Greens gear up for federal election &amp&amp

Professor PETER SINGER is a well-known writer on ecology and animal rights and a Senate candidate from Victoria for the Australian Greens. He was interviewed by JOHN T. RANKINE. Question: What were the main outcomes of the fourth national conference of the Australian Greens held in Healsville on September 2-3?
The most rewarding aspect was the general feeling of agreement amongst delegates, far more so apparently than occurred in the past. There was a real feeling of consolidation and moving ahead.
More pragmatically, some 30 policies covering a wide range of areas from social justice to energy were put up and approved. These are now national policies of the Australian Greens.
Question: What is the structure of the Australian Greens, and how will this affect voting strategies?
The Australian Greens are a federation of state parties comprising all the eastern states, the ACT and now the Northern Territory. The WA Greens are not a part of this federation, and South Australia does not have a Greens Party.
It was decided at the conference that all states should work together on a common strategy for the federal election. State parties will be able to decide their own electoral strategy for state elections.
Question: Can you shed more light on the Greens' strategy in the Queensland election?
There seems to have been a lot more outcry over the Greens' strategy than I believe was warranted.
Firstly, the Greens contested seats in 50 electorates. In 44 electorates, the Greens did not allocate preferences; of those where preferences were allocated, three were directed to the Nationals; two to the ALP and one to an independent.
In none of those seats where preferences were allocated to the Nationals were Green preferences crucial. Any seats lost by the ALP occurred on a major swing in the primary vote. Green preferences helped the ALP win in Whitsunday.
Secondly, according to Queensland Conservation Council assessment of promises made by the Goss government prior to the election, the ALP delivered completely on only 16% of issues promised; and 35% only partially.
Thirdly, the three seats where preferences were given to the National were in the path of the tollway, and feelings were very strong over this issue.
Question: Do you believe the role the Greens played in the Queensland election to be a watershed in Australian politics?
It certainly means that the ALP cannot simply rely on Green preferences or votes as they have in the past unless they are willing to put Green issues back on the agenda.
The Australian Greens are here to stay, and one of their prime roles is to highlight environmental and social issues, particularly within their electorate. They are also here to win seats in parliament at every level.
Question: How will the Greens allocate preferences in the federal election and subsequent state elections?
We would like to allocate preferences to other like-minded minor parties in the federal election in an attempt to break the two-party deadlock. This was overwhelmingly supported at the national conference, and we will be working together on that as a national platform for the federal election.
All states will be running lower house candidates, and at least four states will run Senate tickets.
State Green parties will decide for themselves how they will allocate preferences, based I imagine, on who else will be running. There is always the options of splitting the preferences.
Question: Is Senator Kernot correct in saying that the Greens are a single-issue fundamentalist party?
The initial campaigns of the Greens were over issues such as Lake Pedder and the Franklin. Everyone in the Greens sees the saving of our wilderness and the problems of woodchipping as fundamental issues. However, Bob [Brown] has been moving the Australian Greens towards the model of the German Greens. The main theme I will take into the next election will be social justice.

Andrea Sharam, who ran in last year's Coburg by-election, also had her major focus as social justice. Some of the Greens' main focus has been on energy and transport. For others, it has been community education; for still others, it has been sustainable agriculture. We have 30 policies now approved; these cover a wide range of areas.
Question: What are the real differences between the Australian Greens and the Australian Democrats?
Firstly, the Democrats' origins were as an offshoot of the Liberal Party. The Greens primarily have been an up-welling of local action and Community groups. The economic policies therefore would be different. In many other areas, we have considerable overlap with the Democrats' agenda.
Secondly, The Australian Greens have modelled themselves on the German Greens. The four pillars of the Greens everywhere are: the environment, social justice, participatory democracy and peaceful dispute resolution or non-violence.
Finally, while Senator Kernot pointed to the list of accomplishments of the Democrats, it was not that large considering they have had 17 years. As Don Chipp pointed out, it was not the role of the Democrats to change things but to "keep the bastards honest". We see the Greens having a far more active role in change.
Question: Do you think that the Greens and Democrats will split the green vote, or can you see some way of them working together?
With our preferential, there isn't a problem of "splitting the vote", and we will distribute preferences to other similar-minded small parties. The Democrats did not get re-elected into the Senate in Victoria in the last election, and this was without a Green candidate standing against them. We will both be competing against a Labor or Liberal senator for that seat.
It is still early days yet. Perhaps the Greens and Democrats could work together at the next Victorian election. Our objective is to break the two-party deadlock on politics, and I'm sure we have that in common with the Democrats. We have more in common than not in common with the Democrats, and while our structure pre-empts the notion of "taking them over", let's hope we find a way of working together constructively.