By Wendy Robertson and Marina Carman
SYDNEY — Despite growing protests from supporters and their own members, leaders of the NSW Greens are still supporting some of the anti-democratic changes to NSW's electoral laws proposed by the Carr Labor government.
In an article posted on an internet discussion list run by the National Broad Left, a progressive student movement caucus, NSW Greens convener Jamie Parker confirmed that the Greens support the optional preferential above the line voting system being proposed by the Carr government.
"It is a real victory compared to the former system", Parker wrote. "It is far better than the current system that promotes front parties, disempowers and manipulates voters. The front parties actually aided conservative and reactionary forces with front party preferences electing the Outdoor Recreation Party (anti-environment right wingers)."
However, the particular proposal that the Greens welcome as a "victory for democracy" would also reserve access to above the line voting for the Legislative Council (upper house) to parties or groups that fielded 15 or more candidates. Even with the "discount" offered by the Carr government to parties fielding up to 21 candidates, this would cost $5000 in deposits.
Some small right-wing opportunists did exploit the current voting system to field "front" or "feeder" tickets, and there is some evidence that some Labor politicians may have tried the same trick. But we should all be wary of proposals to give the state more powers to restrict participation in elections in order to weed out allegedly "bogus" or "insignificant" parties.
Parker wrote: "Preferences were also decisive in the re-election of Fred Nile. We must get rid of this system! We are surprised the DSP supports this system."
But weren't preferences also decisive in the election of the Greens' Lee Rhiannon (several thousand of which came from the Democratic Socialists, the Progressive Labour Party and left and progressive single-issue parties)? What exactly is the NSW Greens' criticism of the preference system?
One problem with the current system is that the preference distribution by parties in the upper house ballot is only nominally publicised on posters inside polling booths. It would be more democratic if the State Electoral Commission was compelled to advertise thoroughly where preferences are being directed by the various parties. Then, opportunist deals and any front parties would be more easily exposed.
Parker protested disingenuously that he "couldn't fathom" why everybody didn't support the Greens' attempts to alter the system.
"We have always opposed the charges and membership restrictions the DSP has mentioned. They know this as we have spoken several times to them about this, we have spoken against it in several radio interviews and on the ABC TV program, Stateline. We have been working to oppose those parts of the government's legislation that penalise minor parties; mobilising our members and the wider community and working to have the media expose the issues ....
"Attacking the Greens seems pointless as we share the DSP's concerns. In fact we have been working for several weeks to get the government to move on the issue and build support for a united opposition. We have produced a draft statement that we have sent to the DSP (and others) and have discussed issuing a sign on statement we can distribute ..."
Many members of the NSW Greens hadn't heard details of the Carr government's proposals and Greens MLCs Ian Cohen and Lee Rhiannon's stand until they were advised by the DSP and others campaigning against the proposals. Some of these people rang the Greens' parliamentary office to protest and this, it would seem, prompted the Greens' leadership to produce a draft "joint" statement supposedly in favour of making the electoral system more democratic and inclusive.
If the DSP and other progressive parties were to sign the Greens' draft statement, they would accept the undemocratic changes to the voting system for the upper house. If these undemocratic proposals go through, it is going to be a lot harder for such parties and groups to participate in NSW elections. No wonder they are not keen to sign the statement.
Parker complained: "It is pretty frustrating that when we are working to build a united opposition to these undemocratic changes (as we all agree) that the DSP is seeking to divert our focus from the real enemy — the government, Liberal/National opposition and the big business interests that are trying to divert our attention from exposing the influence of huge donations."
But what is really destroying the chance of united opposition to the Carr government's anti-democratic proposals is the fact that the two NSW Greens MLCs are allowing themselves to be used by the government to give their proposals democratic cover.
Is the thinking behind the Greens' position that by knocking all these groups off the ballot paper, the NSW Greens will get more primary votes for themselves? Is it political naivety? Didn't the ALP make its position clear when the NSW treasurer, Michael Egan, declared his wish to abolish the only proportionally elected house of parliament in the state? Doesn't the fact that the Liberal-National Coalition MPs support Carr's proposed changes tell us that this is probably a rotten proposal?
The campaign against these undemocratic proposals is growing, but it would be all the stronger if the NSW Greens were to change their position and get clearly on the side of democratic
rights.