BY ALISON DELLIT
The large swing to the Australian Greens on November 10 was the bright spot in the gloom of the Coalition victory. It reflected the growing number of people who are disgusted with the Coalition and Labor parties' inhumane and xenophobic refugee policies.
The Greens' results were impressive. Their Senate vote almost doubled, from 2.7% in 1998 to 4.8%. Contesting all lower house seats for the first time, the Greens increased their average House of Representatives' vote from 2.7% in 1998 to 4.3%.
In many inner-city areas the Greens did extremely well. Aside from Pamela Curr's 15.8% in the seat of Melbourne, the party obtained 11.2% in the Melbourne seats of Batman and Melbourne Ports. Jamie Parker received 14.7% in the seat of Sydney, Sylvia Hale scored 12.9% in the inner-western Sydney seat of Grayndler and Alison Lyssa got 9.6% in the eastern Sydney seat of Wentworth. Fremantle candidate Robert Delves scored 9%, the same as fellow candidate Steve Walker in neighbouring Curtin.
Even in the Democrats' stronghold of Adelaide, the Greens increased their vote significantly. In the seat of Adelaide, Lynn Osbourne nearly doubled the Greens' 1998 result (from 3.4% to 6%). Democrats' leader Senator Natasha Stott Despoja could only manage 12.5% in South Australia, despite having her picture plastered on all polling booths throughout Australia.
The Greens only senator, Bob Brown, received 13.7% of the vote in Tasmania, enough to retain his seat despite the preference policies of both major parties that disadvantaged him.
The Greens are likely to get Kerry Nettle elected in NSW, at the expense of Democrat Senator Vicki Bourne. A tight race between the Greens' Scott Kinnear and Democrats Senator Lyn Allison could give the Greens a third senator. Greens (WA) member Rachel Siewert still has a slim chance of knocking off Democrats right-winger Senator Andrew Murray.
Without the preference deal the Democrats did with the ALP (which put them before the Greens in the Senate), only have two of the Democrats' five senators up for re-election would have been successful — Stott Despoja and Andrew Bartlett in Queensland.
The Democrats vote did not increase. In fact, the results indicate that some of those who six months ago were intend to vote Democrats voted for the Greens.
But that was before the Tampa steamed over the horizon.
Patriotic election
Before the "Tampa affair", Prime Minister John Howard was staring certain defeat in the face, as large numbers of angry voters believed that he was more supportive of the bank and big business than working-class "battlers".
Labor looked likely to be elected simply for not being the Coalition. The Democrats' "we hate both of them" refrain seemed likely to swing some of the anti-corporate party sentiment their way.
But with the arrival in August of Arne Rinnan and his ship full of near-drowned refugees, Howard saw an opportunity to alter the debate. Instead of public services and class, he made "national protection" and xenophobia the dominant issues in the campaign, neatly dividing the electorate in the process.
The post-September 11 US-led war drive also played into Howard's hands. Now, Howard could claim he was doing more than just "preserving our national identity", he could claim to be defending "civilisation" against the barbarian hordes.
After the bombing of Afghanistan began, Howard managed to beat back much of voters' cynicism through an appeal to patriotism. "Negative politics" became harder and the ALP had to give the electorate a reason to vote for it.
Howard's plan worked because it posed an almost inescapable dilemma for the ALP. It drove a wedge between different parts of the Labor base. For years the ALP had relied on the support of millions on the simple premise that it was the "workers' party".
The experience of the ALP in government (especially in NSW where the anti-ALP swing was greatest), however, cut across this. The Labor has party proved just as efficient as the Liberals in pushing down wages, and almost as efficient in downgrading public services.
Many workers, who traditionally voted for the ALP simply because the Coalition was worse, were susceptible to racist ideas.
On the other hand, the ALP also derived support from those who fiercely support multiculturalism, particularly in the traditional ALP inner-city areas. Many of these voters take the presence and equality of different cultures for granted, and abhor racism and xenophobia.
Labor's xenophobia
It is false, and patronising, to argue that the ALP was "forced" to pander to xenophobic ideas among workers. Racism and nationalism increase in times of economic uncertainty as the ruling class encourages workers to find scapegoats for their economic distress.
If Labor was to challenge these ideas it would need to campaign for real solutions to the problems that workers face — increased wages and better public services funded by increased taxes on corporations and the rich.
It would require the exposure of the real role of Australian and United States' governments and corporations in the Third World, and building solidarity internationally between workers.
But the ALP was determined not to do these things, even as racist attacks on the streets increased and aggression towards Arab Australians and Muslims from all backgrounds became more frequent.
To many of its supporters, the Labor Party was exposed: naked in all its racist, xenophobic glory without a single humanitarian fig leaf. "I've forgiven the Labor Party a lot of things", one long term ALP supporter told me days after the election. "But there are some things we just can't accept."
This moral outrage against the so-called party of the "battlers" was shared by tens of thousands, who flocked to the only parliamentary party capable of expressing their fury: the Greens.
Humanitarian image
Unlike previous election campaigns that focused on environmental issues, the Greens moved firmly away from a single-issue party image. Instead, they sought to articulate a political outlook with humanitarian values and sympathy for the Third World at its heart. They vigorously condemned the government's approach.
Despite flip-flopping on what the party's position on the war in Afghanistan was (Bob Brown wrote in the November 10 Sydney Morning Herald that the Greens called for "a one month moratorium on the bombing", most Green publicity simply said "a UN-led solution"), the party was perceived to be resolutely opposed to the war on humanitarian grounds.
The Greens were eloquent about the plight of the refugees, identifying this as the issue that most outraged anti-racist Australians.
In Melbourne, activist candidate Pamela Curr's first publicity was a fact sheet dispelling the myths about refugees. The Greens worked overtime to portray themselves as a voice of tolerance and an advocate for the Third World. They used almost all their media coverage to this end.
Greens' polling indicates that they picked up votes not only from disaffected ALP voters but also from a whopping 21% of first-time voters. The Democrats thought they would win that audience.
Democrats brawl
Already a brawl has broken out within the Democrats over why the party failed to increase its vote. In fact, the Democrats received a much lower vote than predicted.
On election night, Stott Despoja explained the poor result as a backlash over the party's support for the GST. Former leader Meg Lees lashed back on November 11, condemning Stott Despoja's "presidential-style campaign".
Stott Despoja has subsequently argued that the Democrats' humanitarian position on refugees was not "communicated strongly enough". Other party members, quoted anonymously in the press, have argued that party's opposition to the war in Afghanistan was not strong enough.
The Democrats' result cannot be reduced to just one or two factors. Although it is true that their support for the GST and their union-bashing made them less attractive to ALP voters.
As Bob Brown said on November 9, "those who sit in the middle of the road right now are liable to be passed over". The Democrats failed to capture support because they are the party of compromise "between" Labor and Liberal.
Commenting on the election result in the November 15 Sydney Morning Herald, Democrats senator and campaign adviser John Cherry claimed the party had not found "one of those balance of power issues that we could grasp".
People didn't vote for the Greens because they wanted the Greens to hold the balance of power. People voted for the Greens because they saw the party standing up for the marginalised and dispossessed, and they wanted the Greens to do as well as possible.
When both parties are morally reprehensible, the only moral option is to oppose them, something the Democrats were unwilling to do for fear of alienating their right-wing supporters. "The fact is", another "party source" told the SMH, "John Howard not only drove a wedge into the Labor Party, he wedged us as well".
Despite taking a good position on paper on the refugees issue, the Democrats still came across as more interested playing power games with the big parties.
The Greens' result is extremely positive because it indicates the growing potential for the campaign against the federal government's xenophobia toward refugees.
For the Greens, it will undoubtedly result in an increase in membership. They will also receive a windfall from reaching the electoral funding threshold in seven states and territories — it could be worth up to $500,000.
The challenge now is for the Greens to use their increased strength to fight against racism and xenophobia. They could offer resources to refugee rights activist groups, use their parliamentary positions to publicise the campaign and its activities and help build the strongest campaign to defeat the federal government's racist policies.
From Green Left Weekly, November 21, 2001.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.