2018-08-16
By Rob Delves, GI Co-editor
[This article was drafted before the 28th July by-elections, to address Greens vs Labor contests. However, it could only be published thereafter but nevertheless provides grist for upcoming such contests.]
With no Liberal candidates showing up in the Perth and Fremantle by-elections, our attention is sharpened on how to articulate a compelling difference between The Greens and Labor. In the Fremantle by-election campaign I was asked this question quite often, both in general conversations and when doorknocking. I’d like to share my thoughts on how we answer it and encourage others to add their comments and experiences in later editions of Green Issue as we head towards the federal election in… 2019??
On most occasions on the doorsteps there isn’t the opportunity for a lengthy explanation, at least initially. Therefore, I usually go for what I think are the four most important policy differences for me at the moment:
1. REFUGEES: The clear difference is our commitment to a more humane treatment of asylum seekers, compared to Labor’s policy which is identical to the Liberals – demonizing those who’ve fled persecution and then imprisoning them in indefinite detention on Manus and Nauru. Close the camps, bring the refugees to Australia.
2. CLIMATE CHANGE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY: The Greens have a much stronger policy on climate change. This includes opposing all new fossil fuel projects (beginning with Stop Adani Now), and much faster transition to renewable energy ‒ our 2030 target is 90% compared to Labor’s 50%.
3. GETTING BIG MONEY OUT OF POLITICS: Big money corrupts our democracy, gives wealthy corporations far too much influence and drowns out the voices of everyday citizens. The Greens endorse GetUp’s campaign to severely cap donations and demand much more transparency.
4. MONEY FOR ESSENTIAL SERVICES, NOT TAX CUTS: A very topical issue as of June 2018! We believe Labor is fundamentally wrong to be engaged in a reckless tax auction with the Liberals – “my tax cuts are bigger than yours!” The tax cuts are miserly for those on lower incomes, they increase inequality and take revenue from essential services that would provide much greater help to the majority: better funded health care and education, plus a decent social safety net (e.g. Newstart allowance).
In the Batman by-election, The Greens messaging focused on the first two policy differences mentioned above – Refugees and Adani. These policy differences are strong, clear, simple to understand and important. Having said that, the Batman Greens acknowledged that local feedback showed people didn’t rate these issues at the top of their order. Their top two were decent, secure jobs and affordable housing. The Greens policies on these issues are harder to explain concisely, as they involve a complex set of solutions, some of which we share with Labor. But definitely worth explaining if the conversation reaches the stage where people are strongly engaged with the issues.
If she had been elected, our Fremantle candidate, Dorinda Cox, would have been the first Indigenous woman in the Reps. Her flyer highlights putting families ahead of corporations and banks, plus putting funding of health, education and transport ahead of tax cuts. Dorinda is a passionate advocate of The Greens 'Change the Date' campaign, plus a raft of other things we advocate around justice for Indigenous Australians, such as saving the Burrup, welcoming the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and negotiating a Treaty.
I believe we should make these a higher priority and sharper policy difference: indeed, go even further where Labor fears to tread. For example, we should call for widespread name changes to state and federal electorates, suburbs, public places and geographic landmarks. Speaking of which, it’s great to see Batman is one of the federal electorates getting the name-chop ‒ renamed Cooper, after Yorta Yorta activist William Cooper.
Furthermore, I’d like The Greens to use the example of the Memorial Explorers’ Monument in Fremantle as the way to deal with this kind of offensive, one-sided colonial era statue or monument. In 1994 a “counter-plaque” acknowledging the right of Indigenous people to defend country and commemorating “all those Aboriginal people who died during the invasion of their country” was added by the local Indigenous community.
This approach resonates with the very best Greens values. It creates a dialogue where one view of the past takes issue with another and history is seen, not as some final statement, but a contingent and contested narrative. Colonial monuments are turned into points of reflection and tools for education, which is much better than the alternatives – angry refusal to change anything, angry vandalizing of monuments or attempts to ‘tidy up the past’ by their removal.
OK, that was a bit of a tangent. However, there are powerful differences here, especially over Change the Date. While this is a newish Greens’ commitment, we’ve been talking about it for some time. For example, Bob Brown gave a major speech in Hobart on January 26th 2014 to call for a new date for Australia Day.
Our recent embrace of legalising marijuana creates another policy difference. These two recent initiatives on drug reform and Australia Day have elicited the usual barrage of derision. There’s a long history of The Greens pioneering policy initiatives which are initially ridiculed or ignored and later adopted by governments, occasionally Liberal governments (e.g. gun control laws), but more usually Labor (e.g. marriage equality is the most recent). It’s important to let people know that The Greens have achieved an impressive list of important outcomes, often without getting proper credit.
Currently, The Greens are challenging Labor to join us in demanding a federal anti-corruption watchdog, a bill to allow dying with dignity and an end to the Private Health Insurance Rebate, with the money being directed into Medicare, especially dental care. These three policies continue the great tradition whereby The Greens drag Labor, kicking and screaming, to where they need to be.
Finally, how do we explain what makes Green politics different at the more fundamental level of values? The emergence of The Greens as a unique political movement can be traced back to the rise of environmental concerns from the late 1960s. The Right questioned the importance of these concerns and argued that if there is a problem, then more prosperity is the answer: economic growth will create the money and other resources to clean up any pollution.
Labor has always sought to balance the twin priorities of economic growth and fair distribution. It has now added environmental protection into the mix to create the “triple bottom line” – essentially a system of triple trade-offs between Economy-Society-Environment. Having previously ignored all the environmental destruction, Labor’s view now was that destruction is legitimate if the benefits to the market and people are deemed to be greater than saving the environment. Jobs versus the environment was born – and the environment has had very few wins in that competition.
By contrast, The Greens worldview is that protection of nature and ecosystems is our very ethical centre – the starting point of political engagement. Green Economics begins from the certainty that human thriving depends on planetary thriving. Therefore, the first priority of economic activity is that it must stay below the ecological ceiling. Science is becoming increasingly confident in its ability to accurately describe the nine most important planetary boundaries and measure the extent that we are pushing beyond them (climate change, loss of biodiversity and nitrogen-phosphorus overload are the three biggest worries). Economic activity must be circular in concept and regenerative by design, in contrast to the old linear or throwaway model of take-make-use-lose.
Furthermore, we know that the supposed correlation between greater wealth and a healthier environment is flawed. Instead, the proven correlations across all income levels are that environmental quality is higher where income is more equitably distributed, people are more literate and civil and political rights are better respected. So, inevitably, Green values demand a social foundation. If economic activity must be designed to ensure we don’t overshoot the ecological ceiling, it must also be designed so that no citizens fall below the foundation level of life’s basic human needs. These upper and lower boundaries are non-negotiable: how we go about creating a thriving economy between the boundaries is a matter for democratic debate based on the best that economics and science can teach us.
In attempting to understand and explain how The Green’s worldview differs from mainstream conservative and Labor values, I’m indebted to Christine Milne’s insights in her book Christine Milne: An Activist Life and to Kate Raworth’s wonderful book Doughnut Economics (as pictured in the header photo). However, I’d like to be able to express these principles in more concise and convincing language. Any contributions are much appreciated!