Write on: letters to the editor

January 31, 1996
Issue 

Write on: letters to the editor

ACT Greens I welcome the comment piece by Jonathan Millar, an adviser to the ACT Greens, in response to my article, "Can the ACT Greens stop the Liberals' cuts?". A discussion/debate is certainly needed to decide which is the best way forward for the green and left movements. I want to state three points. Firstly, it still remains unjustifiable for the Greens to have voted for Carnell from the Liberal Party as Chief Minister. The three reasons given as to why the Greens voted for the Liberals were that the Liberals promised open and consultative government, Labor had cut many services and the Liberals received a higher vote. How could the Greens be so naive to believe that the Liberals were really going to be consultative, after what Kennett did to Victoria? Surely the major lesson in Australian politics over the last 10 years is that whichever government gets in, Labor or Liberal, it will wage an austerity campaign to cut services and living standards. There is no scope for consultation in this context. While it is true that Labor cut education and health, the Liberal cuts, as expressed in the 1995 ACT budget, were far more severe. If the choice is between a Liberal or Labor government, surely the better choice is to go with the lesser evil of a Labor government to expose their lack of any green or worker credibility. Secondly, Jonathan states that it was "factually incorrect" for me to claim that "without the Greens' support the Liberals could not have formed government". Here I used the word "support" to mean that if the Greens had decided to campaign in the community and to organise demonstrations against the formation of a Liberal government, it could have been possible to stop the formation of such a government. I was not talking of narrow parliamentary numbers. Anyway the Greens supported the formation of a Liberal government. Thirdly, one of the aims of my article was to initiate a discussion on what strategies could defeat the cuts which both major parties are undertaking. Jonathan alluded to aspects of the Green strategy including some of their parliamentary initiatives and reaching out to community groups, and concludes by saying that, "to affect lasting social and environmental change, it is essential the Greens increase their representation in parliament". Certainly having members in parliament can be useful in publicising ideas, using the members to organise actions and demonstrations, empowering people to take action and in leading a fight against the cuts. But the Greens are not using their parliamentarians in this way. There are also big limits to achieving social change through parliament, as many decisions affecting thousands of people are not made in parliament, but in the boardrooms of big business. The main strategy to defeat Liberal/Labor parties needs to be one of mass action, of organising demonstrations and actions which involve at least as many people as the Franklin Dam campaign and the WA union blockade did.
James Vassilopolous
Lyneham ACT Population and the Democrats On national television on Sunday January 22, Cheryl Kernot, parliamentary leader of the Australian Democrats, indicated that the Democrats had come to the same conclusions on the need to cut immigration as former Labor Party maverick and racist, Graeme Campbell. The difference between the two, Kernot said, was that the Democrats had reached their conclusions based on environmental concerns, not "emotive issues". The "scientific case" for linking population numbers directly with environmental degradation, is summarised by Democrat spokesperson Brad Starkie, in GLW #216. Starkie's comments seem largely based on the assertions of writers like Paul Ehrlich who draw simplistic mathematical correlations between population numbers and environmental harm. Misanthropic assertions like, "human beings are no different to other animals, in having a maximum sustainable stocking rate", completely miss the point. The degradation of the Murray/Darling system, for instance is not caused by population pressures, but by ecologically unsustainable practices. As early as the early 1970s, ecologists like Barry Commoner exploded the myth linking growing environmental degradation with population. Commoner's conclusions were that the production for profit system necessarily degrades the environment. It leads to growing pollution and systematically substitutes more damaging for less damaging technologies, as the former are the more profitable. Population pressures, far from being a cause of poverty or environmental degradation, are their symptom. To stabilise population, we must address the root problem first — the unsustainable power of big business.
Graham Matthews
Bondi NSW Foreign policy Col Friel (Write on #GLW 217) expresses justifiable outrage at the Keating government's support for the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia. However his and the Australian Greens' calls for an "independent" and "non-aligned" Australian foreign policy are misconceived. Firstly, the Australian government's foreign policy is not being imposed on it by any other government. It reflects the independent interests of those who run this country — Australia's bankers, industrialists and media barons. Secondly, in relation to Indonesia, what would an "independent" and "non-aligned" Australian foreign policy mean? Indonesia, just like Australia, is a country divided into classes with antagonistic interests. Should working people in Australia demand that the Australian government adopt a policy of neutrality ("non-alignment") in relation to the struggles being waged by Indonesian workers and peasants for democratic rights, for decent wages and working conditions? Should we demand that the Australian government adopt a "non-aligned" policy in relation to the Indonesian military's occupation of East Timor and the East Timorese people's struggle for national self-determination? The working people of Australia have the same class interests as the working people of Indonesia and East Timor, interests which are the opposite of those defended by the Australian and Indonesia governments, and their big business masters. We should therefore demand that the Australian government adopts a foreign policy that reflects our interests and not those of Australia's corporate rulers; a foreign policy that is unambiguously aligned with interests of working people in Indonesia, East Timor and, indeed, in every other country.
Max Lane
Democratic Socialist spokesperson on foreign policy
Sydney Tax Office picket We are writing in response to the bizarre behaviour of Abi Piper, CPSU Tax Division official, on the picket line at Newcastle Tax Office on January 24. The strike and picket were called to protest compulsory redundancies and forced transfers among other things. We had gone to communicate support from the Democratic Socialists for the action, and to report for Green Left Weekly. Without provocation we were told to "piss off". Piper refused to be interviewed to explain her point of view and would not allow us to take a photograph of the picket. What exactly her problem was is difficult to know. All we can be sure of is that the mere sight of a bundle of GLW was enough to arouse intense indignation. We can only assume that exposure in GLW of the pro-ALP agenda of the Progressive Caucus in the CPSU (with which Piper is aligned) is enough to make her just the tiniest bit touchy.
Kamala Emanuel and Alex Bainbridge
Newcastle NSW Kennett Why doesn't Mr Kennett do things in a quick more efficient way by simply opening extermination camps for the sick (who need hospitals) and the poor elderly (who need concessions)? If you happen to be a &189; Jewish, &189; gipsy, poor, sick, elderly person, too bad! Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Victoria!
Rosemary Evans
St Kilda Vic

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.