By Doug Hine
Once again I've been shocked and upset at an article in Green Left by (Democratic Socialist Party National Executive member) Pat Brewer. In the article "National Green Party: On a Dangerous Path" (issue 43), Pat has made a serious effort at throwing mud, constructing straw enemies and perpetrating the big lie. Having been involved with NSW Green politics since it took off in 1988, I cannot let Pat's article go unchallenged.
I, too, have concerns about the development of the so-called "Australian Green Party", which looks like it is to be presented to most Greens as a fait accompli. I accept that it can be more productive for a smaller group to get together to make some initial drafts, but those people should be sensitive to Greens who have not yet been consulted. It is disconcerting, to say the least, when Queensland Green Malcolm Lewis claims that "we expect to see the formation of a national Green Party in the next few weeks" (Queensland Greens Newsletter, Feb '92).
However, Pat Brewer's attempt to portray virtually everyone not in the DSP as being involved in some conspiratorial power grab is right off the mark and is an insult to Greens who support decentralisation of power and proscription of members of other political parties from Green political structures.
I'd like to specifically refute some of Pat's allegations.
"In the late '80s ... the Sydney Greens decided to give 'related party' status to any group which would abide by the four principles ... as the only condition."
The initial proposal from the Sydney Greens document outlining this process included proscription as a requirement for full participation. This was dropped in the hope that a coalition of forces and interests would come into the process.
"Organisers of the [national] meeting [in August] refused to allow participating groups to choose their own delegates freely, deciding not to seat any delegate who was a member of another party in addition to a green party. The August meeting agreed by a large majority that a national party should proscribe members of other political parties — not a surprising decision given the prior 'sifting' of delegates."
I find it amazing that Pat expects that members of existing political parties have a right to adjudicate on the formation and development of a new political entity that will be competing (however friendlily) with the existing parties in the political market place. It's like personnel from IBM being involved in the formation of Apple Computer. Also, implicit in Pat's lack of surprise is recognition that there are no Greens who are not members of the DSP who are prepared to sympathise with the DSP position.
"A state registrations committee was set up by the nce with a set of rules as to how to administer access to the [Green] name for state elections."
Yes, the NSW State Registrations Committee was initiated by the Green Alliance. However, it was set up to be independent of the Alliance, being composed of delegates from local groups/parties and therefore accountable to those groups/parties. The brief from the Green Alliance conference was for the Registrations Committee to go off and further develop the rules or guidelines under which the committee would operate. The same conference also set up some subcommittees for networking, policy, etc. The Registrations Committee was clearly not to be one of these subcommittees.
It's ludicrous for Pat to believe that in some way the unaccountable and moribund Green Alliance can override the Registrations Committee. Virtually all independent Green activists have given up on the alliance, and it now serves only as a springboard for the DSP to wield influence within Green political structures.
If Pat's alternative view of the Registrations Committee-Alliance relationship is so cut and dried, why was there a need for Murray Addison to promote a clearer set of organisational rules to the meetings of February 1 and 2?
Pat also fails to mention the crisis of the Green Alliance. Late last year, the alliance attempted to organise a preselection for an upper house electoral ticket. The alliance's waning credibility meant that it attracted only two nominations — Ian Cohen and Janet Parker. In view of the concern voiced by many Greens about the narrow base of the alliance process, Ian withdrew after the postal ballots for the 80 or so alliance members had been sent out. This left the alliance's capacity to preselect candidates seriously undermined, and one way out was to pass this function on to the more credible and accountable State Registrations Committee.
"At the Saturday conference, attended overall by some 30 people, the alliance approved the organisational rules without objection."
At the Saturday Conference, at which half the alliance members present were DSP members, Pat attempted to amend Murray's rules to restrict the Registrations Committee to discussing purely electoral issues and to enable the Green Alliance to, at any time, decide that the Registrations Committee had broken its promise and revoke its authority. This was the spectre of the alliance actually establishing its power over the Registrations Committee.
The vote taken to accept the organisational rules was not objected to, but the DSP, as a bloc, abstained — hardly a vote of confidence for the process and the document that Pat now appears to champion!
Regarding the behaviour of Al Oshlack, I also found it to be reprehensible and I dissociate myself from all his actions — as I did on the day. I object most strongly to Pat's nd my Green colleagues with the same vile brush.
To say that "none of those who shared Oshlack's views on the issues in dispute called him to order" when Al issued the particular obscenity that is quoted is a really cheap shot. This guy was raving off his head in a most disgraceful display for something like 15 minutes. No DSP members called Al "to order" for any particular current in his stream of abuse either. At one stage, I asked DSP member Bernie Brian whether we should physically show Al out, but Bernie recommended against it.
"At the State Registrations Committee meeting the next day ... nothing was resolved."
My understanding of the outcome of the meeting was that delegates were to take Murray's rules back to their respective groups for consideration. They had no time to do this prior to weekend.
"It was moved to declare the committee independent of the Green Alliance. If passed, the motion would have amounted to an illegal putsch."
Most observers of the process agree that the Registrations Committee has always been independent of the alliance. The motion would have simply put the issue beyond doubt. The DSP, in supporting Murray's rules, indicated that they had no problem with the Registrations Committee taking over the responsibility to organise preselections for upper house electoral tickets; it was just a matter of agreeing to some guarantees. The nub of the proceedings of the whole weekend was really about attempting to redefine the rights and responsibilities of the alliance and the Registrations Committee with the mutual agreement of the two bodies.
Pat seems disappointed that no-one was ejected on the Sunday for offensive behaviour, even though it was warranted. She must have forgotten that I moved that Al Oshlack be ejected from the meeting for alleging that one delegate had been " horizontally recruited". Except for fellow Inner West Green Paul Fitzgerald, I received no support. The cynical might think that it served the purposes of the DSP to have Oshlack remain in the meeting.
I agree that Oshlack's behaviour in Tasmania is also reprehensible.
"Eight (delegates) ... now objected to 20 out of the 27 clauses [of Murray's proposed rules] ... the meeting broke down when facilitator Ian Cohen walked out."
What in fact happened is that the meeting skipped through the document to see which clauses needed to be discussed further. Looking at it from the other way, it may be considered an achievement to have full consensus on more than one quarter of the proposed rules. There was no time or energy to pursue a full discussion and Ian, correctly, in my opinion, reflected a feeling of the meeting that we might as well close at about 3.30 p.m. on n.
As far as I can see, there's a lot more complexity to the Australian Green political scene than the "centralised national party" and "the local group ... fully autonomous ... deciding for itself membership". My preferred position is for there to be autonomous local groups or parties, qualified by acceptance of restrictions on membership by members of other political parties. I see a need for regional, state and national delegated councils, although decisions must be made at the local level unless it is expressly necessary for them to be taken higher up. Now I don't think that makes me a "centralist". And I don't believe that and my behaviour at any time in this difficult process could be understood as abusive or threatening.
So Pat, I'd like to suggest in the nicest possible way that you look up the word "objective" in the dictionary and please get off our backs.