Dee Margetts on Howard's second term
In the last federal election, the Greens' WA senator, DEE MARGETTS, lost the final Senate spot in WA to the Australian Democrats. For the first time in over a decade, WA will not have a Green in the Senate. 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly's ROBERTO JORQUERA spoke to Margetts about some of the main issues following the election.
Question: What factors contributed to the Greens WA losing the seat?
In 1990 our vote went up, reaching its high point. In 1993 it went down and in 1996 it went up again. In 1998 it firmed at about the same level but the quota was higher than usual, which meant that it was harder for the Greens to get in.
One problem that we faced was that there was not enough knowledge amongst Labor voters and unionists that it is safe to vote for the Greens in the Senate. Left unionist didn't get behind us and they are now responsible for getting another Democrat, rather than a Green and a voice that they weren't getting from Labor either.
Question: What are the consequences of losing this seat?
Not having a Greens senator in WA will have an impact not only on the Greens, but also on the wider community. We have been the focal point for a whole range of solidarity, human rights, social justice, environment and anti-nuclear issues.
All sorts of groups that otherwise don't have a voice rely on the Greens to be their connection with the parliamentary process. I feel deeply disappointed that we are not going to be able to continue in that role.
But the Greens still have three Legislative Council members in WA and Bob Brown in the Senate.
Question: You have spent a lot of time fighting against the implementation of the national competition policy. Why is it important?
There has been very little debate around the issues involved in this policy. It impacts on employment, the community and community values. It is also impacting on local governments' ability to make decisions and the democratic nature of any decision-making is being threatened.
The policy is about letting the market decide. Outsourcing and privatisation are being pushed, which is having massive impact on civil society.
Taken together with free trade, this policy has contributed quite substantially to the social malaise that has bubbled up in the One Nation phenomena. People are experiencing all these changes around them, but they are not in control and don't know what is happening and thus want to hit out.
Question: What sort of response is needed to the GST?
It depends on how the numbers [in parliament] work.
It may be better to leave it without changes so there is no excuse for the Democrats to support it. They are saying they want to fiddle around the edges, so we need to keep on watching what is going on. It's important that there is a public inquiry into the GST.
Question: What lessons can we draw from the Maritime Union dispute earlier this year?
To a large extent people were conned about the deal between the Democrats and the Coalition [which allowed the passage of the Workplace Relations Act].
It was distressing watching Cheryl Kernot being cheered by 25,000 protesters on August 19, 1996, in front of Parliament House. People didn't know what was happening to them and they still do not know.
I was horrified that the ACTU never made strong statements about what the deal was about and what was happening. They kept saying: we need to wait and see what happens, because they [the Coalition and Democrats] may do something worse. It was as if they were frightened about some retribution from the Democrats.
We asked the ACTU: are you going to make some sort of statement? They said they would, but didn't, saying there was no point in showing how badly they had been beaten. When we asked the WA unions to comment on the deal, they said there wasn't much point in making a fuss about it.
Now that Kernot is with the Labor Party, you can see where it was all coming from.