Dear Richard

By Alex on August 4, 2010 in Blog, Politics

Just left this comment over at Richard di Natale’s blog.

Looking forward to a response.

Hi Richard,

I can understand that you are frustrated that there is no price on carbon. Perhaps if you were in the Senate, you would have crossed the floor against your colleagues and voted in favour of the CPRS (as flawed as it was) – so that Australia would have a carbon price by now.

I don’t understand why you are opposed to citizens’ assemblies. The Greens Party policy is that community consultation should underpin every decision of Government.

http://greens.org.au/policies/human-rights-democracy/community-participation-in-government

“ongoing community participation in the making of laws and policy should underpin all government actions.”

Also the Greens Party policy specifically suggests citizens assemblies as a consultation means.

“support innovative community consultation processes such as citizens’ juries and citizens’ assemblies.”

Doesn’t a citizens’ assembly on gauging community support and consensus on climate change sound like it would accord with the Greens Party policy of open, consultative, participatory government?

Am I reading the Greens Party policies wrong? I know your climate change policy is cut and dried, but the consultative government policy says “all government actions” – which I assume would include implementing a carbon price.

If not, which other Greens Party policies are exempt from “ongoing community participation”?

UPDATE (5 August 2010)

Turns out the Greens Party website is set up so that you need to log in to see comments (as well as write them). It’s a terrible system and looks very, very dodgy.

Here’s my reply to Richard’s reply. You’ll need to log in to read his reply, since that’s the stupid way they’ve set it up.

Thanks for the reply. You should change your system set up so that you don’t need to log in to *see* comments.

There is no doubt that there was a mandate to take action on climate change.

If that is the (main) basis for opposing a citizens assembly on a carbon price (as well as the science being settled), then surely the Greens Party should have voted in favour of the CPRS on the basis that it was agreed between Rudd (who had the mandate) and Turnbull (leader of the second largest party that also took a carbon price to the election).

If citizens assemblies are useful in working on strategies to become more sustainable, shouldn’t the Greens Party have just bit the bullet and voted for the (flawed) CRPS and then pushed for improvements *once it was passed* than holding out and blocking action?

Afterall, the effect of the Greens Party voting with Tony Abbott and the climate deniers was to give an enormous symbolic victory to the deniers, and to destroy the consensus. Labor was trying to move to implementation after 2 years of discussion, but Bob Brown and other Greens Senators decided that they would block action.

As far as I can see, Labor has continued to support a carbon price. It is just responding to the fact that it cannot get the legislation through the Senate. Even if it did negotiate with the Greens Party, Labor + Greens don’t have a majority (and even if you had been elected instead of Fielding, that still wouldn’t have been enough votes, since both indepedents are needed).

I’m sure you would concede that the support in Australia for a carbon price has decreased (albeit from 75% to only around 55%). That’s a fairly large group of people who have changed their position, even with a majority supporting action. I’m sure you would agree that we (as climate activists) need to engage the waverers so we can strengthen support, rather than just ramming something through and potentially alienating a large group of potential supporters.

If the Greens Party had supported the CPRS (with all its flaws), then we would be talking about how to improve the CPRS and the MRET and other measures.

Leadership means listening, then acting. And in our system where the Senate can be obstructionist (and the Greens were one of the obstructions on this particular issue), surely consultation and community engagement is essential to ensure we get it right.