By Lisa Macdonald
and Karen Fletcher
A national teleconference initiated from Western Australia at short notice on July 30 decided to proceed with a top-down process towards formation of a green party, incorporating a NSW proposal for a national meeting on August 17-18. The hook-up accepted a heavily modified version of the proposal which came out of a NSW statewide meeting of Greens on July 6.
The July 30 hook-up was called largely because the NSW proposal, contained in a letter circulated by Sydney activist Doug Hine, was not acceptable to the Denison and WA Greens (associated with Bob Brown and Jo Vallentine respectively).
While the NSW proposal made acceptance of some form of proscription a precondition for participation in the national meeting, it included several options other than total proscription, including the possibility of a sunset clause (a date by which members of existing parties would have to leave those parties, or by which those parties would be expected to dissolve). This, apparently, was not acceptable.
The insistence on proscription will remain, but it seems only total proscription is acceptable to the parliamentarians involved. During the teleconference, Bob Brown was reportedly insistent that members of existing parties should not be allowed to participate in the August meeting, saying he would withdraw from attempts to form a green party unless he got his way. After some disagreement during the teleconference, it is unclear whether observers will be admitted to the meeting and, if so, whether they will be allowed to speak.
Brown also reportedly pressed for a quick merger between existing green parties and the Australian Democrats, and it is likely this point will be on the agenda of the August meeting.
Also apparently unacceptable was the original NSW formulation that any national party should be based on local, autonomous, parties. A further change to the NSW proposal is that some previously invited groups have been disinvited, most notably the Queensland Green Network and the Brisbane-based Institute for Social Ecology.
Drew Hutton, one of the five self-appointed national "conveners", told a recent meeting of the Brisbane-based Australian Green Working Group (AGWG) that the initial invitations were issued mistakenly by Doug Hine, who had "little idea who the legitimate green groups are". Hutton added that Hine and Sydney-based fellow national "convener" Hall Greenland had issued invitations to "loonies".
According to Hutton, the Hine letter contained loose and careless formulations, which made its proposals unacceptable to the Tasmanian and WA groups. Hine and others had apparently proceeded on the basis of the five conveners' hint in a June 18 letter that they were expecting an acceptable proposal from the NSW meeting: "We note with interest that the NSW registered groups are planning to meet in Sydney on July 6. We feel hopeful that a fresh initiative will emerge after this meeting."
But despite an unusually strong turnout by supporters of the conveners on July 6 (Illawarra Greens were particularly well represented), it seems Greenland and another convener, Steve Brigham, were unable to deliver whatever they had promised to the other conveners. In particular, Greenland's argument for immediate and total proscription of other parties was rejected in favour of the proposals later circulated by Hine.
The July 30 teleconference included representatives from Brisbane, north Queensland, WA, Tasmania, Sydney, Illawarra, Lismore and the Hunter region. There were no participants from Victoria, South Australia, the Northern Territory or the ACT.
It seems the August meeting will now consist of six delegates from Tasmania (one from each of five local groups and one to represent the parliamentarians), 13 from branches of the Greens (WA), 15 from NSW, two each from South Australia, Victoria and the ACT, one from the Northern Territory, and six from Queensland.
The Victorian delegates are unlikely to include members of the Rainbow Alliance because, according to prominent member Harry van Moorst, there is ambivalence in the group towards a green party. Many members would be happy to cooperate with a green party but not to merge with it. As well, while there has been productive dialogue between Rainbow (Vic) and the greens, it's clear some greens are averse to including leftist elements in a green party.