Mediaboss Marketing

Greens leader Richard Di Natalie and NSW senator Lee Rhiannon at a press conference in Canberra in March. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Lets get some reality back on the table with regard to the current debate within the Australian Greens. This is certainly a debate about democracy in the party but its not about our members having a say in party policy or preselections.

Lets dump the idea that this is about grassroots democracy it isnt.

All Australian Greens members, whether from Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland or anywhere else, have a say on policy, which is formulated from the local branches upwards and decided at our national conference. I am really proud of that fact and about how it sets us apart from the old political parties in Australias parliament.

Lets also dump the idea that only the NSW Greens vote consistently with party policy. That is so wrong.

One thing Greens MPs in every state and nationally are proud of is our record of being faithful to our four principles of ecology, social justice, peace and non-violence, and participatory democracy, as well as our accountability to our members for the decisions we make and the votes we have cast.

The Australian Greens party room is the Greens equivalent to shadow cabinet. All members, including NSW, hold portfolios on behalf of the party members around the country. They bring forward recommendations in their portfolios on parliamentary votes, which are then debated, and decisions are reached by consensus. They have the party policy as the basis for decisions but daily have to decide whether to support matters that come before parliament, regardless of whether there is a policy on them or not.

But there can be no consensus if one person is already bound to vote according to a directive from a liaison committee in their own state. If all states took that view, then the Australian Greens could never make a decision.

The undemocratic exemption to the Australian Greens constitution given to NSW in 1992 is what is being challenged

No state committee can be kept up to date in real time with parliamentary debates and decisions across all portfolio responsibilities. That is why every state except NSW agreed at the time of the formation of the Australian Greens that our elected members would be entrusted with a conscience vote enabling them to stay true to both the partys philosophy and current policy, and the wellbeing of their constituency.

NSW, alone among all of the state parties, insisted that its elected members only had delegated authority to vote as they were instructed by the party and had no discretion.

The NSW Greens refused to form a national Australian Greens party unless they were given an exemption from the conscience vote. They locked it in by insisting that it could only be changed by a consensus decision of national conference or a 75% majority vote of the conference to conduct a full membership ballot on the issue. Therein lies the problem that has dogged the party since 1992.

While the Greens retain our core commitment to consensus-based decision making, the NSW party has effectively secured veto power over the whole of the membership of the Australian Greens.

By binding their elected members in a manner that is at odds with consensus-based decision making, they exert an influence and regularly veto decisions in a manner that is neither democratic nor in the spirit of equality.

That was the price members from the other states paid to form a national party. Now the NSW senator sits in the party room but refuses to sign the rules that govern every other elected member. NSW benefits from the work of the whole party room but picks and chooses what it supports or undermines. In a caucus that might be acceptable but in a shadow cabinet it is untenable.

How is it democratic or effective for all our other MPs and senators to negotiate with the government of the day and try to come to a consensus decision after consultation with the members around the whole country and then find that a parliamentary liaison committee in NSW has determined before that negotiation is over that it will oppose that decision and campaign against it?

The undemocratic exemption to the Australian Greens constitution given to NSW in 1992 is what is being challenged in 2017.

It is no surprise that NSW wants to keep that power at any cost but party democracy, equality and unity can no longer afford it. It must be addressed, and the constitution must be democratic and afford equal rights to all its members.

View original post here:
This debate isn't about grassroots democracy: it's about Greens unity - The Guardian