| 
Return to Contents page
The Contribution of The Greens (WA) to
the Australian SenateDee
MargettsThe sheer quantity of their Senate contributions gives an indication
of the range of issues which the Greens (WA) have had to deal with over the years.
The Greens (WA) operate according to four basic principles or `pillars'. These
are ecological sustainability, peace and disarmament, social justice and participatory
democracy. The principle of peace and disarmament indicates that we would
take a close interest in both domestic and foreign defence and security issues,
which has certainly been the case over time. Contributions have been via committee
work, questions, motions and speeches. It surprised me to realise how little foreign
policies were questioned between the major parties. With some limited exceptions,
the foreign affairs line was accepted, even when many sources within the world
community held quite a different view of Australia's position. Defence policy
usually has the bipartisan support of the major parties. It is thus of great annoyance
to other committee members when someone like me refers to evidence of those who
hold a different view or writes a minority report on such issues as the training
of overseas forces by the Australian Defence Force because of human rights considerations—or
even questions that defence exports should be subsidised to promote growth as
an export industry. Ecological sustainability and social justice have also
involved a great deal of committee work, but including these principles in the
legislative process has meant analysing the fine detail of legislation to see
not only what it contains but what options governments are ignoring. The so-called
`economic rationalist' agenda has put corporate profitability before economic
or social sustainability. Tracking through these measures and policy changes has
involved an extraordinary frustration when major policy changes are shoved through
with almost no debate or scrutiny other than from minor parties. Policies to promote
`free trade', for instance, have had bipartisan support from the two major parties.
Once again it shocked me to know how little was understood or even discussed within
Labor or Coalition ranks about the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),
the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and the effects of these agreements and international
bodies. Very few senators, other than the Trade Minister or Shadow Minister were
even in the chamber in 1994 for the debate on the WTO, even though few trade bills
have had more effect on Australia's domestic life, as well as the economy. It
was a Labor government which took the first steps to abolish pensions as a right,
supported by the Coalition. It was a Labor government which began down the labour-market
deregulation road with enterprise bargaining (which quickly moved on to individual
contracts and de-unionisation when the Coalition took power). Standing up for
the rights of migrants, refugees, Aboriginals or the young unemployed is not,
it seems, a populist way to win votes. Over my six years in the Senate I have
witnessed a range of measures from either side where basic human rights were subsumed
for economic or other reasons. On these occasions, to amend or oppose legislation
did not win majority support in the Senate, but it was important, I feel, that
the voice of humanity was not totally silenced. It is, of course, not enough
to accept at face value what governments say about their own legislation. Few
people take the time to follow the committee stages of legislation, but that is
where the content and impacts of legislation begin to become apparent. The fact
that governments of either side over the last fifty years have known that their
legislation was likely to be scrutinised in some detail meant that they had to
take greater care in drafting. The fourth Green pillar, participatory democracy,
is what has driven us to try to open up the Senate process to give greater access
to the community. I remember the first meeting Christabel Chamarette and I had
with Paul Keating in 1993 after my election. It took about five minutes for the
pleasantries to turn to threats. The reason for the outrage? Christabel had put
forward a motion to require that the Senate, and thus the community, have time
to consider new legislation. Otherwise known as the Senate `cut-off' motion, it
required bills to be automatically adjourned if insufficient time was available
for scrutiny, unless a government could provide a good reason for urgency. Keating
called it a `constitutional impertinence' and started talking of double dissolution.
We remained unimpressed. The motion was carried, along with a number of other
changes that Christabel helped instigate with the support of the majority of the
Senate, including the Coalition Opposition at the time. These included changes
to ensure committee structures better reflected the make-up of the Senate. Giving
the Senate time provides the community with a valuable window of opportunity.
Governments generally do not like this level of scrutiny and we have frequently
heard the chant of `mandate' from governments in recent years when any of the
details or unexplained impacts are questioned. Few people in the wider community
accept that the party which scrapes over the line on preferences in the House
of Representatives has the right to a three-year elected dictatorship. Most people
would recognise that even when a political party won an election on a particular
platform, the average voter had not handed them a blank cheque for its entire
program. They expect members, within their political party principles, to represent
their electorates.
Illustration
courtesy of Jenny Coopes The greater democratic outrage is the party block
voting system, not the ability of the Senate to amend or indeed reject any aspect
of the government's legislative program. Let us suppose that a party went to an
election with a particular position on tax or spending. We all know that the gap
between platform promises and legislative drafting is often wide. Yet in recent
times, we have seen a succession of governments complaining about amendments by
the Senate, no matter how poorly considered their actual legislation might be.
The legislative program is not, however, the only problem that the Greens
have had to deal with over the years. There is a strong motivation for governments
to play their cards close to their chest with the minimum of scrutiny. The Greens
have been strong and consistent in issues of the accountability of executive government.
There is a particular problem in the context of the increasing privatisation or
corporatisation of government functions. Governments are using the excuse of `commercial-in-confidence'
more and more, even where large amounts of public money is involved. The
Administrative Appeals Tribunal has clearly signalled, in recent rulings, that
many of these excuses are unsustainable. The Senate estimates process has been
very important in bringing forward some of these important accountability issues.
We might get to the ridiculous situation where a minister will refuse to answer
any questions related to his or her portfolio because of outsourcing. Both of
the major parties have moved in this direction—it is the cross-benchers who
have been consistent in calling governments to account. Another related
issue is the recent blurring of the separation of powers. This is the principle
that the parliament, the judiciary and executive government should remain separate.
Budget cuts and corporatisation of government programs and services have threatened
this separation. These are not popular or well-worn issues—I mean, who cares
if the budget is cut to the parliamentary research service or the parliamentary
committees? Parliamentarians are often portrayed as having their snouts in the
trough anyway, so who is going to worry? The problem occurs when permanent staff
are replaced by departmental personnel (under the control of executive government)
or by private contractors (who do not want to ruffle too many feathers as they
want more work in the future). Even the independence of the Attorney-General's
department was questioned during one inquiry because of outsourcing and the difficulties
created with real or potential conflicts of interest. It is vitally important
that committee or research staff have the ability to give advice without fear
or favour. Minor parties like the Greens are acutely aware of these problems and
I have spoken out about them on a number of occasions. One very specific example
I can give of this problem occurred when the Joint Foreign Affairs, Defence and
Trade Committee took on a serving military officer to its Defence sub-committee
secretariat. General budget cuts and other circumstances led to a situation in
which the officer was acting as the secretary of the Defence sub-committee. On
one occasion, the officer appeared in uniform during a defence committee inspection
visit to a defence establishment. When you see a defence committee secretary saluting
other officers, it spells out the problem. Effectively, the secretary was still
a serving military officer. I brought this to the attention of parliament and
there have been changes implemented, but only so as to give the official position
to another already busy senior secretariat member. What concerned me was
that committee members from the two major parties were unable to acknowledge that
a problem even existed. This could relate to the fact that the House of Representatives
really does not have a clear separation of powers in its committee system. Ministers
can direct or block committee inquiries and staff quite frequently are seconded
from departments for seemingly practical reasons. I cannot over-state the importance
of maintaining the independence and professionalism of the Senate committee system,
and I can only hope there will be others speaking out in future against these
kinds of encroachments. When Senate inquiries are one of the few ways left for
the community to have a say in the way our country is governed, most people would
like to be reassured that outcomes will not be designed simply to please the government
of the day. Another issue I have encountered is the ability of a minor
party senator, like myself, effectively to represent a community view even though
it may not be the view supported by both major parties. On some occasions, it
is best to circulate a minority report. On others, it may be putting yourself
and those you represent in a position to be unfairly attacked if you are forced
to circulate your report early to all other committee members. I won this one
too—in the Senate chamber. Another area of committee work where the
Greens (WA) have played an active role are the Senate estimates. There have been
many occasions when Green questions have been met with hostility by the minister
of the day and often other committee members. Some of these lines of questioning
have later proved to have wider public interest and significance. Examples include
money spent on training troops from other countries who later engaged in human
rights abuses, such as in Thailand, Indonesia or Papua New Guinea; the Collins
Class submarine debacle and other defence spending issues; and, of course, environmental
issues like the Regional Forest Agreement. There are other committee processes
where the frequent consensus of the two major parties makes the role of parties
like the Greens vital. If I return to my pet topic of trade and competition policy
issues, an area in which legislation has just been introduced, it is not unusual
for a government to rush through the whole process perhaps before its own party
catches on to the details of what it is doing. The WTO bills that I mentioned
earlier had only one or two hearings as did the National Competition Policy enabling
legislation. On these occasions, if you do not want to be left with just `the
usual suspects' giving evidence, you have to get on the phone and advise groups
you know will be interested that the process is happening and explain how they
can get their views across. There have even been some occasions when, behind
closed doors, Nationals have urged us to stand strongly against the position of
the Coalition in committees and support legislative amendments because they had
been done over in the party room! The frustration on these occasions has been
palpable to all except some of the old party politicians! Other examples
include the nuclear issues that are of concern to a large number of people in
the community. Uranium mining and exports, Lucas Heights, nuclear ship visits,
the nuclear alliance with the United States, nuclear testing and nuclear proliferation
are all issues that have been given an extra edge over the years by the work of
The Greens (WA). Many of these issues would not have been debated at all if we
had not pushed for answers. I have often been asked where the Greens get
the depth and extent of the information that we use in our work. The answer is
simple. We would not have survived without the wider green community, and a whole
range of individuals and groups who would never be identified as part of the Greens'
electorate. One way the party operates is to check with those people likely to
be most affected by government policy decisions as to their opinions, and to seek
specific technical advice from them. You would be surprised how many people have
been responsible for speech notes that have been delivered by me at some stage
in the Senate! I was asked by a senior DETYA official on a plane one day where
we got our information for questions as he had noticed how often I asked about
education and training issues. I explained the network system of two-way communication
with the wider electorate. He asked how we controlled that flow of information
and I replied that we had no intention of controlling it! He blanched. It is not
a method of operation that is well understood in politics. In recent times
the Western Australian Farmers Federation (WAFF) was camped in our office working
up the details on the wheat bills. We also worked with the WAFF on important trade
and competition policy issues. It was not that we did not understand that the
WAFF was not our natural electorate and it was not that we did not understand
that on a number of other important issues, such as native title, we might take
an opposite line. It simply reflected that we have never demanded that lobbyists
be Green supporters before we took up a cause that we felt to be just and in line
with our own principles. That is what community participation in decision
making has meant to us at the Senate level. It does not mean that we are necessarily
going to get re-elected and, of course, I did not (although the Green vote in
WA actually increased from the last two elections). The work in which the
Greens (WA) has been involved in the Senate is one example of why we cannot allow
the major parties' attacks on minor parties and independents to come to fruition
by way of legislative or constitutional attacks to the current system of proportional
representation. In my six years in the Senate, I have witnessed many threats to
parliamentary democracy. The threat of changes to prevent minor parties and independents
being elected who can amplify the voice of the community, which the major parties
may not hear, is real. If you value the community voice, you have to stand up
to the bullies! 
| 
