Green Left Weekly’s Graham Matthews spoke to Victorian Greens Senate candidate David Risstrom about his views on the federal election and the Greens’ results.
The Greens polled very well nationally, increasing your vote to 7.5%. Was the party happy with the result? To what do you attribute this success?
I have mixed emotions about the result. It was great to increase our representation, and great to increase the percentage vote, particularly given the concerted campaign of lies and right-wing groupings acting against us. It’s quite possible that with only a slight increase in our vote we would have had five or six senators. That’s been a frustrating position to be in. We think Australia needs Green representation. The regression that we’re about to experience is very difficult to contemplate with the Coalition and possibly Family First controlling the House of Representatives and the Senate.
I have huge disappointment that I wasn’t elected to the Senate, because having worked solidly, probably for over 10 years contributing towards the Senate, it’s difficult to be defeated by a grouping that were dishonest in their campaigning and received only one fifth of the [Green’s] vote.
In Victoria the Greens polled very well, increasing your vote to 8.6% in the Senate. How will you seek to build on this vote in future elections?
We’ll continue to do what the Greens have done, which is to stand up for principle. We’ll continue to be progressive, we’ll do a lot of thinking about how we increase our genuine involvement with the community. There’ll be a full policy review where we’ll be talking with the community, to make sure that people know that the Greens are a constant and valuable presence for progressive voices. We will be ready for the inevitable attack of the right.
This campaign was characterised by repetitive misreading of false statements, generated by the right about the Greens. We’ll have to be more active in taking legal action, and in ensuring that the Australian Electoral Commission fulfils their job, which at times they didn’t do in this election.
We’ll have to do more planning for the [next] election, and be a great deal more prepared for the dishonesty which appears to be the norm for election campaigning for some parties.
Despite your substantial vote, you missed out on a Senate seat after the distribution of ALP and Democrats preferences, which went to Family First. What does this tell you about the secret party preference deals that were stitched up and the preferential as opposed to full proportional representation system?
The ALP and Democrats leadership that authorised these grubby deals have betrayed their membership. Preferences are a normal part of elections and the system itself is a good way of ensuring that people’s preferences are expressed in a result, but also in helping parties discuss policies outside of the formal election, and to try and modify each other’s platforms. The ALP and Democrats preferenced Family First, which I think the majority of ALP and Democrat members would have been horrified about, and certainly wouldn’t have supported their platform. So, the party officials have betrayed the faith that the membership placed in them, and I think they’ll pay for that.
As far as the preference system goes, it does have a valuable function. It’s certainly far superior to the first-past-the-post system. I think the Senate system should be modified to allow above-the-line voting showing the individual’s preference, so rather than just voting one, and trusting that if you’re an ALP voter your preference will flow to where you want it to, there should be a choice to vote above the line, across the line, so you’re not voting for the forces of darkness behind a progressive vote.
One of the biggest threats is that the conservatives will now carry out their stated intention of modifying the Senate voting system, so that progressive parties are locked out, effectively forever. They could make the threshold for entering the Senate as difficult as for the House of Representatives, or even more difficult.
Now that the Senate is controlled by the right-wing parties, the options for utilising Senate committees and other forms of parliamentary resistance are severely limited. What is the Greens’ strategy for defeating Howard’s fourth-term agenda?
The greatest difficulty is that the majority of us are not going to realise what we’ve lost. Senate committees operate very effectively to interrogate, to scrutinise and to test the actions and legislation of the parliament. This Coalition government hasn’t got a good record of rewarding scrutiny. We’re going to have a period of parliament where the government is going to have its hand in the cookie jar, and they’ll be pulling out the light bulbs at the same time. We’re simply not going to know what they’re up to, and it’s not going to be good for Australia in any regard.
With the weakening of the Senate system, have the Greens thought about an alternate strategy?
The Greens will continue to bring the people to the parliament, to raise issues on the streets, to speak up when there’s a wrong done, whether popular or not, and we’ll continue to appeal to people’s better sense of judgement rather then a cynical view of the electorate. We will have three senators there at least, and those three senators may well outshine all others, as the two senators in the last parliament probably made more impact as an opposition than many other senators did.
It’s going to be far more difficult than we wanted it to be. There are going to be very many things that the Greens wanted to do that are going to have to be put on hold, but we’ll be rebuilding. We’ve increased our vote; we’re hoping to do well in state elections and we’re working hard on local government elections. It’s a maturing process, because you realise how much you are against conservative forces, and that means the ALP and the Liberals in their actions.
What prospects do you see for greater collaboration between progressive forces in an extra-parliamentary sense over the next three years? Is Sid Spindler’s call for a merger of the Greens and the Democrats the way forward?
The Democrats’ actions in this election make me doubt that they’re a progressive force. I think that people need to consider the actions of parties and individuals, and decide who really is on a progressive path.
We need to cooperate, wherever we can, because the forces of darkness are cashed-up; conservative forces are never short of money and influence, and unless progressives in Australia realise how much power we have given the conservatives, and how much it is at odds with the will of ordinary Australians, then we won’t be able to do the work Australians want us to do.
What are your plans now after October 9?
To regroup my thoughts. I was never guaranteed to win. I was optimistic, and I am very disappointed, particularly to lose this way. I’d like to re-stand for the Senate in 2007, but that’ll be a question for the membership.
From Green Left Weekly, October 27, 2004.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.
