Former Greens leader Christine Milne has accused New South Wales senator Lee Rhiannon and her state branch of exercising veto powers over the national party room, and picking and choosing issues to undermine.

As the Greens NSW state delegates council meets this weekend to consider the party room’s action against Rhiannon, the second former Australian Greens national leader has called for constitutional change to NSW so it falls into line with other state organisations.

Milne’s comments follow those of the first Australian Greens leader, Bob Brown, who endorsed action against Rhiannon after she took a position at odds with her party room while they were still negotiating on the school funding bill. Brown has been a long-time critic of the NSW senator.

The stoush began when Rhiannon’s nine colleagues signed a formal complaint against her and then called for a change to the NSW organisation’s rules. A second resolution, signed by all but Melbourne MP Adam Bandt, expelled Rhiannon from the party room on contentious issues until that rule change occurred.



Milne, who has rarely entered the political debate since she retired, has said the division highlights the unequal position held by NSW over other state divisions.

“NSW benefits from the work of the whole party room but picks and chooses what it supports or undermines,” Milne writes in an opinion piece for Guardian Australia. “In a caucus that might be acceptable but in a shadow cabinet it is untenable.

“How is it democratic or effective for all our other MPs and senators to negotiate with the government of the day and try to come to a consensus decision after consultation with the members around the whole country – and then find that a parliamentary liaison committee in NSW has determined before that negotiation is over that it will oppose that decision and campaign against it?”

Milne rejected suggestions that Greens NSW’s party structure was more democratic or grassroots than other state structures.

“The democracy issue that is being debated is whether all state parties that make up the Australian Greens are able to make decisions on an equal basis through their elected members when those senators and MPs sit around a table in Canberra,” Milne writes. “Currently they can’t and don’t.”

The NSW state delegates council will hear a range of motions, many of them relating to Rhiannon and the state organisation’s relationship to the federal party. There are motions relating to NSW funding for the national organisation, as well as a call for an investigation into leaks of the original formal complaint from Rhiannon’s colleagues to Fairfax. There are also motions calling for the reinstatement of Rhiannon to national party room meetings.

It is understood that while there is no appetite for changes to the NSW rules, there will be moves to make the processes that bind a NSW MP more transparent. It is not clear whether this will be enough to reinstate Rhiannon to the party room.

But Milne urged the NSW party to act. She said it was clear from the party’s formation that no MPs could keep their state organisations abreast of all parliamentary negotiations and developments in real time. As a result, other states agreed to give MPs a conscience vote that allowed them to vote according to their beliefs on new policy.

Milne said Greens NSW refused to join the national organisation without an exemption from the conscience vote.

“Therein lies the problem that has dogged the party since 1992,” Milne writes. “While the Greens retain our core commitment to consensus-based decision making, the NSW party has effectively secured veto power over the whole of the membership of the Australian Greens.”

Milne said while it was no surprise that NSW wanted to maintain its power, party members across the country deserved equal rights.

“The undemocratic exemption to the Australian Greens constitution given to NSW in 1992 is what is being challenged in 2017,” she writes.

“It is no surprise that NSW wants to keep that power at any cost but party democracy, equality and unity can no longer afford it. It must be addressed, and the constitution must be democratic and afford equal rights to all its members.”