By Rich Bowden:

As part of our Election 2010 coverage of the country’s marginal seats, we talk to Suzie Wright, Greens candidate for the seat of Lindsay in outer western Sydney. Suzie tells us of the issues facing voters, the importance of Greens’ preferences and her take on the alleged “dog whistle” tactics employed in this high profile seat.

Rich Bowden: What have you found to be the main issues affecting Lindsay voters and how will your party respond to these issues?

Suzie Wright: The main issues affecting Lindsay voters as experienced by the Greens are:

* problems of overdevelopment – in particular the destruction of bushland (now critically endangered) on the ADI site – as well as loss of farming land.
* the local labor politician dog whistling and linking the issue of asylum seekers with border security
* education – particularly the importance of adequate funding for early childhood programs
* transport – gridlock on our roads, no parking, poor train service, no plan to change it any time soon.
* aged and disability care – particularly lack of services and staffing in nursing homes and the Nepean hospital
* Health care generally – in particular funding for mental health, primary health care (GPs) and the problem of inadequate dental options

RB: The seat of Lindsay has acquired a reputation in some sections of the media as having a certain level of intolerance. Has this been your experience during the campaign and what is your opinion of the so-called “dog whistle” tactics of other candidates?

SW: I have not had experience of intolerance for people seeking asylum. In fact Penrith and St Marys have major populations of successful immigrants and refugees from war torn places such as Lebanon and the Sudan. Many now run small businesses and make a vital contribution to the local economy.

Western Sydney, and Lindsay is no different, has had to take a lot of new migrants over the last 5 years. The infrastructure has not kept pace with the growing population and people are concerned about food security, job losses, housing prices and so on. These are economic and sustainability issues and do not have anything to do with the small number of people who seek asylum from war-ravaged countries.

It is David Bradbury, who has made the link in our media and used the plight of genuine asylum seekers to raise his own profile for re-election. Bradury’s trip to Darwin looking for “boat people” in the guise of learning about our border security for this electorate was offensive and will cost him and the Labor party votes.

RB:  Should you not win the seat, how important will Greens preferences be in deciding the outcome of Lindsay?

SW: The Greens in Lindsay have not made a preference decision at this point and have been in discussions to clarify their views on a range of matters in order to inform the decision. Depending on the Green vote – the preferences could be crucial. If Greens poll higher than 6% (we attracted over 12% in the [state] by-election) and there is a swing against Labor then Bradbury could be in trouble.

Traditionally Greens voters are well informed on the issues and make up their own minds about who they will preference. The preference decision will essentially be a recommendation to our voters on whether to preference one party over the other or not to make a recommendation.

The response within the Lindsay Greens to date has been disappointment in both parties. There has been very little support for Greens issues locally from either party – cycleways, rail transport, refugee support – particularly in Mamre House, Nepean Hospital, aged care, and most immediately protection of critically endangered habitat in the form of a wildlife corridor called the “Cumberland Conservation Corridor”.

Neither party has any concept of prioritizing protection of the natural environment in Lindsay. Both parties for the last two decades have only seen this area as being ripe for development and have wherever possible dug it up and /or sold it off. Numerous suburbs have sprung up with little or no thought to preserving our unique bushland. No infrastructure (other than more roads) no long term vision, no long term plan that includes the protection of our waterways, farmlands or our natural heritage.

Additionally Family First, The Christian Democrats, Australia First and a couple of independents will put a dent in the votes for the Labor party – most, if not all, will go to Fiona Scott, the Liberal candidate. Andrew Green from the Christian Democrats always preferences the Liberal party and has won more votes than the Greens on occasion.

RB: What effect on the result in this electorate will be the perceived poor performance of the State Labor Government and the recent large swing to the Liberals in the state by election?

SW: Voters are fed up with political double speak and spin. This is across the board at State and Federal level. Labor has not done themselves any favours by stepping away from their record when Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister and are seen by many to have shot themselves in the foot.

Again the ALP is asking voters not to judge them on their record but on their promises for the future. Many Lindsay voters are fed up with the talk and the promises – we want real action, action on Climate Change, action on public transport, action on renewable energy, action on investing in our future.

RB: Have you noted any feedback from voters over the lack of any meaningful policies over an emissions trading scheme from the major parties?

SW: Voters are still confused over emissions trading in Western Sydney. They know we need to curb emissions, reduce pollution and get going on public transport, solar power and other renewables but can’t see either of the major parties planning sensibly for a way forward.

Greens would like to see an end to the reviews, reports, committees, draft papers and consultative committees and to get on with it. Both Ross Garnaut and Ken Henry must be spitting chips over the lack of regard for their well-formed and costly reports.

Again plenty of talk about moving forward but very little action. Hopefully if the Greens increase in number in the parliament we will be able to get action on our Safe Climate Bill and get a price on carbon in 2011 – a small start.

RB: How important a factor in Lindsay is alleged public distaste over the recent ALP leadership takeover?

SW: Changing leaders, and to a woman, may work for some – possibly the young female vote – but doesn’t impress those that have been around for a few years. It didn’t work for Keneally in the recent by-election and I don’t think it will work for Gillard in this election either; although the swing will most likely not be as big as it was for the State.

Tags: dog whistle, election 2010 greens, lindsay greens, suzie wright greens