By Pip Hinman
Senator Christabel Chamarette is bemused by the recent flood of attention that the two federal parliamentary representatives of the Greens (WA) have received from the mass media. She and fellow Green (WA) Senator Dee Margetts have been accused of holding "democracy" to ransom. They have refused to rubber-stamp Labor's budget, despite Chamarette sharing Treasurer John Dawkin's VIP jet from Sydney to Perth on August 24.
While money markets surged and Labor warned of economic chaos, the Greens calmly stated they were not out to block the budget's passage through the Senate. They are serious, however, about changing Labor's regressive indirect taxes.
Chamarette, who replaced the former Senator Jo Vallentine in 1991, told Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly that the Greens would sift through the budget detail in consultation with community groups. On that basis they would decide on the proposed changes. She said she was pleased the Treasurer was now "willing to enter into dialogue", stressing the Greens were "more than happy to try and assist the legislation that we feel deserves support".
The Greens are critical of the method by which Labor intends to reduce the budget deficit — hitting consumers with indirect taxes while further reducing the highest tax rate. "We are quite prepared to support the principle of deficit reduction in the medium term, but we're very concerned that the impact should not be borne by those least able to afford it," Chamarette said. They are considering a range of options including raising the corporate tax rate from its all-time low of 33%. "Even raising it to 34% would make a massive difference." Since coming to power in 1983, Labor has generously reduced the corporate tax rate from 49%.
Looking for alternatives
Chamarette and Margetts (who was elected to the Senate in March this year), had their first meeting on August 25 with environment and social justice groups to look at the proposed fuel tax. The method, Chamarette said, while very important, was not without its problems.
"There was an enormous tension [between the two groups]. The environment groups have a lot more information about the damage lead can do and are very keen the take advantage of the fact that the government has, for the first time, flagged that it is willing to do something to reduce lead in the air.
"However, the social justice people are deeply perturbed about the price differential's impact on women, the elderly and on students. While they too are very concerned about the health dangers, but they argue that the government's monetary manoeuvre will not necessarily reduce the contact children have with lead. It will mean that those families already suffering will suffer that bit more."
Rather than simply using market forces — described by Chamarette as a "blunt instrument" — and raising petrol prices, the Greens are looking at range of alternatives to help cut lead levels. These include lead legislation aimed at the petroleum industry, subsidies to help convert cars from leaded to unleaded fuel and education measures. Chamarette insists that environment and social justice concerns can go together. Ideally, "the measures should be integrated into a wider energy package, such as a greenhouse package which has a carbon tax, rather than simply a petrol levy".
The Greens also want the government to spend part of the excise revenue on public transport and better urban planning. "We need a more realistic assessment of energy usage and transportation in our cities."
Double-deadline
Criticism from many sides greeted the Greens' August 3 procedural motion, known as the "double deadline". Supported by the Coalition parties, the new parliamentary procedure imposes an October 1 deadline on all legislation entering the House of Representatives and a November 29 deadline by which it must be received in the Senate. Bills put up later than these dates will have to be dealt with at the next parliamentary term.
The government is furious at the delays this imposes and has accused the Greens of being manipulated by the Coalition. Democrat leader Senator Cheryl Kernot called the Greens naive and inexperienced. In the August 21 Age she went as far as describing the Greens' motion was "conniving to spoil".
But Chamarette defends the Greens' position. She says the change was proposed to try to streamline the way in which routine legislation impacts on the Senate. "We need advance notice of bills in order to get community input. We want the government to introduce early in the parliamentary session, the legislation it wants passed by the end of the session. If it introduces it late then we can adjourn it until the following session. The deadline motion simply says that any legislation that is introduced after a certain date will not be dealt with [immediately] but will be adjourned to the first day of the next sitting."
According to Chamarette, the furore the motion created, "was triggered off by a disrespect the government has for the Senate and the Senate process". While the government accused the Greens of violating its mandate, Chamarette responds that the Senate has to have adequate time to consider legislation.
"All that we're trying to do is to allow parliamentary democracy to continue and open up legislation for public scrutiny and some kind of negotiation rather than giving the government carte blanche".
'Simply doing its job'
Chamarette believes that Independents and minor parties have an important role to play in the Senate. While the government describes 169>hostile", Chamarette believes that its composition "represents a transition from two-party adversarial politics to a potential for five different groupings to regroup around issues in a more meaningful way".
"I think that there has been an unwillingness, at least up until recently, on the part of the government to acknowledge at that there is a need to remain accountable between elections via the parliamentary process. The Senate is really simply doing its job; to give consideration to the budget and to give a voice to some of the community concerns about the measures in it. The fact that the major parties have responded like they have, has left the Greens, the Democrats and [Tasmanian Independent senator] Brian Harradine in a very responsible position and a very difficult position."
On exactly where the Greens differ from the Democrats, Chamarette pointed out that while they concur on many issues, there are differences. "For instance, we are hesitant to form a bloc with the government. We want to use the opportunity we have to manoeuvre to raise issues and see how the government responds. In the past whichever major party the Democrats went with tended to win a particular vote."
While the Greens are hoping to be able to change aspects of the budget, they realise their influence in parliament is very limited. "There are certain principals and issues we can raise as Greens, but in parliament, we don't have very much power. The power we have is people power."
The current budget furore has made Chamarette even more aware that the Greens' role is to be a parliamentary voice for the community. "It's an awesome responsibility and we have very few resources — but I think that it's the beginning of a new politics, of trying to get the community to participate more in the parliamentary dialogue."