Grassroots activity
Vince Englart (Write On, Nov. 18) is wrong to say that the conclusion of the GLW Editorial (Nov. 4) is that "Grassroots activity is set against work in institutions like parliament". (Why, even in the next issue, the Editorial concludes that "a coalition of progressive forces... could make a creditable standing in the next electoral round and then be the locus of an effective... extra-parliamentary opposition" — hardly counterposing grassroots and parliamentary activity!) However, this separation of the two spheres of activity does seem to be an assumption of Englart's letter.
What the Nov. 4 Editorial does argue is that the ALP can no longer be seen as a vehicle for environmental or social reform (as the Endangered Species Legislation shows) and that parliament and other governmental institutions should not be the "sole or central" focus of the alternative we therefore seek to build, i.e., grassroots activity is important.
This is obviously correct. Grassroots activity is not primarily a question of "the socialist revolution", it is how we win reforms today. We can look to examples like the Franklin River Dam campaign which succeeded in preventing the dam project from proceeding by means of blockades, community education and mass mobilisations. Another example is the movement against the war in Vietnam. Contrary to popular belief, Australian troops were withdrawn by a conservative government several months before the election of the Whitlam Labor government due to a popular anti-war movement.
On the contrary, in the last few years when the progressive movement has been relatively weak, it is difficult point to a single instance when a genuine progressive reform (inspired by the ALP, the Democrats, of anyone else) has been successful. Englart may be proud of his claim that "the Democrats are... the only national parliamentary party in Australia committed to promoting... sound environmental legislation" (while assuming that grassroots activists at the "daily grind" are simply "hoping" for a legislative solution) but what is the point if all of their proposals end up like the Democrats' Endangered Species Legislation — unimplemented?
How can progressive forces be expected to gain sufficient political power without a considerably strengthened popular grassroots movement? How can we strengthen the grassroots movement without banding together into an alliance or coalition, as the Democratic Socialists and others propose, to pursue our common parliamentary and other goals?
Alex Bainbridge
Wickham, WA
Scapegoated
I am reluctant to acknowledge Peter Boyle's emotional posturing with a reply, but in his article of 11/11/92, Scapegoating can't save the planet, he has opportunistically scapegoated AESP by seriously misrepresenting our platform. This needs to be corrected. In his third paragraph he incorrectly states that "AESP's primary solution is to stop or severely restrict immigration" and he implies in paragraph sixteen that AESP is preaching population control to the Third World and refusing to examine its own role in the Environmental Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology equation.
For the apparently intractable Peter Boyle's information, with ecologically sustainable population in Australia as our first issue, and following thereon: immigration, world population, and foreign aid.
The population debate has become contaminated by an obsession with assigning guilt and blame. Peter Boyle's self-righteous stance is equivalent to a passenger on the Titanic refusing to let down the lifeboats until the person responsible for the catastrophe comes forward. Meanwhile everyone drowns. North and South (symbolising the "First" and "Third" worlds) have become adversaries in a moral debate over the distribution of wealth and no-one wants to do anything about population unless the other side makes the first move.
Except for the AESP, that is!
AESP wants Australians to act now to control the loss and impoverishment of our soils, the destruction of flora and fauna, the pollution of our rivers and the degradation of our groundwater reserves. We want to halt and reverse the pollution and congestion of our cities, reduce our nation's contribution to the Greenhouse effect and the ozone hole, and restrain the unsustainable exploitation of our natural resources.
Such depletion of the nation's biological and resource capital cannot be reversed while our planning remains dominated by the twin goals of growth of per capita consumption and growth of population.
In the short term and for the long term the most effective step we can take is to stabilise, and ideally to reduce, our own population. The promotion of this aim is AESP's primary agenda.
We are not preaching. Peter Boyle is. We invite anyone serious about population and the environment to join us. We especially welcome members of Aboriginal and other non-English speaking backgrounds.
Sheila Newman
President, Victorian Branch of AESP
Frankston
[Abridged for space]
Nurses campaign
I was one of approximately 3000 nurses at a Australian Nurses Federation stopwork meeting in Melbourne on November 25 to discuss the Kennett government's Employee Relations Act and the new Workcover Act. As the issues were clarified we felt a growing sense of urgency. These horrible and drastic measures are going to destroy all that nurses have fought hard for over the years, including professional status and, more importantly, the level of care and safety standards in the workplace.
At the end of the meeting an official resolution was passed to commence rolling four-hour workplace stoppages on December 2, with any other action to be decided by each workplace. I found myself totally frustrated and disappointed with this decision and the way it was made. The official resolution was handed out only half an hour before the meeting ended leaving very little room for discussion. Some attempts to put forward alternative proposals were not put to the vote. In the end, most nurses voted for the official motion because they were not presented with an alternative.
I think these actions will have little effect apart from inconveniencing patients and co-workers at the hospital. It will not e government and the decentralised stoppages will not create a sense of solidarity among workers.
Why is the action we are taking so tepid? Why aren't we uniting with other unions in some action that will really make an impact. The saying "United we stand, divided we beg" only makes sense if we can unite the workers of Victoria and the broader public against the Kennett attacks. The scattered and poorly coordinated industrial actions being taken by most unions may play into Kennett's hands by irritating and alienating a growing proportion of the public.
Di Quin
Brunswick
Typographic error
Our attention has been drawn to a typographic error in the message of condolence received from the Freedom Socialist Party published in the special memorial supplement to Jim Percy in Green Left Weekly No. 80.
The second paragraph referred to the "Stalinist and socialist feminist democratic dominated Australian Left". This statement should have read the "Stalinist and social democratic dominated Australian left". We thank the Freedom Socialist Party for pointing out this error and for their message of condolence.
Pat Brewer
Assistant National Secretary
Democratic Socialist Party