Bob Brown: going for government

The 1996 federal election is the first major opportunity for the Australian Greens to present themselves as a serious, nationwide alternative to the major parties. On February 7, Green Left Weekly's MARGARET GLEESON caught up with the Greens' national spokesperson BOB BROWN in Adelaide about some of the key questions confronting his party going into this election. Question: You have stated that the Greens want to forge closer links with the Democrats in the future. What are the main differences between these two parties? Cheryl Kernot put it very well when she referred to the Greens as more oppositional and having a radical stance. The Democrats are the moderate face, whereas the Greens are quite determinedly about creating the possibility for us to change course as a human community towards a socially just and environmentally sustainable future. Everybody takes those terms on board when they think it's in their interests. But you can't do that under economic rationalism which wants to take the power out of parliament, away from the people and put it into the corporate boardrooms, into the hands of a smaller and smaller number of powerful, rich people. Power can be better shared with the people. We ought to be extending freedom of information legislation to cover the private sector. We ought to end this string of privatisations so that public utilities aren't in the hands of a few profit makers who are cutting services and jobs. We would like to see the burden of taxation taken off the creation of jobs (eg payroll tax) and put onto polluters and once only resource extractors. Question: What is the Greens' position on blocking supply if it had the balance of power? The Democrats have attacked us for refusing to give away the power to block supply. They've all signed a document giving away that power. But Labor hasn't. Since 1975, neither Labor nor Liberal have brought in legislation to change that power in the Senate. Why should we, on the progressive side of politics, give up these powers? We want proportional representation for the people's chamber, the House of Representatives. Only then would we look at a referendum on changing the power to block supply in the Senate. This concentration on stable government so often simply means having the likes of Jeff Kennett creating all sorts of instability in the community. Question: Would you consider entering an Accord (like the Tasmanian Greens had with Labor in 1989) with a minority Liberal government? We will keep talking with both the economic rationalist parties about how best to get the views we hold brought into being. We've got a closed door to nobody. They've closed the door on us. They say they won't talk to us. Question: If you had the balance of power in the Senate, what issues would you choose to exercise it on? I don't think it will come to that this time, but the experience here and in Europe has shown that, where the Greens have the balance of power and don't negotiate with the old parties to make advances in policy, they get voted out at the next election. Question: Does it matter to the Greens which of the two major parties hold government after this election? It's becoming less and less obvious what the differences are between the two. There are people in particular areas of social policy who are very concerned about Labor losing government. And there are people in the environment movement who could be influenced by Howard's promises. The reality is that they're both such bad bargains that people ought to be voting Green this time. We're not in there as a preference machine, and we're not in there to determine who is the lesser of two evils. We're there to take seats, to move towards opposition and then government. The Greens are directing their preferences to the Democrats. It will be up to local branches (in the case of the lower house) and state councils (in the case of the Senate) to decide how preferences are directed after that.