We have had, over these past weeks, the excellent Small Gods series by @purserj, discussing the policies and philosophies of the micro parties that play a crucial role in the election, especially in terms of preferences. What we haven’t seen or heard during this election is much about the policies and vision of the biggest of the “minor” parties in this election, The Greens. As regular readers of my Twitter stream would already know, I am a member of the Greens and have done some volunteer work for the party – so this analysis is coloured by that association. This disclosure at least makes me somewhat different from Roger Corbett (in fact, I’m so different from Roger Corbett it’s barely believable we’re in the same country). Here I am outlining exactly how I see the Greens’ ideas in this election and what I can see will be the future of the party – basing it on the points covered in the Greens’ Standing Up For What Matters pamphlet, which the party has been using differently to these people:
Standing Up For What Matters is a line that is intended to appeal to the idea that the major parties don’t stand up for a lot of what matters to people in the community; that both are so wrapped up in the idea that we are an economy rather than a community. That the main focus of government should be how to “keep the economy strong”- or, more accurately, make it look as though it’s strong to people who don’t really understand how the economy works. That’s been one of the main failures of the ALP these past six years – breaking up the myths built in the Howard era that the budget MUST be in surplus and that the main purpose of government is STRONG messages about a STRONG economy, the JOBS mantra, no matter the cost to community assets as well as maintaining subsidies to industries that don’t deserve them them and propping up uneconomic concerns like the Private Health Insurance industry. The Greens’ goal is to refocus attention to community assets and just the idea of community in general. Not Communism as the libertarian claque will have people think, but a community that helps, that cares. That last idea is a very hard sell in the Australia of entitlement and STRONG everything.
One of the issues that has all but disappeared in this election is the Environment, what with the meagre carbon price dominating discussion of it. The main focus of the original Greens was the environment (well, obviously) and for the party is still remains a core concern – hence the focus on Leadbetter’s Possum in the party launch, which attracted a rather cynical bashing from the marketing show, Gruen Nation. The threat to the possum is a symbol of a wider issue, that the decisions made about the country are often predicated on a belief that Australia is an ECONOMY, not a precious, unique set of ecosystems. That it’s fine to dig up places like the Tarkine in Tasmania and that we need more money so much that it’s fine to be undertaking risky operations such as Coal Seam Gas mining. As much as that industry will tell you, Australia doesn’t need to be risking our long term environment balance for the sake of some quick cash, which often goes offshore in any case.
There are some who criticise the Greens for not focusing as much on the environment as other matters, such as education or marriage equality. There is a good reason for that – anyone who cares about the environment know that both major parties only play lip service to protecting the environment – just look at the “doublethink” Direct Action policy, which seeks to plant trees everywhere and pay polluters to cut pollution – but not budget it enough to reach any goals. Labor? They say they believe in protecting the environment, but in the case of carbon pricing, they needed the Greens to bring them kicking and screaming to finally achieve a system that has forced companies to undertake meaningful change to their carbon production. Otherwise, there have been many examples where JOBS or HOUSES, MOOOOOORE OF THEM have been the ALP’s priority, no matter what long term environmental damage that might entail. I have experienced this first hand with the ALP’s support of the development of land in Penrith.
One of the things Australia has is a strength of an economy that is running well, despite what the Liberals have said for the last three years. As a rich country, we can afford to be helping communities, rather than pandering to mining companies, which is why there’s a “Resourcing a Caring Australia” section to the Greens policy document. Australia has a lot of natural resources like coal and gas which we export, but it beggars belief why there hasn’t been a bigger push towards renewable energy, for a number of reasons. First of all, after you have the start up costs of wind, solar and solar thermal energy, there isn’t the ongoing costs of mining to keep energy expensive. This is why many have taken up the option of solar power. Governments, however, should be doing more in funding renewable energy power stations, just so the long term costs of energy can fall. It’s remarkable to go to countries like Iceland, where geothermal and hydro electricity keeps the country going – built by government, not by business. Here, though, there’s the growing philosophy that publicly used things like energy should be powered by private enterprise for their own profits, rather than by governments for the public benefit. It makes no sense – nor does cutting back on the chance for renewable energy to be connected back to the grid.
This leads to the “Jobs in the Future Economy” part of the Greens platform. One of the criticisms that comes fired at the Greens is that it’s a party of “economic vandals”, despite having bankers, lawyers, economists and the like in the party – as well as the party that has taken the issue of costings more seriously than the Liberal Party has in this election. We have seen in the past two elections that the party has moved quickly in its growth from an environmental group to a professional political party – though one still tied to the grassroots of the party through state councils. The Greens are not a party that wants capitalism to fall, instead it’s one that sees the possibility of new Green jobs that don’t depend on bulldozing things to be viable. The election campaign of hi-vis vests hides the reality of an economy that is depending more and more on technology, service industries, creative industries and companies that seek to provide sustainable solutions for a variety of needs. This idea of being supportive of an economy that balances the needs of people with the emerging sustainable industries is something that has alienated some from the party, but a modern political party in Australia can’t be sustained by people who want the current system to completely change. Incremental steps is the more sensible and pragmatic road.
One area that receives a variety of focus is that of foreign aid and policy. It makes little sense why a rich country like ours can afford to subsidise the petrol for miners, private health insurance and private car purchases and yet ignore poor nations on our doorstep by cutting aid. It’s reminiscent of our “we are strangers in a strange part of the world” philosophies of the 19th Century. This is why the Greens make this an important policy plank. This area of foreign aid and engagement with the region should be an area of strength for the Greens in the future – as long as it continues focusing on deliverable foreign aid programs into the future. The same goes with asylum seeker policy – the solution isn’t to treat people who seek asylum is punishment or sending them to a country that we can shake some beads at in order to “solve” our “problem”. There are long term solutions out there – and coming up with a meaningful dialogue with other countries should be a major part of that, rather than visiting those countries and buying their boats.
These issues, while important, have been the main focus of this election campaign. Where the Greens’ differences come into stark contrast with the other two is in in the issue of governments providing publicly owned services, such as in health, education, welfare and transport. It is in this area that the Greens are actually conservative – wanting the government to continue to provide support for the community who needs the support, as it used to. It in these areas that private industry can’t provide the services that are just plain uneconomic. This is why private hospitals are really just places for elective surgery, for example. Another example is the paucity of bus services in the outer western suburbs, caused by the elimination of “uneconomic’ routes. This is in stark contrast with the inner city, where uneconomic routes and services are provided and make those areas more attractive to live in for many. The way the outer western suburbs of Sydney and the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne developed in the 1950s and later is an object lesson in how a road focused, privately owned infrastructure philosophy doesn’t work in terms of providing services that are efficient and easily accessible. Increasing public transport funding is not a radical, expensive idea. It’s the reverse – increasing funding for public transport reduces the need for increased road funding and provides a better long term community resource. The M4 can get widened to 4 lanes as it is at Parramatta, but that widening only benefits drivers for a few years. New train lines and services benefits people for decades.
This same concept of access to community resources also applies to welfare. The stark reality outside the high vis jackets and school visits of the campaign is that it’s difficult for many in the community to escape the loop of unemployment and despair. This is good welfare policies that supports peoplewhy properly funded and supported public schools and universities can provide a pathway for students in any area to become a productive member of society. UWS in Western Sydney, for example, is one of the great products of a past Labor Government, helping students from the area get an easily accessed university education – but now we have a Labor Government that seeks to reduce the funding of unis. As it stands, what we get from the two major parties are policies that are seeing many of our public schools slide into ill disciplined, difficult to staff locations – and universities with increased class sizes.
There are also the issues that many write off as “empty symbolism”, such as marriage equality. However, it’s not empty for those people in society who want equity and fairness in a nation that has enviable prosperity. It is one issue that we have seen Kevin Rudd attempt to cynically grab the limelight for, even though it’s been a Greens philosophy for a while. As I argued quite a while ago, marriage equality is a pretty conservative policy, giving access to an old tradition.
I see the Greens as an emerging, professional party that appeal to progressive and conservative members of society. It is not dangerous extremism to be wanting fair, equitable and increased funding of public infrastructure. Nor is it radical to be wanting to conserve land that should be there to be enjoyed by people bushwalking, free of being shot by a visiting member of the Shooters and Fishers. Nor is it extreme to want to protect food bowls in the outer western suburbs and rural areas against threats posed by coal seam gas mining. Reducing the need for coal and gas and using tax dollar to tap into the sun and wind isn’t radical either – it’s long term thinking. It’s not extreme to be wanting a government to fund more public transport rather than subsidising the purchase of private cars through novated lease and building roads that will clog up within 5 years. This is why an old Liberal supporter like me supports the Greens. I know many won’t agree with me and all my views of the Greens and their future – even from within the party – but that’s what makes out society a good one. We can express these views, unfiltered.
Filed under: Communication, Greens, Minor parties, MyVote, Policies, Social media, Values, Western Sydney Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
