though the reality is that the vast majority of legislation is uncontentious and unopposed.

It’s the big stuff where there are problems and that included Labor’s emissions trading scheme.

The Greens never supported this on grounds that it didn’t go nearly far enough, while the coalition under Malcolm Turnbull promised support.

But the Nationals and some Libs did all possible to protract the debate in the hope that something would happen to make it all fall over.

That something was new leader Tony Abbott who reneged on Turnbull’s agreement.

With the Copenhagen summit achieving zip and a big slice of the electorate opposing any action ahead of the rest of the world, the government unsurprisingly opted to defer the whole deal.

That backflip plus general disenchantment with Kevin Rudd outraged a good many Labor voters and contributed much to the Greens big poll bounce - 16 per cent in the Newspoll in late May, up some six per cent in a fortnight.

But there’s more.

In Tasmania, voters, also unimpressed with Labor and Liberals, elected five Greens, who threw in their lot with Labor to form government, in return for two cabinet positions, their first ever in any Australian state or territory.

Ahead of every election for the last decade Bob Brown predicted great achievements.

He must have been disappointed every time, for the Greens have hardly soared in two decades and five remains their peak representation.

In contrast, the Australian Democrats managed a minimum of five spots for two decades, peaking at nine in 1999, until of course disappearing completely.

The Democrats occasionally also opinion-polled in the high teens but then dropped back to around 10 per cent for election day, which some pundits tip will also be the fate of the Greens this time around.

Since 2007, Bob Brown has taken great efforts to make the Greens electable.

With some justification, he has claimed the high moral ground as the reasonable Senate third force in the face of coalition intransigence, judging Labor legislation on its merits and seeking amendments where deemed essential.

The Greens backed the economic stimulus and would also back the super mining tax.

Much less reported were efforts to make Greens policies more palatable to an electorate unimpressed by wacky plans to legalise drugs or promote vegetarianism.

Much of that came in the Greens national conference after the 2007 election and it can’t have been easy for the moderates to persuade the feral adherents of certain policy measures to get out of the way.

Let’s consider the Greens peace and security platform on which your correspondent has written previously.

Who could forget the Greens rejection of the US led war on terror as just a cover for the promotion of US interests, the aspiration for Asia-Pacific demilitarization, including the Australian Defence Force, or the requirement, that all ADF operations include a gender perspective and a human rights monitoring component.

Under the revised 2008 policy, that’s all gone.

But enough remains to gain a flavour of the Greens world view.

The Greens would shut down all foreign bases and end all training of foreign troops on Australian territory.

ANZUS would be abolished unless it could be revised “in a manner which is consistent with Australia’s international and human rights obligations”, whatever the heck that means.

There would still be an ADF ”adequate to Australia’s defence and peacekeeping needs” but defence spending would be reduced and decisions on defence procurement based only on Australia’s defence needs.

Sales of defence equipment would of course be banned.

On that basis, Australia could end up with a defence force comparable to New Zealand, no allies and not much defence industry.

Various commentators have pointed out that Greens policies are vague and generic enough to cover many possibilities but not so specific as to invite tabloid scrutiny as occurred with the drugs policy ahead of the 2004 election.

In some areas, the Greens clearly see a benefit in being very specific where they seek to stand well apart from Labor and the coalition - to wit, their immigration and refugee policy which could only be described as generous.

All asylum applicants would processed onshore, there would be no detention and they would have access to the full benefits of the nation including income support, education, healthcare and the legal system.

The overall immigration program would be geared to family reunions and humanitarian resettlement.

But what about skilled migrants, you might wonder.

The Greens would certainly allow in those with special skills, provided their arrival in Australia did not drain critical skills from other countries - so, not too many more foreign trained doctors or engineers.