Tasmanian Greens seeking balance of power

Polls indicate that the Tasmanian election on February 24 is likely to result in a hung parliament, with the Tasmanian Greens holding the balance of power. Green Left Weekly's IGGY KIM spoke to member for Denison and Greens spokesperson PEG PUTT about how the Greens are approaching this prospect. Question: The Greens are aiming for seven seats in this state election. Does this indicate a qualitative shift in how the Greens see their role in state parliament? This election for us marks a real transition from simply being a pressure group within parliament to showing that we're capable of taking on the responsibility of government. We've been going through the different scenarios for how an arrangement might be made with another party if we've got a balance of power situation, or what might occur if such an arrangement can't be made. A lot of the issues are to do with how far we'd move towards taking on the responsible roles in government. We haven't yet finalised that, but one of the things we've talked about is the possibility of taking cabinet positions. Question: What type of arrangement would the Greens be prepared to enter into now? We learnt a lot from the failure of the Labor-Green Accord in 1989-92. There's been time this time to put thought into it. Although there was a lot of significant gain up front in terms of big reservations of World Heritage and the creation of a new national park, the other things that were promised in the accord did not all eventuate. One difficulty was that there wasn't a process set up for consultation and agreement on how the government would set its priorities and whether they were in tune with what the Greens wanted. Furthermore, the Greens were implicated in defending decisions that had been made by Labor in cabinet with no reference to the Greens whatsoever. We don't want to be lumbered with that again; we'd prefer to work out processes for consultation. Question: How do the Greens view "responsible government"? We want to be sure that government really is accountable, that it's reflecting the wishes of people rather than behaving as a rubber stamp for the executive which is subject to the lobbying of big business. They've got a cosy relationship with the cabinet and the executive, so the decision-making really occurs outside of parliament. If there's a minority government and a balance of power situation, that can't happen: decision-making has to be returned to the floor of the House. In a balance of power parliament, we're looking at three different parties. Each group has a part in that balance. It is possible for the Greens to get together with the party with the lesser number of seats to form a majority and oppose something from the government which is unpalatable and unacceptable. So it's possible to go wherever the majority of representatives elected to the parliament are being directed by their constituents. Hopefully, we'll be able to work out an arrangement with one or the other of the major parties that would contain processes for working through difficulties and would have some sort of clause relating to non-fulfilment of the conditions. If we are unable to do that and find ourselves in a more free-wheeling situation, we are guaranteeing to ensure long-term stability, not pitching people back to another election at the drop of a hat. It's important to Tasmania that we don't have repeat elections. Both major parties are saying, "If you don't vote in a majority government, we want another election". We're in this paradoxical situation of saying, "We're not going to pitch you back to another election; we're going to find a way to work with the other people in parliament if that's what electors of Tasmania have decided". It is important for Tasmania that we don't have another election. Stability is good for business. It's also costly to keep having elections, and after the state and federal elections, people would have had a gutful. What they expect is a bit of maturity from their political representatives to find a way to actually work it out. The really critical thing about the stability question is that it is about the maturity to work together. People have had a gutful of political posturing and not getting on with the job. Question: What about the major parties forming alliances between themselves? It happens fairly frequently in the parliament now. For example, on forestry and mining issues, Labor and Liberal will invariably vote together and it will be the Greens who are the only opposition to some of the most damaging initiatives with respect to the environment. We might not like it, but if that's what the majority on the floor of the house are determining, then that's got to be democracy. Balance of power doesn't mean the Greens always hold the whip hand. It means every party has a role to play. If Labor and Liberal get together, then that's perfectly fine. There's a possibility to vote in all sorts of configurations. That really is what it's about.