Prev
Next

Introducing Labor’s new faction – the Greens

Sophie Mirabella

by Sophie Mirabella

03 Sep 05:50am

Must Reads

The Rinehart whine came straight from the heart - this is a caption

The Rinehart whine came straight from the heart

134

Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone - this is a caption

Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone

161

Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal?

163

Filed under: Election 2010, Hung Parliament, Labor Party, The Greens

177 comments

The Greens are now officially the far-left faction of the Australian Labor Party.  They have been signed, sealed and delivered by a Prime Minister desperate to cling to power and their own party leader who is clearly desperate to be part of the “big game” he has always decried.

The Dalai Lama will also meet once a week with Prime Minister Gillard.

Those people who voted Green because they would “stand up to” the major parties must be bewildered and disappointed by the indecent haste with which they have got into bed with the Labor Party.

The Greens can no longer claim to be an “alternative” to the major parties, because they are now a formalised wing of Labor.  Rather than being a third political force, they’re just Labor’s appendage.

The deal this week isn’t merely a vote to support one side of politics over the other. 

This is a fully fledged contract to govern together – complete with regular weekly briefings and meetings to discuss government business.  It formalises the cosy relationship that saw Labor’s mates at the Electrical Trades Union apparently fund new Green MP Adam Bandt’s campaign to the tune of $300,000.

But a look at some of the “reforms” that the Greens claim to have secured this week reveals that Labor’s all talk, no action ethos remains alive and well in the caretaker Gillard government:

Yet another Committee to look at Climate Change (but they will definitely put a price on carbon leading to higher electricity costs)
A debate on Afghanistan
A study on high-speed rail
An agreement to talk some more on dental healthcare
The creation of a raft of new Parliamentary bureaucracies including the cuddly-named “Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner” (I wonder if Mark Latham will get the gig?)

Aside from some Parliamentary reforms which both major parties had flagged would occur, where’s the real action in the Labor-Green merger deal? 

The more important question of course is: will the Greens ultimately be the tail that wags the Labor dog?

How long will it be until a beholden minority Labor Government, plagued with in-fighting, is forced to embrace more fully the far-left socialist Green agenda?

An agenda that includes policies like:

Sanctions for the personal use of illicit drugs - essentially legalising all drugs
Introducing death duties in the form of an “estate tax”
Increasing the number of injecting rooms and needle exchanges
Implementing a range of ill-defined “ecological taxes”, so we move away from being taxed on what we earn, and are taxed instead on our impact on the environment
Allowing judges to take “customary law and other personal and cultural factors into account” when sentencing criminals

The Greens have largely escaped policy scrutiny up until now because it was generally regarded they would not be in a position to actually implement them. 

If Labor manages to form Government from the ashes of the electorate’s rejection, the Greens will be in a position to influence and implement policy.

With all the scrutiny and line-by-line assessment of the major parties promises, a critical eye over the Greens’ agenda is well overdue. 

And it’s time for Labor to come clean about how much of the very left Green agenda they will adopt as their own in order to retain Government. 

Either way, it must now be clear that the Greens are not just an idealistic group on the fringes of politics – they are as party-political and determined to gain power as any political party.

Moreover, it’s clear that a vote for the Greens is ultimately a vote for Labor – you just get plenty of rhetoric and posturing from the sanctimonious middle-men. 

Most commented

353Lay off the tatts and have a debate about the real issues
304Dog ownership laws a load of total bullpit
286Why do our universities teach shonky "magic"?
232I'm Labor, I'm pro-life and I'm no political hypocrite
226Is an act of crime ever too trivial for investigation?
225Home births are prone to many complications
213Blame no one – and everyone – for the Oz Day debacle
185A fair day's pay for a fair day's play

177 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Pamela says:

      07:29am | 03/09/10

      Once the voting public see any of these radical policies enacted into law, they will realise the error of their ways, but by then it may be too late.
      I fear that Australia is heading towards a Civil War which will result in physical bloodshed as opposed to the bloodless coup we witnessed on June 24.

      Reply

    • T.Chong says:

      09:05am | 03/09/10

      Thats the way Pam, be afraid , very afraid.
      Please outline who you think would be the combatants, and what would be the issues, and the catalyst.?
      You’re not a Glenn Beck fan are you ?

    • Doug Graves says:

      09:21am | 03/09/10

      what a croc of defeatism, get with the times, a hung parliament is perfect democracy, it makes all highly accountable.

    • Cartman says:

      10:49am | 03/09/10

      I’ve never voted Green and never really thought of them as a party outside of environmentalists.

      But every time I read someone criticising their policies and trying to highlight their “crazy Green socialist agenda” I agree with the Green policies.

      Everything in Sophie’s list I think either should be enacted right now or seriously considered.

    • N says:

      11:50am | 03/09/10

      Don’t sweat it Pam, the left are too weak and insipid to fight. Though a civil war coupled with death duty might help Labor pay back its debt and fund future projects!

    • Heath Karl says:

      03:18pm | 03/09/10

      Civil War… jeez, the right have quite the penchant for the melodramatic. What’s next, voting Labor will turn your baby into a demon…

    • shane says:

      05:01pm | 03/09/10

      Cartman, agreed. Apart from a couple of the listed policies being sensationalised in an attempt to unsettle us, they look pretty good to me. Thanks for the neat summary Sophie.

      It amuses me that someone from a party that brought us the concept of “non-core” promises thinks they’re somehow more moral then any other politician.

      Oh, and its always a good look to drag a world-wide beloved religions figure who stands above politics into your grubby little whinge. Good work indeed.

    • Nafe says:

      05:19pm | 03/09/10

      So Cartman, please explain why you believe we should have “Estate taxes”

    • Seano says:

      06:39pm | 03/09/10

      Conservative paranoia and bad sportsmanship at it’s worst. I despise Howard and Abbott but was quite happy to accept the result of our democratic process. Sad the crazy amongst the conservatives don’t value our democracy.

    • Jane says:

      07:33am | 04/09/10

      So, Cartman is in favor of Death Duties and increased income tax.

      Cartman would also be in favor of increasing Company Tax to 33%.

      My personal favorite, which I am sure Cartman will also agree with is allowing ADF personnel to refuse to serve on the grounds of being conscientious objectors. Yeah right!

      Interesting. I really didn’t realize just how common a condition is cognitive dissonance.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      01:47pm | 04/09/10

      @Nafe- that’s easy. The deceased has no use for their wealth, the relatives didn’t earn it, so the State should take a least a portion of the estate. It can be used to fund the civil war that the right wing nutjobs keep talking about…..

    • dave says:

      03:01pm | 04/09/10

      @Nafe - Estate taxes for estates over $5million are because the wealth squanders by one individual should set up their children for the future but not at the detriment of the nation.  Ask yourself how many people die with $5million worth of assets?  Then ask yourself if ti is crewel for the govt to take a slick form these scrooges

    • wreckage says:

      07:51pm | 04/09/10

      Showing up at the funeral to bite widows and orphans for a quid. Ah, the far left: so very, very classy.

    • Mick says:

      09:35pm | 09/09/10

      Bravo Pam, you’ll be writing Mills and Boon next.
      My take on what will happen is that Labor will take on the more right wing aspects of Green policies and that the Greens will be only too happy for some level of implementation of those policies, not having been a part of the policy making process before.

      Only if the Greens were to gain more support in a future poll would they attempt to push their more leftist agenda.In other countries Green parties are not necessarily as left as our Greens, maybe there is an opening there in the future ?

    • Coldsnacks says:

      07:47am | 03/09/10

      “Sanctions for the personal use of illicit drugs - essentially legalising all drugs”

      Legalising or decriminalising the use of drugs? Two very different things. And notice how it says “personal use” - which would mean that if you were found with a small amount of, say, cannabis, you wouldn’t face jail time for what is, essentially, a non violent crime. In fact, that policy makes a lot of sense, given the failure of the US’s “War on Drugs”. Start treating drug use as a health issue, not a criminal issue.

      “Increasing the number of injecting rooms and needle exchanges”

      Why, why, why is this a bad thing?!

      It’s a fact of life now - people are going to inject drugs. Do we stick our heads in the sand (and ignore the people who die from ODing or the children injured by discarded needles in the local park) or open areas where the use of drugs can be monitored, where help is available if needed and which ultimately makes the streets safer for everyone?

      Reply

    • Al says:

      10:22am | 03/09/10

      “Legalising or decriminalising the use of drugs”

      Both of these are more appealing options to the status quo. One that condones the widespread use of such an unhealthy poison as alcohol. There’s actually some scientific merit to the argument that a few of the illegal recreational drugs are safer than the legal ones.

    • Ronk says:

      10:49am | 03/09/10

      Nobody in Australia is ever gaoled for possessing small amounts of cannabis. The Greens policy is to extend this to ALL illicit drugs - heroin, ecstacy, cocaine, crack, whatever.

      Aside form the fact that these drugs are invariably associated with violence, your implication that no offence which is not directly violent should even in theory be punishable by gaol, is deeply disturbing.

    • MarK says:

      12:56pm | 03/09/10

      And of course all of these illegal drugs like dope, smack, ice etc are made by the nicest people and don’t in fact cause any crime. Why the Columbian Cartels are merely are front for Bananas in Pyjamas and The Wiggles to spread more music and joy in the world.

      All the other major drug importers and distributors are merely good guys trying to get ahead and indeed are often found after a long Saturday night helping man the Rotary BBQ on Sunday morning at the building bee to construct a new playground to ensure the poor users have a place to sit at night while they bong/inject up.

      In fact I am struggling to think of a bad thing drugs do. Hell we should all have a hit pre work for medicinal purposes, personal use being so OK and all, just to ensure we are wired and good to go for the economy. We got to make sure we earn lots just to make that whole death duty….whooooops….estate duty worthwhile for the Govt to grab and use.

      Yes drugs are awesome and come at no social cost. Bring it on. Lets all get high and be happy.The EartMother will approve.

    • The Badger says:

      01:09pm | 03/09/10

      Ronk
      Why don’t you read the greens policy on this issue before you continue to make a fool of yourself
      you can find it on greens.org.au website

    • Ronk says:

      01:54pm | 03/09/10

      Badger who’s the fool? I got that directly from the Greens website. They may have sanitised it by now.

    • Sodapoppy says:

      02:07pm | 03/09/10

      Yes, let all those idiots with no sense of dignity go for their life - but let them decide their own fate. No ambulances for overdoses. Your decision, your life.

    • jeffb says:

      04:05pm | 03/09/10

      What impact is the War on Drugs having? Its been how long now? I think its obvious to everyone that we are going nowhere fast, we need new ideas and new ways of dealing with this problem. Theres only one party proposing a different way of thinking about this issue.

      We can’t keep following the same worn track and somehow hope for different results.

    • Terry Wright says:

      06:39pm | 03/09/10

      Those condemning the comments from Coldsnacks really have no idea. It never ceases to amuse me how some people try to argue against drug policy reform when it’s based on so much evidence, research and history. Their argument about violence, dangerous drug dealers, harm to users etc. is the very essence of why we need drug legalisation/regulation, safe injecting clinics and needle exchanges.

      The simple fact is our current drug policies, like in most countries, do not work. The only resemblance of success is from those countries that have removed some of the criminal aspect of drug use. The countries with the worst drug problems are mostly those with the toughest drug laws.

      I just don’t know how to put it more simply than that.

      The Greens/Sex Party/Dems are the only parties that have drug policies based on evidence. Declaring this as a reason not to vote for them is as silly as it gets. Only a goose would hammer their drug policy because they don’t understand the complexities behind harm minimisation and drug law reform. You would think that if you’re unsure or not fully informed, you would listen to some experts on the matter or look at the evidence. Maybe even examine the previous 50 years for some insight?

      If you’re not convinced, it only takes 15 minutes on the internet to find the truth. If you haven’t done this, you don’t deserve to comment.

    • The Badger says:

      07:57pm | 03/09/10

      Ronk
      you are of course
      read the policy numbskull

    • BarbaraT says:

      08:26pm | 03/09/10

      Yes, and it’s because we don’t go after those that create the demand that we are losing the battle against drugs.  If there were no demand there would be no supply.  No one ever thinks about where the profits from the sale of these drugs end up.  They can be traced all the way back to places in South America and Afghanistan, funding the drug cartels and terrorist organisations in those countries.  There is a massive flow on effect from people using drugs for recreational use, but no one gives a stuff about that, do they?  It’s all about their freedom of choice.  What about Afghan farmers having the freedom to grow food crops instead of having to resort to Opium crops?  I don’t have to mention the social and medical costs to our own country, the time would be better spent on more serious medical care.  We should be shifting back to prosecuting anyone in possession of any amount of illicit drugs.  Get rid of the demand and you will get rid of the supply.  But I guess that’s just too hard.  Easier just to give up and make it all legal.

    • floyd says:

      09:01am | 04/09/10

      RonK you are flat out wrong.  working in the courts I have seen people put in prison for possesion of small (less than 1 ounce) amounts of pot many times.  If you get caught with pot more than a couple of times and wind up in front of a magistrate you have a fair chance of spending time behind bars.  The problem with the greens policy is it doesn’t go far enough.  Now I work as an ambo, for every overdose I attend there would be 40 - 50 alcohol related calls, should I ignore them too?

    • Sickemrex says:

      11:17am | 04/09/10

      To all of you linking drugs with organised crime and violence.  The violence associated with drugs occurs precisely because drugs are illegal, and consequently criminal gangs provide the drugs on the street to great profit, not bound by any regulation or rules.  If drugs were decriminalised the current criminal structures supporting the manufacture and traffiking of drugs would collapse as they would have no reason to exist.  No rational supporter of decriminalisation would suggest open slather use of all drugs, by everyone, anytime.  Given the abject failure of prohibition, harm minimisation is an answer that would at least provide better health outcomes.

    • tiffany says:

      02:02pm | 05/09/10

      decriminalizing all drugs is great. The younger generations are the ones are abusing them and the older generation are using them. Dick smith wanted an answer on how to get a grip on population; this is it! The government wont put laws on ciggerettes & alcohol yet we will see people die from abuse. I see the abuse of alcohol & tobacco no different to abusing cannabis, coccaine or heroin. I have children and i know from experience that drug use IS part of growing up mainly out of rebellion. You cannot OD on cannabis and its natural medicine! Our laws on cannabis come from to much U.S influence and the competition that cannabis has as hemp, pain relief, paper, fuel and thousands of other uses/products. Queen elizabeth used cannabis, every other american president has used it… it’s just insane & criminal that a piss up at the pub is socially acceptable yet getting high on cannabis & watching tv isn’t!!! 

      this article is also kind of stupid… wouldn’t we be more alarmed if the greens jumped in bed with conservative liberals & national party??!! clearly labor is the only friend the greens have. i am now a christian green voter for life (after being a swing voter)

    • Front Row says:

      08:24pm | 05/09/10

      Coldsnacks,
      Whether it’s a bad thing or not is beside the point.
      Politically, it’s poison.
      The majority of needle exchange programs are run completely under the radar because they are subject to such emotive reactions from the broader community.
      Nobody wants to live next to a clinic, even the clients.
      Ultimately, I hope there will be areas where addicts are geographically isolated, in return for free access to the substances they are dependent on. The pay-back will be that they are refused access to “society”, should they want this, until they are prepared to be completely clean.
      It’s the only option I can see, other than all of us living in a police state.

    • Ronk says:

      09:25pm | 12/09/10

      Floyd, what is an “ounce”?  I presume you’re referring to offences committed in the 1960s or earlier before all our laws were converted to the metric system.
      For the last 25 years at least, all jurisdictions in Australia have had a comprehensive system of harm minimisation policies for drug abusers. Every illicit drug injector in Austrlaia has easy access to free needle exchange. I used to work in a clinic. The level of ignorance on this subject displayeed by some here at least explains why 11% of the population voted for the Greens, in the belief that harm minimastion policies do not yet exist.

      I wonder of some of you apply the same idea of “laws against X haven’t completely stamped it out, so let’s make X legal” to other crimes other than drug abuse.

    • iansand says:

      07:57am | 03/09/10

      Gosh.  Compared to that disgraceful litany a bribe of a lazy billion looks like chook feed.

      When will you learn that we believe both sides when you indulge in smear politics.  Have you ever wondered why politicians are held in such contempt?

      Reply

    • Phil says:

      01:34pm | 03/09/10

      iansand Politics aside, a billion dollars whilst over the top would build a first class facility which would ultimately cost less than the horrible patch up one that 100 million will provide.
      Please name a hospotal patched up that competes with a brand new world class facility with all the neccessary specialist units needed in sush an area.
      The fact it is falling down right now around the surgeons is one thing. Yes maybe the offer was generous, but as a former health minister Abbott would have known that surgery for a torn ligament will provide much longer term benefits than simply a mesh bandage.
      You can argue and it would have merit on the generosity side, but the hospital like many across Australia needs that type of funds injection.
      Personally I think for everyone winging they should double the medicare levy for a set period of 5 years. All extra cash should go to rebuilding our ailing medical system and do it properly. Not some BER rip off, but a carefully budgeted rebuild, giving world class services. Train enough staff to use them, however just like the 3 x 3 that the libs used for road construction my fear is that the levy would never reduce.

      For all the dimwits stating we need legal drugs, I agree with MarK above. Drug pedalers are nice people totally misread in society. What BS They are theives who would shoot their own if it meant making a dollar.

      Would all wanting it legalised happily push their kids in that direction.

      Currently noone goes to Jail for a pill, make 50 and so they should.

    • Christian Real says:

      06:28am | 04/09/10

      Mike
      People also have an issue with Tony Abbott’s reluctance to allow the Treasury to cost his policies, and now that he finally has submitted his policies costings to the Treasury it is revealed that there is a huge black hole of up to $11 billion dollars where Tony Abbott’s, Joe Hockey’s, and Andrew Robb’s mathamatics are well and truely out of whack.
      Between the three of them, they failed to get their sums right,and these are the people that want to govern the country.
      Sophie, it is no wonder that Tony Abbott continuely refused to allow Treasury to do his policy costings,he knew that he would be caught out.
      Also it was revealed that the Treasury discovered that the coalition had planned to cut 3.3 billion worth of spending,but failed to tell anyone during the election campaign.
      The way Tony Abbott presented himself and his Liberal/National party during the Election campaign was anything but honest, and appears to have been a deliberate plan to deceive and mislead the Australian people into voting for him.
      Where were the cuts coming from Sophie, a guess would be Health, as Health was where Tony Abbott made cuts to in funding when he was Health Minister under former Prime Minister John Howard.

    • T.Chong says:

      07:59am | 03/09/10

      A Labor / Greens coalition is no more unholy then th current L /NP coalition.
      True Liberalism (the type favored by far Righters like Sophie, Bronny, Hockey, Abbott, Abetz etc), believes the market should rule.
      Comrade Truss (any sightings ? ) and The Nationals see nothing wrong with all types of welfare, whether thru subsidies, or out right tarrifs, yet these two ideological opposites are only united thru their fear and loathing of workers having industrial representation,=  The L/NP coalition is based on repression , and attempting to disempower a large sector of society. Nice.
      Trade unions funded Bandt ? How is that worse than the L/NP being funded by the miners oligarchy or tobacco companies ?
      Guffaws and laughter , ol’ Dalai Lama as part of the cabinet?  LOL !
      But I suppose the precedent was set with Howard always managing to find time to meet up with the creepy Opus Dei. What was going on there?

      Reply

    • Ronk says:

      11:00am | 03/09/10

      You missed the point. Bandt was engaged in a neck and neck struggle with the Labor candidate for Melbourne to take the seat off Labor. Then a couple of hours after the polls closed, before he was even confirmed as the winner, Bandt declared that he was backing a Labor government. Everyone who voted for him would be entitled to say “Thanks a lot for that Adam. Why did we bother voting for you? Why didn’t we just vote Labor?” 

      The Australian Greens Party has totally abandoned the original Greens movement claim that they wwere “neither Left nor Right, but leading out in front”.

    • Cartman says:

      11:00am | 03/09/10

      ah yes that great free market mechanism

      The one that would deliver cheap public transport throughout out metropolis that would be affordable and useable for all the population.

      Oh wait, no, that’s not how it works

    • Ronk says:

      12:11pm | 03/09/10

      The big difference is that the Nats made no secret of the fact that they always intended to form a coalition with the Libs. They have been in coalition together since your grandpa was a boy. They even stayed in coalition during the Fraser govt when the Libs had an absolute majority in their own right and didn’t need the Nats.

      The Greens on the other hand have presented themselves as being too pure to associate with “lesser” parties and gave no hint before the election that they would form a coalition with Labor.

      “Howard always managing to find time to meet up with the creepy Opus Dei”? Even Dan Brown couldn’t come up with that wacky conspiracy. How many times did he meet with Opus Dei members? Once? Do you have evidence that he met with them multiple times? or that he never told OD members that he was too busy to meet them? And what’s “creepy” about them? I’ve looked on their website and I can’t see anything creepy.

    • Mike T says:

      12:27pm | 03/09/10

      CHONG (sorry for the yelling, but it does not seem to get through to you ALP?Greens supporters). People do not have a problem with the ALP/Greens having a coalition, people have an issue with it not fully being dissclosed and running opposing candidates and passing preferances back and forth. Even as a stauch supporter can you not see that it is dodgy?? You seem like an intellegent guy and it’s clear that you dont want the LP in power, which is fine, but can you honestly say that they way the Greens and the ALP went about this alliance was just and honest??

    • Steely Dan says:

      12:47pm | 03/09/10

      “How many times did he meet with Opus Dei members? Once?”
      That’s one time too many, Ronk.

    • Steely Dan says:

      01:19pm | 03/09/10

      @ MikeT

      “...people have an issue with it not fully being dissclosed and running opposing candidates and passing preferances back and forth.”
      It wasn’t ‘fully disclosed’ before the election because nobody went into the election knowing the outcome would be a hung parliament.  If Oakeshott (for example) announced he would be shacking up with Abbott today would you be screaming that they should have disclosed it before the election?

      “...and passing preferances back and forth.”
      All the preference deals were done before the election (obviously), and all the parties did it.  How is that dodgy?  If you didn’t check the how-to-votes before you just voted 1 you’re the only one to blame.

    • Ronk says:

      01:57pm | 03/09/10

      Steely Dan, so your point is “anybody who has religious views that I don’t like should be deprived of his democratic right to talk to a politician”? Now THAT’S creepy.

    • GreenGoblin says:

      01:58pm | 03/09/10

      So what are you saying Ronk? if Bandt had backed the LNP then all would be ‘hunky dory’? Do you believe that the Labor voters in the seat of Melbourne would have preferred that? Adam ‘ant’ Bandt is offering support on the floor of parliament for the ALP, nothing more nothing less.

    • Mike T says:

      06:47pm | 03/09/10

      Re Steely dan…. all the deals were done after the election were they??? so Gillard did not do a deal with Bob Brown prior that niether would disclose….. yep another green supporter happy to not let the facts get in the way of thier opinion…

    • Against the Man says:

      08:54pm | 03/09/10

      Lots of Green voters were sucked good! And they deserve it! Ha HA

    • Frontal Lobe says:

      11:14pm | 03/09/10

      T,
      Why shouldn’t the market rule?
      We’re all just people offering commodities in one form or another. It’s a market.
      How blurry is it to think otherwise?
      The commodity the unions sell is central control of labour, which they then franchise to capital for a commission.  The unions rely on fear to control.
      The “conservative” politician is simply a counter-balance. Bit like Woolies and Coles, actually.  The conservatives rely on fear to control.
      I wonder if it wouldn’t be easier to realise and accept that we’re all selling our lives to the degree that we choose. It’s work or starve, or somewhere in between.
      Nothing wrong with that, it’s just what happens.
      Get the best price you can, live with your choices without all the whinging.
      The free market - choices, risk, success/failure - has done a hell of a lot more to protect Tibet than China.
      It’s all called freedom.  Let’s all just get on with it, eh? 
      Peace.

    • Steely Dan says:

      01:48pm | 04/09/10

      @ Ronk

      “Steely Dan, so your point is “anybody who has religious views that I don’t like should be deprived of his democratic right to talk to a politician”? Now THAT’S creepy.”
      Not what I said, and not what I meant.  My point is that Opus Dei is demonstrably fundie.  Howard would have turned away lots of other fundies from his office during his reign, why on earth Opus Dei get a look-in?  (Rhetorical question, btw)

    • Richard says:

      09:11pm | 05/09/10

      Great post Frontal Lobe~ the free market is not some type of elitist capitalist construct, it is merely the natural state of having a fair and level playing field for two interested parties to negotiate on equal terms towards acheiving a mutually benifcial outcome. Anyone that would constrain the free market to uphold as a vague, ill-defined concept such as the “public good” are taking us another step down the pathway to the ‘nanny’ state, (or more sinisterly, the police state).

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      12:42am | 06/09/10

      @Richard. What absolute nonsense. There is no such thing as the free market having fair and level playing field. The disparity between two negotiating parties in terms of size, access to information, access to resources, direct power, influence etc automatically means that the terms of the transaction will be unequal. This is proven empirically time and time again in international trade, relations between the state and corporation, relations between different corporations themselves. Any notion of a fair and level playing field in economics or politics is a con.

    • Ronk says:

      09:37pm | 12/09/10

      GreenGoblin, I wasn’t talking about what the ALP voters of Melbourne would want, but what the Green voters would want. Badt’s behaviour was as if the captain of an AFL team, which had just won a hard-fought grand final by one point, immediately after receiving the premiership cup, handed it to the captain of teh losing team and said “here this is yours”. How would his team’s supporters feel?

      SteelyDan, as “fundie” (fundamentalists) are a type of protestant and as Opus Dei are a Catholic organistaion (although they have non-Catholic associate memnbers) they obviously are not “fundie”.
      You claim you are not saying that people witrh religious views you disagree with should be stripped of their right to speak to their democratic representatives, yet in the same breath you imply that both “fundies” and Opus Dei members should be stripped of this right. Why?  NOT a rhetoricakl question by teh way.

    • Harriet says:

      08:01am | 03/09/10

      But Sophy we already know that Cardinal Pell and Tony meet regularly. Was it Cardinal Pell who suggested maternity leave to Tony before you and your colleagues were informed?

      Reply

    • Ronk says:

      10:54am | 03/09/10

      “We know” do we? Really? What dates have they met on? I’m sure if you looked up Cd Pell’s diary you’d find that his quite rare meetings with politicians are divided equally between those of both major parties. Sorry to spoil your sectarian conspiracy theory.

    • Harriet says:

      11:58am | 03/09/10

      @Ronk
      So you have access to Pell’s diary. Ronk, is that to the Right of Mad Monk.

    • Steely Dan says:

      12:11pm | 03/09/10

      @ Ronk

      Given that Abbott’s a devout Catholic and calls Pell his ‘confessor’, I don’t think it would be unreasonable to think they meet quite regularly…

    • T.Chong says:

      12:38pm | 03/09/10

      Ronky, you spokesperson for Catholoism ?, Cd Pell and opus dei.?
      I recognise you, yur the albino monk that Dan Brown warned about.

    • Ronk says:

      03:09pm | 03/09/10

      Steelydan, yes he’s at least a nominal Catholic like about one-third of the pollies in Parliament. Don’t know about “devout”, many of his public actions suggest otherwise. I’ve never heard him call Pell his confessor, but in the unlikely event that he did confess to Pell even once let alone have him as his regular confessor, they would be talking about Abbott’s sins in the confessional, nothing else. You can imagine the reaction in the bizarre hypothetical event if Pell were to use Abbott’s confession as an opportunity to suggest and outline a new political policy for the Liberal Party! In any case Catholics as a rule go to confession anonymously, so the confessor wouldn’t know if he was talking to Abbott or anyone else.

    • Mike T says:

      06:53pm | 03/09/10

      I thought all the green supporters were supposed to be accepting of people in spite of race/religion or creed….unless of course its catholic or a religion they dont like or maybe just a person they dont like…  I dont give a rats if Julie is a non beliver, the same as i dont care if Tony is a catholic…but its very interesting that the Greens supporters are happy to denigrate a polly based on his religion!! Looks like you guys are left, but only when it suits..

    • Steely Dan says:

      02:04pm | 04/09/10

      @ Ronk

      “Don’t know about “devout”, many of his public actions suggest otherwise.”
      RU486 on of them?

      “I’ve never heard him call Pell his confessor”
      He has, though I don’t think he attends Pell’s church.  Either way, he has a relationship with him, and one that he’s tried to downplay unsuccessfully in the past (see Lateline, 30 April 2004).

      “In any case Catholics as a rule go to confession anonymously, so the confessor wouldn’t know if he was talking to Abbott or anyone else.”
      So Pell wouldn’t be able to tell if it was Tony Abbott (who he knows well, and hears his voice daily if he has access to 20th Century media) sitting in the cupboard with him?

    • jf says:

      08:52am | 06/09/10

      There were plenty of opponents to RU486 who weren’t Catholic. It is intellectually lazy or outright stupid to conlcude that just because he opposed RU486 it necessarily follows that it was because he was Catholic. After all, I didn’t see any suggestion that there would be an outright ban on abortion whilst he was in parliament for 13 years or during the election campaign. Nor did I see any other policy that appeared to be influenced by his personal religious beliefs. I am not a Catholic and believe that there is a lot to be criticised in the RC Church. However, my own opposition to RU486 has to do with my personal belief that, whilst every woman should have this choice, that the difficulty and thoughtfulness should come before the abortion and not after. My beliefs have nothing to with my religion or lack thereof and everything to do with personal experience, thoughtfulness and introspection. 

      So he has a relationship with George Pell. So what? I don’t particularly admire George Pell nor do I believe in a lot of the what the RC church believes in. In fact, I am a lot closer to Julia Gillard on religious matters than I am to Tony Abbott. However I respect Tony Abbott’s personal beliefs and, more importantly, his right to have those beliefs.

    • Al says:

      08:09am | 03/09/10

      Sophie some of us look at their policies and actually like what we see. Far from escaping scrutiny, i have seen all this direct for myself on their websites. Yes i’m capable of forming my own views, especially on some of the failed policies that the Greens offer alternatives to.

      I know its standard form for the majors to attack for its own sake, but to write the Greens off when they are sidelined - and then now when they have more influence - seems kinda sad. And a big part of why people are turned off by tweedle dum and tweedle dee to start with. Same old, same old…

      I welcome any extra influence the Greens can exert over whoever is in Gov’t. Bring on the next six years, great potential for the Senate going forward.

      Reply

    • Joan says:

      09:59am | 03/09/10

      Gillard+ Greens+Wilkie.= the Dilbert Principle in action.

    • Cliff Hanger says:

      11:31am | 03/09/10

      I agree with you Al-;but most of the blogs seem to be penned by conservatives and their scrutiny only goes one way! The greens got 3x the vote of the nationals yet only 1 seat in the governing house…How many seats did the nats win??

    • Ronk says:

      12:02pm | 03/09/10

      Cliff Hanger, allocating two thirds of the Qld LNP vote to the Nats (who have historically outpolled the Libs 2 to 1 in Qld) the Nats got more votes that the Greens. yet the Greens will have more Senate seats than the Nats.

    • Al says:

      12:16pm | 03/09/10

      aha yes Cliff Hanger… the main downside with the agreement with Labor for me was that Proportional Representation for the lower house didn’t appear to be discussed enough. That would be true ‘parliamentary reform’ ! An actually representative House of Reps. A scary thought for some at the federal level.

    • Steely Dan says:

      01:07pm | 03/09/10

      @ Ronk
      “allocating two thirds of the Qld LNP vote to the Nats (who have historically outpolled the Libs 2 to 1 in Qld) the Nats got more votes that the Greens.”
      In the 2007 Fed election (a year before the LNP emerged), Qlders voted in 10 Libs and just 3 Nats.  Maybe 4 for the Nats if you count Katter (I wouldn’t).  In 2004 (before the Qld Ruddslide took 8 Coalition seats) it was even more lop-sided: 17 Libs to 4 Nats (and one Katter).

      Your 2-to-1 allocation might work at the state level, but not federally.

    • Ronk says:

      02:00pm | 03/09/10

      Steely Dan, I was talking, as was Cliffhanger, about the no of votes, not the no of seats.

    • Mike says:

      06:59pm | 03/09/10

      I agree dan that its great that the greens have some influence to give whoever is in power a moral compass….however to get into power they have aligend themselves as a faction of the ALP which now makes it very difficult for them to do this….a bit similar to Mr Garret, who with all good intentions, fialed to keep the bastards honest when he found out he was in bed with them!!

    • Steely Dan says:

      02:08pm | 04/09/10

      @ Ronk

      “Steely Dan, I was talking, as was Cliffhanger, about the no of votes, not the no of seats.”
      I know.  I was pointing out your method of assuming that Qlders vote National over Libs at the federal level is looking a little shaky.

    • Northern Steve says:

      11:03pm | 04/09/10

      Cliffhanger, the Greens/Nats vote comparison misses a major point - The Nats only contested 17 seats, the Greens 150.  So if you look at a per-seat vote, the Nats averaged about 27000 to the Greens 9000.  Or to put it another way, the Nats averaged about 30% in the seats they contested, the Greens 12%.

      You want to populate the House of Reps by proportional votes?  Then Family First deserves 3 seats, Christian Democrats 1, and One Nation is in there with a fighting chance too.  Looking forward to you fighting for their rightful seats as well.

    • Lee-Anne says:

      08:16am | 03/09/10

      Hmmm, how disrespectful that the Dali Lama is being used by Ms Mirabella in her sarcasm. I guess this just shows the ‘measure’ of the woman.

      Reply

    • SallySpike says:

      09:22am | 03/09/10

      I know for a fact that the pic used by the Punch to illustrate blogs has nothing to do with the contributor, nor does the caption underneath it….so give it a rest with the faux outrage, hey?  Or at least direct it in the right place…..the blog says nothing about the Dalai Lama!

    • jf says:

      08:56am | 06/09/10

      I am sure Mr Lama would be philosophical about it. I am even more sure that he doesn’t need your help defending his dignity. In fact, being defended by a woman how uses Hmmm to start a sentence has done more damage to this dignity than the photo ever did.

    • Ellen Bach says:

      08:22am | 03/09/10

      Taking a swipe at the greens is fair enough,taking a swipe at the dalai lama is not so bright, he is resisting extremist politics in a a very honorable way.

      Reply

    • SallySpike says:

      09:14am | 03/09/10

      Calm down - Sophie sends in her blog and the Punch works out what photo/graphic goes with it.  She’s not mentioned the Dalai Lama once…so she’s obviously not having a swipe at him!!!

    • Faz says:

      09:29am | 03/09/10

      @ Lee-Anne and Ellen

      I defence of Sophie (can’t believe I’m doing this) she may have had nothing to do with the pic—it may have been a sub-editor’s brain wave.

      Notwithstanding that, it is a fitting symbol of an opposition that still thinks being aggressive and sacastic and negative will work as well after the election as it did before.

      Wake up and smell the Greens, Sophie (and Tony)!

    • Tory Maguire

      Tory Maguire says:

      09:41am | 03/09/10

      Just to clarify, SallySpike and Faz are correct. The picture was chosen and the caption written by Punch editors, as is the practice at almost all media outlets.

    • Faz says:

      10:43am | 03/09/10

      @ Tory

      Thanks.

      No hint of a mea culpa?

    • ZSRenn says:

      12:43pm | 03/09/10

      The Dalai Lama when he ruled in Tibet ran a caste system where the lowest castes were slaves.

      Yes women and children trust up in chains living in conditions so poor that they slept in their own filth.

      The Monks of course were the highest caste with massive wealth

      The Chinese government rightly says they liberated Tibet from this tyranny of extremist politics.

      I do wish people would look at the facts before they call this terrorist a peace loving monk!

      And yes Bob has about as much chance of being briefed once a week by Labor as does the DL. None and Buckleys

    • Tsewang Thupten says:

      04:08pm | 05/09/10

      @ZSRenn

      I’m writing this to lamabast ZSRenn but think I ought to relate it somehow to the piece. Dalai Lama seen by some as extremist as he fails to conform to the current approach to all issues with demagogouery like most pollies.
      ZSRenn, firstly China is one of the loudest voices against interventionism so it’s funny that they (as in the CCP, who’s propaganda you’re regurgitating) use that very philosophy as the reason they invaded. Secondly the Chinese have to take responsability for the situation in Tibet prior to 1950 as they claim that Tibet has been part of China for years. Though that seems unlikely as they did invade Tibet and the ICJ has found, twice, that Tibet was an independent state when it was invaded by the PRC. Thirdly regardless of the state of Tibet prior to Chinese invasion the Tibetan people today want the right to self determination. Chinese attempts to arrest, torture and execute those that speak out against Chinese rule or call for the return of the Dalai Lama are pathetic short sighted policies. The Dalai Lamas middle path approach of genuine autonomy is the best the Chinese can hope for

    • Russell says:

      08:25am | 03/09/10

      Sophie, your party preferenced the Greens in Melbourne. Without your help, they would not have won on around 36% of first prefs. 

      In Sydney and Grayndler, your party did the same. The Greens polled 25% in Grayndler, and very nearly won on that, because the Liberals wanted them to. In fact the Greens got so excited they demanded a recount (yet still found 75% of the electorate didn’t vote them). However, it was very close, and if your party continues to direct its votes to the Greens, that could be 3 or 4 more lower house inner city seats to the Greens next time. They will have that power base because your party WANTS them to.

      In NSW, Barry O’Farrell has already announced he will preference the Greens in the inner city next year.

      Stop your bleating Sophie, it is even more transparently hypocritical than usual.

      Reply

    • Phil says:

      09:25am | 03/09/10

      Cant see it happening again Russell. They have proved to labor that they can if wanted get rid of very safe labor seats. Me thinks Brandt will be a one term pin up wonder boy of the rainbow party.

    • Bruce says:

      01:38pm | 03/09/10

      Well said Russell.

      Sophie, your blogs are a waste of time.

    • Northern Steve says:

      11:20pm | 04/09/10

      It’s only a real power base if there is a hung parliament.  If the libs know they can turn a safe labor seat into a marginal green/labor marginal, it forces Labor to actually campaign and do some work in the seat, taking pressure away from other seats where the Libs have a chance.

      The libs went through this with One Nation.  In the end, ON is gone.  Let’s see if Labor can destroy the Greens as successfully over the next term or two.  Not looking good so far.

    • Jeremy says:

      09:11am | 03/09/10

      So… voting Green makes no difference because they’re part of Labor, but the Greens deal with Labor means that Labor will adopt some Green policies.

      You can’t have it both ways. It can’t both be an ineffective vote and an overly-powerful vote.

      Reply

    • Jeremy says:

      09:19am | 03/09/10

      Wait - what?

      “It formalises the cosy relationship that saw Labor’s mates at the Electrical Trades Union apparently fund new Green MP Adam Bandt’s campaign to the tune of $300,000.”

      You’re saying that the ETU donated to Bandt’s campaign against Labor at Labor’s behest?

      Reply

    • Michael says:

      07:16pm | 03/09/10

      Somewhat unlikely, since the ETU deaffiliated from the Labor Party completely.  Sophie likes to miss little minor details like that.

    • Non Jules says:

      09:24am | 03/09/10

      The greens wanted my vote. The greens got my vote. Now they are giving it to a government I don’t want. Why is it we vote?

      Reply

    • Jeremy says:

      01:12pm | 03/09/10

      Hang on, were you hoping for an Abbott government?

      Your Green vote is stronger than an ALP vote, because the Greens will still be holding Labor to account. They’re not in coalition, and have no obligation to vote for Labor legislation.

    • Macon Paine says:

      09:31am | 03/09/10

      “Rather than being a third political force, they’re just Labor’s appendage.”
      Yes it’s not a good sign if your appendage goes green.

      Reply

    • Rosie says:

      09:54am | 03/09/10

      I have always been sceptical with those that get carried away with big initiatives using other people’s money. They do not bother about finding a balance because they do not have any idea how if it is implemented will affect certain groups of people in our society.

      Sophie, for the last few day after listening to the 3 Amigos I am beginning to think that the reason they are holding off is because they are trying to find excuses why they shouldn’t go with the Coalition. They had Labor in mind all the time and don’t be surprised when next week we find out. The Tassie Wilkie was only to keen to dump on Tony Abbott when he mentioned the $1b hospital deal, this is their plan to give another excuse to the 3 Amigos to ditch the Coalition.

      Reply

    • sal says:

      10:43am | 03/09/10

      @Rosie,
      I think you’re onto something here.  What a conspiracy, decades in the making.
       
      These guys probably met 30+ years ago and went “we are all socialists at heart but can’t appear too blatant.  We should colluded in a master plan where three of us become Nationals and then Independants, one should join the Young Liberals and then run as a Green to cleverly disguise our true leanings from the hapless Australian public.” 

      Knowing, when they eventually found themselves in a hung Parliament, by holding off they could find excuses not to back “Tony of the admirable Boxer’s Ears” and elevate Labor to a position of power, with the Australian public oblivious to their true left ideological leaning.  Genius.

      Then again, maybe they will read it as they see it and the “plan” is to act accordingly.

    • Sam Chowder's young child says:

      10:07am | 03/09/10

      Mum says greens are good for me, I’ll point out their uncosted dreamland policies next time she wants me to clear my plate.

      Reply

    • Trevor says:

      11:08am | 03/09/10

      This is pretty ironic, given that one of the things in the Labor/Green agreement is the ability for the Greens TO GET THEIR POLICIES COSTED!

    • San Chowder's young child says:

      11:36am | 03/09/10

      @Trevor - I’ll go back to telling mum they taste cr@p then

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:54am | 03/09/10

      @ Sam Chowder’s young child

      Trevor’s right.  Tell your dad the ability to have their policies costed is a privilege that the Greens have wanted for a long time.

      My guess is if the ALP (and the Coalition three years ago) actually thought the Greens policies were an economic disaster they would have run their policy documents by the economic boffins at the Treasury, then published the damning report for all to see…

    • San Chowder's young child's dad says:

      12:22pm | 03/09/10

      All this faith in Treasury is disturbing, they maybe ace at filing away what has already happened, but forecasting?  I’d rather have costings analysed by a chimpanzee tea party (who I would also like to vote for).

    • Steely Dan says:

      01:12pm | 03/09/10

      @ SC’s young child

      “All this faith in Treasury is disturbing, they maybe ace at filing away what has already happened, but forecasting?”
      You really are seven, aren’t you?  You only want to play the costings game until you start losing.  Then the Treasury is stupid, and it’s your ball anyway so you’re going home.

    • Bob H says:

      03:21pm | 03/09/10

      @Steely Dan - Picking on a seven year old does show how low you will stoop just to make a point, you must work for the party.

    • Steely Dan says:

      02:11pm | 04/09/10

      “Picking on a seven year old does show how low you will stoop just to make a point, you must work for the party.”
      Ouch!  Cop that, Chowder!

    • Northern Steve says:

      11:34pm | 04/09/10

      Faith in Treasure?
      One thing that has come out is that apparently Labor is going to fund the NBN by borrowing at a rate of 4.9%.  That’s part of the treasury modelling.
      With Cash rates at the RBA at 4.5% and likely to rise, not quite sure how they’re going to manage to find someone willing to lend at 4.9%.  With inflation currently at 3.1% (RBA website), that only leaves a real return of 1.8%pa.
      The coalition’s modelling used a higher rate of 5.6%, which gave one of the ‘black holes’.  Why did they use 5.6%?  Treasury wouldn’t tell them the basis of their own assumptions - they had to use their own figures.  The way its set up, the opposition (any opposition) is always going to come out looking bad in these sort of things.

      Probably why Labor only put forward about 25% of their policies for costing last election smile

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:42am | 03/09/10

      “Those people who voted Green because they would “stand up to” the major parties must be bewildered and disappointed by the indecent haste with which they have got into bed with the Labor Party.”

      Yet the only person to complain about it to date is in the Liberal Party…  Sophie Mirabella’s psychic powers are amazing

      Reply

    • Zaf says:

      11:17am | 03/09/10

      [Those people who voted Green because they would “stand up to” the major parties must be bewildered and disappointed by the indecent haste with which they have got into bed with the Labor Party.]

      Actually, I voted Green and I’m pretty pleased about it.

      [Either way, it must now be clear that the Greens are not just an idealistic group on the fringes of politics – they are as party-political and determined to gain power as any political party.]

      How shocking!  A political party that actually wants political power?  Can this be true?

      Btw I note, with pleasure and interest, that the one lower house Green seat was won courtesy of Liberal preferences.  Gotta love the irony, hm?

      Reply

    • Northern Steve says:

      11:36pm | 04/09/10

      And plenty of One Nation seats in Qld state parliament were won on the back of Labor preferences.  Not on the How to Vote cards, but real Labor voters preference ON ahead of the LNP.
      It’s not really surprising - its a strategic thing.  I know my party won’t win, I’ll preference the third mob so the one’s I really don’t like won’t get it.

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:19am | 03/09/10

      I always find it curious that any sensible, pragmatic move that involves some compromise from the Greens is considered a betrayal by their opposition.

      Maybe the rabid anti-Greens are starting to believe their own propaganda - that the Greens are fundamentalists, not pragmatists.  If Greens make compromises to get some of their policies forward then they’re betraying some imaginary absolutist standard.  The majors make serious compromises all the time with very little criticism (how’s sharing the benches with the rural hand-out party working out, Sophie?).  And if the Greens refuse to negotiate with the majors their policies are ignored, and they’re starry-eyed idealists, wasting time pretending to be real politicians.  Catch-22 right?
      Wrong.  The truth is Greens voters are happy with the results of the election and the choice to form this alliance with the ALP.  Some policies across the line is better than none.

      Reply

    • Trevor says:

      12:07pm | 03/09/10

      @Steely Dan, as someone who voted Green this time around I wholeheartedly agree.  I watched Bob Brown’s 7:30 Report interview on the night that the Greens/ALP agreement was signed, and I was extremely happy with the way that he has approached this.  A major part of my motivation for voting Green was a feeling that they have proven themselves to be sensible and pragmatic rather than idealists.

    • N says:

      12:40pm | 03/09/10

      Trev; I’ll bite. What Green policies do you find “sensible and pragmatic”? I’m yet to find one that won’t have adverse affects on national economic, business and to a lesser extent social interests. Perhaps I have to lower my expectations and join the “cool to be green” brigade?

    • Steely Dan says:

      01:26pm | 03/09/10

      @ Trevor

      “A major part of my motivation for voting Green was a feeling that they have proven themselves to be sensible and pragmatic rather than idealists.”
      Good point - if the Greens were a party of rainbow-worshippers who had all sworn blood-oaths to Gaia I wouldn’t be voting for them.  The label ‘green’ isn’t enough to win my vote (try naming a party that hasn’t declared themselves to be ‘green’ during the last 10 years).

    • Tim says:

      03:44pm | 03/09/10

      “A major part of my motivation for voting Green was a feeling that they have proven themselves to be sensible and pragmatic rather than idealists.”

      You’re kidding right?
      I’d suggest that the exact opposite is true and that is why they got the vote that they did. ie Their policies didn’t have to stand up to any scrutiny.
      I welcome the Greens winning seats because now finally their policies will be subject to the same amount of in depth scrutiny the major’s are.

      Sadly for the Greens I think they will go the way of the Democrats once this happens. It’s easy to hurl abuse from the sideline, a bit more difficult when you actually have to play.

    • pm newton says:

      11:37am | 03/09/10

      Funniest thing I’ve read so far. For a moment I thought The Chaser boys might have hacked the place, or been given a day as guest editors, but no, it seems the sub-editors on The Punch are clearly satirists of the highest order to illustrate this article like this.

      Reply

    • Ellis Wyatt says:

      11:38am | 03/09/10

      The Labor / Greens Pact is a gift that will keep on giving for the Greens Party.  By formally validating the assertion that a “vote for the Greens is a vote for Labor” they have rendered it safe for Labor voters in the inner-urban ‘latte belt’ electorates to vote for Greens Party candidates rather than the seat-for-life drones typically annointed by the Labor Party.  This will erode Labor’s heartland electorally and philosophically, forcing them to spend considerable resources defending seats that are otherwise very secure.  From the Liberal perspective, recommending preferences to other candidates and making it harder for Labor to win seats is tactically sound.

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      12:15pm | 03/09/10

      Wait, you think the ALP supporters would back the Coalition over the ALP plus Bandt?  Interesting call, I’ll give you that.

    • Russell says:

      01:10pm | 03/09/10

      Lindsay Tanner was a “seat-for-life” drone? Even the anti Labor media respected him. Albo has his good points too, despite his abrasive style, believe it or not… But the Greens are specifically and deliberately targeting Labor’s progressive left in order to eliminate it.

      The reason should be obvious, they want that “latte” vote. But in the process by picking off specific Labor seats they are just ensuring years of Coalition rule, just as the DLP did all those years ago.

    • AdamC says:

      11:55am | 03/09/10

      I don’t see what the big deal with this emerging red/green coalition is. The Geens are closer in philosophy to the ALP than many Nationals are to the Coalition. I think most Greens voters would expect the Greens to back an ALP government in these circumstances. Indeed, over time I would expect the ALP to bring the Greens back into the fold through some kind of formal coalition agreement. (Though, to differentiate themselves from the Coalition, they will probably call themselves the ‘Allance’ or something).

      Reply

    • GreenGoblin says:

      02:59pm | 03/09/10

      I agree AdamC, if, going forward,  the ALP don’t enter some type of coalition with the Greens then the only winner will be the Greens (balance of power). There is a real chance that the ALP (same as the Liberals) will never again govern federally with a majority of seats. One point that should not be forgotten, the Green voter base had to come from somewhere initially, especially the over 30’s green voter.  I very much doubt it was from the LNP.

    • Mike T says:

      12:16pm | 03/09/10

      The Greens and the ALP need to make a choice and stop tyring to hoodwink the public…If they are a coalition they need to fess up, they need to stop running dual candidates and passing preferances back and forth between them, aswell Julia needs to answer some of the questions around ALL of the greens policies…..this is only fair if they are now a branch of the ALP!!!!.  Again, i have NO problem if they want to be an official coalition but having all the advantages of two sepearte parties, whist being HEAVILY aligned with only one, is shonky to say the least

      Reply

    • Zaf says:

      12:27pm | 03/09/10

      Did you notice who ran against, and beat, (the Lib.) Wilson Tuckey - and indeed which party this person belongs to, and which other party this party is currently in a coalition with?

    • Mike t says:

      07:11pm | 03/09/10

      thanks Zac…and how many other seats did both parties contest??? mate, if you dont agree with a point that is a fact then just dont post as you only embarras yourself

    • Drew(Darlinghurst) says:

      12:19pm | 03/09/10

      Oh Sophie…..get used to opposition . The Liberal Party will be there for a very long time.

      Tony Abbott and his conservative hacks are TOAST.

      Long Live The Greens!!!!!! and a Labor Minority Govt.

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      12:44pm | 03/09/10

      Drew, I think a Labor minority government (with a majority of one or two unpredictable indies) is very unlikely to ‘live long’.

      Gillard is desperate to cobble something together to save her skin, but I would expect pretty long odds on any offspring of this tacky process lasting more than twelve months.

    • Elphaba says:

      01:40pm | 03/09/10

      @AdamC, I agree.  If they decide to make a minority govt stand for 3 years, our nation will totally stagnate.  People thought very little got done in the last 3 years - it can be a lot worse…

    • Ben says:

      02:37pm | 03/09/10

      I think that if the Labor/Greens coalition gets in power then the fact that the Green’s policies will finally come under the full glare of public scrutiny will lead to quite a turn-around in their fortunes (and not in a good way for them) at the next election

    • Tez says:

      02:51pm | 03/09/10

      Right on Drew. Sophie is one of the “Divine Right Of Kings” faction.

    • Brad Coward says:

      04:36pm | 03/09/10

      Out of interest, using a sexual metaphor….this new missionary position that is the Green/Labor alliance….which partner is likely to end up on top ?

    • Mike T says:

      12:42am | 04/09/10

      i remember another green tinged minister by the name of Mr Garret… not sure what happened to him though…maybe he will be let out of the basment after the election….

    • ZSRenn says:

      12:59pm | 03/09/10

      I can’t help but think that this has been the Lib game plan all along. Now that Labor has formed its little coalition.

      Tony the Indies and the people now know where they stand. In a few days the Indies will join with the coalition. The Treasury figures are will not concern the Indies as they have the sense to see they’re a bunch of numbers created to discredit LNP by public servants who know they are in all sorts of hurt if Tony and the boys get in after the election leak fiasco.

      They will offer the Speaker’s job to independent Wilkie with his hospital as a sweetener and that will be our government.

      .Then we will watch the greatest implosion of a political party ever seen in Australia’s history as the ALP/Green coalition destroys itself.

      Reply

    • Nicole says:

      01:21pm | 03/09/10

      @ZSRenn, I love that picture. I pray you are correct.

    • Trevor says:

      01:36pm | 03/09/10

      I just love it when people talk as if the entire public service got together and decided to conspire against one political party.  Conspiracy theories are such fun.

    • adam says:

      03:08pm | 03/09/10

      You sound like a religious zealout reading a prophecy.

      Fact is, Wilkie invited Abbott into the bedroom, turkey slapped him and then kicked him out with no clothes on. In case you haven’t been paying attention Libs are saying they’ll “pay for the hospital anyway”. Talk about a pathetic attempt at saving face.

      Free drugs and love for everyone! Greens!

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      01:37pm | 03/09/10

      The Liberals (and probably Labor as well) just don’t get it. This isn’t a once off anomaly, this is a fundamental shift in the electoral landscape. If a significant section of the Australian public voted for Greens rather than Labor, a portion voted independent rather than National party. I could be wrong but I’m predicting more minority governments and more one term governments and voter disenchantment in the future….

      Reply

    • Amber says:

      01:38pm | 03/09/10

      What has being gay got to do with being Green and why is it such an issue on their policies?  There are a lot of hidden agenda here masked by virtuousness.

      Reply

    • Elphaba says:

      01:38pm | 03/09/10

      Most of Sophie’s article seems to be scare tactics trying to rile the masses, but the essential point stands: anyone who thought they were lodging a protest vote by voting Green must be scratching their heads wondering WTF happened.  They are definitely now a true faction of the Labor govt, and not the viable alternative they postured themselves as.

      As to the rest of it, I just feel like Bart and Lisa in the back of the car.  “Do we have a Prime Minister yet?  Do we have a Prime Minister yet?”

      Reply

    • Holly says:

      01:39pm | 03/09/10

      Sophie your party in coalition with the Nationals managed to ignore their demands, ignore the needs of their electorates and upset them to the extent that we now have three Independents. So can you explain why I should be so concerned that one green has agreed to support Labor.  It’s not as if he can get legislation passed on his own.  My guess is that before too long we will see many more Nationals on the cross benches along with Mr Crook.

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      01:40pm | 03/09/10

      And… Sophie… What are the Nationals? Are they not the far right faction of the coalition?

      Reply

    • jf says:

      09:09am | 06/09/10

      The are certainly a faction of the coalition and, yes, tend to more often than not represent the far right views. I don’t think that anyone was in any doubt about that. Unlike Labor and the Greens.

    • thatmosis says:

      01:46pm | 03/09/10

      I had to laugh when Bob Brown was asked if people who did not believe in Man Made Climate Change would be allowed on the committee he so fervently wants. Apparently you can only get on this committee if you agree that man made climate change is real so that legislation based on false,  misleading and downright untruthful science can be passed so that every Australian can be taxed for something that doesnt exist but looks good on a resume. The Greens have stuffed Tasmania and now they are coming to force you to accept their distorted views of perfection. Great going Green Voters, you have sentenced all Australian to higher prices for everything for no reason or value.

      Reply

    • Policy promotion - thanks Sophie says:

      02:23pm | 03/09/10

      I voted Greens in Melbourne and I am satisfied thus far. And as for “policy scrutiny” it is great that Liberals like Mirabella are promoting these policies. They are why I voted Green. Another point regarding policy scrutiny: During the election it was reported that the seat of Melbourne contains the highest proportion of tertiary educated voters. I would assume these educated voters made an educated choice on election day and voted Greens.

      Reply

    • Carl Palmer says:

      02:24pm | 03/09/10

      The fact of the matter is that there is now a formal partnership between the greens and the ALP. Given that arrangement, when will the Greens submit their costing on their policies? If they do, will that be incorporated into the ALP costing, will this be submitted to treasury for impartial, transparent, independent, objective, unbiased analysis?


      One thing’s for sure, once these policies start to hit people’s hip pockets, watch for the recrimination. If lower earners are impacted you will hear them scream from the rooftops and if the wealthy are impacted funds will leave the country overnight an example of which would be the brilliant NSW vendor tax debacle. 

      Hang onto your hats and your cash, if this mob gets in, this parliament will be one bumpy ride.

      Reply

    • Trevor says:

      07:00pm | 03/09/10

      @Carl, as has already been pointed out, the Greens WANT their policies to be costed, and this is part of the agreement that they have signed with the ALP.

    • Mike T says:

      07:17pm | 03/09/10

      Excellent post carl regarding the Greens costings..it also makes me wonder as to when the secret deal Gillard promised Bob will be costed!!! It is alos interesting to note that none of the Green supporters have attempted to answer your query….the silence is deafening

    • jf says:

      09:13am | 06/09/10

      If the insance policies of the Greens are implemented the poor will suffer in silence.

      The entrepreneurs and businesses will leave Australia.

      And the winners will be the rich socialists. They won’t care. After all, they can afford the extra cost to heat their homes, the extra cost to drive their cars and the extra cost to brew their coffee.

    • Carl Palmer says:

      10:57am | 06/09/10

      @ Trev, bet you it doesn’t happen. Think about it, the Greens costing + the ALP costing = new budget. The Greens &  ALP campaigned on their own standalone policies / costing and not on a consolidated set of numbers.  What do you think the budget will look like if they stand firm on their specific costings, it will be awash with red ink.

      In any case this is what I think will happen –
      If the greens hold firm to their policies, then it will cost us big time. When I scanned thru their policies some months back the question I kept on asking was – who is going to pay for all of this. If however they learn from their stupid stance on the ETS (which BTW I am against) that is the all or nothing position, then you will start to see the Greens compromise and soften their stand on a whole bunch issues. You only have to think about Peter Garrett to see how people can become very quiet on matters that they once screamed about from the rooftops.

    • Democrat says:

      02:43pm | 03/09/10

      Sophie, Sophie, Sophie it’s terrible to watch democracy grind it ugly way forward isn’t it.  Have you by any chance looked at the the number of people who voted for the Greens as opposed to the number who voted for your coalition partners?  The policies the Greens put forward, as much as you don’t like them, were out there for all to see during the campaign.  The public voted for them at more than twice the rate they voted for the National Party with whom you are saddled in Coalition and the leader of whom you would inflict on the 95% of us, who didn’t vote for them, as our Deputy Prime Minister.  As a monarchist you are comfortable with the ‘born to rule’ mentality however in a democracy the voters have a say.  They made a decision and those elected have to make it work.

      Reply

    • Northern Steve says:

      11:50pm | 04/09/10

      False argument, Democrat.  The Nats only ran in 17 seats, the Greens 150.  Average votes per seat contested are approx 30,000 for the Nats, and 9000 for the Greens.  SO while 12% of Australians voted Greens #1 pref, of the people that could, about 30% voted Nats #1 pref.

    • Holly says:

      02:43pm | 03/09/10

      Dear Rosie:- Tony Abbott “The Peter Principle” at work.

      Reply

    • Alfred Deakin says:

      02:48pm | 03/09/10

      Sophie, as someone who has followed your career with interest since your pre-politician days in 1999 when you were telling us how bad poiticians were, I am disappointed that you have not grown up yet. You are in a party that has a proud lineage effectively going back more than one hundred years to, well, Alfred Deakin himself, but it seems all you can do is carp from the sidelines.

      ‘If Labor manages to form Government from the ashes of the electorate’s rejection” sort of sums up the “born to rule” attitude you have taken on. The problem for you and your leader is you have not accepted the decision of the electorate, which was to give neither side of politics a majority in the House. I think that the 59% in your electorate who voted for you (and even th 41% who didn’t) wold expect a bit more.

      There are already more than enough right wing commentators to write these bitter articles from the sidelines which seem to have become your specialty - I think yiou should concentrate on your “day job” lest some high profile local decides that the interests of the elctors in Indi could be better served by a rural independent member who spends their time in the Parliament and the electorate instead of “heckling from the sidelines” like a follower of a team that is losing - blaming the umpires, the weather, the draw, the opponent’s recruits, the ground surface, everything except their own team’s failings.

      Reply

    • Graham S says:

      03:24pm | 03/09/10

      OMG won’t the CafeLlattes taste just that little bit sour tomorrow in Carlton, Richmond & Northcote amongst the delusional, every tree is sacred, dressed in black, beret set upon this news leaching out.  Now to cancel their membership to The CFA, Gay News Weekly and destroying their DVD’s of How Green was my Valley in protest

      Reply

    • Me says:

      03:48pm | 03/09/10

      I don’t understand all of the bickering about preferences being unfair or total votes having greater meaning, was there anything that occurred during the election process that was unconstitutional? The charges on this board are largely infantile and are borderline paranoid. We have an election process, so we have to stick to that. Changing things on the fly to suit yourself is undemocratic as is shouting down the process let’s not have our own Bush 2000 election.

      This election seems to be pointing towards greater political representation of the Australian populace and a diversification of political discourse. It will be a good thing.
      I’m hoping the Liberals get in (I voted Greens and did all of my own preferences), because in the next election cycle the housing bubble will more than likely pop (there will be bloodletting) once the artificial stimulus measures run out (as is currently happening, America is showing bad signs again). So it will be difficult to change the status quo and get any new initiatives underway that a large majority of the left are asking for, hence I’d love to see the liberals take one for the team this time around for the next election cycle. It’s not like they present a new approach in addressing societal and environmental problems.
      I read a summary of policies on their website, I could only read up to “get tough on crime”, before I had to swallow some bile….what have we been doing then? Do people generally desire to be criminals? Addressing root social causes would be an adjunct approach to simple policing that would be of great value. Finally we are getting a greater range of debate on issues instead of the same asinine oversimplified false dichotomies.

      Reply

    • jeffb says:

      04:00pm | 03/09/10

      Why does trash like this get posted? From a LNP politician no less…

      Just more negative conservative politics that failed to get a mandate from the Australian public. By dismissing the Greens as nothing more than a Labor faction you show how little you understand the Australian public, the issues we face and the electoral system itself.

      Ultimately you’re asking if the Greens will completely sell their constituents out like the Nationals have. And only time will answer that question but this article does nothing to help answer the question, nor does it foster any conversation that hasn’t already been had.

      Reply

    • jf says:

      09:21am | 06/09/10

      “failed to get a mandate from the Australian public”

      Do you mean by (i) winning more seats (and the people that voted for the indies voted for a conservative representative), (ii) winning the primary vote, or (iii) winning the preferential vote. Surely you can’t mean that being the first, first-term Government in 60 years to fail to be able to form a Government in its own right is a mandate.

      “Bydismissing the Greens as nothing more than a Labor faction you show how little you understand the Australian public”

      The Greens is undoubtedly a faction of the Labor Party. Most of the people who didn’t understand this do well and truly understand it now.

    • Felicity says:

      04:31pm | 03/09/10

      Bob Brown’s office sent the below email to Greens party members. It notes that the only promise from the Greens is not blocking supply or supporting a no confidence motion. What are you afraid of except for a potentially stable government?

      Your ranting against socialists is actually amusing as our complaints against the government interferences in our lives that you detail are more libertarian than socialist.

      Dear Felicity,

      On Election Day, more than one in ten Australians voted for the Greens. Each and every vote for the Greens was powerful and here’s why:

      Yesterday, on behalf of the Australian Greens, I signed an agreement with Prime Minister Julia Gillard to work with the Australian Labor Party to ensure stability if it is returned to Government.

      The Labor party will work with the Greens to improve Parliamentary processes, like making sure private member’s bills are voted on and properly debated. This means important Greens bills to introduce equal marriage, end offshore processing of asylum seekers, or to abolish junk food advertising during children’s TV viewing hours can’t be swept under the carpet by the Labor and Liberal parties.

      For the first time, the Greens will be able to submit policies to Treasury for costing.

      The Labor Party will also work with the Greens on a range of issues including:

      better dental health funding,
      truth in political advertising,
      a referendum to recognise Indigenous Australians in the constitution, and
      a new Climate Change Committee to work towards a price on carbon.
      In return, the Greens will ensure supply and oppose motions of no-confidence in the Labor Government from other parties.

      You can read the full agreement here.

      It is the responsibility of all newly elected Parliamentarians to deliver stable, productive Government. That is the Greens’ primary aim in the agreement signed yesterday.

      Regardless of which party forms Government, the Greens in the balance of power in the Senate and our newly-elected Lower House MP Adam Bandt remain the voters’ backstop for accountability, scrutiny and progressive policies in our national Parliament. The Greens have always been your voice in the halls of Parliament and that voice has been strengthened thanks to the work of tens of thousands of supporters like you.

      The agreement is not a coalition with Labor, but is a constructive contribution toward stable government.

      We will continue to work to propose innovative new ideas in Parliament and improve the legislation of whoever is in Government.

      Yours sincerely,


      Bob Brown

      If you received this from a friend and want to sign up to campaign emails from the Australian Greens click here.

      Authorised by Derek Schild, 8-10 Hobart Place. Canberra

      Reply

    • Just Sayin' says:

      07:19pm | 03/09/10

      Well said felicity.  As a libertarian, I love the greens social policies.  As a libertarian, when I look at your economic policies, I think you are a bunch of raving socialist loonies.

      You want the government out of our private/social lives because you recognise that they are not qualified to make the best decisions for individuals and their private/social choices.  Somehow, you feel that they are qualified to make these decisions for individuals and their money.  If you can explain to me how you can separate who someone is from what someone does with their money, I’ll join the greens too.

    • Richard says:

      11:51pm | 05/09/10

      Yep, I’ll join Just Sayin’ and put that challenge straight out there as well. I fully support the Greens social policies 100%, but I just can’t understand why they want Australia to follow the same sort of economic policies that caused such poverty and depression in Russia and Eastern Europe (and China too until Deng Xiaoping’s Open Market reforms).

      Economic credentials are fundamentally the MOST important factors to consider when voting. Ask any gay or lesbian if they would rather have a well-paid job, nice house, modern car, sharp clothes and live in a de facto relationship, or whether they would prefer to be able to get married to their partner but have to drink ‘victory gin’ and smoke ‘victory’ cigarettes and drive a 1960’s skoda, I reckon they would choose the higher standard of living option.

    • David says:

      04:35pm | 03/09/10

      Sophie, I really don’t think the alliance is as diabolical and sinister as the loaded language in your article suggests.

      In fact, I think the alliance is entirely logical.

      Both parties want to govern, or influence the way the nation is governed, and have decided that the most effective - and logical - way of achieving this outcome is to have a more formal alliance.

      Whether it works for them - or the nation - is a separate matter.

      But, all your stuff and nonsense about “indecent haste”, etc is way off the mark, and bears all the hallmarks of a disaffected - and unloved - Coalition MP who’d do anything to avoid another three years in opposition.

      Reply

    • Ray says:

      05:44pm | 03/09/10

      Labor also has the support of ex-Green (but still green within) Andrew Wilkie, who displays hypocritical qualities. Witness Wilkie’s request for $1 billion for the rebuilding of Hobart hospital, and then refusal of the Coalition’s offer to make that amount available. Instead he settles for around $300 million from Labor for partial refurbishment of the existing hospital, on the grounds that the Coalition’s $1 billion offer is negligent. It is not surprising that the Tasmanian AMA spokesman is not amused by Wilkie’s folly, and that Wilkie’s constituents are not impressed.
      Then, who could forget Wilkie speaking out against the Iraq war on the grounds that there was no hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction, but then embracing the man-made global warming cause despite there being no irrefutable scientific evidence to support it.

      Reply

    • Nelinda Beal says:

      06:20pm | 03/09/10

      Be very careful, those kind of evil thoughts could create a demon Sophie…

      Reply

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      07:50pm | 03/09/10

      And again the fat lady sings to her fans

      Reply

    • Against the Man says:

      08:47pm | 03/09/10

      Maybe the ALP/Greens should form the next government and bring this country to its knees. Australia has had it too good for too long, we need Gillard/Brown to destroy us with bad policies so we learn a lesson in voting with out brains HaHa.

      Reply

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      09:05pm | 03/09/10

      This is Australia and ouir laws hold sway; or should. No-one should receive a lesser sentence because they were not brought up here.  Obey our laws or go home.

      Reply

    • Hampden says:

      10:28pm | 03/09/10

      To paraphrase Lenin -  The Greens are Labor’s ‘Useful idiots’.

      Reply

    • Daniel says:

      09:26am | 04/09/10

      I have never read more rubbish. The Greens are not a faction of the ALP. I think the position that has been reached is a recognition by the Greens that Labor is the lesser of 2 evils. They are a totally separate party and they run good campaigns against Labor all the time. This is more Liberal spin as usual because they dont want to lose their hign paid jobs.

      Reply

    • Pavlo says:

      12:49pm | 04/09/10

      Interesting. I was thinking to vote Greens but then I received in the mail their pre-election promo flyer.

      In it was photos of all the candidates (including the one in my electorate who, sadly, inspired no confidence in me at all to vote for them, as she had a weird smile and had a kind of hippyish-feral-new-age-feminazi look).

      On the back was a picture of atheist Bob Brown with the Dalai Lama. I asked myself, “What is the relevance of having this photo of Bob Brown schmoozing (and let’s be real here, that’s what it was) with the Dalai Lama, one of the world’s great spiritual leaders?” 

      What are they trying to say to the electorate by including this photo in their promos?

      That Bob Brown is ‘spiritual’ yet somehow still retains his atheist credentials?
      So how about a picture of Bob with the Pope? If not – why not?

      Anyway, I could not see any possible relevance of using the photo at all, and to be frank, the local candidate made me feel quite ill just looking at her photo, so I voted for another party.

      Reply

    • Dave says:

      01:37pm | 04/09/10

      One of the more amusing articles from Ms Mirrabella for its double-standard nature. In the very first paragraph she writes about a Prime Minister ‘desperate’ to cling to power, as if the Liberal Party weren’t the ones embarking on a fear campaign about ‘the most left-wing government in australia’s history’ in order to drive the independents into the arms of the Coalition. This very article is part of that scare campaign. I love the irony.

      She then goes on to criticise the Greens party for ‘becoming an arm of the Labor party’, something the Liberal party media advisors must have decided would be a good lie to push.  Now here comes the flip-flopping. Apparently on the one hand the Greens have betrayed their voters by siding with Labor, but then the Greens siding with Labor only produced a bunch of ‘all talk’ reforms, none of which could really be classified as left wing, but they will eventually bring in a bunch of left wing policies, which of course are presumeably why people voted Green in the first place. Ms Mirrabella is trying to have it both ways, claiming that a vote for the Greens is simply a vote for Labor but warning that voting Greens will lead to more progressive policies that what would occur if you voted for Labor. Isn’t that the whole point of voting Greens? So that you get more progressive policies from the ALP, which has taken it’s left flank for granted on the basis that progressive people would always choose a Labor government over a Liberal one.

      Finally bringing up the rear is her claim that Labor may scrap power from the ashes of the electorates rejection. This is in the same article where she claims that Labor and the Greens are in a formal alliance (which they aren’t by the way). If we take Ms Mirrabella’s premise that they are in an alliance, then by definition we should also add their primary votes together. This means that the Labor Green alliance has about 700,000 more primary votes than all of the coalition votes put together. The Greens recorded a swing towards them more than twice the size of that of the whole coalition. When the new Senators take their seats next year the Senate will be comprised of 40 members of the Labor Greens alliance, vs 35 members of the Coalition and one independent. While she may be right to say that Labor was rejected courtesy of those people in the Sussex Street head office she certainly isn’t correct in implying that the born to rule Coalition has anything like an endorsement in this election either.

      Reply

    • Michael K says:

      01:53pm | 04/09/10

      The Greens would be an unmitigated disaster in foreign affairs if they were to ever take hold of a slice of significant power in that policy area. I doubt the Greens will extend their power much beyond the results they have achieved in this election, but nonetheless they remain an unsettling prospect for the future conduct of this country’s external relations. The fact that most Green supporters or voters only seem to raise the positive social, educational and environmental aspects of the Greens policies highlights this section of the electorate’s insular outlook. Australia has always displayed an inability or reluctance to grasp international developments, and the 1 million+ votes for Greens is an apt demonstration of this ignorance.

      http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2010/08/24/Green-foreign-policy-Feeling-queasy.aspx

      The bottom line: the Greens might just be positively dapper as a ‘check-and-balances’ party for the major political players, but they are a dangerous prospect for serious governance in an increasingly unstable international economic and political environment.

      Reply

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      03:12pm | 04/09/10

      Interesting.  I wanted to refute some Green comments in this blog, so I went to the Greens site to research and find the answers.  Problem number 1 - no search function to help find things like taxation, subsidies, cost of living etc.  I hate to go all Dan Brown on this, but why do they make it so hard to find these things?

      Oh well, at least if I had the NBN I could not find the answers 100 times faster.

      Reply

    • facepalm says:

      03:22am | 05/09/10

      Oh, your naivete. Do you really think politicians want voters to know exactly what they stand for?

    • stephen says:

      05:23pm | 04/09/10

      Mate, they haven’t got any answers. Greens are the latter-day Sherwood Forest boys : tights, green-felt-hats and polo-ponies(gasp),against those nasties who don’t play on the lawn, Labor and Liberal.

      Reply

    • Edward James says:

      08:05pm | 04/09/10

      An impotent Labor Party has formalised its reliance on the Greens as the means to continue sticking it to the proletariat. Edward James

      Reply

    • charlie says:

      10:48pm | 04/09/10

      All I see is a party with more primary votes, more 2 party preferred votes and more seats won. No proper democracy can ignore this.

      It is a rare beast for a first term government to be in this position after holding such a large advantage. Take whatever message you like from that, but there is only one, whether you want to admit it or not.

      Reply

    • Colin says:

      12:20am | 05/09/10

      The media just do not take the Greens agenda seriously, do they. Got their heads in the sand like the major political parties.

      Reply

    • Chris Norman says:

      01:21am | 05/09/10

      This is the worst excuse for journalism I have ever seen:

      Yet another Committee to look at Climate Change (but they will definitely put a price on carbon leading to higher electricity costs) - Not if big companies invest in renewable technology

      A debate on Afghanistan - I dont see how this is bad

      A study on high-speed rail - Again I dont see how this is bad

      An agreement to talk some more on dental healthcare - Not seeing it

      The creation of a raft of new Parliamentary bureaucracies including the cuddly-named “Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner” (I wonder if Mark Latham will get the gig?) - Wow cos making politicians tell the truth is sooo bad

      I doubt that a website with such a Writer on it will even publish my comment since most so incredibly biased

      Reply

    • jf says:

      09:46am | 06/09/10

      “A debate”, ” A study”, “An agreement to talk”.

      You have neatly summed up why these guys should not be governing again. Not only is it all rhetoric and no action, this rhetoric (like the new Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner) costs money. And that money comes straight from your pocket.

    • Jake says:

      02:52am | 05/09/10

      “Sanctions for the personal use of illicit drugs - essentially legalising all drugs”
      Sorry Sophie, but this is just a straight up lie. The Greens simply wish to decriminalise drugs, there is a big difference between legalisation and decriminalisation.  The Greens policy on drugs treats drug use as a health issue NOT a criminal one, which is how it should be. It would also mean people would no longer be prosecuted for carrying small amounts of drugs for personal use, manufactures, suppliers and dealers however would still face the same punishments as they do now. Stop sensationalising just to get your point across.

      Reply

    • Barry Everingham says:

      04:56pm | 05/09/10

      Mirrabella forgets the Greens will achieve in one fell swoop most of the changes her moribund party wouldn’t have even dreamed of.By the way Sophie…where’s Warren Truss these days?

      Reply

    • James says:

      09:06pm | 05/09/10

      I actually voted for a hung parliament (hoping for Labour government with Greens having the Balance of Power in the Senate).  The result (major parties forced to negotiate with parliamentarians not bound by Party rules) is even better.  Australian Pollies have forgotten that politics is an Art of negotiation, that all shades of opinion need to be heard, and that while the majority can ram ideas and legislation through, the country is better governed if Parliament works as a house of genuine debate, instead of Dorothy Dix questions, play acting and childish behaviour.

      Reply

    • Hear hear! says:

      10:54am | 06/09/10

      Parliament taken from the french word to parley, Right on James!

    • SteveK says:

      08:35am | 07/09/10

      if the greens are now a wing of the Labor Party does that mean the LNP and Nationals are just wings of the Liberals?  Or is the claim they are just more political posturing to lead the public down the writer’s chosen path?

      Reply

    • Joe Average says:

      11:52pm | 07/09/10

      Once Labor stole the elections, let’s hope they do not end like their disfunctional counsins in State Labor. They are now in powerful position with a ‘rubber stamp’ green upper house. It’s amazing the renegade MPs did not see this threat.

      Reply

    • kim carsons says:

      01:39pm | 19/09/10

      there is no coaltion, no faction, no accord.
      What Labour and the Greens have is an agreement, an agreement to attempt to work for more co-operative and inclusive government. Anything else is disinformation, scaremongering, corporate pressures on democracy.
      END OF STORY

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 05:55PM

Ugh. RT @Colvinius: Lord Monckton urging mining owners to buy up papers & TV stations for political influence http://t.co/xRUgErn5

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:32PM

@JohnHillMP it's a spectacular part of the world

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:31PM

RT @JohnHillMP: “@ToryShepherd: Star of Greece #happinesshttp://t.co/rPrvB4sL” Welcome to my electorate. #enjoy!

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:09PM

Star of Greece #happinesshttp://t.co/faYa2ZWq

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Gillard’s mapping a route but will probably still be routed

by Laurie Oakes

92

Gillard’s mapping a route but will probably still be routed

Julia Gillard and her advisers believe they can see a narrow path to victory for Labor at the next federal…

Kevin 2.0 could be better. Or it could be even KRuddier.

by Mark Kenny

64

Kevin 2.0 could be better. Or it could be even KRuddier.

As key moments go, it ranked with Gough Whitlam’s dramatic dismissal speech branding Malcolm Fraser…

Working women need to escape the grog bog

by Wendy Tuohy

25

Working women need to escape the grog bog

Can you hear a faint sort of teeth-grindy sound? No it’s not the rats in the roof gnawing the wires…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Other stuff to be angry about today (with video)

DOB says:

For the last 2 summers my local beach - which is a kid's beach really (but it has a nice cafe - thats my excuse) - has been overrun by jetskis. So when I go off for an idyllic morning of sun and sand I might as well just go down to an industrial plant and soak up the noise and fumes. My area is a bit… [read more]

From: Match of the century!

Pete says:

Since when has Australia been a land full of whinging, whiney and just plain annoying people. Seriously, we have to take a long hard look at ourselves and notice that we have it pretty damn good and that instead of whinging about every single article ever written we could perhaps be happy and enjoy things.… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

147 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed