By Iggy Kim
In the face of a propaganda offensive by the major parties, the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the establishment media for the election of a "stable" government, the Tasmanian Greens lost of one of their five seats in the recent state election.
Ironically, the establishment's scare campaign resulted in a hung parliament with the Liberal government losing its majority, the Labor party gaining three extra seats through an unprecedented 12% swing, and the Greens, portrayed as the "destabilising" element, suffering a 3% decline.
With a minority Liberal government, the Greens see themselves as participants in a three-way balance of power in the House of Assembly. The leader of the Tasmanian Greens, Christine Milne, told Green Left Weekly that this is "a new era for Tasmanian politics".
For the Greens, a balance of power situation signals a move towards "true democracy because decisions will not be able to be made by the executive in the Cabinet room with the expectation that parliament is just going to rubber-stamp them".
Accordingly, the Greens believe that the possibility of influencing outcomes will empower ordinary voters and community groups to get involved in the political process. Milne, who sees this as fundamental political change, recently wrote: "It is wonderful that the Greens will be part of this new future so that we can pass on to our children a better political system". She told Green Left, "We've got the best chance we've ever had of bringing the people back into parliament".
The Tasmanian Greens also believe a balance of power parliament forces cooperation and conciliation between political parties. In the January-February issue of their magazine, the Daily Planet, they cite the previous NSW parliament as an ideal example: "The minority Liberal government went into full term with an innovative, dynamic and accountable parliament".
On the basis of a "cooperative" legislature, the Greens had hoped for a "multi-party government" along South African, Swiss and Finnish models. Since the election, they have unsuccessfully proposed joint government to both major parties, including three approaches to the Labor party.
Essentially, they were aiming for a more effective version of the 1989-1992 Labor-Green Accord which allowed the minority Labor government to rule with the Greens' support. Labor broke the Accord by violating — with the support of the Liberals — a key clause that sought to restrict the export woodchip quota. Ironically, the Greens describe the Accord as "one of the state's most innovative and dynamic periods of government".
Asked what would be different this time around, Milne told Green Left, "The problem with the Accord was that neither Labor nor the Greens in 1989 had any expectations of being able to go into government and so it was a rushed arrangement.
"There was nothing in the Accord about process, about how we would feed into budget discussions, what consultation would be required if there were any changes to be made.
"Essentially it was a shopping list and once it was signed, the Labor party took government and behaved as if it was a majority government.
"We realised that this time around, if we were to go into partnership, it had to really be a partnership so that we would be in Cabinet, there would be an agreed policy agenda and there would be process written into the arrangement to ensure conflict resolution."
Despite the major parties' rejection of their offer for joint government, "the Greens intend to work both with the Liberal and Labor parties", Milne said. "We're going to try and make [minority government] work. We're committed to working in the best interests of the state."
The Greens are not alone. After the election, former Liberal leader Ray Groom made a total turnaround and stated that the Liberals had a "mandate" to make minority government work, due to the overwhelming public support not to have a second election. This has since been reaffirmed by the new Liberal premier, Tony Rundle, who announced on March 21 plans for an open forum between the three political parties to decide how parliament should operate.
Milne claims that "They've now adopted all the things I've been saying about the need to cooperate, the need to end the adversarial system and so on". But the decisive factor in the Liberals' turnaround may have been the reassurances given by the Labor party. In a 7.30 Report debate between Groom and Labor leader Michael Field shortly before the election, Field all but admitted defeat by offering support for a Liberal minority government. Since the election Field has guaranteed confidence in the Liberals and support for budgetary bills.
It seems Labor has learnt its own lessons from the Accord with the Greens. In the 1992 state election, an establishment backlash against "instability" resulted in a 7% swing to the Liberals. Since then, Labor has vehemently opposed all deals with the Greens, paradoxically painting them as untrustworthy. Milne confirms this: "The Labor party has rejected working with the Greens and instead prefers the Liberals to be in government".
As the head of the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry stated in the March issue of Tasmanian Business Reporter, "There is no ideological gulf between the [major] parties when it comes to economic development issues".
In fact, Liberal and Labor vote together on most legislation, particularly that relating to resource security for mining and logging companies. For Milne, the answer to this is: "We'll just make a very strong stand for an alternative position. This is a democracy and where the majority votes, there is nothing that the losing side can do except stand there as an advocate for an alternative position."
The Tasmanian Greens have suffered declining votes since 1989. While the multi-member proportionally represented House of Assembly gives smaller parties a greater chance of winning seats, it is a double-edged sword. If progressive forces in Tasmania are unable to go beyond a strategy of balance of power in parliament or beyond concentrating the majority of their energy on electoral work, they will be outflanked by the extra-parliamentary campaign against "instability" from big business, the establishment media and the major parties. This was demonstrated in the post-Accord 1992 election which delivered a 4% swing away from the Greens, then again this year with their 3% loss.