Senator Scott Ludlam decries Coalition’s “calculated xenophobia”

I managed to get a few minutes to interview Greens WA Senator Scott Ludlam after a forum we both spoke at regarding internet censorship.

The most obvious question for a Greens Senator for WA, considering that state’s mineral wealth and the Greens’ … green-ness, is regarding the mining tax. A similar tax had been proposed by the Greens months ahead of Labor’s announcement of the policy, so naturally the Greens support the mining tax. Senator Ludlam described the response to the mining tax as “an extraordinary example of very well resourced and very well executed corporate bullying”.

This ‘bullying’ has been reintroduced recently by the smaller mining companies, having been ignored in negotiations between the big three miners and Labor, a situation he was highly critical of. While still supportive of the tax, the senator acknowledged that the smaller companies probably have legitimate grievances before flagging an expanded role in negotiations for the Greens – and parliament as a whole – after the election.

When queried about the cost of renewable energy for households, Ludlam referred to a number of studies which suggested that large renewable energy targets – and the subsequent oversupply in the market – would suppress wholesale energy prices. Closer to people’s homes, he considers energy efficiency measures to be “the most powerful single tool we’ve got to fight climate change”, while regarding a systematic implementation of both energy efficiency and renewable energy measures to be a necessity.

A halving of energy usage through efficiency -  something he considers ” very definitely possible” – would negate even a doubling of energy bills. While the prospect of doubled energy costs would be concerning for households across the country, continued development in the renewable energy sector easily puts the “less than double” bracket within reach over the next few years, with further improvements ongoing.

When asked about the Greens-Labor preference deal, and accusations that voting Green means voting Labor, his response suggested a lot of experience addressing the issue with, I suspect, a hint of frustration that it is believed as widely as it is. He noted that lodging a preference ticket is required of them by law, then explained that negotiations were undertaken to give Greens senate candidates the best chance of election, with the hope of holding the balance of power. Regarding specific voting patterns, he said that a Green vote in the senate would make it “very likely to get someone elected who can then speak for you.”

The lower house, however, is where the claims come from. The Greens – as in past elections – have submitted preferences in marginal electorates placing Labor ahead of the Coalition, in exchange for the same consideration in the Senate. What Ludlam wanted people to remember was that regardless of what a how to vote card says, how someone votes is entirely up to them, and that people should “vote according to their conscience”.

Nationals Senator Fiona Nash might be justified in her concern about the Greens in her home state of NSW. My experience of Greens (and minor party, generally) voters is that they’re less likely to vote along the party line, and more likely to decide their own preferences. Even ignoring that, Labor’s larger base means there are more preferences up for grabs for the Greens in this deal than for Labor. Finally, deciding preferences is much simpler in the lower house, with only a handful of boxes instead of dozens in the Senate. All this suggests that, for all the concern about what Labor’s getting out of it, the Greens got a far sweeter deal.

In relation of immigration and asylum seekers, Ludlam called for a calm, considered approach to the issue, suggesting that people need to “take a deep breath and a cold shower.” Senate colleague Sarah Hanson-Young’s leadership on asylum seekers, in her role as Immigration and Citizenship spokesperson for the Greens, was provided as an example. He referred to a “relatively small number” of asylum seekers arriving by boat “escaping from war and persecution”, while noting that Australia’s asylum seeker intake is small compared to many other countries around the world.

“We’re getting a trickle of some of the most desperate, marginalise, persecuted people on Earth and we owe it to them if they reach our shores to look after them as human beings and provide them with what they need.”

Our refugee ‘problem’ is perhaps a problem these countries – which include Belgium, Switzerland and the US, along with Pakistan, Jordan and many more – might like to have.

He noted that illegal immigrants are more likely to arrive in Australia by plane, overstaying visas, than boat, but that any arrival assessed to be a security risk or not a genuine refugee should be sent home, something the Greens “have been saying that from the beginning”.

“The biggest change we need is to take a proper look at the purposes by which the Opposition, principally, is running these lines. That is calculated xenophobia to pitch to marginal electorates, and I think it does us all a disservice.”

–

You can listen to the full interview here. Complete with new and improved “girlish giggle”.