Â鶹´«Ã½

Citizen Initiated Referendums In your February 7th cover story (GLW #218), Pip Hinman outlines the problems with our political system, but for a solution simply says, "We have to create new institutions of democracy that involve a majority of people". I think the solution lies in Citizen Initiated Referendums (CIR) which allows voters to by-pass parliament on important issues if they choose to do so. I would like to see binding CIR enabled at local, state and federal government levels. CIR has four main forms. The "Initiative" allows voters to make new laws (if a majority vote for it). The "Voters veto" can stop poor laws passed by parliament, the "Recall" can remove from office any public official (including MP's) and the "Referendum" can make constitutional changes. CIR has a long history in Australia. A clause to provide CIR was included in the first draft of the Australian constitution. It was deleted, with other clauses, so that consensus could be reached on the constitution. About 1916 to 1918 moves were made to introduce CIR in most Australian states (as well as in New Zealand). All these early efforts failed. At different times CIR has been supported by all the major political parties, but when in power they have not legislated it. Draft enabling legislation has recently been tabled in all state parliaments and in the Federal parliament, but only the Canberra state parliament has debated the issue. In local government, the Burnie council and the North Sydney council have both introduced CIR on an informal, non-binding basis. In 1993 the residents of Gympie (Queensland) opposed council on the issue of council amalgamation. An unofficial, unsanctioned and strongly debated referendum was organised, paid for and conducted by local citizens. Over 26% of eligible voters took part, with 76% opposed to amalgamation. The referendum forced the council to hold an official poll later that year. Over 90% of electors voted and the results were 90%, 85% and 77% YES to the particular questions on the ballot. As a result the amalgamation did not take place. Direct democracy IS possible in Australia, as the examples above clearly show. I think we should all canvass our politicians to introduce enabling legislation for binding Citizen Initiated Referenda. We would then have the RIGHT to correct our elected representatives when they stray from what the majority of voters want.
Malcolm Brooks
Secretary CIR for SA Inc
Goodwood SA The global movement of Greens Lisa Macdonald wrote an interesting article about The Greens (GLW, #219). However, I would like to make a few points for better understanding of this dynamic movement. I have followed the rise, fall and again rise of the Swedish Greens as a Local Councillor in Sweden 1985-1988 and as a Green member of the Swedish Parliament 1988-1991. Lisa discusses the relation between community groups and the political Green parties but seems to miss the point that most members of the Green parties are also members of environmental groups, peace groups, social justice groups, animal welfare groups and others. They are often people who have tried very hard to get their views across by lobbying, demonstrations and protest actions. They have been met with kind smiles and understanding words but not much has changed. Their reaction has then been to try to get in where the decisions are made and to influence those decisions. As one example, the Swedish Greens were formed after what was perceived as a betrayal of the referendum about the phasing out of nuclear power in 1981. Similarly, I don't think it is a coincidence that the strong growth of the Australian Greens has taken place during the woodchipping controversy. Another point that needs exploring is the question of &244;fundisö and &244;realosö. True that some people have left The Greens, particularly in Germany, because they have found the party too willing to negotiate with other parties. However, it is more important to realise that each member of The Greens is a bit of both. Many principles are just not up for negotiation, but in practice there are a number of issues where one actually can obtain a change if prepared to discuss with politicians of a different persuasion. Whenever an agreement has been reached between a green parliamentary group and another party one can be sure of a lot of criticism and a lively debate in The Greens. This is healthy. People come from different movements and they have different priorities. Such diversity is less a problem than a strength. I am more than surprised about Lisa's statement that voting patterns for the Greens globally are significantly lower than in the 1980s. For Sweden the election figures for The Greens have been: 1985, 1.7%; 1988, 5.5%; 1991, 3.4%; 1994, 5.0%; 1995, 17%; where the last figure refers to election of Swedish members in the European Parliament. The German Greens have done quite well in a number of State elections and are now in coalition government with SPD in three states. One may well wonder what use it is to have elected representatives for small parties if their bills are voted down every time. I find that the real influence is an indirect one. Many times we lost an issue to see it came back a couple of years later as a part of a bill from one of the old, established parties. Then we could support it and ensure majority. Lisa discusses an extremely important issue namely the relationship between parliamentarians and the party they represent. Certainly, one of the problems with the old parties is the steering from the top. In Australia, this has gone much further than in most other countries, with the election debate concentrating on the two party leaders. It is my impression that the Greens have managed to avoid a personality cult. As Lisa points out, the knowledge about the current issues mostly sits with the parliamentary group and their staff. It takes a conscious effort to listen to rank and file members, but it is essential. That is real democracy and that is where the old parties fail their community.
Gosta Lynga
Sweden
[Edited for length.] Teacher's union and elections Industrial action by teachers in South Australia is an exciting interlude in an otherwise industrially acquiescent period. However, the South Australian Institute of Teachers has presented only part of the picture to its membership. Their campaign for a Federal Award is a logical step against a State Liberal government that has established legislation that enshrines the participation of non union members in negotiations. The Federal arena is however, only marginally better. SAIT fails to acknowledge that the Labor government has also instituted legislation that encourages Enterprise Bargaining, with awards as a meagre safety net. The provisions at the Federal level allow for minimum standards and discrimination tests that are not too much different to the State Liberal government. The pursuit of a Federal award at all cost may leave SAIT's members without an outcome. SAIT has been caught up in the myth that the Labor government somehow is more concerned about workers' interests than the Liberals. The reality is that both parties put the needs of corporate capital ahead of working class living standards. It is a mistake for trade unions to counterpose the ideological drive against the Liberals to the possibility of negotiating an improvement in the pay and conditions of their members. SAIT have condemned the Liberal government for the "offer" when in fact they have not even attempted to enter into negotiations. They have campaigned against enterprise bargaining at the State level without attempting to challenge any aspects of the proposal. The State EB framework does provide for unions to "agree" to any proposal before it is voted on by workers. SAIT has also failed to acknowledge that workers, other than teachers, may suffer from their actions. Whilst the pursuit of a Federal award may be a justifiable claim, the experience of most unions is that it takes years. Non teaching workers in education (members of the CPSU/PSA), many of whom are already low paid, may not see any improvement in their conditions, without the opportunity to democratically participate in this decision.
Melanie Sjoberg
Adelaide Lamp of Hope The Lamp of Hope Project (LHP)is an organisation dedicated to promoting the dignity of all citizens by heightening the public's understanding with regard to the death penalty, the erosion of the US justice system, the debasement of society's values via the execution of its own citizens, and to reconcile society with incarcerated prisoners in a healing atmosphere. The LHP publishes the Texas Death Row Journal, a newsletter produced by condemned prisoners on Texas Death Row and distributed worldwide. The TDRJ is the pivot point of our effort to be heard. We are in need of supporters to help us publish the truth and bring hope to everyone. Please help! Contributions can be sent to Lamp of Hope Project, 13931 N. Central Expressway #246, Dallas, Texas 75234, USA.
David L. Wood
Huntsville, Texas, USA