During the last federal election in 2010, almost 1.5 million Australians voted for the Greens in the Lower House, while more than 1.6 million voted for them in the Senate, giving them the balance of power.

This enabled the Greens to elect 9 Senators and one MP in the House of Representatives – the latter, Adam Bandt, in the traditionally Labor safe seat of Melbourne. They claim to stand for a healthy environment, a caring society, clean energy and a sustainable economy.

Under the Gillard Labor government the Greens were influencing policy outcomes through their agreement with the then Australian Prime Minister. As a result of Kevin Rudd’s resurgence, polling has indicated a deterioration in their electoral position. Some commentators have even dared to predict that the upcoming elections will be the beginning of their end. They claim they will go the way of the Australian Democrats in the first half of the 1990s, because their vote is shaky and their appeal is restricted to activists and to the highest socio-economic group only.

Last Sunday the Greens leader, Tasmanian Senator Christine Milne, announced four major policies for the upcoming election. A $50 a week increase to the unemployment and youth payment, a $40 a week increase to the single parent payment, increased funding of 2 billion dollars for schools, an increase in investment in research and development, and increased funding for endangered species.

These policies and their justification were broadcast on the ABC and were shot down the very next day in most of the media. The emphasis of the criticism was on the cost of these proposals that would require an additional 43 billion dollars of funding. This, we were told, will happen in an era when the outlook of the Australian economy is becoming increasingly less buoyant as government revenues come under strain.

The response of the Australian Bankers’ Association, their opposition to the proposed Green 0.2 per cent new tax on the four major bank assets over 100 billion dollars was reported repeatedly. The opposition of the Minerals Council of Australia to the proposed mining tax was highlighted.

The overall cost of the Greens proposal was stressed. However, they downplayed the argument of Christine Milne on the ABC, that the mining companies are taxed at a rate half that of the oil and gas companies or that 80 per cent of their shareholders are from overseas.
What it is not mentioned generally in these pre-election days is the fact that Australia is becoming again an increasingly unequal society.

This article is not an argument for the rights and wrongs of the Greens policies. This article is an argument, as a result of Milne’s proposals last Sunday, for opening up the scope of the pre-election agenda, and the alternatives that might need to be considered if we are as a nation to talk seriously about our present and future directions. This is an argument for broadening the political debate for all the pre-elections issues raised so far.

Inequality is again on the ascendancy in this country. Low income Australians, indigenous, migrant and female Australians do not engage in politics as often as middle and high income citizens, or they are more cynical about the democratic process. These Australians experience more serious health problems than the rest, they have a shorter life expectancy, they struggle to educate their children, they are not satisfied with their lives, their work, their neighbourhoods.

These people, people who are falling behind, are denied the opportunity during an election year to listen to a different set of priorities. These Australians, along with others, if they are to make an informed decision before they go to the polling booths, need to be exposed to a full spectrum of ideas and policies, including the policies of the Australian Greens.