Quick viewing(Text Mode)

The Australian Greens: Between Movement and Electoral Professional Party

The Australian Greens: Between Movement and Electoral Professional Party

The Australian : Between movement and electoral professional party

Stewart Jackson

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of , Department of and International Relations, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of , July 2011

Statement of originality

This is to certify that to the best of my knowledge, the content of this thesis is my own work. This thesis has not been submitted for any degree or other purposes.

I certify that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work and that all the assistance received in preparing this thesis and sources have been acknowledged.

Stewart Jackson

Abstract

Since appearing in the 1970s, parties have grown from obscurity to electoral prominence globally. Greens trace their origins to various social movements in , and could be said to have originally been a movement party. However, as the party has grown and become electorally successful changes have occurred within the structure, organisation and modes of operation. While some of these changes are in response to an increased membership, they also represent a shift towards a new organisational form: the electoral professional party. There is now greater emphasis on the party organisation and electoral success that marks a shift in emphasis from the party in the electorate to the parliamentary party. Have, then, moved from being a movement party to an electoral professional party?

To trace the importance and impact of these changes within the this thesis examines two groups within the party, activists and staff, through survey and interview. The analysis demonstrates that some aspects of movement operations still exist within the party, but views supporting these are more likely to be held by long-term members. In the last ten years there has been a major expansion of the party’s vote and membership. Recently recruited members are more comfortable with changes that the Greens towards being a professionally organised party that focuses chiefly on electoral success. While staff generally act as interlocutors between the party organization and MPs, they also have divergent positions on party priorities and leadership, with party-based staff advocating far greater membership input into both strategic and leadership discussions. Therefore there is still some ambivalence towards the changes, indicating that the party sits in a unique place in Australian somewhere between a movement and electoral professional party.

CONTENTS

Tables ...... 5

Figures ...... 9

Acknowledgements ...... 10

The Greens, social movements and Australian politics ...... 11

Party structure, activists and history ...... 24

Methodology ...... 54

Who are the party organisational activists and staff? ...... 72

Participation in the party ...... 93

Retreat from movement ...... 125

Ideological repositioning within the party ...... 149

Policy making and electoral professional strategies...... 165

Party leadership and organisational structure ...... 190

Reflections and conclusions ...... 218

Appendix 1 ...... 231

Appendix 2 ...... 232

Appendix 3 ...... 236

SURVEY OF MEMBERS ...... 241

Green Party staff interview questions ...... 252

Bibliography ...... 253

TABLES

Table 2.1: Party orientations – movement party, Australian Greens and electoral professional party ...... 28

Table 2.2: Sitting Green MPs in Australia (2011) ...... 42

Table 3.1: Approximation of the number of Australian Greens ‘party organisational activists’ ...... 61

Table 3.2: Mail out and response rate ...... 62

Table 3.3: Staff numbers per state, by positions filled, full time position equivalents & employer (2009) ...... 65

Table 3.4: Staff interviewed by employer and interviewee identification lettering ...... 67

Table 4.1: Age, & education in Green parties ...... 75

Table 4.2: Average age of organisational activists, corrected to 2008 ...... 77

Table 4.3: Age, gender, education of organisational activists compared to voters and general population ...... 78

Table 4.4: Staff – employment prior to current position ...... 80

Table 4.5: Organisational activists and staff - year of joining ...... 82

Table 4.6: Organisational activists - year joined the Greens vs Male or female ...... 84

Table 4.7: Average party membership by state & territory for groups of years ...... 84

Table 4.8: Organisational activists - membership of other parties ...... 87

Table 4.9: Organisational activists (n=413) and staff (n=19) - locality lived in compared to branches and general population ...... 89

Table 4.10: Organisational activists (n=412) and staff (n=19) - language other than English spoken at home ... 90

Table 5.1: Organisational activists - reasons for joining the Australian Greens ...... 96

Table 5.2: Importance of reasons for joining Australia 2008 (organisational activists) vs 2002 (members) ...... 97

Table 5.3: Staff (n=19) - reason for joining the Australian Greens (single response) ...... 98

Table 5.4: Organisational activists - help realization of political aims vs year joined ...... 100

Table 5.5: Organisational activists - become politically active vs year joined ...... 100

Table 5.6: Organisational activists (n=414) and staff (n=19) - current party activity level ...... 102

Table 5.7: Organisational activists (n=414) and staff (n=19) - attendance at local meetings ...... 103

Table 5.8: Organisational activists - current party activities engagement and level ...... 105

Table 5.9: Organisational activists - other political activity and level ...... 107 Table 5.10: Organisational activists - worked voluntarily in organisations vs male or female ...... 108

Table 5.11: Crosstabulation – Organisational activists - boycotted certain products vs male or female...... 109

Table 5.12: Organisational activists - participated in demonstrations vs male or female...... 110

Table 5.13: Organisational activists - ranking of party activity importance ...... 111

Table 5.14: Organisational activists - currently a member of a union vs Age ...... 117

Table 5.15: Organisational activists - employment status vs age (n=403) ...... 117

Table 5.16: Organisational activists - employment status vs male or female ...... 118

Table 5.17: Organisational activists - employment status vs worked in community organisations (n=401) ..... 119

Table 5.18: Occupation of Australian Greens organisational activists (n=411) and staff (n=19) ...... 120

Table 5.19: Industry type of Australian Greens organisational activists (n=406) and staff (n=19)...... 121

Table 5.20: Organisational activists and General population (ABS) - occupation vs male or female ...... 122

Table 6.1: Organisational activists - the Greens as or should it become more of a ...... 128

Table 6.2: Organisational activists – year joined vs Greens are a political party not a social movement ...... 129

Table 6.3: Organisational activists - Greens are a political party not a social movement vs should become more of a social movement ...... 130

Table 6.4: Organisational activists - issues as important as environmental action? ...... 131

Table 6.5: 2010 Australian Federal – nomination & election by gender ...... 132

Table 6.6: Organisational activists - support for women’s participation ...... 134

Table 6.7: Organisational activists – half of leading positions held by women vs gender ...... 134

Table 6.8: Organisational activists - women discriminated against in the Greens vs male or female ...... 135

Table 6.9: Organisational activists - half positions reserved for women vs period joined (n=403) ...... 136

Table 6.10: Organisational activists – party ideological positioning ...... 138

Table 6.11: Organisational activists - Greens as neither left nor right vs gender ...... 138

Table 6.12: Organisational activists - Greens neither left nor right vs party should move to ...... 139

Table 6.13: Organisational activists -attracting ALP or members...... 140

Table 6.14: Organisational activists (n=411) - in the middle or like the Democrats? ...... 144

Table 6.15: Staff - Greens should play a similar role to the Democrats by party/MP staff ...... 145

Table 7.1: Organisational activists - gender vs self placement on left-right scale ...... 153

Table 7.2: Organisational activists – party should move left vs Left-Right positioning of the party ...... 154 Table 7.3: Organisational activists – party should move to the left vs date joined party ...... 155

Table 7.4: Organisational activists – Left-Right positioning of self vs joining pre/post 2001 ...... 155

Table 7.5: Organisational activists – year joined vs Left-Right positioning of self ...... 156

Table 7.6: Organisational activists - union membership ...... 158

Table 7.7: Organisational activists - role and influence of unions ...... 160

Table 7.8: Organisational activists - unions should have more influence vs gender ...... 161

Table 7.9: Organisational activists - unions currently have a limited role vs gender ...... 162

Table 8.1: Organisational activists - party policy roles ...... 171

Table 8.2: Organisational activists - policy priorities ...... 176

Table 8.3: Organisational activists - oppose globalisation vs left-right self placement ...... 178

Table 8.4: Organisational activists - improve Australia’s economic competitiveness vs left right self placement ...... 179

Table 8.5: Organisational activists - protecting forests and opposing land clearing vs left right self placement ...... 180

Table 8.6: Organisational activists - improving Australia’s economic competitiveness vs protecting forests and opposing land clearing ...... 181

Table 8.7: Organisational activists - Greens strategic priorities ...... 183

Table 8.8: Staff priorities (n=19) ...... 185

Table 8.9: Staff - policy area and electoral strategy – counts of highest priority ...... 185

Table 8.10: Staff - who should determine the party’s priorities (n=19) ...... 187

Table 9.1: Leadership discussions in the Australian Greens and constituent parties...... 193

Table 9.2: Organisational activists - perceptions of leaders ...... 195

Table 9.3: Organisational activists - joining periods vs adoption of leader positions (n=367) ...... 196

Table 9.4: Organisational activists - adoption of leader positions vs restriction on office holders ...... 197

Table 9.5: Organisational activists - binding elected representatives to decisions of the Australian Greens .... 198

Table 9.6: Organisational activists - binding local Councillors ...... 199

Table 9.7: Organisational activists - councillors bound by local group vs all levels binding on Councillors (n=383) ...... 199

Table 9.8: Organisational activists - Greens as neither left nor right vs Councillors bound by local group ...... 200

Table 9.9: Organisational activists - binding state MPs ...... 201

Table 9.10: Organisational activists - binding federal MPs ...... 202 Table 9.11: Organisational activists - federal MPs bound by national party vs federal MPs bound by state party ...... 202

Table 9.12: Organisational activists - federal MPs bound by national party vs state MPs bound by state party ...... 203

Table 9.13: Organisational activists - reasons for joining the Greens ...... 205

Table 9.14: Organisational activists - pursue career in vs stood for election (n=406) ...... 205

Table 9.15: Organisational activists - local group best to preselect ...... 207

Table 9.16: Organisational activists - stood for election ...... 207

Table 9.17: Organisational activists - standing and staying in office ...... 209

Table 9.18: Staff -responses to leadership at state and federal levels by individual staff member (n=19) ...... 211

Table 9.19: Staff - responses to leadership at state and federal levels by staff and employer (n=19) ...... 212

Table 9.20: Staff - key themes as responses to leadership ...... 214

Table 9.21: Staff - key secondary themes as responses to leadership ...... 214

Table 10.1: Party orientations – Australian Greens activists’ responses compared to electoral professional party ...... 227

FIGURES

Figure 2.1: The three faces of party ...... 29

Figure 2.2: Three faces acknowledging activists and staff...... 30

Figure 2.3: Expanded party stratarchy with scope of influence and interactions ...... 30

Figure 4.1: Party membership by state & territory ...... 85

Figure 4.2: Organisational activists - formerly members ...... 87

Figure 5.1: Organisational activists - participate in demonstrations as an effective strategy vs age groups ..... 113

Figure 5.2: Organisational activists - work in a political party vs age ...... 114

Figure 5.3: Organisational activists – vote in vs age ...... 115

Figure 6.1: Organisational activists - Greens should play a similar role to the Democrats vs self placement on left right scale ...... 144

Figure 7.1: Self placement of Greens organisational activists (Mean = 3.3), Green voters and general population on an 11 point Left-Right scale (activist N=398)...... 152

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First thanks have to go the Australian Greens. Without them there would be no survey or interviews, and no thesis. The party graciously allowed me to access their membership, staff, and the various state branch archives. Brett Constable (National Manager), Rowena Skinner (Greens WA Office Manager), James Diack (Greens NSW Office Manager) and Colin Smith (National Archivist) are all worthy of special mention for their assistance.

My supervisor, Ariadne Vromen, was the best supervisor I could have hoped for. Encouraging when needed, grumpy at less than challenging work, always optimistic about completing (on time and in good order!), and pushy enough to get me to go beyond my own safety zone. Ariadne was always there when I needed her, always available to talk politics or union business, and supportive at presentations and conferences. Just the best!

Acknowledgement must go to the Department of Government and International Relations. All the staff, academic and administrative, were constantly helpful and supportive. I should especially mention Anika Gauja and Peter Chen, two new found and much appreciated friends. Anika’s warmth and encouragement were greatly appreciated, and Peter’s wicked sense of humour enlivened many a lunch (and horrified some students!).

Acknowledgement must also go to the Faculty of Economics and Business (now the Business School) for providing a wonderful Research Centre, and equally wonderful Faculty Research Unit staff (Maryann Van De Wetering and Mandy Nelson). Thanks must also be given for the E&B Faculty Scholarship which allowed me to finish the final year of this thesis in far better shape (mentally!) than might otherwise have been the case.

Of course, a research centre is only as good as the other researchers. So thanks must go to them all, past and present, but especially Sharni Chan, Megan Clement-Clouzner, Danielle Merrett, En Li, Luke Deer, Chris Jefferis, Lindy Annikin, Yoshi, Peggy, Lachlan, Elly and the many others past and present who have inhabited the space. And then there’s the PhD students who started with the Department post-E&B – Delphine Rabet, Trevor Cook, Judy Betts, Chris Neff, Stephen Mills, Naser, Ben, Peter and many more.

Almost last, but by no means least, thanks must go to my friend Ian Miles, who argued, cajoled, debated, commented and finally read this thesis. This is for 30 years of friendship and encouragement (and for being one of the 5 other people sitting in a room of 6 PhD dropouts!). We might not always agree, but the journey is always worth it.

Starting this project was the idea of my partner, Judy Greenwood. She encouraged me to be more than just a party organisational activist, and to look more closely at what I was involved with and why. Having completed her own journey to a PhD also meant she could provide support when it was needed (and know procrastination when she saw it!). So thanks for the encouragement, the proof , the comments and debates, and all the help the last 4 ½ years have needed! Oh, and thanks to Shae & Ky, for letting me get on with it. Chapter 1

THE GREENS, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND AUSTRALIAN POLITICS

INTRODUCTION

“The first Green party anywhere in the world began in Australian in 1972: the United Group, which grew out of pioneering environmental campaigns… Early elections saw the Greens hold the balance of power at state elections including and in Tasmania. In 1992 the Australian Greens formed a national party” (Australian Greens 2011).

This thesis stems from the notion that the Australian Greens began with a social movement base, and may now be evolving towards becoming an electoral professional party. In 2010 the Greens celebrated 25 years of existence as a ‘Green party’ in Australia, during which time they have grown from a collection of localised activist groups to a party with 34 MPs1 Australia-wide and arguably now the ‘third force’ in Australian politics (Warhurst 2007). Over that period the organisation of the party has grown and changed, from a purely volunteer organisation operating from the back rooms of members’ houses to a party with offices in every state. Many of the changes have been brought about by the requirements of a growing organisation needing to communicate with both a growing membership and the wider voting public outside of its membership base. The key research question here is then “Have the Greens moved from being a movement party to an electoral professional party?”

The structure and organisation of the Australian Greens is still evolving. As a party operating in the Australian federal system, the Australian Greens is under pressure to operate effectively within that system. The Greens ‘third force’ status necessitates that the party act responsibly in , even when advocating for seemingly radical positions (Miragliotta 2006; Bennett 2008). Some investigation of the party is then warranted to understand its role within the Australian political system and direction it is likely to take. The party also has its roots in social movements, in a similar manner to Green parties globally. An analysis of where the Australian Greens fits within party typologies that have been applied to other Green parties is also available for scrutiny.

1 As at 13 April 2011, on the return of writs for the NSW state election.

11

The literature on parties often revolves around their electoral success or failure, but in the case of the Australian Greens we need to go beyond this. Kitschelt (2006) in describing a ‘movement party’ sought to clarify the nature of a party that derives from a social movement. Green parties are categorised typically as movement parties (see Kitschelt 2006, pp.284-286). It will then be within the structure and nature of the Australian Greens organisationally that some understanding of the party may be found. So it is not just party systems but also social movements that are important to understand party mobilisation.

We can examine the pragmatic changes within the Greens as they relate to the general purpose of the party as a political entity. If the party sees itself as the parliamentary wing of a greater movement for social change then this predisposes the party, and by corollary its members, towards being active in social movement politics, activist work and the positing of alternative social, environmental and economic views to the broader mainstream. The party may show commitment to broad ranging social change or the membership may be more of what Ladner and Brandle (2008, p.110) call ‘cucumber greens’, focusing primarily on . If, however, the nature and purpose of the party is to self-replicate as a parliamentary party (ie, to win seats in parliament and then maintain them through whatever means) this implies a different course of action in respect to challenges the party chooses to pose to any dominant economic or social . Of particular concern are the mechanisms by which the party maintains, funds and self-replicates, thus necessitating a closer examination into the structures and key issues within the party.

Leaders and leadership structures have been issues characterising debates in Green parties since their formation in the 1970s (Hulsberg 1988; Kitschelt 1989b; Mayer & Ely 1998; Faucher 1999; Miragliotta 2006). This is in part due to the social movement base of the parties, arising from such diverse movements as the environmental and movements. While some researchers have tried to explain the movement base of the party as a response to exploitation - human exploitation of the environment as being similar to human exploitation of other humans - there are underlying tensions between environmental and social change measures that continue to remain unresolved (for instance see Bahro 1986, pp.142-158; Joppke & Markovits 1994). For one, the class based nature of much of as a middle class or post material reaction to capital exploitation does not necessarily tackle the nature of the exploitation, but rather the effects of it. Thus we have discussions about, and proponents of, ‘Green ’ (Prudham 2009; Sullivan 2009).

But existing within these tensions is a latent tension concerned with human organisation. If we read the histories of community activists such as Fran Peavey we find a dialogue being

12

developed around the need for non-hierarchical and non-judgemental community work (Peavey 2000). While this is not contained within environmental or peace activism necessarily, it is a debate about human exploitation, and indeed how an external activist may interact in an effective way with local community members. Much of the discussion then became part of the lexicon of the peace activists of the 1970s (see for instance Gowan et al 1976; Coover et al 1977). In the fusion of movement based politics into parliamentary politics this lexicon was retained, particularly in the Greens but also in parties such as Rainbow Alliance in Australia, the in the , and a raft of other post material parties on the left. Certainly amongst the early Australian Greens party activists, an understanding of the mechanisms of actions based in consensus and communal decision making underpinned the early development of the party (Greens WA 1990). The mechanisms of decision making extended into community based actions and protest of a direct but nonviolent nature. Examples such as the various forest blockades, ‘Peace Camps’ at Nurrungah and , and direct action blockades at are the most obvious examples, though more low key activities occurred around US warships (potentially nuclear armed), and at Parliament House in (often with or in support of other post material interest groups) (see for instance Historic Houses Trust of NSW 1999; Nugent 2002; Kearns 2004).

As the Greens have grown, so too has the tension between the original party activists and later party joiners. The original activists envisaged the party operating on a non-hierarchical basis, with flat structures and decentralised decision making. Newer entrants, particularly where the member is from another, more traditionally structured, party, brought expectations of a more hierarchical structure, honouring of senior members and traditional style campaigns. At the same time, newer activist members have joined from the . Many did not join in the formative periods of the party. The Greens was not, in its earliest days, able to offer much in the way of access to power to affect instrumental outcomes, particularly in the form of legislation. As the Greens has grown in influence, these environmental activists have been drawn into the Greens, now seeing it as an arena for effecting change instrumentally in favour of direct . However, both the new groups of entrants (those used to working with more traditional institutional or party power structures, and those looking for instrumental outcomes) come up against a party- internal cultural barrier – that of non-hierarchical and non-judgemental modes of operation.

A secondary source of tension has been the perception that the Greens are a source of moral authority within the community due to their desire not to compromise on what they see as key or fundamental questions. This had become a strong stream within Green politics, with MPs such as (in WA) and (NSW) arguing that Greens should remain quite resolute on policy programs, and that these programs should themselves be clear and uncompromising, even while this has been derided as ‘policy purism’ by members of major

13

parties such as the ALP. Allied to a dual commitment on both environmental and social justice policy principles, this form of policy demand does not leave much room for negotiation, although all MPs will pursue what they can within self or party imposed constraints.

However, within the hothouse of parliamentary politics and especially Government, compromise is seen as stock in trade of politicians if anything is to be achieved. As Bahro (1986, pp.159-176) argued, the Greens will face a challenge: whether to try to enter Government to obtain incremental outcomes, or whether to simply refuse to engage with existing power structures. As entering Government will inevitably require some compromise, it is therefore argued that Greens should not be engaged in a power struggle with the existing structures or parties, but should instead stay removed from it and build alternate structures. As Joppke and Markovits (1994) note, those attached to Bahro’s ‘no-compromise’ line had left the German Greens by 1991.

How some activists entering the party with more instrumental outcomes in mind have tended to approach this tension is to obviate it by simply accepting that compromise must be done, part of which is the accepting of the structures that will facilitate gaining governmental power, such as leaders, hierarchy and flexible policy positions. Green MPs such as Bob Brown, Christine Milne and Nick McKim in Tasmania have taken this approach (see Brown & Singer 1996). The acceptance of Ministries within the Bartlett ALP Government in Tasmania in 2010 means that conflict will almost inevitably arise between the party (and activist) policy demands and the need to compromise in Government. Nonetheless, the purpose of acceptance Ministries is to achieve instrumental outcomes in those Ministries, and to influence the decision making more widely within Cabinet and Government (McKim 2010: Duffy 2010). An alternate mechanism exists, in the form of agreements on policy outcomes, negotiated with an incoming Government in return for supporting motions. The ACT Greens MPs negotiated such an agreement with the Stanhope Government in 2008 (Parliamentary Agreement 2008).

It is with this background of tensions that the research was undertaken. It should be noted that the particular methodological approach, of a survey of party organisational activists and interviews with staff, was utilised so as to map the political, cultural and organisational changes within the Australian Greens, through an examination of the role the two groups (activists and staff) in shaping and reflecting those dynamics. This thesis undertook research to examine Greens party activists positioning on issues that represent milestones on the path from social movement party to a more professionalised form. These questions go to the core of party cultural change facilitating or being facilitated by the structural change that is likely to be occurring.

14

HISTORICAL BEGINNINGS

The Greens as a political entity is said to have started with the (UTG) in the Australian state of Tasmania, formed around the impending destruction of through dam building by the Hydro Electricity Commission (Brown & Singer 1996, p96). Formed just prior to the May 1972 Tasmanian state election, UTG’s purpose was to raise awareness about the destruction of the lake, and the wanton environmental destruction of other places in Tasmania through neglect of Tasmania’s natural environmental values. In , at almost the same time, in August 1972, a group of activists came to form the Values Party, to campaign on a progressive platform at the national elections later that year. Ladner and Brandle (2008) also note that the formation of the first in Switzerland ‘Mouvement Populaire pour l’Environment’ (MPE) occurred in December 19712.

Thus Green parties emerged simultaneously in several western nations. Many campaigns and groups around the world had been spurred on by the social changes of the 1960s. Whether it be the Moratorium marches in Australia campaigning against Australian involvement in Vietnam, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in the UK and other nations, or the of groups and ideas that converged on the US in Chicago in 1968, there were social and political movements looking for large scale political change (Wright Mills 1963). Drew Hutton, founder of the Greens in 19843, noted many of his generation, growing up in the 1960s, were strongly influenced by the anti- Vietnam war marches, and criticisms of western capitalism (1987, p.2).

In Australia at the time there were limited political options. The formation of the UTG did not herald a national party formation process, built as it was around dissatisfaction regarding the flooding of Lake Pedder. Indeed, individual progressive activists were still working on different projects across the country, such as the Troskyist group Resistance, which began as a youth group in to Australia’s Vietnam involvement (Percy 2005), and the Rainbow Ecology Party, based in the south west of . The formation of the in 1977, from the merger of the New Liberal Movement, Centreline Party and the , brought together a number of strands of green thinking, but in a

2 (1989) incorrectly identifies this as December 1972, as the party timeline she outlines suggests this is a repeated typographical error.

3 The Brisbane Greens never registered with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) as a party, although members went on to be involved in the Green Network and the .

15

purely parliamentary , and did not engage a activist base as seen in new social movements (Warhurst 2006).

At the same time, tendencies within the Australian Labor Party, influenced by other traditional left and progressive thinking, were developing. , Minister for the Environment under Whitlam, was influential in advancing a new ethic of environmental protection. Left wing ALP members in districts such as Balmain were mobilising around social and environmental issues as much as industrial and labour movement issues (Harris 2007). The development of the ‘New Left’, emancipatory and in the 1960s also saw similar statements as expressed in the UTG founding charter (UTG 1972; Marcuse & Martin 1979; Rainbow 1993). What needs, then, to be taken into account in any narrative of Green party formation is the diversity and complexity of the story.

In Australia in 1989 there were some 13 Green parties registered federally with the AEC (Harris 2007), with 18 by the 1990 federal election (AEC 2010a). They represented a wide variety of groups and structures. On top of that were a further number of state registered parties and unregistered groups (some not using the name ‘Greens’) which would later form part of the Greens. For instance, in WA these included the federally registered Vallentine Peace Group, the state registered Alternative Coalition and the unregistered Green Development, all merging finally with the Green Party of WA to form the Greens (WA) in 1990. The discussions on forming a Green party in WA stretched back to the mid 1980s, but registration of a party in WA did not occur until 1989.

The name ‘Green’ derived from the Green Bans of the early 1970s in NSW (Brown & Singer 1996). The Green Bans, initiated by the Builders Labourers under , so-called because they combined the more traditional ‘Black’ bans against worksites with environmental protection and community action. The first of the Green bans, at Hunters Hill in Sydney NSW in 1971 saw the BLF allied with local community members attempting to save an iconic piece of local bushland, Kelly’s Bush (Mundey 1981). This alliance of community interests, environment concerns and workers (labour) was seen as an exemplar by , founding member of the German Greens (arguably one of the most successful Green parties globally). Indeed, Petra Kelly’s tour of Australia in 1984 was seen as a pivotal event in the formation of an Australian Green party, and a catalyst for future political action (Salleh 1987, p.74).

But in considering the name Green here, it is important to note that it was coined not by the emerging environmental parties such as the Values Party in New Zealand or the UTG in Tasmania, but as an expression of the emerging connections between differing social

16

movement activists, from the old movement (labour), with the new (environmental). We can see that the first , in Switzerland, actually formed in December 1971 (Parkin 1989; Die Grune Schweiz 2009), at a cantonal level, with the first national party being PEOPLE in the UK in 1973. However, the first usage of the word ‘Green’ as a party label was in relation to the German Greens (‘Die Grunen’) in 1980, in preparation for the European election later that year. The Swiss Greens won seats in their national parliament in 1983 although Daniel Brelaz was elected as the first Green to a national parliament in 1979 as a candidate for ‘Group for the Protection of the Environment’ (the MPE’s list at the national level). While it seems obvious that a variety of ‘Green’ parties were forming at this time, each with their own charter, ideals and , what is also clear is that these early formations were establishing themselves in a milieu as opposed to being simply branches derived from each other.

Parkin (1989, p.120) quotes former leading West German Green member August Hausleiter on the formulation of the classic four pillars of Greens at the, often fractious, German Greens congress at Offenbach in 1979:

“I took a piece of paper and wrote four words on it: ecology, social responsibility, grassroots and non-violence. Then I called Gruhl (leader of the conservatives) and Reents (leader of the left) into the room where the journalists were and said ’Sign’. We then went back into the convention hall and announced we had a programme.”

These four pillars are now a key element of all Green parties charters and constitutions. That they were derived in a fairly spontaneous manner should not undermine their import. No one party can lay claim to the ideas and ideals being expressed as they represent broader post material values emergent at the time.

DEVELOPING A PARTY POLITICAL CULTURE

An issue perhaps under-canvassed in the examination of political parties from a political science perspective is that of ‘culture’ – the internal dynamics that drive the organisation that are not based in particular forms of political psychology or in party constitutions, but the invisible and often unspoken web of actions and expectations that operate within meetings and between people. Where examination of culture has occurred it has tended to focus on why particular groups do not participate in party politics (Kolinsky 1991; McKay 2004), political socialisation (Blondel 1990) or why parties are in decline (Hooghe et al 2004).

17

The Australian Greens, as a Green party within the Australian political , is no different from any other party in having an internal culture, but one that needs to be understood as much from the different perspectives operating within it as from outside as whole. The very nature of the party’s development, from a series of separate but linked local organisations to a federation of state based parties, means that there is unlikely to be one over-arching monoculture operating within the party. Instead a diverse of expectations and activities are present in the different growths and histories of the local and state parties.

So, the party culture of the Australian Greens is marked by state and local differences. While there are obvious similarities, such as the use of consensus and the tendency to sit in a circle at meetings, there are also differences in the interpretation of how meetings should be run, the power of executives, the role of the local group, and the minutiae of meetings and events, such as acknowledgements of indigenous peoples, the way in which group members socialise, the pattern and form of meetings, and idiosyncratic meeting practices. These differences subtly influence the decisions made at party meetings. For instance, the Greens was formed as a state party a number of years after the formation of a series of local parties and groups. The struggle to develop the state party reflected the very different foci and of these groups, and their own internal practices were then reflected in the state party. The very clear acknowledgement of the autonomy of the local group (Greens NSW 2009) is a reflection of the early struggles between groups, as is the continued opposition to both a hierarchy and executive.

By contrast, the shows very different structural arrangements. They developed more as a response to having elected MPs than to the pressure to network a set of local groups, and developed in the wake of the formation of the Wilderness Society. The party executive itself holds supreme power within the organisation, able to determine when and how the state party operates, including the candidate selection process in its entirety (Tasmanian Greens 2007). The adoption of a prior to their being a party also provided a focus for party energies in Parliament, even while many party activists had strong links to the environment movement.

In examining Green party culture, it is necessary to consider both the local and the general milieu in which the party operates. Faucher-King (2010) noted the varying cultural practices in both the Aix-en-Provence and Oxford Greens, but does not attribute the observed practices

18

to any specific national party characteristic, even though there may be broader cultural practices at work4. So it is with the Australian Greens.

If we consider the historical developments of each of the state parties, and in a number of cases local parties that became local branches of the Australian Greens, we would be able to note the separate cultural practices at work. If we look at the Australian Greens we also need to consider the practices of the Australian Greens meetings in isolation from those of the party’s constituent parts, even though some of the state parties draw quite heavily on the national organisation.

The national Greens party operates as part of the national political scene. It has a national headquarters in Canberra, with a national manager and staff. The operations of the national party have tended to be more hierarchical than most state and local groups. Final decisions on campaigns and national level arrangements tend to at least need the agreement of senior MPs. However, the ‘cultural’ practices at an Australian Greens national meeting derives in part from the collective experience of the state party members attending, as much from what might be expected as the peak meeting of a national political party. In this context, some of the same practices observed at a state and local level can also be observed at a national level. The national level practices include; delegates sitting in a large circle so that they can face each other; national office bearers acting as functionaries not as leaders; regular breaks for further discussion; and the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques to break policy and procedural deadlocks. At the same time business is expected to be dealt with expeditiously, with agendas being maintained through disciplined decision making. This is in contrast to both earlier practices (which saw long initial discussion, with meetings disintegrating towards the close of the meeting, rushing to get decisions made or deferred, with a perceived drop in the quality of decision making) and to the practices of states.

However, some of the older decision making practices do still persist. The NSW Greens will block consensus on proposals its delegates do not think have been discussed adequately at the state level. This replicates practices at the NSW state level meetings, where decisions may be deferred if local branches have not had sufficient time to discuss issues and make a decision on them. This deliberative style of decision making was a feature of early meetings of some Green parties, and borrows heavily from the Quakers and US peace activists. In maintaining this practice, Greens have attempted to entrench it as a process thought to produce better decisions. The Greens (WA) at one point included in their Constitution an explicit mention of

4 Faucher-King (2010) describes ‘tea-drinking’ in Oxford but rather than defining it as a UK Greens-specific cultural practice defines it more broadly as an English cultural phenomena.

19

a book on which decision making practices were to be based, which provided a direct link to those peace group activities. A study of the Greens (WA) (Lange 1994) highlighted, however, that different groups within the early party still contested these practices, even as the internal party culture developed.

Indeed, Lange’s study of the Greens (WA) provides an historical snapshot of the formative period. Lange notes the various practices around meetings, including the difficulty in gaining consensus, the referral back to local branches (called ‘local groups’ in WA), and the struggles over what ‘green’ practice might be. Lange, like Faucher-King (2010), makes it clear that the meetings are the core of socialisation of newer members into the party, yet can be both frustrating and alienating for those members, as yet unaccustomed to the particular modes of behaviour and mechanics of the meetings. Lange also utilises the social movement theory of Melucci (1989) to suggest that the socialisation process itself is a key component of the construction of group identity as well.

The acculturation process described by Lange (1994) cites an observation of a state-level meeting of the Greens (WA) from 1991, when the Greens (WA) was comparatively large amongst Australian Green parties (with 340 members) and with a federal MP. At this meeting Lange noted the various activities and processes utilised by various members to discuss issues and make decisions. A key observation was that individuals within the meeting resorted to accusations of ‘un-greenness’ on a variety of occasions to defend or criticise positions. At the same time, the absence of concrete arguments was also fairly obvious to the meeting participants. The rhetorical activities of participants in the meetings alluded to various opaque power dynamics within the meeting.

In contrast, the Greens NSW specify a process of decision making, contained on their members website and periodically referred to within meetings. This is a process, listed as Interim Standing Orders adopted in 2002, designed to codify previously existing decision making practices (Greens NSW 2002). These Standing Orders also codify the grounds for referral back to local groups, in the same way that the Australian Greens practice does, and allow for voting within the consensus framework, if required. While not definitive (meetings may still decide to suspend their own rules), this codification takes what was once an accepted cultural practice and makes it the standard.

The pervading culture of consensus decision making within the Greens, while generally enshrined in party constitutions and papers, is not complete. On at least one occasion (Australian Greens 2005), a proposal has been put forward to apply ‘modified’ consensus, as described in the Australian Greens and Greens NSW Constitutions, to all processes even

20

while that was not a Constitutional requirement. That this proposal failed is perhaps as much because it was not seen as an urgent issue as for any cultural attachment to consensus processes. Vromen and Turnbull (2006) describe consensus decision making as part of a commitment to . Former MHR ’s comments that local decision making provided legitimacy to state or national decisions further supports the continuing value placed on participatory practices (Vromen & Turnbull 2006, p.462).

While the best evidence we have for Greens groups’ cultural markers is anecdotal, that they exist should equally be telling us that there is at times a high degree of individuality between groups. These cultural activities or signifiers can be addressed by looking more deeply at some of the state party activities, such as meetings and conferences, and then at the way in which these activities inform the outcomes. While there is limited research about the local level, again some anecdotal evidence can be used to form conclusions.

Just as Faucher-King (2010) describes the differing meeting practices of the Aix-en-Provence and Oxford Greens, a sudden change to existing practices can cause significant resistance. In the context of the Australia Labor Party this was noted by Michael Organ in the Illawarra Greens, whose election was largely the result of the imposition of a candidate by the ALP State Office, with a resulting backlash from both party members and the public (Cahill & Brown 2008). Organ noted that “we’re seeing problems down here, with Labor, where the State [Office} has imposed candidates and so . It just causes problems” (cited in Vromen & Turnbull 2006, p.462), while also being wary of state office direction from his own party.

SCOPE OF THIS THESIS

The overview of the party’s history and culture informs the interpretation of results to a considerable extent. This thesis looks principally at the views of party organisational activists (see Chapter 3 for definition of this group of activists), 37% of whom were members prior to 2001 (see Chapter 4). It is then to gain an understanding of the responses of the activists towards the changes within the party, particularly as so many have been involved with the party over an extended period and have an understanding of the particular issues and strategies either used or proposed at various times. These issues have included positions for women, rotating leaders and group leadership, and the efficacy of voting, community work or participating in rallies and boycotts (Chapter 5). The particular research questions are informed by the changes to the original composition and viewpoints of the party. Changes to these viewpoints would point to a shift away from movement party operational conceptions. It can therefore also be seen how processes of socialisation within the party have been

21

successful or not, or whether other processes of party acculturation have now over taken movement-based ideas (Chapter 6). While questions surveyed do not explicitly connect the views of former members of other parties, such as the ALP and Australian Democrats, at least some understanding of the potential impact of former political orientations is necessary (see Chapter 4). The input of members from other parties is further explored in the context of attempting to attract members (and potentially MPs) of other parties, particularly given the collapse of the Australian Democrats and the recruitment in 2003 and 2008 of sitting ALP MPs to the Australian Greens (Chapter 6).

In the same way, the ideological positioning of party organisational activists is important to consider, as this may play a key role in defining how the individual activist approaches particular issues. When compared to both Green electors and the general population on a left- right scale party organisational activists are far to the left of the average (see Chapter 7). This of course strongly suggests that many left-wing ideas will be embodied within the party, and so can be tested against the various policies and strategies, along with the period of joining.

Alongside the survey of party organisational activists are interviews of selected staff of both the party (at a national and state level) and MPs (working for the federal MPs and state and territory MPs). The role of staff as interlocutors between party and MPs, while recognised, has not been extensively explored in an Australian context, and certainly not in the context of the Greens. While a number of European Green parties have over the years had significant numbers of staff, their role has not been carefully examined in terms of how they interact with party members and the MPs, nor what role they play within the party. The interviews conducted here allow staff attitudes to similar strategic and positional question as those posed to party organisational activists to be examined (Chapter 8), as well as staff responses to the role of leadership from the MPs (Chapter 9).

CONCLUSION

The of a party, from earliest beginnings to the current point, necessarily involves changes to the party’s organisation, platform and personnel, particularly if the party has any degree of electoral success. In the case of the Australian Greens, the process of change was slow for the first 15 years of the party’s history, coupled with only limited and variable electoral success, and a relatively low membership level. However, the years following the 2001 federal election saw a dramatic shift in the party’s fortune. In the period 2001-2011 the party has tripled in size, in both membership and MPs elected, with those MPs now sitting in multiple upper and lower houses.

22

The shift in electoral fortunes of the Australian Greens has necessarily seen many stresses placed on the party, in both policy and structural terms, with significant changes in personnel (employed and volunteer) and processes. In many respects, the strength of the party has helped it so far manage to weather those stresses, but in doing so it has had to accommodate more traditional forms and natures expected of the party. Accommodation of the pressures, whether driven by internal necessity or external expectations, has seen the party change.

This thesis analyses those changes from two perspectives, those of staff and party organisational activists. These two groups are crucial ‘players’ within the party, as interlocutors and communicators between the MPs, the membership and the electorate, yet are largely understudied in the Australian context, and particularly in relation to the Australian Greens. This thesis, then, looks at their viewpoint of the changes within the party, particularly historically difficult questions for Green parties, and what direction they now think the party should move in. The thesis concludes by noting that while the Australian Greens may have moved away from its movement base, it is not yet at the point where we might call it an electoral professional party.

23

Chapter 2

PARTY STRUCTURE, ACTIVISTS AND HISTORY

INTRODUCTION

The literature on parties is multifaceted and diverse. The literature on the Greens is sparser, though equally diverse. So where does a discussion of the Australian Greens and its journey from a movement base to an electorally pragmatic (even electoral professional) party begin? The logical place might be with social movements, and how movements may coalesce into parties. This could then be followed by what we understand ‘Green’ parties to be, and in what context, both political and ideological, they operate. For the key aspect of this thesis’ examination of particular groups within the Australian Greens there then needs to be at least some discussion of the literature on the roles of party members and party activists, as well as the organisational context in which they operate.

The questions that need to be answered here are; in what context the Australian Greens arose, how has it grown from a tiny membership in an inner city suburb, and what are the factors that are shaping its organisational trajectory? That the Australian Greens has an organisational trajectory seems clear (Miragliotta 2006), and that it will continue to develop is most likely. As noted by a number of scholars (for instance Poguntke 2002; Lucardie & Rihoux 2008), the journey may have the effect of shedding various practices within the party associated with its original ‘anti-party party’ status. Whether changing party organisational processes has an impact on the party’s electoral fortune may be debated, but adopting the institutional frameworks of parliament and other parties may assist in gaining access to government participation (Villalba 2008).

PARTIES AND PARTY CHANGE

Many political scientists have written about parties (Michels (1915), Duverger (1964), Sartori (1976) to name but a few). These explorations are not only to explain parties but also to examine how and why they change. Still others have analysed the nature of those changes and sought to identify drivers of change (Kirchheimer 1966; Panebianco 1988; Kitschelt 1989b; 2006; Mair 1989; Harmel & Janda 1994; Katz & Mair 1994). The notion has emerged of a growth progression from one party type to another (not always smooth), operating within a

24

political system. The suggested progression is of elite parties giving way to mass parties, to catch-all parties and then to cartel or electoral-professional parties. For some types (particularly elite, mass and catch-all) there may be an overlap of party types within a party system operating within a particular national polity, such that mass parties may exist side by side to catch-all parties within the same political system. However, the last step within this progression, cartel parties, requires a complete system of cartel parties to operate fully to the benefit of those parties (Katz & Mair 1996). Thus, discussion of a cartel system relates to the operation of a number of parties within a political system that favours those parties, through the division of state resources and integration of the parties with the state.

The change within party systems in Austrian, German, Belgian or Italian partitocracies, which have been likened to cartel systems, is due as much to the necessity of replacing a declining party-as-policy-aggregator system as it is due to any demands of an expanded state (Deschouwer 1994; Kopecky & Scherlis 2008). Importantly, however, most minor parties, including Green parties, have tended to be seen as interlopers in such systems and are at times actively excluded.5 Perhaps more importantly, where the existence of cartel party systems is challenged, another form of party, the electoral-professional party, does exist. It is marked by a clear focus on electoral politics and utilizing professional staff as opposed to a mass membership. This chapter will analyse a number of the potential signposts of the development of the Australian Greens into an electoral professional party, the party form described by Panebianco (1988) and others.

As part of this shift to electoral professionalism, we need to be aware that various party organisational systems are argued to change because of the electoral needs of parties. In the early period of party based electoral democracy of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, parties operated to gain government, based on a limited franchise. The limited franchise also meant that only a section of the populace required motivation to vote. Motivating these sections was often based on appealing to distinct characteristics or cleavages (ie, class, , ethnicity) (Lipset & Rokkan 1967; Rose 1974). As the franchise was widened in the 20th century it became necessary for parties to campaign more broadly in order to win election to government. To increase popular support, parties turned first to mass recruiting to enable the effective delivery of to the populace, and then to radio, television, newspapers and now social media. The use of mass-media allowed parties to reach most sections of the populace, but also meant that parties needed to refine their policy message to attract the broadest possible support base, often outside of the previous cleavages they initially appealed to. With the rise of the new media forms, parties were also able to reach the bulk of the

5 For instance, Tasmania, where the number of seats in parliament was reduced to limit the impact of the Tasmanian Greens – see Crowley (1999; 2000), Herr (2005).

25

electorate without the need for mass organizations, so tended to centralize their operations using professional campaigners to do the work once done by staff or volunteers on the ground. Congruent to the changes in the nature of campaigning, parties needed to employ more staff to enable their MPs and Ministers to tackle the various, increasingly complex, policy issues dealt with by . State funding (subvention) of parties has now grown to the extent that staff employed to assist MPs number in the thousands in Australia. Although not direct financial aid to the party, the provision of staff represents a significant shift of power and resources within the party system. This is where the rise of the electoral- professional party appears, alongside the potential of a cartel-like arrangement within the political system.

In tandem with the various changes in the formal institutions of electoral politics, a series of external changes occurred within society, based in connected movements at times bound by little more than sets of ideas or identity. The social movements that arose in the 1960s were in many respects quite different from previous movements based on material conditions, such as the peasants movements between the 13th and 19th centuries. The movements were now principally being based around values opposing and promoting individual liberty (Tarrow 1990). The new social movements, around such diverse issues as environmentalism, , liberationist ideologies or identity politics, were significantly different from the older movements based around class (ie, peasant or labour movements), religion (Catholic vs Protestant) or ethnicity (Scots and Welsh in Great Britain, Walloons and Flemings in ). The US student movement during the late 1960s and early 70s mobilized and activated many university students (Van Dyke 1990, p.236). Upswings in protest in the 1990s (Rhoads 1998) shifted the focus of attention from disarmament, anti-war, civil rights and the women’s movement to issues centered on multiculturalism and identity politics (Van Dyke 1990). The change in nature and uneven cycles of protest are in part due to the changing patterns of socialization during the 1970s and 80s.6 They are also due to the lack of consistent social movement organisations to maintain continuity within what McCarthy and Zald (1977) have called the ‘social movement industry’ surrounding student protest in the US. The environment movement, by comparison, has succeeded in engaging successive waves of people, principally through the maintenance of effective and permanent ongoing organisations.

At the same time other researchers (ie, Inglehart 1971; 1990; Inglehart & Flanagan 1987), identified shifts in the way a section of the population related to their material surrounds and ideas of economic growth. This group of people appeared to be reacting in a way that suggested that, in a Maslovian way, they had reached a sufficient level of material affluence,

6 See Schuman and Scott (1989) on socialisation impacts on different generational cohorts.

26

whether in education or in the substance of their lives, and they now questioned the basis on which that affluence was generated (Inglehart & Abramson 1999). Inglehart described this as ‘post material’, and he and others argued that this group of post materialists constituted a ‘new class’, sitting within and between the old class dynamic of working-middle-ruling class divisions. Further investigation of the ‘new class’ suggested that a direct connection between this group and their political (or even social) attitudes could not be made with certainty (Brym et al 2004). Rather than a new class, they perhaps fitted more clearly within what Parkin (1968) described as ‘middle class radicals’.

Middle class radicals, such as those driving the anti-nuclear movement (see Parkin 1968; Kitschelt 1986) were available where political opportunity structures allowed protest with some opportunity for success. However, the attitude of social movement participants towards political parties and the formal institutions of government has been suggested by theorists such as Pakulski (1991) as being one of mistrust. They are likely to continue to avoid parties because they distrust policy aggregation. Kitschelt (2006), however, proposes an alternative interpretation, in the form of the social movement party. The social movement party might normally (but not exclusively) be associated with new (mass) social movements and thus the left of the , but they may also exist outside the left-right divide as an expression of political action by social movement actors. As Kitschelt describes them:

“Movement parties are coalitions of political activists who emanate from social movements and try to apply the organisational and strategic practices of social movements in the arena of political competition” (2006, p.280).

This description might aptly be applied to the Greens, if we consider the varying descriptions of the early party congresses and meetings. The application of an ‘anti-party party’ ethic within the German Greens (Hulsberg 1988), consensus decision making and participatory democracy (Spretnak & Capra 1985) or radical policy measures (Bahro 1986) all point to the Greens fitting Kitschelt’s definition. Faucher-King (2010; Faucher 1999), in her discussions of the different cultural aspects of the French and Oxford (UK) Greens, equally alludes to the social movement origins and discursive nature of the party. Lange (1994) is explicit in calling the Greens a movement party, based on her research and experiences of the West Australian Greens. As Mair (2001) finds, however, while elements of this ‘radicalism’ still exist within the party, it is now tempered by a strong pragmatic element focused on the electoral competition and maintaining an electoral presence (see also Miragliotta 2006). Perceptions of electoral are perhaps bolstered by Green candidates being labelled “Labor’s electoral proxies” (Milne G 2009), and a potential threat to the ALP in inner-urban electoral contests (Hoffman & Costar 2010). Table 2.1 illustrates Kitschelt’s (2006) definition of a movement party, compared with what we might expect to see in an electoral professional party and to how the Australian Greens might be placed (Vromen and Turnbull 2006; Miragliotta 2010a; 2010b).

27

Table 2.1: Party orientations – movement party, Australian Greens and electoral professional party

Movement Party Australian Greens Electoral Professional Party

Single issue, exclusion of Multi-issue, platform Multi-issue, embrace of left Programmatic basis other movements, rejection of moderation on the basis of right dichotomy as left right dichotomisation perception appropriate, issue moderation

Collective or charismatic, Elected, charismatic, mixed Elected, tending to populist, Leadership & structure voluntary voluntary/professional image related, professional Participatory but with some Decision making Participatory Centralised, hierarchical centralised features Single issue/movement, Multi-movement Social movement Will attempt to co-opt principal activists potentially (‘Rainbow’), some party influence movements directly involved activists involved externally Broad based, loose Loose with policy Strong within policy Networking networking communities

Policy implementation Electoral success, limited Policy implementation Goal orientation through influence on other policy success preferably through electoral success parties through government.

Large social bloc prepared to Programmatic issue Programmatic issue act, intransigence or opportunity, appropriate Opportunity structure opportunity, availability of indifference from establish leadership structure, required resources, low electoral political players, low available resources, moderate threshold electoral threshold electoral threshold

(Adapted from Kitschelt 2006)

This raises the question of whether the Australian Greens can still be called a movement party, and, assuming that it is not, what form has it adopted. The path of party formation and growth would suggest that it is potentially now ‘left-libertarian’ in orientation (Charnock 2010; Kitschelt 1988). However, the Australian Greens has also shifted to a more electorally pragmatic form, employing professional staff and mediating behaviour in pursuit of electoral success (Dann 2008). This more pragmatic structural form potentially fits within a broad definition of an electoral professional party.

28

LINKING STRUCTURE AND ACTION – STRATARCHY

Beginning with Mosca (1896/1939), Ostrogorski (1902/1964) and Michels (1915) there has been a continuing interest in political elites, and their potential for control of organisations and society. Burnham (1943) extended the discussion of political elites to suggest control of the state as a form of managerial control through bureaucratic control. C Wright Mills (1959) expanded ‘elite’ to include the military-industrial complex in an institutional approach. Yet it is only more recently that we have seen a return to a closer examination of the elites that exist within parties, as opposed to a separated class. Party elites begin with the mid-level elites (see Iversen 1994; Pierre 1986) interleaved between the party membership and the party leadership, and culminate generally with parliamentary leaders.

Katz and Mair (1994) defined this through a reformulation of the three ‘faces’ of party7: the Party in Public Office, the Party in Central Office and the Party on the Ground. Each ‘face’ deals with a particular set of functions within the party but is relatively separate from the other faces, due to the dislocation that naturally exists, in most parts usually spatially, but also in terms of policy formulation and aggregated power. The three faces of the party model provides us with one way of looking at the various groups and functions that exist within a party from each ‘face’s’ relative perspective (Figure 2.1).

Party in Public Party in Central Party on the Office Office Ground

Figure 2.1: The three faces of party

These three faces of party allow an examination of the motivations, drives and interests of people in three levels of the party, and act as a way to class actions and attributes of party functionaries. However, the three faces model neglects the dynamic interactions between the faces which may significantly influence party debates (Pomper 1992). While the interests of the three faces may be seen to be different and separate (although they may coincide), this framing does nothing to elucidate the influence of relationships between the various parts of the party.

7 Noting Key (1964) and Rose (1974) also discuss three ‘faces’ of party although with differing emphases.

29

We could also look within the various groups comprising the divisions to see how they organize themselves and what the relationship is between the various party elements and the party more generally. This representation breaks the Party in Central Office into two groups: the party activists, who are the volunteers who fill the various offices and positions within the party; and the party staff, who are employed to complete various duties (Figure 2.2). Although the distinction assumes that both party activists and party staff are part of the Party in Central Office, such an assumption also would appear to fit with Pierre’s (1986, p.467) description of middle level elites as “an important stratum for intra-party upward and downward communication”.

Party Activists

Party in Public Party on the Office Ground Party Staff

Figure 2.2: Three faces acknowledging activists and staff

Yet this description does not take into account the more complex nature of relationships around either party activists or party staff, especially when we consider that the staff group may consist of staff employed by the party, by state MPs, and by federal MPs, each having their own scope of influence and activity. The complex interrelations between the different parts of the party and the members within the party may also be dependent on what role a member is playing at the time. Elected officials of the party in voluntary positions, sometimes characterised as part of ‘middle-level elites’ (Pierre 1986), also operate across the Party on the Ground and the party’s central office. Party organisational activists might be operating in a number of contexts and their attitudes and reactions may adjust accordingly. Party activists are themselves also not confined to either Party in Central Office or Party on the Ground as they may be local, state or national office holders, involved in activities across the party. The three faces of party with the roles and relationships of organisational activists and staff are shown in Figure 2.3.

Elected MPs Party Activists

Party & MPs Staff Party Members

Figure 2.3: Expanded party stratarchy with scope of influence and interactions

30

This alternate use of stratarchy can be seen to provide for the communicative role described by Pierre (1986), both directly and indirectly. Whiteley, Seyd and Richardson (1994) note the decline in local party employment (as party agents) in the UK, thus removing staff from the Party on the Ground. The reduction in local level employment (see also Webb & Kolodny 2006) also changes the way in which the Party in Central Office should be considered, allowing for a better understanding of the roles of the various groups. Consideration of the Party in Central Office would appear to locate the office, as a professionalising agent impacting MPs (in terms of how they consider their role within the party, the public nature of that role, and within the membership) in that it strips many of the functions and purposes of Party on the Ground and transfers them to the central office. A more complex assessment of the roles of the (volunteer) activists, and the (professional) staff would also provide a greater understanding of how they themselves see their role.

The arrangement in Figure 2.3 shows a relationship between the various elements of the party, contained broadly within the three element structure. Activists and staff cross the boundaries of the faces, the activists because they may be an office bearer at a local, state or national level, the staff member because they may be party or MPs staff. However, the staff/activist experience of, and relationship to, the party remains different to that of the MPs or general members. This model would encompass the additional layers or stratification within each of the faces. However, as Mair (1994) notes, increased stratification means that each face will have increased autonomy, and stratification within a face will fragment relationships within the face. Carty (2004) in part reconciles this apparently destructive autonomy within his concept of the ‘franchise’ party, where part’s of a party have a mutual autonomy, so continue to interact with each other, respecting each parts autonomy, but also recognising the importance of party . Carty goes on to note the efforts of parties to now codify the rights and responsibilities of the various elements so as to maintain the balance of power between the different elements of the party. However, Katz and Mair (2009, p.761) equally note that stratification within a party may be an indicator of cartelisation, as the Party in Public Office will want to free itself of any restrictions imposed by the Party on the Ground, yet at the same time maintain some form of local organisation, both for campaigning and for maintaining the impression of a healthy party.

This examination takes place in the context of the growth of the Australian Greens, from a micro party of a few hundred members in the mid-1980s to a significant player within Australian politics in 2011. The research needs also to be considered in the context of the Australian political system, with a federated national structure, formed in the late 19th century from 6 self-governing colonies, with a local government structure that has no constitutional recognition, although recognised in state legislation (Weller & Fleming 2003). The Greens, as a party that places a high importance upon local activism, has a national structure that mirrors the Australian federated structure but with an implicit power bias towards the local

31

group/branch. Bolleyer (2011) suggests that Green parties which appear to have stratarchical features can be divided into those that are in and those that are actually stratarchical in nature by examining the national system under which they operate. Those Green parties that operate in unitary states will adopt a party-stratarchical model of organisation, while those in federated states adopt a federated structure. This local bias thus subverts the formal, existing power relations that might otherwise be associated with the three faces in Figure 2.1, countering tendencies to concentrate power in the Party in Central Office or Party in Public Office (Mair 1994; Carty 2004).

The complication contained within the presence of state MPs, who while being associated with the Party in Public Office are also strongly connected to the Party on the Ground through their regional and state-based associations, is resolved by the federated structure as state/regional organising becomes as important as national organising (Bolleyer 2011). The structure of relationships associated with the expanded party stratarchy in Figure 2.3 is what we might begin to expect to exist in the Australian Greens, but one which does not fully explore the relationships between the different types of MPs and their staff. The Australian Greens might then be expected to fit within the party-federation model outlined by Bolleyer, as a party with strongly independent state bodies (see Miragliotta 2006, p.588), but would also appear to be in transition towards the party-stratarchical model of a vertically structured hierarchical party, or at least be coming under leadership pressure to move towards such a model (Johnson 2006).

In terms of Green parties, a secondary change also occurs alongside the shifting relationships: that of the party moving from being a fairly small, potentially insular yet ideologically coherent party, to one with a large number of diverse members, operating very much in the public sphere. This growth and divergence involves a cultural shift within the party as much as a response to both changing political fortunes as to changing social attachments. If we consider that Greens in the 1970s and 80s took many ideas in functioning and purpose from New Social Movements (NSMs)8, then, as these NSMs moved to a period of ‘abeyance’ in the late 1990s in Australia (Maddison & Martin 2010, p.112), these ideas on structure, form and organization within the party have waned, to be replaced with more ‘efficient’ and ‘professional’ methods of operation. Drugan (2003, p.46) notes that even in Les Verts (the French Greens), a party with a very strong, institutionalised culture, the move to professionalise was seen as a necessary requirement for the party to become electorally mature. It should be equally noted that Les Verts was formed by a small group of committed militants whose ideological stamp is still clearly felt within the party culture (Drugan 2003,

8 See for instance Muller-Rommel (1985) for a description of the development from NSMs of Die Grunen (the German Greens).

32

p26). At various stages the party activists within Les Verts asserted their authority over the party in public office in regards to and party leadership, at times publicly rebuking spokespeople and MPs, and repeatedly denying they have a leader.9

MEMBERS AND ACTIVISTS

As political parties have developed, they have moved from structures that emphasised the parliamentary membership of the party (the cadre party) to one emphasising the mass membership of the party (the mass party) to a situation now with professional party organisations but shrunken memberships (electoral professional party) (Marsh 2006). As Rose (1974 p.1) notes, change will occur in the party systems, but equally “political parties are a necessary, important and imperfect feature” of government. From the mid-1940s until now, parties have at least partially relied on voluntary memberships to maintain their electoral functions (Marsh 2006). These members, however, are not all universally active within their respective parties. Some are logically more involved than others, and these might be called ‘activists’. Scholars such as Kitschelt (1989a; 1989b), Seyd & Whiteley (1992), Whiteley, Seyd and Richardson (1994), Whiteley, Seyd and Billinghurst (2006), have used the descriptor ‘activist’ to describe those party members operating in a more involved way than others. Logically, Seyd and Whiteley (1992) argued that party activism is across a range of involvement, from the largely inactive members who are only motivated around elections, to those who apply themselves to almost full-time work as party volunteers.

The question then becomes: how do we define these activists, and what does it mean to be an activist? Seyd and Whiteley (1992) and Whiteley, Seyd and Richardson (1994) identified activists on the basis of the nature of the activities they undertake. Again, given the electoral role of the party, these activities related closely to electorate campaigning. A further group of activities focussed on party organizing (Sayers 2007). This general approach dichotomises party activism into electorate campaigning and party organising, although activists themselves may be involved in both. Alternately, we might view ‘party activism’ as excluding electorate campaigning, but instead being involvement in the functioning of the party. Kitschelt (1989a), Herrerra (1999) and others examined Conference attendees as activists. As Pierre (1986, p.467) notes “party activists may certainly function as conference delegates, but they may also be found elsewhere in the party organisation”. For Poguntke (1993; 2001), self definition by party members as an activist was an important criteria for activism. For others (Fabian 2010), interviews with leading party figures are proposed for effective analysis of party activism.

9 See also Faucher (1999) for a description of the attitudes of Les Verts activists towards leaders.

33

Where this leaves us is that activists have been described in a number of different ways and contexts, with no over-riding definition. The activist may therefore be seen as being described by context.

WHO ARE ‘ACTIVISTS’?

As we have begun to see, a problem that emerges from within party literature that is not satisfactorily dealt with is the naming and describing of a group of people – activists. While there are already many existing uses of this term, most notably in social movement and community work literature, it is also used within political science literature. However, there is no commonly applied description for an ‘activist’, leading to confusion about what is being measured and explaining what is being observed.

As noted above, scholars have used ‘activist’ to describe a particular group of party members operating in a more engaged manner. Seyd and Whiteley (1992, p.88) argued that party activism is a continuum, ranging from relatively inactive members, who may or may not be active even around elections, to those members who invest considerable amounts of time, on occasion amounting to almost full-time work, on party activities. So, while all party activists are members, not all members are party activists.

The Seyd and Whiteley (1992) and Whiteley, Seyd and Richardson (1994) surveys used sets of questions to identify activists on the basis of the activities undertaken by members, extrapolated from a cross-sectional survey of a particular party’s membership. These activities were largely related to on-the-ground campaigning, so included leafleting, displaying a campaign poster or donating money. A second group of activities related more to party-based organising, such as attending meetings, canvassing (known in Australia as doorknocking) and standing for election, either within the party or as a public official (see for instance Sayers 2007). Whiteley and Seyd (2002) in their later work on activist participation took the defining of an activist a step further with ‘high’ and ‘low’ intensity participation (see also Heidar 2006, pp.306-308). The defining points for high intensity participation were a greater involvement in the mechanism of party organisation and activity, such as standing for internal election and being part of party organs and committees, standing for election for external office, attending meetings, canvassing voters, and delivering leaflets (Whiteley & Seyd 2002, p.63). The activities described also equate to what might otherwise be performed by those party members engaged as functionaries within the party.

34

Alternatively, activism within a party might be described on the basis of attendance at certain types of meetings (party conferences for instance) or by how many meetings of any kind a member attends (Heidar & Saglie 2003). Kitschelt (1989a), Herrerra (1999) and others have at various times examined party conference attendees, and in describing them as activists emphasise aspects of the nature of conferences. Kitschelt (1989a), in looking at the two Belgium Green parties ( and Agalev), used the party conference of each to describe the attitude of party activists to various issues, again utilizing a survey of these party members. He was then able to juxtapose the responses with the stated positions of party MPs and senior officials. In contrast, McCulloch (1993), in looking at the British Ecology Party, focused exclusively on the local structures to compare the internal debates regarding structure with structures in more traditionally organised parties.

Each of the methods of defining activists clearly has limitations dependent on how the information is gathered, who is answering the various surveys, and what is actually being explored. On a macro level, surveys such as those conducted by Seyd, Whiteley and others provide insight into the kinds of activities undertaken by party members, and certainly do chart the changes in these activities over time. Surveys of party conferences explain the dynamics of those conferences, and often provide vivid explanations about why certain activities and actions were taken by parties and their leaders. Interviews with leading figures within a party (for example, Fabian 2010) are limited to providing a summary of the party as they cannot provide a detailed view – their positions alone (especially as MPs) will isolate them from the views of different sections of the party. Examinations of party leaders do little to explain the various interactions and relationships between parts of the party organisations.

Classing activists as those who have attended a certain number of meetings in a year provides little more than an idea of what attendees of meetings think. Pierre (1986) articulates that organisational position implies ‘mid level elite’ and that activist means a person substantially more active than other members and voters. Yet it is problematic to then suggest that meeting attendees should be classed as activists and accorded some special status when the nature of their relationship to the rest of the party is poorly understood. Asking how many meetings have been attended may yield that this member attended five local group meetings, or five policy working group meetings or five meetings that were also social functions, or five meetings where they were attending because of a relationship to another person attending. Asking how many hours worked for the party has similar issues. To extrapolate that a person who delivers leaflets is somehow actively engaged in influencing the activities of the party does not follow. Even on an aggregate level, equating meeting attendance with activism assumes that these meeting attendees are actively engaged in the regular business of the party.

35

Meeting attendance certainly does not describe the many informal links that operate within the party, especially those that organise sections of a party on a less formal basis.

The sometimes complex relationship between members within the party can also be altered dependent on what role a member is playing at any one time. For instance, if we consider the three ‘faces’ discussion above, in the case of the Australian Greens two of the faces, the Party in Central Office and the Party in Public Office, employ staff, who at times will definitely have similar interests. As employees, they will communicate more directly with each other than most other members. In a similar way, both the Party in Central Office and the Party on the Ground will contain members holding internally elected positions. Members in elected positions are a significant communication conduit between the various parts of the party, although the manner of this communication (email, party newsletters, telephone or personal contact) may vary10. Between staff and office holders there is also considerable communication, particularly at the Party in Central Office level, but also between national level officials and national parliamentary staff, and state level staff, state office holders and state parliamentary staff.

These various relationships and lines of communication mean that the party has an interlinked set of relationships between the many key people in these various positions. It also means that when it comes to discussing who is influencing the outcome of campaign strategies, policy formulation and parliamentary work, the interlinked set of relationships needs to be taken into consideration. The relationships themselves mean that ideas and strategies will be discussed and debated through and around these relationships, and across the three faces, but generally along particular defined pathways.

May’s (1973) ‘Law of Curvilinear Disparity’ postulated that as a party moved further from the ‘centre’ in politics, to either the left or the right, parliamentary representatives would strive to stay nearer this centre line than activists and members. Activists, on the other hand, would tend to stray the furthest from the centre. Yet this view of how parties might align their internal politics does not take into account the relationships as discussed above – office holders and staff will be discussing issues and positions, mediating the apparent radicalness of activists or reactionariness of parliamentarians.

10 Heidar and Saglie (2006) suggest the internet is the least used communication form amongst Norwegian party members, but the experience of recent US and Australian campaigns (Chen 2008; Smith 2009) suggest that it is the most important communication tool.

36

A second aspect that has not been investigated to any great depth is how the natures of party activists (however described) vary according to the type of party being discussed. While parties may mirror external bureaucratic structures that party members are familiar with, not all parties do so, and members’ perceptions of the nature of these structures will influence how they are enacted within the party. In the case of Green parties, the early years post- formation occurred following a period of social movement activity that viewed formal party structures with deep suspicion, based on a distrust of institutional frameworks (Poguntke 1987, 1990, 1992; Frankland 1990; Gaard 1998; Dryzek et al 2003). Distrust of hierarchy certainly influenced the structuring of the parties, the party internal processes and the resistance to incorporation of more bureaucratic features. However, attraction of people from the New Left, searching for new organisational forms but opposed to existing party structures, lead to a struggle within Green parties. The struggle evolved due to the desire of these members for the party to have a more rigorous structure (particularly those well read in Marxist and Leninist thinking), as opposed to those members from feminist and environmental social movements who were more movement oriented (see Breines (1980) for a description of this process in the US student movement). Hulsberg (1988) describes the, at first hesitant, steps towards those structures as being the product of intense clashes between left and right forces within the German Greens, but with support finally moving behind left organisational ideas.

In its earliest days, however, the Australian Greens was based on notions of self-organisation and non-hierarchical flat structures.11 The difference in structure means that in considering the role of a Greens activist, a different frame may be needed than what we might apply to the Labor or Liberal parties, or even the Australian Democrats. The excursions of Seyd, Whiteley and others through the three major English parties (Labor, Conservative and Liberal Democratic) considers parties that have structures developed over a century ago, at the transition point from elite cadres to modern party structures (whether mass, catch-all or electoral-professional). These parties’ organisational structures bear little resemblance to most Green parties, all of which developed in the last 40 years12 (Brown & Singer 1996; Ladner & Brandle 2008). Green parties emerged after the 1960s, with its counter-culture movements and explosion of new social movements, and have been very strongly influenced by them (see for instance Kaelberer 1998). That influence extends past the structures employed by the party to notions of how members will engage with and within the party. Sixties social movements are certainly the starting point for most recent examinations of Green parties beginnings

11 See for instance the interview in the Whole Earth Times of Spring 1988 with Jan Jermalinski (“Seeing Green in community politics”, p.22), a founding member of The Greens (WA).

12 Brown asserts that the formation of the Tasmanian United Tasmania Group was the first Green party in March 1972, although Ladner and Brandle state the Swiss Mouvement Populaire pour l’Environnement was formed in November 1971.

37

(Spretnak & Capra 1984; Hulsberg 1988; Kitschelt 1989a; Pybus & Flanagan 1990; Brown & Singer 1996, and so on).

Equally, however, activists might be named elites (by virtue of their influence within the organisational structure) or ‘apparatchiks’ (again from this influence). While ‘elite’ is a term avoided within most green circles, assuming as it does a hierarchical structure, it more accurately describes the role and nature of the position. Office holders are particularly privileged, as they receive greater access to the information flows within the party and are also more aware of the internal workings of the party. This is particularly true if they take on the role of being a delegate to their state party’s respective decision making body. We might equally see activists as an internal party class of functionaries, if we apply a purely organisational frame to the duties and responsibilities that they undertake. The term ‘functionary’, however, implies that a person is only interested in the functioning of the party and not actually engaged in the key thinking behind the policies, principles or platform of the party, this being more the preserve of activists.

So, a better measure of what an ‘activist’ is needs to be devised, or the term might need to be utilized in specific instances. From my own experience, the term ‘party organisational activist’ is one that fits more closely the role and nature of holders of offices (office bearers and designated positions) and positions (such as formal member of an internal party committee or working party). However, even this definition is problematic as it does not fully describe others who may act as volunteers within the party structure, or key members who have very effective networks for mobilizing members and supporters, but who do not regularly attend meetings (they engage peripherally to the organisation but use networks for party organisational purposes). Former office holders or MPs may play this role as they have an established stake within the party, and will have numerous contacts and acquaintanceships available to them for organising purposes. So, these party organisational activists might perhaps then be more accurately described as ‘mid-level elites’ within the party.

However, ‘party organisational activist’ perhaps fits more closely to the existing literature in attempting to characterise a set of roles, and, importantly, an attendant set of values associated with their position within the party. This brings the Green party organisational activists into a framing applied to other parties, examining organisational activists as a proxy for those party members most actively engaged within the organisational functioning of the party, and who may have differing priorities and values than other members associated with an organisational viewpoint.

38

GREENS INTERNATIONALLY

The Greens in have for some time been a subject of considerable study not the least because Green parties have participated in governing in coalitions in a number of countries over the past 20 years. The German Greens, with a lengthy and at times turbulent history, have been the subject of much study. Poguntke (1987; 1990; 1992;1993;1994), Hulsberg (1988), Kitschelt (1989a) and many others have examined the forces at play within the German Greens, and this has been extended to studies of the French Greens (Faucher 1999; Drugan 2003; Faucher-King 2005; 2010; Villalba 2008), the Greens in the United Kingdom (Rudig et al 1991; Bennie 2004; Carter 2008; Frankland 2008) and other European nations (Kitschelt 1989a; Rudig 1990; Frankland et al 2008). Still others have written on the philosophical backing for a Green party (Bahro 1984; 1986; Porritt 1984; Kelly 1984; 1994; Spretnak & Capra 1985; McKibben 1989; Eckersley 1992; Pepper 1993; Dobson 1995). Each has noted the movement of the party from a relatively fringe political party towards the centre of political life in their respective countries, although this has been tempered by both internal debates and external political and opportunity structures.

What is of interest here is how the internal debates of the various Green parties have been characterised and analysed, and the nature and form of the parties’ trajectories towards the political centre. The best known debates are those from within the German Greens, particularly between the factions struggling for control of the party’s program, and importantly its political direction – whether into government or aloof from it. The struggles between the competing factions of the ‘’s’ and ‘Realo’s’, however, both mask and yet make explicit deeper debates about the purpose of the party (see Hulsberg 1988; Poguntke 1990). Simple characterisations of people and ideas into dichotomous positions masks the wide variety of possible positions and potential solutions to ecological crisis, while at the same time making explicit the basic split between those who see the existing system as the problem and those who see that it may be possible to work within it.

Hulsberg (1988, pp.145-152), in examining the factional groupings within the German Greens, defined them as primarily within 4 strands of thinking regarding the party in relation to the state. The ‘Realo’s’ (or “proponents of realpolitik” (p.145)) looked to entering parliament to achieve reform. Fundamentalists (or ‘Fundi’s’) argued that accommodation with the major German parties (the Social Democrats or Christian Democrats) is to become like them – that a continuation of the transformation of the people is what is required and this can only be achieved by working directly with people and not through the institutions of the state. Eco-libertarians supported and compromise, and in that gathered up the remnants of the right of the party that had departed as the Greens was forming. Eco-socialists adopted a

39

generally socialist line, seeing parliamentarianism as an illusory goal, but also that electioneering and campaigning were necessary components of building the opposition to the existing social and political paradigm. Poguntke (1990, pp.32-34) defined the debates as principally between the Fundi’s and Realo’s, with the other tendencies operating more as sub- factions.

The main arguments of the four key strands of thinking within the German Greens in the 1980s can be said to have been replicated in many other Green parties, just as it is replicated in Green philosophical thinking, but with varying degrees of strength in different parties. However, as Lucardie & Rihoux (2008) and Frankland (2008) show, most of these Green parties have moved from a position of an amateur, social movement based party to a professional vehicle for legislative reform. The relatively rapid move away from the early anti-hierarchical/anti-power structures toward a more professional structure within the German Greens can be seen to be replicated in a series of Green parties, though not always with immediate success or without significant issues (Poguntke 1994).

What equally also needs to be acknowledged is that each of the parties’ success or lack thereof is also linked to the opportunities the parties face, both electorally and politically. Since most European nations have proportional electoral systems, Green parties have found the path to parliaments to be relatively open, even when the political opportunities have been lacking. In countries with a Westminster tradition (UK, ) or similar (USA) this has provided far fewer electoral opportunities and a greater tendency to focus on localised politics or broader policy issues (Carter & Rootes 2006; Lambert & Jansen 2007). Particular political opportunities, as suggested by Kitschelt (1988) (Chernobyl for Sweden, nuclear disarmament for , a disintegrating in Austria, independence in the ) have also allowed for the rise of Green parties, although have not been a guarantee of success. So it is of importance then to examine the Australian political context.

THE AUSTRALIAN POLITICAL CONTEXT

While much could be written about the structure and nature of the Australian political system, the various small Green parties that appeared in the 1980s arose out of particular circumstances within Australia, although those circumstances are not unique to Australia as a western industrial democracy. As McAllister makes clear (2002, p.380), Australia grew out of the British colonial system, but was imbued with the values of late 19th century British political culture, ones that were suitably utilitarian. This can also be noted in the Australian Constitution (especially section 92), with its strong emphasis on the freedom of trade (Cowan

40

1955) and in the protection of state’s rights. However, judicial interpretation of the Constitution since federation in 1901 has slowly eroded the power of states (Weller & Fleming 2003). At the same time, while Australia inherited the Westminster notion of (Ward & Stewart 2006, p.26), it also inherited a familiarity with parties even if those parties were quite loose associations in the 1890s (Sharman & Moon 2003; Marsh 2006). Although prior to Federation in 1901 parties had played a largely minor role, following the emergence of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) in the 1890s and the precursor to the Liberal Party in the first decade of the 1900s, parties became an established part of the (Jaensch 1994; Sharman & Moon 2003).

The institutional framework established by the Australian Constitution provides for two house of parliament, the House of Representatives (HoR) and the , replicating the British Houses of Commons and Lords, although in the Australian case both were elected. Each of the original states (NSW, , Queensland, Western Australia, and Tasmania) also had two houses, although Queensland abolished its Legislative Council in 1922 (Wanna 2003, p.81). When self-government came to the two Territories (the and Australian Capital Territory) they were established with single houses subordinate to the Commonwealth Parliament. Each of the state and territories was also free to adopt the they felt appropriate, which has provided for the multiplicity of electoral systems across Australia (Moon & Sharman 2003; Vromen et al 2009).

That said, although the major party division in Australian politics is between the ALP and non-ALP parties (including the Liberal and National Parties in coalition), the rise of minor parties and Independents has been noted as impacting elections and parliamentary processes since the Second World War (Sharman 1997; Bennett 1999; Weller & Fleming 2003). Minor parties and Independents have entered state parliaments and especially state upper houses (which have tended to have more favourable proportional representation electoral systems) (Norton 2002; Vromen et al 2009, p.156). On occasion minor parties have also won seats, but the lower house electoral systems, usually single member electorates, have tended to favour Independents over minor parties. The more diffuse nature of support for minor parties acts as a barrier to winning single member electorates (Smith & O’Mahony 2006).

In this context, the Australian Greens follows other minor parties such as the Democratic Labor Party, the Australian Democrats and the Christian Democratic Party in being primarily successful in upper houses (Vromen et al 2009). However, an emerging concentration of Green voters in inner urban areas (Bowe 2010) is allowing for electoral breakthroughs into federal and state lower seats, as can be seen in Table 2.2.

41

Table 2.2: Sitting Green MPs in Australia (2011)

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT

State UH 5 3 n/a 4 2 - n/a n/a

LH 1 - - -** - 5 4 -

Federal UH 1 1 1 2 2 2 - -

LH -* 1 ------* The Greens NSW held the federal seat of Cunningham 2002-2004 ** The Greens (WA) held the state seat of Fremantle 2009-2010  The Tasmanian Lower House has 5 multi-member electorates, the 15 single member electorates  Queensland, ACT and NT parliaments do not have an Upper House.

Notwithstanding the recent Australian Greens breakthroughs into state and federal lower house seats, Australian electoral politics has continued to be dominated by the ALP and Liberal/National Party Coalition. However, the agreements between the Greens and ALP in the ACT, Tasmania and federally (Parliamentary Agreement 2008; 2010; McKim 2010; Bowe 2010), which delivered Ministerial positions to the Greens in the case of Tasmania, suggest a continuation of the potential of non-major party actors being involved in the formation of . Certainly, Independents and minor parties have at various times reached agreements with the major parties at state levels in the post-war era of party stability (Moon & Sharman 2003; Vromen et al 2009, p.187). These arrangements and agreements have also been criticised, with power shared with independents questioned as being largely unaccountable (Norton 2002, p.45). Norton (2002, p.47) also makes the point that with a shortage of compelling alternatives, the decline in major party support appears to have stabilised and that “the party duopoly is a long way from being finished”.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND GREEN POLITICS IN AUSTRALIA

Whether the Greens in Australia come from one particular movement or an amalgam of a number of different actors within a series of movements is an open question. Certainly different state parties have different histories with elements of the environmental, peace, social justice, environmental and feminist movements. Indeed, even the Greens’ ‘4 Pillars’ of social and economic justice, peace and , environmental , and , appear to represent the coalition of forces that might make up the party (Australian Greens 2010). However, it is equally clear that different elements of the Australian Greens came from different movements and while some retained significant influence within the party (including at state levels) others have not.

42

For instance, the has definitely influenced the Greens, and not just because the Greens’ first federal Senator, , came from a strong peace background, as a Quaker and as a former Nuclear Disarmament Party (NDP) MP (Vallentine 1999). Equally clear is that one of the 4 Pillars is focussed on peace and nonviolence, and party statements on peace issues such as both Gulf Wars (1991 & 2003-2010) would suggest strong connections with the peace movement (for example, Vallentine 1991; 2001; Nolan 2004).

Yet each of the various social movements has a different history and trajectory. Peace issues have been salient in Australia at least since the First World War (ie, with the split of the Labor Party over conscription) and potentially much earlier (Saunders & Summy 1984a; Doyle 2000). While the peace movement had somewhat of a renaissance during the 1970s, over Vietnam involvement (MacCallum 2001), and in the 80s with the Palm Sunday rallies over nuclear disarmament (see for instance Sewell & Kelly 1991), after the first Gulf War in 1991 the movement was in hiatus until the imminent invasion of Iraq in 2003. The 1980s in particular saw large marches opposing nuclear weapons proliferation as the USSR and USA appeared to be heading towards confrontation (Caldicott 1985; Vallentine & Jones 1990). This lead to of the NDP in 1984, which sought initially to bring the ALP back to the policies it had in Opposition and had so quickly abandoned in Government (Fisher 1995). A similar impetus to that behind the NDP was also behind the formation of the Greens (Harris 2007).

The collective action frame (Benford & Snow 2000) being employed by peace and Green activists at this time was that nuclear weapons were socially and environmentally bad and needed to be eliminated. Irrespective of debates either on attribution of causes of nuclear proliferation or on prognostic framing (unilateral or multilateral disarmament), the target of protests was the . Kitschelt (1986), in describing anti-nuclear movements in the USA, France, West Germany and Sweden during the same period, found the governmental targets were equally unmoved by protest as was the Australian government. As in Europe, the failure to motivate the dominant social democratic party to change led to the establishment of a new Australian political party (Fisher 1995). Kitschelt (1986) also noted the correlation between ecological (Green) party performances and the outcome of conflicts around nuclear issues, although Bennulf and Holmberg (1990) note in relation to Sweden, where the Greens did poorly in 1985, that a further nuclear/environmental jolt in the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 was required to the Greens into parliament. Pakulski (1991, p.158) noted that this convergence of nuclear issues and Green electoral success was manifested in different forms (in relation to Europe and Australia), dependent on the existing political opportunity structures in each nation. Those nations that had existing alternative parties did not see the development of distinct anti-nuclear or Green parties, as compared to

43

those countries where those alternatives were not present, such as in Germany and Australia. Both Bennulf and Holmberg (1990) and Pakulski (1991) clearly suggest that the convergence of two movements during a period of political opportunity is capable of producing a successful .

In respect of an Australian parliamentary breakthrough, Brown and Singer (1996, p.71) credit as Australia’s first ‘Green’ MP. Although Sanders was elected as an Australian Democrat he was also an early director of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society (TWS). During the Franklin dam confrontation, Sanders resigned his seat in disgust at the treatment of protestors. Sanders’ seat was taken by Bob Brown in a count back, Brown having stood as an Independent at the previous election (Tasmanian Electoral Commission 1982). While Bob Brown had been involved in the Lake Pedder campaign and with TWS, he had not been directly involved in peace campaigning. Sanders, however, was a member of a broad based party formed in 1977 that placed peace issues highly on their policy agenda (Saunders & Summy 1984b; Page 2007)

So, at this point it can be seen that, certainly in Australia, it is the potential convergence of two movements (environmental and peace) that has given rise to a new political formation. Fisher (1995, pp.6-10), in describing the formation of the NDP, also noted the presence of prominent environment movements actors and ‘green’ supporters, including members of TWS. Doyle (2000 p.132) noted the broadening of peace issues to include antinuclear issues significantly broadened the reach of the peace movement, and enabled connections and convergence between the two movements. However, while Angel (2008) noted the prominence of environmental actors within the Greens, he also noted that there were a significantly greater number of actors associated with social justice issues. It is then interesting to find that the nascent Sydney Greens grew out of left wing labour activists involved in local electoral politics in Leichhardt Council (Harris 2007). The first ‘Green’ party-related candidate who stood in 1984, Daphne Gollan, was a prominent labour historian and feminist, bringing in other strands of social movements ( et al 2000). Developing separately across Australia, different Green parties in each state developed from their own bases, some in movement politics, others more directly engaged in the political process. Each Green party also inherited their own character from the various movements that spawned each group.

44

THE GREENS –LOCAL HISTORY13

So where did the Australian Greens start? As we have seen in Chapter 1, it is often suggested that the Greens started life as the United Tasmania Group in Tasmania, Australia, in May 1972 (Pybus 1990, p.17; Brown & Singer 1996). The first formal registration occurred with the Sydney Greens in 1985, but the Australian Greens didn’t come into existence until 1992, and even then with only parties from NSW, Queensland and Tasmania (Brown & Singer 1996; Miragliotta 2010b, p.11). The ACT and Victorian Greens joined the following year. It was not until 2003 that state parties from all eight states and territories were finally members of the Australian Greens.

Yet, not unlike the Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA) long engagement with the Association of State-based Green Parties (ASGP) before their final joining as a single entity, there were Green, ecology and alternative parties in existence across Australia through the 1980s and 1990s. However, the engagement and breakup of the relationship between the G/GPUSA and the ASGP’s successor the Green Party of the (GPUS), with its acrimony and continued division (Hawkins 1997; Berg 2008), was evident within Australian Green circles only between 1990 and 1996. As Harris (2008, p.13) noted in relation to early attempts to deal with the registration debates, they were “a political problem relating to the outcome of the debate over the nature of a Green political entity and the need to deal with issue such as proscription.”

THE TASMANIAN GREENS

Brown and Singer (1996) and many others claim the United Tasmania Group as the world first Green party, on the basis of its foundation date and New Ethic charter (UTG 1972). Certainly, a new party emerged, grew slowly and transformed into what we now know as the Tasmanian Greens, by way of Bob Brown and his group of ‘Green Independents’ in the Tasmanian parliament.

The Tasmanian Greens emerged as the project of five MPs in search of a party. Following the election of the 5 Green Independents to the Tasmanian parliament in 1989 it became

13 Tony Harris, in his 2008 monograph ‘Regulating the Green mess’, sets out a complete history of Commonwealth registration of Green parties in Australia through the 1980s and 90s. This section is intended to supplement, not replicate, his story with information pertaining to state parties and their development.

45

increasingly evident that there was a both a need and desire for a formalised Green party in Tasmania. Harris (2008) states there was a request from Bob Brown in 1989 for access to the name Green, and the AEC has the Tasmanian Greens as registered from 1989 (AEC 2010b), although a formal party was not established until 1992, and the 1990 federal election was run under the UTG name. The success of the Green Independents and then Tasmanian Greens between 1989-1998 prompted the ALP and Liberal parties to eventually cooperate on electoral reform to reduce the Tasmanian parliament’s size, reducing the ability of Greens to be elected, which subsequently reduced Green representation from four to one (Crowley 1999). However, the party recovered at the next election in 2002 to again win four seats, repeated in 2006 and then five in 2010. Bob Brown had been elected to the Senate in 1996, followed by Christine Milne in 2004.

THE GREENS NSW

The story of the emergence of the Greens NSW is one of conflict and confusion, with many people claiming to be original members and founders of the party. The original registration ‘The Greens’ was taken out by Tony Harris, an ex-ALP member who had tried to create a ‘Green Labor’ grouping within the ALP. When he and others had supported an expelled ALP member running for Leichhardt Council he too was expelled (Harris 2007). Harris had seen the success of Jack Mundey and the Green bans in Sydney in the 1970s and understood the potential for bringing labour, community and environmental activists together (Mundey 1981). Local activists, including Harris, held a public meeting in 1984 to form the Sydney Greens and contested the federal seat of Sydney, winning over 5% of the vote (Harris 2008). Importantly, a number of the activists involved at this time were former ALP and Communist Party members, although this has also been criticised by some, such as former Queensland Greens candidate Drew Hutton, as pushing the party too far to the left (Lohrey 2002; Angel 2008). Salleh (1987, p.74) noted how the newly formed party quickly moved into old style electoral politics, even while a number of early activists wanted to move towards a more community based politics.

This initial registration, taken with the expectation that it might lead to greater electoral outcomes, did not however immediately lead to further success. The Greens ran in the 1987 federal election, and although only polling 1% in the Senate, assisted in the election of Robert Wood from the Nuclear Disarmament Party (Fisher 1995). By 1990 there were 18 Green parties and groups in NSW that formed the NSW Senate Ticket to contest the 1990 federal election, with the Alliance polling 1.9%. In August 1991 the Greens NSW was formed. was elected to the Legislative Council in the 1995 state election, followed by Lee Rhiannon in 1999. In the 2004 federal election the Greens NSW achieved 4.1% and elected their first Senator, (AEC 2004). Prior to that however, the party managed to win the first federal lower house seat for the Greens in Australia. In a 2002 by-election

46

Michael Organ won the House of Representatives (HoR) seat of Cunningham, although the seat was subsequently lost in the 2004 general election (Cahill & Brown 2008). Although Nettle lost her seat in the 2007 federal election, the Cunningham victory foreshadowed the eventual winning in 2011 of the state lower seat of Balmain and the election of three Legislative Council members to join two sitting members (NSWEC 2011). This represented a total of 6 state MPs, and, with the election of Lee Rhiannon to the Senate in 2010, 7 MPs in total.

THE GREENS (WA)14

The Greens (WA), currently federally and state registered, was formed by a merger of four parties and groups. This merger was of the two federally registered parties, the Vallentine Peace Group of Senator Jo Vallentine and the Green Party of WA, the state registered Alternative Coalition, and the unregistered campaigning group Green Development. Both the Green Party of WA and the Alternative Coalition had contested the 1989 WA state election but without success. The formal merger and creation of the Greens (WA) occurred on one January 1990, but just prior to this the Vallentine Peace Group, Alternative Coalition and Green Development conducted a preliminary merger to create the Alternative Electoral Coalition. They had originally attempted to register the name ‘Green Alliance’ but this had been rejected by the AEC (AEC 1989). The final merger into the Greens (WA) created a party with, at least on paper, over 1000 members, but by July 1990 when membership renewals were due this had reduced to less than 350.

Each of the four parties/groups brought a distinct campaigning element to the merger. The Vallentine Peace Group was a support base for Senator Jo Vallentine, who herself had originally been elected in 1984 on a peace platform as part of the Nuclear Disarmament Party. The Alternative Coalition brought left wing social justice campaigners, including members of the Communist Party of Australia (CPA)/New Left Party, the Socialist Party of Australia (a 1968 split from the CPA) and the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP), a Troskyist Fourth International Party, as well independent left wing activists and a local group called the Vic Park Carlisle Greens who ran a candidate in support of Jo Vallentine in 1987. Green Development was based in the south west of WA and consisted mainly of environmentalists and forest activists. The last group, the Green Party of WA (GPWA), had been established after a visit by the leading German Green Petra Kelly in the mid-1980s, and took their charter and basic ideals from the German Greens.

14 Lange (1994, p65-96) provides a comprehensive history of the formation of the Greens (WA), including that of each of the 4 parties integral to the party’s formation.

47

The formation of the Australian Greens in 1991 saw the beginning of protracted debates within the Greens (WA) about whether to join the newly emergent Australian Greens or to remain a separate entity. These debates mirrored in some ways the long standing debate of Western Australia’s continuation as a state within the Commonwealth of Australia, especially in relation to the perceived loss of power and potential income to an eastern states entity15. In late 1991 a vote was taken within the Greens (WA) as to whether to join the Australian Greens. The vote failed by a wide margin. The next vote to join the Australian Greens was in 1999, when it narrowly failed, before finally being passed in 2003.

Electorally the Greens (WA) has suffered ups and downs. Initial success came with Vallentine’s election to the Senate in 1990, followed by in 1993, and then Jim Scott to the Legislative Council in 1993 state election. Vallentine retired in 1992 and was replaced by Christabel Chamarette, who subsequently lost the seat in the 1996 federal election. Margetts then lost her seat in 1998. Federally, the Greens (WA) would have to wait until the 2004 election to win back a Senate seat. However, in state politics the Greens (WA) elected three MLCs in 1997, and then five in 2001. The 2005 state election brought disaster, with the Greens reduced to just two MLCs. 2007 brought an upswing in the vote again, winning a second Senate seat, followed in 2008 by a total of four Legislative Council seats, and in 2009, in a state by-election for the seat of Fremantle, a Legislative Assembly seat.

QUEENSLAND GREENS

The history of the Queensland Greens involves only one registration, but a long road to any form of success. Initially formed as the Brisbane Greens in 1984 (Hutton 1987; Harris 2007), Drew Hutton contested the 1985 Brisbane Lord Mayoral election under their banner. However, by 1987, the Brisbane Greens were not interested in engaging with a national party process, and remained quiescent until 1990, when the Queensland Green Network (QGN) was formed.

The QGN stood two candidates in the 1990 federal election, in the seats of Forde and Capricornia. Following this campaign, the QGN formed a ‘Green Alliance’ for the Queensland Local Government election in 1991, at which they ran 16 candidates and received between 7% and 26% (Hutton 2011, pers. comm.). QGN was also represented by Drew Hutton at the August 1991 meeting exploring forming the Australian Greens in Sydney that

15 For a description of the 1933 Western Australian , and its aftermath, see Musgrave (2003).

48

also decided to proscribe the DSP from the emerging Australian Greens (Queensland Green Network 1991). The QGN then changed its name to the Queensland Greens, which was launched by Senator Jo Valentine in late November 1991 (Brewer 1992) and achieved federal registration (AEC 2010b). However, the Queensland Greens struggled to establish itself, with no state upper house and alternative electoral politics largely corralled behind the Australian Democrats. The 2004 collapse of the Australian Democrats vote changed this dynamic, and the recruitment of the former Democrats Senator in 2009 completed the party’s repositioning (Australian Greens 2009). The state ALP parliamentarian had also defected to the Queensland Greens in 2008, although Lee was defeated in a state general election little more than 6 months later. In 2010 the Queensland Greens finally achieved their own electoral success, with the election of to the Senate (AEC 2011)

AUSTRALIAN GREENS (SA)

South Australia’s early registration and involvement needs to be considered in light of the personality of one person, Bob Lamb, in much the same way (although more negatively) as Queensland is associated with Drew Hutton. Lamb was an early adherent to the ‘Fundi’ style of Green politics, drawing on the experiences and campaigns of the Fundi faction in the German Greens (see Hulsberg 1988). The original Green group to form in South Australia, the Green Electoral Movement, evolved into the Green Alliance SA, although they quickly split into 2 competing registrations, Green Alliance SA and the Green Party of South Australia (Harris 2008). The former were controlled by members of the DSP and the latter by Lamb. This lead to the two Green parties competing against each other in the 1993 federal election, to each party’s detriment.

However, by 1996 this registration issue had been resolved. The key factor was the formation of the Australian Greens in 1992. With Green Alliance SA (along with the other Green Alliance registrations in Victoria, NSW, and ACT) considered ‘proscribed parties’ members of these parties were barred from membership of the Australian Greens. Although the Green Party of South Australia did not join the Australian Greens at this time, it was tolerated along with the Greens (WA) as a state based Green party. However, increasing difficulties with Bob Lamb over membership, local groups and branches, and the structure of the Greens across Australia, saw a group of former members in South Australia ask Bob Brown to intervene. Brown had by this stage (1996) left the Tasmanian state parliament and was preparing to run for the Senate for the Tasmanian Greens. Just prior to the 1996 election Lamb was involved in a serious road accident which prevented him from being active for much of the election period. The Green Party of South Australia did not contest any seats in the 1996 election, and with less than 500 members was subsequently deregistered by the AEC (AEC 2010b). The

49

path was then clear for a new party to be formed, which was duly launched by (the now) Senator Bob Brown later in 1996.

The first candidate to run for the Australian Greens (SA) was , for the Legislative Council in 1996. Parnell was to finally enter the Council in 2006, followed by Sarah Hanson-Young to the Senate in 2007. The 2009 state election brought Tammy Jennings into the Legislative Council alongside Parnell, and in 2010 was also elected to the Senate.

AUSTRALIAN GREENS VICTORIA

While the Australian Greens Victoria did not officially form until 1993, two precursor parties existed. One, the Victorian Green Alliance, existed as a DSP front party, although involving other social movement activists. The other, the Rainbow Alliance, stemmed from a group of left wing academics, proposing a multi-focused movement building process and campaigned against projects such as the Multifunction Polis (Smith 1991). However, following the formation of the Australian Greens in 1992, a small group of environmental activists came together to form the Australian Greens Victoria (Hinman 1992). Their first electoral contest, the 1993 federal election, consisted of one HoR seat, La Trobe, with the Victorian Green Alliance running in the Senate.

The first full election campaign of the Australian Greens Victoria was in 1996, which started with high hopes but ended with the relatively meagre Senate result of 2.9%. The 1998 election result did not bring any improvement, but in 2001 the party achieved 6% and qualified for federal electoral funding. The Australian Greens Victoria still had to wait until the 2006 state election before electing their first MPs (three) to the state Legislative Council, repeated in the 2010 state election. In the 2010 federal election, the party managed the double victory of winning both a Senate seat and the HoR seat of (AEC 2011). Melbourne marked the first win in a single member lower house seat for the Greens in a general election.

NT GREENS

The first green candidates in the Northern Territory (NT) ran as independents in the 1990 federal election, on a Senate ticket headed by Ilana Eldridge (Eldridge 2011, pers. comm.). Eldridge was to play a continuing role in the NT Greens through the 1990s and 2000s. The next electoral outing for the fledgling NT Greens was in the 1994 NT election where they ran in one seat. In 1996 the NT Greens fielded HoR and Senate candidates, although the party

50

was in reality a collection of independent activists working under the banner of the Greens, with Eldridge as the nominal state Convenor. The nature of NT politics, dominated for three decades by the conservative , coupled with an unfavourable electoral system, has meant the NT Greens have never been elected into the Territory parliament, or to the Senate. However, the party has had some success at a local government level with Councillors on the Darwin and Alice Springs City Councils.

ACT GREENS

The ACT Greens in its current form first met in 1992. However, initial discussions about forming such a party began six years previously in 1986 (McAllister 1995a). Although nothing came of this first attempt at party formation, people involved were eventually involved in the formation of an ACT branch of the Rainbow Alliance in 1987, though they failed to win a seat in the ACT Assembly elections in 1989. At the same time a group of individuals associated with the DSP ran a ticket under the banner Green Democratic Alliance in the 1990 election, gaining 3.3% of the vote. Finally, following the formation of the Australian Greens, former members of the Rainbow Alliance came together in late 1992 to form the ACT Greens. In the 1993 federal election the ACT Greens polled over 6% (McAllister 1995a; 1995b). In the 1995 ACT elections the Greens broke through for Assembly representation with 9.1%, electing and Lucy Hrodny (Elections ACT 2011a). Although the Greens still polled well in subsequent ACT elections, they were only able to retain 1 seat until 2008. In the territory election of that year the ACT Greens gained 15.64% of the vote, 4 seats in the 17 person Assembly (Elections ACT 2011a), and signed an Agreement with the ACT Labor Party regarding Government. Although not occupying the government benches (nor holding any ministries), the Agreement between the ACT Greens and ACT Labor Party provides for set outcomes and consultation processes between the parties (Parliamentary Agreement 2008).

AUSTRALIAN GREENS

The early 1990s brought renewed attempts to create a national Green party. By 1991 these attempts to form a national party exposed rifts in the NSW Greens Alliance between members of the DSP and others. The registration of the NSW Green Alliance was at this time managed by a group called the ‘NSW Registration Committee’ dominated by non-DSP members, while the separate ‘NSW Green Alliance’ group was the broader umbrella group of all the local Green parties in NSW. However, the AEC recognised the Registration Committee as the legitimate holder of the registration. This broke the hold the DSP had over a number of local parties in NSW and was important in ending any opportunities the DSP might have of remaining within the rapidly coalescing Australian Greens.

51

The national registration issue finally came to a head at a meeting in Sydney in August 1991, in the lead up to the formation of the Australian Greens (Macdonald & Fletcher 1991; Brewer 1991a;1991b), At this meeting it was decided that DSP members should not have voting rights, as they were members of another political party. At the meeting at which the Australian Greens was formed, in August 1992, the constitution adopted proscription of members of other parties from joining the Greens (Australian Greens 2010).

Within two years all the parties aligned with the DSP were de-registered by the AEC. The remaining non-Australian Greens registrations contested the 1996 election under their various banners, but notably a number of state Green organisations (ACT, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria) have since voluntarily relinquished their registrations and will run in federal elections as the Australian Greens (AEC 2010b). Further shakeups following the 1996 federal election in the registrations saw the northern NSW based Richmond Clarence Greens and the original South Australian registered party, the Green Party of South Australia, deregistered by the AEC following disaffiliation and disavowal of connections between the two parties and any other Green registered parties (AEC 2010b). From October 2003, all registered Green parties within Australia were affiliated under the Australian Greens banner.

CONCLUSION

Keys (1958), Rose (1974) and Katz and Mair (1994) proposed a three part division of political parties to allow a more systematic examination of their internal dynamics. The ‘three faces’ derived from their work allows for a basic examination of the Australian Greens. However, what is proposed here is an expanded form of the three faces, to allow for an examination of two internal party groups that operate across the faces; activists and staff.

What also becomes clear in an examination of this kind is that a variety of ways to describe ‘activists’ has been used by political scientists over the years. This thesis will focus on activists as defined as those party members who occupy positions (voluntary office holders) within the party, whether at a local, state or national level. Office holders have been selected because they are key members of information and decision making structures within the party, and because they are intrinsic to the structure of the party organisation. Staff operate in a similar way, as interlocutors between their respective employers (party or MPs) and the rest of the party and general public.

52

Lastly, as we have seen in the preceding discussion of the development of the various state (and local) parts of the Australian Greens, as a Green party the Australian Greens has a complex history, bringing together a number of different strands of political and social thinking. A number of these strands derive from social movements, and the Australian Greens can be described as beginning as a movement party (see Kitschelt 2006), although the party’s organisational and electoral trajectory would suggest the party can no longer be characterised as such.

53

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

Previous discussions of Greens in Australia have tended to rely on qualitative research conducted with the senior members of the party such as MPs (for instance Vromen & Gauja 2009), who may not necessarily reflect the views of the broader party membership or party organisational activists. The most effective method for establishing the views of members is then a more quantitative method, such as by survey, due to the number of party members. However, some qualitative research or broad evaluation of the party organisation would also deepen knowledge regarding dynamics in operation within the party, particularly in relation to staff.

This chapter, while describing the research methodology used with the survey of party organisational activists and interviews with staff, also describes the process of arriving at the appropriate instrument to be used and how it was utilised. As well as an overview of the methodology used to generate data for analysis I need also to describe my own position as a researcher, discussed here and elaborated further in Chapter 10. Lastly, careful consideration has had to be given to the question of anonymity, its impact on the both the research and the data derived, and how particular forms of research may be used (or misused) within the party itself. This is discussed in the section ‘General Issues’.

INSIDER VS OUTSIDER

A key consideration even before undertaking the research upon which this thesis is based was my own lengthy involvement with the party, including varying roles ranging from organisational activist to staff member, from a local to national level. Previous research on the Greens in Australia has tended to come from the perspective of the ‘outsider’, a person looking in on the party, and trying to determine what is happening from an external perspective. At the beginning of the thesis process in 2007 I was still employed by the Greens NSW as a ‘Communication and Regional Education Worker’ – which in reality meant I was the equivalent of an organiser, assisting members and local groups to function and perform to the best of their ability. Prior to this (and as is further discussed in Chapter 10) I had been a

54

national and state office holder, as well as staffer for both federal and state MPs. So, my own perspective began very much as an ‘insider’.

With being an insider comes privileged access, to people and documents, and a cache of trust from people within the organisation. This allowed greater access than might otherwise have been allowed for a non-party member or someone with less ‘standing’ within the party. While other researchers (for example Vromen 2005; Vromen & Gauja 2009; Miragliotta 2010a; 2010b) have gained access to both MPs and archival resources, this has still been with a certain element of distrust regarding the motives for the research and to what use that research will then be put. My own status, both as a former office holder and as a party staffer, allowed the proposal to survey a section of the membership to be shepherded through the party’s internal processes. With the staff interviews a certain level of trust was already established, especially as I knew all of them at least in passing. While this may have also acted as a negative in terms of gaining permission for a number of interviews, based on others’ knowledge of my own background and personality, for the most part this was advantageous.

However, at some point during the thesis process it became necessary to step away from the subject under investigation. In mid-2009 I resigned my position with the Greens NSW. At that point I had already dispatched and received back the survey, but was yet to begin the interviews. I had not been an office holder since I resigned as Convenor of my local branch in 2007. While still attending some party functions, it was as an observer not as a functionary or in a participatory role. Interestingly, this sharpened my own observations of what was occurring within the party in relation to the debates in which I had previously been immersed, and provided a broader context on my original question regarding the rationale for the party’s existence.

So, while retaining many friends and contacts with the Australian Greens, my trajectory has been from insider to outsider. The original closeness to the party provided access and trust as a known quantity. The later distance provided objectivity and openness to new and interesting results from the research.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The design utilised a case study methodology (see Burnham et al 2004, p.53), examining the Australian Greens in the context of the development of Green parties globally, and providing

55

some basic comparisons with Green parties in Westminster systems. This required a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods, and consisted of a membership survey of party organisational activists within the party, in conjunction with structured interviews of staff members employed by the party and the party’s MPs. As well, a search of available internal documentation, including archival sources, has been completed. This design is the core investigation and examines the party's potential shift in emphasis from radical activism to pragmatic parliamentarianism – from a social movement base to an electoral professional party. Such a shift has been examined by political scientists in relation to other countries, with particular reference to Green parties either within Government or acting as support parties to minority Governments (see for instance, Kitschelt 1989a; Rudig 1990; Frankland et al 2008), but does not appear to have been conducted in an Australian context in any depth.

The rationale for using this mix of methods is to examine what party organisational activists and staff think about the party, and potentially how this might influence the trajectory of party development. If we take Seyd and Whitely's previous examinations of UK parties (Seyd & Whiteley 1992; Whiteley et al 1994; Whiteley & Seyd 2002; Whiteley et al 2006), it might follow that the activist layer of the Australian Greens is more radical than the membership, with a parliamentary layer more conservative than the activists but less conservative than the membership, as suggested by May’s (1973) law of curvilinear disparity. However, as the survey conducted here is only of party organisational activists, this full relationship is not explored, but some inferences can be made via reference to previous studies of the Australian Greens. In a previous study of the Australian Greens (Vromen & Turnbull 2006), NSW members of the party were surveyed, and all Australian Greens MPs interviewed. Other previously conducted research (Jackson (1999) on Greens WA MPs or Hay and Eckersley (1993) on the Tasmanian Greens) can be used to build a picture of the positioning of the MPs (see also Vromen & Gauja 2009). However, only limited research is available of the national Australian Greens membership and activist layers.

The design allowed for effective questioning of the party organisational activists, since previous research and public documentation (such as newspaper and public comments) is able to illuminate the positioning of the MPs (Miragliotta 2006; 2010a). However, while it is possible to know within finite terms the strength and purpose of political parties, it is not clearly obvious from an analysis of documentation what the motivations or expressed desirable outcomes are, from either the party membership or the party organisational activists. There is a definite need to combine sets of methods to gain a fuller picture of what a political party exists for, what its motivations are, and what the desired outcomes of the party actually are, both at an institutional level and an individual membership level.

56

RESEARCH QUESTION CONSIDERATIONS

CORE QUESTION

The core question underpinning the research, including the survey design, is:

“Have the Greens moved from being a movement party to an electoral professional party?”

This question necessitates a series of other questions related firstly to how we might define the party within the various party typologies, and what light the important groups, staff and party organisational activists can shed on the question:

• what are benchmarks for being a movement party;

• what a quantifiable change would be;

• what do party organisational activists and staff think of any change; and,

• what do party organisational activists and staff think the direction of the party ought to be?

This constellation of questions gives rise to a further need for a definitional response to ‘activist’ and ‘staff’ as these are all determinants of question design. The previous discussion in Chapter 2, and clarified below, will address this definitional aspect. Following directly are structural and party typological questions:

• what the Australian Greens are as a party,

• what the party was conceived to be when it started, and

• how the party is now defined.

Given that there have been quite significant structural changes to the Greens (as shown in Chapter 2) as first a network, then a series of state parties, to a loose confederation of state parties and finally a national party, do these reconfigurations of the party have a bearing on the core question, and what is that bearing?

57

PURPOSE OF SURVEY RESEARCH

An investigation of current attitudes within the Australian Greens could not be conducted purely through archival and documentary searches, as that would provide no perspective from party organisational activists, nor provide any information on what the party organisational activists think of the party. That is, it does not necessarily yield any normative associations, only historical ones. While an historical approach would provide valuable information on the party's birth, growth and current position on many issues, it would yield only limited information on the party's likely political trajectory or what potential for change exists within the party. Further, it would yield no information about the political tensions that exist within the Greens nor go any way towards explaining them.

Whiteley, Seyd and Richardson (1994, p.2), in their examination of the British Conservative party, noted in a similar way that while much had been written on ‘’ and ‘Thatcherism’, very little research had focussed on the party membership. This had been equally true of the Seyd and Whiteley (1992, p.27) examination of the UK Labour Party, in which they noted that, until that time, “no comprehensive study of one of Britain’s major political parties has ever been conducted therefore no profile of the party membership has been available”. While the survey conducted for this thesis was not of the full membership, it is the first to examine a section of the party membership (the party organisational activists) across the whole national party.

Surveying all Greens members becomes problematic because, in the same manner as other political parties, many members do not attend party meetings, or do so only occasionally. When they do it is with a limited knowledge or continuity of what the party has being doing between their visits, other than what they can glean from party newsletters, emails and posted information, or via public media and statements by Green elected representatives (both MPs and Councillors). The next layer of member, the party organisational activists, are those that carry the additional information between meetings, and are more generally aware of what is occurring within the party as it operates from day to day.

The party organisational activists are the core membership of the party who keep the party going between elections and events. They are the people who do the organising of the party, in terms of ensuring meetings are held, information is distributed, and conferences and state meetings occur. They are the bulk of the delegates from local groups and branches to state meetings, as well as being the bulk of delegates from the state body to the national. They are the key writers and decision makers of party policy. They therefore represent a vital constituency within the party.

58

Thus a survey of party organisational activists is particularly useful because, in the case of the Greens, they are at the leading edge of decision making within the party, via their local and state branches. As such, what they think of the party and its raison d’être will shape the manner and direction in which decisions are made.

There is some evidence, however, that ‘activists’ thinking and motivations are not entirely in line with that of the general membership or the parliamentary members. Seyd and Whiteley in their separate examinations of the Labor, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties in the UK noted that any party radicalism came from the activist layer (Seyd & Whiteley 1992; Whiteley et al 1994; Whiteley et al 2006). In the case of the Labor and Liberal Democrat Parties it was left-wing activism, and in the case of the Conservative Party it was social activism. The radicalism of party activists was counterposed with the parliamentary wings of the respective parties, and the general membership. In each case the general membership was seen to be closer in attitude (though not necessarily entirely so) to the parliamentarians, while the activist layer were the agitators within the party. Anecdotally this would appear to be the case in the Australian Greens, thus the need for the examination of this group within the party.

DEFINING ACTIVISTS AND STAFF

ACTIVISTS

As we have seen from Chapter 2, in other sample surveys of party members an ‘activist’ is defined by simple criteria, usually through either attending a certain number of meetings (Heidar 2010) or by their performance of set of organisational tasks (Seyd & Whiteley 1992; Whiteley et al 1994; Whiteley & Seyd 2002). In both such instances this defines the activist as a sole entity and not in relation to their role in the party. While a person attending a certain number of meetings increases their interactions with other party members, this gives us no clue to the nature of those interactions and their efficacy. In the case of the performance of a set of tasks, we do not know the framework in which these are being undertaken, nor the purpose or effect of these activities.

The survey of party conference attendees (Pierre 1986; Kitschelt 1989; Herrera & Taylor 1994), although much closer to identifying influential individuals, only picks up those people either delegated or interested in attending the conference, and does not define their

59

participation level outside of the conference. While conference delegation may be defined by party constitution and statutes, there is certainly no general requirement for specific levels of engagement. Participation in party conferences does not provide any guarantee as to whether the participant is involved in other levels of the organisation. Ideally, ‘activist’ should take into account whether they are delegated by branches, states, external or affiliate organisations, all of which will alter their perceptions of both the party and its nature. In the case of open conferences, where any member may attend, it equally needs to be determined whether attendees are there for their own purposes (ie, to push a particular policy position), whether they are attending at the behest of others (ie, as supporters of particular members standing for election) and so on. Finally, conference delegates may tell you about a particular group or type of member, but cannot be relied upon to provide insight regarding the organisation and its relationship to its members. Herrera and Taylor (1994) also take the case of party ‘Campaign Chairs’, indicating a person involved in organising local campaigns, which may be analogous to branch presidents or convenors.

In the case of the Australian Greens National Conference, the structure of the party places a heavy importance on the role of the state party as a delegating authority. Decisions made at the national conference reflect the positions of the various states, as the delegate structure of the conference is such that states, not local branches or general members, are represented. Ordinary members may attend, but have no voting powers and may engage in discussions only by leave of the conference. Party working groups also have a delegated structure. At a national Policy Conference this delegate structure is even more strictly enforced. All national officeholders are non-voting attendees along with working group representatives. Thus, any survey of the National Conference would tend to generate results that reflected the majority positions of each state party. Finally, conference delegates may, or may not, be embedded in the party, working as state or local office holders, or active in state and national working groups.

The survey of office holders and internal representatives, defined in this thesis as ‘party organisational activists’, is different from other surveys of party activist members, in that it does not take as its starting point a sample survey of party members; nor is it a set sample of party conference attendees. It begins from the position that within the Australian Greens the group of members who are most closely linked to the debates and information flows within the party are those people actually occupying positions within the party, whether as office holders or in delegate positions. This group of members might also accord with what has been termed ‘mid-level elites’, but as a group also tend to demonstrate high levels of motivation and engagement. They are, as defined by Whiteley and Seyd (2002), engaged in ‘high intensity participation’.

60

The extent of the 'party organisational activist' layer within the party is defined here as including the office bearers of the 140-odd local groups and branches, state and national party office bearers, delegates to state and national councils, and members involved in policy circles. This provided a participant list in excess of 700 (Table 3.1), obviously a substantial number of individual party activists, although representing only some 7% of the total party membership. This provides a broad definitional context for members active in the core dealings of the party.

Table 3.1: Approximation of the number of Australian Greens ‘party organisational activists’

National, state or local office bearers

National & state 40

Local 450

Members of a nationally appointed working group 20

Convenors of state appointed working groups 30

Delegates at state or national meetings 150

Delegates to state appointed policy groups 50

Total 740

The approximate total number of potential surveyable members was 740, although this number fluctuates depending on such factors as the number of branches attending state meetings, level of work in the policy groups (ie, pre- or post- election), crossover between delegates and office bearers and so on. As the survey was primarily quantitative in nature, it contained mostly closed questions, as opposed to the open questioning of the staff interviews. Closed questions provide clear answers, but need to be carefully constructed so as not to provide ambiguous responses. The survey instrument used here draws on one used in previous surveys of members in a number of countries (Rudig 2002; Vromen 2005). It is thus comparable to those previous surveys, but also ensures a relative level of confidence in the question suitability. The questions themselves were adapted to fit Australian and Australian Greens issues and perceived points of tension, and was built around particular themes that allows for an effective examination of the research questions (see Appendix 4)

61

Table 3.2: Mail out and response rate

Total of survey mailed out 734

Total surveys returned 414

Response rate 56%

The survey was tested on party members within a local group of the party, primarily to test the time taken to record answers and whether there were any obvious flaws in the questions. The testing did not reveal any obvious flaws in the questions themselves, and the average time taken to complete the survey was 15 minutes. The interview questions derived from the survey instrument were also tested on a small number of staff (two of whom were later re- interviewed), and served to both improve the questions being asked and the interviewer’s skills.

The support of the party was required to utilise the lists of party organisational activists provided by each state to allow the survey to be mailed out, and was gained over a 6 month period, from first request via the National Manager through to discussion at both a state and national level. Final approval was via the party’s National Conference. The approval of the party was noted in the cover letter to the survey. The lists were used solely to generate and check address labels and then destroyed as required by the state branches themselves. A reminder was sent via the various party internal emails and newsletters, as this was considered the most cost effective way of recontacting all the party organisational activists, since the lists were no longer available. While this was not optimal in terms of improving the response rate, the use of membership lists has been an ongoing point of contention within the party for a number of years. Finally, the survey results were coded, entered, and analysed with SPSS software.

STAFF

Two key relationships explored through interviews were those between 1) staff and MPs, and 2) staff and party organisational activists. These relationships are not generally part of the normal study of parties, which tends to focus more strongly on membership especially if we consider the silo-like relationships described by Katz and Mair (1994) in the three faces of party (see Figure 2.1 in Chapter 2). This has been particularly true of research on Australian parties, although with notable exceptions in the case of senior advisers to ministers (for instance Walter 1986; 2006). The relationships staff have within the party are also interconnected because staff may work for either the party or for MPs. In the case of working

62

for the party, this means that the staff relationship with party organisational activists is likely to be closer, and with MPs more distanced; in working for MPs the relationship is likely to be very close with MPs and more generalized with both party organisational activists and party members. Thus relationships with the MPs are likely to be both complex and dependent on an individual’s role – staff of an MP or party, organisational activist or member.

The level of contact with, and influence of, the various party levels that staff have will impact on the way the staff themselves perceive issues with the party, which becomes important when their role as communicators is considered. Staff alignments towards the issues16 will be influenced by both the proximity to party members, organisational activists and to MPs. It would be expected that federal staff would be more closely aligned to federal positions, especially to those determined by the parliamentary party room, while state MPs’ staff would be more aligned to their own state party, although also to their employing MP. In regards to party staff, the same situation applies. Certainly, though, state party staff will be working and communicating with party organisational activists continuously, so are most likely to be influenced, and influencing, the positions of those activists. Further demarcations might be made around the alignment of the state party MPs and with federal staff of the . While the Australian Greens do not have a formal Party Leader, this role is defacto held by Senator Brown as the Parliamentary Party Leader. The additional staff entitled to Brown would be expected to also be closely aligned to him on political and policy issues. Staff at this level have limited contact with party organisational activists and members as they operate solely at the federal level in Canberra. Some attend national meetings, but few attend local or state meetings and thus may be isolated from party influences. Other federal MPs staff might be expected to have views closer to their own MP, and to equally be mindful of state party issues as they are operating between a state and federal milieu.

Staff of state MPs are more likely to have close contact with both organisational activists and MPs, although both are moderated by the relationship between the party and the MP. The direction of any ‘loyalty’ or policy influence therefore needs to be tested to ascertain if state MPs’ staff have more in common with federal or party staff. However, as state MPs staff would generally have greater contact with party members and organisational activists on a day to day basis, an initial assumption is that state MPs’ staff remain closer to the party organisational activists they have most contact with. Relationships may also be influenced by geography. For instance, the distance from the federal Party Leaders’ office in Canberra (a natural locus of internal power) is such that both federal and state MPs’ staff in Western Australia would have far less contact with the Leaders’ office than say ACT Legislative Assembly staff. Some offices may also play a substantial external role with local

16 In the Australian Greens emerging issues were taken to be leadership, radical policies and economic issues.

63

communities (ie, it may have a shop front and deal with elector inquiries) or may be based in a parliamentary building. Norris (1997, p.30) noted the increasing role of “constituency service” of British MPs, as they spend an increasing amount of time in their electorates. Staff working in electorate offices are the front-line dealing directly with community members. This reduces the amount of time spent by those staff on policy and parliamentary matters. Conversely, staff located within a parliamentary building (such as Senators’ staff based in Canberra) have limited contact with constituents and are then able to more fully devote their energies to parliamentary and policy matters.

STAFFING NUMBERS

It is also worth considering at this point that Australian parliamentary staff for MPs have existed as research and electorate assistants in Commonwealth offices since the 1970s. Jones (2006) examined the steady increase in federal MPs staff from a secretarial support person in 1944 to a staff of three in 1984. This is comparable to the numbers employed by MPs in the UK House of Commons (Kelly & Maer 2008), but far below US congressional staffing levels (Romzek & Utter 1996).

Jones also noted that staff had become part of the employment process themselves, and increasingly harboured political ambitions of their own (2006, p.646). Herrnson also noted that increasing numbers of MPs within the US Congress were former staff members (1994, p.138). Commenting on the 1996 insights of former ministerial adviser Michael L’Estrange, Jones remarked that the research assistant has “evolved from an assistant into an associate” (2006, p.648). This suggests that public office parliamentary staff, at least at the level of ministerial or leaders’ staff, occupy a role quite different from that of party staff. As Romzek (2000, p.414), on US Congressional staff, noted “Members of Congress delegate substantial autonomy to staff because members themselves rarely have the time, skill, or inclination to manage their congressional enterprises.”

As described by Johns (2006), the total number of party officials and staff for the major Australian parties remains quite low. Citing Roskam, Johns estimated there were fewer than 100 staff directly employed by the Liberal Party, and 30 by the ALP, outside of elections. The figure for the Liberal Party includes administrative staff, so Johns suggested that “In terms of ‘political operatives’, the figure would be about 25-30…” (2006, p.48). This situates the changes in staffing levels in a similar position to that noted in Europe, where, although considerable increases within staffing are noted, the majority of these increases have been at the parliamentary level (Mair 1994, p.9). A comparison of Australian Greens staffing,

64

showing both party and MP staff as full time equivalent (FTE) positions and by the number of staff actually employed both full time and part time, is shown below in Table 3.3. The Australian Greens have between 12 and 13 full time equivalent positions in federal and state offices. The numbers are as at 2009.

Table 3.3: Staff numbers per state, by positions filled, full time position equivalents & employer (2009)

MPs staff full time Party staff full MPs staff in each State Party staff equivalent time positions state positions

NSW 5 2.6 13 8

Vic 5 2.8 6 6

Qld 1 0.5 0 0

WA 3 1.2 15 8

SA 1 0.5 4 4

Tas 3 2 10 10

ACT 1 0.5 12 8

NT 0 0 0 0

National 4 2.5 40* 28

23 12.6 100** 72

* - Federal staffing, including Senators, MHR & Leaders staffing, was 31 in 2008 but has increased since. This number remains approximate as total staff post 1 July 2011 is yet to be determined.

** : MPs’ staff numbers approximated based on state party figures & MP websites.

Note : Party staff numbers are for non-election period. During election periods party staff positions increase by 100-150%. Since the survey was conducted national party staffing has increased to 4.5 f/t positions.

If we consider that the employment levels for the Labor and Liberal parties are most likely in terms of full time positions, then the Greens employ a comparable number of staff given their relative membership and voting strength. However, it is immediately clear that with less than 20% of party staff employed by the Greens are at a national level, the strength of party staffing is at the state level. This is in contrast to almost 40% of MPs’ staff being employed federally.

65

It is perhaps also worth considering that although the figures for Greens party employees may seem large, the ALP in 2002 had 1200 parliamentary staff at their disposal across Australia (Bramble & Kuhn, cited in Vromen et al 2009, p.150), compared to the 72 or so full time positions employed in the offices of Green MPs. If we further consider the 11 staff assigned to the Greens Parliamentary Leader Senator Bob Brown and compare this to the 352 ‘personal staff’ for the ALP Government and 77 for the Liberal/National Opposition, as at 1 February 2009, (Horne 2009, p.13) we can see that the disparity in MPs staff numbers is significant.

It needs also to be understood that the Greens organisationally is very ‘thin’. It has limited resources to pay many people to work directly for it. Nationally, the Australian Greens employ approximately 21 general staff in 12 full-time positions. These are distributed between the states and funded through state arrangements, with 4 of these staff being employed in the national office in Canberra. The number rises during election campaigns at a state or national level. Most staff are also involved in the party, as local branch functionaries or as issue-based activists. Parliamentary staff are not precluded from active involvement, though the nature of their work may be perceived as a potential conflict of interest.

With 100+ staff members employed by the party and MPs the capacity to interview all staff is limited. Only staff employed for more than two years and with a history of some involvement within the party were interviewed, to ensure that there was a body of knowledge available that included an understanding of what the party did and clarity on what their own functions were. It also ensured that staff interviewed had at least some further involvement in the party outside of their employment so could be expected to have an understanding of the feeling toward particular issues within the broader party membership, the party organisation and within their own home state. Given the nature of MPs staffing and the requirements generally for loyalty to the MP from the staff on policy matters, plus given the relatively small number of parliamentary staff within the total membership (~100 out of 10,000+), they hold considerable influence within the party. The high level of autonomy guaranteed to MPs provides a level of policy freedom to their staff, just as the federal structure empowers party organisational activists within their own state. Therefore the complexity and nuance of staff roles meant that information gathering within this group was best done through interview (see Devine 2002, p.200)

66

STAFF INTERVIEWS

The number of staff originally selected for interview was 33. However the number finally interviewed was 19, a little over 60% of the original group selected. The staff originally selected represented approximately 33% of the staff employed by the party and MPs17. The principal reason for a larger pool of potential interviewees than was eventually interviewed was to be able to provide balance across the party, MPs’ offices and states (Table 3.4). However, some areas were less represented than might have been optimal, especially in the case of staff from the Leaders’ office. This led to a need to balance federal staff numbers with Senator’s staff based in their respective states.

In respect of the interviews themselves, the interview sessions were audio taped, with interviews lasting between 35 and 80 minutes. Approximately half of the interviews were conducted by phone, with those situated in ACT, NSW and WA being interviewed in person. In each case the interviews were conducted at a time and place of the staff member’s choosing, and in every case only the interviewee and myself were present during the interview.

Table 3.4: Staff interviewed by employer and interviewee identification lettering

Place of Employment

Party Federal MP State MP

Staff interviewed 8 5 6

Interviewee lettering A - H I - M N - S

Interviewee lettering is used to separately identify staff when quoted in this thesis

Responses from staff were analysed in two ways. Firstly, all staff were categorised in the same manner as party organisational activists (demography, reasons for joining and staying etc). As can be seen from Chapter 4, this allows for a direct comparison in terms of age, education and strength of . Staff responses were also coded for both the key content of answers to specific questions, and by their workplace (state or federal MP, party or MPs as employer) and then compared. The content of the answers was analysed for orientations towards the particular key issues (leadership, policies and policy making, party

17 The one exception was for a person who had previously been involved within the party and had returned to employment with an MP.

67

organisation) and then common themes allowed to emerge (see for instance Tables 9.20 and 9.21). As can be seen in each of the cases where staff responses are shown within Chapters, the responses themselves provide considerable insight into motivations for the work staff do, as well as providing nuanced responses on the key issues that otherwise would not have been evident (Devine 2002).

SURVEY AND INTERVIEW QUESTIONS CONSIDERATIONS

As noted above, the survey instrument was based on one designed for a cross-national survey of Green parties (Rudig 2002), and previously utilised by Vromen (2005) in NSW. This instrument was then used to derive the questions put to staff. The basic questions asked of both party organisational activists and staff were to determine:

• demographics; • orientation to the party; • length of time as a party member; and • level of party activity.

More complex questioning pertaining to the attitudinal relationship with party required a separate group of questions, some on a variety of scales to measure the strength of responses. These more complex questions focussed on:

• the key motivations behind joining and remaining in the party; • the level and nature of activity engaged in; • whether the activity was efficacious; • their opinion on the party’s current and future activities; • their opinion of the activities of parliamentarians; • their opinion of the policies and priorities of the party; and • their opinions on particular debates within the party.

Questions asked of staff were focussed more closely on their position, their relationship to the party, MPs and other staff, and how they perceived the various issues and debates within the party. These additional questions were formulated around the following points:

• what were their key motivations for joining the party; • what were their key motivations for working for the party/MP; • what were their opinions of the activities of parliamentarians;

68

• what were their opinions on the party’s current and future activities; • what were their opinion of the policies and priorities of the party; and • who should be involved in policy and strategic priority formulation.

The questions to the staff are similar in overall direction to those asked in the survey of party organisational activists. The similarity in overall content allows for an examination of any perceived differences between staff and party organisational activists, especially as staff will have a necessarily different vantage point on the party given the quite different nature of their involvement (see Appendix 5). The ability to ask open questions, as opposed to the mainly closed questions within the survey, allowed for a deeper examination of the various key issues within the party. Any difference between the types of staff (party vs MPs, state vs federal) could be explored within the context of their viewpoints of the activities of the MPs and the policy/agenda setting capabilities of MPs. Differing viewpoints uncovered during the interview process may then be contrasted with responses from staff from the different types of workplace. The interviews themselves were conducted in a formally structured manner, although most of the interviewees volunteered additional information regarding workplace issues and general information, with transcripts of their interview being provided back to interviewees.

As part of this process, ethics approval was obtained from the Research Office at Sydney University, which included a guarantee of anonymity. This guarantee of anonymity was important as it allowed those being interviewed to speak freely about the issues and tensions as they experienced them. The question of anonymity also extended to the position the staff member occupied, as this would be an identifier, and the state in which they lived or worked. As with the party organisational activist survey, this limits comparisons of staff responses to just between their occupational orientations (state or federal, party or MP). The ethics approval was also a condition placed on the conduct of the survey by the party itself, so as to ensure the validity of the process.

GENERAL ISSUES

An important issue that needs to be noted is that of how the data and results from the survey and interviews might be used within the party. Although not usually or necessarily part of a researcher’s job, knowingly collecting information on and reporting the internal politics of a party may feed internal party tensions. As access to party members, membership lists and staff is generally quite closely controlled by Australian political parties, such that exact numbers of members of Australian political parties are generally only known through

69

inference (Vromen et al 2009, p.161), in becomes important to maintain the potential of future data collection efforts. Thus, a number of questions were omitted from the survey, particularly in relation to state of residence and actual positions held, in part to maintain anonymity and to avoid potential mudslinging. Anonymity was particularly relevant for groups in the Northern Territory (NT) and Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The ACT Greens only has 1 state/local branch and so collecting state and positional data would have meant identifying individuals. A similar issue exists with the NT Greens with only two local groups in Darwin and Alice Springs. Tasmania by comparison has five branches. In terms of staff positions, as a number of states only employ one or two people an identification issue again arises. While very clearly not ideal it was decided that aggregate results would suffice for analysis.

The limitation on disaggregation had an effect on evaluating the data, as some important findings are not able to be made, and some possible findings are open to interpretation. Kitschelt (1989b), in discussing May’s Law of Curvilinear Disparity (1973), suggests that activists need to be considered at their individual levels (local, state or federal) to properly understand the different dynamics at work, such as the actions of pragmatists and ideologues occupying intermediate or sub-national positions. In this study, differences between states were not able to be observed, such as whether there is a difference in attitude on particular issues. A full exploration of stratarchical effects (between federal, state and local office holders or staff) was thus not able to be undertaken.

CONCLUSION

The methodology applied in this thesis follows two paths, that of survey and interviews. The two different methods are used to provide effective analysis of two groups within the party that are of very different size and composition; party organisational activists and staff. The survey of party organisational staff is not a sample survey as such, as the survey went to all members within that group. The responses can then be said to be representative of much of that group of party members. Staff were selected on the basis of a number of criteria and then a select group within the total staff poll were approached (33 from approximately 100). Self selection by staff themselves then reduced this number to 19.

Both the interviews and survey suffered from a need to preserve anonymity. While entirely appropriate, the requirements for anonymity meant that some questions were omitted, such as state of residence. The internal dynamics and debates of the party also needed to be considered, such that some of the same questions may have been used internally within the

70

party for advancing particular policy or structural agendas. This consideration was echoed by a number of party organisational activists during the process of gaining approval from the party to conduct the survey, and so needs to be recognised as a valid concern.

71

Chapter 4

WHO ARE THE PARTY ORGANISATIONAL ACTIVISTS AND STAFF?

INTRODUCTION

If the Greens formed out of social movement activities in the peace, social justice and environmental movements, what does examining the organisational level of the party (activists and staff) tell about the current organisation of the party and how it has changed since inception? While it is possible to look at the party at the macro level of parliamentary actions and policy as demonstrated in parliament and on the party website, this does not describe how the party has grown and changed from its beginnings in the various new social movements of the 1970s and 80s. But to examine the internality of the party requires some examination of those who people it and give it substance. This group of actors consists of those who are organisationally engaged, generally as volunteers, termed here ‘party organisational activists’. A second group of actors, important because they are those who are employed to perform jobs required by any party structure or office, is the staff of the party – both at the party organisational level and as MPs’ staff.

But how are the actors and internal changes in the party linked to any theory of Green party development? The Australian Greens has grown from small groups in local communities to a party with publicly elected representatives at the local, state and federal level. Are Australian Greens party organisational activists and staff comparable to Green party members in other countries? The Australian electoral system, following the Westminster model, is markedly different from that in many European nations, affecting the opportunities for election and employment. To avoid an ‘apples and oranges’ situation of not comparing party members drawn from similar parties, consideration needs to be given to which party members we compare Australian organisational activists and staff to. Equally, if we accept Parkin (1968), Inglehart (1990) claims regarding the development of a ‘new middle class’ or ‘post materialism’, we need also to acknowledge there will be similarities between Green party members across national boundaries.

This chapter will therefore describe Australian Green party organisational activists and the staff employed directly by the party and its MPs. Analysing the results of the Australian Greens activist members survey and the results of interviews with a sample

72

of staff is used to describe members. Both groups are then situated within the party and compared to party activists and members of other Green parties. As discussed previously, the survey takes as its starting point the examination of UK Labour Party members by Seyd and Whiteley (1992). The interviews utilised question topics from the Australian Greens organisational activist survey, but allowed for more discursive commentary from the interviewees.

WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT THESE PEOPLE TO LOOK LIKE?

Australian Greens party members might be expected to be white, middle class and well educated, fitting with the broader literature on both Greens members and voters. If we follow the post material thesis, they should be more likely to be involved in professional or artistic areas of employment, and be focused on broad scale change of society as opposed to more traditional areas of class conflict (wages, conditions and services). The social movement origins of the party would suggest that members constitute part of the ‘new middle class’, such as described by Parkin (1968), Kriesi (1989), Eder (1993) and others. Eckersley (1989, p.221) provided a good overview of the main arguments around the intersection of ‘new class’ and ‘post material’ theses in terms of describing those involved in ecocentric politics, and notes that: “It is in many respects the positive of industrialism and modernisation that have produced a new class which, by virtue of its structural location and predominantly critical sensibility, is more attuned to the negative externalities of the very system that secured its own affluence and educational opportunity in the first place!”. Offe (cited in Eckersley 1989, p.206) suggested members of this group (as participants in new social movements) have “high educational status, relative economic security…and employment in personal service occupations”. Thus we would expect party organisational activists to be well educated, work in industries associated with professional service, welfare or creative outputs and perhaps have post materialist ideals (after Inglehart 1971).

Party members as social movement activists have been variously described as constituents of a ‘middle class’ situated between the working and capital class, but with poorly defined ‘class interests’ (Eder 1993, p.164) and ‘exploited-class activists’ according to Cleveland’s (2003) “Young Adult Nucleus” theory. However, the primary purpose of the Australian Greens, as a party, is to elect MPs, rather than to necessarily promote social activism (Australian Greens 2010, p.7). As Eckersley acknowledged, “….the core participants in the green movement…are themselves quite deliberately seeking to ‘bite the hand that feeds them’; that is, the market sector that finances the welfare sector” (1989, p.222). Eckersley goes on to show that Green

73

activism is tied directly to the attained education levels and social and technological awareness of this group of people. Further, there is a cohort effect noted with the aging of Green party members (Rootes 1995; Camcastle 2007), that appears to be linked to close association between social movement activists particularly of the immediately post-war (‘baby-boomers’) generation, who then go on to join Green parties (see also Chapter 5).

As a subset of party members, Australian Greens party organisational activists would be considered the most active within a party that should contain people who are socially aware, well educated and left-of-centre politically. However, the place and role of staff generally is far less clear. While it might be expected that they would fit a similar profile as party members and organisational activists, they might also be expected to be primarily engaged in seeking instrumental policy outcomes through parliamentary work and possibly younger. However, as Tranter (2010) noted, people active in environmental social movement organisations tend to be older, but nonetheless well educated.

The logic of political involvement as staff is then different to simply being active within a group or organisation, and perhaps may be linked to the nature of the employment – whether by party or MP. Tranter (2010) posits that young people may be attracted to the more direct action activities of some protest groups (ie, Sea Shepherd or ) and so will join those groups to pursue those activities, but perhaps be less inclined towards prolonged commitment. L’Estrange noted that Opposition staff (and by corollary staff) face an absence of “policy fulfilment”, in developing alternative policies to Government but without being in Government having little opportunity to see them implemented (1996, p.183). Should we then expect to see staff staying short periods, relating to active engagement in particular issues, before they move to other positions or causes?

WHAT DO THESE PEOPLE LOOK LIKE?

The results of the study were interesting not just in themselves but also in comparison with comparable studies of Green party members in Westminster systems. Table 4.1 shows the comparisons with those in broadly similar electoral structures from the UK, Canada and Australia. Each has a predominantly English speaking population, Westminster or Westminster-derived system of government, and single member electorates reducing electoral opportunity structures. Rudig, Bennie and Franklin

74

(1991) examined the British Greens, with Bennie (2004) examining in detail the Green Party of Scotland and providing a comparison between in 1990, 1997 and 2002. Information from Bennie’s 1990 & 2002 examinations are provided in Table 4.1. Hawke, Loke, Nair and Stukey (1993) examined the Greens WA in an early period of its development (1993), providing one of the earliest studies of members of the Greens in Australia. Vromen (2005) examined the Greens NSW membership during 2003, and Camcastle (2007) examined the in 2007. The examination revealed in this thesis, listed in Table 4.1 as ‘Aust. 2008 – activists’ and ‘Aust. 2009 – staff’ covers the survey of party organisational activists conducted in 2008 and the staff interviews undertaken in 2009.

Table 4.1: Age, gender & education in Green parties

Aust. Aust. NSW WA UK Scot. Scot. Canada 2008 - 2009 - 2003 1993 1990 2002 1990 2007 activists staff

Party formedx 1992 1992 1984 1989 1985 1990 1990 1983

Oldest 1930 1947 1914 - - - - -

Youngest 1987 1985 1989 - - - - -

Ave born 1956 1966 1956 - - - - -

Ave age 52 42 47  39 47 39 

% Male 52 32 48 48 53 63 55 

% Female 48 68 52 52 47 37 45 

% Have att uni 85 95 79  67 82 81 80

% Degree + 77 74 67 64 53 47 63** 64

% Masters 20 11 27 10 10 23* 15 30*

% PhD 9 5 w/a 3 3 w/a 6 w/a

Aust. 2008= Stewart Jackson, survey; Aust. 2009 Stewart Jackson, staff interviews; NSW 2003 = Vromen (2005), survey; WA 1993 = Hawke et al (1993); UK 1990 = Rudig et al (1991); Scot. 2002 = Bennie (2004); Scot. 1990 = Bennie (2004); Canada 2007 = Camcastle (2007); w/a = with above; * inc all postgraduate qualifications; **inc postgraduate qualifications up to Masters level;  = Hawke et al used age ranges not specific age or year of birth, and asked for highest level of education attained but not if respondents had ever attended university;  = Camcastle used age ranges not specific age or year of birth, and did not specify a gender breakdown. x = Party formed as initial titling of the party as a ‘Green Party’.

75

In respect of this study, the average year of birth for Australian Greens party organisational activists is 1956, giving them an average age of 52 at the time of the survey. The gender split is 52% male, 48% female. 85% have attended uni, with 77% having completed a basic degree or higher, 20% a Masters, and 9% a PhD. Staff by comparison were much younger, with an average year of birth of 1966 and at average age of 42, ten years on average younger than party organisational activists. The gender ratio of staff was also interestingly skewed towards women (68% female, 32% male). Note also that Greens federal MPs staff in 2008 totalled 31, of whom 71% (22) were female and 29% (9) male (Federal Parliamentarians Contact List 2008). In educational terms almost all staff attended university at some point, but have graduated at a lower level than organisational activists (74% with a degree, 11% with a Masters, 5% with a PhD). The lower educational levels may be reflective of the relative youth of staff, but is broadly similar to staff in the US Congress, of whom 64% had a degree and 22% a higher qualification (Romzeck & Utter 1996, p.425).

When compared to previous research in Australia and internationally on Green party members we see several similarities and trends relating to age and education. Table 4.1 shows that the heightened education levels are broadly similar across the different studies, although Bennie’s 2002 results were skewed by having a large number of students included in the survey, a factor related to the changing nature of employment in Scotland at the time of the survey. Another apparent feature is the participation of more women in early periods of the various Green parties, and there is a distinct aging of the party as whole. If we compare just the three Australian based surveys an interesting pattern of aging appears. As the Hawke, Loke, Nair and Stukey (1993) survey used age ranges not specific ages or year of birth information, an approximation needed to be made by taking a midpoint between ranges as the approximate average age of 44. However, Hawke, Loke, Nair and Stukey found that while the 36-45 age bracket had the highest response, the next highest was the 56+. This suggests that the average age of the Greens (WA) at the time of that survey was possibly higher than 44. Given that the Vromen (2005) survey of Greens NSW members found an average age of 47, this implies that there is a potential slow aging of party members, as well as an age gap between members generally and those occupying activist roles. Using a similar method with the data from Camcastle (2007) we also find an approximate average age of 47, although again Camcastle acknowledged that while the 35-49 age bracket was highest (29.3% of Green Party of Canada members), the next highest was the 50-64 years bracket (29.1%), so the potential is for a higher average age.

76

If we consider that 80% of organisational activists were born before 1969, then this means that less than 20% of the most active membership is under the age of 40. In comparison with the UK and Scottish examples, we see a distinct aging trend across the two countries, with Bennie’s 2002 survey matching the age (47) of Vromen’s 2003 survey, but with the earlier 1990 survey showing a much younger (39) average age. Bennie notes that this follows the trend within the UK Labor Party (Bennie, 2004, p.191).

Table 4.2: Average age of organisational activists, corrected to 2008

Aust 2008 NSW WA UK Scot. Scot Canada 2003 1993 1990 2002 1990 2007 (activists)

Ave age corrected 52 52 (61) 57 53 57 (48) to 2008

Aust 2008 = Stewart Jackson, survey; NSW 2003 = Vromen (2005), survey; WA 1993 = Hawke et al (1993); UK 1990 = Rudig et al (1991); Scot. 2002 = Bennie (2004); Scot. 1990 = Bennie (2004); Canada 2007 = Camcastle (2007); Ages for both Hawke et al and Camcastle are approximates.

If we take the observation regarding ages a step further, the ages from each survey are corrected to 2008 (Table 4.2), to represent the age those respondents would be at the time of the latest (2008) survey, an interesting phenomena appears. The Vromen respondents would now have the same average age as the 2008 respondents, closely aligned with Bennie’s 2002 Scottish respondents. However, the 1990 respondents from the UK and Scotland (Rudig et al 1991; Bennie 2004) and the West Australian respondents from 1993 (Hawke et al 1993) would be significantly older. This suggests that while those joining the Greens over the period 2002-2008 would approximate a particular cohort, those who were a member in 1990-1993 represent a different cohort. Including Camcastle’s (2007) Canadian Green Party members shows an even stronger inclination to a younger cohort as the current organisational activist base. The strong suggestion of this is that those earlier members are now no longer members or active within the party. This may have implications when considering the changing cultural aspects around accepted party practices, particularly in relation to early experiences with social movement activism and expectations for social change. The experiences of young people engaged in social movement activism in the 1990s may be very different to those experienced by young people in the 1960s, both contextually and qualitatively (see Shuman & Scott 1989), and so will affect their expectations for change.

77

Comparing ages of activists with Green voters, derived from the 2007 Australian Electoral Survey, shows that there is marked age disparity between those who identify as a Green voter and the organisational activists (Table 4.3). Voters have a strong female bias (63% female to 37% male), a distinctly younger average age, and a slightly lower rate of postgraduate education (29% organisational activists to 24% for electors). Compared to the general population, party organisational activists are even more clearly older than average and have a much higher rate of completed higher degrees. The very clear difference in the average age fits with the results consistently found in regular opinion polling data (Newspoll 2010; Nielsen 2011) showing a higher approval rate for the Greens amongst younger voters.

Table 4.3: Age, gender, education of organisational activists compared to voters and general population

Greens party Green General organisational electors population activists

Oldest 1930 1920 -

Youngest 1987 1989 -

Ave year born 1956 1961 -

Ave age 52 42 37

% Male 52 37 50

% Female 48 63 50

% Degree + 77 61 19

% Masters-PhD 29 24 4

Organisational activists = Stewart Jackson, survey; Green electors = Australian Election Study (2007); General Population = Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010).

One noticeable similarity, when comparing the current survey responses to those of other Green party surveys, is in the education levels and attendance at university. Worth noting are the very high participation rates in higher education and the significant number of postgraduate qualifications present amongst both organisational activists and Green voters. The results support the view that both Australian Greens members and Green electors are highly educated and middle class, and are in line with Vromen’s (2005, p.5) observation of the Greens NSW that the “background

78

characteristics of the members substantiate the idea of the middle class radicals orientation of the Greens”. Similarly, Camcastle (2007, p.632) noted that Canadian Green Party members had a “close adherence to the expectations of the new middle class thesis”, and that “GPC [Green Party of Canada] supporters have the highest levels of university education compared not only to other Canadian political parties but also to Greens elsewhere.”

STAFF - AGE AND PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT

Staff are a relatively new aspect of the Australian Greens. Although MPs such as Jo Vallentine have had staff since the earliest days of the party, most state branches had volunteer-run offices through the 1990s. The Australian Greens at a national level gained their first staff member in 2001, following the Conference. As can be seen in Table 3.3 (Chapter 3), state branches still have only one-three staff, and would therefore continue to rely on volunteers. So what can we say about staff?

One interesting aspect of staff ages is that while the average age is 42, the median age is 40, with over half the staff (63%) aged between 35 and 46. If we look at the age of each of the staff members was when they actually joined the party (as opposed to how old they were at the time of the interview), the average age was 34. The average age rises to 37 in respect of their first employment with the Greens, taking into account a period of party activism or volunteering within the party for some staff. A number of the staff also have extensive periods of employment with the party, with the average length of employment (in their current position) being four years. 37% have had more than one position within the party or with MPs, indicating a certain amount of movement between different positions.

A particularly interesting point emerges in relation to staff if we look at the average age and time in their current employment when comparing party to MPs’ staff. In terms of average age and time in their current staff position party staff are both older (48 vs 38) and have spent longer (five years vs two years) in their current positions. Conversely, MPs’ staff are more likely to be both younger and to change employment more frequently. The pattern fits with the pattern noted in the USA of relatively high staff turnover (Salisbury & Shepsle 1981; Romzek & Utter 1996). The reasons found in the USA conform to two patterns, one of a staff member gaining experience and then moving to a better position, and two, the MP losing their position. In respect of

79

this last occurrence, Salisbury and Shepsle (1981, p.387) noted that 78% left employment in Congress when their employer departed.

However, it is worth noting that of the various Australian Greens party office managers in 2009, four of the seven employed had been employed more than 6 years. This implies a tendency for party employees to be long term staff in relatively entrenched positions. The exception to this would appear to be the case of MPs’ personal advisers, who are employed to work directly with the MP and have an attached travel allowance. Ben Oquist, Chief of Staff to Bob Brown, has been employed by Brown since 1996, with a short period in 2006-2007 working for NSW MLC Ian Cohen while running for election to the NSW Legislative Council. Chris Twomey has been Senator ’s Principal Adviser since she was elected in 2004. Kerry Nettle employed Jon Edwards for the full period of her term (2002- 2008) as her Principal Adviser, before he moved overseas on her loss. Romzek and Utter (1996) also noted that more senior Congressional staff would stay in positions for longer than junior colleagues. The implication is of course that while Principal Advisers (or other particularly close staff) will have greater longevity in a particular position, it is likely to be primarily because of the nature of the position, as confidante to the MP, that this occurs. While the position may be highly pressured, it is also presents rewarding opportunities to shape the nature of political debate.

Looking more deeply at shifts between positions, we find four staff had shifted from party positions to MP employment, two from MP to MP, and one from party to party employment (Table 4.4). None had shifted from being employed by an MP to a party staff position in their employment history. The two longest serving staff members, in terms of employment history within the Australian Greens, are currently employed in MPs’ offices. This strongly suggests an employment trajectory from the party into MPs’ offices, at least amongst the group of staff interviewed. As this was a specifically selected group (that had been employed for two years and had some party involvement) it might also be expected that a number had moved through the party to MPs staffing positions. Certainly, one of the interviewees had started her parliamentary employment with Jo Vallentine in the 1980s.

Table 4.4: Staff – employment prior to current position

External Party MP Total

Party staff 8 1 0 9

MP staff 4 4 2 10

80

The movement of staff between party offices and MPs offices may be influenced by a number of factors. Firstly, MPs’ offices have extended pay ranges for staff under either state or commonwealth awards, whereas the party, with limited funds, will tend to pay on lower community-based award structures, even if they are permanent positions not based on an MPs’ electoral success. Secondly, while party work may include direct contact with members and the public, it does not generally involve high level policy discussion or research, unlike many of the MP staff positions. Party positions are by their nature tending more towards either being short term election campaign positions (not examined here) or long term administrative positions. Thirdly, there may also be career aspirations amongst staff, utilising the experience of working in an MPs’ office as a stepping stone to preselection. There is also a qualitative difference between staff positions that may go further to explaining the longevity of staff in some positions or for their movement between party and MPs office.

If we reconsider the question of why staff are much younger than party organisational activists, and why MPs’ staff are younger again, it may well be that there is a also a generational aspect involved. Party organisational activists, with an average age of 52 at the time of the survey, have worked for a good part of their lives. They have built up experiences and would now appear prepared to devote some of their energies to voluntary party work. Staff are in paid employment, with the party or MP position being their primary source of income. Some are potentially starting a major period of employment, settling into a significant position which may shape their future employment history. As well, while party organisational activists may have liked to have had the opportunity to be paid staff, those opportunities have not existed on a significant scale until relatively recently, so this form of career path was not open to them. However, it is just as likely that MPs, in looking for staff, are looking for a particular type of person, potentially reasonably young, with research skills and focus, as opposed to someone further down the career path. If we consider that the average age of the staff interviewed when they joined the party was 34, they do appear to be from a younger cohort within the party membership. So a generational effect may be in evidence in relation to the age of staff.

NEWLY JOINED OR LONG ESTABLISHED MEMBERSHIP?

When examining party members it is also important to consider when members have joined a party. Did party organisational activists join at particular points in time,

81

equating to events or incidents, or has there been a steady growth over time? And those who joined in the earliest periods of the party – have they stayed on as party stalwarts? If party organisational activists are staying for extended periods of time within the party it suggests that there is a likely transfer of ideas and ‘party culture’ between different groups joining the party. Conversely, if those earlier organisational activists leave, they also take organisational and cultural knowledge with them.

Looking at when organisational activists joined the Greens, we find over 60% (63%) had joined the party since 2001, with concentrations of joiners around 2002 (11.1%), 2004 (10.8%) and 2006 (11.6%). These dates bear some relationship to federal election years, with 2002 following the 2001 election and the Greens’ strong stand on Tampa and refugees, and 2006 being in the lead up to the 2007 election and a change in government. The 2001 election certainly increased the Greens’ media prominence leading to an increased awareness of the party’s purpose and role, and exposing them to a greater number of potential electors and supporters. It would also be reasonable to assume that members (and those wishing to be most active in the party) have some motivation to join around those points of peak activity and increased media presence.

Table 4.5: Organisational activists and staff - year of joining

Party Organisational Year of Joining Staff Activists

1983-90 3% 5%

1991-95 11% 16%

1996-2000 23% 21%

2001-08 63% 58%

Total respondents 405 19

Given that the number of organisational activists who joined in the early periods of the party was quite small, the results were aggregated together with time frames that represent specific periods of the party’s history. One factor does emerge – only 3% of current organisational activists were active in the early history of the party. This earliest period of party history (to 1990) is the period of the establishment of small locality-based parties, separate and autonomous from each other (Harris 2007, p.205). The second period (1991-1995) represents the period from the initial formation of the Australian Greens to just prior to the 1996 federal election and Bob Brown’s election

82

to the Senate. The third period, 1996-2000, is a period of slow growth of the party with increasing numbers of MPs elected to state parliaments, but with limited results in federal elections. The final period (2001+) is the current period from the ‘Tampa’ election to the time of the survey (2008).

When we compare the staff to the party organisational activists, we find the pattern of joining to be very similar. The basic selection criteria for staff to be interviewed for the study (that they must have been members for a minimum of two years and have some current involvement in the party) may have contributed, but this doesn’t necessarily explain the similarity in numbers joining prior to 2001. What might be concluded is that the staff profiles, at least in respect of when they joined the party, are not so dissimilar to organisational activists. The slight bias towards having been a member for longer might also suggest that staff (whether of party or MPs) are strongly committed to the party more generally.

While the party was considerably smaller in the earliest period (estimated to be less than 1000), the percentage of organisational activists being a member for longer than 20 years is still low. This very low number of continuing organisational activists from that period has implications in regards to a long term cultural understanding of the organisation, as these would be the members that would form the basis of a cultural history of the party. The lack of numbers remaining active organisationally within the party suggests that this cultural history aspect is not a strong feature. It should also be noted that a number of the party’s MPs in 2008 were all members during the 1985- 1990 period – Bob Brown, Christine Milne, Giz Watson, Paul Llewellyn, Ian Cohen, Lee Rhiannon and . A significant body of collective knowledge and party influence is then bound up in these people.

Hawke, Loke, Nair and Stuckey (1993) found that there was a significant bias towards women joining in the first six months after the party was established in 1990, but that this was offset by increasing numbers of men joining after this period. This was accompanied by a shift in the age of members joining, from a distinct bias toward older members (over 56+) in the initial period, to a more even spread of members after three years of the party’s operation. However, if we compare the year of joining and gender from the current group of respondents, we see in fact a higher proportion of male organisational activists as respondents (Table 4.6). If we link this back to the age of members, what we may be seeing is a cohort effect, with a greater percentage of the older cohort of older women leaving or becoming inactive. The women have been replaced over time with a more even gender distribution. The gender shift may be significant when we come to consider changing cultures within the party.

83

Table 4.6: Organisational activists - year joined the Greens vs Male or female

Male Female ‘N’

1983-90 54% 46% 13

1991-95 54% 46% 44

1996-2000 52% 48% 89

2001-08 52% 48% 249

Total 52% 48% 395

Returning to staff, we find they joined the party at a range of dates that do not appear to match any significant event except the 2001 election, which does appear to hold significance for some staff. One staff member stated, when asked why they joined, “I was a Tampa Green, and that was why I joined” (Interviewee F). A second volunteered that he “…joined the Greens because of . Kim Beazley was appalling as a version of the opposition, and I thought if there’s no decent opposition then we must be doing something to create an opposition and therefore I joined” (Interviewee E).

The joining periods of party activists were compared with the general membership ages of the Australian Greens. Although the state by state figures are incomplete (see Appendix 1), with some of the figures noted as estimates, a pattern emerges of membership growth over the extended period (Table 4.7).

Table 4.7: Average party membership by state & territory for groups of years

NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS ACT NT Totals

1990-95 218 84 171 385 17 75 50 8 1630

1996-2000 640 384 412 445 99 358 127 26 2491

2001-05 2423 1362 640 821 364 571 290 56 6528

2006-10 3023 2275 777 969 524 1132 415 118 9234

2010 3352 2699 842 1036 616 1246 538 100 10429

84

The membership numbers start from 1990 because membership numbers are available for the Greens WA from that date, but for other states membership figures are from formation (ACT & Victoria 1993, NT 1994, SA 199518) or from when available (NSW from 1993, QLD 1994, Tas 1995).

If we consider the total membership between 1990 and 2010, we can see the rise of membership noted previously. The increase of member numbers more broadly equates with the joining of activist members, with an early peak around 1996, and then a steady rise from 2001 to 2005, followed by an overall, but variable, rise. It could be assumed that the drop off of numbers of organisational activists in comparable periods is due primarily to there not being sufficient time for many to join the party, become active within the party, and then begin to occupy positions.

Figure 4.1: Party membership by state & territory

18 The case of South Australia is different, as prior to 1995 a separately registered party known as the Green Party of South Australia (GPSA) existed, a party which, although previously related to the original Greens party registration, was not part of the Australian Greens and against which a separate branch of the Australian Greens (the Australian Greens SA) was established in 1995. The GPSA records are not currently available.

85

Plotting state memberships across this period (Figure 4.1) shows a general rise in most states occurred in the period 2000-2003 (especially for Victoria and NSW), with states such as Tasmania, South Australia and WA enjoying a slow but steady increase across the whole period. Victoria has an interesting and dramatic falloff in membership in 2009, but anecdotally this has been put down to an administrative failure in sending out membership renewals during a period of office turmoil – perhaps highlighting the importance of good organisational practices within parties!

Interestingly, only 7% of respondents indicated that they had not been a continuous member – that they had joined the Greens, departed or lapsed from the party and then rejoined at a later date. This suggests that either organisational activists tend to stay with the party continuously from when they join or that once they leave they do not return.

FORMER MEMBERS OF OTHER PARTIES

Might we also expect people who have joined the Greens to have previously been a member of another political party? If we consider the long history of the Communist Party and sections of the ALP in social movement activities, whether peace (ie, anti- Vietnam), anti-nuclear or anti-Apartheid activities, we might expect that some members join the Greens having previously been a member of another party. Then again, they may have come to the Greens purely by social movement activity, perhaps in the environment movement (Franklin Dam, forest campaigns), from peace activities around the two Gulf wars, or other more radical campaigns.

Of Australian Greens party organisational activists, 31% identified that they had been a member of another political party, with 15% of those having been a member of more than one party. Overall, a significant 19% of organisational activists were former members of the ALP, and very few (1%) were from the Liberal or National Parties. This rate of membership of another party matches the findings of Rudig, Bennie and Franklin (1991) and Bennie (2004) in relation to Greens in the United Kingdom, where results ranged from 29% in the UK 1990, to 32% in Scotland in 2002.

86

Table 4.8: Organisational activists - membership of other parties

Australian Liberal/ Socialist Other (not Only the ALP Democrat National Alliance/DSP specified) Greens

19% 7% 1% 2% 7% 69%

* As respondents could indicate more than one membership this does not add to 100%

Comparing the year of joining and whether Green organisational activists have previously been a member of the Australian Labor Party shows a rise in the percentage of ALP members joining in the late 1990s period, dropping off in the 2000s (Figure 4.2). On a year by year basis this shows up as a spike in the year 2002 with 29% of respondents who joined in that year have previously been a member of the ALP. This identifies a period when ALP member-activists, potentially from the left faction, were joining the Greens. When compared to the total number of former ALP members identified as organisational activists (19%), this may lend some credence to the thesis of Markovits and Gorski (1993) that the Greens effectively captured the remnants of the New Left movements both within and external to the major social democrat party (in this case the ALP).

Figure 4.2: Organisational activists - formerly Australian Labor Party members

The pattern of former ALP activist membership appears to initially follow the growth of the Australian Greens, although with an interesting plateauing of organisational activist membership deriving from the ALP post-2000. While it may be that

87

disillusioned ALP activists joined the Greens proportionately in the earlier periods, it may also represent a group of people who were members of the ALP at some point in their youth, and now as older, more educated individuals have switched both allegiance and levels of activism to the Greens. However, Charnock (2009) also found that in terms of electors, some 16% of ALP identifiers, predominantly left wing, voted Green in the Senate in the 2007 federal election. This suggests that disaffection with the ALP still remains amongst a section of the ALP vote, is primarily ideological in nature, and may influence party-shifting by both electors and party members in future.

Comparing activist joiners from the Australian Democrats to general activists there are limited differences over the years, due to the low number of Democrat members joining and being organisational activists (7% of the total of organisational activists). However, in terms of individual years there is jump in the period 2004-2005, which is at about the same time as the collapse of the Australian Democrats as a credible alternative to the ALP and Coalition. While the numbers joining from the Democrats are overall quite low (just 28 Democrats joined the Greens and were organisational activists) the number joining in the 2004-2005 period equates to 32% of party organisational activists who were former members of the Australian Democrats. We may conclude that the period that Democrats became motivated to join the Greens and continue their activity was at the point of collapse of the Democrats.

The low number of previously Democrat members appearing as organisational activists would appear to dispel the notion that the political collapse of the Democrats lead directly to an influx of the majority of their remaining members into the Greens, at least in terms of their committed and active membership. Charnock and Ellis (2004), in examining Australian political voting behaviour in the Senate suggested that ALP voters, rather than Democrat voters, were closer to the Greens, with Charnock (2009) noting that only 30% of Democrat voters moved their support to the Greens with this group coming from the most left leaning group within the Democrats. Similarly, Bennett (2008) notes that although the 2004 Green Senate vote rose 2.7%, the rise occurred in the context of a collapse of the Democrat vote from 7.25% to 2.09% (-5.16%), and so could be considered “a poor result”.19

19 Conversely, this may also be indicative of structural issues within the Australian Democrats related to their centralised parliamentary focus (see Turnbull & Vromen (2006) for a discussion of these differences).

88

LANGUAGE AND LOCALITY

The last two characteristics of organisational activist membership are where they live (Table 4.9) and a cultural and linguistic difference (CALD) identifier. As might be expected, due to 64% of Australians living in the major capital cities (ABS 2010), and the now urbanized nature of the party, the majority of respondents live in a large city. The number of Australian Greens branches by coverage (identified as being in a large city, centered on a regional centre or covering a country district), demonstrates a slight bias towards party organisational activists coming from country districts compared to the general population.

The Greens have an increasingly urbanized vote, centered on inner urban electorates such as Melbourne (36% in 2010), Sydney (24%) and Grayndler (26%) (AEC 2011). There is then an equal expectation of the party membership being centered in these inner urban areas. However, the nature of a broad based party is to have an effective representation of branches across the whole state or nation, including regions where the vote, and presumably the membership, is low. Given the relative closeness between the distribution of organisational activists and branches (and allowing for country branches to have members both in a town and on farms) it is likely that the representation from branch office bearers contributes to the greater number of country based organisational activists in this survey (Table 4.9).

Table 4.9: Organisational activists (n=413) and staff (n=19) - locality lived in compared to branches and general population

General Locality Activists Staff Branches Population†

Large city 58% 84% 60% 64%

Regional centre 16% 11% 10% 22%

Rural town or farm 26% 5% 30% 14%

Question: How would you describe the place where you live?

† (ABS 2010)

It is important to note, however, that branch distribution should not be taken as a proxy for membership distribution. In a recent membership report for the Greens

89

NSW (Greens NSW 2009) it is possible to identify a clear disparity in the size of membership between large city and non-city groups. Of the 9 smallest groups (those with less than 20 members), six are country-based and three city based. Of the 11 largest groups (those with membership greater than 80) 9 are city based and two are country based. This suggests that nationally the 86 city-based branches will be considerably larger than the 58 non-city based branches, exacerbating the 60% city to 40% non-city division in membership.

Staff, by the nature of their work, tended to live in a large city, whether this be at the party offices or those of the MP. With the exception of Robin Chapple in WA, who maintains offices in and Broome, all Australian Green MPs represent city electorates or have their Senate offices in cities, so all staff interviewed were based in a city or regional centre, with the exception of one who lived near a regional centre.

One last aspects needs to be discussed here, that of CALD identifiers. The only identifier used in the questionnaire was whether a language other than English was spoken at home (Table 4.10). While not strictly such an identifier as compared to country of birth or nationality of parents, this identifier was considered to be both the least intrusive and the one least likely to generate a response making it possible to identify the respondent.

Table 4.10: Organisational activists (n=412) and staff (n=19) - language other than English spoken at home

General N Activists Staff population*

Yes 28 6.8% 0% 22.5%

No 384 93.2% 100% 78.5%

Total 412 100.0% 100% 100.0%

Question: Do you speak a language other than English at home? * = Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census Data 2006.

Table 4.10 clearly shows English is the predominant language in homes of respondents. Certainly, none of the staff noted that they spoke a language other than English at home. When compared to ABS data from the last census, the level of other languages spoken in the home of organisational activists is less than a third as

90

compared to the general population. This provides an indicator of a lack of cultural diversity within the party, both amongst organisational activists and staff.

CONCLUSIONS

So who are the organisational activists? They are middle aged (average age 52) and they are highly educated (77% have university degrees, with 29% having higher qualifications). Staff are younger (average age 42) and marginally less well educated (74% with degrees, and 16% higher qualifications). There doesn’t appear to be a gender bias (48% female to 52% male) amongst organisational activists. While this aligns with more recent surveys of Green party members (Bennie 2004; Vromen (2005), it indicates an aging of the party, as current members and organisational activists are older than those surveyed in the 1990s (Rudig et al 1990; Bennie 2004).

Paul Whitely and Patrick Seyd, in their examinations of activism within British political parties (Seyd & Whiteley 1992; Whiteley et al 1994; Whiteley & Seyd 2002; Whiteley et al 2006), demonstrated that different parties have different patterns of member activity within them. In doing so they also divided membership activism in ‘high’ and ‘low’ intensity activism (Whiteley & Seyd 2002). This examination of the Australian Greens takes as a starting point Whiteley and Seyd’s work, especially the division into high and low intensity activism, and then extrapolates that there is a group of party members who by virtue of being position holders are all high intensity activists.

However, rather than simply trying to equate the two forms of participation (‘high intensity activist’ or ‘party organisational activist’), this chapter has taken as its starting point that the party organisational activist, as party functionary, is a critical element in the ongoing functioning of the party as a . Therefore, the attitudes of this particular group of active members towards the party, its policies and processes are critical to the shaping of the organisation. This is done with reference to previous surveys of Green party members (Rudig et al 1990; Hawke et al 1993; Bennie 2002; Vromen 2005; Camcastle 2007), and in the context of surveys that canvassed the nature of activist participation (Kitschelt 1989a; Whiteley & Seyd 2002).

91

This, then, begins to show a group of party members who look and act as Parkin (1968) described – middle class radicals. Whether their attitudes are those of what we might expect of middle class radicals will be discussed further in following chapters. Certainly, party activists in the Australian Greens appear to follow this pattern. Party and MPs’ staff, as might be expected from an increasingly professionalised group, follow the pattern we see in nations such as the US: young, well educated but with a high turnover.

Staff employed within the party, whether by the party or by MPs, are critical to shaping of policy and agendas within the party, especially if we consider they are the interlocutors between the party membership and the MP, the electorate and the MP, and the party activists and the MP. However, it should also be noted that MPs’ staff are a relatively new phenomena in Australia, with non-secretarial staff only being allocated to MPs since the 1970s (Jones 2006).

We need also to recognize that staff also serve as interlocutors between the membership and the party activists. The relationships between staff are therefore necessarily complex, although the group of staff contains only three groups, staff employed by the party, staff employed by state MPs and staff employed by federal MPs. When we come to describing staff we need to recognize that they will, in most cases for an Australian minor party with few or no lower house members such as the Greens, be city based. What was also noticeable regarding employment patterns, was that MPs’ staff were generally employed for much shorter periods than party staff, perhaps suggesting workload issues as highlighted in 2010 in the media regarding Prime Ministerial staff and burnout (L’Estrange 1996; Warn 1996; Lewis & Rehn 2010; Lewis 2010; Karevelas 2010). Studies of US Congressional staff have also highlighted the high education levels amongst staff, but also the high rates of turnover (Salisbury & Shepsle 1981; Romzek & Utter 1996). The attitudes of staff to key issues within the party may well set them apart from both Green organisational activists and voters.

92

Chapter 5

PARTICIPATION IN THE PARTY

INTRODUCTION

Now we have elucidated the characteristics of Green party organisational activists (middle class, middle aged and well educated) and staff (middle class and well educated but ten years younger), it is now time to turn to what they actually do within the party. Given that a party would intend to exist over a period of time, it needs also to retain and maintain activity levels and organisational activists. Heidar (2006, p.307) makes the point that parties contain varieties of activists, differing in both the nature of the activity (internal or external) and intensity levels (high or low). Heidar’s example of a “party builder”, working at a high intensity level with an internal focus, perhaps fits the description of party organisational activist here, but it does not necessarily examine or explain activity over a longer period. Poguntke, in examining the German Greens of the 1980s and 90s, noted that the demands of a grassroots-based system of internal democracy, especially in terms of the number of ‘mandate’ holders within the party, leads to a situation where the active membership was primarily taken up with party building activities (1992, p.241). So, if, as is being argued, these groups are critical to both the functioning and development of the party, what activities they undertake and what they think about those activities may significantly impact party campaign outcomes.

In examining the activities of party organisational activists we need also to keep in mind their relationship to the other groups within the party. May (1973), in dividing the party into three competing groups (MPs, activists and members), mirrors Keys’ (1958) three ‘faces’ of party. As described in Chapter 2, Katz and Mair (1995) arrived at three competing silos of influence – silos that are nonetheless interconnected, with extensive relationships between them. A number of researchers have since questioned the validity of May’s hypothesis of curvilinear disparity (for instance Kitschelt 1989b; Herrera & Taylor 1994; Narud & Skare 1999). Poguntke (1990), though, noted the German Greens in the mid-1980s had an activist layer (defined as conference delegates) that was more left wing than their Green electors, which might also affect how they view particular activities.20

20 See Chapter 7 for a broader discussion of ideological positioning within the Greens.

93

The key questions to be asked are: what activities do organisational activists and staff undertake or pursue, and which of these activities do they think has the highest efficacy? In the case of staff, are they revealed as political operators such as might be expected in a party in a cartel system (Katz & Mair 1994) or perhaps an electoral professional party (Panebianco 1988)? To shed some light on these questions this chapter examines the activities undertaken by Australian Greens party organisational activists and staff.

WHY JOIN A PARTY?

Why do people join parties? And once having joined the party, why do they become active? According to Downs (1957) it is because people wish to maximise potential incentives. Rational choice theory suggests that people become members of a political party so that they may affect outcomes that will have a positive benefit to themselves. Benefits may include policy or personal advancement. So people might join a party to get a job, become a politician or to change a specific policy. Of course, membership of a political party is also about cooperation to achieve those desired outcomes, and a rational actor must participate collectively to achieve outcomes. This may act to negate any desire to participate as someone else is going to act for you – rationally, why not let them do the work (Olson 1965)? McCarthy and Zald (1977) argued that available resources, coupled with the pre-existing social structures, may act to produce organisations, peopled with activists and policy entrepreneurs, which draw supporters to them. This partially negates Olson’s challenge in respect of building social movement organisations. Bennie (2004) noted that this resource mobilisation approach is a form of structural analysis, examining organisational recruitment, while also recognizing macro-level links between organisations within a political context. The ‘Civic Volunteerism’ model (Verba et al 1995) suggests that as well as economic and educational resources, time becomes an important factor in participation, and mobilisation becomes a critical factor.

Middle class radicals, such as potential Greens members and activists, may have the time and resources to be engaged but recruitment is often critical to their engagement (Pattie, Seyd & Whiteley 2003). Cotgrove and Duff (1981) noted that Inglehart did not distinguish between personal and public values in theorizing post materialism. Thus individuals may work for post material social outcomes but hold a different hierarchy of personal values, perhaps emphasizing material desires, although this difference was largely negligible amongst the environmentalists they studied, indicating that this group had reconciled their public and private value sets. People join parties, parleying participation and the costs associated with it into greater benefits, potentially on the basis that the collective good is greater than individual outcomes (Whiteley 1995). So people may join parties for a mixture of altruistic concerns

94

and selective process incentives focused on their own perceived benefits. Cotgrove and Duff also found these environmentalists matched Parkin’s (1968) middle class radicals from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in occupational choice (1981, pp.102-103), occupations that emphasized non-material outcomes, reflecting their desire to move beyond an economic growth paradigm. Bennie (2004, p.68) found , in her analysis of party members as ‘joiners’, confident in outlook and the most active in the organisations in which they participate. Bennie also noted that even in 1990, there were particular incentives that the party offered to potential members to join, centered on participation, information and .

The various reasons people join parties can be examined, at least in part, by looking at what they themselves identify as the key reasons for membership. The various studies of British parties by Patrick Seyd and Paul Whiteley (Seyd & Whiteley, 1992; Whiteley, Seyd & Richardson, 1994; Whiteley, Seyd & Billinghurst, 2006) utilized survey research to ask these questions directly of members. They also devised a set of measures to determine what an ‘activist’ might also look like. This thesis starts from the premise that certain activists (party organisational activists) are engaged in specific activities and therefore will have specific interests and motivations for joining the party.

Linked to why members join is the question of how they may wish or be able to be involved is the structural question of the organisation of the party (Bennie 2004). While Katz & Mair (1995) and others have examined how parties organise themselves, greater understanding will come from considering how the party’s structure may influence how organisational activists see themselves, their role within the party, and their motivations for both joining and becoming active.

WHY ORGANISATIONAL ACTIVISTS AND STAFF JOIN THE AUSTRALIAN GREENS

Activists choose to get involved for a variety of reasons. Kitschelt (1989a, p.99), in examining the Belgian Green parties Ecolo and Agalev, used five ‘commitment mechanisms’: the realization of aims, provision of avenues for participation, the creation of solidarity and community, the potential for material gain, and doctrinaire or ideological legitimacy. Through the lens of these five mechanisms, Kitschelt argued that the Belgium and West German Green parties were left-libertarian in nature. The questions used here and in other surveys (Rudig et al 1990, Vromen 2005, Bennie 2004) fit within the framework of the five broad areas of Kitschelt’s commitment mechanisms. Tranter and Western (2003; 2009) argued that the difference in the nature of the polity is also significant, such that where Green

95

parties achieve parliamentary and government representation acceptance of post material values gain legitimacy.

In this survey, Australian Greens organisational activists were asked to report the importance of a series of possible reasons for joining the Australian Greens (Table 5.1). The question allowed respondents to describe their reasons for joining in a number of different ways. The responses show that some reasons are triggers for nearly all members (97% responding that ‘realise political aims’ is ‘very’ or ‘rather important’) and can then be characterised as an overarching reason for joining the party. Most respondents also joined ‘to become politically active’, but the responses indicated that some members were either (a) already active, with membership furthering this activity, or (b) do not link joining the party with political activity: the mere act of joining is not itself a politicised activity and that political activity would require further action.

Table 5.1: Organisational activists - reasons for joining the Australian Greens

Very/ Not so Not N important important important

Realise political aims 97% 2% 1% 412

Become politically active 83% 11% 6% 412

Meet like minded people 61% 25% 14% 409

Learn more about green politics 58% 24% 18% 412

Support the party financially 27% 38% 35% 412

Influence candidate selection 24% 34% 42% 413

Pursue a career in green politics 9% 18% 73% 413

Membership advantageous for career 1% 5% 94% 412

Question: A number of reasons why people might join the Australian Greens are listed below. Thinking back to your first decision to join, please indicate how important a role each reason played.

At the other end of the scale, only 1% (a total of five respondents) identified an expectation that membership would be advantageous to their career. There are currently few areas where the Australian Greens could influence appointments and the like, so those who might consider joining a party for this reason do not see the Greens as a viable alternative. Equally,

96

for most party organisational activists, joining is not expected to yield jobs or political advancement, as only 9% joined to advance a career in politics.

Table 5.2: Importance of reasons for joining Australia 2008 (organisational activists) vs Scotland 2002 (members)

Australia 2008 Scotland 2002

Realise political aims 97% 93%

Become politically active 83% 56%

Meet like minded people 61% 52%

Learn more about green politics 58% 73%

Support the party financially 27% 51%

Influence candidate selection 24% 25%

Pursue a career in green politics 9% 9%

Membership advantageous for career 1% 2%

Australia 2008 = Stewart Jackson survey; Scotland 2002 = Bennie (2004).

Percents of issues rated as ‘Very Important’ or ‘Important’.

A number of issues stand out when comparing Australian Greens in 2008 with Bennie’s (2004) examination of reasons for joining the Scottish Green Party. While the most highly rated reason for joining (‘to realise political aims’) remains the same for both studies, there is some diversity after that until we reach the purely personal incentives. Only 10-11% of both Australian and Scottish respondents saw joining as a path to a career, and 24-25% joined to influence the candidate selection process. It seems that both members and organisational activists in Green parties view these instrumental outcomes as lesser motivations for involvement in electoral politics. Equally, realising one’s own political aims seems logically an aim all members and activists would to. However, important motivational differences emerge around learning about Green politics and supporting the party financially. Organisational activists were more strongly motivated to join to become politically active than the general membership. Together this suggests that the activists are joining primarily with the intent of devoting time and expertise to the party rather than financial resources (though these might follow). Conversely, ordinary party members may have limited time and resources but can compensate this with financial resources – in essence substituting one form of participation (time) for another (money).

97

As part of the interview process, staff were also asked why they joined the party, as all had indicated they were party members. Their responses were then broken down utilizing the same categories as used for organisational activists. Their comments were coded for what appeared the most significant reason for joining, rather than trying to devise any hierarchy of engagement. It should also be noted that it is not a requirement of employment by either the party or MPs to be a member of the party, although there is a strong expectation that this would follow if a non-member were to be employed.

Table 5.3: Staff (n=19) - reason for joining the Australian Greens (single response)

Realise political aims 42%

Become politically active 42%

Meet like minded people 16%

Learn more about green politics 0%

Support the party financially 0%

Influence candidate selection 0%

Pursue a career in green politics 0%

Membership advantageous for career 0%

* Interviews coded for primary reason for joining from the question “Why did you join the Greens?”

While staff were able to provide more complex answers for why they joined the party, their reasons for joining were across a narrower range of reasons than for organisational activists, with most already having some interest and knowledge of the party. Most staff identified either realising their own political ideas or to becoming politically active as their motivations for joining. For a number it was that they were impressed by people in the party and they were already politically aligned to the party:

“… it was in early 2000 and I’d been a Green voter the whole time and I think I was finely brought to the mix via June who I was working with…through June I’d met Giz [Watson MLC] and was very impressed and I’d had some dealings with [former MLC] Jim Scott at that point as well and was also impressed with him” (Interviewee P).

“But it was a lot to do with the individuals that I have known in the party who I admire very much” (Interviewee M).

98

This complexity of reasons applies to a number of staff members who had been involved around the party but had not joined for an extended period of time due to other factors in their lives. Two staff were employed by the Australian Greens before they became members, with their employment being part of the motivation for joining. They then became involved in other activities in the party such as policy development or involvement in the local branch. No staff member stated they joined for political advancement, although some may not have wished to admit that this was a reason. All stated that a strong interest in policies and political activity were part of the reasons for joining. Perhaps less surprising was the interaction between social movement activity and party involvement, with nine staff members (47%) reporting they had been active in peace, social justice, union or environmental social movement activism prior to joining. Six (31%) also indicated they had also been volunteering within the party prior to employment, either within a party or MPs’ office, as a candidate or by assisting with election campaigning.

Seyd and Whiteley (1992) found more than 65% of members joined the UK Labor Party for a mixture of altruistic concerns and personal incentives. That is, they joined for general reasons such as creating a more compassionate society, to help the working class, to become politically active or work with like-minded people. To be selected as a candidate or as a requirement for employment accounted for just 0.3% of respondents. Direct comparisons are precluded due to the different questioning methods in the surveys (single answer selection vs multiple selection of variable outcomes) and the nature of the parties involved, but certainly the altruistic reasons for Australian Greens staff joining rather than personal gain are highlighted, with none appearing to see membership as linked to employment or political advancement.

Comparing each of the reasons for joining to the period in which the respondent joined (Table 5.4) the party shows a shift in reasons for joining between the cohorts, particularly in ‘influence candidate selection’ and ‘pursue career in green politics’, although these shifts are relatively small. However, with ‘help realisation of political aims’ we see a clear change across the periods of decreasing support from ‘very important’ to ‘rather important’. Taken together, these paint a picture of a party seeing a shift amongst activists towards seeking personal career gains over political aims. This change suggests that the increase in electable positions is attracting a different set of members. Electing three MPs to the NSW upper house at each election, or the potential of being elected onto local Council, particularly in multi- member wards, offer greater chance of election, and so attracts members interested in these opportunities to increase their participation in party activities.

99

Table 5.4: Organisational activists - help realization of political aims vs year joined

83-95 96-00 01-08 Total N

Very important 86% 83% 72% 77% 311

Rather important 12% 16% 25% 21% 85

Not so important 2% 1% 2% 2% 6

Not important 0% 0% 1% >1% 2

Not at all important 0% 0% >1% >1% 1

N 58 93 254 405

The shift in the level of importance is also accompanied by a rise in the importance of ‘becoming politically active’ across the same time period (Table 5.5), which corresponds to the political shift to the right in Australia under the of . While organisational activists who joined earlier in the party’s history were pursuing policy outcomes, later joiners appear to be entering the party as a reaction to the then-current government rather than an overt desire to actively pursue political outcomes. At the same time, the shift in voting patterns, especially when the Green vote rose post-2001, might have increased desires to pursue a career in Green politics, attracting ambitious members. Moreover, as political opportunities become available, the potential of working within green politics becomes a more legitimate personal pursuit and is perceived as a moderate career path.

Table 5.5: Organisational activists - become politically active vs year joined

Year joined

83-95 96-00 01-08 Total N

Very important 39% 43% 49% 46% 188

Rather important 39% 40% 34% 36% 145

Not so important 12% 11% 12% 11% 47

Not important 5% 4% 3% 4% 14

Not at all important 5% 2% 2% 3% 11

N 57 93 255 405

100

While these results are in themselves quite interesting, they also tell us something we might already have hypothesized – that Green party members, organisational activists, and staff are likely to be driven by the pursuit of political goals. The shift in motivation levels for organisational activists, in terms of becoming politically active, may well have more to do with how they saw their role in the earlier period of the party’s history. If organisational activists considered that the party was a vehicle or bridge for ideas to be transmitted to parliament, at the same time as being a vehicle for grassroots social change, then there is less of a tendency to see political activity solely in a formal political-institutional sense. Indeed, if the ideal is an ‘anti-party’ party, then informal, external social movement politics will be the prime focus. Diani (2010) notes that two elements were importantly missing or changed in social movement activities in Australia during the 1990s and 2000s: the strong and continuing involvement of the labour movement in such activities, and the professionalisation and acceptance of neo- within social movement organisations, especially within the environment movement (see also Doyle 2010). The apparent decline in social movement activity at that time likely shifted the available sites of political action, such that becoming ‘politically active’ might mean engaging in more formal political pursuits such as joining a party.

ACTIVITY & ENGAGEMENT WITH BRANCHES

Having joined the party, a new member goes through a period of settling in, perhaps involving engagement with the local group or attendance at working group meetings, actions or social events. Key involvement within the party often starts with attendance at a local branch meeting, as the Greens are still heavily oriented towards local participation. Other activities within the party that are encouraged are policy or activity oriented working groups. Organisational activists are those most engaged in activities within the party. How do they engage and why?

As might reasonably be expected of party organisational activists, 85% described themselves as ‘fairly’ or ‘very active’. Only 2% identified they were ‘not at all active’. Given that some may have been elected to positions almost a year ago, there may have been a falloff in enthusiasm or fall in activity of the group (whether local branch, regional group or working group). This is perhaps more of an issue with respect to the 13% of respondents who described themselves as ‘not very active’, suggesting that there is at least mismatching of ‘activist’ to positions. Alternatively these members may have recently ceased to be active in

101

their local group, are part of a working group only sporadically active, or were a national or state delegate over the past year and have since decreased their activity level.

The selection process for staff to be interviewed required that they be active at some level within the party. What became evident was that a number volunteered that they had more recently been cutting back on their activity within the party, for either work load or private reasons. Those who considered themselves ‘not very active’ were able to identify where they were currently putting their energies outside of the party. Three of the staff identifying as ‘not at all active’, said they instead gave extra time to the MP they worked for. The other 2 less active staff noted they had previously been more heavily involved, but were restricting themselves to their paid work now, as opposed to giving extra time to the party, and engaging in what one called “the fun stuff” (Interviewee H).

Table 5.6: Organisational activists (n=414) and staff (n=19) - current party activity level

How active currently Organisational Activists Staff

Very active 47% 42%

Fairly active 38% 32%

Not very active 13% 10%

Not at all active 2% 16%

Total 100% 100%

Question: How active do you consider yourself to be in The Greens right now?

When looked at in terms of when organisational activists joined the party, there is a marked number of the earliest joiners describing themselves as only ‘fairly active’ or ‘not very active’. Equally, while there is a slight drop amongst more recent joiners in those identifying as ‘very active’, there is an equivalent increase in those saying they are ‘fairly active’. This in itself may simply indicate that as the party growth in terms of membership, resources and MPs (and thus staffing) the need for high continuous levels of activity has reduced. While a young party with limited resources, whether physical or financial, will require a high level of committed activity from its activist base, a large party with professional staff, an extended membership and large branch structure will have less of a call on individual members. Equally, there will be a corresponding sense that any individual organisational activist need not be constantly active to fulfil the roles as they may once have done – essentially that there are now more bodies to fill the requisite positions and do the job of organising the party.

102

Compared to the frequency of particular actions, several activities stand out as the most likely to be undertaken. First amongst these are the number of meetings attended (Table 5.7). Almost 80% of organisational activists attended six or more local group meetings in this last 12 months. When coupled with those who attended 3-5 times (14%), 93% of organisational activists are attending a local meeting at least once a quarter. Since party organisational activists include local branch office holders (~60% of the target population), this is perhaps not completely surprising. However, it also indicates members engaged in other parts of the organization are also attending local group meetings on a regular basis. Interestingly, nearly everyone (99%) had attended at least one meeting in the last 12 months, even if they were state and national working group members who are not specifically required to attend local group meetings.

Table 5.7: Organisational activists (n=414) and staff (n=19) - attendance at local meetings

Attended local group Organisational Activists Staff meeting

0 times 1% 20%

1-2 times 6% 16%

3-5 times 14% 32%

6 or more 79% 32%

Total 100% 100%

Question: Thinking back over the last 12 months, how often have you attended a local group meeting?

Similarly, 80% of staff members were attending local group meetings at least once per year, with 64% attending three or more times. A recurring theme with staff was a feeling they were somehow not that active, yet they were all able to identify the meetings and activities they attended outside of local group meetings. It seems perceptions of activity levels in the Australian Greens is linked to attendance at local meetings more than attendance at other forums (for instance at fundraisers or social events). A number of staff also noted that they were reducing their involvement in all forms, especially if they had been employed for some time.

“I have pared it down now to where I am not active as a volunteer. I go to the fundraising events, I go to the fun stuff now. I have a poster site at my house. Very minimal now. I started out, you know, 50 hours a week, being paid for 15, as a

103

volunteer for three years and then in the last couple of years for my own sanity I’ve pared that back to just working what I am being paid for…” (Interviewee H).

“I was quite active in the [local group] Greens. I was Treasurer of the [local group] Greens and I didn’t feel well used there…. It’s difficult in some of the, from my experience, smaller branches, you go to a branch meeting and talk about the same things every meeting and that’s as far as it goes. And I guess that since my work time is working for the Greens I’m not particularly inclined to spend my free time with the Greens” (Interviewee B).

A further theme to emerge quite strongly from amongst the staff is that of the tension between paid and voluntary work. The restricted resource base of the party for a number of years has been such that staff have often been employed part time (“…50 hours a week, being paid for 15…”), in party offices or as MPs’ staff. Considerable volunteer work was required to fulfil policy and campaign roles or simply to cope with the administrative workload generated by the party. Staff also identified that they were sufficiently strongly motivated to also want to be engaged within the party, but that as can be noted from “…for my own sanity I’ve pared that back…”, they have found it too tiring and time consuming for them to engage at a high level. A secondary tension to emerge is that of work value, as noted by Interviewee B quoted above. Where the type and level of work in the paid position is more interesting or engaging than that in local party work, there will be a tendency to focus on the work that provides greater personal satisfaction or meaning.

Organisational activists on the other hand more accurately perceived their actual activity levels. Cross tabulation shows those organisational activists who are attending more meetings also considered themselves more active. Conversely, non-attendance at local group meetings appeared to parallel non-activity. Most organisational activists appear to be active at their local level, and consider this to be their prime form of activity. Exceptions to this may be current or former state office holders who may consider local group attendance to be a less active role, or may be highly active in the organisation but not be able to attend local group meetings for whatever reason. Thus the expectation that party members will be attached to a geographical area and would attend their local branch meetings is reflected in activists’ responses. Certainly, MPs are actively encouraged to attend their branch meetings, so other delegates and office holders would be expected to do likewise. Former MHR Michael Organ’s comment that local decision making provided legitimacy to decisions reflects this expectation (Vromen & Turnbull 2006, p.462), and suggests a particular set of cultural expectations and practices operate around local branch meetings, such as described by Faucher-King (2010).

104

WHAT DO ACTIVISTS DO WITH THEIR TIME?

Poguntke (1992, p.241) noted that the German Greens at one point had such a significant number of positions (‘mandates’) to be filled by party activists that the bulk of work carried out by party members generally was in party activities. Whiteley and Seyd (2002, p.59) in defining ‘low’ and ‘high’ intensity activism describe high intensity participation as “…working for campaigns, running the party organisation, raising money, organising elections, and running for elected office, both within and outside the party”. As previously described in Chapters 2 and 3, we can now look at the party organisational activists, who might be expected to be ‘high intensity participants’ and see what activities they prioritise or value.

In this context then it is perhaps unsurprising that 30% of organisational activists had stood ‘frequently’ for election to office within the party (Table 5.8). Although 34% had stood ‘occasionally’ this probably more accurately represents the rate of election within the party, as over 60% of the survey target population consisted of elected office holders. This does not, however, take into account those organisational activists who may hold multiple positions. What is more surprising is that 28% stated they had not stood at all, perhaps indicating the true number of respondents who were local branch representatives at state meetings or appointed working group representatives.

Table 5.8: Organisational activists - current party activities engagement and level

Frequently Occasionally Rarely Not at all

Handed out election material 76% 21% 1% 2%

Participated in an action as a greens member 36% 40% 13% 11%

Signed a petition 35% 44% 12% 9%

Helped with fundraising 35% 40% 16% 9%

Stood for office within the party 30% 34% 8% 28%

Donated money other than membership 24% 41% 19% 16%

Handed out information at stalls etc 24% 37% 19% 20%

Stood for elected office at a local, state or 16% 19% 5% 60% federal election

Ranked by percent ‘Frequently’

Question: We would like to ask you about Greens-based political activities you may have taken part in during the last year. Did you do any of the following, and if yes, how frequently?

105

What is surprising for a party that has a social movement base and that prides itself on being locally engaged is that almost 40% of organisational activists have rarely or never handed out material at a stall, and only 25% had helped with fundraising. While individual election based activities like handing out election material is performed by almost all (97%) of organisational activists, actions that might otherwise attract the attention of organisationally minded members and activists (working on stalls, helping with fundraising and donating money) are participated in far less frequently. As these are the basic tasks required for maintaining and building a local branch, the lack of participation places organisational activists at odds with the situation noted by Poguntke in 1980s and 90s Germany (Poguntke 1992).

Further questions examined what other activities, external to the party, Australian Greens party organisational activists engaged in. The questions correlate with a number of the forms of activity outlined and used to measure participation by Seyd and Whiteley in their various examinations (Seyd & Whiteley, 1992; Whiteley, Seyd & Richardson, 1994; Whiteley, Seyd & Billinghurst, 2006). The nature of the types of activity being tested also fitted with those that might be expected to be performed by social movement activists, in terms of more visible public activities, equating to Heidar’s “outside of the party” definition (2006, p.306). The expectation of Australian Greens party organisational activists is that they would still be undertaking these external activities, but at a lower level of intensity than party work. This set of activity-based questions therefore also focused on activities undertaken over the preceding four years, and collapsed a multiple set of actions into these categories. The extended time frame of four years was used, instead of 12 months as with previous questions, to test broader levels of activism and engagement. Thus they would be expected to attend rallies and public demonstrations, but the intensity would be reflected in the difference between how often they did this identifying as a Greens member and not identifying, as much as the actual level of activity.

A key focus of social movement activists would also be community involvement, when asked about working in voluntary organizations, without specifying the types, forms or orientation of those organisations, 77% reported that they occasionally or frequently volunteered, with 14% reporting they had not participated in community volunteering in the previous four years. This compares to 34% of Australians having volunteered at some point in the previous year (ABS 2007). The relatively high level of community participation fits with the notion of party activists being active and committed members of their communities. Such a high level of engagement would then seem to indicate that there would be at least a cross over between the organisational activists and community activists in the general Australian society.

106

Table 5.9: Organisational activists - other political activity and level

Frequently Occasionally Rarely Not at all

Voted in elections 88% 10% 1% 1%

Worked voluntarily in community 48% 28% 10% 14% organisations

Boycotted certain products 47% 37% 11% 5%

Participated in public 44% 40% 12% 4% demonstrations

Ranked by percent ‘Frequently’

Question: Concerning other political activities you may have taken part in during the last FOUR years, have you done any of the following?

Unsurprisingly, 99% of respondents indicated having voted in an election in the preceding four years, given the maximum duration between is four years, with just five organisational activists reporting they had not voted at all. They are most likely to be permanent residents who do not have voting rights, rather than people too young to vote (youngest respondent was 21), and thus are not on the electoral roll21.

However, in considering the relationship between the gender of party activists and activity within community organisations (Table 5.9) we find a significant difference between males and females. It is worth noting that of the 48% of respondents who identified that they frequently worked in community organisations, 55% were female (Table 5.11), and that this represented 54% of the female respondents. Correspondingly, 45% of those who indicated they frequently volunteered were male, representing only 41% of male respondents. It would appear then that the inclination of male party activists is more limited in terms of their external activities, while female activists are more engaged within their local community. It may be inferred that the greater bulk of community engagement by the Australian Greens organisational activists is carried out by female party members as opposed to male party members. Staeheli and Cope (1994) noted the different modes of participation by men and women – men in the institutionalised arena, women in ‘private’ spheres such as the neighbourhood and community (see also Lowndes 2006). This has occurred in response to

21 One respondent annotated this question to note that they were a permanent resident and not entitled to vote.

107

exclusion from more formal processes, and as a result of a gendered division of labour. Franzway (2001), in an examination of trade unions in Australia, noted that this division of labour, and the so-called ‘conflict’ between family and work responsibilities for women, provides a self-fulfilling prophecy of women’s exclusion. Norris and Lovenduski (1993) described similar activity trends amongst members of UK political parties, particularly amongst Labor Party members, with women members being more active in the community and men more focused on party political work.

So, we might then expect female organisational activists to choose community engagement over greater party organisational involvement. However, it might also be expected that those members most interested in being active external to the party would ration their energies accordingly. If organisational activists across the Australian Greens have a gender divide of 48% - 52% (female - male), this then means that even though there is almost parity in occupying positions within the party, the forms of activity prioritized by women and men in the party are different. Kolinsky (1988; 1993) noted that in the German Greens in the 1980s went through a period of debate and argument regarding ‘women’s issues’ in respect of their party platform, which raised women into positions of influence within the party, although there were also complaints regarding entrenched gendered behavior. As Staeheli and Cope (1994) and Lowndes (2006) found, women were excluded informally from formal institutions and practices through gendered divisions of labour, but used alternative strategies within community and neighbourhood activities to empower themselves. The results here suggest that this is also occurring within the Greens, not because the Greens itself is hindering female participation, but because of learned behaviours and practices brought in to the party.

Table 5.10: Organisational activists - worked voluntarily in community organisations vs male or female

Frequently Occasionally Rarely Not at all Total

Male 45% 54% 62% 63% 52%

Female 55% 46% 38% 37% 48%

N 188 115 39 57 399

P = .038

Interestingly, 95% reported boycotting certain products at some point (Table 5.9), with almost half of all respondents (47%) saying they did this frequently. This is probably in response to various calls for boycotts of products from France because of renewed nuclear testing), China (Tibet & human rights abuses), Zimbabwe (failed elections & violence), as

108

well as ongoing boycotts of particular products such as Nestle (corporate practices in regards to baby formula sales in developing nations). This would appear to support the that organisational activists are prepared to make at least some changes in their own lifestyles to accommodate their political motivations and practices, such as argued by Horton (2006) in support of “environmental citizenship” (see also Cotgrove & Duff (1981)).

Table 5.11: Crosstabulation – Organisational activists - boycotted certain products vs male or female

Frequently Occasionally Rarely Not at all Total

Male 43% 54% 70% 82% 52%

Female 57% 46% 30% 18% 48%

N 189 149 44 17 399

P = .000

There is an overall higher level of importance for women in boycotting than involvement in community organisations. While the reasons for this were not asked, there may be a number of explanations. If we accept that gendered roles are still prevalent in Australian society, even as stereotypical roles, then it will be women who are the primary purchases of supermarket products. The nature of product boycotts against Nestle revolved around activities and products used by or on children and Nestle’s preparedness to place corporate interests ahead of customers or community health.22 This would also accord with the argument that women engage in less formal ‘social capital’ networks such as childcare networks (Lowndes 2000; 2004), and a gendered model of citizenship (Pateman 1988). While boycotts may be seen as ‘symbolic’ action, and not significantly affecting producers or producer countries, they also fit a ‘civic engagement’ model, that relies on community volunteerism such as engagement with volunteer organisations (Verba et al 1995; Neilson, 2010). This would appear to explain the greater involvement of female organisational activists in these two areas (see also Merchant 1995).

The last form of participation examined here are demonstrations, in which 44% reported ‘frequently’ participating in such actions, which would tend to indicate a quite solid

22 See for instance the International Baby Food Action Network (www.ibfan.org) or the UK based Baby Milk Action (www.babymilkaction) for the evolving nature of such campaigns.

109

commitment to particular political practices. A further 40% report participating ‘occasionally, with only 4% reporting not participating at all. The relatively high level of participation in such activity is indicative of a substantial investment in non-institutional forms of protests, and potentially a high level of commitment to social movement style politics. This can be compared with just 2% of the general Australian population being engaged in protests around environmental issues (ABS 2010). Alternatively, this can be compared to the trend identified by Norris, Walgrave and van Aelst (2005, p.198) in Belgium, where 39% of the general population had participation in some form of protest and demonstration in 2000. So perhaps this is more indicative of an acceptance of protest as a legitimate tool of civic engagement.

Table 5.12: Organisational activists - participated in demonstrations vs male or female

Frequently Occasionally Rarely Not at all Total

Male 44% 55% 63% 76% 52%

Female 56% 45% 38% 24% 48%

N 176 160 48 17 401

P =.009

The activity with the lowest level of apparent engagement, participating in demonstrations, again showed a similar gendered differentiation to boycotting and working in community organisations, but may depend on the nature of the protest. Political circumstances that give rise to very specific protests, such as the APEC demonstration of 2007, may occur during normal working hours, thus limiting opportunities for participation. The continued gendered differentiation in participation, however, may be linked to an extension of the model discussed by Neilson (2010) on political . In protest and demonstration we see strong social movement activity, on the basis of ‘outsider’ tactics, and engagement on a non- formal basis (Hay 2007). Working in the voluntary community sector, boycotting particular consumer products and engaging in protest and demonstration might all be seen as non- formal political activities. Authors such as Verba, Schlozman and Brady (1995), Lovenduski (1996; 2002) and, Norris, Lovenduski and Campbell (2004) have noted the gendered basis of political engagement. However, these studies related to engagement in formal politics. What is being seen here with the female party organisational activists in the Australian Greens is a greater non-formal engagement than men outside of the realm of the formal party (Merchant 1995; Pattie et al 2003). However, while the members who joined and were active in the pre- 2001 period may indeed have joined as a result of the social movement origins of the party (Hulsberg 1988; Pybus & Flanagan 1990; Pakulski 1991), the survey results show it is not a consistent trend. Noting the shift to a state-focused feminist politics in the 1990s and 2000s

110

(Andrew & Maddison 2010), what we are seeing may be a continuation of politics by other means.

IMPORTANCE OF PARTICULAR EXTERNAL ACTIVITIES – WHAT WORKS BEST

Of course, it is one thing to be engaged in certain activities, and another to think that they will have any effect. As Whiteley and Seyd (2002) theorise, there is a difference between collective involvement in a party and individual efficacy within the party, which influence first membership of the party and then high levels of activity. The activities being tested here relate more to group efficacy than to individual incentives to join and participate, thus there will also be affective influences as discussed by Whiteley and Seyd relating to what activists think will be best for the party. As can be seen from Table 5.13, the highest value was placed on working in parties and the lowest for boycotting products. While all activities might be seen as effective mechanisms for influencing decision making in the community, party based activities are clearly seen as more important.

Table 5.13: Organisational activists - ranking of party activity importance

Mean Activity score

Work in a political party 8.50

Vote in elections 8.43

Working in community organisations 8.01

Participate in public demonstrations 7.83

Boycott certain products 7.29

Question: There are many opinions on how people can most effectively influence decisions in society. Using the following scale, could you say how effective you think each of these activities are?

Respondents were asked rate the effectiveness of the various forms of activity on a Likert scale ranging from 1 – ‘not at all effective’ to 11 – ‘very effective’

NGOs such as Greenpeace, The Wilderness Society and others have advocated community boycotts and organised demonstrations, many of which would have been supported by the Greens and party members. The actual view of the importance of boycotts and demonstrations by party organisational activists for creating political change is of a lesser order than the organisational and political work they are engaged in. I did not ask how many boycotts or protests were engaged in over the time period, so it may in fact be that

111

respondents started with a higher level of enthusiasm for different forms of activity than is being registered here. Despite 47% of respondents saying they participated ‘frequently’ in boycotts, the lower importance of these forms of activity would appear to indicate that, as might be expected within a political organisation, political objectives are being prioritized above community based and individualized activities. In this instance, some activities may be seen as those reflecting the interest of personal change, such as engaging in a boycott, whereas political actions such as working for a political party are viewed as collective social change and thus both of higher importance and value.

If we now take these activities and see if there is any difference in attitudes based on gender, the most interesting aspect is that gender bias appears in only one activity – voting in elections. Almost a third of female respondents (32%) ranked this at the highest level of effectiveness, compared to only 15% of male respondents. The suggested efficacy of voting, however, may not be linked to a general acceptance of the institution, but rather to the effectiveness of electing individuals to parliament. From a social movement perspective, electing a person to parliament would represent a ‘bridgehead’ into the institution, and the ability to then promote a broader range of causes. Pakulski notes that social movements are ‘dangerous’ to parties as the parties are more easily ‘penetrated’ by the movement’s members “since they do not impose political or ideological requirements that may clash with party membership” (1991, p.41). If we accept the movement based history of the Greens, then their entry into the formal institutions such as parliament will be accompanied by the same attitude. However, the institution may also see the movement as dangerous and make explicit attempts to restrict its role. Lovenduski (2002) notes the attempts to marginalize and ostracize the first women MPs within the British Parliament, and indeed the continuing attempts by male MPs to do so.

AGE AND ACTIVISM

Of more significance regarding the importance of activities is the age of the respondent. There is extensive literature on supposed youth apathy and disengagement (for instance, Putnam 2000), but an equally vibrant literature examining alternate engagement strategies of young people (for example, Roker et al 1999; Vromen & Collin 2010). As the group being examined here is the organisational activist, it might be expected that the whole of the group would be equally active. However, different reasons motivate people to engage and then remain involved, in political organisations. This leads to questioning whether age has an impact on the perceived efficacy of particular activities normally associated with political activism (Williamson 1998).

112

However, in coming to examine the different age groups in the Australian Greens, a number of different generational groupings are mentioned in various literatures. The ABS (2003) uses birth years 1946-1965 to define ‘Baby Boomers’. Alwin (1998) instead uses 1947-1962, based on fertility rates. ABS (2009) instead describe 5 generational cohorts; ‘Oldest’ (80+), ‘Lucky’ (60-79), ‘Baby Boomers’ (40-59), Gen X and Y (20-39) and ‘iGeneration’ (0-19). This however makes Baby Boomers born between 1949 and 1968, so is not used here. If we follow Schuman and Scott (1989) on generation cohorts based on social and cultural factors then the key group within organisational activists will be the post-World War 2 generation, aged between 45 and 59 years old (born 1948-1963). Both working in political parties and participating in demonstrations was most supported by the 45-59 age group. This is most likely explained by the importance attached to these activities during socialization during the 1960s and 70s (Sherkat & Blocker 1994). As rallies and marches become part of a broad range of tools available to political activists so they have also lost some of their significance. Importantly, the process of ‘mediatisation’ has also led them to be seen as potentially less effective, dependent on the circumstance (Scalmer 2001).

Question: There are many opinions on how people can most effectively influence decisions in society. Using the following scale, could you say how effective you think each of these activities are?

Figure 5.1: Organisational activists - participate in demonstrations as an effective strategy vs age groups

113

Figure 5.1 is a crosstabulation of the ranked score for participating in demonstrations with age distribution (18-30; 31-44; 45-59; 60+). One point of note is that while 18-30 age group displays a significant concentration of support for demonstrations this cohort represents just 5% of organisational activists, while the 45-59 group represent 45% of organisational activists. What this does show is the greater significance of rallies to the 45-59 and 60+ age groups. Clearly both cohorts still see demonstrating as a key form of political activity. This would accord with what might otherwise be assumed to be social movement activism such as anti-Vietnam and peace/anti-nuclear rallies (Schuman & Scott 1989) and those familiar with the earliest activities and history of the party.

Question: There are many opinions on how people can most effectively influence decisions in society. Using the following scale, could you say how effective you think each of these activities are?

Figure 5.2: Organisational activists - work in a political party vs age

Likewise, working in political parties is also seen as a key form of activity, but in this case those over 60+ years of age are proportionally the most enthusiastic of all the age groups, suggesting a continuing trust in institutions to deliver outcomes. This group closely fit Parkin’s (1968) ‘middle class radicals’, with the highest levels amongst respondents of employment in education and health, highest education attainment and were most likely to be employed in a professional/managerial position. While those aged 31-44 and 45-59 both show a similar pattern of acceptance in working within a party, suggesting that the efficacy of such work is important in achieving their aims, the 45-59 age group show a slight lag, perhaps accounted for in distrust of institutions such as parties and perhaps a greater affinity with movement style politics. This would accord with the findings of Schuman and Scott

114

(1989) on foreign policy matters. The 18-30 group show far less enthusiasm towards party work, indicating a continued disengagement from parties as institutions, although manifest here as more of an ambivalence towards their efficacy (Norris 2003).

Question: There are many opinions on how people can most effectively influence decisions in society. Using the following scale, could you say how effective you think each of these activities are?

Figure 5.3: Organisational activists – vote in elections vs age

One further test, cross tabulating age with efficacy of voting in elections produces another interesting result. If we follow a narrow conception of political engagement as involvement in formal politics - joining a party, voting in elections or otherwise interacting with formal institutions (for instance see Verba et al 1978) - then clearly 18-30 year old organisational activists, although active within a party, demonstrate at least some of the lack of engagement, even if they think elements such as voting itself has some importance (McLean 1996). Yet we know 18-30 year olds are still participating in demonstrations, boycotting products and in fact are more enthusiastic about working in community organisations than older organisational activists. If we follow a different line of reasoning that emphasizes alternate forms of political participation outside the formal (Roker et al 1999; Vromen 2003; Norris 2003; Vromen & Collin 2010) then this begins to make sense. The conclusion that can then be drawn from this is that the few youth members (those under 30) active within the Australian Greens as organisational activists still show tendencies identified in the general population of young people. This further suggests that even though young people may identify with issues the Greens are particularly active around (such as refugee, gay & lesbian, environmental or economic justice issues) they will still consider rejecting that formal engagement. As noted in

115

a previous chapter, young people are strongly represented amongst Greens voters in opinion polls (Newspoll 2010; Roy Morgan Research 2010). However, it equally needs to be noted that the levels of support for particular activities in this survey of party organisational activists are similar to the findings of Vromen (2005), and their activity within the Greens accords with the type of youth activist Vromen and Collin (2010, p.86) termed “high participation young people”.

EMPLOYMENT

Given the importance of unions to more traditional left-wing organizing, it might be expected that organisational activists and staff of the Greens would have strong union affiliations, such as noted by Oliver (2008, p456). However, this needs to be tempered with the knowledge that many unions have also traditionally been associated with working class issues and material concerns, some seen as inimical to green values (Bahro 1984), notwithstanding attempts to forge links between environmentalists and labour unions (Shantz & Adams 1999; Turner 2006). Traditional working class unions have therefore not been seen as a source of support for middle class radicals, especially if we follow Inglehart’s (1971) post material thesis emphasizing thinking beyond industrialism (Dobson 1995). Nonetheless, there are a number of unions that might be associated with middle class radicalism, notably in the health and education fields. Parkin (1968) noted that many CND activists were teachers as well as ‘middle class radicals’. Thus support for (and membership of) a union flows from both the kinds of employment organisational activists are engaged in, as much as the philosophical positions they are taking. However, we might also expect that those who identify more strongly with the left would also be stronger supporters of unions. Alongside this there is also the need to recognize the increasingly de-unionised nature of the Australian workforce, and the impact this may have upon exposure to unions and the relevant mechanisms for joining a union a party organisational activist might have.

While some sectors of the community (teaching, nursing and the public service) are still comparatively highly unionised, other sectors, such as the retail and services sectors now report low levels of unionisation (ABS 2008). Amongst organisational activists, 36% report being a member of a union, almost double the Australian national average of 19% (ABS 2009). As staff were not asked if they were members of a union23 they are not included in this section regarding unionism.

23 In any case, the two relevant unions are either the CPSU for MPs staff or ASU for party staff.

116

What is also worth noting is the distinct relationship between age and union membership (Table 5.14). While the low level of membership of a union for those over 60 is possibly explainable through the process of retirement (64% of this age group noted they were retired, pensioned or unemployed, which rises to 86% for those over 65), the relatively high level of union membership amongst those 18-30 is interesting, especially given the low general rates of union members in Australia, and especially for people under 35 (11% for 18-24, 16% for 25-34) (ABS 2010, p.28). However, from age 30, rates of unionisation of Greens organisational activists falls steadily, so that at 60+, the rate of unionisation is close to that for the general population (25% for 60-64, 16% for 65+).

Table 5.14: Organisational activists - currently a member of a union vs Age

Age groups Total 18-30 31-44 45-59 60+

Union member 50% 46% 36% 24% 36%

Non union member 50% 55% 64% 76% 64%

N 20 97 182 108 407

P = .007

If we then look at the employment status of organisational activists we find that part of the reason for the higher rate of unionisation amongst those aged 18-30 is they have a higher rate of full-time employment compared to the other age groups - 65% (Table 5.15). The rate of unionisation is also directly linked to the employment status of the individual, with 50% of full time employed activists also being union members, falling to 43% for part-time employees, and then to 29% for casual employees.

Table 5.15: Organisational activists - employment status vs age (n=403)

Age groups Total 18-30 31-44 45-59 60+

Employed full time 65% 62% 48% 10% 43%

Employed part time 10% 19% 28% 19% 22%

Employment Casual 5% 7% 6% 5% 6% Status Looking after home full time 0% 7% 3% 1% 4%

In full time education 15% 2% 2% 1% 2%

Retired/Pensioned/Unemployed 5% 3% 13% 64% 23%

117

Turning to whether there is a gendered difference in terms of being employed or not employed, male and female organisational activists are equally represented. However, when the nature of the employment is examined (whether full or part-time or casually employed), a significant difference appears.

Table 5.16: Organisational activists - employment status vs male or female

Male Female Male Female N

% of status % of gender

Employed full time 61% 39% 51% 35% 171

Employed part time 43% 57% 19% 26% 90

Casual 21% 79% 2% 10% 24

Looking after home full time 40% 60% 3% 5% 15

In full time education 56% 44% 2% 2% 9

Retired/Pensioned/Unemployed 53% 47% 23% 22% 91

P = .003

While the number of individuals not employed (ie, either at home, studying or retired) shows only a limited difference between male and female respondents, there is a clear rise in the number of women working part-time or casually as compared to men, who are predominantly full-time workers. This might also begin to explain the higher incidence of female engagement in other community organisations, as a means of remaining active and engaged when not in employment. Women are playing a role within the party as community volunteers and party activists, as opposed to their male counterparts who appear to be less engaged with community organisations at the same time being in full-time employment.

While over 50% of male organisational activists are in full time employment, this drops to less than 35% for women. Women party organisational activists are just as likely as their male counterparts to be retired or in education, but far more likely to be in part-time or casual employment. This follows an historical trend in Australia of women having a lower employment participation rate than men (72% v 59%), and a much higher rate of casual or part time employment (46% v 17%) (ABS 2010). It is worth noting here, though, that female Greens organisational activists have the same participation rate as their male counterparts (29% v 28%). This also strongly suggests that engagement by Greens in activism more

118

broadly, as in social and community activities around issue-oriented concerns, is driven by women in the party, and by those who are also not fully engaged in employment (Table 5.17). This fits broader discussions of engagement in social activism (Norris et al 2004; Morales 2009).24

Table 5.17: Organisational activists - employment status vs worked in community organisations (n=401)

Worked in community organisations

Frequently Occasionally Rarely Not at all N (%)

Employed full time 32% 45% 63% 57% 43%

Employed part time 25% 22% 23% 11% 22% Employment Status Casual 7% 6% 3% 5% 6%

Not in paid 19% 36% 27% 13% 27% employment

Related to this is that 42% reported being employed full time, 28% part time and casually employed, but only 2% reported being in full time education. This last point would suggest, along with the very low levels of under 25 year old respondents (just 2% of total responses), that becoming a party activist is either not prioritized by younger members of the party, or the membership prefers longer service within the party before they take up positions. This would appear to be at odds with the experience of other parties like the Labor and Liberal parties, both of which have strong youth wings and encourage younger members to work within the party. However, it may well be that being a party activist is not seen as an effective path for advancement within the party, in the same way as working in an MPs office or standing for election might be.

Looking at the kinds of industries and occupations party organisational activists are employed in, we see a strong preference for professional white-collar occupations and industries (Tables 5.18 & 5.19), as might be expected given the post material basis of the party. Nonetheless, the numbers spread across other employment occupations is relatively even (Table 5.18), so that while the party activists are overwhelmingly professional and managers,

24 Norris, Lovenduski and Campbell (2004) examine patterns of engagement by men and women within the UK, showing a similar gender-based ‘activity gap’.

119

they include a relatively even spread across lower level clerical workers, small business operators and manual workers, at odds with employment patterns of the general population.

Table 5.18: Occupation of Australian Greens organisational activists (n=411) and staff (n=19)

Organisational General Occupation type Staff* activists population

Professional or highly technical 59% 26% 18%

Manager or senior admin 14% 42% 8%

Clerical 7% 5% 13%

Sales or service 2% 11% 9%

Small business owner 6% 11% 19%

Skilled/unskilled manual 6% 0% 24%

Other or never worked 6% 5% 9%

Total 100% 100% 100%

* - For staff this refers to their previous occupation prior to being employed

 - (ABS 2009, p18)

In comparison to the general Australian population, we find that Greens party organisational activists are far more heavily concentrated within the professional and managerial occupations, while unskilled, semi- or skilled labour, which accounts for almost 25% of the general population, only accounts for 6% of Greens organisational activists (Table 5.18). Equally, the rate of self-employment amongst Greens party organisational activists would appear to be almost exactly a third of the general rate.

The membership of a particular union in part lines up with employment occupation type and industry (see Table 7.6 for union membership), with education, health and social services, and public administration being the most popular industry types. 11% of respondents did identify their industry in traditional blue collar sectors of primary industry of industrial, mining and construction, which does not match the reported unionisation rate, but may relate to former occupations of those now retired: 24% reported their current employment status as retired, pensioned or unemployed. The almost 60% reporting as performing professional or highly technical occupations match the high education levels previously noted in Chapter 4.

120

Table 5.19: Industry type of Australian Greens organisational activists (n=406) and staff (n=19)

Organisational General Industry type Staff* activists population

Agriculture, fishing, hunting, forestry 3% 5% 3%

Industrial – , mining, construction & 11% 0% 21% utility

Education 26% 0% 8%

Health & social services 18% 5% 11%

Media & culture 5% 11% 4%

Public admin 16% 16% 6%

Banking, finance, insurance & property 3% 5% 5%

Other services – retail, transport, catering, leisure & 12% 32% 27% cleaning

Other or never worked 6% 26% 15%

* - For staff this refers to their previous occupation prior to being employed

 - (ABS 2009, p20)

It is particularly interesting to note that staff come from very different industry sectors than organisational activists. Of particular note is the 26% who reported they had come from the community sector, having been employed in a variety of positions with NGOs. While community work is clearly important to organisational activists, the community sector is also important to staff career paths. Just as noted in the USA, where working in Congress can be seen as an important path to other positions (Herrnson 1994), working in the community sector appears to be important to Greens staff development. The policy knowledge base developed within that sector may be a contributing factor, and possibly also the networks available within and across sector. Interestingly, though, none of the staff interviewed had come directly from the environment movement, although a number of current Australian Greens MPs have extensive backgrounds within that movement (Vromen & Gauja 2009, p.99). This apparent lack of involvement with the environment movement does not mean that they had no exposure to the movement, but their principle employment prior to becoming a staff member did not involve working in one the many environmental organisations in Australia.

121

Generally in terms of occupation type, staff are more similar to organisational activists than to the rest of the population, as 68% held professional or managerial positions prior to working as staff compared to 73% of organisational activists. Staff are then fitting a similar occupational pattern to the organisational activists, albeit given their lower average age at an earlier place in their life-cycle.

We can look again for a gender effect on the types of occupations organisational activists are engaged in. Although the ratio of women to men engaged in managerial/professional occupations is the same as the base ratio of men to women, there are twice as many in sales and clerical and small business ownership, and only 21% of women organisational activists are engaged in skilled or unskilled manual labour. However, even though the actual percentage of organisational activists engaged in particular occupations is very different from the general population, the ratio of men to women is similar to that in the wider community.

Table 5.20: Organisational activists and General population (ABS) - occupation vs male or female

Organisational activists ABS

Occupation Male Female N Male Female

Professional/managerial 52% 48% 297 50% 50%

Clerical & sales 31% 69% 35 30% 70%

Small Business 65% 35% 26 68% 32%

Skilled/unskilled Manual 79% 21% 24 78% 22%

Other work 38% 62% 21 30% 70%

52% 48% 403 54% 45%

P = .005

Similar ratios appear between men and women working in banking and services, and in agricultural and industrial industries. Overall, it is quite clear that the bulk of party organisational activists that are employed are engaged in what might otherwise be termed ‘white-collar’ occupations, with only a small percentage engaged in blue collar occupations or as business owners. Thus the new middle class model of workers engaged in professional, cultural or service industries (see Eckersley 1989, pp.219-222) describes Australian Greens party organisational activists and staff well, rather than forms of employment normally associated with industrial labour movements.

122

CONCLUSION

People join and become active within a party for a variety for reasons. If we accept a rational choice position, such as proposed by Downs (1957), it is to maximize benefits for the individual member. Others, such as McCarthy and Zald (1977) have suggested that it is available resources, coupled with existing social structures that provide the space for social movements and policy entrepreneurs to grow, and for organisations to become evident within those movements. As Kitschelt (1988; 1989a) notes, unresponsive political institutions provide political opportunities for new parties to develop, especially, in the post-1970s period, left-libertarian parties and new social movements. It is in this environment that Australian Greens organisational activists selected ‘realise political aims’ as the principal reason for joining the party, and also saw a high involvement by them in external actions such as demonstrations and protests. Yet organisational activists then expressed that the most effective work they could do was work in a political party, followed by voting in elections. Electoral activities are preferenced over movement based activities such as direct actions and issue based protest, indicating a move away from the movement party base towards more electorally focused activity. Australian Greens party organisational activists do not necessarily demonstrate left-libertarian tendencies, which emphasise movement aspects (Kitschelt 1989a), because the nature of their focus is now more clearly on political outcomes.

Alongside organisational activists sits a second, at times more elusive, group: the staff of both the party and the party’s MPs. Katz and Mair (1995) in their construction of the ‘three faces of party’ suggest the three spheres of activity are quite separate. However, while this may appear at times to be so, there are a set of existing and continuing relationships between the various parts of the party organisation. In the Australian Greens this means that while party staff may operate quite separately from MPs’ staff, they both still share a relationship with party activists (however defined) and the broader membership. Staff motivations and orientation to the party allowed examination of the nature of those relationships.

When we work past the basic demography of the party members, several other features become notable. While there is a very low number who were party members from the earliest period of the party (prior to 1990), they do appear to have marginally different reasons for joining the party than later joining cohorts. Many organisational activists are also members of relevant to their work. Given that many organisational activists work in areas that might be associated with middle class radicalism (Parkin 1968), such as teaching and the

123

public sector, this may not be so surprising. More traditional labour unions, such as in the construction, mining, transport or manufacturing sectors are poorly represented amongst the group of union members, notwithstanding the support provided by some of these unions to the Greens at election time (Oliver 2008; Pryor 2010; Kerr 2011).

However, the biggest disparity is in terms of gender and activity levels. Women appear to be working more both in the party and external to the party, perhaps partly due to them also being employed part-time when compared to their male counterparts (61% of men working full-time compared to 39% of women). Part time work may then provide more time to engage in other activities such as party and community activities, perhaps also buoying the perception of party activity levels. Certainly there are more female organisational activists engaging in boycotts and protests than their male counterparts. What appears to be happening within Greens organisational activists is that they are dividing along gender lines, although they would otherwise all be classed as political activists. What this means for the party is that, while the party is attracting men and women in fairly even numbers, it is the women who appear to be acting at the grassroots level, and particularly in community organisations and in activities external to the party where they might then identify as party members, such as identified by Lovenduski and Norris (1993) within the UK Labor Party, and Norris, Lovenduski and Campbell (2004) noted more broadly within the British public. The implication of this is that even within the Greens, women are the ‘public’ face of the party, while men are engaging more in the ‘party politics’.

124

Chapter 6

RETREAT FROM MOVEMENT

INTRODUCTION

There are still questions as to how party members, and particularly party organisational activists, within a party such as the Greens perceive and react to any shift from a movement based party towards an electorally pragmatic one. If we take the view that the party organisational activists also fit within such a category as ‘middle class radical’, with potentially strong roots in social movements, then their views will be particularly pertinent. So we need to look more deeply at the responses of Australian Greens party organisational activists towards issues concerning the party and the party’s positioning within the Australian body-politic. We will then need to consider how these responses suggest the party has moved beyond a social movement party towards an electoral professional party.

This chapter deals with how Australian Greens party organisational activists, and staff in specific instances, respond to a number of these debates. The survey itself used sets of paired questions. These were broken across two sections; the first dealing with how respondents saw current debates within the party, the second with a normative formulation of the same questions. This allowed responses on whether organisational activists agreed (or disagreed) with the statements as they currently applied to the party. They could then state whether they agreed with normative formulations. The responses received to the normative questions were more definitive than the party equivalent topic, relating as they do to the normative desires of respondents towards the party. What might be expected to emerge is a further expression of the debates (either for or against), or the potential for contradiction based on other (internal or external) influences.

PARTY FUTURES

The Australian Greens is a Green Party with its base in social movements, with a middle class core that expresses post material values (Charnock & Ellis 2004; Charnock 2009). Post material values have been defined as a set of issues prioritizing the “sense of community” or “non-material ” (Inglehart & Flanagan 1987), “belonging” or “self-expression” (Inglehart 1981), as opposed to values that emphasise physical sustenance, safety and economic gains. The Australian Greens also have a history of adoption and then

125 reconsideration of structural and internal cultural positions. Some of the debates, such as over the adoption of ‘Leaders’, are common to most Green parties (see Lucardie & Rihous 2008). Others, such as the use of consensus decision making or rotation of MPs, have histories more particular to individual Green parties25.

In the Australian Greens, the debates over significantly contentious issues, when they have occurred, have generally been resolved at national meetings of the party. Leadership of the Australian Greens at a federal level was dealt with through the adoption of rules governing how the Australian Greens federal parliamentary party room would operate. The rules contained a provision for a “Parliamentary Party Leader” (Australian Greens 2006, p.3). The outcome of the decision was that while the Parliamentary Party Leader might speak for the party publicly, they had no other particular authority or rights within the party. Other issues, such as the role of women in the party, the role of trade unions, or local branch autonomy over candidate selection and the allocation of preferences have generally been dealt with at a state level. They have often been raised as part of larger debates about party positioning or election campaigning. For example, the role of unions was discussed as part of the debates as to whether to accept corporate or union donations. While some state parties favoured accepting such donations, others did not. Then there is the issue of which corporations and unions might be allowed to donate, and under what conditions. For instance, the Tasmanian Greens would accept donations from a “Green” hotel developer, but not the CFMEU due to conflicts with the Forestry Division of the union over logging.

RESPONSES TO CURRENT DEBATES

Debates within parties are most often centered on policy and programmatic issues. However, these debates are most often held amongst policy professionals, MPs and staff, except when the party establishes party conferences or other debating forums to discuss issues. The issues that will likely occupy organisational activists and members during other periods will be organisational matters, including organisational reformation. Disastrous or poor electoral performances may also herald organisational reviews. In the ALP, reviews have often centered on the role of factions and the voting weight of unions (see Hawke & Wran 2002;

25 Certainly, the question of rotation of MPs has had limited discussion within Australian Greens or the locality based parties prior to its formation, although the Victorian Greens retain a clause in their Constitution requiring a special vote to serve more than 2 terms. Variously number ’42.16’, ’43.16’ and ’43.6’, the original (1992) clause limited MPs to 2 terms or ”6 years (whichever is greater)” and barred them from seeking any other public office without a break of at least one term. In 2005 the clause was amended such that a vote of 75%+ was required at State Council meeting to allow them to continue in the same position after 2 terms (Australian Greens Victoria 1992; 1993; 2005).

126 Faulkner et al 2010). In the Greens these debates are often about the value given to social justice versus the environment, structural issues such as whether to have a leader (including what, if any, powers the leader will have), and working out how and where to position the party in relation to major debates (ie; developing an ideological coherent economic policy so as to address tax or competition policy).

These debates often go to the core of the nature of the party. If the Australian Greens were to emulate the French Greens of the 1970s and 80s it would take a purist environmental position (Kaelberer 1978) and not deal with social justice or economic issues, except where they directly impacted the environment. On the other hand, the German Greens were based around a ‘rainbow’ of movements, including the peace, anti-nuclear, women’s, environmental and identity movements (Frankland 2008). While nearly all Green parties have now accepted formal leadership within their party, whether this is an individual or dual position (ie, Male and Female Speakers), the mechanism for doing so indicates a great deal about the power the leader has within the party and the prospects for grassroots or participatory democracy within the party. In addition, questions regarding the placement of any Green party on a left-right political spectrum are often fraught, given the Greens’ traditional rejection of such a spectrum. However, the party might adopt policies on the economy which might be argued are strongly redistributive or left wing. How party activists view themselves may also strongly influence how they react when the party is labelled ‘extreme’ or ‘left-wing’, and where they believe the party should be moving to.

POLITICAL PARTIES AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

As we have seen in previous chapters, the Greens are seen both as a social movement party and as a party of middle class radicals. Dependent on the perspective, Greens might thus be expected to either act in support of social movement ideas or in support of their class. Les Verts, the French Greens, were initially engaged solely with the environment movement as a ‘purist’ ecological party, disconnected from other social and new left movements. Electoral failure led, in 1997, to the party adopted a broader program, which included new left and social justice elements, and a pragmatic electoral strategy that included an electoral agreement with the French Socialist Party (Kaelberer 1998). As Hirsch (1998) has argued regarding the German Greens, the Greens are now clearly cast in the mould of a political party. This does not discount utilising social movement theory to examine the Greens (Bennie 2004), but a Green party such as the Australian Greens is not a social movement organisation (SMO) in the form proposed by McCarthy and Zald (1977). Being an SMO would require the party to identify itself with a specific movement (ie, the environment movement) and take on the preferences of that movement, or subsets of the movement, as their goals. McCarthy and Zald distinguish the SMO from an interest group on the basis that the interest group has a

127 highly institutionalised and routinised relationship with government or agencies while the SMO does not (1977, p.1218). The Greens relationship is necessarily formalised (as a political party), but is neither institutionalised nor routinised.

However, as Poguntke (1990) outlines, the elements within the Green party may increase internal tensions between grassroots campaigners and those party members focused on parliamentary success. The divisions between French social movement activists and Les Verts prevented electoral success until 1997, even though the French Greens actively sought such success (Kaelberer 1998). As noted by Rhiannon (2009), the split between party and MPs can be seriously damaging, yet, as found by Miragliotta (2006), the Australian Greens has effectively managed to contain social movement activism within the party, while also acting in an electorally pragmatic fashion in respect of utilizing both the media and public perceptions of the party.

It is reasonable to expect that organisational activists, as drivers of the party’s electoral and policy agenda, might have strong views on whether the party is, or should be, closely connected with any particular social movements. To the extent that the Australian Greens, as “environmental and resident activists, nuclear disarmers, dissidents from the Labor Party, feminists, anarchists, those inspired by the German Greens, and Socialists of various kinds” (The [Sydney] Greens 1984 election platform, quoted in Rhiannon 2009, p.38), are heavily influenced by social movements, organisational activists may also recognize that the party has effectively changed form and is no longer a social movement. Electoral pragmatism may then lead to conflict with social movement organisations, especially in the labour and environmental movements (see for instance Milne C 2008). In this context, the first set of questions relate to party positioning vis-à-vis social movements.

Table 6.1: Organisational activists - the Greens as political party or should it become more of a social movement

Agree Disagree Neither N

The Greens are a political party and not a social movement 69% 13% 18% 411

The Greens should become more of a social movement and 8% 78% 14% 409 less of a political party

The statement that the Greens are a political party and not a social movement provided a divided response (Table 6.1). While over two thirds agreed with the proposition, almost a fifth of respondents did not agree. This appears to indicate that there remains a residual element within the party looking to the Greens not solely as a political party within a

128 parliamentary system, but also as part of the broader social movement activities within Australia. This lingering concept of the Greens as a social movement is perhaps not surprising given the history of the Greens globally. After more than 20 years of federal parliamentary representation the Australian Greens might now expect to find itself as wholly contained within the Australian polity. Nonetheless, the responses appear to fit with the reported high level of support for activity within community organizations discussed in the previous chapter. With a further 13% apparently ambivalent, it could be argued that the party is still in a process of transformation from movement to party, even if this transition is now all but complete. Examining the responses more closely (see Table 6.2), we also find that the strongest support for the party still being a social movement comes from those who joined in the earlier periods of the party’s history (at 22%), with support steadily falling (although not to zero) as we approach joiners near the current point in time. The responses support the proposition that the early social movement roots of the party give rise to this notion. However, that 17% of the most recent joiners of the party still think the party is a social movement suggests some colonization of the party from social movement activists, as proposed by Pakulski (1991).

Table 6.2: Organisational activists – year joined vs Greens are a political party not a social movement

Year joined short Total 1983-95 1996-2000 2001-08

Agree 67% 70% 69% 69% Greens are a political party not Neither 10% 11% 14% 13% a social movement Disagree 22% 19% 17% 18%

N 58 93 250 401

Respondents clearly rejected the converse statement that the Greens should become more of a social movement. The strong reaction is a rejection of party-as-social movement, and demonstrates a desire to strengthen political party aspects over any social movement aspects. This again suggests that a majority of those who disagreed with the statement that the Greens were a political party and not a social movement (ie, stating that the Australian Greens was in fact a social movement) would actually prefer the Greens to take on more of the traditional aspects of a political party, which might take the form of more formal structuring and decision-making, broader policy agendas, and tackling political issues of the day.

129 Table 6.3: Organisational activists - Greens are a political party not a social movement vs should become more of a social movement

Political party not a social movement

Agree Neither Disagree Total

Agree 4% 9% 19% 8% Become more of a Neither 8% 40% 22% 14% social movement Disagree 88% 51% 59% 78%

N 277 53 73 403

P = .000

While Kitschelt (2006) suggested that a ‘movement party’ could return to a movement based form, it is clear that Australian Greens organisational activists do not wish the party to return to being a social movement, and appear comfortable with the transition to a more formalised political party structure. This is the case irrespective of age or when they joined.

SOCIAL JUSTICE OR THE ENVIRONMENT?

An accusation levelled by some (for instance Manning & Rootes 2005) against the Australian Greens is that they have strayed too far from their environmental roots. As Vromen and Gauja (2009, p102) point out, the party’s MPs come from “…diverse backgrounds and distinctive involvement in community and movement politics prior to their entry into parliament” and all the MPs interviewed at the time had maintained strong connections to community activities and most to environmental campaigns.26 So the question becomes, do the organizational activists think the Greens have strayed too far from their environmental roots?

Organisational activists were asked for their perceptions of the position of the Australian Greens in relation to social justice and environmental campaigning (Table 6.4). In terms of ranked priority, it is immediately obvious that organisational activists are indicating that social justice issues are equally as important as environmental issues. Juxtaposing these

26 See Vromen and Gauja (2009, p.99) – Table 2 – for a breakdown of these different campaigns. See also Appendix 2, this thesis.

130 responses to the question regarding championing the environment in Parliament allowed some assessment of priorities. Respondents indicated strong support for championing the environment in parliament, though not as strongly as giving equal weight to social justice issues – 73% vs 92%.

Table 6.4: Organisational activists -social justice issues as important as environmental action?

Agree Neither Disagree N

Social justice issues should be just as important to the Greens as 92% 3% 5% 412 environmental issues

The Greens role in Parliament is to champion the environment 73% 15% 12% 409

Clearly Greens organisational activists do want the environment championed within Parliament, perhaps on the basis that no other party is doing so, but that they also want the party to focus on social justice issues. The strength of the support for social justice issues may well indicate Manning and Rootes (2005, p.406) were correct in their assertion that the party has been captured by “socialists”, but the strong focus on environmental issues is important to consider here. The 27% of those activists not agreeing that the role of the Greens is to champion the environment may well be suggesting that the Greens should be focusing on all issues, not solely the environment (Table 6.4). The strong support for social justice suggests that the environment and social justice should have equal standing. This could be a pragmatic decision on the part of organisational activists recognizing that the Labor Party is often seen as a party concerned with social justice, to position the Greens as focusing on the environment in Parliamentary work, but not to disregard social justice issues.

The clear preference of organizational activists for developing the formal political aspects of the party, such as a broad-based programmatic platform, reinforces notions of party change in the Greens. Procedural changes within the party have also mimicked and accepted particular formal and institutional aspects of other Australian political parties. Hay and Haward (1988) saw the nascent green movement in Australia as being primarily environmentally/wilderness focused, as opposed to being associated closely with the peace/anti-nuclear movements as in Europe (Rudig & Lowe 1986). Social justice is now very clearly as important as the environment in terms of Green organisational activist’s priorities. No longer seeing the party as a ‘niche’ environmental party, such as described by Adams, Clark, Ezrow, and (2006), suggests that the shift from social movement party is implicitly recognized by the party’s organisational activists (see also Kaelberer 1998).

131 Further evidence of party structural and organisational changes will be discussed in later chapters, but also mirror the changes that have occurred in other Greens parties as they have pursued electoral success.

IS GENDER STILL AN ISSUE?

If one considers that the Greens are a product of social movement activity, and at their base are a former social movement party, then it would seem reasonable to assume that the Greens would have fairly strong policies on women’s issues, particularly those highlighted by feminist activists within the party. This was certainly the case in Germany in the 80s and 90s (Kolinsky 1988; Chamberlayne 1990; Poguntke 1990; Lang 2009). However, strong policies do not in themselves convert directly into internal party practices. The question of how (and indeed whether) the Greens have been successful in this regard is open to question. The history of debates in the German Greens demonstrates that there is also a sizable divide on policies directed at women from within feminist circles. The German Greens went through a significant debate in the 1980s over how women were constructed as vehicles of employment as opposed to ‘mothers’. The formation of a ‘Mothers Fraction’ as part of a broader Women’s Working Group (BAG Frauen) within the party led to a ‘Mothers Manifesto’ (Mayer & Ely 1998), itself a source of conflict and division (Chamberlayne 1990; Ferree 1993; Young 1996). External to this debate but forming a critical context is the ever-present debate on women’s participation and representation in parliament.

Table 6.5: 2010 Australian Federal Election – nomination & election by gender

Election night Including full Nominated Elected result Senate

Female MPs Total female MPs Party Female Male Female Male elected* in parliament**

ALP 34% 66% 36% 64% 31 41

Coalition 21% 79% 20% 80% 18 21

Green 46% 54% 57% 43% 4 5

Democrat 21% 79% 0% 0% 0 0

Other 27% 73% 0% 100% 0 0

Total 29% 71% 28% 77% 28% 30%

*: Includes Half Senate and Full House of Representatives results at election. Total MPs elected in 2010 = 190 MPs. **: Full Senate includes those not up for election (half of Senate). Total MPs in parliament = 226 MPs. : Democrats included for comparison. (AEC 2011).

132

A simple look at the results of the 2010 Australian federal election (Table 6.5) suggests that the Australian Greens are doing quite well in their nominations of women and female representation in the federal parliament. However, to suggest that parliamentary representation is the totality of female participation in parties is too narrow a framework for understanding women’s political participation (Sawer 2002). As Studlar and McAllister acknowledged “Gendered political institutions are unlikely to change significantly without a wider and deeper social transformation” (2002, p.248). As noted in previous chapters, Staheli and Cope (1994) and Lowndes (2006) argue that women are excluded informally, and, as Norris and Lovenduski (1993) noted in British party activity trends, women operate more in the community realm while men continue to engage most strongly in the more formal political work, or as Sawer described it, the “…gladiatorial political culture.” (2002, p.13).

If, however, we consider female participation in the internal workings of the Australian Greens, we strike a second barrier – how do you measure the internal processes and culture of the party? A cursory look at both the office holders of the party at national and state levels and of the currently elected MPs (see Appendix 2 for MPs details) shows that women are the majority of MPs and are many of the office holders. To attempt to delve a little deeper, a number of questions were asked that looked at the role and position of women in the party, questioning specifically on how to ensure adequate representation of women in the party, either through a strong affirmative clause (‘half of all positions’) or a weaker clause (‘a significant percentage’) (Kolinsky 1988; Norris 1991; Lovenduski 1996; Conway 2001, amongst many). While these questions do not address broader issues of women’s representation and political activity they do reflect broader debates regarding gender quotas (for instance Kittilson 2005, Krook 2006).

A further question regarding perceptions of against women within the party was also asked to gauge any perceived levels of discrimination in the party, against women as opposed to for women. While the expected result was that most men would consider there to be little discrimination within the party, how women would respond was an open question, given women’s different experiences within the party and broader community.

133 Table 6.6: Organisational activists - support for women’s participation

Agree Neither Disagree N

The Greens should ensure that a significant percentage of its 76% 15% 9% 412 candidates and party officials are women

At least half of all leading party positions should be held by 43% 33% 24% 411 women

Women are discriminated against within the party 5% 6% 89% 410

A high level of ambivalence was reported to expecting half of the party’s leading positions to be held by women (Table 6.6). This ambivalence is somewhat surprising, given the party’s stated desire to achieve gender equity. The Australian Greens Constitution specifies: “16.1 The Greens are committed to the principle of women and men having equal status within society and will practice gender equity and equal opportunity principles” (Australian Greens 2010, p.14). There is no general requirement for 50% representation by women except in the NSW Greens (Greens NSW 2009, p.2). Perhaps less surprising was that there is a strong relationship between the gender of respondents and answers to this question (Table 6.7). While women favour this policy, male organisational activists are far more ambivalent towards the suggestion (see also Meier 2008), noting that a sizable number of women also opposed mandated quotas.

Table 6.7: Organisational activists – half of leading positions held by women vs gender

Male Female Total

Agree 34% 53% 43% Half of leading party positions Neither 38% 28% 33% should be held by women Disagree 27% 20% 24%

N 206 194 400

P = .001

A further question of whether the Greens should ensure a significant percentage of candidates and office holders are women, without specifying a limit, level or percentage, attracted 76% agreement with only 9% of organisational activists in disagreement. Such a result might reasonably be expected for a party that has placed considerable importance in fielding large numbers of female candidates. However, almost a quarter of respondents did not positively

134 agree with what is otherwise a basic tenet of the party. Some of this equivocation may come from the lack of stated percentage. In other words, some respondents may have thought this a weak position and preferred a specified quota. When compared to the previous question on women holding half the party positions, in which 43% agreed and 23% disagreed (with 34% ambivalent to the proposition), it does appear overall that specificity in relation to targets for female representation are causing some concern, both among men and some women.

Arguments against quotas have tended to focus on positive discrimination as preferential treatment (Bacchi 2004), and within the Greens the notion that one group may be given preferential treatment might seem anti-democratic. Conversely, it may also be seen that quotas are to be used to bring particular groups up to the standards of the party mainstream. In the Greens NSW party constitution various provisions are made for non-Sydney and minority groups within the party (Greens NSW 2009).

Organisational activists were also asked if they thought women were discriminated against in the Greens party (Table 6.8). What emerges from cross tabulation of the responses is a small but apparent gender bias in perceptions. Although most report to no discrimination in the party (94% of men and 84% of women), indicating a largely non-discriminatory party, this leaves a gap in the perception by of discrimination in the party. The perception that the party supports women by male organisational activists is not equally echoed by their female counterparts. Perhaps most interesting is that almost all men don’t think women are discriminated against. This strongly suggests that male organisational activists believe that discrimination against women does not exist within the party, and, coupled with the responses to reserving positions for women, that there is no need for anti-discriminatory or affirmative action programs within the party (see also Jennings 2006; Meier 2008). As noted in previous chapters, the nature of women’s involvement in formal politics and political institutions has been conditioned by their experiences. Lowndes (2006, p.59) noted in relation to social capital and political engagement, “Not only does the relationship tend to be different for men and women, it also tends to be unequal.”

Table 6.8: Organisational activists - women discriminated against in the Greens vs male or female

Male Female Total

Agree 2% 8% 5% Women are discriminated Neither 4% 8% 6% against in the Greens Disagree 94% 84% 89%

N 203 191 394

P = .007

135 This somewhat rosy picture from men is not wholly disputed by women but does appear to be at least questioned. If we consider the debate around the ‘institutionalisation’ of the women’s movement (see for instance Andrew 2010), it could be argued that a similar process has occurred within the Greens to the extent that while direct and overt discrimination has disappeared from the Greens, norms of gendered behaviour are still operating within the party. As we have seen in previous chapters, female organisational activists in the Greens are engaged in different ways within the party, particularly in relation to community based activities. Lang (1997/2010, p.296) has noted that the German feminist movement focused on equality issues and obtaining state resources, led by ‘Realo’ women within the Green Party. Although Lang (2009) in later work suggested that this institutionalisation was a positive policy process for driving a women’s policy agenda, and that the later downsizing under conservative governments occurred as a result of the lack of political advocacy (coupled with conservative gender role stereotypes in Germany), the quiescence of the women’s movement in Germany appears to have been a factor as well. Sawer (2010) noted that though the women’s movement may be in abeyance, this does not necessarily mean it is no longer needed, but this does leave women’s policy agencies vulnerable. Taken together, this suggests that assumed norms within the party of equity and equality may be influencing organisational activists in respect of whether they believe there is discrimination or whether quotas are required.

Also less surprisingly, the year that respondents joined affected the perception of gender bias, noting that the number of respondents who joined in the first period (1983-1990) is very small. However, in examining how organisational activists viewed gender quotas compared to whether they joined pre- or post- Tampa (2001), a small shift towards less support for gender reservation of positions is apparent (Table 6.9). Again, the early roots of the party in the women’s movement (amongst others) may explain the greater support for quotas among early joiners, although the same agreement does not appear when organisational activists are asked about discrimination against women within the party.

Table 6.9: Organisational activists - half positions reserved for women vs period joined (n=403)

Period joined

1983-2000 2001-2008

Agree 50% 40% Half of leading party positions Neither 28% 37% should be held by women Disagree 22% 23%

‘N’ 148 255

136

However, the relationship is strongest within the period 1983-2000, just prior to the influx of members after the 2001 Tampa election (the period 1996-2000). This cohort joined a party that had been recently founded as a national party (as the Australian Greens) that was still formalising its internal operations and structure. They most likely joined knowing positive discrimination was the prevailing ideology of the party. Those joining after 2000 would have been more focused on the actions of Senator Brown in opposing the anti-asylum seeker agenda of the (and the acquiescence of the Beasley led ALP).

THE GREENS – LEFT-WING ENOUGH?

As part of the debate regarding the end of ideology/post materialism/post-industrial set of arguments, there is a train of thought that suggests that post / we have reached a period characterized by an “end to ideologies”. If, however, we follow the argument of Jost (2006) then claiming an end to ideologies is, in the words of Bobbio (1996, p.14), “an obvious expedient for hiding one’s own weakness”. Knutsen (1998) in surveying expert judgements on parties ideological positioning on a left right scale found that, apart from a general rightwing trend across Europe amongst the parties, the Greens (or their local variants) remained a clearly left-wing party and had in fact moved further in that direction during the 1980s and 90s. So the question then becomes “how left is left enough”? Fuchs and Rorschneider (1998) noted that amongst the German parties before and after unification in 1990, the Greens had been losing post materialist voters to the less left wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) steadily until the early 1990s, when this trend dramatically reversed. Comparing the two sets of data suggests that while the Greens had become more left wing during this period, they had eventually also attracted a significantly greater number of post materialists. Savage (1985) concluded that left-right ideologies would continue to shape public policy, as well as material/post material values. Betz (1990) goes further in his analysis of education and value change to note that while the German Greens vote contained post materialists with high education values, it also contained a group of well educated but economically insecure voters. This group would likely influence Green parties to then be “against alienation” (Betz 1990, p.249).

So, does this post material electorate want the Greens to become more left wing? Or perhaps organisational activists, who according to May (1973) are more radical than their electorate, recognise that this needs to be tempered with an element of pragmatism, as suggested by Mirgliotta (2006)? Perhaps, as Charnock (2009) illustrated, the Greens positioning clearly on the left requires them to operate within a particular ideological framework, and any deviation towards a centrist position would be electorally damaging.

137

Table 6.10: Organisational activists – party ideological positioning

Agree Neither Disagree N

The Greens are neither left nor right 24% 12% 64% 411

The Greens should move more clearly to the left 21% 31% 48% 408

Moving from normative positions on internal party functions to how organisational activists perceive their own political positioning, activists were asked to respond to whether they agreed with the party being neither left nor right (Table 6.10). Significantly more women disagreed with the premise that the Greens were neither left nor right. This may signal that women are more attuned to differences of political arrangement than men, or that there is a difference in the construction of left and right between male and female organisational activists (Table 6.11).

Table 6.11: Organisational activists - Greens as neither left nor right vs gender

Gender Total Male Female

Agree 31% 18% 24% Greens neither left Neither 12% 11% 12% nor right Disagree 57% 71% 64%

N 207 193 400

P = .005

A separate test for significance between the earlier question on whether the party should move to the left was then carried out with the question that the party is neither left nor right to determine if the relationship here is between a gendered understanding or a disagreement about the placement of the party on the left (Table 6.12).

138 Table 6.12: Organisational activists - Greens neither left nor right vs party should move to the left

Party should move left Total Agree Neither Disagree

Agree 8% 23% 32% 24% Greens neither left Neither 7% 16% 9% 11% nor right Disagree 84% 61% 58% 65%

N 83 124 190 397

P = .000

What is immediately clear is that while party organisational activists would generally not wish the party to move further to the left, this position is more strongly held by those who still argue that the party is neither left nor right. Of those who do believe that the party should move to the left they very clearly are arguing that the Australian Greens should be even further to the left –they clearly strongly disagree with the old Greens slogan “Neither left nor right - but ahead”. At the same time they are also very clear regarding the placement of the party on the left. While there is more disagreement regarding whether the party should actually move further to the left, it would appear equally clear there is no support for the party moving towards the political centre.

POSITIONING THE PARTY – WHO TO ATTRACT NEXT

If we follow the reasoning of political scientists such as Manning and Rootes (2005) or McKnight (2005), the Greens should think beyond traditional left-right dichotomisations and embrace values instead of ideologies. Indeed, Manning and Rootes (2005) explicitly state that it is left wing party activists who are responsible for the Greens not maximising their potential electoral success: “While many Greens claim to be ‘neither left nor right but out in front’, in internal politicking socialists determinedly seek to spirit the party away from its original environmentalist focus” (2005, p.406). This directly conflicts with Charnock’s assessment following the 2007 Australian federal election: “All in all, the evidence leads me to the conclusion that for practical purposes the Greens are best advised to recognise themselves as part of a left wing voting bloc and to behave accordingly” (2009, pp.254-255).

139 Perhaps, from a researcher perspective, the question should be where might the Australian Greens position itself? The next section investigates how the party positions itself vis-à-vis different groups of voters, and whether the party should be looking to specifically attract voters (and members) from the Labor or Liberal parties? Should the MPs play a role similar to the Australian Democrats in parliament, as arbiters ‘keeping the bastards honest’? Staff responses will also be examined, on the utility of attracting members and MPs from other parties, and what role the party should play in parliament, both generally and in relation to the Democrats.

ATTRACTING VOTERS AND MEMBERS OF OTHER PARTIES

VOTERS

Organisational activists were asked whether the Greens should try to attract voters from the ALP or Liberal Party. In respect of attracting votes from the Labor and Liberal Parties, organisational activists value both sets of voters, but to varying degrees (Table 6.13). While greater ambivalence was displayed towards attracting Liberal voters, there is nonetheless what appears to be general agreement on attracting support from both major parties. Interestingly, there does not appear to be any relationship between attracting voters from the major parties and self placement on the left right scale or the year of joining.

Table 6.13: Organisational activists -attracting ALP or Liberal Party members

Agree Neither Disagree N

The Greens should be trying to attract more votes from the Australian 81% 13% 6% 410 Labor Party

The Greens should be trying to attract more votes from the Liberal Party 72% 17% 11% 409

MEMBERS

A similar question, but focused on membership, was put to staff members. While some staff were open to attracting members from all parties, there was a general disinclination to be proactively trying to win over members of other parties. Distinctively, a number of staff were quite clear that they would or would not accept members from particular parties.

140 “Left of Labor perspective people, yes, we should be targeting them. DSP, ISO, disillusioned socialists, ferals, young people, tree huggers. [Interviewer: Liberals? Nationals?] No, oh Liberals, no” (Interviewee N).

“You join the political party that holds the ideals that you hold most dear, and many of us change from when we were young, we might be in Socialist Alliance, Communist Party and then we might come to the ALP, then come to the Greens, so I think it’s not a problem” (Interviewee D).

This was not expressed as an exclusively left-of centre feeling, however, with a number of staff expressing interest in attracting members from a range of parties, and potentially from parties such as the Liberal or National Parties.

“Here in WA we have a different kind of Nats. No-one us, but its true. We should probably be going after those folk who have become conscious and aware of various issues like through observing their land deteriorating and the capacity of the land deteriorate” (Interviewee L).

“I think we should be trying to bite out of both big parties and important in that will be maintaining across the whole electorate a strong sense that we are not the ALP’s lapdog” (Interview O).

“Well, I think there’s certain sections demographically of both major parties which can be targeted. That’s shifting all the time; I don’t think we necessarily just have to look to the left. I think that has changed, that is changing within the conservative parties” (Interviewee J).

The responses suggests that, like organisational activists, staff are happy to consider recruiting members from both left and right, but that caveats exist on recruiting from the right. While not mentioned explicitly by staff, what is being argued is that sections of the community may be more attuned to the Greens on policy issues, and that the values being appealed to are post material ones (“…become conscious and aware of various issues like climate change…”-Interviewee L).

MPs

Staff were also asked about attracting MPs from other parties. This has some resonance within the Australian Greens, having had two sitting state MPs join from the ALP (Kris Hanna in South Australia in 2003; Ronan Lee in Queensland in 2008). As well, three former Senators from the Australian Democrats have also joined the party (Jean Jenkins, Janet

141 Powell and Andrew Bartlett), although only Andrew Bartlett has engaged himself to any great extent in party activities. The experience with the two ALP members has not been a necessarily positive one for the Greens, with Hanna joining the South Australian Greens, sitting as a Green MP for three years, only to resign the month prior to the 2006 state election and stand as an Independent. Lee joined the Queensland Greens in 2008 and stood in the 2009 state election as a Green but was unsuccessful in his attempt to retain the seat of Indooroopilly. Lee’s time in the Queensland Greens was not universally considered a success, as a number of staff members noted in relation to gaining MPs from other parties.

“I think there’s some utility and some stunts. But that has to be handled very much better than it was with Ronan. Because it didn’t end up being very good for us. It was the radical left women I know in Queensland who said “we didn’t vote for him as a Green”. So he misrepresented the people who voted for him” (Interviewee L).

“I’m surprised that Ronan Lee, for instance, in Queensland has stuck around...its a bit of a toxic relationship he’s got with the Queensland Greens, but he’s still actively involved with the party” (Interviewee A).

“I have mixed feelings about other MPs. Ronan Lee I had very mixed feelings about the process, the way that happened” (Interviewee D).

The question of who to attract to the party is a somewhat vexed question for some. Two staff members suggested that National Party members might be worth attracting, as they seemed closest to the Greens in some respects, consciously acknowledging the agrarian socialist tag sometimes applied to the National Party. Equally, there was no rush to endorse members of the Liberal Party as potential Greens MPs. The strongest suggestion was in regards to what an MP from another party would need to prove to join. Universally amongst the staff was a desire for other parties MPs not to be approached, but to come to the Greens themselves.

“I don’t think we should be poaching them. If they want to come to us, same, same” (Interviewee Q).

“Don’t necessarily think that’s a good idea…I don’t like the idea of going out and proactively recruiting them” (Interview P).

“They’ve got to leave their party and join the Greens, if they’re genuinely green in the mind, I don’t mind if they join from other parties. But if it’s someone who’s a bit more desperate, and wants to hold on to their seat in parliament, I don’t know. You have to be careful” (Interviewee N).

“I think it’s inherently destructive to the Greens principle of grassroots democracy when we invite members from other organisations to join us because they enter the

142 organisation as a highly empowered participant without having an understanding of the way the organisation works and the value it places on participatory or grassroots democracy” (Interviewee C).

The very clear suggestion from staff is that while they might consider some form of recruiting from other parties (not unlike organisational activists), and the tendency is to think that these members will come from left of center parties, this is not universal. In relation to recruiting MPs from other parties, which, as noted above, has occurred in the Greens’ recent past, staff were far more wary. This is perhaps understandable from two perspectives. Firstly, for MPs staff, they will have seen and interacted with the MPs and staff of other parties. They will understand the general level of commitment required to be in that position, so will be equally wary of an MP deciding to leave one party to join another. The performance of the two MPs who joined the Greens from the ALP (Lee and Hanna) has not promised good outcomes, with both eventually losing their seats (Hanna as an Independent having already quit the Greens to try and get elected).

Secondly, from the perspective of party staff, recruiting an MP from another party, potentially introducing a highly skilled and motivated operator into the party, may change the internal dynamics of the party. Although few staff have moved from their current positions to being MPs, it is a possible career path, and a recruited MP will potentially take one of the already limited number of potential seats. Party staff, experienced in pragmatic politics, may be suspicious of the real motives of a former member of another party for joining the Greens. An explicitly movement based party might not have such a concern with an MP that crossed over from another party, as the movement can then use the MP to gain a platform for the movement’s issues. An electoral professional party, focused on electoral campaigning and outcomes, may well treat such MPs with suspicion, as the MPs loyalty would then appear to be themselves and not the party.

KEEPING THE BASTARDS HONEST?

The last two questions to be examined, regarding organisational activists thoughts on positioning and the role of the Greens vis-à-vis the Democrats provided a very interesting response. The Democrats oft-stated role within Parliament was to ‘keep the bastards honest’, but organisational activists appear to reject this umpire-like role (Table 6.14). However, the Democrats courted a number of roles during their significant time in the Federal Parliament (whether as umpire, environmental party or centre-right broker) (Warhurst 2006), so party organisational activists’ responses need to be unpacked. For instance, the Democrats were largely confined to Upper Houses (at a state and federal level), excepting for a brief period

143 between 1977 and 1982 when they held the South Australian Legislative Assembly seat of Mitcham. Organisational activists may be ambivalent regarding an exclusively upper house role, potentially indicating a desire for the Greens to be positioned as a party capable of winning and retaining seats in the Lower House of Parliament. Organisational activists may also be rejecting the moderating role, looking instead to a more radical form of politics, perhaps openly confrontational and engaged in activities designed to raise issues but not necessarily to win seats (Rootes 2008; Charnock 2009).

Table 6.14: Organisational activists (n=411) - in the middle or like the Democrats?

Agree Neither Disagree

The Greens should play a similar role to that previously played by the 21% 24% 55% Australian Democrats

Comparison with other demographic items only brings one significant relationship, between left-right self placement and disagreement with the Greens playing the perceived role of the Australian Democrats in parliament (Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1: Organisational activists - Greens should play a similar role to the Democrats vs self placement on left right scale

144 Figure 6.1 shows that, as the self placement moves to the centre, respondents become progressively more in favour of the proposition of playing a similar role to the Australian Democrats. This suggests that the left wing identifiers place a lower value on the role of the Democrats than those towards the centre. At the same time, the greater ambivalence of the more right wing identifiers may have more to do with the role the Democrats played at various times as a broker of legislation. However, further testing is required to determine the reasons for the survey result. Certainly, the strong response from organisational activists is to not adopt a Democrat-like parliamentary role.

In a similar vein, staff interviewed were quite clear in rejecting taking on such a role, although they also recognized that elements of the way the Democrats operated (such as the careful scrutiny of legislation) was appropriate (Table 6.15).

Table 6.15: Staff - Greens should play a similar role to the Democrats by party/MP staff

Staff N Party staff MP staff

Greens Agree 0% 0% 0 should play a similar role Neither 0% 36% 4 to the Democrats Disagree 100% 64% 15

What becomes clear from questioning staff is that none of them see a role for the Greens in which the party acts in a similar way to the Australian Democrats. This is not a rejection necessarily of dealing with legislation, but more clearly a rejection of “being pragmatic to chase the vote” (Interviewee D), that “[the Democrats] compromised too much” (Interviewee H), or that “they were fluffy” (Interviewee F). Repeatedly amongst staff were expressions that the Democrats were either occupying simply a middle ground or that the changes made to legislation were for the sake of political relevancy and not necessarily to improve the legislation.

“I think the Greens need to act as a political party in their own right, not that we just fiddle around the edges” (Interviewee H).

“Well, we do what they did, we examine the legislation and we put forward our amendments that we consider appropriate, but our goal is to increase our numbers to win government eventually or to play a significant part in the operation of government and that’s not just taking the middle ground on things, which is essentially what I see the Democrats as doing” (Interviewee A).

145 “We’re not there to be the meat in the sandwich; we’re not there to horse trade. We’re there to put up our own Bills and vote on things on their merits according to Green principles” (Interviewee N).

Linked to the question of whether the Australian Greens should operate in a manner similar to the Australian Democrats is the question of how to operate in a parliamentary context. In this, staff were equally clear on the need for Green MPs to be putting forward solid, well thought out positions. This brings the MPs (and party) into conflict with a strictly parliamentary role.

“…you know we’ve got such a drive to be considered to be professionally engaging and not just creating media stunts, and sort of creating trouble…. so we’ve probably run up a lot more media that directly relates to their agenda and detailed amendments than in the past … we need to revisit that question at the beginning of next year, about whether there are some things we spend less time on so we can spend more time running up our own private members bills and also whatever community action around Green messages might be” (Interviewee O).

Amongst the staff of parliamentarians this attitude was much more of a concern, both in terms of actually dealing with legislation as it appears (so that there was some equivocation towards the Democrats in regard to this), while also acknowledging that a different agenda existed to go beyond simply amending Bills in parliament.

“Keeping the bastards honest? I think we do, to some extent. Yes, but not at the expense of our own goals…. Scrutinising what the Government is doing is also important, but we can’t lose focus of the policy changes we want to happen” (Interviewee S).

As Rootes (2008) notes, the Greens have replaced the Australian Democrats as the ‘third force’ in Australian politics, but as Charnock (2009) equally notes this does not mean they can simply emulate the Democrats positioning as ‘honest broker’ between the ALP and Coalition. At the same time, this investigation shows there is no enthusiasm amongst either staff or organisational activists to replicate the Democrats, instead seeing the Greens as a legitimate challenger, particularly to the ALP.

146 CONCLUSION

While the Greens may indeed have emerged from social movement activism, there is now an apparent clear break from the party as social movement organisation, at least in the form of SMOs posited by McCarthy and Zald (1977) and others. Responses of party organisational activists clearly rejected the notion that the party should ‘become more of a social movement’. The responses do not simply suggest that Greens organisational activists want to become a party like others in the Australian political landscape. Some strands of social movement thinking are still evident in responses to whether women should be promoted more clearly within the party, although divided along gender lines. Organisational activists who joined earlier in the party’s history are more inclined to believe in explicit promotion of women.

On the question of positioning, some Greens do appear, as Kitschelt (1990) hypothesized, as post materialists, less tied to left-right ideological frameworks, as evidenced by the lower rate of responses and comments on requests to place themselves in such a framework. Nonetheless, as found by Charnock (2009) in relation to Greens electors, Australian Greens organisational activists do clearly place themselves to the left. This also fits Knutsen’s (1998) findings in relation to European parties, where Green parties were very clearly to the left. Although Knutsen also found Green parties were tending to continue to move left during the period of his study, there appears to be much less of desire amongst Australian organisational activists to continue any such movement, thus little likelihood the Australian Greens will move further left.

Finally, in relation to positioning the party, while both organisational activists and staff would like to be attracting members from other parties, some biases and concerns about procedural issues are also apparent. Both groups have a slight bias towards attracting members of the ALP over more conservative individuals, particularly about recruiting other parties’ MPs. Most staff expressed some disquiet about recruitment of other parties’ MPs. Equally, there is clear rejection of the approach taken by the Australian Democrats as ‘honest broker’ in parliament. While it is often acknowledged that Green and Democrat policy positions can be quite close27, staff in particular noted that the Australian Democrats style of parliamentary work was more about making adjustments to others legislation, whereas the Greens seeks to establish its own legislative and social agenda.

27 See for instance Hutton (1996) on the potential for an electoral alliance between the Greens and Democrats.

147 Thus it would appear from the responses provided by both staff and organisational activists of the Australian Greens, that they are aware, and clear that, the Greens is a left wing political party, with a clear policy agenda that sets it up as a challenger to the existing two-and-a-half party system Australia possesses (Ware 1996; Siaroff 2003).

148 Chapter 7

IDEOLOGICAL REPOSITIONING WITHIN THE PARTY

INTRODUCTION

Individual ideological positioning assists people in determining where they stand in relation to policy proposals put forward by political parties. Party members, as supporters of a party, would be expected to have a similar ideological position to, and a view of the ideological position of, their party. Changes in party positioning might then be expected to be reflected by changes in the ideological positioning of the party’s members. The question remains as to whether members ‘lead’ the party in any shift, whether it is the party leadership, or if it is driven by broader shift within the electorate (see Harmel & Janda 1994). However, what is the relationship of the organisational activists to any changes, especially if party organisational activists are important in determining the Australian Greens political trajectory?

Downs (1957) in arguing a rational choice position, suggested that the public chooses on the basis of what is best for themselves. Parties put forward policies that they think would best attract the maximum votes, with those policies being the stated positions put forward under the party banner. A party will then attempt to attract the maximum votes from electors with similar ideological positions, without alienating their core supporters, while at the same time fashioning policies that appeal to the rational voter. May (1973) posited that party activists would be more left (or right) wing than the party members and voters as well as the party leadership. Subsequent studies (Kitschelt 1989b; Herrera & Taylor 1994; Iverson 1994; Norris 1995) have suggested this does not necessarily hold true. While some party activists may be somewhat more extreme in electorates where there is a limited chance of election, and thus limit costs for expressing extreme opinions (Norris 1995, p.33), party leaders may in fact be more radical generally than the activists. Kennedy, Lyons and Fitzgerald (2006, p.802) stress that the critical determinant is “the strategic environment within which parties operate”, the electoral opportunity structures open to each party. So, as they found in the case of the Irish Labour Party, activists with ‘extreme’ views may find it better to be pragmatic rather than ideological so as to achieve at least some modest electoral opportunities. Yet ideology is still an important determinant for party membership (Norris 1995).

So, is ideological positioning important to look at within the Greens? Previously mentioned studies highlighted a variety of factors which impacted ideological positioning and how this

149

is perceived, the strategic environment, education, activity levels, and issue saliency (see also Adams et al 2006). McKnight (2005, p.248) suggested the Greens should abandon the traditional left-right dichotomization and adopt a new ‘humanism’, incorporating elements of other ideologies. This is similar in tone and prescription to Bobbio (1996, p.10) in that Green ideologies can take elements of both left and right to produce a new synthesis. Bobbio also made the point that any synthesis exists as a result, and in contention with, the old dichotomy of left and right, so is not entirely removed from it (1996, pp.3-8). Yet – the notion that environmental problems will impact different groups and classes differently and needs to be addressed accordingly – suggests that rather than utopian humanism an element of materialism, traditionally associated with the old left-right dichotomy, will need to be accounted for (Dobson 1995).

If we take the left-right dichotomy as referring to economic distribution, the need to address material concerns becomes understandable, given the tendency for post materialists to emphasise collectivist approaches to welfare issues and the welfare state (Inglehart 1997). But, as Inglehart goes on to say, “post materialism does not reflect a reversal of polarities, but a change of priorities” (1997, p.35). Material security is secured, so post materialists shift their priorities onto other concerns such as social justice issues. However, as Bobbio (1996) noted, we may find that in relation to some of the key issues pursued by the party, Greens are confused about being left or right, or at best neither left nor right wing specific. Returning to Harmel and Janda (1994, p.269), it might be expected that the Australian Greens fit one or two of the four primary goal models; “policy ideology advocates” or “intraparty democracy maximisers”. However, if the Australian Greens is undergoing a shift from a movement party to an electoral professional party, then, again following Harmel and Janda (1994), the Australian Greens might be expected to have party goals focused on “vote maximizing” or “office maximizing” (see Chapter 8).28

So, on this basis it is important to know where Australian Greens organisational activists, who most influence party direction, are placed ideologically and how placement is impacted by other factors. This chapter will examine both where the organisational activists place themselves on a left-right scale and where they think the party should be placed. It will also examine how unions, as representatives of the traditional labour movement, are perceived by organisational activists, as representatives of both the labour movement and old class divisions, if there is any saliency to a ‘new class versus working class’ model, or if the associations with a social democratic party such as the ALP constrain collaboration.

28 Harmel and Janda (1994, pp.269-271) use the example of the Flemish Greens as intraparty democracy maximisers, and Greens more generally within Europe as potentially policy/ideology advocates.

150

HOW DO ORGANISATIONAL ACTIVISTS PLACE THEMSELVES IDEOLOGICALLY?

The question of whether the Greens is a left or right wing organisation has been a contentious one.29 Commentators in the news media have at times regurgitated accusations that the party is really a left wing front (Carlton 2004; Andrews 2010). The literature on the Greens at times appears to confuse the Greens, as a broad based party, with a niche environmental organisation (Manning & Rootes 2005). Indeed, Manning and Rootes (2005) even question the worth of the party as a policy aggregator, suggesting that the Greens needed to limit their involvement in policy. Yet, while Inglehart (1990), Kriesi (1998) and others suggested that the left-right ideology structure is on the wane from the decline in importance of traditional social cleavages, Hellwig (2008) suggests left-right structuring may still have relevance, but in connection with different occupational and economic positions. Thus, a left-right ideology structure may still have saliency when applied in economic terms. For parties like the ALP and Liberals in Australian politics it may be particularly true (as Hellwig found for traditional mainstream parties in the Danish political system) but less so for other Australian parties (see also Volkens & Klingeman 2002).

What this means, according to Hellwig (2008), is that Greens, as a non-traditional party not reliant on left-right ideological policy appeals, should have less attachment to left-right ideology structures. So what might we then expect of Greens organisational activists when asked to place themselves on left-right scale? Should they reject the left-right scale altogether, as posited that they will by Kitschelt and Hellemans (1990)? Might they, as suggested by Manning and Rootes (2005), opt for a less left wing position, perhaps emulating the pattern of both the party’s voters and the general electorate? Or will they perhaps exemplify May’s law of curvilinear disparity (1973) and place themselves further to the left? Association with a left-right axis is tested here by using a 1-11 ordinal scale to evaluate where (and if) Australian Greens party organisational activists place themselves. This scale used here does not test strength of association, but is similar to that used by the Australian Electoral Survey (AES 2007).

29 Warnock (2007) credits the slogan “Neither left nor right – but out in front” to the West German Greens. Dalton (1994, p.161) suggests that it derives from an environmentalist slogan of the 1970s and 1980s “We are neither left nor right, we are out in front”. Zimmerman (2004) argues that the slogan “Neither left nor right but ahead” was coined by early West German Green factional leader, Herbert Gruhl.

151

Plotting the position of the organisational activists against Green electors from the 2007 election, and against the general population from that year, produced an interesting result (Figure 7.1). Greens organisational activists are clearly to the left of both their voters and the general population (as predicted by May 1973). However, it is evident that people who voted Green in 2007 show a distinct left ward skew compared to the general population. A similar result was noted amongst those who identified as normally voting Green (not shown here).

Green voters and population results from Australian Election Survey (AES 2007)

Figure 7.1: Self placement of Greens organisational activists (Mean = 3.3), Green voters and general population on an 11 point Left-Right scale (activist N=398).

In the latter part of this discussion, results have been recoded to provide a clearer distinction between those solidly on the left (1-2 on the scale), those who were left leaning (3 & 4) and those that were centrist or rightist in orientation (5-9). This provided a 4 point scale against which to measure responses.30

30 The recoded groups provide a more significant grouping in terms of the number responses for the centrists and rightists (48 out of 398 valid responses across scale points 5-9, with most of those placed ‘5’ on the scale) for comparison to left and left-leaning groups.

152

Responses reported in Chapter 6 suggest that those respondents who felt most strongly that the Greens was a left wing party wanted it to move further to the left. This contrasts with those respondents who identified closer to the centre who were more likely to also disagree with moving to the left. Examining gender and left-right placement shows that female organisational activists are more likely to place themselves further to the left than their male counterparts. Those identifying as 3 or 4 on the left-right scale make up 63% of respondents, and are very similar for each gender. Disparity between genders is more noticeable at the 1-2 and 5+ ranges, with of a quarter of respondents identifying as 1-2 on the scale, of which 56% were women (see also Seyd & Whiteley 1992, p.129; Gidengil et al 2007). At the other end of the groupings, of the right leaning most were men (Table 7.1).

Table 7.1: Organisational activists - gender vs self placement on left-right scale

Left-right self placement Total 1-2 3 4 5+

Male 44% 49% 51% 69% 51% Gender Female 56% 51% 49% 31% 49%

N 96 138 109 48 391

P = .041

Table 7.2 below shows that almost 90% of those who agreed that the party should move further to the left ranked themselves 1-3 on a left-right scale. In comparison, 57% of those identifying as 4-9 on the scale disagreed that the party should move to the left. The disagreement made up 65% and 70% of 4 and 5-9 responses respectively. In other words, if you self placed 4 or above, you were strongly likely to disagree with moving the Greens towards the left, or at the very least be ambivalent (32% of those ranking 4-9). Some 63% of those who placed themselves 1-2 on the scale also did not agree with moving leftward, suggesting that a certain element of pragmatism may be evident amongst the most leftwing organisational activist, as suggested might be seen by Kennedy, Lyons and Fitzgerald (2006).

153

Table 7.2: Organisational activists – party should move left vs Left-Right positioning of the party

Party should move left Total Agree Neither Disagree

1-2 45% 24% 16% 24%

3 43% 44% 27% 36% Left-right self placement 4 8% 25% 39% 28%

5+ 4% 7% 18% 12%

N 82 122 187 391

P = .000

This discussion does not, however, allow for analysis of what ‘left’ (or ‘right’) might mean, or whether ‘left’ is defined in relation to the respondent, other parties or the general population. With over 45% disagreeing that the party should move leftward, the party may already be perceived as appropriately left-wing by respondents. Any further leftward movement of the party is therefore seen as undesirable. However, one in five maintained that party should be more left-wing, illustrating at least one of the tensions being played out within the Australian Greens at present.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is a relationship between the year of joining and whether respondents disagree with the party moving to the left (Table 7.3). As noted earlier, the early party members were more influenced by the social movement origins of the party, and carried both cultural and political norms of those movements into the party (Poguntke 1992; Faucher-King 2010). Those that joined most recently (2001-2008) strongly disagreed with moving the party to the left, while those who joined earlier were more likely to be evenly split or ambivalent. This indicates that the majority of the members who joined since 2001 do not see being ‘left wing’ as a positive move for the party. Spretnak and Capra (1985, p.26) noted the, at times, bitter divides between ‘left’ and ‘right’ in the German Greens (see also Porritt 1984), which clearly has the potential to be played out in the Australian Greens. A further relationship is also seen to exist between those agreeing with introducing leader positions and disagreeing with moving the party to the left. Those who joined later were less likely to want the party to be more left wing and more likely to support the appointing of a leader.

154

Table 7.3: Organisational activists – party should move to the left vs date joined party

Party should move left Total Agree Neither Disagree

1983-95 10% 17% 15% 15%

Year joined 1996-2000 32% 30% 14% 23%

2001-08 58% 53% 71% 62%

Total 82 123 187 392

P = .002

Let us now look back at the self positioning of respondents on the left-right scale, and compare this to their year of joining.

Table 7.4: Organisational activists – Left-Right positioning of self vs joining pre/post 2001

Left-Right self-positioning Total 1-2 3 4 5+

1983-2000 50% 35% 34% 27% 37% Year joined 2001-2008 50% 65% 66% 73% 63%

N 98 136 113 48 395

P = .021

Table 7.4 shows the comparison between the year joined and the left-right self placement. We can see that while, of the most left placed respondents, there is a 50:50 split between the two joining periods, this reduces to 27:73 for those respondents placing themselves 5 or above on the left-right scale. The responses clearly indicate that organisational activists most centrist in orientation joined the latest.

155

Table 7.5: Organisational activists – year joined vs Left-Right positioning of self

Year joined Total 1983-2000 2001-2008

1-2 33% 20% 25%

Left-right self 3 32% 36% 34% placement 4 26% 30% 29%

5-9 9% 14% 12%

N 148 247 100%

P = .021

Table 7.5 shows clearly that almost two thirds of organisational activists who joined prior to 2000 placed themselves between 1 and 3 on the scale – firmly on the left. For those who joined from 2001 onwards this is more muted, supporting the notion of the centrist drift of new members joining the party. Note, however, that the mean location of the Greens was perceived by electors (in 2007) to be at 4.6 on this scale (Charnock 2009), while the mean location provided by organisational activists was 3.3. We can compare this with Green party candidates in the 2007 election where the mean location was also 3.3 (AES 2008), showing that candidates and party activists are closely aligned in their self positioning as left-right, perhaps due to many candidates being drawn from the pool of available party activists.

There is evidence that, amongst organisational activists, that the earlier joiners of the party were more left wing, with an increasing number of activist members who joined in later years showing centrist or right wing tendencies. Given that activism generally follows from engagement with the party over a period of time, the responses indicate that the party is likely becoming more centrist in orientation. Not to the extent of perhaps attracting Liberal or National Party members, but certainly to the extent of moving away from the New Left and counter-culture movements of the party’s origins.

The strong conclusion that can be drawn is that the cohort of members and party activists who joined after 2000 were significantly different from earlier cohorts of members. As the party grew and numbers of longer term members dwindled, differences between the cohorts of members becomes more apparent. Note, though, the significant numbers joining post-2000 (the party doubled in size between 2001 and 2004) exacerbated these differences. The newer cohort are more oriented to a political centre, and would potentially be more supportive of the professionalisation of the party.

156

LABOUR RELATIONS – THE LABOUR MOVEMENT AND THE GREENS

The slogan “Neither left nor right but out in front” (Dalton 1994; Zimmerman 2004; Warnock 2007) is intended as a repudiation of a traditional left-right dichotomy. As noted by Bobbio (1996) earlier, the new Green synthesis is actually a product of the traditional dichotomy. Given that the labour movement is a traditional representative of the dichotomy (along with other elements of class struggle), is it reasonable to expect that the Greens will have a positive relationship with unions? Or will both the material pre-occupation and enduring ties with social democratic parties (such as the ALP) predispose the Greens to reject unions as allies?

As mentioned in Chapter 5, interaction between environmentalists and unions has not always been on the best of terms. However, the experience of Jack Mundey and the NSW Builders Labourers Federation in the early 1970s showed that there were points of intersection between the labour and environment movement (Mundey 1981). Shantz and Adams (1999) also demonstrated that it is also possible for connections to be made between seemingly implacable groups (loggers and anti-logging campaigners), but on the basis of a shared understanding and mutual recognition. However, the Inglehart (1981; Inglehart & Flanagan 1987) post material thesis broadly defines the labour movement as predominantly concerned with material outcomes for the workers that unions represent. New social movements are aligned with post material outcomes and therefore there is a disconnect between the movements and unions. The attempts described by Mundey (1981), Shantz and Adams (1999), and Oliver (2008) of union and movement interactions represent efforts to bridge the gap between these seemingly opposed groups. Yet Inglehart also noted that most people fell into a ‘mixed’ category, with a mixture of both material and post material concerns. Inglehart (1997) goes on later to suggest that the rise of post material concerns marks the transition to a post-industrial society. Bell (1976) had previously suggested that a post-industrial society was denoted by the shift from primary and secondary industries (ie, farming, resource extraction and manufacturing) to tertiary and service industries (ie, the service sectors, health, education, transport and utilities).

157

Table 7.6: Organisational activists - union membership

Sector Union N

AEU, IEU, NSWTF, QTU, Education 52 39% SSTUWA, NTEU

Public Sector CPSU, PSU, QPSU, USU 36 27%

Services ASU, NSWPA 23 17%

Professional APESMA, MEAA 9 7%

Transport, Distribution & Miscellaneous AWU, LHMU, SDA, TWU 7 5%

Health ANF, HACSU, HSOA, HSUA 6 4%

Building & Construction CEPU, ETU 2 1%

AEU - Australian Education Union; ANF – Australian Nurses Federation; APESMA – Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia; ASU - Australian Services Union; AWU - Australian Workers Union; CEPU - Communication Electrical and Plumbing Union; CPSU - Community and Public Sector Union; ETU - Electrical Trades Union; HACSU – Health and Community Sector Union; HSOA – Hospital Salaried Officers Association; HSUA – Health Services Union Australia; IEU - Independent Education Union; LHMU - Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union; MEAA – Media Entertainment Arts Alliance; NSWPA – NSW Police Association; NSWTF - NSW Teachers Federation; NTEU - National Tertiary Education Union; PSU - Public Sector Union; QPSU - Queensland Public Sector Union; QTU - Queensland Teachers Union; SDA – Shop and Distributive Workers Association; SSTUWA - State School Teachers Union of WA; TWU – Transport Workers Union; USU - United Services Union.

Looking again at the representation of Greens organisational activists in the union movement (Table 7.6) we find that most of the activists who identified as being a member of a union belonged to unions covering just those tertiary and service sectors. Two-thirds of Green organisational activist union members are concentrated in education and bureaucracy. Just 1% are in a traditional primary/secondary union. The same applies to occupations of all the organisational activists, with 73% being in managerial or professional roles.

Of those identifying the union they were a member of, the highest proportion was in the education sector, not unlike Parkin (1968) and his CND activists. The next highest group was in the public service unions. The largest single block of membership, however, derives from the Australian Services Union (ASU), which covers many community sector employees, with 5%. Traditional blue collar trade unions normally associated with the Australian Labor Party and the labour movement more generally, collectively accounted for only 5% of union members.

158

This lack of membership of more traditional blue-collar or working class unions is as we might expect to find, following a ‘middle class radicals’ thesis. However, it is also worth noting which industries and unions are not represented amongst party activists, such as the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) waterside and maritime workers, once the backbone of the Communist Party of Australia. There are no members of the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Workers Union (CFMEU), which incorporates the Builders Labourers Federation (the home of Jack Mundey and the original ‘Green Bans’ (Mundey 1981)). The CFMEU result can possibly be explained as it is also the union representing forestry and mining workers, whose interests in preserving their jobs (and thus industries) might be seen as being at odds with the Greens. However, given the public policy positions of the Greens on industrial relations and workplace issues, some level of support might have been expected (Cahill & Brown 2008).

Therefore, the Greens organisational activists are representative of both a post material and post-industrial society. The relationship of the party and the labour movement must then be filtered through this lens. As noted previously, Parkin (1968) found that many of his middle class radicals were teachers. Is the potential divide between the Greens and the labour movement based on a ‘new class vs working class’ model? Inglehart (1997) argued that the problematic relationship is linked to value change, but a more nuanced depiction might suggest that as most of the population fall into the ‘mixed’ category (Inglehart & Abramson 1999), then there will be at least some avenues for collaboration across the new social movement-labour movement divide.

However, being in favour of union membership and building union-Greens (or labour- environment movement) collaborations is not the same as the traditional involvement of unions within politics. If we take the more traditional conception of the ALP as the political wing of the union movement, how can the Greens, as a separate political party be involved in this relationship? The union-ALP relationship is long standing. A number of the ALP structures, methods and values are inimical to the Greens. So how do Greens (or the labour movement more generally) respond to unions? The following survey responses dealt with these questions on a very simple basis: if unions currently have a limited role in the party, and whether unions should have a greater role within the party. Unions currently have no standing within the Greens, as there is no provision for affiliated organisations. Donations from unions have been received by the party on an ad hoc basis (www.democracy4sale.org 2011). Unions can and do impact on election outcomes through statements they make to members. While enlargement of the role of unions in the Greens has never been formally considered by either unions or the Greens, union statements and previous activities will still have resonance with some members and organisational activists.

159

UNION INFLUENCE – MORE OR LESS?

Opinion on the current role of unions within the Greens is divided. While approaching half of organisational activists agree that unions currently have a limited role, over a quarter disagree, suggesting that a significant segment of the party believes unions have a more than external role already within the party. Although the Australian Greens have received sizable donations from trade unions at various times (including over $110,000 from the ETU in 200731), previous debates in the party regarding accepting donations from corporations and unions may go some way towards explaining the unease surrounding union ties. That debate has caused the Greens NSW to cease accepting all donations except from individuals (Greens NSW 2003). The unease felt about union involvement in the Greens may also be related to the perception that unions are tied to old politics through the ALP and that a strong break with this old politics, including disassociation with both the ALP and union , is required (Australian Greens 2001).

Two thirds of party organisational activists (Table 7.7) do not wish to see an expansion of the role of unions within the Greens as a party. Given the apparent ambivalence towards unions in the previous set of questions on the current situation within the party, the results strengthen the view that there is a residual distrust of the labour movement and its advocates. Interestingly, a significant number of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with both propositions.

Table 7.7: Organisational activists - role and influence of unions

Agree Neither Disagree N

Unions should have more influence 13% 21% 65% 409

Unions currently have a limited role 46% 25% 27% 412

31 The Democracy4sale website (www.democracy4sale.org) lists 6 union donations to the Australian Greens federally over the period 1998-2008 totalling $211,306. The CFMEU donations totalled $44,000, AMWU $56,450 & ETU $110,856. Individual states may also have received funding but this is not fully recorded.

160

Examining how women perceive unions (Table 7.8), it is clear that, even though there is limited support for unions having more influence in the Greens, there is far less support from female activists than from men. The result is likely influenced by entrenched views of male domination of unions (Franzway (2001) describes them as ‘greedy’ institutions), although in at least one case32 a prominent female unionist has run as a Greens candidate (AEC 2004; ECSA 2006).

Table 7.8: Organisational activists - unions should have more influence vs gender

Unions should have more influence Total Agree Neither Disagree

Male 67% 46% 51% 52% Gender Female 33% 54% 49% 48%

N 55 85 255 395

However, it is hardly surprising that Greens generally might find union influence troubling. The history of the Australian labour movement as a male domain, strongly affiliated with the ALP would hardly endear unions to Greens. That said, the labour movement more generally has fought for recognition of worker’s rights, something Greens clearly support, both through policy and actions in parliament. Equally, we should consider that 36% of organisational activists identified themselves as members of a union – almost triple the number agreeing with unions having more influence within the party. This marks a separation from the idea of party-as-arm of a movement (in this case the labour movement), which has characterised the involvement between the ALP and unions. It would be interesting to know if the distinction between party and movement impacts Greens’ involvement in other movements, such as the environment or peace movements.

We need also consider the collective nature of union involvement in social democratic parties such as the ALP. While the Greens have only individual membership rights (although some state branches have allowed associate membership for groups at times), the expectation of unions in the ALP is they will carry with them collective votes and rights according to their membership. This makes unions a powerful influence within the ALP, far outweighing an individual. Is this caution towards union influence equally a suspicion of this kind of unequal

32 Clare McCarty in South Australia, former state branch President of the SA Trades and Labor Council.

161

relationship? This aversion is manifest as an interesting ambivalence when party activists were asked if they though unions currently have a limited role in the party (Table 7.9).

Table 7.9: Organisational activists - unions currently have a limited role vs gender

Unions currently have a limited role Total Agree Neither Disagree

Male 56% 55% 44% 52% Gender Female 44% 45% 56% 48%

N 187 98 109 394

The perception of male organisational activists appears to be that their unions have a limited role and most would be comfortable with that. The experience of women, however, appears to be somewhat different. There appears to be less support amongst female organisational activists when considering the current and future role of unions. This may well be in response to the development of unions as ‘greedy institutions’ (Franzway 2001, p.34), where unions demand increasing levels of work and commitment, at odds with their calls for a fairer society. It may also have a more deep seated basis, if we consider Pocock’s (2005) commentary that women are doing do more domestic, volunteer and community work (the first irrespective of whether they are in paid employment as well), and that women are working more in total. The question now becomes how have unions assisted women in achieving equity? Yet earlier work by Pocock (1995) found that female union members were no more or less inclined to unions (ie, whether they exhibited anti-union attitudes) than their male counterparts. So, while women may not be engaging with unions they don’t exhibit anti- union feelings. It is likely that the Greens female organisational activists’ ambivalence to union involvement in the Greens relates to something more than simple anti-union attitudes.

They key may be found in women activists attitude to volunteer and community work. If women activists are working hard both as community and party activists, then the involvement of a large, male dominated set of organisations may dilute their party work. Extensive union involvement in the party, with unions’ history as greedy institutions may well also diminish the value of women’s work external to the party. Further, if we consider that parliament is itself a gendered organisation (Crawford & Pini 2011), then parties engaged with parliament as an institution will tend to mimic aspects of that work – as Chappell (2006, p.223) put it “…institutional gender patterns shape external social relations”. So, women will already be addressing one form of gendered organisation and potentially would not wish to

162

have to engage another, as found by Lovenduski (1996, p.15). At the same time men may see less of a problem with union involvement on a gender basis due to an ambivalence towards female equity (see Jennings 2006), but potentially more of an issue on the basis of diluted influence or access to positions.

CONCLUSION

Ideological positioning, in respect of left-right positioning within the Australian Greens was found to fit well with the conception of most post materialists as left wing, if we accept that most Greens are post materialist. The bulk of Australian Greens party organisational activists placed themselves left-of-centre, and clearly as left-wing. The range of unsolicited written comments on surveys showed the Greens themselves as not just left-right aligned but distinctly addressing other concerns. These comments also demonstrated some residual rejection of a left-right framework.

It is also clear that some later organisational activist joiners to the Australian Greens identify as more right wing. Note that individual activists did not change, but rather the ideological orientation of those joining and becoming organisational activists after 2001 changed. 2001 represents the beginning of a rapid growth period of the party’s membership. At the same time, while almost half of those organisational activists who placed themselves clearly on the left (self placing as 1-3 on the 11 point left-right scale) agree that the party should move further to the left, this agreement diminishes rapidly as activists place themselves further along towards the right of the scale. The final result, however, is that only one in five organisational activists agree with moving the party further to the left, with almost half disagreeing.

A further point to note is that women organisational activists also tended to be more left-wing than male activists, supporting the leftward tendency noted by Seyd and Whiteley (1992) amongst women within the British Labour Party. Gidengil, Harrell and Erickson (2007) noted the same tendency amongst women in the USA in general, suggesting a wider social phenomenon, rather than a phenomenon specific to Green parties, and that this is a trend over time – that women are becoming more left wing, while men more right wing. While that may be true, the rightward shift in people joining the Greens suggests that this leftward shift amongst women is not being fully represented amongst organisational activists joining the Australian Greens.

163

Lastly, this chapter examined the role and place of unions with the Greens. While the survey contained only two measures, they confirmed an assumption that Greens and the union movement have some way to go to achieve any form of rapprochement. Despite the significant union membership amongst organisational activists, especially amongst unions that cover occupations associated with post materialists, the Greens are not particularly well disposed towards the labour movement and unions in particular. It may well be the case that the movement’s historical closeness to the ALP is a stumbling block, as well as an internal culture moulded in industrial work places, and the lack of support for involvement of interest groups in Greens decision making process.

164

Chapter 8

POLICY MAKING AND ELECTORAL PROFESSIONAL STRATEGIES

INTRODUCTION

To the degree that political parties are policy collectors and aggregators, then so parties can be seen as integral to the development of public policy (Klingemann et al 1994). Certainly, the development of parties is closely linked to the development of coherent public policies driven by an electorate wanting outcomes (Rose 1974). To the extent that parties still have members, then there is at least the perception that party policy is driven by party members (Scarrow 1996). However, an equally strong case exists that as political parties have professionalised, changed form from mass parties to catch-all parties and then to electoral-professional vehicles, this policy making process has been steadily removed from the hands of members (Katz & Mair 1994; Scarrow et al 2000; Gunther & Diamond 2003; Jaensch 2006).

In the case of the major parties in Australia, the ALP and Liberal Party, this policy role has rested squarely with the party (McAllister 2002) and, as Katz and Mair (1994) have argued, increasingly within the hands of a professional elite. While parties may be a vehicle for simplifying voter choice, they concomitantly may be a vehicle for simplifying policy choice (White 2006). As Fenna (2004, pp.10-12) noted, policy debates are “unavoidably normative”, potentially mired in ideological conflict and intensely political. Although the Labor Party has traditionally been allied to trade union interests, policy transfer between unions and Labor governments has declined significantly, especially since the 1990s (McIlroy 2000; Pierson & Castles 2002). Insofar as policy transfer can be utilised to transfer ideas and policies within movements (Dolowitz & Marsh 1996), then it might be expected to occur between new social movements and the Greens. However, perhaps due to the various opportunity structures available to the environment movement, especially in the form of funding and access, this has more effectively been seen between the environment movement and the ALP, though not without consequential problems under Liberal governments (Doyle 2000).

That the environment movement can play an important role in both electing parties and influencing the formulation of policy agendas has been noted previously (Bean & Kelley 1995), but equally this means that member input is diminished in favour of professional advisers’ and parliamentary leaders’ decision. A clear example of this

165 approach can be seen in the 2004 federal election with ALP Leader ‘s announcement of an end to old-growth logging in Tasmania that prompted a revolt amongst the ALP in Tasmania (Wanna 2005; Hollander 2006), and potentially lead to the loss of the election.

In terms of party positioning, especially of long term party direction, the British Labour Party has more widely acknowledged transformation in its adoption of the ‘’, but, as Pierson and Castles noted (2002, p.684), although presented as coherent agenda it could just as easily be seen as an ad hoc collection of ideas. Are the Greens necessarily any different? Although the Greens promote their ‘Charter’ (Australian Greens 2010) as such, and draw a line between the current Charter and the ‘New Ethics’ drawn up by the United Tasmania Group in 1972 (Dann 2008), they are statements of an ideal and not strategic documents. Given this rather loose arrangement, do Australian Greens organisational activists have a clearer sense of what strategic orientation they believe the party should take? Is it oriented towards government or social change? In respect of policy, whether in official party policy, MPs’ policy pronouncements or electoral manifestos, are priorities that might reflect the varying social movement origins of the party represented or subsumed? This chapter will firstly look at the policy formulation process within the Australian Greens, and examine both organisational activists and staff relationship with this process. Further analysis of responses from party organisational activists across a range of policy goals and strategic policy will then be presented.

POLICY AND IDEOLOGY IN THE GREENS

Policy as a subject is a vexed issue within the Australian Greens. This is hardly surprising as policy is often at the core of deep seated political disputes within and between parties (Fenna 2004). However, Greens policy has developed over the years from one enduring set of core values and beliefs33 that perhaps should provide a greater degree of unanimity. These core values represent, then, a form of ideology, even if parties may still claim to be neither left nor right. Prendiville and Chafer (1990, pp.189-190), in describing the French Greens (Les Verts) approach to ideology, noted that although they adopt a pejorative stance towards ideology Les Verts maintained a coherent system, even though tensions within that system

33 Green parties globally share a common Charter, agreed in 2001 (Global Greens 2001). However, individual parties place different emphasis on elements of the Charter. Outside of the Charter, most Green parties adhere to the so-called ‘4 Pillars’: environmental sustainability, social and economic justice, peace & nonviolence, and participatory democracy.

166 remained unresolved. Dobson (1995) goes further to describe an ideology of ecologism, contrasting it to environmentalism, which he described as not being ideological:

“Fundamentally, ecologism takes seriously the universal condition of the finitude of the planet and asks what kinds of political, economic and social practices are (a) possible and (b) desirable within that framework. Environmentalism, typically, does no such thing” (Dobson 1995, p.198).

Bennie, Franklin and Rudig (1995), in discussing the ideological coherence of British Greens noted that many and varied divisions (ie, ‘realo’ vs ‘fundi’, ‘anarchist’ vs ‘electoralist’ etc) remain inside what is essentially one ideological framework within Green parties.

Green parties in Europe have developed large and coherent party platforms based at least in part on this ideology. The development of these platforms did, however, begin to draw out some of the core policy disputes that were to occupy some of the parties for many years. In the German Greens disputes centered around how radical the program would be (Hulsberg 1988). For instance, would it include a radical notion of existence and sentience, and thus proscribe all forms of non-human exploitation? Or would agricultural policy be crafted around sustainable farming practices that did not eliminate this exploitation? This debate led philosopher Rudolph Bahro to angrily denounce the party on his leaving in 1985 (Bahro 1986, p.210). The dispute within the German Greens regarding the purpose of the German Army and the allowance of NATO forces on German territory remained latent until settled with the party supporting the 1999 NATO intervention into Kosovo (Maull 2000; Miskimmon 2009). The issue became latent again with the 2001 and 2003 invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (Kaarbo & Lantis 2003). The use of force in ‘humanitarian’ missions to “prevent mass murder, terror and eviction” (Maull 2000, p7) is a position more recently followed by Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown in regards to East Timor and Greens MHR in relation to Libya (Fieldes & Kuhn 2008; Massola 2011), in marked contrast to the pacifist position put by the Greens first federal parliamentarian, former Senator Jo Valentine (Vallentine & Jones 1990).

However, Volkens and Klingeman (2002, p145) suggested that while parties may have relatively stable ideologies, they may move along the left-right continuum in relation to policy positions. Bell (1976) had previously argued that ideologies were at an end and that technical decision making (and the rise of post-industrial society) would replace old conflicts. However, Kircheimer’s (1966) catch-all parties thesis provides the key to the policy convergence between major parties. If the old (industrial) cleavages of worker and boss are diminished in policy convergence, where do the Greens fit? Or is it more of a case of the rise of a “post-industrial

167 proletariat”, as described by Gorz (1982, p.66), which also fits the notion of ‘cultural creatives’ posited by Eckersley (1989) and others (and alluded to by Bell)?

This chapter will examine where organisational activists sit in relation to a number of broad policy areas and what strategic direction the party should take. Policy discussion will also include how both party organisational activists and staff perceive the existing Australian Greens policy processes as working, and whether this is appropriate for the party. Staff responses are also analysed in respect of what they see the priorities for both party and MPs should be.

POLICY FORMULATION IN THE AUSTRALIAN GREENS

Lucardie and Rihoux (2008, p.11) outlined a process for the potential change in a Green party from ‘amateur-activist’ to electoral-professional party. This process is marked by increasing centralisation and professionalisation of party and electoral processes within the party. The question then is whether policy processes are driven from electoral need or party ideology. That in turn requires an examination of the policy formulation process of the party to determine what, or who, is driving party policy. Are the Australian Greens policy processes driven from the bottom up (that is from the members or community) or are they driven by MPs and their staff? What do organisational activists and staff think of the policy processes, and where do they think the party’s priorities should lie?

To begin with, the policy history of the Australian Greens is convoluted, not the least because the party itself is not a single entity but a confederation of state and territory parties (Miragliotta 2010a; 2010b). The state parties that formed the Australian Greens already had a set of policies, predating the national Constitution that states that member party’s policy must be “compatible” with national policy (Australian Greens 2010, p.7). State parties themselves are made of local groups. Although most local groups do not have separate policy processes or documents, the earliest of the groups were formed as separate parties prior to the formation of the Australian Greens.

The evolution of policy in the Australian Greens starts with the first of the parties. In Tasmania, this takes the form of the United Tasmania Group’s ‘New Ethics’ Charter (Pybus & Flanagan, p.34). In WA, this was a set of principles adopted by the various constituent parts that were to form the Greens (WA) (Lange 1994). For instance, the Green Party of WA adopted the four pillars of the German Greens, while the Jo

168 Valentine Peace Group had a set of enunciated policy points that Jo Vallentine had taken to the 1987 federal election. Each of the local groups that slowly became registered as ‘Green’ parties then had their own set of policy principles or points, although in adopting the name ‘Green’ they nominally agreed a core set of principles.

Potentially, policy disputes within the Greens are not necessarily actual disputes over core values contained within the Charter but may be acting as proxies for other interpersonal conflicts or trust issues. From the formation of the Australian Greens in 1992 until the early 2000s most policy disputes were confined to a state level, as the need for significant national policy hinged on a national presence. Given the lack of a significant national profile other than from the one or two Greens Senators between 1990 – 2001, policy remained a secondary consideration to structural and coordination debates at a national level.

However, the election of Senator Kerry Nettle in 2001 to join Senator Brown expanded the scope of policy needs. This was in part due to the increasing needs for policy on issues such as the sale of Telstra, the GST, asylum seekers and the invasion of Afghanistan. Although the party did by this stage have policies, the need for a clearer basis for parliamentary decisions precipitated an 18 month review of party policy, beginning in 2002. The review used a staged approach involving all the states and territories concluding in a national Policy Conference prior to the 2004 election.

Increased awareness of scrutiny of the policies led to debates over the subsequent three years centred on policies that might be seen to unnecessarily make the Greens a target. One such policy was the drugs policy. Although subsequently endorsed by a number of health professionals as a sensible, harm-minimisation strategy (for instance, see Trioli 2007), some aspects of the policy, as drafted, drew very negative coverage from sections of the media (Jones et al 2008).

Following the 2004 election a new policy review process was established and for the first, and only, time a Policy Officer was employed by the party to manage the process. This process culminated in a second Policy Conference in 2006.

At the 2006 Policy Conference a number of issues were debated due to the conflicting positions of the state and territory parties. Education policy (specifically payments to private schools), economic policy in relation to the handling of public debt, and some aspects of policy were areas that entailed considerable debate. The

169 debate at the previous year’s (2005) National Conference over drugs policy had generated a significant amount of distrust over reasons for policy changes.

The final policy review, in 2009, primarily concerned itself with policy gaps, new policy areas and inaccuracies, but did not specifically set out to overhaul the previously agreed policies or the policy framework (Australian Greens 2009). As in the 2006 review the work was coordinated by a party Policy Coordinator, although in a voluntary capacity, with significant input from the (employed) Policy Coordinator from Senator Brown’s parliamentary office.

In each of the policy reviews the process entailed a call for expressions of interest from members for policy changes or additions. The responses were coordinated through various policy working groups (see for instance Australian Greens 2009). The working groups themselves are made up of representatives of state and territory parties. State and territory parties were then expected to pass formulated policy through local groups before going through the national ratification process. From 2005, drafts of policies were then passed to the Leader’s office for checking against existing statements and positions before being submitted for ratification to either the Greens annual National Conference or a special Policy Conference.

POLICY MAKING AND PREFERENCES

The outline above of the policy process of the Australian Greens suggests that the party is grassroots, that policy is generated from members, it is then discussed and reformulated by representatives of state and territory parties before going back to local and meetings prior to finally going to a national meeting for ratification. However, there remain opportunities to distort the process. The reality of how policy actually is made may be perceived differently by organisational activists and staff, especially those who are working most closely on policy matters.

Table 8.1 reports how the party organisational activists viewed policy making in the Australian Greens. Apparent is a seeming rejection of the notion that party members are not capable or knowledgeable enough to formulate policy. This seems to be a very clear enunciation of the ability of members to work on policy matters.

170 Table 8.1: Organisational activists - party policy roles

Agree Neither Disagree N

I feel effective in influencing Greens policy 64% 21% 15% 408

Local members should be able to adapt policy as the 51% 18% 31% 408 situation arises

Local groups are the most important decision 40% 26% 34% 407 making body in the party

The general community should have a role in the 36% 18% 46% 407 development of party policy

Party members lack the knowledge necessary to 6% 9% 85% 409 make party policy

However, when it comes to who should be taking on particular policy making roles, activists are more divided. The local group’s decision making ability on policy matters, or the general community’s role in formulating Greens policy, elicited no clear agreement for or against. This suggests that these positions (local group decision making and community roles in the party) are in some state of . This further suggests that the Australian Greens was, at least for some of its history, probably classifiable as a ‘movement party’ (Gunther & Diamond 2003; Kitschelt 2006) or ‘amateur-activists’ (Rihoux & Frankland 2008). Rihoux and Frankland’s criteria for amateur-activist parties (2008, p.261) included local groups being the base unit of the party, and that the party has control over MPs. Spretnak and Capra (1985, p.35) noted that, regarding the German Greens, “One of the central functions of the Green party is to be the voice of citizens movement in the town councils…national parliaments, and to relay privileged information from these bodies to the grassroots movement”.

If we consider the Australian Greens local groups as the party’s base units, then the fact that 60% of organisational activists did not see it as the prime decision making unit of the party indicates a shift away from the party’s social movement past. The shift is also mirrored in the split over whether the general community should have a role in policy making in the party. Note that with 50% not directly opposed to community involvement it might be argued there remains acceptance of a community role. Although the Greens had a social movement origin, the ties between those social movements and the Australian Greens appear to be weakened. Activists have previously (see Chapter 6) reported that the Greens is more a political party than social movement. Acceptance of some community input might be reflecting the

171 locality-based nature of the party, and the fact that many activists (see Chapter 5) are engaged in community based activities.

When cross tabulated against gender, no significant relationship emerged between gender and support for grassroots decision making with community involvement. If anything, women were less keen than men, in contrast to their involvement in community work. None of the responses to policy questions showed a significant relationship to gender, age or membership duration.

STAFF AND POLICY – WHO SHOULD DO WHAT, AND WHO DOES

Earlier chapters found that staff make up an increasing part of the Australian Greens profile, and remain critically important in both maintaining the party and supporting party MPs. However, while party members may have a role in policy making, what role do the staff have? Considering that all Ministers rely at least in part on directly employed advisers and public administration staff for policy advice, is policy making vested in staff rather than members? The expectation for staff of Green MPs is that while they would have an important role in assisting their MP in interpreting party policy, they would not necessarily have a direct role in its writing, except as a local branch member. The party’s stated commitment to grassroots democracy would strongly suggest that policy is derived from the membership. Is this, however, the case? Party staff are expected to have a stronger understanding of the role of grassroots democracy as active participants in the party’s functions.

The staff interviewed from MPs offices did see at least a partial role in policy development for themselves, as they dealt with policy matters on a day-to-day basis when the MPs are called upon to make statements or vote on positions. Party staff equally knew that, while not directly involved at the level of party or MP statements or votes, they are called upon to enunciate policy, both to party members and the general public.

While most staff of MPs had conflicting views of their own role, there was a general acknowledgement of the role of members in the policy process. However, staff views of their policy role varied from being simply part of the process when policy comes up for ratification at a state or national level, to a more involved role. The role of ‘experts’ was also mentioned by a number of the staff of federal MPs:

172 “I think experts should write policy, but the organisational party, the grassroots party should be involved in that, and should, not so much lead is the right word, but drive that process. … I want climate scientists writing our climate policy, and I want educational professionals writing our education policy and so on. I think that’s sensible” (Interviewee I).

Well, it should be collaboration between experts in the party in a particular area, people who can spend time doing research and also consulting on them. … Stakeholders, staff and members. Because there’s a role for all of them” (Interviewee L).

There seems to mark a contrast between views of federally employed staff and those employed at the state level, whether by party or state MPs. The different views are perhaps explained by the exigencies of federal politics, where there is a limited ability to consult with party members on policy issues, if for no other reason than the distance between Canberra and the states. That situation was raised by a state-based federal staff member, in relation to input from staff based in Canberra.

“…the policy pool [in Canberra] operates a bit in isolation it seems, anyway. Like, I don’t have very much to do with them, and I don’t get very much support from them” (Interviewee M).

It might also be argued that a similar role is played by ministerial advisers. Laffin (1987) noted adviser’s roles as both initiators and gatekeepers, and it is the gatekeeper role that would appear to be being alluded to by staff here (see also Walter 1986). Benoit (2006) suggested that personal staff hold a direct allegiance to the MP or Minister, and provide a level of advice that is independent of other sources, such as departmental briefings.

State MPs may face similar problems in terms of needing to potentially make quick decisions, but the closeness to the state party physically may prompt attempts to consult. Staff at a state level are also more able to be involved in their local group. Although some staff have noted they have reduced their party involvement (see Chapter 5), the various networks they are connected to within the party are still active, thus maintaining a partial involvement.

“In the development, [members should be involved] as much as possible. And that’s what a lot of people who join, when they tick the boxes of what they’d like to work on, a good portion tick policy development” (Interviewee R).

I don’t have any reservations around the current approach of making sure the members all sign off on things. Unless you’ve got a crazy snap poll situation where you have policies that are necessarily less consultative, I don’t have any reservations about the current structure” (Interviewee O).

173 “Working groups, I really like the idea of working groups. I understand that you have to then rely on volunteers who may or may not follow through, but then so much of our party does rely on that. …and also certainly input from whichever party members who feel moved to comment, which is very much part of what I think, very much part of grassroots democracy” (Interviewee Q).

Non-parliamentary party staff are very clear that it should be the party that is in control of the policy process, no doubt prompted by their day to day involvement within the party, including constant contact with members. They are also perhaps best placed to recognize the finite resources of the party available for policy coordination, which may slow decision making.

“Not the MPs offices for a start. That’s what I’ve seen up to now. I’ve really disagreed. The MPs and the MPs staff write up what they think should be a policy and just say ‘this is policy, here it is’…but I think the process is we really need to have grassroots involvement as much as we can. And I know that’s hard. I know that it’s hard to get people involved in policy” (Interviewee D).

“The members should be writing the policy. [On staff input] this is again one of those challenges where ideally we would see it happen one way, but pragmatically because of the constraints of labour we find it happens in a way that isn’t like that...For good policy we need good research. But ultimately the decision of what the policy position, what the policy principles are, that’s what’s important to make democratically and to bring everyone with you” (Interviewee C).

“I think it’s extremely important the membership has a strong role to play in policy because I think it’s policy that attracts so many people to become members of the party in that they have ideas as to how the world should be run and want to see those ideas come into play” (Interviewee A).

The strong set of statements from the party staff shows they see a role for MPs in the policy process, and at some level paid policy coordination, but a far more limited role for MPs staff. As one party staff member noted “…they can be involved but they should have no more influence than a member. Definitely not” (Interviewee A). The strong implication here is that if a staff member is a party member then their input is welcomed at that level, but staff should not hold a privileged position in the policy process. Dann (2008) noted that the shortage of national level party funding has allowed a separation to grow between amateur (party) and professional (parliamentary) wings, which has only not been exploited by the MPs due to their own activist backgrounds. Dann went further to state that the New Zealand Greens are “…vulnerable to MPs filling the vacuum left by such delays and lacunae [in the

174 policy process] with their own inventions, even if they do it for the best of intentions…” (2008, p.195).

POLICY PRIORITIES FOR THE PARTY

The Greens are said to be a political alternative to the major parties, as a “challenger party” with a substantial policy agenda (Vromen & Turnbull 2006). They also have extensive connections with movements and utilize those connections for policy and political input. On that basis, the policy priorities of the Australian Greens should reflect not just their own agendas but also those of the major social movements of the day. However, as we have noted earlier in Chapter 6, party organisational activists think of the Greens as a political party and not a social movement, which might then diminish those links. As Villalba (2008, p.58) noted in regard to the French Greens;

“…there is no way back to their initially ‘pure’ organisational model and there does not seem to be an ‘alternative’ party organisational model in sight, other than trying to find some sort of compromise between the initial principles and the compelling institutional constraints.”

What sort of policy priorities might we expect to find amongst organisational activists? The survey responses (Table 8.2) are from 2008, after a federal election in 2007, and after the repeated statements from Prime Minister that climate change “represents one of the greatest moral, economic and environmental challenges of our age” (Rudd 2007). It is no surprise that Australian Greens organisational activists consider global warming as the most significant policy priority. The policy priorities tested, however, were intended to be representative of the key ‘green’ issues of their attendant social movements. Some issues that organisational activists might have considered important (such as education spending or infrastructure provision) were not included.

What is also clear is that some policy priorities of previous Green campaigns, such as stopping the use of genetically modified foods or opposing globalization, no longer rank significantly as top priorities. Other formerly icon issues (such as opposing ) have decreased in importance. The changes are likely due to a range of factors, not the least of which is that some of the issues may be considered ‘dead’ due to their apparent success or failure. Reduced opposition to uranium mining is one such issue, likely due to the initial success in halting expansion of uranium mining in

175 Australia (such as at Jabiluka), and then the apparent failure of ALP policy allowing expanded mining at other mine sites (Falk et al 2006; Doyle 2010).34

Table 8.2: Organisational activists - policy priorities

Top priority High priority Low priority N

Environmental issues

Stopping global warming 92% 8% 0% 412

Protecting forests & opposing land clearing 62% 37% 1% 412

Phasing out uranium mining 38% 47% 15% 412

Combating the use of genetically modified food 20% 53% 27% 410

Social justice issues

Supporting public education 48% 49% 3% 412

Protecting civil rights 43% 54% 3% 410

Improving the status of women/rights of 15% 60% 25% 410 women

Constructing a multicultural society 10% 54% 36% 404

Peace issues

Settling international conflicts with peaceful 36% 50% 14% 411 means

Economic Issues

Opposing globalization 15% 35% 50% 409

Improving Australia’s economic 5% 34% 61% 408 competitiveness

Ranked by ‘Top Priority’

When the basic priorities are cross tabulated with other attitudes and demographics another pattern emerges. ‘Stopping global warming’ (supported as a top priority by over 90% of respondents) appears to have a relationship to four particular attitudes and demographics: a) left right placement, b) women as integral to the party, c)

34 Renewed campaigning against the mining and selling of uranium may return following the partial meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi plant in March 2011 (see Friends of the Earth 2011)

176 Greens as political party not social movement, and d) occupation. Those seeing women as integral to the party rated stopping global warming as a ‘Top Priority’ at a higher rate (94% vs 90%). Equally, it also appears that both those who identify as 1-2 and 4+ on the left-right scale place a lower value on stopping global warming (at 88%), while those who identify as 3 on the scale are much more likely (99%) to see ‘Stopping global warming’ as a top priority. Although these may appear to be relatively small numbers, they may represent a broader trend within the party.

Policy priorities may then be seen as signifiers for particular groups within the party. However, there were few attitudinal or demographic items that appeared across more than one or two policy areas. Left right placement generally appeared significantly related to a number of policy issues, suggesting a relationship between internal groups within the party supporting particular issues and a perception of the left-right placement. These will be explored in the next section.

IDEOLOGICAL PLACEMENT AND POLICY

Traditionally, left-right ideological placement has been seen as significant for determining policy positions. Fenna (2004) points to ideological differences between the ALP and Liberal Party for the major policy divergences between these two parties. Taking that into account, then, an assumption might be made that the Greens, as arguing a “Neither left nor right but out in front” line, would a) not have such strong ideological attachments to particular policies and b) would poach policy prescriptions from both left and right positions. Certainly, if we were to contrast the Greens economic policy with their social justice policy, it would be fairly easy to make a case for Greens holding an economic nationalist position while also being social liberals on social justice matters, as a number of commentators (such as Rowe 1998) have done. This would appear to demonstrate a certain amount of ideological incoherence. However, as economist John Quiggin (2004) remarked prior to the 2004 federal election, the Greens economic policy had a good deal of internal coherence, perhaps more than either of the major parties. This would point to other factors operating, which perhaps may cloud the issue of a traditional left-right ideological consistency.

The next two tables (Table 8.4 & 8.4) describe responses to two economics-based policy questions. The first relates to the policy weight the Greens should give to opposition to globalization. Given the various campaigns opposing globalization, from the protests around Seattle in 1999 to the 2007 APEC demonstration in Sydney, and the resultant media generated around the topic, it might be expected that left-wing

177 activists might still consider opposition to globalization a key campaign (Tarrow 2005). It is important to note here that the term ‘globalisation’ remained undefined in the question – respondents were able to interpret the question as the Greens opposing globalization per se or that the Greens might oppose certain aspects of globalization and support others.

Table 8.3: Organisational activists - oppose globalisation vs left-right self placement

Left-right self placement Total 1-2 3 4 5+

Top priority 24% 11% 12% 10% 15% Oppose High priority 40% 41% 30% 29% 36% globalisation Low priority 36% 48% 58% 61% 49%

N 98 141 112 48 399

While overall almost half of organisational activists saw opposition to globalisation as a low priority, the differences when looked at by their self placement on the left right scale are quite marked. Those who placed 1-2 on the scale clearly thought that anti- globalisation campaigning is important, either as a top or high policy priority for the party, while those who placed centre to right wing (4 and 5+) were almost diametrically opposite. This clearly shows an ideological cleft within the party in respect of economic positioning, at least in respect of market globalization.

However, a question that might otherwise split a left position is arguments around improving Australia’s economic competitiveness. Certainly, with the embrace of neoliberal reforms, the ALP has shifted to a position in support of economic competitiveness. However, prior to the right-ward shift of the ALP (support for the removal of tariffs and industry protection) a motivation of the ALP was the welfare of workers, shown through an enduring commitment to full employment (Manning 1992). One clear way of providing that goal is through a constant improvement of Australia’s economic growth, following a traditional left wing promotion of economic growth as a positive for workers in general.

178 The converse of this position is to be found in concerns about the nature and purpose of that growth. If ecological sustainability and social justice goals are sacrificed to growth then it might equally be opposed as harming the position both of the population and the nation – thus growth becomes a negative in terms of Australia’s society. Therefore improving Australia’s economic competitiveness can be cast as being opposite of the direction of Greens policy.

Table 8.4: Organisational activists - improve Australia’s economic competitiveness vs left right self placement

Left-right self placement Total 1-2 3 4 5+

Top priority 6% 2% 4% 13% 5% Improve Australia’s High priority 20% 35% 45% 35% 34% economic competitiveness Low priority 74% 63% 51% 52% 61%

N 99 141 110 48 398

Table 8.4 shows the priority given to economic competitiveness versus left-right self placement. Not surprisingly, those on the left of the party (1-2 on the scale) place a very low priority on improving Australia’s economic competitiveness. At the same time those in the centre and right of the party (4 & 5+) were more open to this position, although half of the respondents still saw it as a low priority. Even those who might otherwise support such a position do not see it as providing strong policy outcomes for the Greens.

Relating left-right placement to other policy priorities produces a range of relationships. On environmental questions, such as protecting forests and opposing land clearing, those who placed further right consider this a higher policy priority. The model of environmentalism that is instrumentalist and unlinked to patterns of exploitation across environmental and social conditions predicts the outcome found (see Dobson 1995).

179 Table 8.5: Organisational activists - protecting forests and opposing land clearing vs left right self placement

Left right self placement Total 1-2 3 4 5+

Top priority 60% 61% 62% 79% 63% Protect forests and oppose High priority 39% 39% 37% 19% 36% land clearing Low priority 1% 0% 1% 2% 1%

N 99 141 113 48 401

Those on the right of the party might be members primarily concerned with environmental protection, and would presumably also support market-based solutions to forest exploitation. Interestingly, those further right do not increasingly reject the policy outcome ‘phasing out uranium mining’ possibly due to the dual nature of uranium – while dangerous and linked to the production of atomic weapons, nuclear power is a less carbon-intense method of energy production and thus a lesser contributor to climate change than power plants. Alternatively, however, while mining that increases Australia’s wealth (high value resource extraction) is acceptable, forestry (low-value resource extraction), an industry most known for producing woodchips for paper production, is seen as a having a negative impact. Further, ‘opposing land clearing’ may be more acceptable to someone who also sees global warming as the most pressing of all issues. What is perhaps most likely being seen here is that, while overall close to 100% of organisational activists see protecting forests as a significant priority for the party, this does not necessarily make it the most significant for them all. Those answering that it is a ‘high priority’ may well consider other issues as more significant, and given that the highest rate of ‘high priority’ is amongst those placing themselves as the most left-wing, then this is likely to be issues concerning social or social justice.

Contrasting ‘protecting forests’ with ‘improving Australia’s competitiveness’ we can note a significant shift between those who see protecting forests as a ‘top’ priority and those see it is a ‘high’ priority, when compared to economic competitiveness.

180 Table 8.6: Organisational activists - improving Australia’s economic competitiveness vs protecting forests and opposing land clearing

Protect forests Total Top priority High priority

Top priority 7% 1% 5% Improve Australia’s High priority 37% 30% 34% economic competitiveness Low priority 56% 69% 61%

N 256 153 409

P = .006

Three responses that ranked both protecting forests and improving economic competitiveness- low priority were collapsed into protecting forests – high priority to retain overall numbers and that they were still low priority for improving Australia’s economic competitiveness.

The cross tab results appear to support the notion that there is a group of organisational activists, placed on the right of the party, who do not see any contradiction between protecting forests and increasing Australia’s economic competitiveness. These organisational activists could be equated to the right wing splinter party from the German Greens (the ‘Ecological Democratic Party’) that looked to centre right coalitionist policies (Hulsberg 1988, pp.94-96).

On each of the more democratic issue-based policies (‘protect civil rights’, ‘construct a multicultural society’ & ‘settle conflict peacefully’), there is also a clear decline in support as we move across the scale from left to right.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

Any discussion of strategic priorities and party change needs to also take into account Harmel and Janda’s (1994, p.269) four item model of party goals: “(1) vote maximisation, (2) office maximisation, (3) policy advocacy; and, (4) intraparty democracy maximisation”. Changes in strategic party goals may be a useful indicator in any shift within the Greens from movement party to electoral professional party. However, given the potential relationships within the Australian Greens (as described in Figure 2.3 in Chapter 2), how party organisational activists perceive party goals may different from both the party’s members and MPs. Nonetheless, the balance

181 between the various goals, as identified by organisational activists may indeed provide an indicator of potential change within the party.

Bennie (2004, p201) asked Scottish Green Party members what should be the highest strategic priority for the Scottish Green Party. Party members overwhelmingly endorsed “concentrate on grassroots campaigning” over other issues. A strategy of “adopt a more decentralised structure” was the least supported. Rudig, Bennie and Franklin (1991, p.78) found similar levels of support for similar strategic priorities amongst UK Green Party members in 1990, with almost equal support for “improve its image as a responsible party with sensible policies”. The least favoured options were again adopting a decentralised structure and exploring options for anti-Thatcher pacts with other parties. These two previous surveys of Green Party members’ attitudes to party strategies suggest that members were strongly focused on campaigning around specific issues, potentially due to the poor electoral prospects, but possibly also due to the possibilities offered within local Councils. It should be noted, however, that Scotland has adopted a new electoral system, utilising a mixed member proportional system, increasing the electoral opportunities for minor parties (Moser & Scheiner 2004).

Lange (1994) found that key party members in the Greens (WA) were focused on a broad goal of changing society as opposed to short term strategy of electoral success. This is hardly surprising given the membership of the party at the time were largely social movement activists. However, the Australian Greens have had considerably more electoral success than the Greens in the UK and Scotland (mostly due to a favourable electoral system). Do Australian Greens organisational activists then see promotion of the party’s policies and programs as important, or do they think the focus should be on maximising electoral success?

Two survey questions were related to the Greens future strategic aims, listed as a highest priority and a second highest priority, with a single answer required for each. Table 8.7 shows the results.35 Almost 50% of respondents saw promoting the program and policies of the Greens as the most important priority, two and half times that of either gaining Government or maximising electoral support. This appears to suggest that Greens organizational activists are therefore more concerned with promoting the party’s ideals than with electing MPs. While organisational activists might ordinarily

35 A number of respondents misunderstood the question and provided multiple answers for either/both priorities. These could not be coded together correctly so were listed as missing, at a total of 7% for both the highest priority and 8% for the second highest priority.

182 be expected to support the primary aim of a political party as being to elect people to parliament, it is clearly not the case for those surveyed.

Table 8.7: Organisational activists - Greens strategic priorities

Top priority Second priority

Promote its program and policies 49% 44%

Gain government office 19% 19%

Maximise electoral support 19% 30%

Create a truly democratic party 7% 14%

Increase membership of the party 3% 10%

Can't choose 3% 3%

Ranked by percent agreement

Question: Political parties can pursue different goals which occasionally may be in conflict with each other. If you had to choose between the five goals listed below, which of the following goals should be the highest priority? And which one do you think should be the Greens next highest priority?

Interestingly, increasing the membership of the party was reported to be relatively unimportant. Seyd and Whiteley (1992) noted the importance of increasing party membership in order to boost electoral chances. The low emphasis here on increasing membership, and the middling importance given to gaining government office, suggests that Australian Greens organisational activists are less focused on attaining office as a path to enacting social change. The relatively low support for maximizing electoral support as a top priority indicates some lingering commitment to a movement party by organisational activists. However, taken together, maximising electoral support and gaining government office may be seen as showing an electoral professional orientation. Australia’s majoritarian electoral system for the House of Representatives may militate against support for gaining government office, and might also explain the increased importance for maximising electoral support as a secondary objective over office seeking.

What can also be noted is that while there is a limited shift in priority between first and second choices, although if we were to allocate preferences (ie; take the second choice of those that nominated ‘promote program and policies’ and reallocate accordingly) ‘maximising electoral support’ emerges as the second most important strategic priority for party activists.

183 Perhaps surprisingly, left-right placement is not significant as a determinant of whether organisational activists prefer one priority over another. However, there is some evidence that earlier joiners (1983-1995) are more strongly in favour of promoting the party’s program and polices than they are towards electoralist outcomes. Thus as long term members leave electoral outcomes will become the highest priority.

STAFF RESPONSES TO POLICY AND PRIORITIES

The ability for MPs’ staff to have an influential role in determining policy and priorities is well documented (Price 1971; Herrnson 1994; Romzek & Utter 1997; Maley 2000; Walter 2006). Maley (2000) noted the clear policy agendas advanced by some Ministerial staff during the period of the , and their linking of their own policy interests with opportunities as they arise. Are similar attitudes found in Australian Greens staff members, particularly parliamentary staff? In relation to party staff, Fisher and Webb (2003) found that many UK Labour Party employees had ambitions for office, for which advancing policies and strategic priorities is an important part. How do Australian Greens party staff see themselves and the party’s priorities?

All staff were asked what they thought should be the Australian Greens highest priority, any other priorities, and then who should be determining those priorities. They were not given any guidance initially on whether these priorities were in relation to policy or electoral strategy outcomes. The tabulated responses (Table 8.8) show staff of the federal MPs and the party gave relatively mixed responses, while state MPs’ staff were quite focused on policy areas as opposed to electoral or strategic issues. State level policy focus may result from state government’s primary role as a service delivery level of government, while federal MPs’ staff will be involved in ‘higher’ level policy making. Party staff will be engaged in working across a variety of issues, both electorally and policy driven. It is useful to note that almost 80% (15/19) suggested policy goals as highest priorities, even if in conjunction with electoral goals.

184 Table 8.8: Staff priorities (n=19)

State MPs Federal MPs Party Total

Policy only 5 1 2 8

Electoral only 1 2 4 7

Both - 2 2 4

Question: Political parties can pursue many different goals. What do you think should be the Greens highest priority?

There were some quite interesting responses from staff, especially in relation to electoral strategy. While MPs’ staff emphasised electing more MPs over other electoral strategies, at least one party staffer remarked “Well, definitely not parliamentarians” (Interviewee H), while another volunteered “Avoiding being poll- driven” (Interviewee B). These responses indicate a divide in opinion between MP and party staff, and signals a more cautious approach to the automatic endorsement of MPs and statements from their offices. Responses were then broken down further to which policy or electoral goals were mentioned as most important.

Table 8.9: Staff - policy area and electoral strategy – counts of highest priority

Ecological issues - , ecological living 4 Policy Broad Green policy platform 1 area Climate change 7

Gaining more political representation 6

Principle driven politics 1

Community engagement 1 Electoral Strategy Profile raising 1

Preselection processes 1

Influencing other parties policies 1

Two clear issues emerge from staff comments: climate change and gaining political representation. However, what is also interesting is that climate change was mentioned only by MPs’ staff, with all the state MPs’ staff who mentioned a policy area nominating climate change. Party staff were more concerned with broad based change across society, and where electoral issues were mentioned a mixture of

185 strategies were nominated. MPs’ staff were far clearer in prioritising gaining electoral representation.

There appears to be some quite key differences between the staff groups. State MPs’ staff were policy driven, federal staff were clearly aware of the advantages of representation, and party staff were still engaged in promoting the party generally as an agent of social change. The implication is that there is no single overarching goal being enunciated by staff regarding the party. Staff seemed to follow the same pattern as organisational activists, with both divided between pursuing policy outcomes and pursuing electoral based outcomes (both ‘Gain government office’ and ‘Maximise electoral support’). In the same ways as organisational activists support ‘Global warming’ as the most significant policy goal, so it appears that staff also consider it to be significant, although not to the same extent. However, that party staff still value broad based policy and electoral strategies, such as ‘Community engagement’ does suggest they maintain a stronger link to social movement networks.

“Another way is more community involvement and I think we do less of that now than we used to do. And I think that’s a shame. It’s a slow change, you know, slowly changing individual’s opinions and working in the community and just showing people, practically, what we believe and what we can do. Yeah, I think we need to start focusing more on community involvement” (Interviewee H).

“The highest priority of the Greens should be to try to alter the way human beings treat the earth, because the way that human beings treat the earth is impacting so much that if we don’t stop treating it this way we won’t have life on earth, or not as we know it” (Interviewee D)”

“The highest priority in total is to preserve biodiversity and our food supplies on our planet, and of course there are many factors contributing to those but the most dominant factor contributing to the loss of biodiversity and increasing food insecurity is climate change at the moment, but many of the drivers whether they be climate change or , habitat loss, unsustainable agricultural practices, are the bi-product of the economic system by which we determine the allocation of resources” (Interviewee C).

These responses indicate a much broader approach to policy than the specifics of problem-solving or situationally-driven policy, rather engaging with broad-based social change. This finds an echo in the work of ecological thinkers such as Dobson (1985) and Eckersley (1992), which, rather than arguing a programmatic approach, provide much more wide ranging proposals for change. This contrasts with the responses of MPs’ staff which emphasised the programmatic. While this is likely to

186 be as a result of the nature of the work MPs’ staff are engaged in, this does mean the MPs themselves are then provided with advice that is limited to the programmatic and which promotes institutional rather community-based responses.

DETERMINING PRIORITIES

Developing priorities for the party is one half of an extended equation in terms of actually moving the party in a particular direction. Who sets the priorities for the party is also critically important in terms of determining where the real and perceived power lies within the party. When asked the question ‘who should decide the party’s priorities’ all staff recognised that the role of the broad membership is important, but in looking at how they saw the membership having input, and what role the MPs had in this process, a number of divergent positions emerged (Table 8.10).

Table 8.10: Staff - who should determine the party’s priorities (n=19)

Staff Total State MPs Federal MPs Party

Membership 2 - 5 7

National/state Councils 2 1 1 4

Elected party reps - - 1 1

Party & MPs together 2 3 - 5

Not answered - 1 1 2

Question: Who or what do you think should determine the party’s priorities?

From this we can see that the role of MPs themselves is emphasized by half of the MPs’ staff wanting the MPs to be involved either as leading or having significant input into the development of strategic party priorities. The involvement of parliamentarians may be seen as natural for MPs’ staff, based on the MP being a , their involvement with policy on a day to day basis, and the MP’s office constant contact with other parties and community groups.

“I think the party, the members, with advice from the parliamentarians” (Interviewee K).

187 “Well, the leaders will always by definition set the direction of the group they lead. So if you accept that we have leaders, it’s pretty hard to escape from the fact that the leader will be setting that kind of agenda often. But the membership, the grassroots party, are all involved with that. First of all they are involved in electing their parliamentarians so they’re involved in that way, but they’re also involved in a more informal way constantly” (Interviewee I).

“Well I think it should be a combination of party, primarily party, but that then actually has to be up for the political representation to interpret, you know, how those are handled” (Interviewee J).

Party staff on the other hand did not mention the MPs as having a role, instead emphasising the role of the membership and the existing party structures. While this might not be entirely surprising, it again indicates a division in views on how the party should be operating.

“The membership should determine the priorities, but if the membership morphed into another version of the Democrats I’d be out, and into the next version, whatever party came along that was more progressive” (Interviewee D).

The division between party and MPs’ staff is perhaps more emphasised here, but given the tendency for longevity within party roles of party staff, and their perspective of dealing with both members and the community keen to have input into the policy process, while MPs’ staff tend to be more insulated from this by the nature of their work and offices (especially for parliamentary based staff) being removed from the membership. Neither group of staff has any additional legitimacy in respect of policy but their perspectives on the determination of policy and strategic priorities do reflect their differing experiences.

CONCLUSION

Miragliotta (2010b, p.7) stated in relation to the Australian Greens; “The philosophical and political leanings of the activists have shaped the internal culture and structures of the regional parties”. Miragliotta then noted that those divisions have resulted in some state parties being more focused on electoral politics, while other “left inspired” state parties have placed more focus on process outcomes. To the extent that the various parties’ organisational activists reflected their respective state parties, the divisions themselves are present within the survey outcomes.

188 It would be misleading, however, to simply put apparent differences in opinion on strategy, policy or party focus down to state party divergence. There are clearly differences based on ideology and gender, as well as when a person joined and was active within the Greens. Bennie, Franklin and Rudig (1995) found four ideological dimensions; left-, biocentrism, and two oriented towards electoral outcomes. If we consider that half of the ideological orientations within the UK Green Party were towards electoralist outcomes, then in comparison Australian Greens organisational activists favoured process oriented outcomes for the party more highly, although as noted in other Chapters may be more focused on policy/ideological goals than participation ones, such as those goals outlined by Harmel and Janda (1994). This would accord with what Bennie (2004) found in respect of Scottish Green Party members concentration on grassroots campaigning. Equally, however, it is still worth noting that although half the organisational activists supported policy oriented goals as a primary focus, nearly 40% supported electoral or office maximising goals.

There are also emergent divisions amongst staff that may have a bearing on this last point, especially in terms of whether the emphasis of who determines party direction is towards the MPs or the membership. While this division is also evident amongst organisational activists, it is not clearly linked to a particular ideological framing or position, but more closely to the period of joining, and thus may reflect the culture and expectations of the party at that time.

It should be noted at this point that Kitschelt (2006, p.286), in describing the potential transition of Green parties from movement party to programmatic parties, pointed outs that those parties who do not adapt to electoral incentives that move the party towards “organisational investment in party structure and ideological investment in programmatic generalization” face electoral failure. Green parties that do not adopt broad based platforms and policies, and build party organisations to fight and win elections will therefore remain marginal. The Australian Greens has managed as a party to enter most state and territory parliaments, where the electoral system is favourable, and the party’s MPs have generally then parleyed this into both programmatic (policy) outcomes, as much as procedural (position or committee) outcomes. This is also reflected in the responses from organisational activists who have joined more recently, which would indicate the process outlined by Kitschelt is underway.

189 Chapter 9

PARTY LEADERSHIP AND ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

INTRODUCTION

If we consider parties as mediating agents between state and society, do organisational activists, as interlocutors between members and party/MPs, assist this function? As key elements of the organisation, the role of the Party Leader, the attitude towards the Party Leader by party activists, and the process of candidate selection provide a suitable prism through which to view contestation within the party.

If the Australian Greens see themselves as the parliamentary wing of a greater movement for social change, as has been argued (Mez 1998; Lines 2006, p.268), then this predisposes the party towards maintaining strong connections with social movements, potentially to the point of structuring itself as a ‘movement’ party (Kitschelt 2006). If, however, the nature of purpose of the party is to self-replicate itself as a parliamentary party (ie, to win seats in parliament and then maintain them through whatever means) this implies a different course of action in terms of structure and organisation (Rudig 2005; Charnock 2009).

Koeble (1989, p.214), in examining the early West German Green party, drew upon McKenzie and Duverger to conclude that the Greens, by virtue of competing ‘elites’ and strenuous internal policy debates, qualified as a “democratically organised party”, even though they were neither hierarchical nor oligarchical, as Duverger (1964) suggested such a party would need to be. However, the claim that the German Greens are neither hierarchical or elite-driven is challenged by Frankland (2008), who noted that although there has not been a complete divorce between the grassroots and the party leadership, considerable organisational change has occurred, introducing both a ‘Party Council’ and co-Chairs (effectively co-Leaders). Kitschelt (1990) noted that while elites may exist within ecological parties (in this case the Belgium parties Agalev and Ecolo) perceptions of the impact of the elite are in part driven by the socialisation and experience of the party activists themselves, such that a professionalised elite may exist but not be perceived to be problematic. The professionalisation of the party, such as that described by Demirovic (1998) in relation to the German Greens, then becomes the critical element, as it is only the professional elements of the party that have the time and flexibility to be able to deal with the demands of the decision making process. Buelens and Delwit (2008, p.85), in

190

discussing the increasing professionalisation of Agalev, the Flemish Green party, cited a (volunteer) member of the executive committee of the party: “It’s impossible to combine this membership with a full-time job. Also a political engagement is impossible. How can we represent the rank and file?” How then is development of Australian Greens party leaderships viewed by the Australian Greens activists, who occupy competing roles within the party?

Panebianco (1988, p.264), in examining the shift of party organisations from mass bureaucratic to electoral-professional, emphasised five key areas of change: role of the bureaucracy; membership or electorate based party; nature of leadership; the source of funding; and, a shift from an ideological to an issues oriented basis for activity. Kitschelt (1989a) and Hulsberg (1988) in describing the process of formation of the Belgian and German Greens demonstrated this last point, especially in relation to the loss of rightwing ecologists early in the parties’ histories, and then a move to more pragmatic electoralist programmes covering the full range of policy areas. Indicative of such a programmatic shift, Tasmanian Greens Leader Peg Putt rated the environment less important than health and economic issues prior to the 2006 Tasmanian state election (Miragliotta 2006, p.591). While the Greens have always been effective in campaigning on environmental issues, this showed a willingness to move towards a broader policy and media based style of campaign. This process appears to be repeated in other Green parties in Australia and Europe (Rudig 2005; Buelen & Delwit 2008; Harris 2008).

Green parties have been effective in promoting the view that they are participatory and grassroots (Miragliotta 2006; Lambert & Jansen 2007), and Australian Greens MPs interviewed have generally shared this viewpoint (Vromen & Turnbull 2006). However, the difficulty of enacting grassroots democracy within the Greens has also been noted from the earliest period of Green party emergence (Hulsberg 1988; Rainbow 1993; Scharf 1994), especially in relation to anti-hierarchical notions regarding parliamentary rotation and decentralised leadership (Spretnak & Capra 1984; Drugan 2003; Villalba 2008).

It is now these internal dynamics of the party, particularly those areas noted by the Seyd and Whiteley studies (1992; Whiteley, et al 1994; 2006) between activists and central offices/parliamentary leadership, that are emerging as key points of interest (Turnbull & Vromen 2006), including continuing changes in the organisational structures of Green parties (Rihoux 2006; Carter 2008; Frankland et al 2008). In examining the ongoing development of the Australian Greens organisational structure, it is therefore important then to retain a focus on the democratic processes occurring within the party. However, as Poguntke (2002, p.136) noted, organizational change will be motivated both by

191 approaching Government and after entering it, such as in the Australian Greens case as a Senate powerbroker.

THE AUSTRALIAN CONTEXT

If we consider the issue of leadership within the Greens, we need to consider the evolution of calls for positions such as ‘Leader’ or ‘Spokesperson’. Both titles have been used at various times by state and national Green parties in Australia, with the position of Parliamentary Party Leader codified at the federal level in 2005. In the state parties, however, the situation is far less clear. Even at the national level, the leader position is limited to parliamentary activities, in terms of the role and reach of the Leader, with office bearers and state parties retaining all their previous controls over the party.

In this respect it is important to note that while the Australian Greens have a recognised Parliamentary Party Leader (Australian Greens 2006), the position of leader of a state party is still largely unrecognised. While the Victorian Greens include the “Greens Party Leaders in each House” as MP representatives on their State Council (Australian Greens Victoria 2008, p.22), this is not mentioned elsewhere in their constitution. A similar clause in the Tasmanian Greens constitution allows for the parliamentary to choose a leader (Tasmanian Greens 2007, p.13). No other state constitution mentions parliamentary leaders, although the ACT Greens have codified the position and role of a Parliamentary Convenor within their constitution (Table 9.1).

While Senator Bob Brown was recognised as the ‘National Spokesperson’ for many years (for instance, Macdonald 1995), there was no title of leader, no executive committee, and national policy statements were the province of the Australian Greens National Councils and Conference. The question of adopting a national leader was debated at the 2001 National Conference but as it was deemed to require a change to the party constitution the status quo remained. During this debate both the Greens (WA) and Greens NSW stated that the party should have no leader, while the Queensland Greens were comfortable with a leader position (Australian Greens 2001). However, the introduction in 2003 of the Australian Greens Coordinating Group (AGCG) broadened the powers of the party office bearers and established that an intermediate governing body may exist, elected from the National Conference (Australian Greens 2003). The AGCG has slowly entrenched itself as a key decision making group within the party, although most decisions are still made in consultation with State Convenors and the Senators, emphasising the strong federalist structure of the party (Miragliotta 2010a).

192 Table 9.1: Leadership discussions in the Australian Greens and constituent parties

Position First Title Mechanism for adoption Current Leader adopted discussed Parliamentary Caucus may TAS 1989 1989 Leader Nick McKim elect a Leader National Conference Parliamentary Party National 2005 2001 adopted Party Room Rules Bob Brown Leader with contained provision

State Conference adopted Parliamentary Party SA 2008 2008 Party Room Rules with Mark Parnell Leader contained provision Convenor of the State meeting agreed to WA 2009 1993 Parliamentary Party Giz Watson proposal from State MPs Collective Parliamentary Role and duties written Meredith ACT 2009 1997 Convenor into Party Constitution Hunter

MPs adopted Party Room VIC 2010 ? Leader Greg Barber Rules

Never (none elected NSW 1989 adopted or adopted)

Never (none elected QLD 2010 adopted or adopted) Never Not (none elected NT adopted discussed or adopted)

The adoption of a Parliamentary Party Leader for the Australian Greens occurred without the adoption of the position by the party’s 2005 National Conference. The adoption of the position was done via the Senators deciding to elect a leader of their group in the federal parliament. The decision was allowed to stand as the party was seen as having no say in the day to day running of the Parliamentary Party Room (Australian Greens 2005). The position of Leader of the Party Room therefore hinged not on the approval of the National Conference but on the Members (the Senators) in the Party Room, through the mechanism of a set of Parliamentary Party Rules adopted by the (then) four Federal Senators (Australian Greens 2006; Miragliotta 2006). However, just as the ‘National Spokesperson’ was generally considered to be speaking for the whole party (whether individuals agreed with this or not), the Parliamentary Party Leader is now equally taken as speaking for the whole party and not just the MPs within Parliament.

In a broader sense we should also consider not just the ramifications of leadership, but the expectations and rationales for it. In this context, there have been a number of arguments put forward at various times regarding why Greens should take up leadership positions,

193 usually centred around resources available to parliamentary leaders or the ability of the media to focus on one MP to the exclusion of others (reducing confusion and increasing visibility). The resource question is particularly true of recognised Parliamentary Parties in the , where substantial staffing and office resources are accorded to the Leader of a non-Government or Opposition Parliamentary Party. State parties, however may also receive benefits along these lines. The Greens (WA) MPs’ decision to accept a parliamentary leader provided additional resources to them. The additional resources, however, are shared amongst the MPs and not allocated solely for the Leader’s use as might otherwise be expected. In the federal Senate this is not the case, with all resources being made available to Senator Bob Brown alone.

The Greens (WA) also began debating whether to have a ‘leader’ in terms of their Senate representation as early as 1993. This debate began with an article in the party’s newsletter by Cathcart Weatherly, then a staffer for Greens (WA) Senator Christabel Chamarette (Weatherly 1993). Over the following months, letters to the newsletter indicated that support was divided on the issue. A further workshop was then conducted at the State Conference in December of that year. However, no proposal was agreed to, and the position remained that the Greens (WA) would not have a party or parliamentary leader. Even the adoption of a ‘Convenor of the Parliamentary Party Collective’ in 2009 was explicitly on the basis that it was specifically for the purposes of the Allowances Act 1975, that it conferred no other benefits or rights, and that the additional salaries and allowances would be allocated and administered jointly by the Parliamentary Group (Greens (WA) 2009).

So, while the Australian Greens has moved towards adopting leadership positions, the process has been uneven, with debates on adoption and titling stretching back to the earliest days of the Australian Greens. These debates, and some of the ambivalence of state parties towards them, may also be seen in the responses of party organisational activists.

RESPONDING TO LEADERS

Leadership as a construct, either within or external to parliaments, has been discussed within Australian Green parties since 1993 in the Greens (WA) (Weatherly 1993), and within the ACT Greens since 1997 (ACT Greens 1997). However, until 2005, the Australian Greens continued with a position of no leaders. However, Senator Bob Brown had been seen as the defacto Leader of the Australian Greens by many members of the public, the media and the party, so Brown becoming the Parliamentary Party Leader

194 formalised the situation as it was perceived. Although formally only the Parliamentary Party Leader, with no authority over the party, Brown is referred to as the Party Leader, and is recognised to be on the same political-organisational level as , , and Prime Minister (Leader of the Government) .

When questioned of the effectiveness of the role of the Australian Greens party leader, respondents were quite unequivocal. Over 80% of respondents thought that the party leader role was effective (Table 9.2). This indicates substantial acceptance of such a role, both within the party and externally, but, given the public standing of Senator Bob Brown this is potentially also linked to his incumbency. Whether the leadership role would be seen as effective with a different person in the leadership role, with a different leadership style, would be an interesting comparison at some time in the future, after Senator Brown has retired and been replaced as leader by the party.

Table 9.2: Organisational activists - perceptions of leaders

Agree Neither Disagree N

The Australian Greens Leader is an effective role 81% 12% 7% 407

The Greens should adopt Party Leader roles in all Parliaments 43% 29% 28% 405

The responses to the effectiveness of the Australian Greens leader were compared to responses to the question of whether to adopt leader roles for all Green parliamentary representations (Table 9.2). On this question, organizational activists were more equivocal, with only 40% agreed. When compared to the 81% who thought the Party Leader position was an effective role, there are clearly some questions remaining about extending the leadership role to other jurisdictions. Such reservation might either be from a fear of creating many such positions (and creating a multiplicity of leaders within a multiplicity of hierarchies) or arise from uncertainty regarding the quality of potential leaders in each Parliament, echoing the concerns of party activists from other Green Parties, such as in France and Britain (Drugan 2003, p.23; Faucher-King 2005, p.75).

The year of joining the party proved a significant indicator of the opinions on adoption of party leadership positions (Table 9.3). The most recent joiners to the party (those who joined from 2001) are twice as likely to agree with adoption of leader positions compared to those that disagree or are ambivalent. By comparison, this level of support drops significantly the earlier the joining date.

195

Table 9.3: Organisational activists - joining periods vs adoption of leader positions (n=367)

Adoption of leadership positions for all Parliaments

Agree Neither Disagree

Join period 1 (1983-1995) 9% 18% 22%

Join period 2 (1996-2000) 21% 25% 29%

Join period 3 (2001-2008) 70% 57% 49%

N 158 107 102

P = .007

The steady rise in support for leadership roles also coincides with the growth of the party from its activist base to a more broad-based party. As the original members leave and are replaced by a newer cohort it is likely that the impetus to adopt leadership position across the party will grow.

Prior to 2001, most organisational activists did not support the adoption of leaders. After 2001, the largest group is now those supporting leader positions. The number of respondents who neither agree nor disagree remains relatively similar. This suggests that the shift to adopting a Parliamentary Party Leader at the party’s November 2005 National Conference is broadly in line with the sentiments being expressed by current party organisational activists. The adoption of the Party Room Rules (Australian Greens 2006) was presaged by a debate on whether the party should have a leader at all. The rules were eventually accepted when, after consensus could not be reached, a vote of Conference delegates was required (Australian Greens 2005).

Panebianco (1988, p.31) found that where a party has a “community of fate”, or defined collective identity, leader’s positions are inherently more secure. The Australian Greens was, until around 2001, a relatively small party with a homogenous and slowly growing membership. After 2001, the party doubled in size to around 5,800 members (Jaensch et al 2004). This homogeneity began to break down, particularly with an influx of former members of other parties such as the ALP and Australian Democrats. The influx of new members coincided with an increase in the party’s electoral vote, and so new members also came with increased expectations and perceived opportunities. There has, at the same time,

196 been a steady increase in those opportunities as Green MPs have been elected to Parliaments across Australia.

Thus it is likely that those who oppose the adoption of leadership positions would also be concerned with the development of entrenched power cliques within both the general and parliamentary arms of the party. However, analysis of responses shows the relationship is weaker than that with joining periods. As noted above, the perceived popularity of Senator Bob Brown as Parliamentary Leader may have influenced the embracing of the Party Leader role (see Dann 2008).

Interestingly, divergent views between earlier and later joiners did not emerge regarding restricted terms for internal party office holders. 35% of respondents agreed with restricting party office holders to three terms. One of the key relationships appears to be that those who did not leadership adoption also sought to term limit of officeholders (Table 9.4). The relationship is consistent with a view that power should be limited through structural restrictions within an organisation.

Table 9.4: Organisational activists - adoption of leader positions vs restriction on office holders

Adoption of Leadership positions for all Parliaments

Restriction of officeholders to three Agree Neither Disagree N consecutive years

Agree 30% 31% 48% 160

Neither 21% 30% 22% 107

Disagree 49% 33% 30% 103

P = .045

Further cross tabulation testing of support for restricting office holders against a range of other demographic factors (age, year joined, gender, self placement on a left-right Likert- type scale, area lived in or university qualification) produced no other strong relationships.

197 BINDING THE ELECTED

In respect to whether and to what level the party should exercise control over elected representatives, Kitschelt noted that the early Belgium and German Green parties exhibited limited control over MPs because they were “…agents of numerous principals” (1989a, p.188), although elites still operated in these parties (Kitschelt 1990). That is, Kitschelt identified that there were too many alternate viewpoints available to effectively constrain party leaders. This lack of constraint over leadership appears to predispose the party to becoming an electoral party, as described by Panebianco (1988, p.264). In contrast, Poguntke (1994, p.18) noted that “the anti-elitist, participatory, internal political culture results in decision making processes that are substantially more open to individual participation and influence than in established parties.” Frankland (2008, p.37) later described the German Greens parliamentary group as “largely autonomous”, indicating an internal shift to a lessening of constraints on MPs. To test whether there was support for stronger vertical ties within the Australian Greens, key questions were aimed at linking different levels of elected representatives to different levels of the party, and included a general question regarding the binding of representatives to party decisions (Table 9.5).

Table 9.5: Organisational activists - binding elected representatives to decisions of the Australian Greens

Agree Neither Disagree N

All publicly elected Greens should be bound by decisions of 71% 11% 18% 410 the party

Although a sizable majority of party organisational activists agreed with binding elected Greens, a still substantial number of respondents were unsure or disagreed with binding elected representatives to decisions of the party (29%). There may be other factors operating such as in what situations binding decisions would apply, how this would operate in parliament, how enforceable any decision would be, and whether there were any circumstances were binding decisions might be waived. For example where the policy was demonstrably untenable, situations had changed or there were local factors mitigating against the decision. It might also be that there is some support for changing the dynamic from party-lead to MP-lead policy making, or a balance of the two, as seen in the German Greens (Frankland 2008).

198 When we move on to the other levels of the party we see an increasing level of disagreement with the binding of representatives, keeping in mind that the question asked about binding only to the particular level. Two observations are appropriate at this point - that disagreement may indicate that respondents wish a) for the representative to be bound by decisions at a different level, or b) for representatives not to be bound.

LOCAL COUNCILLORS AND LOCAL GROUPS

Table 9.6: Organisational activists - binding local Councillors

Agree Neither Disagree N

Local Councillors should only be bound by decisions of their 22% 16% 62% 410 local groups/branches

Local Councillors should be bound by all decisions of the 39% 20% 41% 411 party at whatever level

To examine the potential motivations, two questions relating to local Councillors, as to whether they should be bound only by their local group/branch, or by all decisions, were cross tabulated (Table 9.6). This test revealed a very strong relationship between not wishing the Councillor to be bound only by local decisions but wishing them to be bound by all decisions of the party.

Table 9.7: Organisational activists - councillors bound by local group vs all levels binding on Councillors (n=383)

All levels binding on Councillors

Councillors bound by local group Agree Neither Disagree

Agree 7% 23% 34%

Neither 10% 43% 10%

Disagree 82% 34% 56%

N 152 77 154

P = .000

199 The strong implication is that a significant proportion of respondents are making a clear declaration that they wish local Councillors to be bound by all decisions of the party, including state and national decisions, perhaps seeking the party to correspond to a unified, rather than federated, structure. There was also no relationship between being a Councillor and the response given.

Binding Councillors to decisions made at all levels implies support for a hierarchical decision structure, and it also implies that local level decision making is seen to be subordinate to other levels. While some Australian states have strong Council structures and partisan political interactions at this level (ie, New South Wales and Victoria), there is also a residual sense of Councils being the lowest level of decision making within Australian politics, in terms of importance and service delivery (Byrnes & Dollery 2002; Burdess & O’Toole 2004). It may be that the responses reflect the acceptance of the existing hierarchical structures, however, it is somewhat surprising that this acceptance of hierarchy exists within the Australian Greens, a party which values and promotes grassroots decision making. While it might be argued that as policy is determined by delegates from local and state bodies acting at a national level and therefore there should be no conflict, this could equally imply that there is no need then for local decision making to be subordinate to any other level.

Table 9.8: Organisational activists - Greens as neither left nor right vs Councillors bound by local group

Councillors bound by local group

Greens are neither left nor right Agree Neither Disagree

Agree 26% 17% 21%

Neither 17% 37% 12%

Disagree 57% 46% 77%

N 96 46 248

P = .001

The acceptance of hierarchy was related to how respondents see the party in respects of the left-right placement. Comparing the binding of Councillors only at their local group with the question of the party being neither left nor right, we see a strong relationship with disagreeing with both questions (Table 9.8). However, there was no apparent relationship between self placement on the left-right scale and binding Councillors. There is also no

200 relationship with whether a respondent is a Councillor, suggesting that it is the perhaps a party-cultural norm that is influencing their response, not a self-interest motivation as an elected Councillor. An interesting issue to arise is that membership of a union also appears to have an influence in increasing the likelihood of preferring binding of Councillors, suggesting that the collective nature of unions is importantly carried through to collective decision making within the Greens.

WHERE TO PLACE STATE MPS?

Table 9.9: Organisational activists - binding state MPs

Agree Neither Disagree N

State MPs should only be bound by decisions of their state 27% 19% 54% 411 parties

The question limits the binding nature to the state party only, whereas the disagreement to this could come from a variety of positions. If we consider the position of disagreeing with the adoption of party leaders as being symptomatic of a desire for non-hierarchical structures, then potentially this would also mean non-directive decision making. However, the sizable number of respondents disagreeing with the proposition of binding state MPs, and the previously noted desire for binding all elected Greens (Table 9.5), does suggest that state MPs should be bound by all decisions of the party. The only caveat on that would be that a local branch could not direct a MP elected from another electorate or one larger than the local branch area (ie, elected on a state or regional basis). Nonetheless, the response endorses the notion that state MPs should be directed by the party, even if such binding has party constitutional authority currently only in the Greens NSW (Greens NSW 2009).

A number of other interesting relationships become apparent, in particular that those agreeing with the adoption of leader positions are more likely to disagree with state MPs being bound solely by the state. Further, those who see the Greens as more centrist also disagree with binding. However, the responses are isolated from respondents’ own placement on a left right scale, which indicates that the binding of state MPs to their state party is not purely ideological. That in turn leads to the proposition that perhaps the desire to bind MPs is in part driven by external perceptions of the party – ie, that the party needs to be seen as being in control of its MPs. Yet there is a level of residual apprehension in actually doing the binding. Given the divisive nature of conflicts in the Australian

201 Democrats, over the GST and leadership (Economou & Ghazarian 2008), and in the NSW Labor Party over electricity privatisation (Kelly 2008), the desire to bind may reflect a desire to have some control over MPs, but a reluctance to precipitate any divisive debates.

BINDING FEDERAL MPS?

Table 9.10: Organisational activists - binding federal MPs

Agree Neither Disagree N

Federal MPs should only be bound by decisions of the 27% 22% 51% 408 National Council/Conference

Federal MPs should be bound by decisions of their state party 35% 26% 39% 408

As we can see from Table 9.11 there is a relationship between the binding of federal MPs, to decisions of their state party and to the national organisation. This is perhaps most significantly around two areas: a) that if you disagreed with one proposition you would tend to agree with the other; and, b) that there was also a sizable number of respondents who were ambivalent about either suggestion. Agreeing with binding the federal MP to state decisions would then require disagreement with binding by the national party, as this is a statement regarding the most appropriate level for directing a federal MP. Thus there would appear to be a tension between federal MPs being answerable and taking direction from the national organisation, and a federal MPs duty to abide by decisions of their state party.

Table 9.11: Organisational activists - federal MPs bound by national party vs federal MPs bound by state party

Federal MPs bound by state

Federal MPs bound by national party Agree Neither Disagree

Agree 19% 28% 35%

Neither 13% 49% 10%

Disagree 68% 23% 55%

N 135 102 145

P = .000

202

As Table 9.12 shows, there was an even stronger relationship evident between disagreeing with state MPs being bound by states and federal MPs being bound by the national body, which suggests a strong reaction against binding MPs only to a single level. It may be that respondents are considering the role of state or federal lower house MPs, who might be held responsible to decisions made at their local level (the group or branch), or that respondents believe MPs should not be bound by any decisions made by the party, and they should take guidance only from the party.

Table 9.12: Organisational activists - federal MPs bound by national party vs state MPs bound by state party

State MPs bound by state

Federal MPs bound by national party Agree Neither Disagree

Agree 61% 11% 16%

Neither 12% 77% 6%

Disagree 27% 12% 78%

N 106 75 209

P = .000

Considering those who agree with the binding of the MPs only at their respective level, we then find that there is a further relationship with the binding of the Party Leader to decisions of the National Council and Conference. The responses suggest a more rigid form of and structure was preferred, one of making MPs accountable to the party at their respective levels. Other factors such as left-right placement, demographic or joining factors do not appear to be significant, though, to the binding of federal MPs at the federal level, which suggests a fairly straightforward desire for the binding of MPs based on a particularly ideological position.

In examining the responses to the binding of federal MPs to their respective states, a more complex picture emerges. Factors such as respondent’s attitude to leader adoption, term restrictions for MPs, and the binding of the Leader to national decisions were all indicative of support for binding MPs. This last relationship was particularly clear in showing that respondents who agreed with the binding of the Leader also agreed with binding federal

203 MPs to state decision making processes, again reinforcing a more structured model of decision making and accountability of the MPs to the party.

CANDIDATE SELECTION

Both Rose (1974, p.3) and Key (1964, pp.163-65) identify three ‘faces’ of party, although with slightly differing emphases’: Key describes the party in government, the party as organisation, and the party in the electorate (meaning the people who identify as a party supporter without necessarily being a member). Rose describes this as “the party in Parliament, the party at headquarters, and the party in constituencies” (1974, p.3). In Rose’s formulation ‘party in constituencies’ describes party members and organisation in individual electorates. Following Katz and Mair (1994), Katz (2002, p.95) defines the ‘party in constituencies’ to include regular campaign workers and financial supporters. The constituency is the level from which most parliamentary (and certainly all local government) candidates are drawn. Collectively, it also describes the selectorate for upper house and Senate candidates for most Australian state and territory Green parties. So, a key relationship between MPs and the party that needs to be considered is candidate selection.

Candidate selection at its most basic is the selection of candidates to run as party standard bearers in elections (Ranney 1981), through a process where candidates are “sifted and assessed” (Whiteley & Seyd 2002, p.6). However, this does not convey the full meaning of what being a candidate means, what the expectations by party members of the candidate are, nor what the expectations of the candidate by the electorate are (Hazan & Rahat 2008). It does not describe what the motivations and hopes of the candidate are, or by what mechanisms the candidate will be selected candidate, or the qualities that selectors (that is, members) are looking for (see for instance Norris & Lovenduski (1993) on direct and indirect prejudice in candidate selection). So candidate selection can be a complicated and frustrating business.

If we consider the selection of candidates by the electorate as one form of selection, and the selection of candidates by the party as another, we should really consider this second form a pre-selection – the selection of a suitable person to run under the name or with the endorsement of a party in an electoral process. This pre-selection is, however, the place of greatest contestation between (usually) party members with similar ideological positions and goals, but with the most to win or lose out of such a selection process. It can also be a definitive draw for joining and remaining in a party, either as a candidate or as a pre- selector.

204

Table 9.13: Organisational activists - reasons for joining the Greens

Somewhat Important Not important N important

To influence the selection of candidates for 24% 34% 42% 413 political office

To pursue a career in green politics 9% 18% 73% 413

Considering the reasons that organisational activists gave for joining the party, while neither joining to influence candidate selection or to pursue a career in green politics were particularly favoured, influencing candidate selection was still considered a moderately important reason for joining – over 50% of organisational activists rated this as at least ‘somewhat important’ (Table 9.13). Determination of suitable candidates to represent the party can be seen as an important consideration in the minds of party organisational activists, but not necessarily the key outcome looked for when joining.

Table 9.14: Organisational activists - pursue career in green politics vs stood for election (n=406)

Stood for election

To pursue career in green politics Frequently Infrequently Not at all

Important 17% 7% 8%

Somewhat important 25% 27% 14%

Not important 58% 66% 78%

N 65 97 244

P = .002

Only 58% of those who joined with the stated reason of pursuing a career in green politics had actually stood as a candidate for election to public office, but of the politically motivated organisational activists (as opposed to other members) standing frequently for elected office, they made up almost one in 12. The relatively low rate of involvement may have been for many reasons, such as learning how much was expected of them or realising what their real chances were of being elected after they had joined the party. The other

205 notable feature is that, perhaps logically, the less interested in pursuing a career in politics a person was the less often they stood for election.

This leads us to a series of questions that need to be considered in the candidate selection process, as it pertains to Green parties: 1) what is being contested and thus what are the chances of success, 2) how this affects the qualities of the candidates required, 3) what are the pre-existing conditions affecting the selection, 4) what sort of person is being sought, and 5) what candidates are available (Whiteley & Seyd 2002; Rahat 2007; Hazan & Rahat 2008)? Candidate availability is often not considered when speaking of major parties as it would be automatically considered that there would be an available pool of people of at least a reasonable ‘quality’ (however defined) to stand (Norris & Lovenduski 1993), but this may become a critical question in dealing with a minor, or non-major third, party.

One important question that requires answering is what pre-existing conditions exist in the seat or election. Consider the case of a state selection for a lower house seat at a by- election. It may well be that the local group (branch) of the Greens is unable or unwilling to contest the seat, perhaps due to the lack of a candidate, lack of confidence in the candidate they do have, or a functional inability to contest the election. However, there may be a desire on the part of the state or national party to run in the seat. There would then be a discussion (which may lead to conflict) within the party in regards to whether to endorse a candidate. The continued territorial nature of most parties operating in federal systems, especially Green parties, (Deschouwer 2006) will therefore tend to favour the regional branch, short of strong national leadership (Rahat 2007; van Houten 2009). As van Houten (2009, p.145) suggests, over-riding a local or regional branch may have an apparent short-term national benefit, but longer-term costs.

If we consider the responses of organisational activists to the primacy of the local branch in the pre-selection of candidates, we see that a significant majority believed the local branch to be the most appropriate site of selection. However, there still remains a moderate proportion of organisational activists who are less enthusiastic and might yet still prefer the central party to be able to over-ride local decision making (Table 9.15), especially when considered alongside the potential role of the party leader.

206 Table 9.15: Organisational activists - local group best to preselect

Agree Neither Disagree N

The local group/branch are the best group to preselect candidates 80% 12% 8% 408 for public office

The party leader should have the right to reject a candidate 14% 16% 70% 411

However, this does not address the question of what qualities are actually being sought in candidates. As noted above, there are a number of qualities that will depend on the particular type of seat being sought, but this aside, what general qualities are looked for in a candidate, and can these be mandated? Deschouwer (2006, p.298) identifies “territorial heterogeneity” as a factor that needs to be considered in analyzing parties operating across multi-level systems, and in the case of the Greens in Australia this heterogeneity might also be expected to occur within the party. That 24% of organisational activists (see Chapter 5) considered candidate selection as an important reason for joining would suggest that local party activists views will impact considerably on the kinds of candidates put forward by the party at any election.

Table 9.16: Organisational activists - stood for election

Frequently Infrequently Not at all N

Stood for elected office at a local, state or 16% 24% 60% 405 federal election

It also appears that the party organisational activists are standing for election on a regular basis. While the question did not specify a number of times they had stood over what period (or how recently had the stood for election), to be a candidate they would already have passed through some pre-selection process. That means that 40% of organisational activists have stood over the last few election cycles for one of the three levels of government (local, state or federal). This represents a considerable burden on those members most active in the organisation (see also Poguntke 1992). However, given that local Councillors were included, it could also be argued that most of this activity was in the many seats and elections where the Green candidate will neither be the front runner in the campaign nor be elected.

207 AVAILABILITY OF CANDIDATES

It has been noted that there are seats which might have been won by the Greens if they had run.36 The general supply of candidates itself may be low, let alone candidates that might be considered to have all the qualities desired by either electors or party members. As noted above, only 3% of survey respondents indicated that becoming a candidate or pursuing a career in Green politics was a ‘very important’ reason for them joining the party. Again, the lack of winnable positions is not a problem for the major parties, as the opportunities for election also raise the potential for members wishing to become MPs, Councillors etc. The potential opportunities lead some people to become members on the prospect of becoming a candidate. However, this supply of ambitious (and potentially suitable) candidates is less in minor parties due to the more limited possibilities for minor party candidates to be elected. Seyd and Whiteley (1992; Whiteley et al 1994; 2006), in their various surveys of UK parties noted that becoming an elected representative for a party was a motivator for 10% of new members to join and be involved.

Within the Greens, motivation to join to become a candidate might be expected to be commensurately lower given the lessened opportunities for winning. Ideologues are drawn to overtly ideological parties, such as the Greens, but may be less suitable to be good elected members. Ideologically motivated members would still require a capacity to gain support from within the party. Preselection of idealists is more often seen in micro parties such as the Citizens Electoral Council, where campaigning zeal might be linked to ideological integrity – that the more you believe, the more likely you are to want to go out and campaign – with the secondary outcome that the ‘true believers’ will tend to gather likeminded members around them thus creating a support group to vote for their candidate.

Recall the five questions asked previously in this Chapter: 1) what is being contested and thus what are the chances of success, 2) how this affects the qualities of the candidates required, 3) what are the pre-existing conditions affecting the selection, 4) what sort of person is being sought, and 5) what candidates are available? These five questions deal mostly with the structural aspects of candidate selection, and barely touch on the human qualities expected of a candidate for a party, and what might be sought by a party or local branch in the selection process. While it might be possible to enumerate these qualities, they may equally need to be flexible to accommodate changing circumstances, both

36 The 2008 NSW local government election in the City of Botany Bay is one example suggested by ABC elections analyst (The Poll Bludger 2008).

208 politically and on a candidate-specific level. Party activists would, then, be expected to be both those members most likely to be involved in pre-selections (as candidates or selectors) and to be involved in the election campaign itself. While the survey questions did not cover all the aspects as discussed above, they did cover a number of the core structural issues concerning candidate selection.

STANDING FOR OFFICE

A significant number (80%) of respondents supported with the proposition of MPs serving multiple terms in Parliament. While MP rotation was a facet of a number of early Green parties, especially in countries with list-based electoral systems such as Germany (Hulsberg 1988, p.120; Poguntke 1992), it has never been a feature of the Australian Greens. The survey did not test whether this has anything to do with Senator Brown’s now third term as a Senator, or the relatively new election of many Green state MPs, although term limiting MPs might be a potential point of contention in the future. However, there have been discussions at various times within the Australian Greens regarding term limiting, although the number of terms has never been agreed upon. This debate was most prevalent in NSW and WA, the former because upper house MLCs serve 8 year terms, the latter in response to former MP Jim Scott deciding to run for a third (four year) term (and being successfully elected) in the 2001 WA State Election. The survey responses to the multiple term question would appear to indicate that respondents are now generally comfortable with MPs serving multiple terms (Table 9.17).

Table 9.17: Organisational activists - standing and staying in office

Agree Neither Disagree N

Green Members of Parliament serving multiple terms 81% 15% 4% 410

Green Members of Parliament should only be allowed to serve 12% 16% 72% 411 two terms in Parliament

In contrast, the results of the question asking if MPs should be restricted to only two terms revealed an unambiguous 72% disagreeing with this position. The response given appears to indicate that respondents do not wish term limits to be placed on MPs. However, it is also possible that they wished to place a term limit on MPs of some other number than two (one, three etc) terms, given the potentially varying lengths of these terms. As these options were not provided in the survey questions they could not be answered, although

209 one respondent commented onto the survey sheet itself that they wanted the limit to be one term. The use of a specific number of terms [two] was due to previous debates within the party which have centred on term limits of two terms, given the different term lengths of various parliaments (three, four, six or 8 years terms), and the potential for two terms to equal six years in the federal House of Representatives and 16 years in the NSW Legislative Council.

If we then compare terms limits to the rejection of formal restrictions on candidates, similar large groups rejected both, so a picture emerges of a strong decentralist ethic in respect of candidate selection. The implication is that respondents predominantly believe that the selection process should lie with the local group and members, including whether a candidate should be allowed to continue to hold selection. While making no value judgment about the suitability of candidates, it appears that respondents sought to support their ability to preselect when answering this question.

While one in 10 (10.0%) disagreed that any member should be able to stand for selection as a candidate, it appears to indicate they were considering the need to vet candidates for suitability, rather than other more substantive concerns. As the Victorian Greens have in the past used ‘Candidate Selection Panels’ to recommend suitability of candidates at a state level, the 10% result may be a reflection on the Candidate Selection Panel practice (Australian Greens Victoria 2008). Candidate Selection Panels, as used by the Greens, do not directly select the candidates but instead interview and vet the candidates and then provide this information to selectors. While not actually being a selection panel in the normal sense of the term (ie, performing the selection process in total), this does mean, however, that the panel provide information to party members as selectors. The process is critically important as not all the candidates may be known or known well, so this information may promote or reduce a candidate’s chance of selection. Thus the Candidate Selection Panel becomes a significant influence in the process, exercising direct power over the process through any recommendations provided by the Panel to party members.

STAFF ON LEADERSHIP

The expected response to interview questions on leadership was that MPs’ staff would view leaders more favourably than party staff. A corollary to this is that within the MPs’ staff, the most support for leader positions would come from federal MPs’ staff rather than state MPs’ staff. If we consider that party staff are generally drawn from the activist layer within the party, and if accept May’s law of curvilinear disparity (1973) has at least some

210 validity, then party staff within the Australian Greens will tend to be more ideological than party leadership figures such as Bob Brown, and more likely to be informed by earlier models of Green party organising. MPs’ staff, on the other hand, are potentially likely to be drawn from the ranks of campaigners, those who have worked with candidates prior to their election, or those who have worked for other MPs. These staff will therefore be potentially more accustomed to the hierarchical structures in campaigning and parliamentary institutions, and thus potentially more favourably disposed to leaders. In respect of any differences between state and federal MPs’ staff, difference in favouring of leaders may arise because state staff will often be embedded in their state party and more likely to be exposed to notions and arguments concerning hierarchies and leaders. Federal staff would have far more experience of the practice of parliamentary leadership but be more removed from local branch activities.

Staff responses were examined as a whole for each individual staff member, and coded for the staff members’ personal leanings towards leadership at a federal or state level. As each respondent had been asked about both state and federal leadership, all staff were able to be coded for a response to determine the general orientation of staff to leadership (Table 9.18).

Table 9.18: Staff -responses to leadership at state and federal levels by individual staff member (n=19)

Federal leadership State leadership

Positive 8 5

Neutral 3 7

Negative 8 7

The coded results show that there is a greater acceptance of leaders at a federal level than at a state level, with the low number of neutral responses to federal leadership indicating an acknowledgement of the reality of the current federal leadership of Senator Bob Brown.

“But what we are actually talking about is Bob Brown. And I think when Bob Brown leaves and is no longer part of our senate team, that’s when we can discuss those sorts of issues. But until then, you can’t divorce the Greens from Bob Brown” (Respondent G).

“…having just one leader like Bob’s model at the moment, that’s not leadership that’s just really control in a way” (Respondent N).

211

However, the large number of neutral responses regarding state leadership may also be indicative of a greater ambivalence to leaders more generally. This drop in support for leaders between federal and state levels mirrors the responses from organisational activists which showed an 80% acceptance of federal leadership being an effective role, but a halving of support for adopting of leaders across the party to 40%. What should be noted here, though, is that, as a group, staff were less accepting of leader positions than the surveyed party activists.

If the stratarchy hypothesis is applied (see Chapter 2), we need to consider both state MPs versus federal MPs’ staff, and party versus MPs’ staff. The second category includes state and federally based staff employed by the party combined as the number of federally based staff is low enough as to potentially compromise anonymity. However, as can be noted from Table 9.19 below, breaking staff numbers down into party, state MP & federal MP categories provides a comparable spread of staff numbers across the categories.

Table 9.19: Staff - responses to leadership at state and federal levels by staff and employer (n=19)

Federal leaders State leaders

Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative

Party staff 1 - 6 1 1 5

State MPs staff 5 1 1 3 3 1

Federal MPs staff 2 2 1 1 3 1

Table 9.19 shows a strong lack of support for leadership roles from staff employed directly by the party, for either state or federal leadership positions. This negativity towards leadership is not replicated amongst MPs’ staff at either a state or federal level, with these staff being generally positive. State MPs’ staff also showed a strong positive reaction to federal leadership, more so even than federal staff. The sampling required interviewees to have some involvement with the party, and thus excluded some federal staff based in Canberra. It may also reflect the different natures of state and federal politics.

In their responses, federally employed parliamentary staff were comfortable with the role and position of Bob Brown as the Parliamentary Party Leader. State MPs’ staff were more

212 ambivalent towards a ‘party leader’, separating the role from Senator Brown and indicating that there were concerns around other models, such as rotation or sharing.

“It ends up just being, whoever is the best at it just ends getting dragged back into the position over and over again, and then everyone starts getting pissed off because it’s that’s against the charter or the constitution of the group and so forth. So I don’t want to be proscriptive on that actually. I think we’re figuring it out as we go along” (Respondent A).

“I really enjoy the consensus process, I think its a very, very strong decision making process, and I really enjoy the notion that everybody’s equal in these decision making fora, so I don’t have any desire to have a system where one particular person was, even if they were elected to the role, where one particular person has more decision making rights than others, that doesn’t do it for me at all” (Respondent O).

State MPs’ staff went further, acknowledging that a more generic party leader should not necessarily be a person who drives decision making within the party, but a person who takes the lead role within the parliament. There was also recognition that a directive or authoritarian leader would not necessarily be appropriate or work within the context of the Greens existing structure or membership.

“I think the problems has been, not that we’ve had a leader in the national parliament, but if that person uses their position in a way that, by virtue of that office, to effect certain outcomes, you could say, you know, putting your imprimatur on particular candidates, is an abuse of that power” (Respondent F).

“I think we’re about as flat as a structure you could have within the confines of the things we have to do here. I can see why you wouldn’t want to have one [a leader]. Absolutely. But I just think it’s a little bit dysfunctional” (Respondent G).

The expectation that MPs’ staff (especially those of federal MPs) would be more favourable to leaders than party staff, appears to have some validity, although there was little difference between state and federal MPs’ staff. With regards to the differences in staff responses to leadership, that there is some strong disagreement amongst staff about the position of leadership within the party. The disagreement appears to be divided by employment, as party staff were considerably more likely to disapprove of leaders generally than MPs’ staff. The lack of party staff support could potentially result from their closer connections to the grassroots of the party, might be because they are themselves part of the activist layer of the party, or because they have a greater understanding of the dynamics of the party’s internal debates and operation. There is also a likely self-selection bias occurring amongst staff who choose to work for the party and those who choose to work for MPs.

213

A deeper examination of the actual responses reveals a number of key themes. Each of the key themes were repeated more than once by staff members, at varying degrees of strength. For instance, almost all staff noted that Senator Bob Brown is the Leader of the party, irrespective of the titling or actual scope of his position. Some respondents saw this recognition as positive, others as problematic, although none were opposed to Bob Brown per se. The corollary to Brown being leader, however, was that this was perceived to have been driven by a series of factors, particularly media demands for a central figure to gain comment from. Key themes are shown in Table 9.20.

Table 9.20: Staff - key themes as responses to leadership

Resource Leadership as Leader as Public Party capable Membership Brown Media as availability & providing coordination respond to of dealing with doesn't need as leader driver allocation inclusion role leader leaders leaders

The responses were re-analysed as key codes to identify what terms/concepts and particular responses were being noted by staff. Five key codes emerged from this, with a number roughly corresponding to some of the key themes, and a series of ideas and concepts cascading from those key codes, as shown in Table 9.21.

Table 9.21: Staff - key secondary themes as responses to leadership

Derived key Ideas and concepts within key

theme theme

Leader =

Bob Brown

Public media voters responds to response response leader

Leadership inclusive consultative coordinative role

state party more membership Party confusion over leaders than a single expectations mechanics other models minor leader (+/-) priority

resource resource Technical availability as allocation by aspects driver leader (+/-)

214

The media is strongly identified as a key driver for having a leader, although this is also tempered by a concern that the ‘leader’ should perhaps be a principal spokesperson. The general public were also noted as being a group desiring or requiring a ‘leader’ figure.

“Difficult not to have a Leader when people will tell you who the leader is, like the press. They will call Bob the leader until Bob retires” (Respondent S).

“Being available for easy comment is actually what gets us into the media, gets us into the stories…. People know, for example, they can ring up Bob Brown and they will be able to get a comment on something fast” (Respondent G).

“As for the state level, again, once you’ve got more than a couple of MPs at the state level, you end up with the same issues, around who do the media go to” (Respondent H).

“And I don’t think it’s necessary, even if we were actually aspiring to form our own government, to me, I don’t think there’s any reason why that even a Premier, a Green Premier, would have to have any more decision making rights. They would just be a principal spokesperson” (Respondent O).

Finally, party staff were far more articulate in directly opposing having leaders.

“But I don’t think you need a leader, no” (Respondent S).

“Well, I don’t support having a party leader, which means I don’t think they are important” (Respondent M).

“Internally the Greens don’t need it, as I say, I don’t think the media need it and the other parties don’t need a leader within the Greens to connect to the party with” (Respondent B).

“To my mind leadership is the skill to bring people with you. Its realising when people need unifying, its realising when there’s a message that’s prudent, its realising when there’s a time not to push. Leadership is not about issuing commands or edicts. Leadership is not about insisting that your opinion is the right opinion” (Respondent I).

The principle theme to emerge was, again, that Bob Brown is perceived as the leader of the Australian Greens, even if he was only appointed as the leader of the Federal Parliamentary Party, and not as a the leader of the Australian Greens. A strong notion also

215 exists that both the media and the general public have required and acknowledged Brown as the leader, and the party is in some ways left to deal with the ramifications of this. However, at the same time, there was expressed by a number of respondents’ deep reservations about any leadership style that appears to revolve around control or enforced opinions, in language that was unequivocal regarding the rejection of autocratic decision making within the party. This was most striking from party staff, although it was also acknowledged by some MPs’ staff that control over the party by a party leader was of some concern for them too. Also mentioned by most of the MPs’ staff was the need for a leader in Parliament so as to access increased entitlements. One respondent did note that the Greens (WA) had managed to deal with this by the MPs appointing one of their number on a rotational basis and then deciding on the allocation of resources on a collective basis (see Table 9.1).

If we then return to Figure 2.3 (see Chapter 2) to examine the potential relationship between party staff and MPs’ staff, we can note that there is at least some identification with MPs by their staff, but with an acknowledgement of the issues of leadership still unresolved, so aligning them most closely to the Party in Central Office. Party staff appear to more closely align with party organisational activists, indicating a likely placement within the Party on the Ground. Any assumption that both sets of staff would necessarily appear in the Party in Central Office, on the basis that staff are a professionalising force within the party, does not hold for all Australian Greens staff, and in particular staff employed by the party. This is most likely due to the structure of the Australian Greens, with a minimal national office and a bottom-heavy branch structure. As long time party activist Drew Hutton has noted (cited in Norman 2004, p.164), the intent at the time of establishing the Australian Greens was to create a national party with limited state and strong local organisation. However the Australian Greens ended up with a strong state and local, but weak national, organisation.

CONCLUSION

The issue of leadership has a long and vexed history within Green parties. Unlike other party types, leaders have been equated with hierarchies of control, authority and power, and have been seen as undermining democracy. While this has generally been managed by European Green parties through the adoption of co-Leaders, or co-Party Chairs, there is still an issue of how these positions are perceived by the electorate. It is also useful to note that the staff surveyed here were clear in recognising the needs of the commercial media in having a single person to approach for comment from the party, and the perceived need of the general electorate to have a single person on whom to focus, so as to provide a ‘face’ for the party.

216

This Chapter has revisited the issue of leadership from the perspective of party and MPs staff, and in doing so examined how staff were reacting to notions of leaders and leadership. There emerged a clear distinction between staff employed by the party and staff employed by MPs in how they view leadership. What is also clear is that objections to leaders from party staff were articulated in the language of control and authority, and that there was a clear rejection of this style of leadership.

Staff play a critical role within any party. Their alignment within the party, whether to the state party organisations, to the MPs, or more simply ideologically, will have an impact on how they transmit ideas and information further within the party. At this stage of the Australian Greens development party-employed staff retain a strong attachment to flat, non-hierarchical structure, associated with the earlier period of the party’s development. MPs staff, on the other hand, do appear to be more comfortable with hierarchy and direction being provided by leaders or leadership teams, perhaps as a result of the experience of working within the parliamentary framework. This would suggests there will be an emerging push to both professionalise the party along the lines other Green parties have followed internationally, with a concomitant strengthening of the Party in Public Office.

217 Chapter 10

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

INTRODUCTION

A conclusion logically recapitulates what has been said in the preceding text and reflects on what might be learned from the research undertaken. This thesis also requires some reflection on my own part, principally because, as a very active participant of over 20 years standing within the Australian Greens, my own experiences will colour any conclusions I reach about the current state and future direction of the party.

So, this conclusion will begin with my own experiences and some reflections on those years as a party member, office bearer and national participant. That reflection will hopefully establish the context for concluding remarks about the party, especially as the Australian Greens, like its sister party in Germany, seems poised to make substantial electoral breakthroughs in the coming years. We may then yet be able to answer the core research question, “Have the Greens moved from being a movement party to an electoral professional party?”

MY EXPERIENCE IN THE GREENS AND HOW IT RELATES TO THIS THESIS.

When I joined the Greens in 1990 it was just after the 1990 federal election. It was summer, and I had recently returned to Australia from the UK, where I had lived for most of the previous year. While in the UK I had joined the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), a 4th International Trotskyist organisation, because I could not believe that a city as wealthy as could have so many people sleeping rough each night. My excursion into the SWP only lasted that year in the UK, as I had a number of significant issues with their claims about society, capitalism and social change, not the least of which was their commitment to the violent overthrow of the state – why couldn’t it be peaceful, thought I – and their complete disregard for the environment.

218

On arriving back in my home state of Western Australian I was introduced to the Greens (WA) by a former colleague from my days as a public servant, Keith Bostock, who was heavily involved with the new party. The Greens seemed to me to be picking up some of the slack from the old Communist Party of Australia, recently disbanded, without indulging in fetishising ‘the working class’. The party, with Senator Jo Vallentine in the federal parliament, seemed to have a voice and a future. But some of the internal workings of the party, the cultural aspects if you will, were very different from what I had experienced in the SWP, and seemed quite odd at first. When I went to meetings everybody would sit in a circle, rather than the usual ranks of people facing a podium from which a would propound. I was told people faced each other so that we could all see each others faces, and all engage in the discussion when we had a decision to make. It was clear that voting wasn’t so important here either. The party used consensus, and the party even had the name of a book on consensus decision-making written into their Constitution. I was informed that consensus was the fairest of decision making systems because it gave everybody a voice, and encouraged all participants to both speak and put their points of view. A potentially quite awkward way of making a decision but one that held the promise of better outcomes than traditional voting. And gradually I got used to it.

Then there were the people, usually women, who would sit watching the meeting. If what they did had a name I have forgotten it now, but their job was to watch the ‘process’ of the meeting and assist the facilitator and the meeting to make good decisions. They would note who had been doing most of the speaking and suggest ways for the group to improve its internal processes. At the same time they would sometimes also draw a diagram corresponding to each participant in the meeting and draw lines between who spoke. Cheryl Lange, whose 1994 thesis focuses on the anthropology of the Greens (WA) (Lange 1994), was one person who I would see doing this. The resultant image was a speaking ‘map’ – which could be very enlightening on who was doing all the talking in a meeting! The purpose of the speaking map, however, was again to improve the group’s processes, to emphasis to those who spoke more often to allow more space for others, and to highlight to the facilitator where work needed to be done in respect of skills development.

My introduction and first few years were filled with a number of different activities and ways of acting, different from my previous involvement in the SWP, union meetings and student politics. Indeed the politics I was engaged in seemed very new and strange, yet more connected to both people and the environment than the old workerist attitudes of both unions and the SWP that I had previously experienced. Over time I became a facilitator myself, and worked to introduce some ideas I had seen in other forums, such as ‘progressive speaking lists’ which prioritised women and those who had said nothing previously over those who would make comments and speak often. This seemed a fairer way of engaging all participants in a meeting, especially one that was fairly large, so that all voices could be heard and that

219

when consensus was said to have been achieved, every voice had been heard, and every participant had had an opportunity to have some input.

However, at the same time, I was engaged in some internal struggles within the still-new party over resource allocation – specifically that the party should begin establishing itself more formally, with an office and maybe even someone to answer the phones and letters. At that time, each new set of office bearers had to set up shop in their own backrooms or living rooms. This brought me into contact with not just Jo Vallentine, but also other future politicians, such as Christabel Chamarette (nominated by the party to fill Jo Vallentine’s casual Senate vacancy when Vallentine retired from politics due to ill health) and Dee Margetts (elected to the Senate at the 1993 federal election). With these meetings came an understanding of the various positions being played out in Germany between the Realo’s and the Fundi’s (and other groupings within the German Greens) (see Hulsberg 1988 and others).

The Greens WA seemed to have similar groupings, although most members would have been relatively oblivious to them. For myself, I was considered as what one researcher on the Greens (WA) identified as a “left structuralist” (Darley 1998), allied to Realo elements, while Chamarette was identified with Fundi ideas. Over time these labels began to have less meaning in terms of intellectual import, and more to do with ‘us’ and ‘them’, nonetheless they had the potential to split the party.

Darley (1998) also noted that people entering a party bring their experiences with them. If these experiences have been in parties or groups that use voting and have a strong hierarchical nature then this is what they expect and act out. So the cultural element of the party was almost inevitably going to change to some extent. The strong suggestion from Darley regarding the Greens (WA) was that while some change was inevitable, those changes need to be quite carefully thought through. I can now see with the benefit of hindsight that perhaps some changes that occurred in the early years of the Greens (WA) might have been better considered, but equally, some of the resistance to those changes appeared more based on personality conflict than actual intellectual or ideological disagreement. Similar situations were played out at the national level, with the increasing professionalisation of the party, increasing centralisation of decision making, campaigning and fundraising.

My own path lead to being elected as the Greens (WA) Party Secretary and Party Convenor a number of times, as well as being a local branch Convenor. Towards the end of the 1990s I began working in the state MPs offices as a relief staff member, and then for 18 months for state MLC Dr Christine Sharp, as her Research Officer, working closely with her and the

220

other MPs in state parliament. After moving to New South Wales in 2003 to work on the 2003 NSW state election campaign, I continued to work for the party and MPs, including a six month stint with Michael Organ, the Australian Greens first federal lower house MP, and then for the Greens NSW as an organiser for five years (as discussed in Chapter 3). I was also elected as National Convenor of the Australian Greens for two terms between late-2003 and late-2005. As Convenor I was responsible for the management of the national office, and maintaining the good operation of the party between national meetings, as well as being involved in preference negotiations in the lead up to the 2004 federal election. Along with this was also a responsibility to try and resolve disputes between and within state branches, which occurred on two occasions, in South Australia and Queensland. Perhaps fortunately the Convenor has no authority over state parties, so dispute resolution was through mediation and negotiation! Those two disputes, though, highlighted potential divisions and tensions within the party, and went to the core of internal politicking over party direction. They were only finally resolved when particular members withdrew from active involvement in the party. As noted in Chapter 3, from 2007 I began winding back my active involvement in the party

Thus my experience has been at the centre of the party from the local branch to the national office, as well as being on staff for both party and MPs. Attending National Conferences of the Australian Greens has been an activity I have ensured I did for almost every one since the first Annual National Conference after foundation of the Australian Greens in Canberra in 1993. Being at those national conferences also allowed me to meet and talk about the politics the party was engaged in across Australia, to look at and learn from the different ways of operating that each state had, and to reflect on my work within the party. The 1990s were a time of the party slowly building and establishing itself, but the slow nature of the task meant that new members who joined the party were acculturated within the party. Their own ‘party socialisation’ process was not so different to my own, learning about consensus decision making, the flat party structure and commitment to grassroots organising.

However, following the Global Greens Conference in Canberra in 2001 it had become relatively clear that the party was going to require some restructuring and reorganisation, if only to accommodate the increasing administrative workload from an expanding party. In 2002 a National Review was carried out, followed in 2004 by a Strategic Forward Planning process. Both activities yielded changes to the structure and operation of the national party, with first a national administrative committee (the ‘Australian Greens Coordinating Group’) being adopted and then a National Manager (originally titled ‘National Officer’). Each new layer of administration and personnel, however, slowly moved power, influence and decision making away from the state and local branches. With the election of five Senators in the 2007 federal election came Federal Parliamentary Party status and a separate Leader’s Office and staff. Policy making now began to be concentrated within parliamentary staff, especially in

221

the ACT and Tasmania where Greens negotiated a Governing Agreement (ACT) and accepted Ministerial posts (Tasmania).

WHO ARE PARTY ACTIVISTS?

This thesis has not carried on an extensive discussion on what constitutes an activist, perhaps because each different party scholar has a different interpretation as to what actually is an activist, often dependent on what is being studied. Instead, I took the position that I wished to look at a particular type of activist, the person who expends considerable energy inside the party, maintaining and replenishing it as an organisation. These activists can’t be simply defined by the number of hours they expend in this activity, although it might be reasonable to assume they spend considerable hours on party activities. Instead, this thesis has defined them by the roles and positions they play and hold within the party: the local branch office holders, the members of Working Groups, delegates at national meetings and so forth. Each of these positions requires a commitment of time and energy to be engaged within the party, to prepare for and attend meetings, create and reply to correspondence, and generally be in touch with the party’s directions and operations. Obviously some people, dependent on their position or time they have available, will be more involved than others, but together this group represents the organisational core of the party.

Other activists, those that do much of the ‘leg-work’ in the party, holding stalls, putting up posters, distributing literature and so on, are not so critical within the party’s organisation, although they are critical for the party’s survival. Activists that are active in their community and active in social movement organisations are also not included here, although they are equally critical to movements and movement politics, and add greatly to the information and knowledge that party activists of all types rely on.

WHAT IS SPECIAL ABOUT STAFF?

This thesis has one focus on a particular kind of activist, the party organisational activist. As noted in chapters two and four, an expanded stratarchy within a party highlights the roles the volunteer activists play, but it also highlights the role staff (as a group) play. This thesis also looks at staff, who exist in a unique position between the party, MP and community. MPs’ staff, as interlocutors, are also interpreters and information transmitters to and from the MPs, and have over time accrued considerable influence in their role. While many would disavow

222

that influence, it is clear from discussions with them that they were aware of their ability to influence party policy and agenda, either themselves directly or through their employer.

Party staff, on the other hand, were more acutely aware of the contentious issues within the party and those issues that might affect the party’s development. Party staff appeared to have a much greater investment in the position and performance of the party, perhaps also because for many they had an extended involvement of the party at their local and state level. The difference in attitudes towards contentious issues, the party and the strategic priorities of the party between party and MPs’ staff means that we cannot treat staff as a homogenous group either. A number of the studies examined here, especially those of US Congressional staff, begin with the assumption that staff will have relatively consistent attitudes across branches of , with the main variations coming from positions held and length of service. This is largely driven by understandings of the US electoral and candidate selection systems. Australia, with a markedly different set of electoral and counting systems in place nationally, and with tight links between party and MPs, need to be examined with a different set of underlying assumptions.

As noted in a number of the chapters that examine staff attitudes, there is a disparity between the three groupings of staff at the party, state and national levels. One quite clear difference between the groups of staff is the general longevity of party staff, the relatively high turnover amongst federal staff. On the issue of turnover rates, there will obviously be a number exceptions, most often relating to the most personal of staff, who as advisers must hold the MPs’ trust. In the case of the Australian Greens this is most clearly seen in the relationship between Senator Bob Brown and his Chief of Staff, Ben Oquist. While one interviewee, perhaps ungenerously, referred to them as the ‘Flowerpot Men’, referencing an old children’s TV show, their relationship is undoubtedly close and has been a source of sustenance for Senator Brown through his 15 years as a Senator. That such a working relationship is able to endure the at times highly stressed Canberra political environment would be seen as exceptional except that a number of the party’s Senators have maintained the same key advisers over extended periods of time.

WHY THE GREENS, WHY NOW?

The Greens, as a political force in Australian politics, have been growing in influence over the last decade. The election of Adam Bandt to the seat of Melbourne in the 2010 Australian Federal election, and his involvement in ensuring that Julia Gillard remained Prime Minister has given the Greens leverage over the ALP at a national level. The election of Jamie Parker

223

at the 2011 NSW State election in the seat of Balmain, although not into a balance of power situation, gives the Greens a foothold into another lower house. That these elections occurred in general elections and against both ALP and Liberal candidates indicates the Greens may now be able to win and hold seats outside of by-elections where they may be the opposition candidate. When the 4 new Green Senators took their seats in the federal Senate in July 2011, the Greens were then in the balance of power in both houses of the federal parliament, and thus will be key to the passing of much of the Government’s legislation. That propels the party to the media forefront.

2011 also marks the year that the Greens in the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg took the Government. Although not yet the largest party in that state, they outpolled the Social Democrats and will, in coalition with them, have a First Minister. This will be the first time that the Greens have actually taken Government through election as a coalition leader instead of a junior coalition partner. While Baden Wurttemberg is far away from Canberra, the Greens position in Baden-Wurttemberg will be seen as a watershed election in German politics, with potential ramifications in other European states. While there have been a number of examinations of the impact of Greens on European politics, and of the composition and organisation of European Green parties, this has not been an area of considerable examination in Australia. Certainly, 2011 appears to be an opportune time to be examining the Australian Greens.

The reason for studying the Greens’ internal organisation is a somewhat more complex than an examination of their beginnings and current electoral fortunes. As a party with their historical base in social movements, predominantly the peace and environment movements in Australia, the Greens have had to change and adapt organisationally. First as their membership and number of MPs grew, and then as the demands of positioning themselves as an alternative government became greater. As discussed earlier, these changes necessitated offices, staff, then structural changes and most recently modifications to cultural practices within the party. At least some of the change has been unconsciously driven by experiences within other institutions such as parliament and local councils.

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?

The original question driving this thesis was “Have the Greens moved from being a movement party to an electoral professional party?” Various questions have sprung from unpacking the form and nature of the party, its organisation and structure. They provide the opportunity to examine in some detail some of the aspects of the party.

224

The obvious conclusion that can be derived from looking at the demographics described in Chapter 4 is that the organisational leaders within the party are somewhat older and better educated than their voters. However, compared to the general population, Greens party organisational activists are much older and very highly qualified. While the survey didn’t look at the broader party membership, it appears the membership is not too different from the party organisational activists when compared to other surveys of Green party members. The middle class base of the party is also unsurprising given previous studies of activists in what might otherwise be called ‘feeder’ social movement organisations such as CND. The survey examined here did not show any gender biases within the composition of the activists, even though a number of other surveys had shown up an increasing number of men involved in the Greens. However, one important issue was that almost one in five activists had previously been a member of the Australian Labor Party. This means that a considerable number of people involved in the Greens party organisation have experience of a more traditionally organised party. These former ALP members appeared to have become a significant part of the membership stream after the 2001 federal election

Turning to examining why party organisational activists join a party such as the Greens (Chapter 5), the overwhelmingly most important reason given was to realise their political aims, followed by becoming politically active. This strongly suggests that party organisational activists are principally motivated by a desire for political outcomes, potentially in opposition to the prevailing policies amongst the other parties, rather than being motivated by personal aspirations. The least important reason for joining the party was given as membership being advantageous to career prospects. Only 1% of activists saw this as an important reason to join the party, and even pursuing a career in politics was the most important reason for only 9% of activists. Personal benefit outcomes therefore account for only 10% of motivation to become involved in the Greens in the first place. The lack of emphasis on personal goals is perhaps appropriate as the people surveyed were those who had a considerable existing investment in the party, and who devote time and energy to the party’s operations and maintenance.

A similar pattern with respect to local branch activity is evident. Due to the nature of the sample, most organisational activists attend their local branch meetings frequently. Interestingly, staff also have an investment in local branch attendance, but a recurring theme for staff is that this attendance is seen as conflicting with their work activities, so a number of staff were restricting their ongoing party activity. While limiting of activity might appear reasonable, the implication is that party activity has in the past been compatible with work activities, but into the future this will change. The withdrawal of staff from branch and party activities will in turn begin to isolate their offices from the broader membership, potentially

225

increasing the divide between the party in the electorate and the party in central office and government. While in itself this would appear to be part of the previously observed shift in emphasis away from the electorate, in the Greens this marks a substantial shift in where future party energies will be directed.

A further interesting issue that became evident in respect of activists’ attitudes towards community engagement was that of activists’ involvement in their local communities. While most have been engaged in some form of community based work or activities such as boycotts and buy-cotts, a gender division appears in relation to who is involved in the different modes of engagement. Women were more likely to engage with their local community. This would appear to accord to anecdotal evidence that it is women in the Greens who are actively engaging with community campaigns such as food cooperatives, community gardens, local climate change groups and so on. The division of labour evidenced here, however, does not appear to have lead to any sense of discrimination amongst women in the party, so may instead reflect how women are engaging and accessing the party, particularly at the local branch level.

MOVEMENT TOWARDS AN ELECTORAL PROFESSIONAL PARTY

Chapter 6 deals primarily with the broad question of placing the Greens within a parties framework and what direct indicators there might be. As such, the logical place to start is with the Greens as a ‘movement party’, such as described in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2. However, the Australian Greens appear to be moving away from this original base. Table 10.1 described party organisational activists’ responses to Kitschelt’s (2006) criteria for an electoral professional party. Comparing the responses to the categories a number of points of difference become clear. When activists were asked specifically about whether they felt the party was a social movement or a political party there was clearly no interest amongst the organisational activists in returning to a movement, although there appeared to still be some ambivalence towards the suggestion that the Greens are a ‘political party’. This does not, however, mean that party organisational activists do not undertake movement activities outside of their involvement within the party, but certainly at the level of position holders within the party there is clearly acceptance of the Greens as a party engaged in electoral activities. The acceptance of the primacy of political activity can also be seen in responses to attitudinal questions around the efficacy of party work and voting – choosing between voting, party work, working in community organisations or engaging in rallies and boycotts, party organisational activists chose working for a party and voting as the most important activities to engage in.

226

Table 10.1: Party orientations – Australian Greens activists’ responses compared to electoral professional party

Australian Greens activists’ responses Electoral Professional Party

Multi-issue, stating social justice as important as Multi-issue, embrace of left Programmatic basis environment; distinctly left-wing, but not wishing to move right dichotomy as any further left appropriate, issue moderation

Consider current federal leadership appropriate (potentially charismatic) but more ambivalent in regards to other levels Elected, tending to populist, Leadership & structure of the party; local branches preferenced in structure image related, professional (voluntary) Preference for local branch decision making but with a Decision making Centralised, hierarchical growing tendency towards hierarchy Multi-movement (‘Rainbow’), some party activists Social movement Will attempt to co-opt involved externally; preference for working within the influence movements party Mixed engagement with local community groups; Strong within policy Networking preference for local branch involvement in policy communities

Electoral success, limited Policy implementation through electoral success; party to Goal orientation policy success preferably champion environment in parliament through government.

Programmatic issue opportunity, appropriate Opportunity structure Programmatic issue opportunity, availability of resources, leadership structure, required low electoral threshold available resources, moderate electoral threshold

(Adapted from Kitschelt 2006)

On a programmatic level, in looking at which issues might be placed highest on the party agenda, organisational activists were also quite unequivocal that social justice issues were just as important as environmental issues in terms of importance to the party. Again there is a strong suggestion of a desire for the Greens to hold a broad range of positions on many different issues, rather than maintaining a narrow environmental focus. That said, almost three-quarters of party organisational activists also saw the Greens’ role in parliament is to champion the environment. This apparent conflict may arise from a desire to have a broad based party with an ecological focus, coupled with a belief that the Labor and Liberal parties do not place sufficient emphasis on the environment.

The emphasis from organisational activists that the Greens need to pay equal attention to both social justice and environmental issues leads to discussion about the ideological placement of the party – is the party still “neither left nor right but out in front”? Organisational activists

227

are quite clear that the Greens are a left leaning party, although they are also clear they do not wish the party to move any further to the left. The lack of enthusiasm for any further leftward movement may indicate a desire for a certain amount of electoral pragmatism, although not an outright advocacy of moving to the centre. In examining the issue of ideology further in Chapter 7, we find Greens organisational activists, and party voters, clearly on the left of the political spectrum. Interestingly, there is again a gender dimension, with women identifying as more left wing than men. Organisational activists who had joined in the earlier part of the party’s history were also more left wing than those who had joined in the last 10 years. The changing orientation of newer members suggests that as the party builds a broader membership base, and those members move into the party organisation, there will be an increasing influx of members closer to the political centre.

Allied to ideological positioning is the role of unions in the Greens. Party organisational activists were well represented as union members, with over 36% of organisational activists being union members, nearly doubling the national average of 19% (ABS 2009). However, the composition of the union membership, concentrated into the education, public and general services sectors, emphasises the middle class nature of the party membership. If we look at traditional blue collar areas of union membership, the unions covering these areas comprise just 5% of those activists who are union members – or less than 2% of the surveyed organisational activists. So while the Greens may have a distinct left wing ideological flavour to it, this is not represented by membership of traditional blue collar unions, but instead from the ranks of middle class unions. Perhaps wary of previous associations between labour unions and the ALP, organisational activists are wary of greater associations between the Greens and unions, preferring that unions have no greater influence than they already have.

Chapter 8 considered another sign of a party potentially shifting to an electoral professional mode of operation, that of policy and strategy formulation. An interesting division appears between different types of staff. While activists are clear they are capable and should be involved in the process of policy formulation, staff are far more divided. The division is most clear between party and MPs’ staff, with party staff suggesting that policy formulation should rest with the membership. In this respect they sit with the party organisational activists in wanting a bottom-up approach to policy making, even if recognising the exigencies of parliament and the occasional need for rushed decisions. Federal MPs’ staff, however, were much more comfortable for the role of policy formulation to be moved away from members to experts and staff, and highlighted the need for the relevant MP to also be involved. The involvement of the MP and their staff is also emphasised when dealing with strategic priorities. State staff, perhaps because they are generally closer to their local branches and members seem to have mixed feelings towards who should be making policy and strategic decisions for the party. Mixed responses were dependent on where you worked also appeared in terms of what priorities staff thought the party should pursue. While activists clearly

228

highlighted promoting the party’s program and policies over electoral considerations, and were unequivocal in nominating climate change as the most significant policy issue to be addressed, staff provided an interesting range of responses.

While party organisational activists were asked for policy and strategic goals separately, staff were asked this as a single question (ie, “What do you think should be The Greens’ highest priority?”). Interestingly, where a policy outcome was provided by state MPs staff, they all nominated climate change. For party staff, each nominated a completely different programmatic priority. Most of the federal MPs staff nominated a strategic outcome, and this was uniformly to increase parliamentary representation. The differing responses from the different groups of staff very clearly show up the differences in their outlook on the party, reinforcing the division between the three faces of the party (as described in Chapter 2) in their responses.

Lastly, the role of leaders and structure within the party (Chapter 9) provided further evidence in the shift from a movement base to an electorally pragmatic party form. In the early days of the party, formal leadership was not considered by the party or its constituent parts. The exception was Tasmania where the nature of the state party’s formation resulted in MPs being elected without a party structure – thus MPs in search of a party. It was only in 2005, 20 years after the party’s first formal registration in 1985, that a party leader position was created, and theoretically then only in relation to the federal parliamentary party. Over the following five years a leadership position has been adopted in five of the states and territories, with only NSW, Queensland and the Northern Territory declining to do so, the last two because they have never had a need to. The only state or territory Green party with sitting MPs to decline to have a position of party or parliamentary leader is the Greens NSW, with currently its 6 state MPs and a Senator.

However, it should also be noted that all of the state parties that have adopted leaders have done so in the context of parliament only, and generally via the MPs adopting a set of party room rules rather than via a broader membership debate. The adoption of the Australian Greens Party Room Rules was via the Australian Greens National Conference, so all state parties (and by corollary, local branches) had discussed the proposal. The party-wide discussion may then explain the very strong support for an Australian Greens Leader, while a certain ambivalence still prevails over adopting leaders at other levels of the party where discussion has been less broad. The adoption of leader positions is also linked to when activists joined the party. Those joining in the earliest part of the party’s history, prior to the election of Bob Brown to the Senate in 1996, were far less approving of adopting leader positions than those joining after 2001. However, as the numbers of new members grows, and

229

longer term members fall by the wayside, the adoption of leader positions, and the potential for deferment to those positions, will become increasingly likely.

IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS

The debate over leadership and structure now looks set to move to a new level, with Senator Brown reported to be moving to push for a national structure, which would presumably disempower state parties (Johnson 2011). How this will play out with the broader membership is unknown, but this reported attempt by Brown would seem to set the stage for a transition to a party controlled very clearly from a central party structure, and potentially from the Leader’s Office, in Canberra. Such a move would likely herald the transition of the Australian Greens from a movement party to one clearly controlled by the party in elected office, run by professionals, and with electoral performance as key outcomes – an electoral professional party, perhaps as per Table 10.1.

The current attempts to nationalise the party structure has been preceded by debates on policy and strategic outcomes, in which at least some altering of policy has been driven by electoral concerns, and certainly those electoral concerns appear to be high on the agenda of those working most closely with MPs. While party staff and party organisational activists appear more concerned with promoting the party’s program and policies, policy may well be subordinated during the fight for parliamentary seats. An opinion piece by Greens NSW MP immediately after the NSW 2011 state election (Faerhmann 2011) is telling in that it raises the issue of a state leader or state shadow cabinet, and whether the Greens should adopt some or all of those institutional features. The adoption of institutional features is given credence as, “until voters can picture us as a government in our own right, or as a key player in shaping government, we will struggle to poll more than a few percentage points higher than we did” (Faerhrmann 2011).

The strongest implication of Faerhmann’s last statement, and from statements from Senator Brown (for example, Johnson 2011) and Tasmanian Greens MP Nick McKim (Ward 2006) is that, at least amongst a number of the Greens MPs, it is that the party must change, whether structurally or programmatically, to achieve electoral success, and that electoral success is the only benchmark by which the party should be measured. With newer members of the party appearing to agree more readily with these changes than members of longer standing, and with the dwindling numbers of those longstanding members, the potential for those changes to be realised becomes stronger. The march of the Australian Greens towards being an electoral professional party is well advanced, but as yet incomplete.

230

APPENDIX 1

Party membership

NSW1 VIC2 QLD3 WA SA4 TAS5 ACT6 NT7 Total

1990 366

1991 496

1992 299

1993 300 113 348 60 821

1994 450 143 700 432 110 50 1885

1995 560 250 325 370 100 450 130 0 2185 1996 603 496 646 411 87 441 144 35 2863 1997 601 333 646 455 140 451 142 25 2793 1998 545 423 500 449 100 325 123 20 2485 1999 740 340 161 439 70 281 105 20 2156 2000 712 330 107 471 96 292 120 30 2158 2001 1044 597 284 686 130 330 140 0 3211 2002 2094 1150 524 695 280 420 226 0 5389 2003 2682 1750 870 864 430 532 360 29 7517 2004 3177 1442 733 882 511 724 346 119 7934 2005 3116 1872 787 976 471 851 380 134 8587 2006 2845 1720 625 849 429 1012 300 99 7879 2007 3072 2280 796 868 480 1031 339 103 8969 2008 3061 2814 875 1044 557 1222 473 144 10190 2009 2787 1864 745 1048 540 1150 425 146 8705 2010 3352 2699 842 1036 616 1246 538 100 10429

Notes:

Prior to 1993 Greens NSW membership was only recorded by individual local branches - no figures available between 1984-1993. Australian Greens Victorian formed in 1993. Queensland Greens first formed as Brisbane Greens in 1985, then Queensland Green Network but no records available prior to 1995. Australian formed in 1995. Green Party of South Australia existed prior to 1995 but did not become part of the Australian Greens. Tasmanian Greens existed as a network until 1989 but no membership figures available prior to 1995 ACT Greens formed in 1993. NT Greens existed as a loose network prior to 1995 but no membership figures available.

231

APPENDIX 2

Australian Green MPs terms, qualifications and former occupations

2009 State MP Terms1 Served House Qualification3 Occupation4 O/B5 Age2 WA

Jo Vallentine 3 63 1984-2002 Senate BA DipEd Teacher N

Christabel Chamarette (1) 61 1992-1996 Senate BPsych MPsych CertTropMed Clinical Psychologist N

Jim Scott 3 61 1993-2005 MLC (Carpentry trade) Theatre Technician N

1993-1999, 2001- Dee Margetts 1/1 54 Senate/MLC BA-Hons Dip Ed (MA) NGO Coordinator-PND (Student) N 2005 Christine Sharp 2 62 1997-2005 MLC BA-Hons MA PhD Agriculture-Tree Farming N

Giz Watson 4 52 1997- MLC BSc Builder Y

Consultant (NGO Coordinator- Robin Chapple 2 60 2001-2005, 2009- MLC (Mechanical trade) Y ANAWA) Paul Llewellyn 1 54 2005-2009 MLC BSc MSc Small Business- Y

Electorate Officer (NGO Policy Officer- Lynn MacLaren (1)/1 47 2005, 2009- MLC (Did not complete) N WACOSS) NGO Coordinator-WA Conservation Rachel Siewert 2 48 2005- Senate BSc Y Council 1 39 2008- Senate BA GradDipPolicy Electorate Officer N

Alison Xamon 1 40 2009- MLC BA LLB Union Lawyer Y

Adele Carles 1 40 2009-2010 MLA BComm LLB-Hons Lawyer N

232

VIC

Greg Barber 1 43 2006- MLC BSc MBA NGO Campaigner-TWS Y

Community Worker-Western Area Colleen Hartland 1 50 2006- MLC DipComDev N Health Service NGO Project Officer-Australian Drug Sue Pennicuik 1 52 2006- MLC BA BAppSc Dip Ed MEnvSc Y Foundation Adam Bandt 1 37 2010- MHR BA LLB-Hons PhD Lawyer-Industrial Relations Y

MBBS MHealthSc 1 39 2011- Senate Clinician Y MPubHealth

SA

Kris Hanna (1) 47 2003-2006 MLA LLB-Hons Lawyer N

Mark Parnell 1 50 2006- MLC BComm LLB MRUP Lawyer-EDO N

NGO SA Campaign Manager-Amnesty Sarah Hanson-Young 1 28 2008- Senate BSocSci N International NGO Policy Officer-Mental Health 1 41 2009- MLC (Did not complete) Y Coalition Penny Wright 1 49 2011- Senate BA LLB Grad Dip Env Studies Statutory Panel member N

NSW

Ian Cohen 2 58 1995- MLC BA DipEd Activist N

Lee Rhiannon 3/1 58 1999-2010, 2011- MLC/Senate BSc-Hons NGO Coordinator-AIDWatch N

Michael Organ 1 53 2002-2004 MHR BSc-Hons DipInfMgmt University archivist N

NGO Campaign Coordinator-Stop the Kerry Nettle 1 36 2002-2008 Senate BSc-Hons N Womens Jail

233

Sylvia Hale 1 67 2004-2010 MLC BA DipEd LLB Publisher N

John Kaye 1 54 2007- MLC BE MEngSc PhD University lecturer-engineering N

NGO Executive Director-Nature Cate Faehrmann (1) 40 2010- MLC BA Y Conservation Council Barrister-Industrial Relations & Family (1)/1 38 2010- MLC BA LLB-Hons Y Law Jan Barham 1 52 2011- MLC DipFashDes Mayor N

Jeremy Buckingham 1 36 2011- MLC BSc Stonemason N

Jamie Parker 1 43? 2011- MLA BEc MPolEc Business owner - Marketting Manager Y

QLD

Ronan Lee (1) 33 2008-2009 MLA BA Electorate Researcher Officer N

Larissa Waters 1 32 2011- Senate BSc LLB-Hons Environmental Lawyer N

ACT

Lucy Horodny 1 52 1995-1998 MLA [? - no information] NGO Campaigner-TWS N

NGO Editor-Canberra Environment Kerrie Tucker 3 61 1995-2004 MLA Karitane Mothercraft (Nursing) N Centre Deb Foskey 1 60 2004-2008 MLA BA DipEd LM PhD Student Y

NGO Policy Director-Mental Health 1 38 2008- MLA BSc-Hons GradCertEnvMgt Y Council Meredith Hunter 1 47 2008- MLA BA NGO Director-ACT Youth Coalition N

NGO International Political Director- 1 38 2008- MLA BEc LLB-Hons Y Greenpeace Caroline Le Couteur 1 57 2008- MLA BEc BBus GradDipEnvMgt ACTPS IT Manager N

234

TAS

Bob Brown 3/3 65 1983-1993, 1996- MHA/Senate MB BS Doctor N

Gerry Bates 3 59 1986-1995 MHA LLB PhD Lawyer N

Lance Armstrong 2 69 1989-1996 MHA BEd DipTheol Clergyman N

Dianne Hollister 3 62 1989-1998 MHA BEd DipPhysEd CertEd Teacher N

Christine Milne 3/2 56 1989-1998, 2005- MHA/Senate BA-Hons CertEd Teacher (Electorate Adviser) N

Peg Putt 3 56 1993-2008 MHA BA-Hons NGO Director-Tas Conservation Trust N

Mike Foley (1) 53 1995-1998 MHA [? - no information] NGO Director-Community Aid Abroad N

Nick McKim 2 44 2002- MHA (Did not complete) Public Relations N

Tim Morris 2 54 2002- MHA Small Business Owner N

Kim Booth 2 58 2002- MHA Sawmiller N

Cassy O'Connor 1 42 2008- MHA Electorate Adviser N

National Project Manager PICSE - Paul O'Halloran 1 58 2010- MHA BSc DipEd Y Notes: Terms = the number of terms served in each House. Figures in brackets represent incomplete terms (due to resignation or replacing former MP) 2009 Age = Age of individual as at 2009. All MPs are still living. Post-secondary qualification listed where known. Blank indicates never attended university. Occupation is last position/occupation held prior to first election. Occupation in brackets = position prior to second election. O/B = Former officeholder in the party (state or national level)

235

APPENDIX 3

Green electoral results at state and federal general elections

Upper House Lower House Election Elected MP vote vote NSW

1985 federal - 0.01 (1 HoR, Sydney, as an Independent) 1987 federal 1.02 - - 1988 state 1.60 - (as Environment Group) (Senate as combined vote of Green Alliance and 1990 federal 2.07 1.37 Australian Gruen Party) 1991 state 3.32 0.54 - (Senate as combined vote of The Greens and Green 1993 federal 3.39 1.41 Alliance) 1995 state 3.72 2.57 Ian Cohen 1996 federal 2.66 2.6 - 1998 federal 2.17 2.66 - 1999 state 2.91 3.88 Lee Rhiannon 2001 federal 4.36 4.75 Kerry Nettle Federal 2002 n/a 23.03 Michael Organ (by election)5 Ian Cohen, Sylvia Hale (Hale replaced by David 2003 state 8.6 8.25 Shoebridge in 2010) 2004 federal 7.34 8.09 - (loss of Michael Organ) Lee Rhiannon, (Rhiannon replaced by Cate 2007 state 9.12 8.95 Faehrmann in 2010) 2007 federal 8.43 7.88 - (loss of Kerry Nettle) 2010 federal 10.69 10.24 Lee Rhiannon David Shoebridge, Jan Barham, , 2011 state 11.11 10.28 Jamie Parker

VIC

1990 federal 0.91 - (as Victorian Green Alliance) 1992 state - - - (Senate as Victorian Green Alliance, 1 HoR, La Trobe, 1993 federal 1.18 0.01 as The Greens ) 1996 state

1996 federal 2.94 1.9 - 1998 federal 2.49 2.09 - 1999 state 2.23 1.15 -

236

2001 federal 5.99 5.9 - 2002 state 10.87 9.73 - 2004 federal 8.8 7.45 - 2006 state 10.58 10.04 Greg Barber, Sue Pennicuik, Colleen Hartland 2007 federal 10.08 8.17 - 2010 federal 14.64 12.66 Richard di Natale, Adam Bandt 2010 state 12.01 11.21 Greg Barber, Sue Pennicuik, Colleen Hartland

QLD1

1986 state -

1987 federal

1989 state - 0.33 - 1990 federal - 0.01 - (2 HoRs seats, Capricornia & Forde, as The Greens) 1992 state - 0.66 - 1993 federal 3.20 3.11 - 1995 state - 2.57 - 1996 federal 2.41 2.46 - 1998 state - 2.36 - 1998 federal 2.11 2.38 - 2001 state - 2.51 - 2001 federal 3.31 3.49 - 2004 state - 6.76 - 2004 federal 5.40 5.06 - 2006 state - 7.99 - 2007 federal 7.32 5.63 - - (Loss of Ronan Lee - originally elected as ALP MP, 2009 state - 8.37 joined Greens in 2008) 2010 federal 12.76 10.92 Larissa Waters WA

1987 federal (Jo Vallentine and 1 HoR, Swan, Independent)

(combined vote of Alternative Coalition and WA 1989 state 2.66 Green Party) Jo Vallentine (replaced by Christabel Chamarette in 1990 federal 8.40 7.51 1992) 1993 state 5.16 4.31 Jim Scott 1993 federal 5.60 5.77 Dee Margetts 1996 federal 5.68 5.31 - (loss of Christabel Chamarette) 1997 state 5.55 4.73 Jim Scott, Christine Sharp, Giz Watson

237

1998 federal 5.74 5.05 - (loss of Dee Margetts) Jim Scott, Christine Sharp, Giz Watson, Robin 2001 state 8.00 7.27 Chapple, Dee Margetts 2001 federal 5.86 5.99 - 2004 federal 8.06 7.67 Rachel Siewert Giz Watson, Paul Llewellyn (loss of seats held by 2005 state 7.52 7.57 Chapple, Margetts and McLaren, who replaced Scott in 2005) 2007 federal 9.30 8.93 Scott Ludlam Giz Watson, Alison Xamon, Lynn MacLaren, Robin 2008 state 11.08 11.92 Chapple state 2009 5 44.06 Adele Carles (resigned from party in 2010) (byelection) 2010 federal 13.96 13.13 Rachel Siewert SA

1987 federal 0.96 0 (1 HoR, , as Green Alliance) 1989 state - - - 1990 federal - - - 1993 federal 2.78 0.1 (Senate and 1 HoR, Hindmarsh, as Green Party of SA) 1993 state 1.7 - - 1996 federal 2.08 2.95 - 1997 state 1.72 0.2 - 1998 federal 2.21 0.49 - 2001 federal 3.46 3.64 - 2002 state 2.76 2.36 - 2004 federal 6.6 5.44 - Mark Parnell (loss of Kris Hanna - originally elected as 2006 state 4.28 6.49 ALP MP, joined Greens in 2003) 2007 federal 6.49 6.95 Sarah Hanson-Young 2009 state 6.62 8.11 Tammy Jennings 2010 federal 13.3 11.98 Penny Wright

TAS2

1972 state - 3.9 (as UTG) 1974 federal - - - 1975 federal - - - 1976 state - 2.2 (as UTG) 1977 federal - - - 1979 state - - - 1980 federal - - -

238

Bob Brown (elected on countback after resignation of 1982 state - 1.7 Democrats MLA Norm Sanders) 1983 federal - - - 1984 federal - - - 1986 state - 5.55 Bob Brown, 1987 federal - - - Bob Brown, Gerry Bates, Christine Milne, Lance 1989 state - 17.13 Armstrong, Di Holister 1990 federal 4.86 2.13 (Senate as UTG) Bob Brown, Gerry Bates, Christine Milne, Lance 1992 state - 13.23 Armstrong, Di Holister 1993 federal 6.83 7.92 - 1996 state - 11.14 Christine Milne, Mike Foley, Peg Putt, Di Holister 1996 federal 8.68 6.34 Bob Brown 1998 state - 10.18 Peg Putt 1998 federal 5.81 5.56 - 2001 federal 13.79 7.81 Bob Brown 2002 state - 18.13 Peg Putt, Nick McKim, Kim Booth, Tim Morris 2004 federal 13.29 9.88 Christine Milne 2006 state - 16.63 Peg Putt, Nick McKim, Kim Booth, Tim Morris 2007 federal 18.13 13.5 Bob Brown Nick McKim, Cassie O'Connor, Kim Booth, Tim 2010 state - 21.3 Morris, Paul O'Halloran 2010 federal 20.27 16.82 Bob Brown

ACT3

1989 state - - - 1990 federal 3.27 3.3 - 1992 state - - - (Senate as The Greens, 1HoR, Canberra, as Green 1993 federal 6.09 1.73 Democratic Alliance) 1995 state - 9.06 Kerrie Tucker, Lucy Hrodny 1996 federal 5.88 8.7 - 1998 state - 9.1 Kerrie Tucker 1998 federal 3.24 4.18 - 2001 state - 9.1 Kerrie Tucker 2001 federal 7.22 7.07 - 2004 federal 16.36 10.76 - 2004 state - 9.3 Deb Foskey

239

2007 federal 21.47 13.16 - Shane Rattenbury, Meredith Hunter, Amanda Bresnan, 2008 state - 15.64 Caroline Le Couteur 2010 federal 22.92 19.2 -

NT4

1990 federal 1.66 - (Senate as Independent) 1992 state - - - 1993 federal - - - 1994 state - 0.75 - 1996 federal 6.36 6.26 - 1997 state - -

1998 federal 4.55 3.03 - 2001 state - -

2001 federal 4.27 4.02 - 2004 federal 7.6 6.21 - 2005 state - 4.17 - 2007 federal 8.82 8.05 - 2008 state - 4.33 - 2010 federal 13.55 12.97 -

Notes

Queensland Upper House was abolished in 1922. Tasmanian Upper House elected by quarters every year. ACT as a Territory has no Upper House. NT as a Territory has no Upper House. By elections only noted where an MP was elected.

240

SURVEY OF GREEN PARTY MEMBERS

Dear Australian Greens member,

This survey is part of research into the Australian Greens, particularly party positioning and individual positions in relation to the party. The survey itself was approved by the Australian Greens at the February 2008 Special National Conference, although the research will be independent of the party. This approval should not be taken as implying that the Australian Greens has ownership or oversight of the results of the survey, only that the party has allowed the research to be carried out and hopes that participants will complete the survey. You have been identified to be included in this project due to your leadership role with the Australian Greens and its local and state branches.

It is being conducted to meet the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy under the supervision of Dr Ariadne Vromen (02 9351 6602) of the Department of Government and International Relations. The survey is conducted under the auspices of the , and conforms to the University’s Guidelines on Ethical Research. All information provided in this survey form is anonymous and confidential. It will not be released in its original form, and no names of party members are asked for or expected to be provided. Completion of the form is entirely voluntary and at the participant’s discretion.

241

If you have any questions about this research please contact me:

Stewart Jackson; 0419 965 068 or [email protected]

Thank you for supporting this pioneering research project on the Australian Greens

Any person with concerns or complaints about the conduct of a research study can contact the Senior Ethics Officer, Ethics Administration, University of Sydney on (02) 9351 4811 (Telephone); (02) 9351 6706 (Facsimile) or [email protected] (Email).

242

To fill in the questionnaire, please tick the box opposite your answer, like this . In some cases, you are also asked to write in your answer directly. Please use a blue or black ballpoint pen.

PLEASE RETURN THIS SURVEY BY THE 30TH OF NOVEMBER 2008

First some questions about your party membership and your relationship to the party.

Q 1 When did you first join The Greens?

PLEASE WRITE IN: MONTH (APPROX.) YEAR I first joined in /

Q 2. Have you continuously been a member since that time?

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX ONLY Yes � (1) No: � (2)

IF NO Q 2a. When did you LAST (re)join the Greens? PLEASE WRITE IN: MONTH (APPROX.) YEAR I LAST (re)joined in /

Q 4 What is your estimate of the TOTAL financial contribution which you made to the party in the period from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 (including annual membership fee and contributions to local or national party fund-raising initiatives, but not including loans and loan-donations etc.)?

PLEASE WRITE IN THE AMOUNT $

Q 5 A number of reasons why people might join the Australian Greens are listed below. Thinking back to your first decision to join, please indicate how important a role each reason played.

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX IN EACH ROW BELOW Very Rather Not so Not Not at all Important Important Important Important Important I wanted to meet politically like-minded people � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) I wanted to become politically active � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) I wanted to help in the realisation of the political aims � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) that I supported I wanted to influence the selection of candidates for � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) political office I wanted to pursue a career in green politics � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) I wanted to support the party financially � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) I expected that party membership would be � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) advantageous for my career I wanted to learn more about green politics � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5)

243

Q 6 How do your experiences as a member so far relate to your initial expectations?

Membership has: PLEASE TICK ONE BOX ONLY Fully lived up to my expectations � (1) Partly lived up to my expectations � (2) Not really lived up to my expectations � (3) Not at all lived up to my expectations � (4)

Q 5 Thinking back over the last 12 months, how often have you attended a local group meeting?

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX ONLY 0 � (1) 1 – 2 times � (2) 3 – 5 times � (3) 6 or more � (4)

Q 7 We would like to ask you about Greens-based political activities you may have taken part in during the last year. Did you do any of the following, and if yes, how frequently?

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX FOR EACH ACTIVITY Not at all Rarely Occasionally Frequently Signed a petition supported by the Party. � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Donated money to The Greens funds (other than � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) paying a membership subscription). Helped with party fund-raising � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Handed out election material � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Handed out information about the Greens e.g. at a � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) stall (not during election) Participated in an action as a Greens member � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Stood for office within the party organisation � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Stood for elected office at a local, state or federal � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) election

Q 8 Do you currently hold any public office representing the party at the local level (e.g. local councillor)?

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX ONLY Yes � (1) No: � (2) Q 9 How active do you consider yourself to be in The Greens right now?

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX ONLY Very active � (1) Fairly active � (2) Not very active � (3) Not at all active � (4)

244

Now some questions about other kinds of political activity.

Q 10 Concerning other political activities you may have taken part in during the last FOUR years, have you done any of the following?

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX FOR EACH ACTIVITY Not Rarely Occasionally Frequently at all Worked voluntarily in community organisations � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Voted in elections � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Boycotted certain products � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Participated in public demonstrations (eg; Walk � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Against Warming)

Q 11 Are you currently a member of a trade union?

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX ONLY Yes � (1) No: � (2)

IF YES, what is the name of your trade union? ……………………………………………………..

Q 12 Have you ever been a member of another political party?

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX ONLY Yes � (1) No: � (2)

IF YES Q 12a. Which party(ies) were you a member of?

PLEASE TICK ALL BOX THAT APPLY Australian Labor Party � (1) Australian Democrats � (1) Liberal Party � (1) National Party � (1) Socialist Alliance/DSP � (1) Other party � (1)

Q 13 And where would you place YOURSELF on the left-right scale below?

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX ONLY Left Right 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

� � � � � � � � � � �

245

Q 14 There are many opinions on how people can most effectively influence decisions in society. Using the following scale, could you say how effective you think each of these activities are?

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX PER ROW Not at all effective Very effective 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Work in community � � � � � � � � � � � organisations Vote in elections � � � � � � � � � � � Boycott certain � � � � � � � � � � � products Participate in public � � � � � � � � � � � demonstrations Work in a political � � � � � � � � � � � party

Q 15. Reflecting on what CURRENTLY happens within the party, how much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?

PLEASE PICK ONE BOX PER ROW Neither Strongly agree nor Strongly Don’t agree Agree disagree Disagree disagree know

The local group/branch are the best group to � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) preselect candidates for public office Any party members can stand for and hold � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) any party office Women play an integral part in my local � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) group/branch/working group Green Members of Parliament tithing a � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) portion of their salary to the party and no other monies/donations Green Members of Parliament serving � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) multiple terms in parliament The Australian Greens Party Leader is an � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) effective role The Greens are a political party and not a � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) social movement Trade unions have a limited role within the � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) Greens Women are discriminated against within the � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) Greens

Q 16. Suppose the government had to choose between the following three options. Which do you think it should choose?

PLEASE FILL IN ONE BOX ONLY Reduce taxes and spend less on health, education and � social benefits (1) Keep taxes and spending on these services at the same � level as they are now (2) Increase taxes and spend more on health, education and � social benefits (3)

246

Q 17. Reflecting on what you think SHOULD happen within the party, how much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?

PLEASE PICK ONE BOX PER ROW Neither Strongly agree nor Strongly Dont agree Agree disagree Disagree disagree know

No individual member should be able to retain � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) a national party office for more than three years consecutively At least half of all leading party positions � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) should be held by women Green members of Parliament should only be � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) allowed to serve two terms in parliament The Greens should adopt Party Leader roles in � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) all Parliaments The Greens should become more of a social � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) movement and less of a political party Trade unions should have more influence in � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) the Greens The Greens should move more clearly to the � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) left The Greens should ensure that a significant � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) percentage of its candidates and party officials are women Resolutions passed at National Conference � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) should be binding on the Parliamentary Leader The Party Leader should have the right to � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) reject a candidate

Q 18. Now reflecting on how the Greens should be positioning themselves, how much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?

PLEASE PICK ONE BOX PER ROW Neither Strongly agree nor Strongly Dont agree Agree disagree Disagree disagree know

The Greens should be trying to attract more � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) voters from the Australian Labor Party The Greens should be trying to attract � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) more voters from the Liberal Party The Greens role in parliament is to � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) champion the environment The Greens should play a role similar to � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) that previously played by the Australian Democrats The Greens are neither left nor right � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) Social justice issues should be just as � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) important to the Greens as environmental issues

247

Q 19. Now thinking about Greens ELECTED to public office at the local, state or federal level, how much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?

PLEASE PICK ONE BOX PER ROW Neither Strongly agree nor Strongly Don’t agree Agree disagree Disagree disagree know

All publicly elected Greens should be bound � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) by decisions of the party Local Councillors should only be bound by � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) decisions of their local groups/branches State MP’s should only be bound by decisions � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) of their state parties Federal MP’s should only be bound by � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) decisions of the National Council/Conference Local Councillors should be bound by all � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) decisions of the party at whatever level Federal MP’s should be bound by decisions of � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) their state party

Now a number of further questions about your attitude to The Greens and some other political issues.

Q 20. The Greens advocate a range of different policies and goals. What priority, in your opinion should be given to the following policy goals by The Greens in the new few years?

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX ON EACH LINE Top A High Not a High No Priority Priority Priority Priority at all Constructing a multi-cultural society � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Combating the use of genetically modified food � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Protecting civil rights � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Stopping global warming � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Improving the status/rights of women � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Protecting forests & opposing land clearing � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Settling international conflicts with peaceful means � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Phasing out uranium mining � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Supporting public education � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Opposing globalisation � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) Improving Australia’s economic competitiveness � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4)

248

Q 21. Political parties can pursue different goals which occasionally may be in conflict with each other. If you had to choose between the five goals listed below, which of the following goals should be The Greens’ highest priority? And which one do you think should be The Greens’ next highest priority?

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX ONLY IN EACH COLUMN Highest Next highest Priority Priority Maximise electoral support � (1) � (1) Promote its programme and policies � (2) � (2) Gain governmental office � (3) � (3) Increase membership of the party � (4) � (4) Create a truly democratic political party � (5) � (5) Can’t choose � (6) � (6)

Q 22. Next there are some statements about The Greens party policies We would like to know if you agree or disagree with them.

PLEASE FILL IN ONE BOX FOR EACH STATEMENT Neither Strongly agree no Strongly Dont agree Agree disagree Disagree disagree Know

The role of the party member is to support (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) � � � � � � the decisions made by the leadership Party members lack the knowledge (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) � � � � � � necessary to make party policy A problem with the Greens today is the (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) � � � � � � party leader is too powerful Local groups are the most important (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) � � � � � � decision making body in the party I feel effective in influencing Greens policy � (1) � (2) � (3) � (4) � (5) � (6) Local members should be able to adapt (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) � � � � � � policy as the situation arises The general community should have a role (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) � � � � � � in the development of party policy

Q 23. Where you live, do The Greens currently have councillors on local government?

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX ONLY Yes � (1) No � (2) I don’t know � (3)

Now we would like to ask you some questions about your personal background.

Q 24. In which year were you born? PLEASE WRITE IN YEAR I was born in 19

249

Q 25. Are you male or female?

Male � (1) Female � (2)

Q 26. What is your current employment status?

PLEASE TICK BOX THAT BEST APPLIES TO YOU Employed Full-Time � (1) Looking after the home full-time � (4) Employed Part-Time � (2) In full-time education � (5) Casual � (3) Retired, Pensioned, Unemployed � (6)

Q 27. Which of the following items best describes the work you do? (IF YOU ARE NOT WORKING NOW, PLEASE ANSWER IN TERMS OF YOUR LAST JOB).

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX ONLY Professional or highly technical work (e.g. doctor, accountant, schoolteacher, � (1) university lecturer, social worker, systems analyst) Manager or Senior Administrator (e.g. company director, finance manager, � (2) personnel manager, senior sales manager, senior local government officer) Clerical work (e.g. clerk, secretary) � (3) Sales or Services (.e.g. shop assistant, nursery nurse, care assistant, paramedic) � (4) Small Business Owner (e.g. shop owner, small builder, farmer, restaurant � (5) owner) Skilled Manual Work (e.g. plumber, electrician, fitter, train driver, cook, � (6) hairdresser) Semi-skilled or Unskilled Manual Work (e.g. machine operator, assembler, � (7) postman, waitress, cleaner, labourer, driver, bar-worker, call-centre worker) Other type of work � (8) Never had a job � (9)

Q 28. Which sector of the economy do you work in? (IF YOU ARE NOT WORKING NOW, PLEASE ANSWER IN TERMS OF YOUR LAST JOB).

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX ONLY Agriculture, Fishing, Hunting, Forestry � (1) Industry (e.g. Manufacturing, Mining, Construction, Utilities) � (2) Education � (3) Health, Social Services � (4) Media (Newspaper, radio, TV), Culture (Film, Theatre) � (5) Security Services (e.g. Police, Armed Forces, etc) � (6) Other Public Administration (e.g. Local Authority, Civil Service) � (7) Banking, Finance, Insurance, Property � (8) Other Services (e.g. retail trade, transport, catering, leisure, cleaning, etc.) � (9) Other/Never had a job � (10)

250

Q 29. Which type of organisation do you work for? (IF YOU ARE NOT WORKING NOW, PLEASE ANSWER IN TERMS OF YOUR LAST JOB).

Please tick one box ONLY Private sector company � (1) Public sector employer � (2) Non-government sector � (3) Self employed � (4) Never worked � (5)

Q 30. Have you ever attended (or are now attending) a university or TAFE to study for a tertiary qualification?

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX ONLY Yes, university � (1) Yes, TAFE college � (2) No: � (3)

Q 31. Do you have a university degree? If yes, which is the highest degree that you have been awarded?

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX ONLY Doctoral degree (e.g. Ph.D, D.Phil) � (1) Undergraduate degree (e.g. BA, BSc) � (3) Postgraduate masters degree (e.g. MA, � (2) I don’t have a degree. � (4) MSc, MPhil, MBA)

Q 32. Do you speak a language other than English at home?

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX ONLY Yes � (1) No: � (2) Q 33. How would you describe the place where you live?

PLEASE TICK ONE BOX ONLY A large city (eg; Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane) � (1) A regional centre (e.g. Albury, Bunbury, � (2) Launceston) A country town � (3) A farm or home in the country � (4)

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Please use the reply-paid envelope enclosed to return the questionnaire. If no return envelope is enclosed, please send to: Stewart Jackson c/ Department of Government & International Relations School of Social & Political Sciences Faculty of Arts

H04 Merewether Building University of Sydney NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA

251

GREEN PARTY STAFF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

First some questions about your party membership and your relationship to the party.

Q 1. When did you first join The Greens? Why did you join?

Q 2. How and why did you choose to become a staff member? How long have you been a staff member? How has being a staff member shaped or influenced your opinion of the party?

Q 3. How active are you within the party beyond being a staff member? If you are active, how often have you attended a local group meeting or participate in other party activities? What is your opinion on whether party staff should be involved in the party organisationally (such as being on working groups and as office bearers)?

Now some questions about other kinds of political activity.

Q 4. How often do you interact, as a staff member, with party members? What is your relationship with the party (or MP’s)? How has being a staff member assisted in realising your political ideals ?

Q 5. Have you ever been a member of another political party? If you have, which one, and why did you leave? Thinking about membership of another party has or would this influence the way you operate as both a staff member and a party member? How, and has it impacted on how you do your job (or work with the party)?

Q 6. How are your views different to the party? Do you have any examples where your views have differed from the party or employer? How do you think your views or the views of the party have changed over time?

Now a number of about your attitude to The Greens and some other political issues.

Q 7. Political parties can pursue many different goals. What do you think should be The Greens’ highest priority? Other priorities? What do you think should determine the party’s priorities? And the MP’s?

Q 8. Now reflecting on how the Greens should be positioning themselves, do you think the Greens should be trying to attract members of other parties? Which parties and why? What about other parties MP’s?

Q 9. Considering how the Greens have or will operate in the Senate, do you think The Greens should play a role similar to that previously played by the Australian Democrats? How should the Greens operate in Parliament?

Q 10. How important do you think the role of the party leader is? Should the Greens have a party leader, and if so, what model of leadership do you think is most appropriate ie; should each state adopt leaders and so on?

Q 11. In respect of party policy, who should be writing policy? What role do you think the party membership has in the development and implementation of party policy? How much input should staff have into this process? What about local groups?

Now some questions about your personal background.

Q 12. In which year were you born?

Q 13. Have you ever been to university or TAFE to study for a tertiary qualification? Do you have a university degree? If yes, which is the highest degree that you have been awarded?

Q 14. What sort of job did you do before becoming a staff member?

252

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ACT Greens (1997) The leadership debate continues…. Green Leaves. Newsletter of the ACT Greens, June 1997, no.8, p.14.

Alwin, D. (1998) The political impact of the baby boom: are there persistent generational differences in political beliefs and behaviour? Generations. 22(1), 46-54.

Andrew, M. (2010) Women’s movement institutionalisation: the need for new approaches. Politics and Gender, 6(4), 608-616.

Andrew, M. & Maddison, S. (2010) Damaged but determined: the Australian’s women’s movement 1996-2007. Social Movement Studies, 9(2), 171-185.

Andrews, K. (2010, November 12) The ideological drive behind the Greens. The Drum Unleashed. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Accessed 28 February 2011. Available: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41010.html

Angel, J. (2008) Green is good: an insider’s story of the battle for a green Australia. Sydney: ABC Books.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2003) Age Matters. Newsletter of the ABS National Aging Statistics Unit April 2003. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Accessed 31 January 2011: http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3110129.nsf/f128006d2d1e7c10ca2566fd0081ba4b/3cd 12b553c337b4aca256d050000ec99!OpenDocument#BABY%20BOOMERS%20AND%20T HE%202001%20CENSUS

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2006) Census 2006: language spoken at home by sex. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ProductSelect?newproducttype=C ensus+Tables&btnSelectProduct=View+Census+Table+%3E&collection=Census&period=2 006&areacode=0&geography=&method=Place+of+Usual+Residence&productlabel=Langua ge+Spoken+at+Home+by+Sex&producttype=&topic=Language&navmapdisplayed=true&ja vascript=true&breadcrumb=TLP&topholder=0&leftholder=0¤taction=201&action=40 1&textversion=false

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2007) Voluntary work, Australia: 2006. (Cat. No. 4441.0). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

253

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2008) Year Book 2007-08. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2009) Employee earnings, benefits and trade union membership. (Cat. No. 6310.0). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2010) Year Book 2009-10. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Australian Election Study (2007) Australian Election Study, 2007. Australian Social Science Data Archive, ANU, Canberra. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://www.assda.edu.au/

Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) (1989) Review of Delegates decision not to change the name of the Vallentine Peace Group to Green Alliance in the Register of Political Parties. T. Morling, B, Nugent & I. Castles, Commissioners. Dated 31 October 1989. In possession of the author.

Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) (2004) 2004 federal election results. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/default.htm

Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) (2010a) Political party registration. Accessed 11 December 2010: http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/party_registration/index.htm

Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) (2010b) Deregistered political parties. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Deregistered_parties/ index.htm

Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) (2011) 2010 federal election. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/federal_elections/2010/index.htm

Australian Greens (2001) Minutes. Proceedings of the Australian Greens National Conference, Sydney, 24-26 August 2001 in possession of the author.

Australian Greens (2003) Minutes. Proceedings of the Australian Greens National Conference, Canberra,10-12 October 2003 in possession of the author.

Australian Greens (2005) Minutes. Proceedings of the Australian Greens National Conference, , 10-12 November 2005 in possession of the author.

Australian Greens (2006) Australian Greens Party Room Rules. Unpublished pamphlet. Canberra, September 2006.

254

Australian Greens (2009) National policy review: outline of policy process. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://members.nsw.greens.org.au/AustralianMembers/policies/Review/2009/Default.aspx

Australian Greens (2010) The Charter and Constitution of the Australian Greens. Canberra: Australian Greens. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://greens.org.au/system/files/AG%20Constitution%20%5Bas%20amended%20Nov%202 010%5D.pdf

Australian Greens (2011) Our story. Accessed 24 April 2011: http://greens.org.au/our-story

Australian Greens Victoria (1992) Draft Constitution of the Australian Greens Victoria. Australian Greens Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria

Australian Greens Victoria (1993) The Charter and Constitution of the Australian Greens Victoria. Australian Greens Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria

Australian Greens Victoria (2005) The Charter and Constitution of the Australian Greens Victoria. Australian Greens Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria

Australian Greens Victoria (2008) The Charter and Constitution of the Australian Greens Victoria. Australian Greens Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Accessed 8 December 2009, http://www.vic.greens.org.au/about/constitution/AGV_Constitution_September_2008.pdf

Bacchi, C. (2004) Policy and discourse: challenging the construction of affirmative action as preferential treatment. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(1), 128-146.

Bahro, R. (1984) From red to green. London: Verso.

Bahro, R. (1986) Building the Green movement. London: Heretic Books.

Bean, C. & Kelley, J. (1995) The electoral impact of issues: the environment in the 1990 Australian federal election. Comparative Politics, 27(3), 339-356.

Bell, D. (1973/1976) The coming of post-industrial society: a venture in social forecasting. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books,

Benford, R. & Snow, D. (2000) Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639

Bennett, S. (1999) The decline in support for the major parties and the prospect of . Parliamentary Library Research Paper #10, 1998-1999. Canberra: Australian Parliamentary Library

255

Bennett, S. (2008) The rise of the Australian Greens. Parliamentary Library Research Paper #8, 2008-2009. Canberra: Australian Parliamentary Library.

Bennie, L . (2004) Understanding political participation: Green party membership in Scotland. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Bennie, L., Franklin, M. & Rudig, W. (1995) Green dimensions: the ideology of the British Greens. In Rudig, W (Ed.) Green politics three. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Bennulf, M. & Holmberg, S. (1990) The Green breakthrough in Sweden. Scandinavian Political Studies, 13(2), 165-184.

Benoit, L. (2006) Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and advertising activities, Restoring Accountability Research Studies Volume 1; Parliament, Ministers and Deputy Ministers. Available at http://www.gomery.ca/en/phase2report/volume1/

Berg, J. (2008) Greens in the USA. In E. Frankland, P. Lucardie & B. Rihoux (Eds). Green parties in transition: the end of grassroots democracy? Farnham: Ashgate.

Betz, H. (1990) Value change and postmaterial politics: the case of West Germany. Comparative Political Studies, 23(2), 239-256.

Blondel, J. 1990. Comparative government: an introduction. Hemel Hempstead: Philip Allan.

Bobbio, N. (1996) Left and right. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bolleyer, N. (2011) New party organisation in Western Europe: of party hierarchies, stratarchies and federations. Party Politics, published online 18 March 2011. DOI: 10.1177/1354068810382939

Bowe, W. (2010) Green Members in green chambers: the role of the Australian Greens in government formation. Australasian Parliamentary Review, 25(1), 137-149.

Brady, H., Schlozman, K. & Verba, S. (1999) Prospecting for participants: rational expectations and the recruitment of political activists. American Political Science Review, 93(1), 153-168.

Brewer, P. (1991a) National green meeting in Sydney. Weekly 24, 21 August 1991. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/830

Brewer, P. (1991b) Two camps in the Greens. Green Left Weekly 25, 28 August 1991. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/774

256

Brewer, P. (1992) National green party: on a dangerous path. Green Left Weekly 43, 12 February 1992. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/2233

Breines, W. (1980) Community and organization: the New Left and Michels’ ‘Iron Law’. Social Problems, 27(4), 419-429.

Brown, B. & Singer, P. (1996) The Greens. Melbourne: The Text Publishing Company.

Brym, R., Veuglers, J., Butovsky, J. & Simpson, J. (2004) Postmaterialism in unresponsive political systems: the Canadian case. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 41(3), 291-317.

Buelens, J. & Dewit, P. (2008) Belgium: Ecolo and Agalev. In E. Frankland, P. Lucardie & B. Rihoux (Eds). Green Parties in transition: the end of grassroots democracy? Farnham: Ashgate.

Burchell, J. (2001) Evolving or Conforming? Assessing organizational reform within European Green Parties. West European Politics, 24(3), 113-134.

Burdess, N. & O’Toole, K. (2004) Elections and representation in local government: a Victorian case study. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(2), 66-78.

Burnham, J. (1943) The managerial revolution: or what is happening in the world now. London: Putnam.

Burnham, P., Gilland, K., Grant, W. & Layton-Henry, Z. (2004) Research methods in politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Byrnes, J. & Dollery, B. (2002) Local government failure in Australia? An empirical analysis of New South Wales. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(3), 54-64.

Cahill, D. & Brown, S. (2008) The rise and fall of the Australian Greens: The 2002 Cunningham by-election and its implications. Australian Journal of Political Science, 43(2), 259-275.

Caldicott, H. (1985) Missile envy: the arms race and nuclear war. New York: Bantam.

Camcastle, C. (2007) The Green Party of Canada in political space and the new middle class thesis. , 16(4), 625-642.

Carlton, M. (2004) Upping the fear factor. Sydney Morning Herald, 11 September 2004. Accessed 28 February 2011: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/10/1094789683042.html#

257

Carter, N. (2008) The Green Party: emerging from the political wilderness. British Politics, 3, 223-240.

Carter, N. & Rootes, C. (2006) The environment and the greens in the 2005 elections in Britain. Environmental Politics, 15(3), 473-478.

Carty, R. Ken (2004) Parties as franchise systems: the stratarchical organisational imperative. Party Politics, 10(1), 5-24.

Chamberlayne, P. (1990) The Mothers’ Manifesto and disputes over ‘mutterlichkeit’. Feminist Review, 35 (Summer), 9-23.

Chappell, L. (2006) Comparing political institutions: revealing the gendered “logic of appropriateness”. Politics and Gender, 2(2), 221-263.

Charnock, D. (2009) Can the Australian Greens replace the Australian Democrats as a ‘Third Party’ in the Senate? Australian Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 245-258.

Charnock, D. (2010) Left-right location and postmaterialism: the structure of the Canadian federal party system in comparative international context. Paper presented to the Australian Political Studies Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 27-29 September 2010.

Charnock, D. & Ellis, P. (2004) Postmaterialism and postmodernization in Australian electoral politics. Electoral Studies, 23(1), 45–72.

Chen, P. (2008) Candidates’ new media use in the 2007 Australian national election. Paper presented to the Communications Policy & Research Forum, Sydney, Australia, 29-30 September 2008.

Cleveland, J. (2003) Does the new middle class lead today’s social movements? Critical Sociology, 29(2), 163-188.

Conway, M. (2001) Women and political participation. Political Science and Politics, 34(2), 231-233.

Coover, V., Deacon, E., Esser, C. & Moore, C. (1977) Resource manual for a living revolution. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.

Cotgrove, S. & Duff, A. (1981) Environmentalism, values and social change. British Journal of Sociology, 32(1), 92-110.

Cowan, Z. (1955) A comparison of the Constitutions of Australia and the United States. Buffalo Law Review, 4, 155-180.

258

Crawford, M. & Pini, B. (2011) The Australian Parliament: a gendered organisation. Parliamentary Affairs, 64(1), 82-105.

Crowley, K. (1999) A failed Greening? The electoral routing of the Tasmanian Greens. Environmental Politics, 8(4), 186-193.

Crowley, K. (2000) Disenfranchising the Greens: Labor’s electoral ‘reform’ strategy in Tasmania. Paper presented to the Australasian Political Studies Association 2000 Conference, Canberra, Australia, 3-6 October 2000.

Dalton, R. (2009) Economic, environmentalism and party alignments: a note on partisan change in advanced industrial . European Journal of Political Research, 48(2), 161-175.

Dann, C. (2008) Experimental evolution down under: thirty years of Green party development in Australian and New Zealand. In E. Frankland, P. Lucardie & B. Rihoux (Eds). Green parties in transition: the end of grassroots democracy? Farnham: Ashgate.

Darley, S. (1998) The West Australian Greens: diversity, division and resilience. Chapter excerpt from incomplete PhD thesis. In possession of the author.

Democracy4sale.org (2011) Searching political donations. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://www.democracy4sale.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=206&Ite mid=22

Demirovic, A. (1998) Grassroots democracy: contradictions and implications. In M. Mayer & J. Ely (Eds). The German Greens: paradox between movement and party. (M. Schatzschneider, Trans.). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Deschouwer, K. (1994) The decline of consociationalism and the reluctant modernisation of Belgium mass parties. In R. Katz & P. Mair (Eds). How parties organise: change and adaption in party organisations in Western democracies. London: Sage.

Deschouwer, K. (2006) Political parties as multi-level organisations. In R. Katz & W. Crotty (Eds). Handbook of party politics. London: Sage.

Devine, F. (2002) Qualitative methods. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds). Theory and methods in political science. (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Diani, M. (2010) Struggling movements in dubious opportunities: an Afterword to ‘Surviving : the persistence of Australian social movements’. Social Movement Studies, 9(2), 229-233.

259

Die Grune Schweiz (2009) Entstehung und grundung [emergence and foundation]. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://www.gruene.ch/web/gruene/de/die_gruenen/geschichte/entstehung.html

Dobson, A. (1995) Green political thought. (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

Dolowitz, D. & Marsh, D. (1996) Who learns what from whom: a review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies, 44(2), 343-357.

Downs, A. (1957) An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.

Doyle, T. (2000) Green power: the environment movement in Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press.

Doyle, T. (2010) Surviving the gang bang theory of nature: the environment movement during the Howard years. Social Movement Studies, 9(2), 155-169.

Drugan, J. (2003) Les Verts. Glasgow: University of Glasgow.

Dryzek, J., Downes, D., Hunold, C., & Schlosberg, D. (2003) Greens states and social movements: environmentalism in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Duffy, C. (2010, May 4) Tasmania’s forced marriage. The Drum. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Available: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/04/2889654.htm

Duverger, M. (1964) Political parties, their organisation and activity in the modern state. (3rd ed.). Barbara and Robert North trans. London: Methuen.

Eckersley, R. (1989) Green politics and the new class: selfishness or virtue. Political Studies, 37(2), 205-223

Eckersley, R. (1992) Environmentalism and political theory: towards an ecocentric approach. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Economou, N. & Ghazarian, Z. (2008) Vale the Australian Democrats: organisational failure and electoral decline. Paper presented to the Australian Political Studies Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 6-9 July 2008.

Eder, K. (1993) The new politics of class. London: Sage.

Elections ACT (2011a) Summary of seats won – 1995 election. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://www.elections.act.gov.au/page/view/335/title/summary-of-seats-won-

260

Elections ACT (2011b) Summary of seats won – 2008 election. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://www.elections.act.gov.au/page/view/365/title/summary-of-seats-won-

Electoral Commission of South Australia (ECSA) (2006) Archive of the 2006 State Electoral Office election website. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/archive/2006/index.htm

Faerhmann, C. (2011, April 7) Greens wont get much further if we repeat poll blunders. Sydney Morning Herald. Accessed 10 May 2011: http://www.smh.com.au/politics/greens- wont-get-much-further-if-we-repeat-poll-blunders-20110406-1d4e7.html

Falk, J., Green, J. & Mudd, G. (2006) Australia, uranium and nuclear power. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 63(6), 845-857.

Faucher, F. (1999) Party organisation and democracy. Geojournal, 47(4), 487-496.

Faucher-King, F. (2005) Changing parties: an anthropology of British political party conferences. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Faucher-King, F (2010) Comparing parties: the challenges of transnational studies of party organisations. Paper presented to the 17th ISA World Congress on Sociology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 11-17 July, 2010

Faulkner, J., Bracks, S. & Carr, B. (2010) Review 2010: 2010 national review report to the ALP National Executive. Barton: Australian Labor Party.

Federal Parliamentary Contact List (2008) Contact list for Australian Greens federal MPs offices and staff. In possession of author.

Fenna, A. (2004) Australian public policy. (2nd ed.). Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education.

Ferree, M. (1993) The rise and fall of ‘mommy politics’: feminism and unification in (East) Germany. Feminist Studies, 19(1), 89-115.

Fieldes, D. & Kuhn, R. (2008) Activism, analysis, agency. Paper presented to the “Beyond the Neo-con men” Conference, Sydney, Australia, 18-19 April 2008.

Fisher, G. (1995). Half-life: the NDP-peace, protest and party politics. Sydney: State Library of NSW.

Fisher, J. & Webb, P. (2003) Political participation: the vocational motivations of Labour party employees. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5(2), 166-187.

261

Frankland, E. (1990) Does Green politics have a future in Great Britain? An American perspective. In W. Rudig (Ed.). Green politics one 1990. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Frankland, E. (2008) The evolution of the Greens in Germany: from amateurism to professionalism. In E. Frankland, P. Lucardie & B. Rihoux (Eds). Green parties in transition: the end of grassroots democracy? Farnham: Ashgate.

Frankland, E., Lucardie, P. & Rihoux B. (Eds). (2008) Green parties in transition: the end of grassroots democracy? Farnham: Ashgate.

Franzway, S. (2001) Sexual politics and greedy institutions. Annandale: Pluto Press.

Friends of the Earth (2011) Public backs safer energy over nuclear. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://www.foe.co.uk/news/nuclear_poll_27489.html

Fuchs, D. & Rohrschneider, R. (1998) Postmaterialism and electoral choice before and after German unification. West European Politics, 21(2), 95-116.

Gaard, G. C. (1998) Ecological politics: Ecofeminists and the Greens. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Gidengil, E., Harrell, A. & Erickson, B. (2007) Network diversity and vote choice: women’s social ties and left voting in Canada. Politics and Gender, 3(2), 151-177.

Global Greens (2001) : 2001. Charter adopted at 2001 Global Greens Congress, Canberra, Australia, April 2001. http://www.globalgreens.org/globalcharter

Gorz, A. (1982) Farewell to the working class: an essay on post-industrial . Michael Sonenscher trans. London: Pluto Press.

Gowan, S., Lakey, G., Moyer, W. & Taylor, R. (1976) Moving toward a new society. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.

Greens NSW (2002) Interim standing orders. Adopted June 2002. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://members.nsw.greens.org.au/Members/Documents/StandingOrders.htm

Greens NSW (2003) Minutes. Minutes of The Greens NSW State Delegates Council, Goulburn, 27-28 September 2003 in possession of the author.

Greens NSW (2009) Constitution of the Greens NSW. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://nsw.greens.org.au/meet-nsw-greens/constitution-of-the-greens-nsw/

Greens WA (1990) Constitution. Perth: Greens WA.

262

Greens WA (2009) Minutes. Minutes of the Greens (WA) Representatives Council, Perth, 10- 11 October 2009 in possession of the author.

Gunther, R. & Diamond, L. (2003) Species of political parties. Party Politics, 9(2), 167-199.

Harmel, R. & Janda, K. (1994) An integrated theory of party goals and party change. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6(3), 259-287.

Harris, T. (2007) Basket weavers and true believers. Newtown: Leftbank Publishing.

Harris, T. (2008) Regulating ‘the Green mess’: the emergence of The Greens and the development of Australian federal political party registration. Background paper to documents deposited with State Library of NSW. Unpublished paper in possession of the author.

Hawke, B. & Wran, N. (2002) National Committee of Review: August 2002 Report. Canberra: Australian Labor Party.

Hawke, K., Loke, L., Nair, P. & Stuckey, H. (1993) Profile of the Greens (WA) membership. Unpublished Masters by course work project, , Perth, WA.

Hawkins, H. (1997) Individual members: the grassroots of Green party democracy. Synthesis/Regeneration 14 (Fall 1997). Accessed 28 May 2011: www.greens.org/s-r/14/14- 02.html

Hay, C. (2007) Why we hate politics. Cambridge: Polity.

Hay, P. & Eckersley, R. (1993) Tasmania’s Labor-Green Accord 1989-91: lessons from Lilliput. Environmental Politics, 2(1), 88-93.

Hay, P. & Haward, M. (1988) Comparative Green politics: beyond the European context? Political Studies, 36(4), 433-448.

Hazan, R. & Rahat, G. (2008) Candidate selection: methods and consequences. In R. Katz & W. Crotty (Eds). Handbook of party politics. London: Sage.

Heidar, K. (2006) Party membership and participation. In R. Katz & W. Crotty (Eds). Handbook of party politics. London: Sage.

Heidar, K. & Saglie, J. (2003) A decline of linkage? Intraparty participation in Norway 1991- 2000. European Journal of Political Research, 42(6), 761-786.

263

Hellwig, T. (2008) Explaining the salience of left-right ideology in postindustrial democracies: the role of structural economic change. European Journal of Political Research 47(6) 687-709.

Herr, R. (2005) Democracy and small parliaments: some diseconomies of scale. Canberra: Democratic Audit of Australia.

Herrera, R. (1999) The origins of opinion of American party activists. Party Politics, 5(2), 237-252.

Herrera, R. & Taylor, M. (1994) The structure of opinion in American political parties. Political Studies 42(4) 676-689.

Herrnson, P. (1994) Congress's other farm team: Congressional staff. Polity, 27(1), 137-156.

Hinman, P. (1992) Green Party launch set. Green Left Weekly 66, 12 August 19921. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/3261

Hirsch, J. (1998) A party is not a movement and vice versa. In M. Mayer & J. Ely (Eds). The German Greens: paradox between movement and party. (M. Schatzschneider, Trans.). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Historic Houses Trust of NSW (1999) Protest! Environmental activism in NSW 1968-1998. Sydney: Historic Houses Trust of NSW.

Hoffman, R. & Costar, B. (2010) Not going Green: the Higgins by-election of 2009. Australian Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 693-703.

Hollander, R. (2006) Elections, policy and the media: Tasmania’s forests and the 2004 federal election. Australian Journal of Political Science, 41(4), 569-584.

Hooghe, M., Stolle, D. & Stouthuysen, P. (2004) Head start in politics: the recruitment function of youth organisations of political parties in Belgium (Flanders). Party Politics, 10(2), 193-212.

Horne, N. (2009) The ‘Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984’ framework and employment issues. Parliamentary Library Research Paper #3 2009-2010, Canberra: Australian Parliamentary Library.

Horton, D. (2006) Demonstrating environmental citizenship? A study of everyday life among green activists. Originally published in Environmental Citizenship (2006) D. Bell & A. Dobson (Eds.). pp. 127-50, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://lancs.academia.edu/DaveHorton/Papers/218519/Demonstrating_Environmental_Citize nship_A_Study_of_Everyday_Life_Among_Green_Activists

264

Hulsberg, W. (1988) The German Greens: a social and political profile. (G. Fagan, Trans.). London: Verso.

Hutton, D. (1996) The Greens and electoral politics. Arena, 22, 14-16.

Hutton, D. (1987) Green politics in Australia. North Ryde: Angus & Robertson.

Inglehart, R. (1971) The silent revolution in Europe: intergenerational change in post- industrial society. American Political Science Review, 65(4), 991-1017.

Inglehart, R. (1981) Post materialism in an environment of insecurity. The American Political Science Review, 75(4), 880-900.

Inglehart, R. (1990) Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Inglehart, R. (1997) Modernization and post-modernization: cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Inglehart, R. & Abramson, P. (1999) Measuring postmaterialism. The American Political Science Review, 93(3), 665-677.

Inglehart, R. & Flanagan, S. (1987) Value change in industrial societies. The American Political Science Review, 81(4), 1289-1319.

Iversen, T. (1994) The logics of electoral politics: spatial, directional, and mobilisational effects. Comparative Political Studies, 27(2), 155-189.

Jackson, S. (1999) Parliament or protest? The parliamentary impact of the Greens (WA) in the Legislative Council: May 1993 to May 1999. Unpublished Honours thesis, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA.

Jaensch, D. (1994) Power politics. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Jaensch, D. (2006) Party structures and procedures. In I. Marsh (Ed.). Political parties in transition? Annandale: Federation Press.

Jaensch, D., Brent P. & Bowden B. (2004) Australian political parties in the spotlight. Canberra: Democratic Audit.

Jennings, M. (2006) The gender gap in attitudes and beliefs about the place of women in American political life: a longitudinal, cross-generational analysis. Politics and Gender 2 (2) 193-219.

265

Jermalinski, J. (1988). Seeing Green in community politics: Vic Park Greenie interviewed. Whole Earth Times, Spring 1988, p. 22.

Johns, G. (2006) Party organisation and resources: membership, funding and staffing. In I. Marsh (Ed.). Political parties in transition? Annandale: Federation Press.

Johnson, C. (2011, May 7) Brown bid to bring Greens into line. Canberra Times. Accessed 7 May 2011: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/brown-bid-to- bring-greens-into-line/2155856.aspx?storypage=0

Jones, K. (2006) One step at a time. Australian parliamentarians, professionalism and the need for staff. Parliamentary Affairs, 59(4), 638-653.

Jones, S., Hall, D. & Cowlin, F. (2008) Newspaper coverage of drug policy: an analysis of pre-election reporting of the Greens’ drug policy in Australia. Drug and Alcohol Review, 27(1), 5-11.

Joppke, C. & Markovits, A. (1994) Greens politics in the new Germany: the future of an anti- party party. Dissent, Spring 1994, 235-240.

Jost, J. (2006) The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61(7), 651-670.

Kaarbo, J. & Lantis, J. (2003) The ‘greening’ of German foreign policy in the Iraq case: conditions of junior party influence in governing coalitions. Acta Politica, 38(2), 201-230.

Kaelberer, M. (1998) Party competition, social movements and postmaterialist values: exploring the rise of Green parties in France and Germany. Contemporary Politics, 4(3), 299- 315.

Karvelas, P. (2010, July 29). PM works to protect staff. The Australian. Accessed 12 January 2011: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pm-works-to-protect-staff/story- fn59niix-1225898182832.

Katz, R. (2002) The internal life of parties. In K. Luther & F. Muller-Rommel (Eds).Political parties in the new Europe: political and analytical challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Katz, R. & Mair, P. (1994). The evolution of party organizations in Europe: the three faces of party organization. In Political parties in a changing age, W. Crotty (Ed.). Special issue of American Review of Politics, 14, 593-617.

Katz, R. & Mair P. (1995) Changing models of party organization and party democracy: the emergence of the Cartel Party. Party Politics, 1(1), 5-28.

266

Katz, R. & Mair, P. (1996) Cadre, catch-all or cartel: a rejoinder. Party Politics, 2(4), 525- 534.

Katz, R. & Mair, P. (2002) The ascendency of the party in public office: party organisational change in twentieth century democracies. In R. Gunther, J. Montero & J. Linz (Eds). Political parties: old concepts and new challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Katz, R. & Mair, P. (2009) The cartel thesis: a restatement. Perspective on Politics, 7(4), 753- 766.

Kearns, B. (2004) Stepping out for peace: a history of CANE and PND (WA). Maylands: People for Nuclear Disarmament.

Kelly, P (2008, November 15) NSW is in a state of dysfunction. The Australian.

Kelly, R. & Maer, L. (2008) Parliamentary pay, allowances and pensions. House of Commons Library Research Paper 08/31, 31 March 2008. Accessed 23 January 2011: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2008/rp08-031.pdf

Kent, B., Ryan, J., & Magarey, S. (2000) Obituary: Daphne Gollan 4 May 1918-4 October 1999. Australian Feminist Studies, 15(31), 7-13.

Kennedy, F., Lyons, P. & Fitzgerald, P. (2006) Pragmatists, ideologues and the general law of curvilinear disparity: the case of the Irish Labour Party. Political Studies, 54(4), 786-805.

Kerr, C. (2011, January 12) Greens received $27,000 overseas donation before banning overseas cash. The Australian. Accessed 12 January 2011: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-received-27000-foreign-donation- before-banning-overseas-cash/story-fn59niix-1225986286287.

Key, V.O. (1964) Politics, parties and pressure groups. (5th ed.). New York: Thomas Y Crowell.

Kirchheimer, O. (1966) The transformation of Western European party systems. In J. LaPalombara & M. Weiner (Eds). Political parties and political development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kitschelt, H. (1986) Political opportunity structures and political protest: anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 16(1), 57-85.

Kitschelt, H. (1988) Left-libertarian parties: explaining innovation in competitive party systems. World Politics, 40(2), 194-234.

267

Kitschelt, H. (1989a) The logics of party formation: ecological politics in Belgium and West Germany. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Kitschelt, H. (1989b) The internal politics of parties: the law of curvilinear disparity revisited. Political Studies, 32(4), 400-421.

Kitschelt, H. (1990) The medium is the message: democracy and oligarchy in Belgian ecology parties. In W. Rudig (Ed.). Green politics one 1990. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Kitschelt, H. (2006) Movement parties. In R. Katz & W. Crotty (Eds). Handbook of party politics. London: Sage.

Kischelt, H. & Hellemans, S. (1990) The left-right semantics and the new politics cleavage. Comparative Political Studies, 23(2), 210-238.

Kittilson, M. (2005) In support of gender quotas: setting new standards, bringing visible gains. Politics & Gender, 1(4), 638-644.

Klingemann, H., Hofferbert, R. & Budge, I. (1994) Parties, polices and democracy. Boulder: Westview Press.

Knutsen, O. (1998) Expert judgements of the left right location of political parties: a comparative longitudinal study. West European Politics, 21(2), 63-94.

Koeble, T. (1989) Party structures and democracy: Michels, McKenzie and Duverger revisited via the examples of the West German Green Party and the British Social Democratic Party. Comparative Political Studies 22 (2) 199-216.

Kolinsky, E. (1988) The West German Greens – a women’s party? Parliamentary Affairs, 41(1), 129-148.

Kolinsky, E. (1991) Political participation and parliamentary careers: women’s quotas in West Germany. West European Politics, 14(1), 56-72.

Kopecky, P. & Scherlis, G. (2008) Party patronage in contemporary Europe. European Review, 16(3), 355-371.

Kriesi, H. (1989) New social movements and the new class in . American Journal of Sociology, 94(5), 1078-1116.

Kriesi, H. (1998) The transformation of cleavage politics: the 1997 Stein Rokkan lecture. European Journal of Political Research, 33(2), 165-185.

268

Krook, M. (2006) Gender quotas, norms, and politics. Politics and Gender, 2(1), 101-128.

L’Estrange, M. (1996) The roles of Opposition staff. In J. Disney & J. Nethercote (Eds). The House on Capital Hill. Annandale: Federation Press.

Ladner, A. & Brandle, M. (2008) Switzerland, the Green Party, Alternative and Liberal Greens. In E. Frankland, P. Lucardie & B. Rihoux (Eds). Green parties in transition: the end of grassroots democracy? Farnham: Ashgate.

Laffin, M. (1987) “No Permanent Head”: politician-bureaucrat relationships in Victoria. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 46(1), 37-54.

Lambert, L. & Jansen, H. (2007) Party building by a state dependent party: the case of the Green Party of Canada. Paper presented to 2007 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Saskatoon, Canada, 30 May - 1 June 2007.

Lang, S. (1997/2000) The NGO-isation of feminism. In B. Smith (Ed). Global since 1945: rewriting histories. London: Routledge.

Lang, S. (2009) Contested institutionalisation: women’s policy agencies and challenges to gender equality in Germany. German Politics, 18(1), 55-70.

Lange, C. (1994) Being Green: the making of collective identity in the Greens (WA). (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Western Australia.

Lewis, S. (2010, April 16) PM Staff in the doghouse. Adelaide Now. Accessed 12 January 2011: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/pm-staff-in-the-doghouse/story- e6frea8c-1225854274956.

Lewis, S. & Rehn, A. (2010, April 15) Kevin Rudd and his ministers ‘burn out’ 60 per cent of staff in two years. Adelaide Now. Accessed 12 January 2011: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/kevin-rudd-and-his-ministers-burn-out-60- per-cent-of-staff-in-two-years/story-e6frea8c-1225853811387.

Lines, W. (2006) Patriots: defending Australia’s natural heritage. St Lucia: Press.

Lipset, S. & Rokkan, S. (1967) Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments: an introduction. In S. Lipset & S. Rokkan (Eds). Party Systems and Voter Alignments. Cross- National Perspectives. New York: Free Press.

Lohrey, A. (2002) Groundswell: the rise of the Greens. Melbourne: Black Inc.

269

Lovenduski, J. (1996) Sex gender and British politics. In J. Lovenduski & P. Norris (Eds). Women in politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lovenduski, J. (2002) Feminising politics. Women: A Cultural Review, 13(2), 207-220.

Lowndes, V. (2000) Women and social capital: a comment on Hall’s ‘Social capital in Britain’. British Journal of Political Science, 30(3), 533-540.

Lowndes, V. (2004) Getting on or getting by? Women, social capital and political participation. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6(1), 45-64.

Lowndes, V. (2006) It’s not what you’ve got but what you do with it: women, social capital and political participation. IN B. O’Neill & E. Gidengil (Eds). Gender and social capital. New York: Routledge.

Lucardie, P & Rihoux, B (2008) From amateur-activist to professional-electoral parties? On the organisational transformation of Green Parties in western democracies. In E. Frankland, P. Lucardie & B. Rihoux (Eds). Green Parties in transition: the end of grassroots democracy? Farnham: Ashgate.

MacCallum, M. (2001) Mungo: the man who laughs. Sydney: Duffy & Snellgrove.

Macdonald, L. (1995) Greens announce Senate team. Green Left Weekly 209, 31 October 1995. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/10468

Macdonald, L. & Fletcher, K. (1991) Top-down agenda for green party. Green Left Weekly 22, 7 August 1991. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/915

Maddison, S. & Martin, M. (2010): Introduction to ‘Surviving Neoliberalism:The Persistence of Australian Social Movements’. Social Movement Studies, 9(2), 101-120.

Mair, P. (1989) The problem of party system change. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1(3), 251- 276.

Mair, P. (1994) Party organisations: from civil society to the state. In R. Katz & P. Mair (Eds). How parties organise: change and adaption in party organisations in western democracies. London: Sage.

Mair, P. (2001) The Green challenge and political competition: how typical is the German experience? German Politics, 10(2), 99-116.

Maley, M. (2000) Conceptualising advisers’ policy work: the distinctive policy roles of Ministerial Advisers in the Keating Government, 1991-96. Australian Journal of Political Science, 35(3), 449-470.

270

Manning, H. (1992) The ALP and the union movement: ‘Catch-all’ party or maintaining traditions? Australian Journal of Political Science, 27(1), 12-30.

Manning, H. & Rootes, C. (2005) The tainted triumph of the Greens: the Australian national election of 9 October 2004. Environmental Politics, 14(3), 403-408.

Marcuse, H. & Martin, B. (1979) The failure of the New Left? New German Critique, 18, 3- 11.

Markovits, A. & Gorski, P. (1993) The German left: red, green and beyond. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Marsh, D. & Stoker, G. (Eds). (2002) Theory and methods in political science. (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Marsh, I. (2006) Australia’s political cartel: the major parties and the party system in an era of globalisation. In I. Marsh (Ed.). Political parties in transition? Annandale: Federation Press.

Massola, J. (2011, March 16) Greens MP Adam Bandt calls for Libyan no-fly zone. The Australian. Accessed 16 March 2011: Available: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national- affairs/greens-mp-adam-bandt-calls-for-libya-no-fly-zone/story-fn59niix-1226022338914

Maull, H. (2000) German foreign policy, post-Kosovo: still a ‘’? German Politics, 9(2), 1-24.

May, J. (1973) Opinion structure of political parties: the special law of curvilinear disparity. Political Studies, 21(2), 135-151.

Mayer, M. & Ely, J. (Eds). (1998) The German Greens: paradox between movement and party. (M. Schatzschneider, Trans.). Philadelphia : Temple University Press.

McAllister, G. (1995a) The history of Green politics in the ACT - 1. The Green Leaves. Newsletter of the ACT Greens. September 1995, no.1, p8.

McAllister, G. (1995b) The history of Green politics in the ACT - 2. The Green Leaves. Newsletter of the ACT Greens. November 1995, no.2, p8.

McAllister, I. (2002) Political parties in Australia: party stability in a utilitarian society. In P. Webb, D. Farrell & I. Holliday (Eds). Political parties in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McCarthy, J. & Zald, M. (1977) Resource mobilisation and social movements: a partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212-1241.

271

McCulloch, A. (1993) The Ecology Party in and Wales: branch organisation and activity. Environmental Politics, 2(1), 20-39.

McIlroy, J. (2000) New Labour, new unions, new left. Capital & Class, 24(2), 11-45.

McKay, J. (2004) Women in German politics: still jobs for the boys. German Politics, 13(1), 56-80

McKibben, B. (1989) The end of nature. New York: Anchor Books.

McKim, N. (2010, April 21) Ministerial portfolios set exciting challenge. Press Statement. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://mps.tas.greens.org.au/2010/04/ministerial-portfolios-set- exciting-challenge/

McKnight, D. (2005) Beyond right and left: new politics and the culture wars. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

McLean, A. (1996) Attitudes of youth towards politics and politicians. Legislative Studies, 10(2), 52-62.

Meier, P. (2008) A gender gap not closed by quotas. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 10(3), 329-347.

Melucci, A. (1989) Nomads of the present: social movements and individual needs in contemporary society. John Keane & Paul Mier (Eds). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Merchant, C. (1995) Earthcare: women and the environment. London: Routledge.

Mez, L. (1998) Who votes Green? Sources and trends of Green support. In M. Mayer & J. Ely, (Eds). The German Greens: paradox between movement and party, (M. Schatzschneider, Trans.). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Michels, R. (1915) Political parties: a sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. (E. & C. Paul, Trans.). London: Jarrold & Sons.

Milne, C. (2008, April 16) Paying the polluter, propping up a failing industry. Press statement. Senator Christine Milne: Canberra.

Milne, G. (2009, December 7) A sign the Libs have got it right. The Age Online.. Accessed 9 March 2011: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-sign-that-libs-have-got-it- right/story-e6frg75x-1225807506964

272

Miragliotta, N. (2006) One party two traditions: radicalism and pragmatism in the Australian Greens. Australian Journal of Political Science, 41(4), 585-596.

Miragliotta, N. (2010a) Similar but different: a comparison of the organisational structures of Australia’s Green parties. Paper presented to the Australian Political Studies Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 27-29 September 2010.

Miragliotta, N. (2010b) From local to national: explaining the formation of the Australian Green party. Party Politics, published online 16 December 2010. DOI: 10.1177/1354068810380095

Miskimmon, A. (2009) Falling into Line? Kosovo and the course of German foreign policy. International Affairs, 85(3), 561-573.

Morales, L. (2009) Joining political organisations. Colchester: ECPR Press.

Moon, J. & Sharman, C. (Eds). (2003) Australian politics and government: the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mosca, G (1896/1939) The ruling class. (H. Kahn, Trans.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Moser, R. & Scheiner, E. (2004) Mixed electoral systems and electoral system effects: controlled comparison and cross-national analysis. Electoral Studies, 23(4), 575-599.

Muller-Rommel, F. (1985) The Greens in Western Europe: similar but different. International Political Science Review, 6(4), 483-499.

Mundey, J. (1981) Green bans and beyond. Sydney: Angus & Robertson.

Narud, H. & Skare, A. (1999) Are party activists the party extremists? The structure of opinion in political parties. Scandinavian Political Studies, 22(1), 45-65.

New South Wales Electoral Commission (NSWEC) (2011) NSW state election results. Accessed 8 June 2011: http://vtr.elections.nsw.gov.au/

Newspoll (2010) Geographic and demographic analysis: voting intention and leaders’ ratings. Public opinion poll released 20 December 2010.

Nielsen Australia (2011) Estimates of federal voting intention and leadership approval. Public opinion poll released 14 February 2011.

Nolan, T. (Presenter) (2004, April 7) Greens Call for Immediate Withdrawal from Iraq. The World Today, Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Accessed 30 June 2011: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1083090.htm

Norman, J. (2004) Bob Brown: quiet . Sydney: Allen & Unwin

273

Norris, P. (1995) May’s law of curvilinear disparity revisited: leaders, officers, members and voters in British political parties. Party Politics, 1(1), 29-47.

Norris, P. (1996) Mobilising the ‘women’s vote’: the gender-generation gap in voting behaviour. Parliamentary Affairs, 49(2), 333-342.

Norris, P. (1997) The puzzle of constituency service. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 3(2), 29-49.

Norris, P. (2003) Young people and political activism: from the politics of loyalty to the politics of choice? Report for the Council or Europe Symposium “Young people and democratic institutions” Strasborg, 27-28 November 2003.

Norris, P. & Lovenduski, J. (1993) ‘If only more candidates came forward’: supply-side explanations of candidate selection in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 33(3), 373-408.

Norris, P., Lovenduski, J. & Campbell R. (2004) Gender and political participation. Research Report prepared for the UK Electoral Commission, April 2004.

Norris, P., Walgrave, S. & van Aelst, P. (2005) Who demonstrates? Antistate rebels, conventional particiaptns, or everyone? Comparative Politics, 37(2), 189-205.

Norton, A. (2002) Prospects for the two-party system in a pluralising political world. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(2), 33-50.

Nugent, M. (2002) Ecofeminist influences in the building of the black-green alliance: participant-observer reflections on the Jabiluka blockade. Ecopolitics, 1(4), 73-85.

Offe, C. (1998) From youth to maturity. In M. Mayer & J. Ely, (Eds). The German Greens: paradox between movement and party. (M. Schatzschneider, Trans.). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Oliver, D. (2008) Australian unions in 2007. Journal of Industrial Relations, 50(3), 447-461.

Olson, M. (1965) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.

Ostrogorski, M. (1902/1964) Democracy and the organisation of political parties. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.

Page, J. (2007) The Australian Democrats and the politics of peace. Online Opinion: Australia’s Ejournal of Social and Political Debate. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/10796/, accessed 19 May 2011.

274

Pakulski, J. (1991) Social movements: the politics of moral protest. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Panebianco, A. (1988) Political parties: organization and power. (M. Silver, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Parkin, F. (1968) Middle class radicalism: the social bases of the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Parkin, S. (1989) Green parties: an international guide. London: Heretic Books.

Parliamentary Agreement (2008) Parliamentary Agreement for the 7th Legislative Assembly for the ACT. Agreement between the ACT Greens and ACT Labor Party, signed 31 October 2008. Accessed 27 April 2011: http://act.greens.org.au/content/act-greenslabor-agreement

Parliamentary Agreement (2010) The Australian Greens & Australian Labor Party (‘The Parties’) – Agreement. Agreement between the Australian Greens and Federal Labor Party, signed 1 September 2010. Accessed 25 May 2011: http://greensmps.org.au/webfm_send/448

Pateman, C. (1988) The sexual contract. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Pattie, C., Seyd, P. & Whiteley, P. (2003) Citizenship and civic engagement: attitudes and behaviour in Britain. Political Studies, 51(3), 443-468.

Peavey, F. (2000) Heart politics revisited. Annandale: Pluto Press.

Pepper, D. (1993) Eco-socialism: from to social justice. London: Routledge.

Percy, J. (2005) Resistance: a history of the Democratic Socialist Party and Resistance, Volume 1: 1965-72. Chippendale: Resistance Books.

Pierre, J. (1986) Attitudes and behaviour or party activists: a critical examination of recent research on party activists and ‘Middle-Level Elites’. European Journal of Political Research, 14(4), 465-479.

Pierson, C. & Castles, F. (2002) Australian antecedents of the Third Way. Political Studies, 50(4), 683-702.

Pocock, B. (1995) Gender and activism in Australian unions. Journal of Industrial Relations, 37(3), 377-400.

Pocock, B. (2005) Work/care regimes: institutions, culture and behaviour and the Australian case. Gender, Work and Organisation, 12(1), 32-49.

275

Poguntke, T. (1987) The organisation of a participatory party – the German Greens. European Journal of Political Research, 15(6), 609-633.

Poguntke, T. (1990) Party activists versus voters: are the German Greens losing touch with the electorate? In W. Rudig (Ed.). Green politics one 1990. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh.

Poguntke, T. (1992) Unconventional participation in party politics: the experience of the German Greens. Political Studies 40(2) 239-254.

Poguntke, T. (1993) Goodbye to movement politics? Organisational adaption of the German Green party. Environmental Politics, 2(3), 379-404.

Poguntke, T. (1994) Basisdemokratie and political realities: the German Green party. In K. Lawson (Ed.). How political parties work: perspectives from within. Westport: Praeger.

Poguntke, T. (2002) Green Parties in national governments. Environmental Politics, 11(1), 133-145.

Pomper, G. (1992) Concepts of political parties. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 4(2), 143- 159.

Porritt, J. (1984) Seeing Green: the politics of ecology explained. Oxford: Blackwell.

Prendiville, B. & Chafer, T. (1990) Activists and ideas in the Green movement in France. In W. Rudig (Ed.). Green politics one 1990. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Price, D. (1971) Professionals and ’Entrepreneurs’: staff orientations and policy making on three Senate Committee’s. The Journal of Politics, 33(2), 316-336.

Prudham, S. (2009) Pimping climate change: Richard Branson, global warming, and the performance of green capitalism. Environment and Planning A, 41(7), 1594-1613.

Pryor, L (2010, August 28) A hearty donation to the Greens leaves a bitter aftertaste. The Sydney Morning Herald. Accessed 12 January 2011: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/a-hearty-donation-to-the-greens-leaves-a-bitter- aftertaste-20100827-13vx5.html

Puhle, H. (2002) Still the age of catch-allism? In R. Gunther, J. Ramon-Montero and J. Linz (Eds). Political parties: old concepts and new challenges, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling alone: the collapse and of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

276

Pybus, C. (1990) Commentary. In C. Pybus & R. Flanagan (Eds). The rest of the world is watching. Chippendale: Pan Macmillan.

Pybus, C. & Flanagan, R. (Eds). (1990) The rest of the world is watching. Chippendale: Pan Macmillan.

Queensland Green Network (1991) [Letter to the convenors the pre-Greens August 1991 national meeting]. Dated 1 June 1991. In possession of the author.

Quiggin, J. (2004, July 29) Don’t fear a Green Senate. Australian Financial Review. Accessed 6 March 2011: http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/news/2004-07-29- AFR.htm

Rahat, G. (2007) Candidate selection: the choice before the choice. Journal of Democracy, 18(1), 157-170.

Rainbow, S. (1993) Green politics. Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Ranney, A. (1981) Candidate selection. In D. Butler, H. Penniman & A. Ranney (Eds). Democracy at the polls: a comparative study of competitive national elections. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.

Rhiannon, L. (2009) Social movements and political parties: conflicts and balance. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1(2), 30-41.

Rihoux, B. (2006) Governmental participation and the organizational adaption of Green parties: on access, slack, overload and distress. European Journal of Political Research, 45, S69-S98

Rihoux, B. & Frankland, E. (2008) Conclusion: the metamorphosis of amateur-activist newborns into professional-activist centaurs. In E. Frankland, P. Lucardie & B. Rihoux (Eds). Green parties in transition: the end of grassroots democracy? Farnham: Ashgate.

Rihoux, B. & Rudig, W. (2006) Analysing Greens in power: setting the agenda. European Journal of Political Research, 45, S1-S33.

Roker, D., Player, K. & Colman, J. (1999) Young people’s voluntary and campaigning activities as sources of political education. Oxford Review of Education, 25(1-2), 185-198

Romzek, B. (2000) Accountability of Congressional staff. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 413-446.

277

Romzek, B. & Utter, J. (1996) Career dynamics of congressional legislative staff: preliminary profile and research questions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(3), 415-442.

Romzek, B. & Utter, J. (1997) Congressional legislative staff: professionals or clerks? American Journal of Political Science, 41(4), 1251-1279.

Rootes, C. (1995) Britain: Greens in a cold climate. In D.Richardson & C. Rootes (Eds). The Green challenge: the development of Green parties in Europe. London: Routledge.

Rootes, C. (2008) The first climate change election? The Australian general election of 24 November 2007. Environmental Politics, 17(3), 473-480.

Rose, R. (1974) The problem of party government. London: MacMillan.

Rowe, L. (1998) The odd bedfellows of economic . IPA Review, September 1998, pp8-9. Accessed 6 March 2011: http://www.ipa.org.au/library/review50- 4%20Odd%20Bedfellows%20of%20Economic%20Nationalism.pdf

Roy Morgan Research (2010) Greens set to hold Senate ‘balance of power’ with 10 Senators. Roy Morgan Research Finding 4554. Public opinion poll released 10 August 2010. Accessed 28 May 2011: http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2010/4554/

Rudd, K. (2007, December 12) Address to the UN Bali Conference on Climate Change, Bali. Accessed 28 May 2011: www.australianpolitics.com/2007/12/12/rudd-address-to-bali- climate-change-conference.html

Rudig, W. (Ed.). (1990) Green politics one 1990. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Rudig, W. (2002) European Green Parties membership survey: common core questionnaire final version. (Unpublished questionnaire). University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.

Rudig, W. (2005) Organising Green Parties: phasing out ‘grassroots democracy’? Paper presented to 2005 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, USA, 1-4 September 2005.

Rudig, W., Bennie L. & Franklin M. (1991) Green Party members: a profile. Glasgow: Delta.

Rudig, W. & Lowe, P. (1986) The withered ‘Greening’ of British politics: a study of the Ecology Party. Political Studies, 34(2), 262-284.

Salisbury, R. & Shepsle, K. (1981) Congressional staff turnover and the ties-that-bind. The American Political Science Review, 75(2), 381-396.

278

Salleh, A. (1987) A Green party: can the boys do without one? In D. Hutton (Ed.). Green politics in Australia. Sydney: Angus & Robertson.

Sartori, G. (1976) Parties and party systems: a framework for analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Saunders, M. & Summy, R. (1984a) One hundred years of an Australian peace movement, 1885-1984: Part I: From the Sudan Campaign to the outbreak of the Second World War. Peace & Change, 10(3-4), 39-56.

Saunders, M. & Summy, R. (1984b) One hundred years of an Australian peace movement, 1885-1984: Part II: From the Second World War to Vietnam and beyond. Peace & Change, 10(3-4), 57-75.

Savage, J. (1985) Postmaterialism of the left and right: political conflict in postindustrial society. Comparative Political Studies, 17(4), 431-451.

Sawer, M. (2002) The representation of : meaning and make-believe. Parliamentary Affairs, 55(1), 5-18.

Sawer, M. (2010) Premature obituaries: how can we tell if the women’s movement is over? Politics and Gender, 6(4), 602-609.

Sayers, A. (2007) Electoral volatility and political party organisation in Canada and Australia. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association Conference, Saskatoon, Canada, 30 May - 1 June 2007.

Scalmer, S. (2001) From contestation to autonomy: the staging and framing of anti-Hanson contention. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 47(2), 209-224.

Scarrow, S. (1996) Politicians against parties: anti-party arguments as weapons for change in Germany. European Journal for Political Research, 29(3), 297-317.

Scarrow, S. (2000) Parties without members? Party organisation in a changing electoral environment. In R. Dalton & M. Wattenberg (Eds). Parties without partisans: political change in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Scharf, T. (1994) The German Greens: challenging the consensus. Oxford (USA): Berg

Schuman, H. & Scott, J. (1989) Generations and collective memories. American Sociological Review, 54(3), 359-381.

279

Sewell, S., & Kelly, A. (1991) Inside peace work. In E. Baldry & T. Vinson (Eds) Actions speak: strategies and lessons from Australian social and community action. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Seyd, P. & Whiteley, P. (1992) Labour’s grass roots: the politics of party membership. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Shantz, J. & Adams, B. (1999) Ecology and class: the green syndicalism of IWW/Earth First Local 1. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 19(7/8), 43-72.

Sharman, C. (1997) Politics in the states. In B. Galligan, I. McAllister & J. Ravenhill (Eds). New developments in Australian politics. South Melbourne: Macmillan.

Sharman, C. & Moon, J. (2003) Introduction. In J. Moon and C. Sharman (Eds). Australian politics and government: the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sherkat, D. & Blocker, J. (1994) The political development of Sixties’ activists: identifying the influence of class gender and socialisation on protest participation. Social Forces, 72(3), 821-842.

Siaroff, A. (2003) Two-and-a-half-party systems and the comparative role of the `half'. Party Politics, 9(3), 267-290.

Smith, A. (2009) The Internet’s role in Campaign 2008. Pew Internet: Washington. Accessed 24 January 2011: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/6-The-Internets-Role-In- Campaign-2008.aspx

Smith, J. (1991) Enclaves unlimited: urbanisation, immigration and the Multifunction Polis. Urban Policy and Research, 9(1), 63-66.

Smith, R. & O’Mahony, J. (2006) The cartel parties model and electoral barriers. In I. Marsh (Ed.). Political parties in transition? Annandale: Federation Press.

Spretnak, C. & Capra F. (1985) Green politics: the global promise. London: Paladin.

Staeheli, L. & Cope, M. (1994) Empowering women’s participation. Political Geography, 13(5), 443-460.

Studlar, D. & McAllister, I. (2002) Does a critical mass exist? A comparative study of women’s legislative representation since 1950. European Journal of Political Research, 41(2), 233-253.

Sullivan, S. (2009) Green capitalism, and the cultural of constructing nature as service provider. Radical Anthropology, 3, 18-27.

280

Tarrow, S. (1990) Struggle, politics and reform: collective action, social movements, and cycles of protest. Western Societies Program Occasional Paper 21 (2nd ed.). Cornell University.

Tarrow, S. (2005) The new transnational activism. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tasmanian Electoral Commission (1982) House of Assembly Election Results 15 May 1982. Accessed 19 May 2011: http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/tpl/Elections/E1982.htm

Tasmanian Greens (2007) Tasmanian Greens Constitution. Tasmanian Greens, Hobart, Tasmania, Accessed 9 December 2009: http://www.tas.greens.org.au/sites/default/files/Tas_Greens_CONSTITUTION_Revised_V8. pdf

The Poll Bludger (2008) NSW council elections thread. (Web log post). Accessed 28 May 2011: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2008/09/12/new-south-wales-council-elections- thread/#comments

Tranter, B. (2010) Environmental activists and not-active environmentalists in Australia. Environmental Politics, 19(3), 413-429.

Tranter, B. & Western, B. (2003) Post material values and age: the case of Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 239-257.

Tranter, B. & Western, M. (2009) The influence of Green parties on postmaterialist values. British Journal of Sociology, 60(1), 145-167.

Trioli, V. (Presenter) (2007, March 15) Interview with Dr Alex Wodak. In Mornings with Virginia Trioli [Radio broadcast]. Sydney: ABC 702.

Turnbull, N. & Vromen, A. (2006) The Australian Greens: party organisation and political processes. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 52(3), 455-470.

Turner, L. (2006) Globalisation and the logic of participation: unions and the politics of coalition building. Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(1), 83-97.

United Tasmania Group (UTG) (1972) The New Ethic. In C. Pybus & R. Flanagan (Eds). The rest of the world is watching. Chippendale: Pan Macmillan.

Vallentine, J. (1991) [Speaking to the Ministerial Statement on the Gulf War]. Senate , 5 March 1991, p1206. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Vallentine, J. (1999) A tapestry of passion and peace. In J. Eveline & L. Hayden (Eds). Carrying the banner: women, leadership and activism in Australia. Nedlands: University of Western Australia Press.

Vallentine, J. (2001, September 19) Mankind at a turning point. The West Australian.

281

Vallentine, J. & Jones, P. (1990) Quakers in politics: pragmatism or principle? The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers): Alderley. Originally delivered as the 26th James Backhouse Lecture, 6 January 1990, in Sydney, Australia. van Houten, P. (2009) Multi-level relations in political parties: a delegation approach. Party Politics, 15(2), 137-156.

Verba, S., Nie, N. & Kim, J. (1978) Participation and political equality: a seven nation comparison. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. & Brady, H. (1995) Voice and equality: civic volunteerism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Villalba, B. (2008) The French Greens: changes in activist culture and practices in a constraining environment. In E. Frankland, P. Lucardie & B. Rihoux (Eds). Green parties in transition: the end of grassroots democracy? Farnham: Ashgate.

Volkens, A. & Klingemann, H. (2002) Parties, ideologies and issues: stability and change in fifteen European party systems 1945-1998. In K. Luther & F. Muller-Rommel (Eds). Political parties in the new Europe: political and analytical challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vromen, A. (2003) ‘People try to put us down…’: participatory citizenship of ‘Generation X’. Australian Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 79-99.

Vromen, A. (2005) Who are the Australian Greens? Surveying the membership. Paper presented to the Australian Sociological Association Conference, University of Tasmania, 6-8 December 2005

Vromen, A. & Collin, P. (2010) Everyday youth participation? Contrasting views from Australian policymakers and young people. Young: Nordic Journal of Youth Research, 18(1), 97-112.

Vromen, A. & Gauja, A. (2009) Protesters, parliamentarians, policymakers: the experiences of Australian Green MPs. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 15(1), 90-112.

Vromen, A., Gelber, K. & Gauja, A. (2009) Powerscape: contemporary Australian politics. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

Vromen, A. & Turnbull N., (2006) The Australian Greens. In I. Marsh (Ed.). Political parties in transition? Annandale: Federation Press.

Walter, J. (1986) The ministers minders: personal advisers in national government. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

282

Walter, J. (2006) Ministerial staff and the ‘lattice of leadership’. Discussion Paper 13/06 (April 2006) Canberra: Democratic Audit of Australia.

Wanna, J. (2003) Queensland. In J. Moon & C. Sharman (Eds). Australian politics and government: the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wanna, J. (2005) Political chronicles: Commonwealth of Australia July to December 2004. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 51(2), 274-326.

Ward, A. (Presenter) (2006, February 17) Election special. In Stateline Tasmania [Television program] [Transcript] Sydney: ABC TV. Accessed 10 May 2011: http://ww.abc.net.au/stateline/tas/content/2006/s1572727.html

Ward, I. & Stewart, R. (2006) Politics one. (3rd ed.). South Yarra: Palgrave Macmillan

Ware, A. (1996) Political parties and party systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Warn, P. (1996) Ministers and minders. In J. Disney & J. Nethercote (Eds). The House on Capital Hill. Annandale: Federation Press.

Warnock, J. (2007) The Greens: “neither left nor right”. Paper presented to the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, 30 May 2007.

Warhurst, J. (2006) The Nationals and the Democrats: cracks and chips in the cartel? In I. Marsh (Ed.). Political parties in transition. Annandale: Federation Press.

Warhurst, J. (2007) The Howard decade in Australian Government and politics. Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 189-194.

Weatherly, C. (1993) To party or not? Green Issue. July 1993, p. 5.

Webb, P. (1995) Are British political parties in decline? Party Politics, 1(3), 299-322.

Webb, P. & Kolodny, P. (2006) Professional staff in political parties. In R. Katz & W. Crotty (Eds). Handbook of party politics. London: Sage.

Weller, P. & Fleming, J. (2003) The Commonwealth. In J. Moon & C. Sharman (Eds). Australian politics and government: the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

White, J. (2006) What is a political party? In R. Katz & W. Crotty (Eds). Handbook of party politics. London: Sage.

283

Whiteley, P. & Seyd, P. (2002) High intensity participation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Whiteley, P., Seyd, P. & Billinghurst, A. (2006) Third force politics: Liberal Democrats at the grassroots. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Whiteley, P., Seyd, P. & Richardson, J. (1994) True Blues: The politics of Conservative Party membership. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Williamson, J. (1998) Political activism and the aging of the baby boom. Generations, 22(1), 55-59.

Wright Mills, C. (1959) The power elite. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wright Mills, C. (1963) The new left. In L. Horowitz (Ed.). Power, politics and people: the collected essays of C. Wright Mills. New York: Ballantine.

Young, B. (1996) The German state and feminist politics: a double gender marginalisation. Social Politics, 3(2-3), 159-184.

Zimmerman, M. (2004) : an enduring temptation. In M. Zimmerman, J. Callicott, G. Sessions, K. Warren & J. Clark (Eds). Environmental philosophy: from to radical ecology. (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

284

Top View